PDA

View Full Version : The controversial plan to slash military housing allowance faces opposition



Rusty Jones
06-05-2016, 06:17 AM
Military advocates are baffled over a Senate plan to overhaul troops’ housing stipends, saying the change appears unneeded and potentially crippling to family finances.

“We view Basic Allowance for Housing as an earned benefit, and we don’t agree with trying to reduce that benefit,” said Michael Barron, deputy director of government relations at the Military Officers Association of America. “This is not just frivolous money being spent by troops.”

Included in the Senate Armed Services Committee’s draft of the annual defense authorization bill are plans to overhaul how BAH is paid out troops. Instead of flat fees based on rank and ZIP code, the new system would refund only what troops pay out in rent and utilities costs, stopping troops from pocketing leftover stipends if they find cheaper housing.

The Defense Department opposes the idea, calling the housing stipends part of troops’ larger compensation package. But Senate officials say the change could save the department tens of millions while still providing adequate housing benefits for troops.

Both Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, have amendments which would strip the BAH changes out of the measure when it reaches the Senate floor next week.

Outside critics support that move.

“If it isn’t broke, don’t try and fix it,” said Kelly Hruska, government relations director for the National Military Family Association. “The [Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission] looked at this issue last year, and they found the system wasn’t perfect, but it works.”

Michael Little, director of legislative affairs for the Association of the United States Navy, said the Senate plan still has too many unanswered questions, such as how utilities costs will be calculated into the new housing stipend and how exactly the change will impact family finances.

“We should be trying to find ways to keep men and women interested in the military,” he said. “But by putting restraints on them and taking away pay and benefits, we are making the military a place where morale is low and retention is even lower.

“Our government should want to find a way to make the military a career decision for more Americans. Cutting benefits will not do that.”

House lawmakers did not include the change in their draft legislation. If the proposal passes the Senate, a conference committee with lawmakers from both chambers will have to work out a compromise in coming months.


So it looks like they're trying to go back to the old BAQ/VHA situation that existed before switching to the current BAH that happened under the Clinton Administration before I joined the Navy.

If this goes into law - and I doubt it will - then I'm clocking out of the Air Force Reserve at 20. Consider this: back in December, my wife inherited a house when her grandmother passed away. We're still renting the house that we're living in right now, because we signed the lease in the September before the passing.

In other words... the plan is to move into that house in September, when the lease on our current house is up.

I deploy to Al Udeid at the end of this September coming up.

Now, picture this: as a GS-11 in my civilian job I make a certain amount of dollars, but living in a house that's already paid off (i.e., no mortgage); I wouldn't get BAH. Well, I'd get enough to cover utilities... maybe property taxes (I don't know), but the bottom line is this: I'd be LOSING money by deploying, instead of MAKING money under the current rules.

Why in the FUCK would I subject myself to THAT longer than I have to?

This is one of those things where Reservists would get fucked harder.

Fuck it, I'll happily "abuse the system" by taking out a mortgage on the house in this situation. The house needs all of the drywall replaced, a roof job, and new windows anyway.

garhkal
06-05-2016, 06:57 AM
While i agree, why would someone serve, i have been saying for a long time, that the BAH rates are too generous in many cases.. It should be sufficient to pay your rent/mortgage, and that's it. utilities should be on YOUR head to pay..

Rusty Jones
06-05-2016, 07:19 AM
It should be sufficient to pay your rent/mortgage, and that's it. utilities should be on YOUR head to pay..

I WOULD agree with this if people living in the dorms/barracks and base housing had to pay for utilities, but they don't. They take away BAH and give them quarters with utilities. It only stands to reason that BAH covers the same for everyone else.

sandsjames
06-05-2016, 01:36 PM
I WOULD agree with this if people living in the dorms/barracks and base housing had to pay for utilities, but they don't. They take away BAH and give them quarters with utilities. It only stands to reason that BAH covers the same for everyone else.

I gotta say, Rusty, I'm surprised you're going in this direction. You sound like most of the people on this forum when you say you shouldn't have to give up some of your money when people living in the dorms get "assistance", or don't have to pay, for utilities.

Rusty Jones
06-06-2016, 02:30 PM
I gotta say, Rusty, I'm surprised you're going in this direction. You sound like most of the people on this forum when you say you shouldn't have to give up some of your money when people living in the dorms get "assistance", or don't have to pay, for utilities.

More like BAH is designed to cover what you would have been provided in kind, and that's pretty much what I'm sticking to.

Where I DO call foul with the status quo is the fact the young single troops get the shit end of the stick. The barracks/dorm rooms they get don't equal out to the fair market rental value of single BAH for their paygrades. From what I've seen, in the last five or six years, the Navy has actually taken the lead in providing the best barracks with the Homeport program. Basically, they're designed to resemble the fancy apartments in the downtowns across America that are being built in place of old storefront buildings that are being torn down.

However... since format is still basically the same as barracks/dorms that have been being built for the past 20 years (i.e., you walk into a small common area with a bathroom and a kitchen, and it splits into two bedrooms with non-lockable doors); it STILL doesn't add up.

And it's even MORE fucked up for the Marine Corps, but their problem is self-inflicted. About fifteen years ago, SECDEF actually tried to make the situation I described above the standard DoD wide, but the Marine Corps fought it. They WANT two Marines sleeping in the same room.

efmbman
06-06-2016, 03:08 PM
I doubt this will amount to anything substantial. In years past, it was commissaries. These benefits are brought up prior to each election cycle as a way to strike fear into the military population. Then, at the 11th hour, a deal is made. Instead of slashing the benefit completely, only a partial cut is made (which is probably all that was wanted in the first place). Because the majority of the benefit remains intact, the military folks are relieved and grateful to those that proposed the cuts in the first place. Meanwhile, those that suggested the cuts can point to the partial cut as "at least I did something".

Rusty Jones
06-06-2016, 03:15 PM
I agree. Especially since the commissary doesn't make or break recruiting or retention. BAH, on the other hand... the only way this would actually fly without hurting anything is by grandfathering those already serving at the time that it goes into effect. Otherwise, there's going to be a mass exodus. The only good reasoning behind it would be that they're trying to induce the mass exodus on purpose. Downsizing without having to give anyone a dime in retirement or severence.

Rusty Jones
06-06-2016, 04:05 PM
Now that I think about it a little more, there's still a legimate threat to the commissary's existence. I remember a few years ago, there were talks about replacing the commissary and exchanges by the DoD establishing contracts with wholesale clubs (BJ's, Costco, etc) to open up on base and/or provide memberships free of charge to service members and retirees.

However... the DoD wouldn't even have to do THAT. When they talk about scrapping the commissaries, all we can do is bitch and use the "but we're fighting for our country" emotional appeal to people's sense of patriotism. That can only work for so long. If they DID scrap the commissary, who going to get out the military because of it? The young troop who bitches about every little thing and always makes idle threats to get out in reaction to his gripe of the day, but ends up reenlisting because his dependapotamus wife has neither a job nor the skills to get one; and they have kids to take care of?

Fucking up BAH would, in fact, affect that young troop's ability to provide for his family. If cuts need to be made, maybe we do need to think about sacrificing the commissary.

SomeRandomGuy
06-06-2016, 07:07 PM
I disagree with this plan but not for the same reason that many of you do. As a prior finance person trying to manage BAH based on actual costs is a fucking nightmare.

