By It is looking more and more like the military retirement we all currently know is going to change for the worse:
A sweeping new plan to overhaul the Pentagon’s retirement system would give some benefits to all troops and phase out the 20-year cliff vesting system that has defined military careers for generations.
In a massive change that could affect today’s troops, the plan calls for a corporate-style benefits program that would contribute money to troops’ retirement savings account rather than the promise of a future monthly pension, according to a new proposal from an influential Pentagon advisory board.
All troops would receive the yearly retirement contributions, regardless of whether they stay for 20 years. Those contributions might amount to about 16.5 percent of a member’s annual pay and would be deposited into a mandatory version of the Thrift Savings Plan, the military’s existing 401(k)-style account that now does not include government matching contributions. [Military Times]
It is basically a mandatory TSP is what the new retirement program is going to be if the people pushing this get their way. To make matters even worse they are even looking to take retirement dollars away from those of us already serving:
Unlike other proposals to overhaul military retirement that would grandfather current troops, the board suggests that DoD could make an “immediate” transition to the new system, which would affect current troops quite differently depending on their years of service:
• Recruits. The newest troops out of boot camp after the proposed change would have no direct incentive to stay for 20 years and would not get a fixed-benefit pension. Instead, they would receive annual contributions to a Thrift Savings Plan account and could leave service with that money at any time — although under current rules, they can’t withdraw the money until age 59½ without paying a penalty, except in certain specified circumstances.
• Five years of service. Troops would immediately begin accruing new benefits in a TSP account. If they remained in service until the “old vesting date” — the 20-year mark — they also would get one-fourth of the “old plan benefit,” or about 12 percent of their pay at retirement, as an annuity. If they separated, for example, after 10 years, they would walk away with no fixed-pension benefit but would have a TSP account with five years of contributions.
• 10 years of service. Troops would immediately begin accruing new benefits in a TSP account. If they remained in service for 10 more years, they would receive half of the “old plan benefit,” about 25 percent of their pay at retirement, as an annuity. If they separated after 15 years, they would walk away with no fixed-pension benefit but would have a TSP account with five years of contributions.
• 15 years of service. Troops would immediately begin accruing new benefits in a TSP account. If they remained in service for five more years, they would receive three-fourths of the “old plan benefit,” about 37.5 percent of their pay at retirement, as an annuity.
• 20 years and beyond. Troops who stayed in past 20 years would continue to receive annual TSP contributions.
Basically what is going on here is that the Pentagon wants to reduce their budget at the expense of the benefits of its personnel instead cancelling acquisition programs. If the troubled Lockheed-Martin F-35 program for example was cut it would save the Pentagon $382 billion which would meet nearly on its own the planned $400 billion defense cut. Instead of going after these acquisition programs that are running over budget and behind schedule there are people in our government that would rather cut the benefits of not only future servicemembers, but as this recent plan shows, even current servicemembers.
If this plan happens retention in the US military will plummet. What is the incentive to stay in any longer than it takes to qualify for the GI bill, go to college, and land a job with corporate style retirement benefits which is what this proposed plan is? For military families the 20 year retirement has served as a light at the end of tunnel that makes all the deployments seem bearable. If it is taken away how many spouses are going to want to have their partner stay in compared to now? Plus many people currently serving have made life decisions based around the current retirement system. If the current retirement system was not in place they may have made different choices such as getting out and using the GI Bill and finding a civilian job instead of staying in.
With this plan the Pentagon may be able to keep their F-35′s, but they are going to have far less people available to fly them, not that Lockheed-Martin and their political backers care.
I guess the retention problems will be nothing a return to the draft couldn’t fix.
Another final thought, if this corporate retirement is so great how come the same people pushing this are not trying to do the same thing to Social Security?
8:09 am on July 26th, 2011 1
Well, they’ll figure it out in 2036.
8:53 am on July 26th, 2011 2
Here’s the assholes responsible for the proposal
http://dbb.defense.gov/members.shtml
8:57 am on July 26th, 2011 3
Yep, head is a Harvard grad with no military experience and they all have “cover your ass” charities. Oh and his company specializes in OUTSOURCING for the DOD – Accenture. Wow.
9:00 am on July 26th, 2011 4
GI bill will be next…I’m sure they think that costs too much as well…
9:19 am on July 26th, 2011 5
I can just imagine what it must be like in the ranks now. When I was in in 1982-84 I noticed a lot of cynical bitterness among the NCOs who were basically waiting to retire. We had it really good in the 80s yet there was still a great amount of cynicism. What must it be like now with so many more hazardous tours of duty and the Gov looking to reduce benefits like retirement? I can hardly imagine.
9:49 am on July 26th, 2011 6
Something has to give. Either end Bush tax cuts, leave Iraq and Afghanistan, or cut all government workers salaries (including troops). Since the first 2 are not likely to happen, the 3rd is the only option.
9:56 am on July 26th, 2011 7
Denny
But what about huge government contracts with private companies : “the troubled Lockheed-Martin F-35 program”
That generate huge “kickbacks” for Ex Military members or their friends that sit on the board of directors of those companies that profit from such contracts? There are more effective ways to cut expenses then to go after the few good initiatives for the common person who opts for Military service.
12:34 pm on July 26th, 2011 8
ALL, I repeat ALL of the retired military people that I know & have known have said that there is no way that they would have stayed 20 years unless they could get the pension. O dark thirty PT, forced road marches, barracks inspections, WARS, deployments, field training exercises(FTX’s) and family separations-NO THANKS! These folks proposing this have really got their heads stuck up their pipers. Now in addition to the above, in less than 60 days you are going to be forced to shower/use the latrine with/and sleep with people of the same sex who might find you sexually attractive, you have got to be f’ing kidding me? If this idea passes you can guarantee that the draft will come back with all the social protests that those of us who are old enough to remember the 1960′s can recall. THANK YOU LORD JESUS THAT I HAVE ALREADY RETIRED!!!
2:10 pm on July 26th, 2011 9
#8, Amen brother! However, I’m hoping that they won’t find a way to screw us out of our retirement too. I would think that our support groups (VFW, American Legion, etc) would lobby hard for us to keep our current benefits but in this climate of “cut and run” in Congress I’m not sure of anything.
4:07 pm on July 26th, 2011 10
Backstabbing veterans is no way to govern a nation.
4:43 pm on July 26th, 2011 11
the outgoing CIO just wrote an article on the Cartel that is defense contracting
i will try to find the article and link it
6:39 pm on July 26th, 2011 12
#6,
Yup, corporations have very deep pockets and many lobbyists.
6:52 pm on July 26th, 2011 13
I spent 20 years in the Infantry and yes retirement pay was the light at the end of the tunnel even though I actually enjoyed the Army very much.
7:35 pm on July 26th, 2011 14
I saw that light also ChipperB. It made putting up with some of the more stupid leaders and back stabbing exceptable. Without it, I know I would have left the service after my first re-up. I had a great time, untill the NCO ranks. Then the back stabbing began. But I was in Aviation Support and there was time for that behavior. I still often think I should have gotten out after 8 years. But I kept hearing guys say that they wished they had stayed in. So i did. My memories of 85 thru 95 are great! 1996 thru 2005 — not so much. Wasn’t the same Army that I joined. No 20 year retirement to look forward to and I would have been gone.
7:37 pm on July 26th, 2011 15
(acceptable) sorry bout that
11:52 pm on July 26th, 2011 16
The bios of the morons at Kangaji’s link say so much about this gang. Another underhanded effort to neuter and spay the military by “we know what’s good for you” focks.
12:02 am on July 27th, 2011 17
Retired GI,
I would like to know what was lacking during the years 1996 thru 2005? What changed or degraded?
12:57 am on July 27th, 2011 18
I noticed the military changed drastically after they offered early outs/buy outs after the cold war ended. This happened around 1992/1993 timeframe. Within a few years (around 1995) we used to say “all the good ones got out” and it just went downhill from there.
4:18 am on July 27th, 2011 19
@18 SSB/SBI (or whatever they called it), the “we’ll pay you to get out” program back in ’92 or so, that was quite a bombshell. I’d have taken the money except I never qualified.
I think another thing that happened was political correctness and over-sensitivity took hold and fundamentally changed the “feel”, for lack of a better word, of the military.
Like Robin Williams’ character in Good Morning Vietnam said: “The U.S. Army: The sweetest smelling army in the world!”
I didn’t like being deployed, but it’s where I got the greatest since of accomplishment and worth. After all, that’s the only time when getting the job done is more important than other B.S.
4:55 am on July 27th, 2011 20
#17, Chris-in a word “comradeship”. To quote one of my NCO’s at my first duty assignment (the 101s airborne Ft Campbell)Who said, “We leave that chit at the gate for the civilians to deal with.” He was speaking of race relations in the 80′s and he was black. To this day that one conversation with him was more informative and rang more true than anything that followed. So, of course he was kicked out of the army for driving drunk. (they SMELLED alcohol) Zero tolerance and M.A.D. took another good NCO.
