The New York Times’ James Dao and Mary Williams Walsh eat a big steaming bag of dicks
Yeah, if you want to piss me off early in the morning, all you have to do is compare military retirement to social welfare programs like James Dao and Mary Williams Walsh did in the New York Times this morning;
As Washington looks to squeeze savings from once-sacrosanct entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, another big social welfare system is growing as rapidly, but with far less scrutiny: the health and pension benefits of military retirees.
Yeah, I understand that many of the recipients of Social Security and Medicare paid tens of thousands of dollars each into those programs, but, then they’re not “social welfare programs” in the traditional sense of the word. And military retirement isn’t either. There are scads of Social Security and medicare recipients who haven’t paid in a penny into the system. You fucknuts need to find something else to compare to military retirement benefits.
Is the retirement that autoworkers or teamsters get from their respective unions social welfare programs? Then neither are retirement benefits from the military.
But the idiots on whom they’re reporting are just as stupid;
Advocates of revamping the systems argue that they are not just fiscally untenable but also unfair.
[…]
Those critics also argue that under the current rules, 83 percent of former service members receive no pension payments at all — because only veterans with 20 years of service are eligible. Those with 5 or even 15 years are not, even if they did multiple combat tours. Such a structure would be illegal in the private sector, and a company that tried it could be penalized, experts say.
“It cries out for some rationalization,” said Sylvester J. Schieber, a former chairman of the Social Security Advisory Board. “Why should we ask somebody to sustain a system that’s unfair by any other measure in our society?”
Unfair? Unfair for whom? You idiots who didn’t retire from the military at 20 years? What’s unfair is making a promise with no intention of keeping up your end after the intended recipient has contributed his part.
And, oh, by the way there are scads of us who didn’t finish twenty years and are still retired, so don’t toss out that unfair canard without doing a little research first.
A wild-card factor in the debate is the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, which some experts say could avoid the stigma of cutting benefits while troops are at war.
“The fact that you are getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan does make it easier,” said Lawrence J. Korb, a senior Pentagon official in the Reagan administration who was a co-author of a recent proposal for reducing the cost of military health care. “When the war in Iraq was in terrible shape, it was hard to get people to join the military, and no one wanted to touch any military benefits.”
Oh, yeah, that way the nimrods won’t look like they hate the troops engaged in combat. I’ve got news for you…there’s going to be another war, you’re going to need the troops again, so no matter what you do between wars to stigmatize service will still rub off on your creamy smooth pale skin.
And now insult me by comparing me to state and municipal employees;
Last year, for every dollar the Pentagon paid service members, it spent an additional $1.36 for its military retirees, a much smaller group. Even in the troubled world of state and municipal pension funds, pensions almost never cost more than payrolls.
“Almost never?” That means that there instances of pensions costing more than payroll, so why say it? And, by the way, state and municipal employees go home every night to their families and never spend a night away from home without recompense. They don’t sleep on the ground for months, pick ticks out of the crack of their asses, sit on scorpions, fight off herds of monkeys in the dark and any number of other things that are almost a daily inconvenience to the troops…things that would have state and municipal employees running screaming for their union rep.
If you want people who will put up with the shit that soldiers put up with, there’s a price you have to pay for that type of person. Calling that price “unfair” after the fact is petty and small and proves that with all of your vast experience, you know nothing about that which you are speaking.
“At some point, the cost pressures by the retirement benefits will really start to impede military capabilities.”
Not like having a hollow force will.
Category: Military issues, Veteran Health Care, Veterans Issues
Absolutely fucking pathetic!
This article really pissed me the hell off this morning. I wake up this morning to find out that I’ve been on a “social welfare system” for the last two years. And here I’ve been thinking that my 26 years of service earned that small pension. FUCK ALL OF THESE MOTHERFUCKERS!!! While these assholes were getting high and partying in college, I was living out in the mud like an animal. If the military is so easy and the retirement is so great then why didn’t they raise their hand like I did? I’ll say it again. Fuck em all.
I’m serious. I’m really pissed off. If I could get my hands on this fucker he would need a type of social welfare….Disability.
It’s the same argument as before. People pontificating on military retirement in the press, cannot grasp the contractual and compensatory aspects of the benefit.
Someone at the NY Times is in desperate need of a throat-punch.
Oh, and someone should remind these ass-clowns that a large (the vast majority) of pension costs are related to older (read: WWII, Korea, Vietnam) veterans who have reached retirement age. As they age, their medical needs increase. However, in about 20 years, when virtually all of the WWII/Korea vets and a majority of the Vietnam vets have passed away and all we’re left with are retirees and the much smaller number of DS/OIF/Afghan vets, costs are going to be much more in line.