This new system won't actually save money because we'll end up needing more people to manage the program. Every single time you move you need to come to finance and update your BAH? It costs money to process a transaction even if there is not an actual monetary effect to the member.

(P.S. BAH based on actual costs increases fraud. People alter their lease, lie about who all lives there, or they negotiate things into the rent such as maid service. Bottom line, people will spend the maximum amount possible if there is no reason not to.)

Here's my solution: Every person stationed at the same base should get the same BAH. Here at Wright-Patterson an E3 with dependents gets $1122 and without dependents gets $822. Both are a lot higher than what you NEED in this area.

The rates for an E9 are $1635 and $1230. For an O3 $1578 and $1236. For an O7 $1932 and $1611.

We've already proven that higher ranking people don't NEED a better house than lower ranking. Just look at base housing. If you move in as an E7 you get the same house that the E3 next door gets. If we want o save money let's give everyone the same BAH rate. Does that sound good, Generals?

sandsjames
06-06-2016, 07:23 PM
I disagree with this plan but not for the same reason that many of you do. As a prior finance person trying to manage BAH based on actual costs is a fucking nightmare.

This new system won't actually save money because we'll end up needing more people to manage the program. Every single time you move you need to come to finance and update your BAH? It costs money to process a transaction even if there is not an actual monetary effect to the member.

(P.S. BAH based on actual costs increases fraud. People alter their lease, lie about who all lives there, or they negotiate things into the rent such as maid service. Bottom line, people will spend the maximum amount possible if there is no reason not to.)

Here's my solution: Every person stationed at the same base should get the same BAH. Here at Wright-Patterson an E3 with dependents gets $1122 and without dependents gets $822. Both are a lot higher than what you NEED in this area.

The rates for an E9 are $1635 and $1230. For an O3 $1578 and $1236. For an O7 $1932 and $1611.

We've already proven that higher ranking people don't NEED a better house than lower ranking. Just look at base housing. If you move in as an E7 you get the same house that the E3 next door gets. If we want o save money let's give everyone the same BAH rate. Does that sound good, Generals?

Completely agree on the flat rate, no matter the rank or the number of dependents. In a normal job you don't get more money in order to upgrade living quarters. You get more pay/salary as you move up and, if you choose, that higher paycheck can be used to get the bigger house. It works for BAS...people don't get more or less BAS based on rank or dependent status so why should BAH be any different?

efmbman
06-06-2016, 07:43 PM
...people don't get more or less BAS based on rank or dependent status so why should BAH be any different?

Not sure about that comparison. I was always under the impression BAS was about food for the service member only was never intended to feed the family of the service member. I know that's not how it works in a practical sense, but that was the intent. One is either on BAS or has a meal card. Someone let me know if this is incorrect.

sandsjames
06-06-2016, 08:28 PM
Not sure about that comparison. I was always under the impression BAS was about food for the service member only was never intended to feed the family of the service member. I know that's not how it works in a practical sense, but that was the intent. One is either on BAS or has a meal card. Someone let me know if this is incorrect.

You're right...BAS IS about the food for the service member...and BAH should be about housing for the service member...anything extra should come out of pocket.

SomeRandomGuy
06-06-2016, 08:38 PM
Completely agree on the flat rate, no matter the rank or the number of dependents. In a normal job you don't get more money in order to upgrade living quarters. You get more pay/salary as you move up and, if you choose, that higher paycheck can be used to get the bigger house. It works for BAS...people don't get more or less BAS based on rank or dependent status so why should BAH be any different?

Ironically, BAS for Officers is actually lower than for enlisted. Currently Enlisted get $357.44 per month and Officers get $246.24.

Maybe Officers eat less?

In any event, I agree with your take agreeing with mine. There isn't a legitimate reason that a lower ranking person needs worse living quarters. Set the rates based on the fair amount for the area and give it to everyone. If they don't think it is enough they can go live in the privatized (or on base) housing that IS the same for everyone. Boom! problem solved.

P.S. The most likely reason Enlisted BAS is higher is because DFAC contracts are somewhat based on those rates. Enlisted meal deductions are set to an amount slightly lower than what the member receives for the full month. I don't know the current rate but it probably amounts to about $325 of the $357.44 that Enlisted receive. That money goes to the DFAC to provide the meals. If Enlisted BAS were as low as Officer BAS they probably couldn't find a contractor or they'd have to charge more for the meal card than what the member actually gets.

Mjölnir
06-06-2016, 08:54 PM
There isn't a legitimate reason that a lower ranking person needs worse living quarters.

It isn't because someone needs worse housing etc. The allowance is for housing, but BAH is proportionate as part of the overall compensation plan ... basically part of the overall package. Yes, officers make more money on the pay scale, BAH is a factor in the overall dollar amount that is judged to be appropriate for the job.

Rusty Jones
06-06-2016, 08:56 PM
If I recall correctly, the reason behind the different BAS rates for officer and enlisted is because officers are always paid BAS (i.e., they're never given "rations in kind") and they're charged less than enlisted to eat at the chow hall. Or it was something like that.

Anyway, I don't agree with the same BAH for all paygrades. I don't even agree with the housing situation. What I do know is that BAH is the same for E1-E4, and then it goes up for each paygrade once you make E5. I believe that, for E5 and above, they need to do one of three things:

1. Only charge the amount of E1-E4 BAH to live there, and allow the member to pocket the difference (note: Some bases do this. Not all, but some do.).
2. Actually have different housing based on paygrade.
3. Restrict base housing to E1-E4 only.

The way I see it, better housing or higher BAH is justified by RHIP. An SNCO shouldn't be expected to live in the ghetto.

Furthermore... whether in base housing or out in town, what E3 wants to live around bunch of motard NCOs and SNCOs and feel like he's constantly being watched for military bearing or uniform infractions?

sandsjames
06-06-2016, 09:07 PM
The way I see it, better housing or higher BAH is justified by RHIP. An SNCO shouldn't be expected to live in the ghetto.

That's why they get paid more base pay. Nobody should be expected to live in the ghetto. The BAH should cover enough for a two bedroom house in a "safe" neighborhood. You want more rooms, or a better neighborhood? Come out of pocket...SNCOs make plenty of money in order to have a better home in a better neighborhood. That's one of the benefits of getting promoted, as it is in any job.

What isn't a necessity for the military to provide a MSgt with a 4 bedroom house in The Hamptons.

Again, my question is very simple. If more BAH is paid because RHIP then why isn't more BAS paid? Is a SNCO expected to eat Top Ramen like lower ranks are? The answer is also very simple. The military provides the basic necessity...anything extra comes out of pocket. That's how it should be.

Mjölnir
06-06-2016, 09:08 PM
If I recall correctly, the reason behind the different BAS rates for officer and enlisted is because officers are always paid BAS (i.e., they're never given "rations in kind") and they're charged less than enlisted to eat at the chow hall. Or it was something like that.

Sort of. Yes, we always get BAS, when deployed, in the field etc. We are required to pay for our meals when deployed etc. On ships, in port we only pay for meals we consume ... underway we pay for 3 meals a day whether we eat 3 or not ... while deployed at sea we pay more per month than we make in BAS.



The way I see it, better housing or higher BAH is justified by RHIP. An SNCO shouldn't be expected to live in the ghetto.


Well, no one deserves to live in the ghetto, unless that is where they want to live.