Chris, there was an E7 in Iraq in 2005 that was more concerned with race and sex relations, then he was in training. He was easy to bait too. What a dumb chit. He was Hispanic. When married troops got the word that they could billet together, his wife wouldn’t.
I attended the EO school at Campbell. I was showing him my (I love ME book) one time and when I got to that certificate he was shocked and said, “they never should have given you that”. I replied that they didn’t give it to me, I earned it and then asked why he felt that way. He replied that it was because ” um um um—because you only like Asian women.” What an idiot. He didn’t know the difference between a sexual fetish for asian women and racial relation. But he was fast tracking thru the ranks for promotions.
#19 is right. I didn’t qualify either in 92, if i remember right. I also survived the QMP boards. But it wasn’t right after 95/96. Not the Army I joined and later, not one I wanted to be a part of. But I was indefinite till twenty by that time. But I enjoyed it from 85 to 95/6. Half of it was better than some can say.
5:12 am on July 27th, 2011 21
I believe the ones who left with the offer during the early outs for pay that #19 Hot stuff eluded to, are the very ones that we needed to stay in. Those NCOs that had No Chance Outside where the one’s that stayed in. I showed up in the quality of leadership for years later. No balls. It takes balls to take a lump sum and get out. Also confidence in ones self. The very individuals that we needed were the ones that said enough is enough and took the way out offered. After that, came the QMP boards.
Now that I think about it, that past is about to become the future. With the new “draw down” looming. Military budget cuts. Looks like unemployment is going to grow even more.
9:16 am on July 27th, 2011 22
Retired GI,
Thanks for such a clear and thorough reply. Though I was only in for a short time I have often wondered what it was like in the ranks now and throughout the 90s. I also wonder what it must have been like to be in Basic Training as a brand new recruit and get the news about Sept 11. I wish there would be a documentary made about that and the way it was handled on Army basic training camps. I can’t really imagine what I would have felt had I been a trainee at the time. I remember the Army as being pretty good about letting us recruits now about important events in the country when I was in basic.
10:26 am on July 27th, 2011 23
Several more things contributed to the changes in the military cultural environment of the 1990s. There was a reduction in force in the AF which cashiered a lot of personnel without much discrimination between who was any good or not – whoever hadn’t taken that SSB/SSI was rolling the dice to stay in, unless they were rated (aircrew). These were folks who came in service near the end of the Cold War, so their experience was lost. Another was the normal end of career departure of most of the Vietnam War experienced cadre, who had real shooting war, not just Cold War experience, perspective, emphasis. And with the end of the Cold War came the painful search by the politicians for a new use of the military in these expeditionary peace-keeping and nation-building adventures – remember then U.N. Ambassador Madeleine Albright’s quote: “What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?” Not to mention the impact of the Clinton Administration, Sec Def Aspin, etc. with the DADT mess, the expanded role of women into different jobs in the service, a reduced force structure supposedly able to handle two wars simultaneously, yadda, yadda. It was a lot for the military to absorb and deal with.
11:08 am on July 27th, 2011 24
Thanks Pops!
Anyone care to comment on how Sept 11 or the two following operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have effected Military Service? Though I’m close to a couple soldiers stationed in both countries I’ve not had enough contact with them to get a feel for how this has effected the troops.
2:06 pm on July 27th, 2011 25
Just a note on sept 11 Chris. It is like yesterday for me. I was living in a cheap apartment in Killeen TX. (there was a Korean bar across the street that I liked)
I woke up late for PT. TV was my alarm clock. I was throwing on my PT uniform and then i looked at the TV. I thought that I might not be coming right back after I saw it so I changed into my BDUs and loaded my car with my three “ready bags”. I arrived at Production Control and they were watching it. (They being officers that were not required to do PT). The word was out and all were going home to change and get their bags. But then nothing happened. I ended 2001 at Hood and went (as I requested) to Korea a third time. Sadly, I went to 2ID this time. Heard the stories of the lock downs and BJs thru the fence. The year sucked. I requested extension in Korea with a transfer to Humphreys. It got lost. Long story short, a female E7 or E8 had it in an unmarked folder with afew others that had been long gone. I had left a message on the 2ID Generals Hotline. A new job was found for her. The BN CO was pissed off because his boss had chewed him good, so that rolled down the hill to my platoon and he chewed them and then me. They then proceeded to do in 48 hours what usually takes months. I was Humphreys bound. But not before I got orders to FT Campbell for 2002. They then were cancelled. (I sometimes wish I had gone to Iraq with the 101st) I went to Iraq after a year at Humphreys in 2004. Had to fight for that! They didn’t want me. But I got it. Then Medical tried to stop me. I had a scope on my knee in 2002 and an operation on my left shoulder in 2003. I told the doc I wanted to go. He asked me if I was nuts and I said yes. He said good and signed my papers. Too bad the Platoon and most of the leadership still had a Peace-time Mentality. Organized PT in the open! I knew that was a less than sound idea. Sure enough, they were watching and started sending mortars during a PT “test”. It wasn’t funny, but I couldn’t help but smile a little as I wrote down their times and told them to hit the bunker behind me. DAssed 1st CAV. Then they would have recall FORMATIONS! Yep. They were watching. Started holding a few back for the formations. (that’s what I would have done also) At least one guy was killed because of that stupidity.
It should have been over after three years. Administration lost it’s focus. Started trying to “nation build”. Didn’t learn anything from Vietnam! So what is this Libya thing about anyway? Another mistake. Didn’t Obama say it would take only DAYS! Been 5 months!!!
2:10 pm on July 27th, 2011 26
Campbell 2003. I really should learn to prof read.
2:12 pm on July 27th, 2011 27
Retired GI
Thanks for that detailed response!
4:04 pm on July 27th, 2011 28
Retired GI #20: Man oh manishevits(sp?). You have screwed up my psyche big time with your use of the word “fetish” to describe those of us that have a penchant for Asian broads. Now I am questioning whether or not I am normal or need some couch time because I have mental malady, “a fetish”. I will recover from the questioning of my normality but do me a favor and drop that “f” word. Perhaps just say “Yellow fever” instead. Your cooperation in making an on the spot correction of your use of THAT word will be greatly appreciated. I thank you in advance.
An apology would be appropriate as well for your mistake.
4:55 pm on July 27th, 2011 29
As for myself, I have not looked for a cure for my Yellow Fever. I enjoy it every time I travel to the Philippines.
Rest easy Jeff Fisher. You are as Normal as I am!
6:17 pm on July 27th, 2011 30
Retired GI, Understood brother, we are back on the good foot!
8:03 am on July 28th, 2011 31
The multi trillion dollar debt is out of control. Everyone needs to make a sacrifice, including troops. Cut the GI bill and retirement benefits.
9:04 am on July 28th, 2011 32
I hear the President often talk about a “shared sacrifice.” I’m ready to share the burden with others. I think it’s unfair that the top 20% of wage-earners pays 95% of the taxes…
How about we just tax everyone at the same rate and offer deductions based on things we want to encourage (like giving to charities, buying homes, and hiring folks who have a legal right to work)?
God only asks for 10%; we could start there… With more money to spend, the “rich” will either spend it (on goods and services) or invest it (savings, stocks, bonds, precious metals). Either way, more employees will be needed by the companies who sell goods and services, manage investments, etc…
A rising tide lifts all boats…
But those who want everyone dependent on the government will hate that idea…
10:02 am on July 28th, 2011 33
Denny,
What would be your solution if the cuts to the GI Bill and Retirement was severe enough that the number of people willing to enlist went down to the point where they compromise the efforts of the Military?
10:18 am on July 28th, 2011 34
Then cut bases all across the globe. The US can no longer afford to be the world’s policemen.
10:34 am on July 28th, 2011 35
Denny, what do you know about America? It is obvious your are not one. Your one sentence anti-American statements are at best, Simple Minded. You speak as a child would speak. You have no experience with world affairs. You simply Parrot slogans of supposed American weakness.
You’re new here. What do you want? Let me guess, Korean college student.
10:45 am on July 28th, 2011 36
I am an American taxpayer. I don’t want my children to be riddled with the multi trillion dollar debt.
That means cut all government workers, such as troops, who are government workers living off our taxes.
12:04 pm on July 28th, 2011 37
Our troops, when used effectively, prevent wars, conflicts, and international lawlessness (e.g., piracy) that disrupt trade and cause far damage to the economy than they cost us in taxes.
12:23 pm on July 28th, 2011 38
“Denny” is obviously a troll. Now, cuts to Departments of Energy, Education, and HUD I could see. The folks at Energy are keeping us dependent on foreign fuels, the folks at Education are stealing billions of dollars that should be used to put quality teachers in classrooms, and HUD has been responsible for some of the worst fiscal mismanagement in human history…
Privatize as much of the government as possible. If people need those services, they will find a way to provide them. Americans are resourceful and generous.
But keep your grubby mitts off the military. They spend their youth in our service and deserve what they were promised.
(Full disclosure: Although an honorably-discharged veteran, I am not a military retiree nor are any of my family.)
12:27 pm on July 28th, 2011 39
Either end the Bush tax cuts or cut spending – all spending including the troops.
