Is it Obama's yet? Or is it still Bush's?

My perspective: For years, we've had some fundamental flaws in the way we do things as a nation - things intended to provide safety nets that are not sustainable over time. I'm talking about social security, primarily.

I also think that globally, economics are undergoing a monumental shift. Where it used to be all about exchanging goods, it's now also about manufacturing in a much different way. Everything in the world is mobile, thanks to the transportation infrastructure that exists and allows for such massive importation and exportation. Countries used to have to primarily live with the items they could manufacture themselves, within their own borders or obtain from a geographic neighbor. But now more than ever, things are being transported around the globe, and developing nations with low wages have the advantage. This isn't entirely NEW - it's just that when we began to become the nation that tried to primarily deal in information rather than 'stuff', once others didn't need our information so much, we were left with... nothing.

The energy market is a foundational element that is controlled by markets overseas that we don't have much influence over - or at least not enough to bring oil prices down.

I don't think Bush caused any of this. It can be argued that our conflicts overseas have been very pricey and haven't helped our bottom line, but I think this issue is much deeper than simply the cost of a war. And while there are legitimate arguments to be made in retrospect about Iraq, our engagements in Afghanistan, home of the Taliban, hotbed of terrorist camps, and central operations for OBL (UBL?) couldn't have been left alone or we'd have had many more 9-11's by now. It hasn't been pleasant or easy, but they had been messing with right and left, from the USS Cole to the first Trade Center bombing attack and a number of other events... and while our military has definitely paid a price for our freedom and comfort, our civilian population on our soil has remained relatively safe from those threats since 9-11. I don't like the war by any means... but I think we had no choice but to go in there and take care of business, and we're dealing with a population of people that have existed practically since time began, so in light of that, ten years of trying to 'fix' things is really just a blip in time.

Sorry for that side thought...!

I just think that we've got a new world paradigm to adapt to. I don't think Bush caused it. I don't think Obama caused it.

Not being an Obama fan myself, I don't think that he has a clue what to do about this freefall. I don't think he has the life experience and I don't think that global economics was ever his area of expertise. He seems to be more driven by his social convictions and I think he feels like if he can get those things aligned that the economy will fall into place.

Hopefully next year we'll elect someone who has a background better-suited to what we are facing now.

A "perfect storm" was created over the course of several years and because of many situation and issues. No one President or party is responsible.

*sigh* as I've said before, I don't know what will "fix" things, but I do know what we're doing and what we've done in the recent past have not been effective.

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

It's only money. It comes, it goes.
George Soros has enough of it to change the rules of the game ANYWHERE he wants to. Wonder what he has in mind for us now?

ps. Obama doesn't singlehandedly have the skills or authority necessary to "fix" this and that's not a slam on him, it's the way the SYSTEM has evolved over time. Even if he wanted to, too much red tape stands in the way.
So no matter who was sitting in the oval office, we've changed the system in such a way that no one could lead us out of this. Too many chefs in the kitchen spoil the broth.



That's my take,
X

__________________

Then Jesus said, "Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest." Matthew 11:28

I personally feel the blame falls on both parties at this point and truly do fear for the future of our country. I honestly can only hope and pray when the next election comes around,who ever will be the POTUS will do a better job then the last 2 presidents. Only time will tell for sure. Peace. Catherine

I numbered your sections so that my responses would correspond to the right paragraph.

1. The fundamental flaw is our refusal to raise taxes.
Social Security has been working for, I don't know, 70 or 80 years now? We hit a temporary glitch with the baby boomers, but the shortfall is easily fixed. Increase the retirement age, remove the income cap, and slightly increase contributions.

2. My husband said you must be very young, (just realize that he's very old) lol.. After WWII we were the only nation with an intact infrastructure left and we provided products to the whole world. We had to adjust when those countries slowly rebuilt their own infrastructures and no longer needed our products as much. After the war we sold products to Europe and Japan. Later it was China and India. Because of their vast populations, our transitioning from them has been more difficult. Each of these transitions put a strain on our manufacturing, because our goods can not be produced as cheaply as theirs can. Our problems were exacerbated by unions becoming powerful and corrupt, (earlier on), and later by the rise to power of the far right in America and their determination to destroy all aspects of liberalism, with unions near, if not at the top of their hit list.

4. After 9/11 we had a Northern Alliance along with Iran of all countries, to fight the war in Afghanistan. I don't think too many people thought that it was not a good idea to try and do something there. But Bush II wanted to invade Iraq and did whatever was necessary to see that we did. And lord only knows why, because Iraq, in spite of all the drivel espoused by the right, had nothing to do with 9/11. We have spent over 500 billion in Iraq alone. With no tax increases to offset the costs. You can't fight a war without taxes going up. It simply doesn't work.

