PDA

View Full Version : Ryan ridicules military retirement.



MajesticThunder
12-22-2013, 08:24 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/12/22/veterans-retirement-paul-ryan-budget-deal-column/4164713/


Honorable military members past and present betrayed for thirty pieces of silver plundered by very lawmakers for whom veterans served so faithfully.

No remorse from aloof politicians who refuse to appreciate an All Volunteer Force.

Military recruitment / political campaigns all carry same distinctive foul reek of unethical deception and posturing untruths.

:liar: Indefensible how US political Grinch’s stole military retirements from their very own veteran's pockets.


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_GpIqc5vZK3c/TQXdqat4BNI/AAAAAAAB3ak/nT70MbIeLAg/s400/Christmas_Skills_10.jpg

Cookie Monster
12-22-2013, 08:47 PM
Dear Mr Ryan,

You're right in the sense that compensation reform is necessary. We've been on the receiving end of all sorts of financial goodies ever since 9/11. But these changes need to be made for those who are just starting their careers, not ones at the end of a commitment that was made with certain financial expectations in mind.



This is a far more modest reform than other bipartisan proposals, some of which would have fully eliminated the adjustments for inflation for working-age retirees.
Oh, so some congresscritters on each side of the aisle thought it would be nifty to dump the COLA entirely. That shows the awfulness of their idea, not the goodness of yours. Do you expect us to thank you for applying lube before bending us over?



And when the retiree hits 62, DOD will recalculate the retired pay so that it will be where it would have been if he or she had received the full inflation adjustment every year since he or she retired.
That's nice, but it's still meant to trick us into false security. All those years of losses aren't restored.



And to be clear, the money we save from this reform will go right back to the military.
You're cutting our retirement so it can be spent elsewhere? Nice deficit reduction. I hope "the military" doesn't include more bungled acquisition projects.



That said, when Congress was considering the bill, many raised concerns that these reforms would affect the retired pay of service members who are medically retired and those receiving survivor's benefits. So Senator Murray and I have agreed to amend the law to exclude them well before the reform takes effect in December 2015.
You were either hoping to sneak this one through or you weren't aware of the impact of the changes. Nice one.



That's why this reform does not take effect until the end of 2015 — it gives Congress ample time to consider alternatives.
Ah, kicking the can down the road. How very traditional and courageous.



Every time we kick the can down the road, we put our troops' combat readiness at risk.
Wait, you're saying that this ISN'T kicking the can?



We owe it to them to give them the best equipment on the battlefield and a secure retirement when they come home.
The definition of secure: "fixed or fastened so as not to give way, become loose, or be lost." Please apply this to what you're doing to our pensions and try to spot the hypocrisy.


Yours truly,
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/nnhdbBflbPdQ3NHXHHq7lCrcpw-McHXjAsz9qKEdfgQ5_SiJDbWaek4cS5Fd6G6w_gTM2uQfvzThc Ex6DL55veBBzKUl8sN719bJ2VDJZ_jBr1pt8vJGlrTPQpmdewp 4NdaCJouU1GbRDqL2xR3XmfrPNXhTOtKg7MnS72j_fVMHSJw8W Fl4S4JItc4=w120-h120

BOSS302
12-22-2013, 10:05 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/12/22/veterans-retirement-paul-ryan-budget-deal-column/4164713/


Honorable military members past and present betrayed for thirty pieces of silver plundered by very lawmakers for whom veterans served so faithfully.

No remorse from aloof politicians who refuse to appreciate an All Volunteer Force.

Military recruitment / political campaigns all carry same distinctive foul reek of unethical deception and posturing untruths.

:liar: Indefensible how US political Grinch’s stole military retirements from their very own veteran's pockets.


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_GpIqc5vZK3c/TQXdqat4BNI/AAAAAAAB3ak/nT70MbIeLAg/s400/Christmas_Skills_10.jpg

Are you kidding me? This proposal is none of that. Get a grip.

MajesticThunder
12-22-2013, 11:05 PM
Like paying a premium each month for Medicare Part B to remain “eligible” to use TRICARE when you’re already a government beneficiary; this COLA cut is just another discreditable argument using a narcissistic morsel of last minute legislation drama to diminish more military retirement benefits over time.

“Working age” military retiree is a conjured-up, self-serving adverse label now being abused by cynical US politicians to plot penny pinching treachery against discarded veterans.

How about changing rules to allow highly trained military members to work in the military longer before forcing them out with a harmonizing and slowing of promotion rates across all services?

Perhaps a smaller, better structured active duty force?

Lots of legitimate ways to save DoD personnel dollars, other than blatantly dipping directly in to shallow pockets of those who are or have already served. :usa2

A few years ago flag officer retirement parameters were changed to exclusively INCREASED their retirement pay. No mention of reversing that costly adjustment. :wof

Current policies still regulate HYT rules that negatively impact enlisted grades more than officer grades.