Can’t troops get a job from the private sector, like the rest of us?
I am a middle class taxpayer who is tired of the middle class having to pay for the bloated government – including defense spending.
12:30 pm on July 28th, 2011 40
A comment I saw recently suggested that if the cuts were bad enough to reduce the number of people willing to enlist..then just impose a draft. Obviously some do not view Soldiers as people…but merely fodder to through at a “threat.” I realize this isn’t news to most people on this site.
2:36 pm on July 28th, 2011 41
My mistake Denny. Your a Friggin Left Wing LOONY Liberal. Now I know you. You’re ignorant also. The American military are most surely NOT Government Workers. My retirement is not even CLOSE to a Postal Worker.
If you knew anything other than Liberal talking points, you would be aware of the difference. If you had served in the Military, you would be aware of the difference.
To answer your ignorant and uninformed question: “Can’t troops get a job in the private sector?” Umm YES! Google Defense Contractors. And by the way, they are making more than you are. You’re not a middle class taxpayer. You’re a Clown. But thanks for coming here Denny. I feel so much more confident in the ability of my gray matter after reading what you had to say.
Guess who added 3.5 TRILLION to the debt Denny. In 2.5 YEARS!
How much do you pay % of income Denny? Do you even Know? Allow me to lift the blinders from your unseeing eyes. The so call “rich” (the guys that do the hiring) pay more than double what the middle class pay in percent of earned income.
Now if you want to get rid of tax loopholes, then I’m with you. (join your local tea-party) They want the same. Like you, they also want to cut spending.
Send Obama a letter or two demanding that he stop wasting your tax money. He is the one that is — in charge.
You might want to revise the retirement pay for the senate and congress while you’re at it. That is a waste of your money! They retire with more that you make now. Or would you rather take a bite out of my 1.5K per month?
You hate Soldiers that much? You hate me that much? Not very Tolerant of you.
What about Welfare? You willing to cut that also?
Or are only Soldiers such as myself deemed to be worthless.
2:45 pm on July 28th, 2011 42
Wrong again. I’m a registered Republican. I voted for RINO McCain, not Obama. I said I want all government cut, that includes the Postal Office, Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, Section 8, GI Bill, retirement, and everything else. Since this thread was about military retirement, I focused on that.
Let’s face it. Neither the poor nor the rich pay taxes. It’s the middle class who is paying for everything. I am tired of the middle class paying for this bloated government that is multi trillions in debt.
3:34 pm on July 28th, 2011 43
No, you’re not. You’re a liberal. You disagree with Retired GI, so you must be a liberal. Reading from liberal talking points.
3:41 pm on July 28th, 2011 44
Wouldn’t that be 1.5 years (plus a few months), since Obama would not have signed the budget that took us through the end of 2009? He’s responsible for the very last part of 2009, all of 2010, and 2011 so far, n’est-ce pas?
And what was the national debt up until the end of the Bush43 administration’s last budget, on September 30, 2009?
Obama is responsible for an awful lot of debt (though most economists agree that it was necessary for that much spending, given the economic freefall), but it’s funny how his critics act as if the world and all its troubles began on the day Obama took office.
And no, I didn’t vote for Obama. The last presidential candidate I voted for who actually won was Clinton, who penned a grand deal with Gingrich to bring us surplus budgets that foresaw eliminating our national debt. But that was before the Bush43 tax cuts and the grossly mismanaged war to get rid of the 9/11 plotters in Iraq.
It’s also important to note that a big chunk of Obama’s $3.5 trillion came from setting right the Bush-Cheney accountant’s tricks that obscured the price of the Iraq War.
3:50 pm on July 28th, 2011 45
Kushibo,
Thanks for that info and for maintaining such a clear style on your post as opposed to giving into the temptation to rant.
6:35 pm on July 28th, 2011 46
#43, That was nice Kushibo.
#44, Actually a big chunk of Obama’s 3.5 trillion came about because of bailouts for GE, The housing and lenders and others that were just “too big to fail”. I’m sure you remember those, even tho you failed to mention them.
As for “accountant’s tricks” to obscure the price of the war (add a large S to that) since we have been fighting TWO wars. one in Iraq and another in Afghanistan. I’m relatively sure Afghanistan does have a price tag also. First I heard of it. Sounds like you’re talking about Obama Care, when you mention “accounting tricks”. But I’ll look into it.
By the way, I’m all for ending the wars. I’m also all for closing down the money pit known as USFK. Term limits! Did anyone hear Nancy Pelosi yesterday? What a loon! “save the world from the republican party”
7:31 pm on July 28th, 2011 47
Denny, my objection to the proposal in the article is not for protection of my self interest-I’M ALREADY RETIRED so any changes would not effect current retirees including me. If others share the sacrifice then I am perfectly willing to live with a reduced cost of living adjustment or higher Tricare fees or whatever. My concern is if the military retirement plan that is talked about in the article is passed then enlistments and re-enlistments will plunge like the first drop in a roller coaster. With the crap that you have to put up with in the military (please see my list in comment #8) the amount that you would get in the above plan just ain’t worth it. I agree 100% that we should reduce drastically our presence overseas including the ROK. Korea has a huge economy especially as compared with the economic basket case of communist North Korea & can easily afford to defend themselves. The USSR has been gone for two decades, why are we still in Europe? If they just bring back the draft people who are as old as me or older will remind them of the massive social protest that the draft caused. We need to cut, cap, & balance.
7:51 pm on July 28th, 2011 48
My history is a little rusty, but didn’t the post-WWII GI Bill produce a return of $7-9 to the economy for every dollar spent on it? Seems like an outstanding economic recovery plan to me.
The retirement plan they are talking about has significant issues, and I think shows a lack of in-depth understanding of how TSP/401k-type plans work, but one thing I do like is the idea of some sort of retirement benefit for those who don’t intend to serve 20 years.
8:23 pm on July 28th, 2011 49
Jon, you’re right.
And Denny is a moby (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=moby).
And not even a very good one…
8:26 pm on July 28th, 2011 50
Kushibo seems to have forgotten Libya, which we’re still apparently doing the kinetic military non-war thing in… How lefties justify attacking a country that not only wasn’t involved in 9/11, had no wmds, and wasn’t at war with us, I’m not sure… But maybe it was okay because France said so…
8:51 pm on July 28th, 2011 51
I did not forget Afghanistan and I did not forget Libya.
Afghanistan was, in the opinion of me and most Americans, a necessity. If it got expensive later on, it was largely because we took our eye off the victory ball in Afghanistan so we could fight and then put out fires in Iraq. Iraq, on the other hand, was an elective war that was sold to the American people under false pretenses and then botched.
And what’s the price tag on Libya vis-à-vis Iraq? That’s one of the political ploys of Obama’s opposition, to get the public to think that Bush43′s Iraq and Obama’s Libya are same-same.
9:45 pm on July 28th, 2011 52
#50
“Kushibo seems to have forgotten Libya, which we’re still apparently doing the kinetic military non-war thing in”
You may be privy to something the general public is not, but as far as we are told, the US is not directly engaged in the kinetic parts of the Lybian conflict.
4:44 am on July 29th, 2011 53
#52 Not ENGAGED? The COST of your *KINETIC* WAR was $820 million thru June.
It will cost an additional 100 million per month thru September.
With no end is sight.
Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee said the cost is closer to 1 Billion thus far.
*KINETIC* does not mean Free JoeC.
12:40 pm on July 29th, 2011 54
From Chris Edwards at Cato and Stuart Butler at Heritage. Via Fox Business.
Defense cut by 2/3: $475 billion
Medicare/medicaid: $441 billion
Eliminate Dept. of Education (includes Pell Grants): S106.9 billion
Eliminate Dept. of Transportation: $84.8 billion
Eliminate Dept. of Labor: $78.6 billion
Eliminate HUD: $60.8 billion
Eliminate Dept. of Agriculture. $33 billion
Cut civilian employee compensation: $30 billion
Stop maintaining vacant federal buildings: $25 billion
Eliminate Foreign aid: $21.8 billion
Eliminate Dept of energy: $20.8 billion
Eliminate NASA: $19.6 billion
END Federal drug war: $15 billion
Earmark moratorium: $16 billion
Eliminate Fannie/Freddie Subsidies: $14 billion
Eliminate Dept. of Commerce: $13.9 billion
Eliminate Dept. of Interior: $12 billion
Legalize Pot, online gambling, immigrants: $12 billion
Privatize Army Corps of Engineering: $10.6 billion
Cut Federal Employee travel budget: $10 billion
Privatize TSA: $5.7 billion
Privatize Post Office: $4 billion
Eliminate the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corp: $480 million
Eliminate the FCC: $439 million
Eliminate the Endowment for the Arts: $332 million
This is not all the suggestions. But if they are SERIOUS, it gets us there.
So, like going to the moon, we know HOW to do it. But we lack the will.
Lets start CUTTING! Oh, wait. Our President is a Soociaalist.
Can’t say the “S” word.