As a note, Clinton made a small, (1% I think), increase in taxes for the wealthy and the politicians, and talking heads, totally dismissed it as ineffectual. But lo and behold the doubters were wrong and we soon had that pesky surplus that Bush managed to magically make disappear, plus some.

8. I voted for Obama. I'm not at all happy with Obama right at the moment, but I really don't think his problem is lack of experience or convictions. There is no one who has faced the economy that he has, in recent years anyway. And I don't think anyone of the current crop of people running for president would do any better and most would do a lot worse.

Thank you, wildwood, for taking the time to write that. I wanted to respond similarly, but didn't have the energy.

__________________
If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition, and then admit that we just don't want to do it.

- Stephen Colbert.

Wildwood I agree 100 percent with you and your last statement, because I also voted and very much wanted Obama I am still holding faith, that things will turn around, because personally speaking Obama is fighting a very hard and difficult battle. I know I do not have all the answers however I do realize our country is in a huge mess and also fear when we will vacate Iraq, what will happen to us here on American soil.. Peace... Catherine

I think we need to start cuts in social programs. Our society has become way too used to "entitlement" mentality. Let someone else take care of it all....... JMTCW.

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

A proposal I have heard is to cut out retirement benefits for our military people. They will have the opportunity to contribute to a 401K but the retirement promised is to be taken away to save money.

Obviously, I do not agree.

__________________
GO NAVY WRESTLING!!BEAT ARMY!!!
RJB 3/18/60 - 5/22/04
We miss you, sweet brother
God Bless the USA!!!!! Praying for my Youngster son at United States Naval Academy, class of 2014!!

http://mylifeundertheabaya.blogspot.com/

I wouldn't be against a scenario in which incoming military personnel had a different retirement plan in place, but wouldn't in any way be in favor of cutting benefits that have already been promised.

My husband's college roommate was in the service for approximately 20 years and is now retired. Great guy, and I don't begrudge him his retirement at all. But it does seem like something we couldn't really support on a wide scale. He was 45 at the time of retirement, and he stayed in a couple of extra years because of some additional retirement he would receive. He went in soon after getting his bachelors degree.

As are most military men, he is fit as a fiddle. His dad died last year at the age of 90. If our friend follows in his dad's footsteps, he'll have worked about 20ish years (22, maybe?) and have gotten extremely good retirement benefits for 45 years. He and his wife waited until later in life to have kids, so now they have young-ish children at home and are homeschooling them together.

It's not at all that I don't think our military men and women deserve whatever we can afford to provide them in terms of compensation for what they do for us. I just know that there isn't enough money to support hundreds of thousands of people for twice as many years as they actually 'worked'.

Other nations that have had socialized medicine and social security-like retirement programs are also on the brink of financial ruin right now. Their high taxes and social programs have not helped them like we are often told by the liberal talking heads.

allinaugust -you took the words right out of my mouth!!

__________________

I think we need to start cuts in corporate welfare programs first.

__________________
If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition, and then admit that we just don't want to do it.

- Stephen Colbert.

Will Obama make his buddies at GE first on the list?

Speaking of corporate welfare.

This is copied, in part, from the link for the whole article. Corporations were once rather restricted and I think our forefathers were right on the money with their restrictions. Maybe we need to rethink all the latitude that has been given to corporations in the last 80 to 100 years. The ruling of the current supreme court allowing corps to give unfettered money to political campaigns, in my mind, is one of the worst rulings that has ever come down from the high court.

History of Corporations (United States)

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end.

The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these:

* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.

* Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.

* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.

* Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.

* Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight control of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

Fine with me.

__________________
If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition, and then admit that we just don't want to do it.

- Stephen Colbert.

Hear, hear!

__________________
If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition, and then admit that we just don't want to do it.

- Stephen Colbert.

I agree with this in terms of military retirement benefits. My husband works in the airline industry with a lot of retired military. His previous boss retired from the military after 20 or so years (I'm not sure of the specific number, but he was still in his early-mid 40s) and joined a commercial airline company. He gets a large military retirement check monthly as well as bringing in a paycheck from the airline. I don't see how we can continue to pay for this type of benefit... It just doesn't make sense financially.

__________________
Kim

Yes, I know one such pilot, myself, and have a relative who is now an Air Force pilot and plans to do the same thing. He went to the Air Force Academy and will be able to count those four years as years of service, I believe... which would mean that after sixteen years in the service - in his late 30's - he could retire comfortably. He plans to retire and then get an airline job and end up with two solid retirement checks.