Next, I don’t see military veterans padding their retirements by selling back shitloads of accrued leave and sick pay to shove it in the asses of state and local taxpayers. We’ve got cops who never made more than $125K/year who are now pulling down MORE than that for the rest of their lives starting at age 50, to say nothing of the medical bennies they get.
Frankly, the whole attempt at drawing comparisons between military and civilian retirements is an exercise for the intellectually lazy and those who haven’t experienced day one in a military environment, let alone “retired” from one.
We need somebody to really detonate on the floor of the House or Senate if this ever comes up for a vote. Its not good enough to pontificate about how bullshit this is, whoever gets up to defend our benefits needs explain with some real passion on how horsehit this is and how the Dems and any Repub who votes for this is a goddam traitor. I expect that we’ll get none of that. The AUSA and a number of other groups have come out against this but its not enough. Oh and if any other admin ever tried this crap, everybody would be going nuts..but Obama tries it and it barely a blip.
Yeah, Sparky, you don’t hear anything about the police/fire pensions and how much their retirement costs the taxpayers. I’m not saying they don’t deserve it, but to single out Vets is always the first thing they want to go after. I’ve heard the arguement that their union negotiated all that for them. Ok; should the military be unionized? Let’s see how that goes over. Someone pointed out to me, last week, that “military service is voluntary, so if you don’t like the deal; don’t join”. Well, I don’t recall there being a draft for police/fire/teachers, either, and teachers aren’t in the face of danger as part of the job description.
“Obama tries it and it barely a blip.”
HH6; maybe this is why: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/182209-cbc-chairman-if-obama-wasnt-in-office-we-would-be-marching-on-white-house
There were folks in New Jersey making near a million dollars in overtime and holiday buy back….The Dutch military has a union.
One difference, though, when it comes to these budget cuts decisions: the federal government pays for the military. Local governments pay for police/firefighters/teachers. The police/firefighter/teacher retirement burdens aren’t even part of the federal budget equation, so that’s at least part of the reason we’re not hering that as an option. Still doesn’t make it right to change the terms of a contract after the fact for existing military retirees and those currently serving…
Well, if they want to address the unfairness of the 5 or 15 year veteran not pulling a pension, there is a simple way to do it: At what would have been their twenty year mark, pay them a pension, pro-rated for however many year they served, e.g. the 15 year veteran would get 75% of 50% of his or her high three years basic pay.
Or, if they want to pinch pennies, they could do it at the age career reservists start getting a pension under their P.O.S. plan.
I mean, if they are really trying to be fair and all, rather than just finding a convenient excuse to cut some more money from defense.
Panetta says “Everything is on the table.” Well, not exactly there, sir.
Is the program that allows a Congressman to get a full pension after 5 years in Congress on the table?
“The police/firefighter/teacher retirement burdens aren’t even part of the federal budget equation, so that’s at least part of the reason we’re not hearing that as an option”
Where do you think the 800 billion dollars of stimulus money went? That’s right, it went to state and local governments so they could avoid pay and payroll cuts. So, they are indeed part of the equation, and a part an order of magnitude larger than the modest amount we spend on military retirees.
I have yet to see the NYT get anything right, particularly about the military. No one I know bases their opinion on what the NYT says. And I also don’t know anyone who thinks military benefits are a “welfare program.”
Except for the folks with “…creamy smooth pale skin.” (My favorite line from the whole post, by the way.) And we know who they are, don’t we?
I am soooooo going to enjoy voting in 2012!
Re #10: They may be local/state budget items, however, look at all the federal money that gets funneled back to the states, especially now, because states are in the red big time, too. The USPS is a federal budget item and there are a lot of retired postal workers out there, not to mention other federal workers pensions at government agencies. Remember, the federal government workfoce is the only one that has been consitently increasing since 2009 (that’s where Obama gets his jobs created numbers). Granted, most federal employees aren’t union, but they still get good retirement deals.
As an aside, providing for the national defense is one of the only enumerated powers of the federal government according to the Constitution.
Well, the pension I draw from my employer was/is a wholly funded, by the members, pension. The city has over the years not contributed anything to the fund, because it’s “over-funded”, and they aren’t obligated to contribute when the balance is over 100% of what the actuaries say is required to cover all pension costs. As the elected representatives on the pension board are extremely conservative with the investments of the fund, it’s always been “over-funded”.
So, no, in some cases, there is not always a cost to the public, locally or federally. I’m not saying that all pensions are run that way, and more’s the pity that they aren’t.
@12. Bingo!
I’m seen enough that general public are made to feel sorry for military. They’re conditioned to be made to feel that we’re underpaid and overwork. I have always had a problem with that because we’re used as props for both sides. In this case it may work in our favor. We’re definitly overworked and underpaid.