3:52 pm on July 29th, 2011 55
Retired GI wrote:
Hypothetically, if the Libyan situation were to continue for another two years, how much would it cost. And how much has the Iraq War cost us, either up until now or in the first 2.5 years (for direct comparison)?
Again, it’s one of the political ploys of Obama’s opposition, to get the public to think that Bush43′s Iraq and Obama’s Libya are same-same.
Where were all these deficit hawks when Bush43 was running up some $7 trillion of debt?
5:17 pm on July 29th, 2011 56
Eliminate the FCC. If I want to broadcast on a certain channel, and Retired GI 54 wants to broadcast on the same channel, he and I will settle the dispute: just him, me, and the Second Amendment.
7:09 pm on July 29th, 2011 57
Kushibo — took Bush 8 years and two wars.
Took Obama 2.5 years to add MORE THAN HALF that amount.
As a watcher of Fox News, I have never heard any of the talking heads suggest that Bush and his two wars were ANYTHING like Obama’s Libya.
So take your B.D.S. pills. Obama has been in charge for almost 3 years.
Where were they? Ask the Democratic Congress and Democratic Senate (of that time). If you were paying attention, the deficit started going up in 2007. What else happened that year? Congress and Senate went to the Left. So ask Nancy and Reid. The same people that are fighting FOR tax increases at this very moment. While the NEWLY Republican led congress is trying to REDUCE spending.
Print it. Fold it. Put it in your pocket.
7:13 pm on July 29th, 2011 58
Glans, before it came to that I would let you have that channel. I just might be bright enough to pick another, even if you’re not
.
I know what guns can do. Not worth it. Now if you mess with my house, you’re done.
7:15 pm on July 29th, 2011 59
Kushibo, you ought to read (or reread) Animal Farm. And stop trying to be being a pig. It doesn’t fit your personality…
“Political ploy” my ass. That statement is right out of Mein Kampf. “Tell a lie loud enough and long enough…”
Your lies (there is no kinder word) about Bush’s spending are either from naivete or malice; but it doesn’t matter. And they won’t save you when the people you fancy take over. Read up on Che and how he dealt with “camp followers.” And what of Pol Pot. Who were the first he killed? That’s right, it was teachers and anyone with a book or glasses…
And don’t offer some feigned outrage. Your track record here has been clear enough. Who do you think will take over when the US Economy collapses?
Just start being honest. You’ll gain more respect.
7:54 pm on July 29th, 2011 60
Retired GI 58, I can claim any channel just by talking tough? That’s a good system. To heck with the stupid FCC!
Bran 59, that’s a good argument. If kushibo has any integrity at all, he’ll now drop his support of Pol Pot.
6:38 am on July 30th, 2011 61
#60, Whatever it takes to cut the budget Glans. We all must make some sacrifices
7:12 am on July 30th, 2011 62
Here is much of what needs to be said…
http://opinionhead.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/obama-deficit-graph-300×225.jpg
8:56 am on July 30th, 2011 63
CH, here’s a better representation of your graph, which comes with a few problems.
For starters, it gives Bush43 credit for Clinton-era surpluses. Credit to Clinton He was (kinda sorta) elected in 2000, but that was a Clinton-era surplus. He was inaugurated in 2001, but until September 2001, that was a Clinton-era surplus, though this started to erode because of the first round of Bush-era tax cuts.
Your charge lists 2000 and 2001 as “Bush Years” for the budgets.
Obama was elected in 2008 and inaugurated in 2009, but until the end of 2009, it was a Bush43-era deficit, to the tune of $1.4 trillion, which the chart lists as an Obama year. That’s the only way to come to the conclusion that Obama “tripled deficit in 2009 and 2010.”
9:09 am on July 30th, 2011 64
Retired GI, you seem to be of the impression that I don’t hold Obama — for whom I did not vote, by the way — responsible for any of the national debt. Clearly we are continuing the Bush43 trajectory in terms of budget deficits. One could argue most or all of this has been necessitated by the economic freefall we were in, but that is not going to wash for much longer.
My point is that the budget hawks were nowhere to be found when the person they voted for was in office turning surpluses into deficits with questionable economic principles and one very pricey botched war.
I don’t think I mentioned Fox News at all, but I’ll take your word for it that they are not trying to equate Obama’s Libya moves with Bush43′s Iraq. I’ve encountered this more as a Townhall-type punditry argument, with a little bit of stump speeches and radio thrown in.
Yup, President Obama, who just last week crossed the 2.5-years mark, has been in charge “for almost three years”
. I predict that two months before the end of his three years he will be stated to be in charge “for nearly four years.”
Oh, and the first eight months of Obama’s presidency is a Bush43 budget and Bush43 deficit. Obama’s budget deficits are bad, but he’s magically getting “credit” for Bush43′s deficits as well.
Off by five years.
9:11 am on July 30th, 2011 65
D’oh! The middle of that should have looked like this:
Yup, President Obama, who just last week crossed the 2.5-years mark, has been in charge “for almost three years” for months and months now. I predict that two months before the end of his three years he will be stated to be in charge “for nearly four years.”
9:53 am on July 30th, 2011 66
“…My point is that the budget hawks were nowhere to be found when the person they voted for was in office turning surpluses into deficits with questionable economic principles and one very pricey botched war…”
Clearly you haven’t ever read (or at least paid attention to) InstaPundit, PoliPundit, or Drudge…
Bush was at no time universally popular among conservative, even discounting the Cult of Ron Paul… And the Tea Party would have formed even if McAmnesty was elected…
These folk just got a bigger voice because of the massive and corrupt government takeovers of the last three years.
9:55 am on July 30th, 2011 67
Regardless of whether I get it right or not.
9:59 am on July 30th, 2011 68
Brainiac, you are right that they were there. I knew some and talked at length about this with a few of them. They are also just one or two GOP missteps from splintering into supporting a third-party or independent candidate.
When I use the deliberately hyperbolic “nowhere to be found comment,” I am referring to more mainstream Republicans — those responsible for the Bush43-era deficits and those who voted for those Republicans. They seem to believe the world began on January 20, 2009 (though they calculate it as July 2008 when they write “three years” in reference to Obama).
10:24 am on July 30th, 2011 69
Kushibo, it is interesting that you want me to count the exact # of months, but yet you feel free to spout generalizations and call it “hyperbolic”. Some would call it simply lies. But since you get hung up it to the point of distraction, In the future I will count your Messiah’s rein down to the month. Or do you require it to be down to the day? You’re still unable to see the forest for the trees.
It seems that was enough for 52% of the voting public.
I was never 100% behind Bush. But at least he had experience in office, unlike your Messiah.
Keep praying for a third party split. The Repubs just might be stupid enough to do it and hand Obama a second term. Should make you happy.
I voted for McCain last time. But I thought he was terrible for the Repubs. But he had experience and was a Veteran. All in all, a much better option than a “community organizer” that never had a real job of ANY kind. But he does have a pretty smile don’t he?
Keep dodging and weaving Kushibo. B.D.S. can ruin your reputation.
I know you don’t watch Fox. It shows
10:43 am on July 30th, 2011 70
Retired GI, if anyone has any derangement syndrome, it’s you in relation to Obama.
First off, I don’t expect people to count the exact number of months, but when someone has been in office for, say 2.4 years and his opposition kept referring to it as “almost three years” so that it would conveniently cover the time when the economic crisis hit in the previous administration, I call foul. Ditto with putting the 2008 and 2009 budget deficits on Obama.
As for my hyperbole, it was not a “generalization.” In the mainstream Republican leadership and their supporters, it is nearly universal that those complaining about the deficit now were culpable in the (so far) much larger Bush43-era debt.
I’m not praying for a third-party split. I’m praying that the Republican Party will return to being a party of fiscal conservatism with workably affordable solutions to social problems — the GOP of a not-too-long-ago era. If that requires sloughing off certain groups who react emotionally to a single issue at the expense of all others, so be it.
Why do you refer to him as “my Messiah”?
And you say you weren’t behind Bush43 100%, did the budget deficits bother you? Did the price tag of the botched war in Iraq? Did you still vote for him in 2004 despite that?
What constitutes “a real job”? He was an attorney, a law professor, and an ice cream scooper.
11:14 am on July 30th, 2011 71
THIS is a June 2011 piece from a former Congressional GOPer about Bush43′s and Obama’s deficits, along with the GOP response.
After calling Obama’s budget deficits “a mess,” he goes on to say that “the Republicans have offered no viable alternative”:
12:01 pm on July 30th, 2011 72
Kushibo, since I watch the mess each and every day — on Fox, I have a good understanding of the situation. Don’t need to read any BS from an EX anything. But you can feel free to go ahead.
You know the saying: opinions are like A-holes. Everyone’s got one. I’ll stick with actual reporting on a day by day basis. Which reveals that your Messiah will VETO anything the Repubs send over. Reid doesn’t even take the time to read it before tabling it. Nancy is Loonier than ever before.
Obama’s solution is to INCREASE TAXES. Period. Same for the Liberal Senate. Compromise to them translates to “do it our way”.