I can't blame him at all - it's a sweet deal and absolutely legal and legit! I just don't know that as a nation, we can foot the bill for too many individuals doing that.

And I believe that when my sons decided to serve their country over the course of the next twenty years or so, they will have earned what was promised to them when they signed up and took the oath to defend the USA.... they would have a retirement if they gave twenty years or so along with the promised health care. It is fine and dandy for them to be deployed to war every year for the next however long because they promised they would do so and all I know is that they should get what was promised to them. What I see happening is there will no longer be career military personel. The senior leadership will not want to stay if they can get out and find a job that does offer benefits that extend after retirement. JMHO.

As a side note, the four years at a service academy does not count towards retirement. Going to a service academy prep school for a year counts as one year towards retirement but the four years of college does not count.

__________________
GO NAVY WRESTLING!!BEAT ARMY!!!
RJB 3/18/60 - 5/22/04
We miss you, sweet brother
God Bless the USA!!!!! Praying for my Youngster son at United States Naval Academy, class of 2014!!

http://mylifeundertheabaya.blogspot.com/

usnamom, you summed up my thoughts on the subject and in a more diplomatic way! Personally, I am tired of seeing the very ones that are willing to defend this country no matter what get treated worse and worse by our government.

I read the words comfortably and sweet deal among the comments above and have to wonder if those that made them truly understand what our military goes through on a daily basis??

I do not consider ss a tax, nor is it taxpayer supported except by those who work. I consider it - as you said contributions - something people have earned the right to, although many receive it and should not(not talking dependents here either!)

What is from taxpayers and should be an easy item to cut is foreign aid. No scaring the military, old, infirm, incompetent in the country like just happened recently and has in the past. That is small potatoes vs. foreign aid. No formulas, no surveys, no reductions: JUST DO IT. That irritates me a lot.

dl

ita. Military benefits HAVE been cut over the years, so it has not been spared by any means. Military health care has not just taken a back seat to what was promised, it was tied onto the back bumper like tin cans with a fragile string. Vets have been denied due health care for years.

The only way our armed forces will continue to have numbers enlist is with decent benefits. That's the retention situation too. Now I will say I think with unemployment, (sorry no statistics) perhaps more will enlist, but the requirements are much more strict. Many won't be accepted.

You get what you pay for.

dl

Foreign aid is a little over one percent of the budget according to the center for global development:

Foreign Assistance & the U.S. Budget : Center for Global Development : Initiatives: Active: U.S. Assistance

I agree with this statement I found too:

If we cut back on the piddling amount of the budget we now devote to foreign aid, we are simply deciding to not have a voice in many parts of the world where what happens directly affects our security and well-being.

__________________
If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition, and then admit that we just don't want to do it.

- Stephen Colbert.

I think at this time, with the economy the way it is, the military have jobs. So just for that reason it might attract enlistments. If the economy improves and salaries and bennies are cut, then it's a different story. And that brings up another problem. If the troops are brought back from our misguided wars, many of them will not be needed any longer, advancement will falter for many and grades and salaries will suffer as a result, or they will be let out into a world where the jobs are few and far between and faced with employers who don't want to hire them for a variety of reasons, the primary being that they are subject to recall for, what, about 4 more years? People profess their patriotism, but that evidently goes out the window when you are faced with hiring someone who can't be recalled and someone who can.

Many troops have a place/job at their previous base or another base. Many locations are working undermanned and dealing with it. Those not "in" the war have more responsibilities.

I agree about people running their mouth about patiotism but not following throuhg. I will tell you as an employer, and watching my husband job search after his military retirement, that RETIRED military are sought after. It's hard to shuffle through 20 years without being responsible, dedicated, having skills and being able to offer a civlian employer another 20+ years of reliability.

Another thought I have is that I bet very few on unemployment apply to the military ! I just read they "have to" now (JUST NOW) apply to 5 employers weekly. That could be done in what - a few hours or so out of an entire week?

dl

If someone works for 20 years at Boeing and retires and goes to work at Lockheed for another 20 shouldn't they be able to recieve benefits for retirement on both? What makes the military different?

My son has walked door to door with a weapon in his hand looking for insurgents, he has seen friends blown up, lost classmates to the war on "terror", been on deployments, not showered for months, not had a warm meal for days on end, not recieved mail for months, been cold, wet, hot, tired, shell shocked, and responsible for the lives of other marines during the most trying of times. He is a Marine and he knew when he took that oath what he would have to do. His younger brother is at the naval academy as we speak waiting to do the same thing. They both understood what their jobs were going to be when they signed on the dotted line. They only want what has been promised to them. They are willing to give up their lives and should have the best health care, the best retirement system we can offer as a country. We are always saying that "We support the troops" but does that mean "We support the troops as long as we don't have to pay for it"? It sounds like it. It is a sweet deal that someone is a pilot and went to the AFA and now draws a check from the Air Force and one from his airline. He earned it. And he earned it by putting his life on the line every day whether he has ever flown into battle or stayed in Kansas somewhere on a base, they are trained to be at war with a moments notice.