Furthermore... whether in base housing or out in town, what E3 wants to live around bunch of motard NCOs and SNCOs and feel like he's constantly being watched for military bearing or uniform infractions?

This is the biggest issue I have with privatized all-ranks housing on base that has junior enlisted and field grade officers living across the street. It is not that I have an issue potentially living across the street from an E3, but is the quality of life of the E3 impacted by having the XO live across the street?

Mjölnir
06-06-2016, 09:11 PM
That's why they get paid more base pay.

Overall compensation is not computed using just the pay scale.

sandsjames
06-06-2016, 09:11 PM
It isn't because someone needs worse housing etc. The allowance is for housing, but BAH is proportionate as part of the overall compensation plan ... basically part of the overall package. Yes, officers make more money on the pay scale, BAH is a factor in the overall dollar amount that is judged to be appropriate for the job.We should buy officers a car, too...definitely. I believe for O-1 to O-3 it's a convertible BMW or anything that resembles a Mazda Miata. O-4/O-5s should definitely get something between an SS Camaro and a Vet...O-6 and above don't get anything because they use their staff cars for everything, including their wife going to the commissary where they bring their own bags and don't tip.

sandsjames
06-06-2016, 09:13 PM
Overall compensation is not computed using just the pay scale.

I think you make a great point. Officers definitely live via over compensation.

Rusty Jones
06-06-2016, 09:19 PM
That's why they get paid more base pay. Nobody should be expected to live in the ghetto. The BAH should cover enough for a two bedroom house in a "safe" neighborhood. You want more rooms, or a better neighborhood? Come out of pocket...SNCOs make plenty of money in order to have a better home in a better neighborhood. That's one of the benefits of getting promoted, as it is in any job.

What isn't a necessity for the military to provide a MSgt with a 4 bedroom house in The Hamptons.

Again, my question is very simple. If more BAH is paid because RHIP then why isn't more BAS paid? Is a SNCO expected to eat Top Ramen like lower ranks are? The answer is also very simple. The military provides the basic necessity...anything extra comes out of pocket. That's how it should be.

You would actually need bigger payraises in the base pay to make those promotions worth it. However, that's not going to happen. The reason why a good chunk of the payraise is on the BAH side in the first place is because BAH is not calculated into retirement. Otherwise, there'd be no need for BAH, and it would be aborbed into base pay.

Mjölnir
06-06-2016, 09:42 PM
We should buy officers a car, too...definitely. I believe for O-1 to O-3 it's a convertible BMW or anything that resembles a Mazda Miata. O-4/O-5s should definitely get something between an SS Camaro and a Vet...O-6 and above don't get anything because they use their staff cars for everything, including their wife going to the commissary where they bring their own bags and don't tip.

If it is just about not liking officers ... Then it just is what is.

sandsjames
06-06-2016, 09:52 PM
If it is just about not liking officers ... Then it just is what is.

Huh? I don't mind officers. Are you telling me my stereotypes weren't spot on?

Mjölnir
06-06-2016, 09:57 PM
Huh? I don't mind officers. Are you telling me my stereotypes weren't spot on?

I don't think they are, but that is based on my experience which is likely different than yours.

sandsjames
06-06-2016, 10:45 PM
I don't think they are, but that is based on my experience which is likely different than yours.True...in our tech school training course we end up with a lot of outdated information or find out that we are teaching certain stuff incorrectly. We don't notice it because we're on the inside. It takes "new blood" or someone from the outside to look in to let us see the things we don't because we're used to them.

Mjölnir
06-06-2016, 10:50 PM
True...in our tech school training course we end up with a lot of outdated information or find out that we are teaching certain stuff incorrectly. We don't notice it because we're on the inside. It takes "new blood" or someone from the outside to look in to let us see the things we don't because we're used to them.

Yeah ... and I don't know a good way to put this without sounding like I am bashing / hating on the Air Force ... so here goes: I have been in the Marine Corps and the Navy, and worked heavily with the Army; admittedly my exposure to the Air Force is limited to a couple of schools, living in the SP barracks on Fairchild AFB for a year and a couple of deployments to AUAB and Incirlik. The Air Force culture is very different to that of the other services. Not saying it is right or wrong etc. but it is really different and I am pretty glad that I went the route that I did.

garhkal
06-06-2016, 11:06 PM
I disagree with this plan but not for the same reason that many of you do. As a prior finance person trying to manage BAH based on actual costs is a fucking nightmare.

This new system won't actually save money because we'll end up needing more people to manage the program. Every single time you move you need to come to finance and update your BAH? It costs money to process a transaction even if there is not an actual monetary effect to the member.

(P.S. BAH based on actual costs increases fraud. People alter their lease, lie about who all lives there, or they negotiate things into the rent such as maid service. Bottom line, people will spend the maximum amount possible if there is no reason not to.)

I know its that way when i was overseas.. The local landlords and realters ALL had copies of the most up to date OHA rates, and no matter WHERE you went, the rental rate, was Exactly what your pay grade's max was....



Here's my solution: Every person stationed at the same base should get the same BAH. Here at Wright-Patterson an E3 with dependents gets $1122 and without dependents gets $822. Both are a lot higher than what you NEED in this area.

The rates for an E9 are $1635 and $1230. For an O3 $1578 and $1236. For an O7 $1932 and $1611.

We've already proven that higher ranking people don't NEED a better house than lower ranking. Just look at base housing. If you move in as an E7 you get the same house that the E3 next door gets. If we want o save money let's give everyone the same BAH rate. Does that sound good, Generals?

I can agree to that...


Not sure about that comparison. I was always under the impression BAS was about food for the service member only was never intended to feed the family of the service member. I know that's not how it works in a practical sense, but that was the intent. One is either on BAS or has a meal card. Someone let me know if this is incorrect.

Nope you are correct. BAS is supposed to feed the SERVICE member, so why is it as one increases in rank it goes up??


That's why they get paid more base pay. Nobody should be expected to live in the ghetto. The BAH should cover enough for a two bedroom house in a "safe" neighborhood. You want more rooms, or a better neighborhood? Come out of pocket...SNCOs make plenty of money in order to have a better home in a better neighborhood. That's one of the benefits of getting promoted, as it is in any job.

Major agreement there. BAS/BAH should be set at a livable minimum regardless of rank/marital status.. You want more, use your BASE pay to cover the differences...

And do you ever notice, damn near EVERY base i have been at, right outside the gate IS the 'ghetto" in practically all cases.


You would actually need bigger payraises in the base pay to make those promotions worth it. However, that's not going to happen. The reason why a good chunk of the payraise is on the BAH side in the first place is because BAH is not calculated into retirement. Otherwise, there'd be no need for BAH, and it would be aborbed into base pay.

Plus iirc one of the main reasons, was so to 'seem family friendly, to those who get married/have kids'..
Also its not taxed.

Mjölnir
06-06-2016, 11:11 PM
Nope you are correct. BAS is supposed to feed the SERVICE member, so why is it as one increases in rank it goes up??.