Don’t worry Kushibo. You messiah will be re-elected. But at least they will know what they are voting for this time. Higher taxes and higher unemployment. Weakened Military. Zero manned space program. Weakened America. It’s what the people want!
12:09 pm on July 30th, 2011 73
The spending will stop because DC grows a spine or because the country fails. But we don’t have another 20 years… Maybe not even another 5…
12:10 pm on July 30th, 2011 74
In 2.4 years — (two years and *almost* half of another year)— Obama has STILL spent more than Bush did in his first term.
I hope you are pleased with the accuracy of his time in office. When it is a solid three years, I will be happy. Cause it isn’t going to get any better by that time.
12:44 pm on July 30th, 2011 75
Retired GI wrote:
About as much as a liberal who watches it all on MSNBC every day.
I did catch CNN and Fox News while in the time share in Las Vegas this past week, and they both featured supposed left-right pundits screaming at each other. I guess that’s what passes for “actual reporting” these days.
I’ll stick to triangulating the Wall Street Journal, PBS Newshour, AP, the Orange County Register, and the Los Angeles Times.
The tax cuts brought about by Bush43 brought us from budget surpluses to (then-) record deficit. Reversing it is necessary to balance the budget.
As for a lack of compromise, Reid and Obama both presented plenty of spending cuts as well, painful ones that have turned the liberal base against him (and by that I mean actual liberals, not just anyone who disagrees with Retired GI). We’ve got a Clinton-lite right now, but so far no Gingrich.
Bush43 canceled the Space Shuttle program, and yeah, it will take a bit of time to get the next thing going. Mismanaged wars are expensive that come with monstrous opportunity costs, I guess.
12:55 pm on July 30th, 2011 76
Kushibo, you need to read up on Economics. You’re just all wrong…
12:58 pm on July 30th, 2011 77
Retired GI wrote:
I guess Fox News didn’t cover it. HERE is a February 2009 article on the subject:
12:59 pm on July 30th, 2011 78
Oh, and you still haven’t answered why you keep referring to Obama as my Messiah.
2:28 pm on July 30th, 2011 79
Everyone needs to sacrifice their money, including troops.
2:59 pm on July 30th, 2011 80
Denny, I agree with shared sacrifice — too little of the population went to war in a conflict they had wildly supported and the cost is coming from the people who need government assistance the most — but by virtue of laying their lives on the line and essentially mortgaging their future, I think the troops have done enough sacrifice.
What it comes down to (regarding the original topic) is this: Is the twenty-year retirement threshold keeping an inordinate number of “bad” people in the military, and/or would a change to a regular corporate structure mean that an inordinate number of “good” people away from the military? And is there a fairer system than the current one to remunerate the people who are risking their lives for the country? I would need to know the answer to those questions to know if I would support changing what exists now.
4:35 pm on July 30th, 2011 81
Kushibo. New york times? That’s as funny as you not watching Fox. Which are both reasons why Obama is your Messiah. You just don’t want to believe Obama is a danger which is the #1 Obama is your Messiah.
Your absolute BLINDNESS is shocking to me. Space Shuttle was cancelled by Bush. But and a big but is that he also directed NASA to begin the *Constellation* Program. To continue a Manned presence in space for America. Guess who canceled it. Come on! TAKE A GUESS *WHO* CANCELED THE *CONSTILATION MANNED SPACE PROGRAM*. Come on! Say it. OBAMA did. America is weaker because of it.
Obama cancelled the Constellation Manned Space program. I’m sure I’ll have to tell you again and again and again.
Meanwhile, check out what the Heritage Foundation had to say about the Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit. Worse for Obama than I thought!
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/
4:37 pm on July 30th, 2011 82
Forgive the spelling. Or not.
4:43 pm on July 30th, 2011 83
Retired GI 72 loves that big-government sozialist manned space program.
4:45 pm on July 30th, 2011 84
Denny, are you blind? Or just a parrot. Comment 54 is just for YOU. Actually, I think you’re just a parrot. Small brain and all.
“soldiers need to pay SQUACK”. “soldier need to pay SQUACK”
I know some who payed. You can’t get any money out of them anymore.
Typical Liberal. Hates the Military, just because it is the military.
4:51 pm on July 30th, 2011 85
We need to be in space Glans. JFK was right. You like feeding the poor I’m sure.
Another Sozialist program. See comment #54
5:03 pm on July 30th, 2011 86
Retired GI, the same news was available in a number of sources. It was a fairly prominent news story at the time. I linked to the NYT story because it was fairly detailed.
Yup. But you do realize 2009 was a Bush43 budget, right?
Again, why is Obama my Messiah? I didn’t vote for him, and my tentative support for him is only insofar as he can be matched with a 2011-era Gingrich abd he gets the KORUS FTA passed.
As for the Constellation/Ares, etc., it appears:
Outsourcing to private companies (at least for the short term)? Isn’t that in line with the Cato Organization whose list of recommendations you signed on to?
5:04 pm on July 30th, 2011 87
The problem with Cato is that they utterly ignore the externalities of cutting all the things they want to cut. They simply believe, as an article of faith, that such spending has no real value.
5:38 pm on July 30th, 2011 88
I believe that Cato is correct. Even for NASA. But Obama just gave russia the ISS. Like they care. NASA should be outsourced to such civilian organization as can get the job done. But Obama doesn’t understand that a transition is needed first. ( If you have the best seat you don’t just give it up ) He gave it up.
The reason is because he does NOT believe in American Exceptional-ism.
8:43 am on August 1st, 2011 89
What do you define as American Exceptionalism?
10:20 am on August 1st, 2011 90
It starts with the first and second Amendments for me. Then it goes to the Nation’s power and resources. These are not all inclusive or a complete listing. But a good start. Anyone can succeed in America. If they work at it.
Obama believes in none of these.
Those that do not wish to work have it made in America also. What other country’s unemployed can get as fat as America’s unemployed people can? Obama DOES believe in that!
11:02 am on August 1st, 2011 91
I was hoping for something more specific than that. That’s vague to the point of being all things to all people, whatever they want it to be.
But let’s say you can pinpoint a broadly inclusive yet still meaningful definition of American exceptionalism. The thing is, a lot of people who believe in something like American exceptionalism also believe that things need to be worked on or tweaked in order to maintain what makes America great over the past two centuries (e.g., a death tax to make sure that the nation’s wealth and power does not remain concentrated in the hands of a shrinking few).
I believe in level playing fields (which is NOT the same as equal outcomes, a common abuse and misuse by both supporters and critics of social fairness). I had a better chance of succeeding as I did in Orange County, where I lived the second half of my years as a legal minor, than I did in Compton, where I lived the first half. There is fundamentally something structurally different and in order for America to truly be a place where “anyone can succeed,” then that must be mitigated. Not with equal outcomes but a baseline level playing field.
I guess what I’m saying is you can’t have American exceptionalism while dismantling the things that, inadvertently or by design, have made it work. Corporate control of our media and special interest control of our political system are two things that must be dismantled if America is to remain a great country.
As for the Second Amendment, I voted for the NRA-endorsed Bill Richardson, with gun ownership being one of my issues.
1:01 pm on August 1st, 2011 92
Now I know why Obama is your Messiah. Like Obama, you want to take form those that worked for what they have and give to those that sit on their collective asses and wait for it to be divided up. SOZIALISM!
I understand helping out the needy. I’m all for that.
But the death tax should be abolished completely.
My Parents worked to save enough to buy their 80 acres. He worked as a telephone line worker. Saved enough to open an auto-parts store. Designed the house I grew up in.
PAYED the taxes every year on the land, the store and the home.
He died in 2002 while I was stationed in Korea. Mom has it now. SHE pays the taxes on it EVERY YEAR now.
So when the sad day comes that my Mom dies —-
YOU WANT ME AND MY BROTHER TO NEED TO SELL THE LAND AND HOME SO THAT WE CAN PAY 50% TAXES ON IT —- AGAIN?
That sounds FAIR to you?
You want to take from a Vet that spent 20 years in the military and his brother that works at the railroad for 25 years —- so that it can be more FAIR.
I’ll be honest with you Kushibo. After making that statement, I consider you an over-educated piece of crap, just like your Messiah Obama. Neither one of you have done a physical day of work in your lives. But you feel comfortable taking from those that have.
You want to level the playing field by plowing those that succeed under.
Why don’t you try to do something MEANINGFUL? Like raise up the lower section and show THEM how to succeed. Not your style right. That’s too difficult for you. Let’s just tax those that did succeed until there ISN’T a middle class. RIGHT?
You’re a Liberal in the truest sense Kushibo.
Never again try to Lie me. Your education taught you nothing.
I hope you were looking for an emotional response. Just as I was thinking there might be hope for you. I should have known better. You are what you are, just like Obama.
5:35 pm on August 1st, 2011 93
Am I the only one in the group who reads The Economist regularly?
5:51 pm on August 1st, 2011 94
Eeeeeeuuuuuwww! The Economist says! The Economist says! I read The Economist! Aren’t I cool? Aren’t you impressed with me?