The bottom line is that these young men and women are putting themselves where others won't. Shouldn't they be compensated for it and compensated well? Once they sign up, they can't just say they don't want to do it any more.....it would be breaking a contract. Shouldn't the things they were promised by our government also be a part of that contract and shouldn't it be given without reservation and with gratefulness? I think so. If Congress thinks otherwise, perhaps they should strap on a weapon and do what my sons do and then I think they might change their minds on a lot of things.....I notice that there isn't any talk of reducing Congress' pay or their benefits. It has always made me angry that the people who vote to send troops to war and how much to pay those that volunteer to serve in that capacity do not take some of the financial burden upon themselves and the first thing they want to cut is the salaries and benefits of those people they claim to "support".

Is that the new definition of "patriotism"?

I am biased obviously. I am an Air Force "brat" and I have had three sons appointed to the Naval Academy. This is a subject near and dear to my heart. I do not understand someone who says that those in the military should not be able to have a retirement package after they have worked for so many years after being told that if they work for 20 years they would have it for life. I do not get it. I wouldn't work for a company that told me that I had retirement and after I worked there for 10 years tell me that I no longer would recieve the promised retirement.

__________________
GO NAVY WRESTLING!!BEAT ARMY!!!
RJB 3/18/60 - 5/22/04
We miss you, sweet brother
God Bless the USA!!!!! Praying for my Youngster son at United States Naval Academy, class of 2014!!

http://mylifeundertheabaya.blogspot.com/

Usnamom as always I totally agree with 100 percent on everything you have written. I also personally feel that our men and women of this great country America, who go out and put their lives on the line to keep our country safe, should be taken care of, from the best of our ability for all they have sacrificed for us.. Peace and God Bless our troops and keep them safe, till they return home safely to their loved ones......Catherine

Hmmmm... I think the difference for me is who pays for it. I know I'm probably going to get blasted here, but there seems to be a difference in someone who works for a private, for-profit organization and someone who earns military retirement after 20 years (and please forgive me because I'm not familiar with organizations outside the military that OFFER retirement with a $3000 per month paycheck and health benefits) based on who pays for it. I'm all for supporting the military, but I know that I have worked since I was 15 (and am soon to be 40) and have never worked for an organization that would offer full retirement after 20 years. I feel lucky to have a 401K offering and a 3% match by my employer. Maybe I am naive (and certainly would fully admit to being less than completely educated on this subject!), but are there a high percentage of companies who offer full retirement after 20 years? I believe in and support the military: my dad served; my uncles served, my grandpas served (and one was injured 3 times in WWII and never took ANY military benefits after he got out), my nephew serves, my son plans to serve... I believe in and support the military, but I don't understand how.. financially... our country can support such a large number of folks with large military retirement packages after 20 (or so) years. I would be all for it if it were closer to 40 (which is closer to what other employers offer), but 20 seems problematic at this stage of our economic situation.

I am not trying to stir the pot and am completely open to education - just sharing my opinion.

Kim

__________________
Kim

Full retirement after 20 years EQUALS 50% of their base pay amount per month at the time that they retired!! And yes, retirees receive medical BUT the care that they receive is not the greatest at times.

Such a large amount of the population? You do realize that ONLY 1% of the population is serving in the military at this time.

I agree 110% with everything that usnamom posted earlier! I will state what I have stated in the past that ANY country is only as STRONG as their military!

Kim, (hoping you won't take this wrong, but it is dear to my heart obviously)

As to who pays for it.......my sons and their fellow soldiers and sailors pay for it. Every day that they put on a uniform and swear to defend your rights. They pay every minute of every day knowing that because of their job, they could be asked to make the ultimate sacrifice (their lives) and for that privilege they pay for what was promised to them.....stay as our armed forces for 20, 30, 40 years and you will have health care and a retirement until death. The company my husband has worked for during the last 33 years has never asked him to die for the company. They have told him that if he would have retired at 20 years, he would get retirement at 62, if he retires at 25, the same thing and if he retires at 30 years he can get his retirement right away. There are companies who do have retirement packages. He knew this when he accepted this position years ago. If they changed the rules today and he wouldn't have retirement, it would make him extremely angry and would probably stop quality people from applying at this company as well as be a deterrent for people to be loyal to the company and would keep the company from having employees with company experience employed. (wow, I hope this makes sense because I can't think of any other way to present what I am trying to say.)