BAS is a flat rate for enlisted and officers:

Officers $253.63
Enlisted $368.29

sandsjames
06-06-2016, 11:14 PM
Yeah ... and I don't know a good way to put this without sounding like I am bashing / hating on the Air Force ... so here goes: I have been in the Marine Corps and the Navy, and worked heavily with the Army; admittedly my exposure to the Air Force is limited to a couple of schools, living in the SP barracks on Fairchild AFB for a year and a couple of deployments to AUAB and Incirlik. The Air Force culture is very different to that of the other services. Not saying it is right or wrong etc. but it is really different and I am pretty glad that I went the route that I did.
Don't be afraid to say it. The AF culture is VERY different. It's supposed to be different. We are proud that it's different and us old timers hate the fact that the AF is trying NOT to be different. Pre 9-11 the AF was a joke when it came to fitness and we embraced that. We used our quality of living as a badge of honor. Then, post-9-11, the "officers" decided that he needed to prove we could hang with everyone else and, other than a couple combat career fields in the AF, we can't.

We want the other services to hate on us...well...we used to anyway. So feel free. Because we'll enjoy your hate from the comfort of our air conditioning and individual showers, with 4 people per tent.

Mjölnir
06-06-2016, 11:17 PM
Don't be afraid to say it. The AF culture is VERY different. It's supposed to be different. We are proud that it's different and us old timers hate the fact that the AF is trying NOT to be different. Pre 9-11 the AF was a joke when it came to fitness and we embraced that. We used our quality of living as a badge of honor. Then, post-9-11, the "officers" decided that he needed to prove we could hang with everyone else and, other than a couple combat career fields in the AF, we can't.

We want the other services to hate on us...well...we used to anyway. So feel free. Because we'll enjoy your hate from the comfort of our air conditioning and individual showers, with 4 people per tent.

If that is what works for you ... so be it.

And if I have been in the military since before you enlisted ... am I an old timer as well?

sandsjames
06-06-2016, 11:33 PM
If that is what works for you ... so be it.

And if I have been in the military since before you enlisted ... am I an old timer as well?

Yes...you're an old timer as well. If there are kids coming in now that weren't born when you joined then you're old.

As far as the culture, that's not what works for me, specifically. That is the AF culture. That's the only thing we have for culture. Other than that, we only have a tradition of change.

I pity the kids now who can't enjoy being hated on by the other services. We used to embrace the fact that we're a joke with fitness and war fighting...now we make up words like "warrior" to describe Airmen.

It's like when a dad coaches his kid's baseball team and starts his son at pitcher, even though his kid has no place on the field.

Rusty Jones
06-07-2016, 02:08 AM
There are only three things about the Air Force that I don't particularly care for:

1. The PT test
2. ABUs
3. The EPRs (though, to be fair, I don't like the Navy's EVAL/FITREP system either)

Other than that, I actually prefer it here.

My biggest gripe with the Navy - and I thought this was only happening in the Marine Corps until I was able to step outside of the Navy and look in - is that life in the Navy CAN be so much easier than it is right now, but the problem is that they don't WANT it to be. They add in unnecessary bullshit, because of the belief that "this is the military, so your life is SUPPOSED to be hard. And if your life doesn't suck enough, we'll fix that problem."

Take all that away, and you get the Air Force.

efmbman
06-07-2016, 02:21 AM
If they don't think it is enough they can go live in the privatized (or on base) housing that IS the same for everyone.

Not sure which installations you have been stationed at, but I have never seen housing that is the same for everyone. Higher ranks get better housing.


Nope you are correct. BAS is supposed to feed the SERVICE member, so why is it as one increases in rank it goes up??

It doesn't... unless something drastically changed in the 4 years since I retired.

Rusty Jones
06-07-2016, 03:07 AM
Not sure which installations you have been stationed at, but I have never seen housing that is the same for everyone. Higher ranks get better housing.

The ONLY time I have ever seen this was with the new housing at Fort Sam Houston that they built back in 2007 for SNCOs. Last I heard, they opened it up for everyone.

For single quarters at NSB New London, the CPO barracks were shit, and everyone else got nicer barracks. While I'm not sure if it was the official truth or speculation around the base, I was told that they don't CPOs living in the barracks, so giving them the shit barracks was meant to discourage it.


It doesn't... unless something drastically changed in the 4 years since I retired.

It doesn't. Last time I checked, caloric intake requirements don't up with rank. In fact, they go DOWN.

Explains why officers get less BAS, right? Enlisted do the work, so officers don't need as many calories.

Mjölnir
06-07-2016, 09:18 AM
Not sure which installations you have been stationed at, but I have never seen housing that is the same for everyone. Higher ranks get better housing.

Ft. Meade currently has privatized and consolidated (all ranks) housing; it is 'new' built around 2003. There are 2-4 bedroom units which are assigned based on family size but ranks are mixed in the neighborhoods vice the way I had always seen it prior which was separated by rank 'groups' (Junior Enlisted, SNCO, Co Grade Officer, Field Grade Officer). This has neighborhoods with junior enlisted living next door to Field Grade Officers. There are also new (some finished and some being built) apartment style privatized housing for single service members. The current intent is for it to be all ranks (enlisted and officer). The only housing on Ft. Meade which is still separated by ranks is the Cmd Senior Enlisted, O6 & FOGO housing which are some very nice but old ... very old housing on the main part of the base by the garrison HQ, this housing is not privatized; I have been in both styles of housing and while I like the historical aspects of the old senior officer housing, the new housing that an E3 or O4/5 would get put into is IMO nicer (new kitchens, larger bedrooms, central heat & air, open floor plans, wired for modern electrical & wifi etc.), the 4 bedrooms are slightly smaller in square footage than the older housing but that far from makes up for it being nicer.

About 7 or 8 years ago there was a minor exodus from housing by Field Grade Officers, the private company that runs housing opened these neighborhoods to GS's and military retirees.

Mjölnir
06-07-2016, 10:09 AM
As far as the culture, that's not what works for me, specifically. That is the AF culture. That's the only thing we have for culture. Other than that, we only have a tradition of change.

I pity the kids now who can't enjoy being hated on by the other services. We used to embrace the fact that we're a joke with fitness and war fighting...now we make up words like "warrior" to describe Airmen.

It's like when a dad coaches his kid's baseball team and starts his son at pitcher, even though his kid has no place on the field.

I more meant if that was what worked for you during your time in (probably closer to when you joined than when you retired); if it didn't I would be baffled why someone would do a 20 year career if they didn't like the culture. From what I observed of USAF culture starting in about 1993 was that it didn't fit my personality or desire for challenge, I got that from the path I chose for myself. It isn't bashing nor hating to recognize that USAF or USMC culture isn't for everyone, nor is the infantry culture within the USMC etc.

Where I did see friction was a joint deployed environment where the services were mixed and the culture was operationally heavy and the USAF support folks took a while to get up to speed on the OPTEMPO and requirements of an operational deployment. What I saw that was really nice was the quality of life of airmen when I lived on Fairchild AFB, the junior enlisted housing was nicer than any SNCO or junior officer housing I had seen on USN and USMC bases. Prior to 9/11 DoD wide things were much different than after, we had to make a rapid change from a military that was mostly postured to a military that was engaging in sustained combat operations, the reality of that was more work and less fun and some people didn't like the resultant changes (no more MEU deployments that were hopping from liberty port to liberty port in the Mediterranean or Pacific Rim etc.).

Big picture is we (the military) need what the various services provide (what they bring to the field), how they get their people to provide it is up to them via their service culture and the services use those cultures as a recruiting tool (the highly popular USMC poster "We didn't promise you a rose garden" etc.) -- people will go to one that reflects what they want for their life and even within that, people seek out subcultures or jobs that further reflect what they want.