The police/firefighter/teacher retirement burdens aren’t even part of the federal budget equation, so that’s at least part of the reason we’re not hering that as an option.
And look at how many of those muni employees are members of either AFSCME or SEIU…wait a second…SEIU…where have I seen those guys before?
Yes, a big chunk of the “stimulus” went to state and local governments, and that in turn might have been designated for pensions and benefits for retired police/firefighers/teachers. But it’s not a recurring expense in the federal government’s budget like military retired pay is, so it’s not really something that will be “cut” in future budgets.
I worry for my parents. Daddy has now retired from teaching so he and my mother will be even more sensitive to changes in benefits for military retirees. Daddy served nearly 27 years active duty and has been retired now for 20 more.
Got a reply from an email I sent James Dao this morning, I’m little less pissed off than I was…but it’s still early and I haven’t had a drink (not one!) yet.
Michael,
It was certainly not meant to be inflammatory, though to some people it clearly was. Neither was it meant to be perjorative. “Social welfare” in my mind means just that: for the welfare of people. That is all that was intended.
We did, however, mean to draw an analogy to Social Security, which I think is widely viewed as a “social welfare” program. Some people appear to view Social Security as a pure “welfare,” meaning one intended just for poor people. But wealth and middle class people who have worked all their lives pay into the Social Security system and then receive benefits in retirement.
I tried in the body of the article to more than once makes the case that many people feel these programs are totally deserved because service members experience great personal risk, hardship and stress in service to the country.
Best
J
But wealth and middle class people who have worked all their lives pay into the Social Security system and then receive benefits in retirement.
Certainly nowhere nearly enough to cover what they’ve put in. If you tried to sell me a retirement plan which gave me a 1-2 percent rate of return, or more likely a NEGATIVE rate of return, I’d be laughing my ass off as I kicked yours out the door. And for people my age, it’s a tossup as to whether it’s around in any meaningful form at all by the time I retire.
Couple that with the fact that the housing debacle has wiped out a lot of the equity in people’s homes which was heretofore relatively stable, add declines in retirement accounts/401(k) plans, jacking up the capital gains taxes again, meaning it’s forcing them to stay in the workforce longer, and you see where this is going to cause a shitstorm of biblical proportions, sooner rather than later.
“But wealth[y] and middle class people who have worked all their lives pay into the Social Security system and then receive benefits in retirement.”
That’s not true…wealthy and middle class people who have contributed their whole lives won’t necessarily receive a benefit if they plan their retirements well enough to make too much money. Social Security is indeed for poor people, or more accurately, people who plan poorly.
The reality is, with life expectancies and the like, the majority of people take more out of social security than they ever put in. Much like the tax system, those in the upper tax brackets put more into social security than they take out and those in the lower brackets get more than they put in.
What most people forget when they talk about people living on “fixed incomes” (code word for social security) is that the system was not built for people to “live on” social security. It was intended to be a supplement to what people saved for their retirement.
The reality is that many of these programs like social security and medicare are wealth transfers from the young (who don’t vote in large numbers) to the old (who do vote and who are still in positions of power). Until we address this fact, we can’t address the problem.
Majority? At what age, Susan?
So, these dick-beaters think that we should piss off the people who defend them? Oh, right… I forgot, these jackoffs said that the Police could defend the country against an invasion.
Thank you! That’s exactly it! People plan poorly. They don’t plan to be poor. Our culture has led the middle class to believe that they are entitled to what they put in. “I paid my taxes, I’m entitled to my benefits.” I’ve heard that so often. Even now, trying to plan for retirement is a joke. There won’t be Social Security. Will there even be a US Dollar? Should I trust my bank. No way to stock markets! I mean stock up on water, canned food, cash, and pray. Live each day as it comes. No one knows what is coming next.
No, I’m not a conspiracy nut. If the smartest of the smart can’t figure it out, and won’t work together for the good of the country, instead of their respective political parties, the future is bleak. Reality can’t be found listening to Fox, CNN, MSNBC, or the like. The answer won’t bring them ratings.
Unfortunately, our politicians, I beleive all start out with the best of intentions. I truly think at the beginning of their campaigns, they want to better the world. With politics comes greed, political pressure from fellow party members, lobbyists, etc. Noone has a chance. Not in the big leagues, anyway.
I hope I’m wrong and a Superhero politician rises out of the rubble the U.S. has become. I want the good days back. The days when whoever wanted a job, could have one. When you went to college, you didn’t work at McDonalds for 10 years after you graduated. People flew flags because they were proud to be Americans, not to thumb there noses at terrorists. Most of all, I want to turn on the TV see communities celebrating the Military, like when I was younger.