I am not against having companies not give retirement to employees, but if they tell them they will, they shouldn't retract it later in the game.

But, if anyone in America, on the USAs payroll, deserves to be taken care of in retirement, in pay and healthcare, it should be the military......not Congress, not the president but those people who are putting themselves in harms way. The men and women who do so knowing that the pay off for doing so for 20+ years is the retirement and healthcare they were promised. It is a part of supporting the troops, in my eyes.

This is just my opinion, of course and YMMV.

__________________
GO NAVY WRESTLING!!BEAT ARMY!!!
RJB 3/18/60 - 5/22/04
We miss you, sweet brother
God Bless the USA!!!!! Praying for my Youngster son at United States Naval Academy, class of 2014!!

http://mylifeundertheabaya.blogspot.com/

After 20 years of active duty, a military member can draw 50% of their base pay (there are a few different formulas used for this). It goes up by 2.5% for each year after 20. Very few are actually receiving $3,000 per month (or more)

Pay Grade Years of Service Over 18 Over 20 Over 22 Over 24 Over 26 E-9 5185 5436 5649 5874 6215 E-8 4568 4692 4902 5018 5305 E-7 4143 4189 4343 4426 4740 E-6 3533 3533 3533 3533 3533
E-6 at 20 is forced to retire if they do not make rank to E-7. E-7 is forced out at 24, E-8 at 26....etc. etc. The only person getting $3,000 /mo. would be the E-9 over 26 years. None of the "allowances" pay is given in retirement (housing allowance, COLA, seperation pay, flight pay, dive pay, hazardous duty pay....the list goes on)

Officers with prior Enlisted service:

Commissioned Officer With Over 4 Years of Active Service as an Enlisted Member or Warrant Officer See Note 2 Over 8 Over 10 Over 12 Over 14 Over 16 O-3E 5449 5618 5895 6128 6263 O-2E 4580 4819 5003 5140 5140 O-1E 3878 4020 4159 4349 4349 Warrant Officers Over 8 Over 10 Over 12 Over 14 Over 16 W-5 -- -- -- -- -- W-4 4761 4961 5264 5530 5782 W-3 4313 4635 4786 4961 5142 W-2 4059 4214 4366 4552 4698 W-1 3746 3881 4070 4257 4403
Again, 50% of the base pay listed, not many would get $3,000 per month.


Higher ranking officers, more of them would hit the $3,000 /mo. mark.

Years of Service Over 18 Over 20 Over 22 Over 24 Over 26 O-10
See Note 1 15401 15476 15797 16358 O-9 13470 13664 13944 14433 O-8 12291 12762 13078 13078 13078 O-7 11541 11541 11541 11541 11599 O-6 8797 9223 9466 9711 10188 O-5 7856 8070 8313 8313 8313 O-4 7049 7049 7049 7049 7049 O-3 6039 6039 6039 6039 6039 O-2 4438 4438 4438 4438 4438 O-1 3503 3503 3503 3503 3503

Commissioned Officer With Over 4 Years of Active Service as an Enlisted Member or Warrant Officer See Note 2 Over 18 Over 20 Over 22 Over 24 Over 26 O-3E 6445 6445 6445 6445 6445 O-2E 5140 5140 5140 5140 5140 O-1E 4349 4349 4349 4349 4349 Warrant Officers Over 18 Over 20 Over 22 Over 24 Over 26 W-5 -- 6821 7167 7424 7710 W-4 5988 6189 6486 6728 7006 W-3 5466 5684 5816 5956 6145 W-2 4830 4988 5091 5174 5174 W-1 4538 4701 4701 4701 4701

For a bit of reference General Petraeus is an O-10 over 26 years.

Does anyone have stats on what is paid for retired military pay, in regards to our overall budget?

Also, as far as medical, retired military does pay a portion for their medical care, it is not 100% free.

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

sorry, the charts did not copy/paste as they were on the page. Here is a link to better see it.


2011 Military Pay Chart

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

AMEN!

I have a very dear friend who joined USMC @ 17. Started out as reservist. And then got called up in the 1st Gulf War. He then went full active duty. Obtained his college degree WHILE working full-time as a Marine. He served 18 mo. in Iraq for this war.
He has attained the rank of Captain, and will most likely retire in a couple of years at the ripe old age of 42-43.
I gladly will pay his retirement and healthcare! He put himself in harm's way for me (and every other US civilian citizen)!

My uncle served 2 tours in Vietnam, and like so many Vietnam Vets was never quiet right once he got back--I gladly pay for his healthcare and what benefits he receives. He did a job that many (including the leaders of our country) wouldn't do!