Officers will suffer far less retirement COLA interruption under this sneaky age index-linked money retraction proposal.

Unsurprisingly most flag officers will not be impacted by this new law at all, thus the conspicuously mute opposition against this very rank imbalanced entitlement cut.

Alarmingly “working age” retirement cuts were cunningly targeted toward all those “little people”, mostly enlisted members who served faithfully, still pay taxes, gave the best and healthiest years of their life, but had to “retire” well below age 62 because of mandatory active duty service obligation limits which are rigidly enforced.

Many military members would continue to serve longer if given an unrestricted opportunity, however rules are rules as directed by higher authority so those who hit HYT must go by law into “retirement”.

Now after the fact, lawmakers vote to siphon off tangible COLA money away from those who fulfilled their legal contracts and were made to “retire” with promises of fixed compensation with living wage increases for life. :lock1

Government rule manipulation and biased interpretation is malicious political tradecraft.

imported_KnuckleDragger
12-22-2013, 11:14 PM
Mom an dad can't balance the household budget, so they break open the kid's piggy bank because "it's not that much" / "kids are young enough to cope with it."

Pathetic!

USN - Retired
12-22-2013, 11:18 PM
I'm guessing that there must be very few military retirees in Wisconsin.

OtisRNeedleman
12-23-2013, 04:08 AM
Number of days Ryan has spent in uniform = 0.

Makes it easy to take from better people than him, those who have served.

LogDog
12-23-2013, 05:23 AM
This change won't affect me since I'm already retired and over 62. If Ryan want to save money then he can look at eliminating subsidies to oil companies, which total about $4 Billion a year, and use that money to fund military retirement.

crwchf16
12-23-2013, 05:43 AM
Proof positive that it doesn't matter what party they belong to, politicians today in office are NOT interested in looking out for you or in honoring the commitments made to help you. I can't help but wonder how solid our retirement really is?

technomage1
12-23-2013, 06:01 AM
Dear Mr. Ryan,

I sincerely hope one of the vets who has served multiple deployments over the last 12 years spending literally years away from their loved ones at lower pay than civilian average for the retirement gives you a good, solid John Wayne to the jaw. Hopefully this will knock some sense into you since you seem to be sorely lacking in that department.

You are a Chicken-hawk POS.

Greg
12-23-2013, 03:33 PM
"Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) wants to look tough on budget issues. In an editorial published in USA Today explaining his decision to lead the passage of a budget that reduced the value of already-earned veteran pensions by an average of $84,000 to $120,000, Mr. Ryan founded his message on the urgent need to “do the right thing.” This is painfully ironic, given that he wants to do exactly the wrong thing by extracting $6B in savings over the next 10 years – equivalent to less than six-tenths of one percent of federal spending over that time — by taking earned compensation away from people who earned it risking their lives.

I’m still struggling to understand what it is about the veteran population that would make Ryan believe we’re dumb enough not to see this for what it is: just the beginning. If he can reduce earned veteran compensation by 1% per year while we still have people dying in combat, there will be nothing to stop him from continually enlarging the legitimacy of promise-breaking until veterans wake up one day and recognize the pension package they’re getting bears no resemblance to what they and their families earned."

http://www.jqpublic-blog.com/?p=600

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-23-2013, 04:00 PM
Kind of makes me wonder where are the Billy Mitchel leaders that will stand up and risk court-marshall to protect the military and fight for whats right. 1% from military vets who already have a 30%+ unemployment rate while screaming that a 1% cut to welfare will end with people dying in the streets. What is going to "save" more, 1% cut to a tenth of a percent of the population, or 1% cut to 40% of the population? One group earned it, one group steals it from others who've earned it.

imported_DannyJ
12-23-2013, 04:50 PM
My biggest issue is if anyone in congress is vying for military retirement cuts, why don't they should set the example? I'm for fiscal reform, but for crap's sake, they get to vote for their own raises. Conflict of interest? Yeah.

Cookie Monster
12-23-2013, 04:59 PM
Well who else is going to pass a law setting their pay?

imported_DannyJ
12-23-2013, 05:00 PM
Well who else is going to pass a law setting their pay?

John Q. Public.

LogDog
12-23-2013, 05:21 PM
My biggest issue is if anyone in congress is vying for military retirement cuts, why don't they should set the example? I'm for fiscal reform, but for crap's sake, they get to vote for their own raises. Conflict of interest? Yeah.
Yes, Congress can vote for their own pay raises but they cannot immediately raise their own pay. Any change to Congressional pay takes effect in the next Congress meaning a sitting Congressman would have to be re-elected before they can see that pay raise.