What do you read? Time? Newsweek? Those are for people who can’t handle a real news magazine like the one I read. That’s because you’re not as smart or sophisticated as me.
On weekends, I like to sit out on my porch in my wicker chair with my bifocals and my subscription copy of The Economist. Then, when I go to a professor’s wine-and-cheese party later that night, I can casually mention all the fancy stuff I read about NASA and Venezuela and Gen. Pervez Musharraf in my fancy magazine and impress everybody.
Question: Do you think I’m smarter than everyone else because I read The Economist, or do I read The Economist because I’m smarter than everyone else? Now, there’s a conundrum! I should mail that one in to The Economist and see what they think!
Oh, no! My brain just got larger! Help! I need more knowledge to fill up the new brains! Get me the new issue of The Economist at once! I can’t live if I’m even remotely unaware of anything that is happening in the universe! I must have my weekly issue of The Economist, or I risk de-evolving into the sort of mouth-breathing rabble by which I am surrounded daily!
I say, old chap, here comes Lord Smartingford of Braintonshire! Shall we dine upon a nice cup of tea, then? We can discuss the economy, and the global situ-AYYY-tion, and ever so many other matters! I am so very versed in such matters, reading as do I The Economist, just as soon as the postman delivers it by the estate, don’t you know. I find that only the right cracking coverage of The E-CON-omist keeps me jolly-well informed and all that, wouldn’t you agree? Mmm, yes, I did think you would!
5:52 pm on August 1st, 2011 95
I keed, I keed
6:51 pm on August 1st, 2011 96
Retired GI wrote:
Try George Washington.
You act as if someone who takes in $1 million per year actually worked 100,000 hours over twelve months in order to “earn” that money.
You also are flat out wrong about my belief about people “sitting on their collective asses.” I don’t believe people who are able to work should be collecting checks for not working. Contrary to many liberals, I feel that the Clinton-era welfare reform was good and fair. When I talk about a level playing field, I’m talking about making sure their schools and job training opportunities are up to snuff, something I saw was painfully lacking (and why my family tried to leave).
No, it doesn’t. I don’t think family-owned farms should be subject to an estate tax. No “small”-scale family business should have to be sold to pay an estate tax.
But frankly, I’m not sure if you’ve got the numbers right anyway. If you’re farm is actually worth more than $3.5 million (the exemption right now, I believe) then the remainder is taxed at 35%, not 50%. Moreover, using gift taxes to up the exemption amount, I think your farm would have to be worth more than $10 million before the first dollar would be taxed, and then it’s only the amount above that.
Are your parents sitting on a farm worth $10 million? $3.5 million?
No, it’s not to be more fair. The estate tax is about preventing concentration of wealth and gumming up of industry. The founding fathers believed in that because they saw what damage there was with an economic aristocracy.
Maybe you should get your facts straight before you call someone a piece of crap.
Actually, I’ve worked several jobs doing physical work. I’ve peeled potatoes and flipped burgers, I’ve helped put together furniture and put together homes for an apartment management company, and I’ve jumped out of a UPS truck delivering packages. All for barely above minimum wage.
Wrong again. The estate tax has little to do with a level playing field. Leveling the playing field is about ensuring that citizens of all parts of the socioeconomic spectrum get a minimum of opportunity if they’re willing to take it. I lived in a place where the city and county simply did not give us the same basic services that they gave to places higher up the socioeconomic ladder. That is flat out wrong, and it has nothing to do with estate taxes.
You have no idea what I’ve done, what I do, and what I will do. I’ve spent a good deal of time helping people who don’t have proper access to medical care, for what it’s worth. That’s actually what I’ll be making a career out of, most likely.
Whatever.
I was looking for an informed response. I should have known better.
Think about what you’re saying. How would I even know that you have a family farm to begin with? How would I be going for an emotional response? I’m talking about people in the multiple tens of millions of dollars, the people whose wealth by itself begets more wealth and ends up crushing the poor, the middle class, and even the lower upper class. I’d rather not have a society like the Philippines or Latin America where meritocracy and hard work cannot flourish because of an stifling economic elite that controls almost everything (nor do I want so¢ialistic redistribution). That meritocracy is what has made America great.
6:54 pm on August 1st, 2011 97
Kangaji, I read The Economist on occasion, but I’m more likely to read Time and Newsweek, though not since I came to Hawaii. Those two mags were my subway reading material, though I would grab The Economist when I saw one laying around.
Nowadays, I frequently grab the Wall Street Journal, which is given out FOR FREE (!) at our university’s business school.
7:12 pm on August 1st, 2011 98
I am totally opposed to the estate (death) tax. If someone has paid income taxes on what they have made over the years & then they die, I believe that it is totally unfair to tax their assets AGAIN to pay the death tax. If the government didn’t get enough of what somebody made WHEN they made it then too f’ing bad. If you can’t leave something to your wife & your kids when you die then what the hotel is the point? In feudal societies (since ROK Drop is about Korea in this way I would call the Kim dynasty in NK feudal) there is no way to move up your social status. In the US and the west generally you can. There is no way you can totally remove all advantages for the wealthy, The Bushes, Kennedy’s, Kerry’s, Murdoch’s, Soro’s, Rockefellers, etc will always just know how to make and keep money and will always have connections. My Dad when he was alive was dirt poor during the depression but do to his hard work moved himself up to an upper middle class status. Please just get the government out of our lives.
7:48 pm on August 1st, 2011 99
Who says you can’t leave something to your wife and kids? You can leave them up to $10 million untouched by the estate tax, apparently. And most of what’s above that. Why should a privileged few that have used their parents’ wealth to get more wealth be able to crowd out the working class and small-scale entrepreneurs? An estate tax protects and promotes meritocracy.
(And in many cases, this not double taxation, as the “earned” income often avoids taxation when it is acquired, the basis for the alternate minimum tax.)
7:51 pm on August 1st, 2011 100
Kushibo,
American Exceptionalism exists because America was the first nation which was purposefully created rather than haphazardly evolved.
America’s creation was based on refined ideals and completely lacking in the handicaps of tradition and history which encumber the success of many other nations.
America IS exceptional for that reason…
…regardless of the desire of enemies and opportunists, both foreign and domestic, who have done as much as possible to erode and trivialize this exceptionalism for their own personal or national gain.
A president who doesn’t fully believe in American Exceptionalism and who doesn’t represent it both at home and abroad, is not fulfilling one of the important duties of president.
To be successful, one must always believe in oneself.
8:16 pm on August 1st, 2011 101
ChickenHead, I don’t disagree with what you said (except that it was unhandicapped by tradition and history, as slavery and subordination of women’s rights were written into it), but I’m not so sure how many people accept that as a definition of American Exceptionalism (or even if Obama disagrees with it).
America’s founding was an order for a great country and a blueprint for a greater future. To me, one aspect of American Exceptionalism is that it is built into the country’s DNA to improve itself (e.g., the end of slavery and the expansion of suffrage).
But it’s sounding a bit like “American Exceptionalism” is a bit analogous to “family values,” another term that means different things to different people, to the point that anyone can say they are for it and “the other side” is against it.
I’m troubled by an undefined concept of American Exceptionalism (even if I believe American Exceptionalism exists) because then it is open for abuse, like “family values.” At its worse, the concept seems to suggest that social, economic, legal, or even scientific principles that other peoples are subject to somehow don’t apply to the US.
8:30 pm on August 1st, 2011 102
I don’t actually believe in American Exceptionalism, but I do believe in the monologue that Gary Johnson gave to Kim Jong Il in Team America: World Police.
8:35 pm on August 1st, 2011 103
Kushibo #99, You wrote “Why should a privileged few that have used their parents’ wealth to get more wealth be able to crowd out the working class and small-scale entrepreneurs? An estate tax protects and promotes meritocracy.” If the death tax was 100% the super wealthy with their know how & connections would STILL give advantages to their offspring. If you look at the families such as the Bushes & Kennedy’s that I talk about in my previous comments that proves my point since right now there IS the death tax. The death tax does hurt middle class folks who can’t afford all the lawyers & accountants to keep their assets from the government. I have read about small businesses & farms who have had to be sold to pay the death tax so I doubt your figure of $10 Million. Money is fungible, you can’t “crowd out” working people or entrepreneurs. Remember we are NOT a feudal society. As Jack Kemp used to say “A rising tide lifts ALL boats.” Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc etc prove that meritocracy is alive & well in America.
8:46 pm on August 1st, 2011 104
Tom Langley: Farmers is a really good point. Basically you have to have millions of dollars of land and heavy equipment, but you’re constantly borrowing money from the banks each year and working on tight margins. Weather and nature introduce a lot of uncertainty. That’s a really really good example actually. I’m impressed.
8:50 pm on August 1st, 2011 105
Man the last few posts in this thread really got me going! I mean my ears are ringing, man. It’s like the universe is trying to communicate with me via the Beatles!
The “breastplates” described in scripture were their electric guitars, man. The “sound of their wings … as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle” was their music. Their “tails like unto scorpions” were the cords of their electric guitars, and “the stings in their tails” was their electrified power! Freaking FAR OUT DUDES!