The list goes on.
Without our voluntary military, we might not be able to b*tch about the things we do. Without our voluntary military some of us might not have had the option to remain out of the military. Without our voluntary military some of us would see our sons (and maybe daughters) be forced in to military service....

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

Still looking for the stats on the retired military pay BUT I did find a site that might be of interest while I was looking around:

Budget of the United States Government: Browse Fiscal Year 2012

Someone asked WHO pays for the retirement and this is just an example of the type of people that pay for it:

Cares for Wounded, Ill, and Injured Servicemembers.
The Administration sustains ongoing
efforts to provide high-quality medical care
to the over 9.6 million servicemembers, retirees,
and their families. This includes support for
wounded warrior transition units and centers
of excellence in vision, hearing, traumatic brain
injury (TBI), and other areas to continuously
improve the care provided to wounded, ill, and
injured servicemembers.

I am guessing that they have forgotten about the ones that have paid the ULTIMATE price as well as the ones that are living daily with the injuries that they sustained in the military.

I absolutely agree that they should get what they have been promised, and that we should offer them the best we can afford to give them.

There are far fewer congressmen / women, so their high bennies pale in comparison, total-wise, to what the military are compensated. But still, even though congress is a drop in the bucket compared to the military, if one or the other was going to have to be cut, I'd put congress first on the list to lose their bennies.

I can't remember how much it is that Anthony Weiner might end up with, but for crying out loud... that man deserves nothing.

I do very much understand the point about 20 years. It really does floor me that my cousin can 'retire' at 38. I'm amazed at the things he does - truly amazed and appreciative - but from a purely numbers standpoint, we couldn't support lots of people for the 60ish years we'll be continuing to pay him for his 20 years of service.

Our biggest expense is social security right now. One of my parents died at 57 after spending a lifetime contributing, and not only did he not collect a penny, but none of his 'contribution' was there for us to inherit. The government takes it, controls it, and decides whether to distribute it. To me, that's a tax, not a contribution.

Article about Weiner and possible pension:

Weiner's Congressional Pension Could Take Sting Out of Resignation - FoxNews.com

And here is information about the retirement benefits for members of Congress:

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs...22%40%20%20%0A



Moving on to what you said about your cousin retiring at age 38: What type of physical health is your cousin in right now? I know people in the military in that age group that are pretty much "broken" due to the stresses and strains of the last 10+ years.

I suspect he will be in awesome health, barring any injuries - something we obviously pray doesn't happen.

He went to the Air Force Academy and is following in the footsteps of previous Air Force relatives who were AF for 20 years, and then went to work for commercial airlines. The relatives who have already taken that path are now in their 50's and when I've been around them, they seem to be the picture of health - more than most men their age do. They've remained trim and fit. They're very focused and driven, which I am sure is just part and parcel of what made them good candidates to be AF pilots.

My relative has awhile to go before retirement, but he absolutely loves what he does. He wanted to be in the AF and fly when he was very young, and his ability to set and pursue goals is so very admirable.

My father-in-law served for a very brief time (maybe even just a year or two - the war (WWII) ended shortly after he went in, and he only spent a few months stationed at a US-based military prison as a guard). He's got full VA benefits, which are a real blessing to him, but it's interesting to me that his very short stint in the service with no combat experience was enough to qualify for... well, he's pushing 90, so lots of years of covered health benefits.

As aia posted, $3000 is NOT standard by any means. There are specific formulas and many get far less, closer to $1000, $1500 range. The military also has touted the retirement as a benefit for reduced pay while on active duty.

Ask me what happens when the military person dies? The retirement is done, over with UNLESS the spouse elected to pay for survivor benefits (of which the 3 plans offered me were not of value over an insurance policy anyone could get). So not all military retirees collect for years and years. Some die at much younger ages.

Health care is not a given, it is (in part) paid for out of pocket. That was not supposed to be.

I don't fully know of other jobs retiring at 20 except firefighters and policemen. SEE A PATTERN??? Put your life on the line daily, sustain injuries and maybe, just maybe that's why it's 20 years.

In our district, teachers can retire at 25 with a very good pension, I have several friends who have done this. That places teachers roughly at age 50 or less.

And while military pay is considered federal, they are not federal employees. They do not enjoy all of the holidays off, and extra benefits civilians and congress do.

We are retired military. It obviously, as with usnamom, hits close to my heart. I've lived the life as a spouse. Our family has lived without my husband, not known where he was at times, nor if he was ok, or even alive. Several times the announced date of return was not to be, and yet again, we waited.

dl

We've been trying to buy other countries' affections for years and it's not been overly positive.