Mjölnir
06-07-2016, 10:09 AM
As far as the culture, that's not what works for me, specifically. That is the AF culture. That's the only thing we have for culture. Other than that, we only have a tradition of change.

I pity the kids now who can't enjoy being hated on by the other services. We used to embrace the fact that we're a joke with fitness and war fighting...now we make up words like "warrior" to describe Airmen.

It's like when a dad coaches his kid's baseball team and starts his son at pitcher, even though his kid has no place on the field.

I more meant if that was what worked for you during your time in (probably closer to when you joined than when you retired); if it didn't I would be baffled why someone would do a 20 year career if they didn't like the culture. From what I observed of USAF culture starting in about 1993 was that it didn't fit my personality or desire for challenge, I got that from the path I chose for myself. It isn't bashing nor hating to recognize that USAF or USMC culture isn't for everyone, nor is the infantry culture within the USMC etc.

Where I did see friction was a joint deployed environment where the services were mixed and the culture was operationally heavy and the USAF support folks took a while to get up to speed on the OPTEMPO and requirements of an operational deployment. What I saw that was really nice was the quality of life of airmen when I lived on Fairchild AFB, the junior enlisted housing was nicer than any SNCO or junior officer housing I had seen on USN and USMC bases. Prior to 9/11 DoD wide things were much different than after, we had to make a rapid change from a military that was mostly postured to a military that was engaging in sustained combat operations, the reality of that was more work and less fun and some people didn't like the resultant changes (no more MEU deployments that were hopping from liberty port to liberty port in the Mediterranean or Pacific Rim etc.).

Big picture is we (the military) need what the various services provide (what they bring to the field), how they get their people to provide it is up to them via their service culture and the services use those cultures as a recruiting tool (the highly popular USMC poster "We didn't promise you a rose garden" etc.) -- people will go to one that reflects what they want for their life and even within that, people seek out subcultures or jobs that further reflect what they want.

sandsjames
06-07-2016, 12:06 PM
I more meant if that was what worked for you during your time in (probably closer to when you joined than when you retired); if it didn't I would be baffled why someone would do a 20 year career if they didn't like the culture. People work in jobs all the time where they don't like the culture for much more than 20 years. Plus, I liked the culture for the first half.


From what I observed of USAF culture starting in about 1993 was that it didn't fit my personality or desire for challenge, I got that from the path I chose for myself. It isn't bashing nor hating to recognize that USAF or USMC culture isn't for everyone, nor is the infantry culture within the USMC etc. Absolutely...and that's how it should be and is supposed to be. We don't like you because your a jar head and we're not allowed to leave the base on the weekend because your ship is in for a couple days, and you don't like us because we're spoiled. That's a good thing.


Where I did see friction was a joint deployed environment where the services were mixed and the culture was operationally heavy and the USAF support folks took a while to get up to speed on the OPTEMPO and requirements of an operational deployment. Right, because that's not what we were used to. Though I'd put our technicians up against anyone in the world.


What I saw that was really nice was the quality of life of airmen when I lived on Fairchild AFB, the junior enlisted housing was nicer than any SNCO or junior officer housing I had seen on USN and USMC bases. Absolutely.


Prior to 9/11 DoD wide things were much different than after, we had to make a rapid change from a military that was mostly postured to a military that was engaging in sustained combat operations, the reality of that was more work and less fun and some people didn't like the resultant changes (no more MEU deployments that were hopping from liberty port to liberty port in the Mediterranean or Pacific Rim etc.). And this is where the screw-up happened. If the Army needed more Soldiers they should recruit more Soldiers. Don't quickly "train" Air Force finance guys how to operate the 50 on the Hummer and then expect them to perform like an expert.


Big picture is we (the military) need what the various services provide (what they bring to the field), how they get their people to provide it is up to them via their service culture and the services use those cultures as a recruiting tool (the highly popular USMC poster "We didn't promise you a rose garden" etc.) -- people will go to one that reflects what they want for their life and even within that, people seek out subcultures or jobs that further reflect what they want.We agree on this. People don't join the Air Force to be "warriors" and know matter how many times the Command Chief or CMSAF tells us we are "warriors" we just aren't gonna buy it.

Rusty Jones
06-07-2016, 01:14 PM
And this is where the screw-up happened. If the Army needed more Soldiers they should recruit more Soldiers. Don't quickly "train" Air Force finance guys how to operate the 50 on the Hummer and then expect them to perform like an expert.

This part, I never understood. I was in the Navy at the time, and it wasn't just the Air Force that was affected by this. In Navy, there was really no resentment toward the Army for IA taskings. I don't know - because I wasn't Air Force at the time - but I know that, for Navy, IA billets were completely voluntary, and many Sailors were eager to take them in order to go overseas and pocket some extra cash, or have a better guarantee of duty stations at the time. I'm under the impression that ILO wasn't voluntary in the Air Force, and that everyone was "voluntold."

sandsjames
06-07-2016, 01:21 PM
This part, I never understood. I was in the Navy at the time, and it wasn't just the Air Force that was affected by this. In Navy, there was really no resentment toward the Army for IA taskings. I don't know - because I wasn't Air Force at the time - but I know that, for Navy, IA billets were completely voluntary, and many Sailors were eager to take them in order to go overseas and pocket some extra cash, or have a better guarantee of duty stations at the time. I'm under the impression that ILO wasn't voluntary in the Air Force, and that everyone was "voluntold."

AF was definitely voluntold. I know that the soldiers hated having airmen with them because they ended up babysitting. Seems like it would have cost much less to increase Army numbers and cut AF numbers. Hell, 5 Soldiers could perform better in those situations than 20 Airmen.

Mjölnir
06-07-2016, 02:15 PM
Right, because that's not what we were used to. Though I'd put our technicians up against anyone in the world.

Concur, the USAF does have great technicians. The problem that I think the older culture created that forced the newer culture was the inability to get those technicians where they needed to be to conduct their missions in contingency operations. Circa 2001, 2002 & 2003 the USAF lost some significant contingency combat support missions because they could not deploy aircraft (mostly the support personnel) quickly enough nor could they provide over target dwell time (based on wanting to fly from more established bases in Turkey etc.) to meet the supported commanders requirements, leaving the supported commander with a decision:

1. The 100% solution in 60-90 days but only 50% of the dwell time he wants.
2. The 80% solution in 7 days and 100% of the dwell time he wants.

With personnel in harms way at the time, which do you think happened? I don't think it is coincidence that the 2002, 2003 & 2004 budgets reflected upticks in money to more expeditionary services & platforms and that the revamp of the Air Force culture and push to make them more 'military' came along as well. My hypothesis: If the USAF postured for 30 or so years for a strategic fight in Europe etc. and suddenly found themselves relegated to fewer and fewer roles in Afghanistan and Iraq etc. they find themselves with smaller pieces of the defense budget and moving away from the old model helps keep them relevant ... show me the money.


And this is where the screw-up happened. If the Army needed more Soldiers they should recruit more Soldiers. Don't quickly "train" Air Force finance guys how to operate the 50 on the Hummer and then expect them to perform like an expert.

No disagreement. As an infantryman having 60 or 90 day 'wonders' who have rudimentary combat training is almost more of a bother/headache/danger than it is worth. Programmatically though, 60 or 90 days is much shorter than it would take to recruit someone, send them to basic training, send them to infantry school or other MOS training, attach them to a line unit etc. It is far from the best solution, but it is one solution. I also think the willingness of the USAF and USN to support Individual Augmentation was to plug into the Overseas Contingency Operations pool of the budget (emergency spending in excess of the DoD budget) ... again ... show me the money.