I feel a song coming on…
One, two, three, four…
Let me tell you how it will be;
There’s one for you, nineteen for me.
‘Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.
Should five per cent appear too small,
Be thankful I don’t take it all.
‘Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.
(if you drive a car, car;) – I’ll tax the street;
(if you try to sit, sit;) – I’ll tax your seat;
(if you get too cold, cold;) – I’ll tax the heat;
(if you take a walk, walk;) – I’ll tax your feet.
Taxman!
‘Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.
Don’t ask me what I want it for, (ah-ah, mister Wilson)
If you don’t want to pay some more. (ah-ah, mister Heath)
‘Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.
Now my advice for those who die, (taxman)
Declare the pennies on your eyes. (taxman)
‘Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.
And you’re working for no one but me.
Taxman!
9:03 pm on August 1st, 2011 106
The song that goes through my head goes something like this:
Some folks are born
silver spoon in hand,
Lord don’t they help themselves.
But when the tax man comes to the door,
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale.
9:06 pm on August 1st, 2011 107
106. It ain’t me!
9:07 pm on August 1st, 2011 108
As to estate/death taxes, I think the Viking method is the way to go. After someone dies and certain items are passed along, everything else is burned. That’s much better than having hard earned assets go to fund some Hippie academic’s research into the impact of dog farts on the environment or providing scholarships to useless sacks like Barry Obama.
9:43 pm on August 1st, 2011 109
Isn’t there a several million dollar exclusion before estate taxes are charged?
9:49 pm on August 1st, 2011 110
I’m doing my best to spend all I have and sell off the rest so I die with as little as possible to be picked at by the tax vultures.
This will not end well, I am afraid. We have set ourselves up, as a nation, to pay bonuses to those who do not work for that money, so we have bred a growing problem which will not go away.
It’s only a matter of time.
10:33 pm on August 1st, 2011 111
Kangaji, Thanks for your kind words. It amazes me that if you look at countries in Europe such as Ireland, Iceland, Portugal, & of course Greece and see the results of collectivists policies; the amazing thing is that the leftists want to do the same policies here. We’ve all heard the old saw that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over & over again expecting a different result. Great Britain prior to the 1980′s was going down the same road. After Margaret Thatcher was elected Prime Minister & free market capitalistic policies were instituted then the leftist decline stopped and was reversed. Now it seems the slide downhill has resumed. Look where we were headed when Jimmy Carter was President, international weakness (look at the Iranian hostage crisis), and economic stagnation. Under President Reagan economic freedom was encouraged and American ascended. Under President Carter the USSR made huge international gains (Afghanistan, Angola, Mozambique, Grenada). President Reagan didn’t f around, he actually dared to fight back against communism. The economy rebounded and he was re-elected in a landslide. President Obama makes Jimmy Carter look like a genius. My Lord, America WAKE UP!
9:31 pm on August 11th, 2011 112
Many of you insist on cutting taxes. No taxes, no military. No taxes, no military retirement benefits. Hmmmm? In any event, I side with most of you: Honor the commitment that our military personnel have made to serving our country by honoring the commitments the government made to them.
9:42 am on August 12th, 2011 113
I have talked to many Soldiers, NCO’s and fellow Officers and one of the big concerns is our contract. Every Soldier today signed a contract with the US Army with an agreement for a retirement at 20 years. If the government can make this change and turn around and tell the Soldiers to just deal with it, then what is next. What else will they change in our contract and then turn around and say we are the government deal with it, what’s the point of the contract.
The proposal mentions several times a comparison between the Military and the Civilian work force. Well, show me a Civilian job in which the worker is gone training for up to 3 to 6 months total throughout the year and then when complete with training deploys for up to a year, not to mention during that year deployment there is a large group of people trying as hard as they can to kill you. Then God willing the member makes it home after the deployment, and 70% of the time must pack up his/her family and move them somewhere else. The constant PCS moves every two to three years for a Soldier is extremely hard on the family, the children must move schools and make new friends, the spouse must attempt to find a new job which in itself is difficult due to the employer knowing he or she will be leaving within two to three years. This type of constant movement for the Service member makes it almost impossible for a spouse to generate any type of retirement.
A Service member after 20 years of service is most of the time completely broken, they have bad knees, backs, ankles and hearing loss to mention a few. All of these problems are due to 20 years of dealing with Combat, explosions, shooting weapons, foot marches, jumping out of airplanes, and daily running and other physical activities. After a 20 year Service obligation the average 40 year old Soldiers body is worn down and more closely related to a 65 year old Civilian.
The proposal makes a statement that a Soldier E-1 thru E-4 under the new plan can make up to $20,000 if they invest 16.5% of their pay for four years. I have been a Company Commander for 33 months and I do not know one E-1 thru E-4 who can afford to deposit 16.5% of their pay and still be able to survive financially. The proposal also states that the old plan is unfair to all who do not retire because they receive nothing. Like I said earlier all Soldiers voluntarily sign a contract and understand what they are getting into. But, when it comes down to it, a Soldier receives many things, the Soldier receives to mention a few, discipline, an understanding of self worth, team work, equal opportunity training, sexual harassment training, job experience, respect from the community, credibility from civilian companies, and the military GI Bill for future education. Any person who joins the military and leaves under honorable conditions, leaves as a better person and will be a great contributor to the Civilian community and work force.
To say that anyone leaving the military before 20 years gets nothing is not only wrong but an uneducated statement. The US Service member is a Professional and the 20 year retirement is not just deserved but owed due to the contract we signed. A professional athlete provides entertainment to the public and they make millions, a Service member is a professional and provides protection and freedom to the public and we make pennies but we do not complain. If they take away our retirement they take away any incentive for the career Soldier to stay and they take away what all Service members have worked for, planned for, fought for, and many others have died for. Why would anyone join the Military as a Career when they can join a safer Civilian job with the same benefits? The US Armed Forces is 1% of the US population, I’m sure we can find, and save, several Trillion dollars if we tap into the other 99% who earned their freedom thru the Military’s sacrifice.
1:16 am on October 2nd, 2011 114
Coming from a Milatary family and having my children serve in the Milatary.It is so hard for me to believe that Pres.Obama would let such changes take effect.After he has shook the hands of vets that have lost their limbs and familys that have lost loved ones due to there choice to serve there country.Taking any thing away from them would be such a disapointment to a lot of people.They deserve everything they are getting and more .It makes me wonder what is this country coming to when it wants to make change from the very ones that put there life on the line to protect this country.cindy7
1:55 am on October 2nd, 2011 115
Cynthia,
“It is so hard for me to believe that Pres.Obama would let such changes take effect.”
Yeah. It was hard for me to believe that Obama would arrange for thousands of guns to be sold to violent Mexican drug gangsters who used them to kill American citizens on American soil as well as a whole bunch of Mexicans… all while lecturing about lax gun controls in America that allowed American guns to wind up in the hands of Mexican criminals.
So.
Obama will say and do whatever it takes to push his agendas or get reelected… and with only about one half of one percent of Americans in the military, and even fewer actually retiring from the military, the number of voters concerned about this issue falls somewhere between organic beekeepers and one-legged lesbian dwarves.
So good luck.
5:00 am on October 2nd, 2011 116
chichenhead-your name fits you well.I do believe you are missing the whole point about how our Milatary is protecting chickenheads like you.but excuse me if I misunderstood and thought that you truly don’t give a dam about those who are serving our country.
5:22 am on October 2nd, 2011 117
Cynthia, please go back and reread Chickenhead’s posts. Nowhere did he criticize or disrespect members of our military. His target was clearly President Obama.
8:38 am on October 2nd, 2011 118
Other than offering recommendations and ultimately deciding whether to veto or not, the President doesn’t have the power to shape military and veteran compensation. That is in the hands of the Congress, the branch of government currently at about 12% approval rating. Since many of them will reflexively go against anything he recommends, maybe he is using reverse psychology and recommending a decrease in compensation when he really wants an increase.
A little trivia for you:
A congressman’s salary is $174,000 per year.
Someone tallied that in 2010 they worked:
Full working days – 137
Travel days – 25
Half days – 29
RECESS DAYS – 90
Keep that in mind when they start debating your compensation.
8:42 am on October 2nd, 2011 119
Well maybe I misunderstood,but the post on this site was suppose to be about the proposal to go after retirement benifits concerning the Milatary.Not a agenda to cut down our pres.and lesbians or what ever.I feel this guy was way out of line.I WILL SAY AGAIN THE MILATARY RETIRERMENT BENIFITS SHOULD NOT BE CUT AT ALL .THAT IS MY OPINION,I KNOW WHAT THE PEOPLE GO THROUGH IN THE MILATARY.They deserve their benefits.IT IS A FREE COUNTRY STILL THAT WE LIVE IN AND I AM ENTITLED TO MY OWN OPINION.AND I WILL SAY HE IS ALSO.
10:50 am on October 2nd, 2011 120
Dearest Cynthia,
I am afraid the fault is mine.