It is time to cut expenses, even if it is a sacred cow.

dl

Whether you agree or disagree about its effectiveness -- it's less than 1.5%. Cutting that is like saying you're going on a diet by not having Thanksgiving dinner this year.

Meant to add - it garners a lot more affection, and costs a lot less than an unnecessary war.

__________________
If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition, and then admit that we just don't want to do it.

- Stephen Colbert.

I stand corrected. Apparently, my DH's previous boss is an anomaly as he does bring in about $3,000 monthly in military retirement. He shared that with me himself as I was admiring his HUMONGOUS, beautiful house. I appreciate all of the responses and learned from them. Thank you!

__________________
Kim

My father is a retired Air Force Colonel. He retired after 30 years if I remember correctly and between his retirement from the Air Force and his retirement from Lockheed and his social security he makes well into six figures a year. I know he has earned it. He flew missions in Southeast Asia for a year, he was gone for six months at a time in Europe away from his family. He spent years being on alert on base, spent time at various schools, endured countless moves and tons of responsiblity. He was on a plane that was on fire and helped it to land safely with the crew in Thailand. He has two masters degrees. Upon retirement, he went to work for Lockheed where he worked in a top secret project of some kind that took him traveling all over the world away from my mother and sisters for over ten years before he retired. He has earned his retirement. Every dime of it.

__________________
GO NAVY WRESTLING!!BEAT ARMY!!!
RJB 3/18/60 - 5/22/04
We miss you, sweet brother
God Bless the USA!!!!! Praying for my Youngster son at United States Naval Academy, class of 2014!!

http://mylifeundertheabaya.blogspot.com/

If we want to find some more governmental income, then maybe we should start taxing church property, church businesses, and church income. Churches own vast properties in many parts of the country and communities can not tax. If the properties were not in church hands they could become income producing for the community at large. We could also legalize prostitution and make them pay taxes, which they do not do now. We could legalize drugs and then tax the businesses that sell them. We don't need to screw the military, the elderly and the poor. This is not to say that we don't need to cut some programs, (I vote for doing away with earmarks as a start), maybe an across the board 5 to 10% salary cut, including congress and all their minions.

Especially tax those churches that are busy telling their people who and what to vote for......and I am looking at you, Catholic, Mormon churches as well as many of the conservative Christian churches.....who want to keep marriage "between a woman and a man" and those who want to take away the rights of a woman to decide what to do with her body. These are the churches who need to pay some taxes....

__________________
GO NAVY WRESTLING!!BEAT ARMY!!!
RJB 3/18/60 - 5/22/04
We miss you, sweet brother
God Bless the USA!!!!! Praying for my Youngster son at United States Naval Academy, class of 2014!!

http://mylifeundertheabaya.blogspot.com/

Excellent ideas. Why don't you run for office, wildwood?!

__________________
If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition, and then admit that we just don't want to do it.

- Stephen Colbert.

Not to mention what they are exposed to, even in the "cooshiest" of jobs (asbestos on ships, buildings, etc, hearing loss due to extended time around high noise air craft....the list goes on)

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

Don't happen to know his rank at retirement do you? Just curious.

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

Crazy Not-that-well-thought-out Idea of the Day:

What if we took all that "Let's Be Friends!" money we send to other nations for reasons that sound lame, and invested it in Mexico instead?

How many Mexicans could we hire at some US-owned places at wages that would be competitive enough to somehow have an impact on the immigration problem?

I'm not talking manufacturing - I'm talking services and the sale of goods.

I know we're not in the business of creating foreign businesses, but if we really did have $1.5B to give to Pakistan and Cairo and $3B to Tel Aviv, what if we had figured out some way to funnel those BILLIONS (with a B and not an M!) to our neighbors to the south as some seed money with strings in a way that might help their economy turn the corner, and lessen our border problems?

I have no vision for how that would look. I just know that the border states are in a world of hurt, due in large part to the services they provide (education, health care, etc.) to illegal aliens who are not on the books as contributing taxpayers. If the Mexicans had a better life in Mexico, they wouldn't find their way here.

Disclaimer: I have nothing against Mexicans. I just know it is a reality that their own nation is not a place they want to stay, but that we're not in a position for things to keep going the way they are going in terms of illegal immigration.

Four years in college does not count towards military service. My son got a four year ROTC scholarship for nursing school. He had to give four years active duty and several years (4 or 6) in inactive reserves.

That's not a totally bad idea. My only problem with it is the corruption there. There has to be a way to funnel the money, without graft, into the right hands. And then there's the safety issues. Which brings us back to legalizing drugs. The violence in Mexico, in great part, is drug related. If we legalize drugs, the violence might not stop, but it sure would put a kink in it while they tried to find other countries to ship their "stuff" to.