- but I know that, for Navy, IA billets were completely voluntary, and many Sailors were eager to take them in order to go overseas and pocket some extra cash, or have a better guarantee of duty stations at the time.

From the individual Sailor perspective, yes most (vast majority) were voluntary. I know many unit commanders who were not at all excited about losing personnel from their command for nearly 2 years (since BUPERS did not provide replacements). Big navy bought into the Joint Staff IA concept ... but at the middle management level there was a lot of bitching.

sandsjames
06-07-2016, 03:03 PM
Concur, the USAF does have great technicians. The problem that I think the older culture created that forced the newer culture was the inability to get those technicians where they needed to be to conduct their missions in contingency operations. Circa 2001, 2002 & 2003 the USAF lost some significant contingency combat support missions because they could not deploy aircraft (mostly the support personnel) quickly enough nor could they provide over target dwell time (based on wanting to fly from more established bases in Turkey etc.) to meet the supported commanders requirements, leaving the supported commander with a decision:

1. The 100% solution in 60-90 days but only 50% of the dwell time he wants.
2. The 80% solution in 7 days and 100% of the dwell time he wants.

With personnel in harms way at the time, which do you think happened? I don't think it is coincidence that the 2002, 2003 & 2004 budgets reflected upticks in money to more expeditionary services & platforms and that the revamp of the Air Force culture and push to make them more 'military' came along as well. My hypothesis: If the USAF postured for 30 or so years for a strategic fight in Europe etc. and suddenly found themselves relegated to fewer and fewer roles in Afghanistan and Iraq etc. they find themselves with smaller pieces of the defense budget and moving away from the old model helps keep them relevant ... show me the money.



What people don't realize is that, prior to 9-11, the AF didn't deploy to "War Zones". We were always at least one country away. Problems with Iraq? Well, we were perfectly happy to stay at PSAB. So after 9-11, the service that had only dealt with very minor, very few and far between combat situations, was suddenly expected to perform in an AOR we weren't used to. A boxer had got thrown into the octagon with a bunch of trained MMA fighters and was expected to compete. The failure was at headquarters level, no doubt, by making the decision to try to take on more of a combat mission with a complete lack of preparation, training, or culture for doing so. Hell, we did the bike test and fired 40 M-16 rounds every 1-2 years, depending on the AFSC.

Mjölnir
06-07-2016, 03:23 PM
What people don't realize is that, prior to 9-11, the AF didn't deploy to "War Zones". We were always at least one country away. Problems with Iraq? Well, we were perfectly happy to stay at PSAB. So after 9-11, the service that had only dealt with very minor, very few and far between combat situations, was suddenly expected to perform in an AOR we weren't used to. A boxer had got thrown into the octagon with a bunch of trained MMA fighters and was expected to compete. The failure was at headquarters level, no doubt, by making the decision to try to take on more of a combat mission with a complete lack of preparation, training, or culture for doing so. Hell, we did the bike test and fired 40 M-16 rounds every 1-2 years, depending on the AFSC.

Pretty much. The problem with staying at PSAB was the required flight time from PSAB to the AOR cut down on dwell time over the target that the supporting commander wanted, not to mention the Saudis became a pain in the ass about mission planning / execution and AUAB made more sense for longer range aircraft. It became less about comfort and more about meeting the demand of the supported commander. To make up for the dwell time loss required more aircraft ... aircraft not in the inventory. Simply put the battlefield had changed and the USAF had a choice. My opinion is had they not changed the way they supported combat the USAF would of had to absorb significant cuts.

Rainmaker
06-07-2016, 03:35 PM
the Overseas Contingency Operations pool of the budget (emergency spending in excess of the DoD budget) ... again ... show me the money.

You Gotta love the term "emergency spending".....16 years later & we're still in a state of "emergency". That Bullshit has been one of the biggest self-inflicted wounds of the never ending forever war.

Because, you can't buy end strength or even hire civil servants with supplemental O&M $. So, DoD's had to hire a virtual army of Staff Augmentation contractors just to conduct its core missions which should've been done by the military itself or at least classified as inherently governmental and conducted by government employees.

So, while the Military cuts pay& benefits for its own personnel to the bone. They'll continue pouring a $170 billion a year into contracted services. So, that inept/corrupt Admirals and Generals (who suck not only at war planning but, logistical & procurement planning as well) can keep raping the American Taxpayer and channeling the gravy to their buddies (and future employers) in the Defense Industry.


So after 9-11, the service that had only dealt with very minor, very few and far between combat situations, was suddenly expected to perform in an AOR we weren't used to.

This applied to all the services.

sandsjames
06-07-2016, 03:59 PM
This applied to all the services.Right, but the other services, Army and Marines specifically, train for that shit.

Rainmaker
06-07-2016, 09:17 PM
Ironically, BAS for Officers is actually lower than for enlisted. Currently Enlisted get $357.44 per month and Officers get $246.24.

Maybe Officers eat less?

In any event, I agree with your take agreeing with mine. There isn't a legitimate reason that a lower ranking person needs worse living quarters. Set the rates based on the fair amount for the area and give it to everyone. If they don't think it is enough they can go live in the privatized (or on base) housing that IS the same for everyone. Boom! problem solved.

P.S. The most likely reason Enlisted BAS is higher is because DFAC contracts are somewhat based on those rates. Enlisted meal deductions are set to an amount slightly lower than what the member receives for the full month. I don't know the current rate but it probably amounts to about $325 of the $357.44 that Enlisted receive. That money goes to the DFAC to provide the meals. If Enlisted BAS were as low as Officer BAS they probably couldn't find a contractor or they'd have to charge more for the meal card than what the member actually gets.

If the Joint Chiefs are really serious about reforming pay and improving morale, then they should just get rid of BAS altogether and go back to a traditional ration system, where each man gets a loaf of bread, a 24 oz cut of beef or pork and a 1/2 pint of whiskey or a quart of beer each night!

https://www.navycs.com/charts/1794-navy-rations.html

sandsjames
06-07-2016, 09:38 PM
If the Joint Chiefs are really serious about reforming pay and improving morale, then they should just get rid of BAS altogether and go back to a traditional ration system, where each man gets a loaf of bread, a 24 oz cut of beef or pork and a 1/2 pint of whiskey or a quart of beer each night!

https://www.navycs.com/charts/1794-navy-rations.html

It would have to be updated for today's military.

Bread must be gluten free, replace the meat with quinoa, and ensure the beer is a "craft" beer.

garhkal
06-08-2016, 07:54 AM
It would have to be updated for today's military.

Bread must be gluten free, replace the meat with quinoa, and ensure the beer is a "craft" beer.

And the meet must be both Kosher and Halal so as to not offend muslims...

Rusty Jones
06-08-2016, 11:58 AM
And the meet must be both Kosher and Halal so as to not offend muslims...

At least Rainmaker would've had the balls to say "and Jews."

efmbman
06-08-2016, 12:42 PM
If the Joint Chiefs are really serious about reforming pay and improving morale, then they should just get rid of BAS altogether and go back to a traditional ration system, where each man gets a loaf of bread, a 24 oz cut of beef or pork and a 1/2 pint of whiskey or a quart of beer each night!

https://www.navycs.com/charts/1794-navy-rations.html


It would have to be updated for today's military.