Better yet, the Congress should set the example with their retirement plan. Currently, a Congressman or Senator accrues retirement pay at the rate of 1.7% per year for each year they served. To be vested in the retirement system they have to serve at least five years before they can start collecting it. The Congress should vote to reduce Congressional retirement by 1% until the retired member reaches the age of 62 at which time they will collect the full amount due them. Also, they can reduce the 1.7% rate to 1.5%.

Rainmaker
12-23-2013, 07:56 PM
We have a 2 headed snake running this country and it's time to cut off one of the heads. this is why Rainmaker a life-long Republican began writing Mick E. Mouse onto his ballot. GOP today stands for Grand Oligarch Party. It's completely RINO/NEOCON.

Paul Ryan voted for Every Single taxpayer Bailout of the Banks. He does not support any reform or regulation of the financial system that crashed . Why would he? his "Blind" trust is probably short stocks and knows exactly when to get in and get out and get in again.

The US economy is built on Interest. When you privatize the public money supply. They loot it. When you bail them out and don't make significant structural changes. They loot again.

Instead of being put in jail. This is what you get paid for driving your country's economy into the ditch and causing untold misery to tens of millions of people.

http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/storysupplement/ceopay/

All banks bailed out by you and me. Yet according to Paul Ryan, the problem is the growth in Entitlements. It's Only $30K over 20 years of your retirement he's asking you to pay. stop being so selfish. He constantly harping on Social Security being unsustainable. But, conveniently Never mentions raising the $110K Cap which would make it solvent again.

The Tea Party takes a lot of heat on here and Rainmaker agree, it's original message has been mostly subverted. But, it's obvious the Shit bags like Paul Ryan running the GOP are on the take. Rainmaker don't believe it can be reformed and needs to go away, so we can go after the other head of the snake.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-24-2013, 10:31 AM
We have a 2 headed snake running this country and it's time to cut off one of the heads. this is why Rainmaker a life-long Republican began writing Mick E. Mouse onto his ballot. GOP today stands for Grand Oligarch Party. It's completely RINO/NEOCON.

Paul Ryan voted for Every Single taxpayer Bailout of the Banks. He does not support any reform or regulation of the financial system that crashed . Why would he? his "Blind" trust is probably short stocks and knows exactly when to get in and get out and get in again.

The US economy is built on Interest. When you privatize the public money supply. They loot it. When you bail them out and don't make significant structural changes. They loot again.

Instead of being put in jail. This is what you get paid for driving your country's economy into the ditch and causing untold misery to tens of millions of people.

http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/storysupplement/ceopay/

All banks bailed out by you and me. Yet according to Paul Ryan, the problem is the growth in Entitlements. It's Only $30K over 20 years of your retirement he's asking you to pay. stop being so selfish. He constantly harping on Social Security being unsustainable. But, conveniently Never mentions raising the $110K Cap which would make it solvent again.

The Tea Party takes a lot of heat on here and Rainmaker agree, it's original message has been mostly subverted. But, it's obvious the Shit bags like Paul Ryan running the GOP are on the take. Rainmaker don't believe it can be reformed and needs to go away, so we can go after the other head of the snake.

They are the Republican wing of the democratic party. You notice how the Dems havent stopped being the Dems in almost 200 years? They havent changed their way of doing business. They have hit a speed bump from time to time, but they have kept to the same political strategy since 1828. They badger and abuse anyone that disagrees with them.

The GOP is a bunch of scared old guys of losing power and pander and beg people not to walk away after the public hears some meme about the GOP being racist. They have no backbone and fail to speak to people like adults and have convictions. The dems believe in what they are doing, to old guard of the GOP are incencere,

garhkal
12-24-2013, 07:12 PM
Kind of makes me wonder where are the Billy Mitchel leaders that will stand up and risk court-marshall to protect the military and fight for whats right. 1% from military vets who already have a 30%+ unemployment rate while screaming that a 1% cut to welfare will end with people dying in the streets. What is going to "save" more, 1% cut to a tenth of a percent of the population, or 1% cut to 40% of the population? One group earned it, one group steals it from others who've earned it.

Plus since they will funnel this 'savings' into other aspects of the military, how is it savings?


My biggest issue is if anyone in congress is vying for military retirement cuts, why don't they should set the example? I'm for fiscal reform, but for crap's sake, they get to vote for their own raises. Conflict of interest? Yeah.

Which is why i advocate that the laws allowing them to vote their own raises be repealed by the CITIZENRY, and We hold the reigns on whether they get any pay raises..

Cookie Monster
12-24-2013, 09:16 PM
Which is why i advocate that the laws allowing them to vote their own raises be repealed by the CITIZENRY, and We hold the reigns on whether they get any pay raises..

The check on their ability to do so is twofold: the President's veto and our ability to vote the bums out. Not that either is always a realistic possibility, but that's a republic for ya.