There have been lots of good stories coming out of micro-loans done in parts of Africa and elsewhere. Perhaps that would be a small but good place to start. Then move into bigger things, like small manufacturing companies that would produce and sell items needed locally at first. I would love to see Mexico become a viable, responsible neighbor nation. In fact I can see a long term goal of us providing the same service to any country in our hemisphere, one at a time, until we stabilize our own part of the world and make it a force to be reckoned with. Then, probably long after I'm gone, maybe take on other parts of the world, again, one country at a time. I think also, that any country that has been helped has to pay it forward, by helping us, help others.

The thing is, as far as I know, none of those other nations actually DO anything for us.

They SELL us their oil. We're happy to let THEM have the wells on their soil, buy their commodity, AND give them "Friend Cash" (under the guise of some other issue) that we don't have, and they STILL (via OPEC) jack the prices of their commodity up so high we can't see straight.

What have they done for us lately, I ask?

I'm sure there may be some bigger 'global stabilization' issues I don't know about that are addressed by that money in terms of allies and enemies, and perhaps it's more important than I understand.

I just don't see that we're getting a whole heck of a lot for our money.

I'd much rather see us beef up our own oil access to domestic sources of crude (we learn about more and more available in our hemisphere all the time), and help develop our neighbors to the south (and even in the Caribbean - there is so much that's unfortunate about life in Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Jamaica, etc.) PROVIDED that we have the cash to do so.

Right now we really DON'T have the cash to do so. We just... don't.

An added note, my son finished his degree in the Navy. He was in California and had at least three years of college credits going in. They paid for his final classes, mostly done on base, some at the local community college. Not sure if they paid for the community college class. We live in St. Louis, he was in California, and the degree in aviation management came from SIU Carbondale just across the river in Illinois. I thought that was serendipity that the degree would be finished in CA and come from someplace so close to home. I talked him into going to graduation and it was the first, and only, time any of us, him included, had been on the campus itself.

I think part of the policy is keep your friends close and keep your enemies closer. I think we need to keep our own oil right where it is for now. I think we need to run the middle east dry, (it's a form of warfare actually), (and it's has started to happen according to many estimates), and then run any other counties that seem to be a threat dry as well. They who have the oil, rule the world, sort of. So we use up everyone else's oil and then we tap ours. Didn't you ever hide your Halloween candy and then dole it out for bribes for your siblings in November and December? Same idea, only on a much bigger scale. Keep whats ours and use whats theirs. If the globe gets to a point where there is almost no more oil, the ones with power will be the ones who have some.

But I don't think that can happen fast enough - running theirs dry, I mean.

I don't think we can afford to not at the very least develop the infrastructure necessary to deal with our own sources. The Alaska Pipeline was certainly not built in a day.

There is so much hubbub about going green and we invest gazillions of dollars with companies like GE, and seemingly get nothing out of those dollars. GE just lives high on the hog for 'developing' technologies that don't seem to make a dent in the issues they were supposed to rectify. I'm not on the greenie bandwagon myself, but could perhaps be persuaded if I saw some revolutionary change from anything they did. And I'm also very pro-corporation, because I know they provide jobs that are associated with real work and not just more government 'projects' that are terminal. However... if the government is going to be in the business of subsidizing anything, I think it would be nice if it was something that had the potential to help the pocketbooks of regular people in a real and appreciable way.

The best example I can think of is Compressed Natural Gas (CNG). It's pricey to convert a vehicle to CNG, but when you've just paid nearly $4 / gallon for unleaded gasoline, and see the pump next door for CNG with it's $1.39 / gallon sign... that's worth some checking into.

I think I would be surprised if any large corporation develops anything too useful. It's going to take small companies who are willing to take a chance on something. BigCorps don't have that luxury. Their only motivation is the bottom line. If they do come up with something, it's more than likely they bought it or stole it from a small company.

As for the oil infrastructure, if we build it they will drill. We are exporting oil. If we need to drill at home so much, why are we exporting? Keep it here instead. I understand some of the exporting, (to Canada for instance, we ship oil back and forth between the two countries to avoid long shipping or pipeline movement), but the why the Netherlands?

Another thought that came to me is that most of this "green" stuff is being dismissed as nonsense by the right, and since most corporate heads are Republicans, they have no incentive to speed things along since they don't want to believe it's needed and the powers that be, have convinced a large portion of the population that it's nonsense and just a liberal brain fart. If you want to kill a good idea, just label it liberal. Say it often enough and people believe it.