Bread must be gluten free, replace the meat with quinoa, and ensure the beer is a "craft" beer.


And the meet must be both Kosher and Halal so as to not offend muslims...

Reminds me of a time back in 1999. Me and a good friend were tasked to spend 4 weeks in Baumholder, Germany, to be instructors / graders for the Expert Field Medical Badge testing cycle. The Office in charge was a real good idea fairy, constantly looking for solutions to problems that did not exist. Once of his "problems" was that we should contact each unit sending candidates and ask about dietary concerns (just like the ones you guys listed). After talking about this for about an hour, my friend spoke up and said "Well, me and him (referring to me) are Pagan. Can we get a goat to sacrifice on the night of the full moon?"

I guess you had to be there...

Mjölnir
06-08-2016, 01:22 PM
It would have to be updated for today's military.

Bread must be gluten free, replace the meat with quinoa, and ensure the beer is a "craft" beer.

Quinoa is good (a really good source of protein), farro as well. I pack both when I go 'backwoods' hiking since it is light, fairly easy to cook and because of the high protein if I don't catch some meat I don't go completely without protein.

I have a really good farro salad I make that I will post the recipe for ;)

sandsjames
06-08-2016, 02:06 PM
Quinoa is good (a really good source of protein), farro as well. I pack both when I go 'backwoods' hiking since it is light, fairly easy to cook and because of the high protein if I don't catch some meat I don't go completely without protein.

I have a really good farro salad I make that I will post the recipe for ;)

Dude, I just lost all respect for you...next you're going to be telling me how awesome it is to do crossfit in your toe-shoes.

Rusty Jones
06-08-2016, 02:10 PM
That craft beer thing should be new discussion. When I was a kid, snobs drank wine. Now you've got "lumbersexuals" drinking "craft beer," and turning their noses up at anyone who drinks Budweiser or Coors. Beer was never meant to be like that.

Mjölnir
06-08-2016, 02:25 PM
Dude, I just lost all respect for you...next you're going to be telling me how awesome it is to do crossfit in your toe-shoes.

I tried toe shoes ... my feet are too wide to get them on and off easily. Toe socks are very comfortable ... fewer blisters and callous creases on my toes from them.

sandsjames
06-08-2016, 02:32 PM
That craft beer thing should be new discussion. When I was a kid, snobs drank wine. Now you've got "lumbersexuals" drinking "craft beer," and turning their noses up at anyone who drinks Budweiser or Coors. Beer was never meant to be like that.

It's a way for them to feel like they are bucking the system and supporting the little guy. These are the same people who claim they don't shop at Walmart and always talk about how awesome the food trucks are.

DarkHeart
06-08-2016, 02:57 PM
It's a way for them to feel like they are bucking the system and supporting the little guy. These are the same people who claim they don't shop at Walmart and always talk about how awesome the food trucks are.

There's definitely something to be said for the snobbery of the craft beer crowd. There's also something to be said about how macro brews like Budweiser (America, lol) and Coors taste like piss.

Drink what you like and don't give people hell for it.

I'm a bit of a snob in that I think some breweries are better than others, I don't like the idea of large macro breweries buying out craft breweries and then lowering the quality of the product for the sake of quantity, Walmart is gross but I'll shop there if I have too and if you've got a problem with Grilled Cheese and Bacon Only food trucks, well you've pretty much voided your own opinion as you can't possibly be human.

Rusty Jones
06-08-2016, 03:17 PM
There's definitely something to be said for the snobbery of the craft beer crowd. There's also something to be said about how macro brews like Budweiser (America, lol) and Coors taste like piss.

Drink what you like and don't give people hell for it.

I'm a bit of a snob in that I think some breweries are better than others, I don't like the idea of large macro breweries buying out craft breweries and then lowering the quality of the product for the sake of quantity, Walmart is gross but I'll shop there if I have too and if you've got a problem with Grilled Cheese and Bacon Only food trucks, well you've pretty much voided your own opinion as you can't possibly be human.

I remember when I was a kid in the 80's and during my teens in the 90's, Michelob and Molson were considered to be among the "good" stuff. And drinking these beers were more a matter of whether or not you should shell out the extra cash, not "superior" taste buds.

sandsjames
06-08-2016, 03:52 PM
I remember when I was a kid in the 80's and during my teens in the 90's, Michelob and Molson were considered to be among the "good" stuff. And drinking these beers were more a matter of whether or not you should shell out the extra cash, not "superior" taste buds.

It makes people feel superior, for whatever reason. When I was in England I had several of my British friends that would have me buy them cases of Michelob on a regular basis.

I've had beers from several countries and I just don't think the differences are that big.

This isn't new, though. This hipster crap has been around forever. These people are no different than the people in the '80s and '90s who loved bands like Depeche Mode, The Smiths, U2, until the bands became popular. People like to think they are "unique" but what they don't realize is that now, being outside the "mainstream" is the mainstream.

Mjölnir
06-08-2016, 05:23 PM
So ... housing allowance ... LOL

Rollyn01
06-08-2016, 06:14 PM
So ... housing allowance ... LOL

Shhhh... The thread has been derailed. Just let it happen. :cool:

sandsjames
06-08-2016, 06:34 PM
So ... housing allowance ... LOL


The only BAH related thing I have is when I say "BAH, Humbug" when someone asks me if I want to try some crappy grapefruit flavored pretzel beer.

Mjölnir
06-08-2016, 06:35 PM
http://www.browncafe.com/community/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi879.photobucket.com% 2Falbums%2Fab360%2Fnecro1001%2FDerailment_zps2064c afe.jpg&hash=1c83e9cd4ccd49c44de1e87f8bb336b9

Rusty Jones
06-08-2016, 07:12 PM
The only BAH related thing I have is when I say "BAH, Humbug" when someone asks me if I want to try some crappy grapefruit flavored pretzel beer.

You know the one beer that actually exists that tops that? Vagina flavored beer.

https://brobible.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/worlds-first-vagina-beer-order-yoni-3.jpg?quality=90&w=650

http://brobible.com/life/article/worlds-first-vagina-beer-order-yoni/

DarkHeart
06-08-2016, 08:07 PM
People like to think they are "unique" but what they don't realize is that now, being outside the "mainstream" is the mainstream.

Does that make the Bud and Coors crowd.... hipsters?

Rainmaker
06-08-2016, 08:13 PM
Does that make the Bud and Coors crowd.... hipsters?

Only if they're drinking the new Bud light Margarita Piss beer.

sandsjames
06-08-2016, 08:26 PM
Does that make the Bud and Coors crowd.... hipsters?

I don't follow. What I do know is that guys shouldn't drink fruity beers...it's like drinking a Zima or a Wine Cooler. They are designed for high school parties so the guys can get the girls drunk.

Rusty Jones
06-08-2016, 08:37 PM
I don't follow. What I do know is that guys shouldn't drink fruity beers...it's like drinking a Zima or a Wine Cooler. They are designed for high school parties so the guys can get the girls drunk.

Yes, Zima and Bartles & James are what Camel cigarettes were to children back in the 80's, before they got rid of Joe Camel.

Mike's Hard and Smirnoff Ice products should be illegal for marketing to children.