I have foolishly forgotten that, in today’s modern society, imparted information concerning multiple layers of complexities is so frequently condensed, oversimplified, and served in its basest and most polarized form, that many of us no longer realize the need, or even possess the ability, to further parse communications which we encounter and, instead, are hasty to assume there is no deeper meaning nor further layer of nuance to that which we are given; making us too often hasty in our vigorous counter attacks against what we unjustly perceive, upon the surface, to be contrary to our staid sensibilities.
Kindly allow me to clarify my previous thoughts in the most simplistic and humble language so as to no longer give offense to one which I have no desire nor intention to offend.
In response to your statement, “It is so hard for me to believe that Pres.Obama would let such changes take effect,” I responded:
1. It’s easy for me to believe he will shortchange a small number of Americans if it fits his greater needs.
2. He has already authorized weapons to be sold to foreign criminals who have used them to kill Americans protecting America.
3. Obama cares about promoting agendas (which generally are the opposite of what is best for the military.)
4. Obama cares about getting reelected (as he doesn’t want his legacy to be the same (or worse) than Carter’s.)
5. Obama really doesn’t care about military retirees because they make a very, very, very small block of voters.
6. Stinkin’ Hippies and Homosexuals (and perhaps even beekeepers) represent far larger voting blocks than military retirees. They are generally against the military and they have their hands out for a limited amount of funds.
6. So, good luck, Cynthia, in finding it hard to believe Obama won’t sit on a small number of potential military retirees to charm a large number of military-hating liberal/leftist voters.
I do hope I was more clear this time. If you still find offense in my ideas, kindly state why and I will try to explain further.
And do push that CAPS LOCK key until the little light goes off on your keyboard.
11:26 am on October 2nd, 2011 121
Like I said you are entitled to your way of thinking,which don’t get me wrong,I do like to hear what others have to say,even thoe I myself may not agree.Sometimes it does bring more clarity to some things I may not been aware of.We do have to respect each other also.I will still feel the same about my country,I hope this time this post is more direct for you to understand.
11:38 am on October 2nd, 2011 122
Chickinghead,by the way. thank you
11:50 am on October 2nd, 2011 123
Just keep playing nice, CH.
1:40 pm on October 2nd, 2011 124
ChickenHead, please demonstrate that Obama authorized weapons to be sold to foreign criminals who have used them to kill Americans protecting America. I’m not asking you to demonstrate that it happened; I’m asking you to demonstrate that Obama authorized it.
5:11 pm on October 2nd, 2011 125
Glans, look it up yourself. Obama is either clueless or in charge. I can assume that you believe Obama is clueless. Only a Figurehead right? Empty suit right? All hat and no cows, right?
Well we already know he is a post turtle. He didn’t get up there by himself, and he doesn’t belong there. That is a known fact.
So You are likely correct Glans, He doesn’t have a CLUE what is going on up there.
5:23 pm on October 2nd, 2011 126
ChickenHead, you are a kind and gentle man. Much more so than I!
Also, I understood the first time and I know you have kind feeling for the Troops. As do most on this blog. I also know that your feeling for OBAMA, while not as negative as mine, are in the same area.
Then again, I’m not very happy with the current crop of Repubs either. Perhaps The Post Turtle should get 4 more years. If he does I’ll just buy more ammo and MREs.
6:59 pm on October 2nd, 2011 127
That’s Retired GI’s way of saying, “No, Obama didn’t authorize it.>
8:17 pm on October 2nd, 2011 128
Cynthia, Thank You for your support of the troops. Just one minor thing. If you write your representative, senator, or the president the correct spelling of the word is military not milatary. If the retirement system is changed I am afraid that the draft will come back because I don’t see people enlisting, re-enlisting, & putting up with a lot of bs that civilians don’t have to.
10:19 am on October 3rd, 2011 129
Thank you Tom,if I write in I will try to do a spell ck. before I send it.
11:43 am on October 3rd, 2011 130
Glans,
You are correct.
I cannot demonstrate that Obama knew of ATF’s and the Justice Department’s plan to sell weapons to Mexico… while Obama was coincidentally publicly speaking of the evils of all the American weapons in Mexico…
I also cannot demonstrate that Regan knew about Iran-Contra or that Nixon knew of the Watergate break-in or that Clinton had sex with “that girl”.
But, as Retired GI pointed out, Obama is either a very evil man or a very poor leader to surround himself with people who would not find this type of thing to be utterly detestable.
Fast and Furious was seemingly not even designed to do anything other than put American guns into the hands of violent Mexican gangs. There was no plan to somehow track them… unless counting them at crime scenes WAS the plan… which I can somehow believe.
They don’t call ATF, Alcohol, Tobacco, and Funk-ups for nothing.
Anyway, all of this was known about by Attorney General Holder, the head of the Justice Department, and the head of ATF… who watched some of it go down on a live video feed… as well as a number of agents who got “lateral transfers” to more prestigious jobs.
But maybe Obama had no idea…
…or, maybe, the tinfoil hats are right. This WAS what Obama was talking about when he spoke of upcoming gun law reform being done “under the radar”.
Sorry, Glans. ATF has always been a bunch of keystone jerkoffs who look to cause problems rather than engage in meaningful law enforcement. Obama, or those around him, has simply let them out of their cage.
Obama & company are very much against gun ownership and very much against the military… so don’t be surprised to see some equally crappy plan used to sabotage military members and their retirement.
That’s just the kind of guy he is.
But, Glans, thanks for keeping me honest. When you call me out to back up something I have stated, it is always an oh-shyt moment and I am reminded how much of our worldview is based on perception, inference, and deduction, rather than hard facts.
11:47 am on October 3rd, 2011 131
ChickenHead, hold on. First, in #115, you insinuated that Obama himself “arranged” the botched gun sale plan. Now you’re suggesting, in #130, that he merely “knew of” the botched gun sale.
I haven’t seen someone change their story so fast since the Fishers came to visit.
12:24 pm on October 3rd, 2011 132
Kushibo,
Ouch.
But you are right.
I believe my hyperbole has been fully exposed.
And at this rate of accusatory deflation, next I will be saying that Obama actually tried to stop it… but it was an impossibly strong holdover from the Bush administration.
2:34 pm on October 3rd, 2011 133
Well, this has actually been constructive. We are all in agreement that Obama is a clueless Post Turtle, but innocent of any evil by virtue of the fact that the Liberals are simply using his poor dumb a$$. Like all so called minorities, he is but a VICTIM of the evil Democratic Party. It is so very clear now
.
11:02 pm on October 15th, 2011 134
Here’s a little more background on gun-walking.
And someone please show me what Obama has done against gun rights.
11:23 pm on October 15th, 2011 135
He hasn’t done anything in public- yet.
He is backed by the anti-freedom crowd, though.
I would have no problem with guns being banned if we could ban bad guys too, but he and his ilk subsidize them. We have created, sustained, and given momentum to both a permanent underclass, with the added bonus of “crony capitalism”. Both of these groups generate crime, but the former generally creates more localized violent crimes on persons and property, while the latter loots under the veneer of legality.
And being told I can’t have a gun, or my old and frail parents cannot be armed because certain feral individuals who often form feral tribes which inflict brutality and violence on ordinary citizens are armed, is a morally bankrupt concept. How dare he and his ilk lump decent citizens in with savages.
Of course, the Dear Reader is in bed with those who refer to such activity as “gun crimes involving children”.
A pox on them. All of them.
12:42 am on October 16th, 2011 136
That’s Vince’s way of saying, “No, Obama hasn’t done anything against gun rights.”
4:20 am on October 16th, 2011 137
Glans #136, Just when I thought you couldn’t get more simple minded — you do.
Just Google “what has Obama done against gun owners”. Don’t stop at “what has Obama done against the Constitution!
5:05 am on October 16th, 2011 138
Thanks, Retired GI 137, I see what you mean.
5:34 am on October 16th, 2011 139
This should settle Obama’s stand and actions on gun control.
http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/barack_obama_gun_control.htm
I would interpret this as…
Obama is generally against the scary-looking guns.
Obama generally sides with the leftist/liberal point of view.
Obama will say whatever pleases the current audience but he will only do what he can.
Obama can’t do much as he is an ineffective leader surrounded by inexperienced advisers… and he lacks respect and cooperation from even his own party members.
Obama would like to make more restrictive gun laws but his political capital has been squandered and there is no way he can push anything controversial through at this time.
You may argue these interpretations if you wish.
7:05 am on October 16th, 2011 140
So I see that Glans hunts for sources that back up HIS/HER agenda only. Therefore, Glans is not to be trusted.
While ChickenHead looks for the facts rather than his own agenda. Therefore ChickenHead can be trusted.
Like I didn’t already know this.
1:59 pm on October 16th, 2011 141
Retired GI doesn’t trust me, but maybe he’ll trust Wayne La Pierre. Obama has taken no action against gun rights. To La Pierre, that proves that Obama wants to take our guns, but I know Retired GI is smarter. This link has a video clip of the leader of the National Rifle Association admitting that Obama has done nothing against gun rights.
8:53 pm on November 8th, 2011 142
I am truly beginning to like this site,quite interesting!