WTF...are we turning into Egypt?

[WTF]

The new pension rules were part of the 2007 Defense Authorization Act to address concerns that the military would lose too many experienced generals and admirals during wartime.
Previously , the maximum annual pension was based on an officer’s pay at 26 years of service. Now, a four-star officer retiring in 2011 with 38 years’ experience would get a yearly pension of about $219,600, a jump of $84,000, or 63% beyond what was once allowed. A three-star officer with 35 years’ experience would get about $169,200 a year, up about $39,000, or 30%.
The highest pension, $272,892, is paid to a retired four-star officer with 43 years of service, according to the Pentagon. Before the law was changed, the typical pension for a retired four-star officer was $134,400. The top pay for an active-duty officer is capped at $179,900; housing and other allowances boost their compensation an additional third.
“These changes cumulatively provide consistent recognition across an individual’s entire career, not just the first 26 years of service,” Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen Lainez said. “This recognition also translates into increased readiness through the increased retention of our most experienced leaders.”

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/som...n-active-duty/

[JD Barleycorn]

LMAO, sounds more like Congress. Yes, I had to peek at your banned ass. No one has reflected your words yet.

[JohnnyCap]

Let them go to the private sector, rather than milk us with lethargy.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

LMAO, sounds more like Congress. Yes, I had to peek at your banned ass. No one has reflected your words yet.

So I take that as ayes you approve of paying folks more in retirement than while they were working.

[i'va biggen]

JD is hoping for a golden parachute himself.

[JD Barleycorn]

Eva has to explain his feeble excuse for humor. You see this new regulation is all about officers and there are some who think they are insulting me by calling me admiral. So you see the attempted reference. In reality I was senior enlisted and not officer material. Which is something that Eva can NEVER aspire to.

[WTF]

Love of country or love of money?

[WTF]

Sounds like for the top brass , it is love of money.


You right wing Tea Turkeys ok with this?

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Eva has to explain his feeble excuse for humor. You see this new regulation is all about officers and there are some who think they are insulting me by calling me admiral. So you see the attempted reference. In reality I was senior enlisted and not officer material. Which is something that Eva can NEVER aspire to.

some are insulting Admirals, you're a senior idiot

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Eva has to explain his feeble excuse for humor. You see this new regulation is all about officers and there are some who think they are insulting me by calling me admiral. So you see the attempted reference. In reality I was senior enlisted and not officer material. Which is something that Eva can NEVER aspire to.

LMAO spoken by a dimatard who knows nothing about me or my military.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by WTF

Love of country or love of money?

Originally Posted by WTF

Sounds like for the top brass , it is love of money.

You right wing Tea Turkeys ok with this?

Don't be such a dimwit.

First, the number of 3 and 4 star generals that can make the $200,00 is quite small. And you are really only talking about the incremental change - the difference between the current annual pay and the new annual pay.

And think about the amount of money that gave up by staying in the military for 35 or more years. What could Colin Powell have made in the private sector compared to the $179K that he was capped at?

No one stays in the military for 35 years except for love of country. The money they make in retirement will never compensate for the money they lost while on active duty.

[JohnnyCap]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Don't be such a dimwit.

First, the number of 3 and 4 star generals that can make the $200,00 is quite small. And you are really only talking about the incremental change - the difference between the current annual pay and the new annual pay.

And think about the amount of money that gave up by staying in the military for 35 or more years. What could Colin Powell have made in the private sector compared to the $179K that he was capped at?

No one stays in the military for 35 years except for love of country. The money they make in retirement will never compensate for the money they lost while on active duty.

Fuck that. If they have that talent, capitalism would work better if they went to the private sector and as a result forced someone else to take the job at a salary more reasonable to the taxpayer.

Pensions should be capped at the national average wage, if not less, requiring intelligent saving. Medical care, as much as they need, but wealth pay post service is unsustainable.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

No one stays in the military for 35 years except for love of country. The money they make in retirement will never compensate for the money they lost while on active duty.

Absolutely true. A 3 or 4 star can easily up his wealth by leaving at his/her first opportunity. Those that stay beyond 30ish are certainly not doing it for the $$$, though as most folks they are not likely to reject it.

This is a case where the boost in pay was probably not needed to have the effect they sought out for.

Originally Posted by JohnnyCap

Fuck that. If they have that talent, capitalism would work better if they went to the private sector and as a result forced someone else to take the job at a salary more reasonable to the taxpayer.

Hate to ruin your illusion, but at $200,000 the taxpayer IS getting a bargain. Someone in industry who has a comparable portfolio and responsibility is likely making literally 10-20 times the salary when you throw in stock options, etc. Conservatively.


Pensions should be capped at the national average wage, if not less, requiring intelligent saving. Medical care, as much as they need, but wealth pay post service is unsustainable.

I assume you want to apply this to private pensions as well? Especially those at places such as Boeing etc. where a lot of the profit comes from gov't contracts?

[JohnnyCap]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Absolutely true. A 3 or 4 star can easily up his wealth by leaving at his/her first opportunity. Those that stay beyond 30ish are certainly not doing it for the $$$, though as most folks they are not likely to reject it.

This is a case where the boost in pay was probably not needed to have the effect they sought out for.




I assume you want to apply this to private pensions as well? Especially those at places such as Boeing etc. where a lot of the profit comes from gov't contracts?

Yes sir, though private should mean private, I would hope anyone that pays their employees forever would price themselves out of business.

I missed your other point within my quote: I disagree. There are few humans doing anything worth that amount of change. Just because some agents and negotiators convinced some bankers otherwise hasn't swayed me.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by JohnnyCap

Fuck that. If they have that talent, capitalism would work better if they went to the private sector and as a result forced someone else to take the job at a salary more reasonable to the taxpayer.

Pensions should be capped at the national average wage, if not less, requiring intelligent saving. Medical care, as much as they need, but wealth pay post service is unsustainable.

Why do people join the military in the first place? It sure isn't for the money. I had two scholarships when I joined. How much more money could I have made if I had gotten even one degree before I was 21? I joined the military because it was the right thing to do and something I looked forward to. My uncles had joined but my father didn't. He was medically unfit at the end of World War II. So maybe I'm making up for him. In any event I could have made so much more money out of the military than in and that also goes for teaching.

Why should pensions be capped at a national average Socialist Johnny? If I can create wealth in the millions every year why should I be limited to an amount that someone who collects beer cans can have? Would you limit athletes to what? $100,000 a year when they made the team they played for hundreds of millions? How much should someone who never did a serious day's work in their life get? $25,000 a year? $50,000 a year? How about that same $100,000 a year?