What about all these citrus flavored wheat beers? I swear, when checking out at the counter with that stuff, instead of checking IDs, they should have a glory hole that you're required to stick your dick in first.

sandsjames
06-08-2016, 08:44 PM
Yes, Zima and Bartles & James are what Camel cigarettes were to children back in the 80's, before they got rid of Joe Camel.

Mike's Hard and Smirnoff Ice products should be illegal for marketing to children.

What about all these citrus flavored wheat beers? I swear, when checking out at the counter with that stuff, instead of checking IDs, they should have a glory hole that you're required to stick your dick in first.

Agree. There are only 2 times when a man is allowed to drink a fruity drink and keep his man card. One is at a restaurant like Chili's (or anything closely resembling a Chili's) and the other is when on a tropical vacation/cruise. If Bud Limerita or Pomegranate flavored beer is your drink of choice you really need to review life choices. As a matter of fact, I'm starting to think I'm ok with people getting their gender reassigned because one doesn't really deserve to call themselves a man in these instances.

DarkHeart
06-09-2016, 12:44 PM
I get the hate for the garbage beer with fruit juice in it.

But what is the problem with beers made with hops or bacteria strains that impart "fruity" flavor like citra or mosaic hops and brettanomyces? Those beers are by no means "fruit beers." Some are more akin to aged brandy with their booziness and flavor.

They aren't for everyone but the way you guys go on about it, it sounds like the only craft beer you've actually seen is what ever nonsense they sell in the NEX.

sandsjames
06-09-2016, 02:50 PM
I get the hate for the garbage beer with fruit juice in it.

But what is the problem with beers made with hops or bacteria strains that impart "fruity" flavor like citra or mosaic hops and brettanomyces? Those beers are by no means "fruit beers." Some are more akin to aged brandy with their booziness and flavor. Honestly, here's the problem with it. It's not the beer at all. It's the attitude of those who drink it. You, yourself, have already referred to normal American beer as "piss". It's the same as being around food snobs...you know...the ones who make a big deal about someone eating a Big Mac like it's the end of the world? It's the reason I won't step food in a "Natural" grocery store. It's the pretensiousness of the people who frequent them.




They aren't for everyone but the way you guys go on about it, it sounds like the only craft beer you've actually seen is what ever nonsense they sell in the NEX.I've had plenty. Spent a few weeks in Fargo where there are several local breweries. I've been to several in Northern California. Also, been stationed in Europe for a total of 8 years so had several different beers. I enjoy a Belgian White occasionally but that doesn't mean that I have to immediate criticize an American beer from a macro brewery.

Rainmaker
06-09-2016, 03:12 PM
I get the hate for the garbage beer with fruit juice in it.

But what is the problem with beers made with hops or bacteria strains that impart "fruity" flavor like citra or mosaic hops and brettanomyces? Those beers are by no means "fruit beers." Some are more akin to aged brandy with their booziness and flavor.

They aren't for everyone but the way you guys go on about it, it sounds like the only craft beer you've actually seen is what ever nonsense they sell in the NEX.

Beer's one of the few American made products that is better now than it was 35 years ago. Rainmaker can remember coming back from a 2 year tour in Germany in 93 and thinking that Bud, Miller, Coors etc. all tasted like Bottled horse piss.... But, today whenever we travel back to Europe we'll find most of the American beers are actually better than the German beers.

What's not to Love? It's an American success story of small companies taking back a huge share of the market from the big beer makers and employing people locally.


http://wolfstreet.com/2016/01/05/in-this-dismal-us-economy-theres-one-thing-thats-totally-booming-craft-breweries/

sandsjames
06-09-2016, 03:23 PM
Beer's one of the few American made products that is better now than it was 35 years ago. Rainmaker can remember coming back from a 2 year tour in Germany in 93 and thinking that Bud, Miller, Coors etc. all tasted like Bottled horse piss.... But, today whenever we travel back to Europe we'll find most of the American beers are actually better than the German beers.

What's not to Love? It's an American success story of small companies taking back a huge share of the market from the big beer makers and employing people locally.


http://wolfstreet.com/2016/01/05/in-this-dismal-us-economy-theres-one-thing-thats-totally-booming-craft-breweries/

In the last "Beer World Rankings" Germany was #1, the U.S. were #2, and England was #3. 90% of the time I'm going to drink Miller Lite, because I like the taste and, because it's not as "strong" as a 8.5% craft beer I can enjoy a few cold ones while working around the yard when it's hot outside without getting a headache. The craft beers, being stronger, are harder to do that with. The craft beer is more like drinking a Scotch. It's good once in awhile with a meal or when just hanging out and having "A" beer.

Again, it's not the craft beer I dislike. It's the pretensious people who drink it that really bothers me.

Rainmaker
06-09-2016, 04:53 PM
In the last "Beer World Rankings" Germany was #1, the U.S. were #2, and England was #3.

This is definitely a new golden age for American beer. I think a side benefit of all the competition has been the macro-brews having to get better too.

Sadly, We probably have just a small window of time before the big boys buy off the regulators and start undercutting the competition and consolidate the market .

Soon, we'll be back to having to drink 3.2% Fairy piss. Beer is a case study in how .gov fucks up everything it touches. America was widely considered to have the best breweries in the world (Back before the Nanny Progressive's prohibition destroyed the industry).



90% of the time I'm going to drink Miller Lite, because I like the taste and, because it's not as "strong" as a 8.5% craft beer I can enjoy a few cold ones while working around the yard when it's hot outside without getting a headache. The craft beers, being stronger, are harder to do that with. The craft beer is more like drinking a Scotch. It's good once in awhile with a meal or when just hanging out and having "A" beer.

Know what you mean. Rainmaker don't have "craft" beer in the fridge either (usually Keep yuengling at home). But, there's nothing better than enjoying a fine microbrew next to a long legged, Beautiful, Blonde, Blue Eyed, Buxom, Teutonic Babe in town!



. It's the pretensious people who drink it that really bothers me.

Seeing a trend here....Talk to your doctor at the VA about- Cialis......It may help you with your inferiority complex.

Rainmaker
06-09-2016, 05:33 PM
At least Rainmaker would've had the balls to say "and Jews."
Glad you brought this up Rusty..... Because, yesterday marked the 49th anniversary of the Jewish State of Israel's unprovoked attack on the USS Liberty (which killed & wounded over 200 American Sailors).

Last night Rainmaker scoured the idiot box hoping to find media coverage of the events commemorating this sad day and ceremonies honoring their families sacrifice.

Strangely there was no mention of it whatsoever on ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, FOX or CNN. (just like every other year since it happened)....

But, I did find LOTS of coverage of the testimony (from the President of the World Jewish Congress) before the Bi-partisan sponsors of the Senate Bill to allow rich Oligarch Jews to make claims against and seize the property of other people that was purchased decades before they were even born.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/2763Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery

sandsjames
06-09-2016, 05:58 PM
Seeing a trend here....Talk to your doctor at the VA about- Cialis......It may help you with your inferiority complex.I prefer Viagra. I don't like taking pills every day and when I take a Viagra my wife kind of feels obligated so as not to waste the pills.

Mjölnir
06-09-2016, 08:17 PM
I prefer Viagra. I don't like taking pills every day and when I take a Viagra my wife kind of feels obligated so as not to waste the pills.

If you experience an erection lasting over 4 hours ... you are welcome.

sandsjames
06-09-2016, 08:58 PM
If you experience an erection lasting over 4 hours ... you are welcome.

My wife would disagree!!!!