This is not the first time I’ve heard things like this. In graduate school I was told that Veterans Benefits were “welfare” programs. The reason the left uses these terms is easy to understand, if you can try to understand them. A lie repeated over and over becomes the truth. If they can say military retiree’s benefits are “welfare programs” and veterans benefits are “welfare programs” over and over again, people…stupid people, will begin to believe it. Then they can make the argument that if you’re going to cut “welfare” you have to include military/veterans benefits also. The lemmings will eventually agree because they’ve heard the term “welfare” over and over again when discussing military/veterans benefits. In grad school when I disagreed with the professor about earned benefits and granted benefits he simply replied that being a citizen “earns” you the welfare benifits. I laughed out loud. I wasn’t very well liked by the faculty in grad school….but got through anyway. It was a long 3 years.
Honor and Courage
@27 Very insightful post a rarity around here
@28 The republicans do the same thing with unemployment benefits refering to them as welfare because they know the mouth breathers who listen to Hannity will hear the word welfare and think of black people thus making it easier to slash benefits.
I am currently in graduate school and I must say that my professors are highly intelligent and always offer an objective viewpoint a notion that has long since been lost on this site.
“I must say that my professors are highly intelligent and always offer an objective viewpoint a notion that has long since been lost on this site”. Stop, my sides are hurting from laughing.
But, if you believe that, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn I’ll let you have for $1000, sight unseen, of course.
objective viewpoint???? Highly intelligent?????
Liberal only viewpoint!!! Brainwashed, like rest of the professors!!!!
#30
“I am currently in graduate school…”
Great. Just what we need: another educated idiot.
I have a friend who is in graduate school too. Every night she cleans the classrooms (but adamantly refuses to clean the whiteboards). She, too, refers to the pencilnecks in dark shirts and tweed jackets as “her professors.” I think that’s soooo cute.
“Great. Just what we need: another educated idiot.”
#33,
You misspelled “indoctrinated.”
She’ll make a wonderful little Nazi for her masters when she grows up, don’t you think? Can’t you just see her in her knee high black boots with her little whip?
Maybe she’ll be allowed to choose the tattoos that get made into her lampshades.
What was that, OG? You don’t know what I’m talking about?
Why don’t you go ask your PROFESSORS.
@36 You are the ones who are brainwashed.. If you think people like Bush Cheney, Rummy and the republicans cared one wit about you while you were serving. The right uses Soldiers as a photo op while they wrap themselves in the flag they never had time to serve
It is never possible to explain the difference between earned and unearned benefits to those who only see us as either enemies or useful idiots. The useful idiots thay can manipulate into supporting their agenda. We who stubbornly refuse to do their bidding must be rewarded by having as much as possible removed from our control and sphere of influence.
Likewise, we who have earned what we have by the sweat of our collective brows will never willingly give it up to those who have neither earned it nor deserve it.
PS Anyone who sees that statement as racist is only exposing their own racism. You see, most of us who think this way have no preconceived notions of, and we simply don’t care about, a person’s age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, country of origin, where their parents were born, who their daddy is, even who they sleep with IF they contribute to the well being of the country and/or their community. Of course, there are at least a bazillion ways to contribute (and we will care for those who cannot due to a legitimately debilitating injury or condition) to our society. There is even a place for artists and other wimpy folks. Even I like a good haircut from time to time.
The republicans do the same thing with unemployment benefits refering to them as welfare
A grad student who can’t spell “referring” or can’t capitalize a proper noun “Republicans”.
I rest my case.
Please, OG, do a favor to the gene pool, and suck start a shotgun. Make sure your boyfriend Sphincter goes first.
The article was a precursor for the Obama plan to institute the “Buffett Tax” where Military Veterans use their pockets to pay more than the “evil” rich people who sign the checks of American workers: http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/ps/2011/09/not-paying-their-fair-share-troops-veterans.html
But don’t worry, others will see a lot of cuts too: The Elderly, the poor, Farmers, and Airline passengers. Everyone “has to pay their fair share” and while we’re at it, let’s cut the military AGAIN: $100 Billion (2010) $400 Billion (2011) and another $230 Billion.
But remember: “We can’t break faith with those fighting our ‘overseas contingency operations”
I just want to know how retirees are getting Tri-Care prime for $400/year? I have to pay almost $4000/year for Tri-Care Reserve Select.
And the cost of my coverage is nearly $6000/year, and I STILL have $20 PCP copays, $50 urgent care copays, $100 ER copays, and up to $500 per hospital stay. That’s just for me. I’m not looking forward to what it’s going to be for a family of four when that rolls around.