Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

One wrong cut

January 1, 2014

Listening to the Paul Ryan Budget Reduction Bill, I've decided it is very good, except for the part that cuts the Veterans Pension by 1%. If anything it should be raise....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(74)

DeanWormer

Jan-02-14 5:48 AM

Thanks for your comments and sorry I come across as such a hothead. I still don't understand using the current active-duty military number in the percentage rather than the number of veterans currently receiving benefits. Anyway, thanks to veterans and I'm glad I chose to serve too. Have a nice day.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Jan-01-14 9:09 PM

If I was a betting man, I believe Congress is going to vote to repeal these cuts this month, because it's the right thing to do.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Jan-01-14 9:06 PM

Strike that, I had a brain lapse. But you get my point. You served and you had the opportunity to make it a career. Don't condemn those that chose to do so.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Jan-01-14 9:03 PM

Oh and btw Dean, you're right. Take children out of the equation and it makes the actual percentage of military retirees even smaller. Yet they choose to target that VERY small group.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Jan-01-14 8:57 PM

Dean, you're right. There is waste in the DOD just as there is in EVERY department and agency within the federal government. I too saw it first hand. But why is it that they always turn to the DOD as the first stop whenever they decide it's time to make cuts? And why is it within DOD the troops and veterans are the ones that they always go after first? How much money did you see wasted on the troops themselves compared to the billions wasted on defense contracts and cost overruns? How much money is wasted on bases overseas that no longer have any relevance? Do you really feel that cutting 6 billion in military pensions is necessary when there is billions of dollars elsewhere that can be cut first? Spending two decades or more in the military is a huge sacrifice and career service members are essential to our military. You start sending messages that their long career means nothing and retention rates will plummet, and that will severely degrade mission readiness.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DeanWormer

Jan-01-14 7:40 PM

Does it really make sense to use the entire population (e.g. children) in the denominator/base of your 1 percent calculation? Figures don't lie, but liars figure.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DeanWormer

Jan-01-14 7:38 PM

MoMRNRmR: Don't lecture me. I have honorable discharges from active-duty Army and the Air Force Reserves. The military has been a huge drain on the U.S. treasury for decades and it's time to stop the madness. I saw so much waste it made my head spin. What about all the equipment etc. we just left in Iraq and Afghanistan?

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Jan-01-14 6:56 PM

MoMRNRmR-"we have local school teachers, local policeman, fireman, etc. that receive 100% of their pay and benefits after 20yrs-30yrs."

If you are telling us that they are receiving pensions at retirement equal to their pay while they were working, after 20 to 30 years of service that is simply untrue.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Jan-01-14 6:52 PM

2 things to note;

Military personnel currently serving in the US Armed Forces make up less than 1% of the population.

A veteran does not equate into a retired military personnel.

There are currently over 1,300,000 retired military personal collecting retirement benefits, making them just under 1/2 of 1% of the population.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Jan-01-14 6:41 PM

No I am not, but I am a veteran and pay very close attention to veteran matters.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MoMRNRmR

Jan-01-14 6:37 PM

Your Statics on that Website are just Static's! Wormer and Gavinf56 are You retired U.S. Military?

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MoMRNRmR

Jan-01-14 6:34 PM

Dean Wormer, Active Duty Military is 1% of the Population. My husbands was a U.S.Army Soldier for over twenty-five years, I make it a point to now the FACT's do you? Where are you getting your facts?

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DeanWormer

Jan-01-14 6:23 PM

I have no idea where you're coming up with this "1 percent" figure. According to the BLS, 9 percent of Americans age 18+ were veterans in 2012.

***********bls.gov/news.release/vet.t01.htm

People can play all sorts of tricks with statistics.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Jan-01-14 6:12 PM

..but the Federal budget (which pays the military retiree's benefits) has nothing to do with the local teachers, fireman, and police.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MoMRNRmR

Jan-01-14 5:47 PM

I'm NOT confused, I'm comparing. Thank You.

1 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Jan-01-14 5:29 PM

MoMRNRmR, I think you are confusing local and state budgets/pensions (teachers, fireman, police) with Federal budgets/pensions.

A better representation would be Federal workers (FDA, IRS, EPA, et al) to include Congressional our retired Congressional representatives.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MoMRNRmR

Jan-01-14 5:17 PM

Yes, it’s a BIG slap in the face! My big beef is that we have local school teachers, local policeman, fireman, etc. that receive 100% of their pay and benefits after 20yrs-30yrs. I find it amazing that our 1% Military Population was singled out and targeted to get “Retirement Cut’s”. A slap in the FACE is an understatement.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Jan-01-14 4:39 PM

MoMRNRmR, I agree with you 100%! But I think the only ones that would fully understand why we are so passionate about this issue are the retiree's and their families. It's not even so much about the money, but the fact that they choose to target us after we gave so many years and at the same time billions are being wasted and squandered in government. It's a slap in the face. Like Phil said, you want to change the rules for the young men and women enlisting today, then do it and let them decide if they want to continue to aerve. But don't take from those that have already served decades for this country.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MoMRNRmR

Jan-01-14 3:59 PM

This subject hits home for me, as I’m married to a retired U.S. Army Veteran and War Hero. I want to let you know, that all U.S. Veterans whom have spent 20+ years as a Soldier don’t deserve to be treated with such disrespect! Our Military is 1% of the Population, 1%! Regardless of the AGE of the Retired soldier, should we start to penalize the rest of the RETIRED Population too! Retired military receive 50% of Base Pay and then from that money have to pay: Healthcare, Dental care, Survivors Benefits and Taxes. Why is it that the Welfare Benefits are way better than OUR Military Hero’s? Welfare recipients receive: Housing, Food, Clothes, Cars, Phones, etc. and don’t work. Any thoughts on that…. Happy New Year!

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Jan-01-14 3:14 PM

...and I disagreed with both terms and said sacrifice would be a better term.

You then questioned whether a "career was a sacrifice". If you knew the sacrifices that our men and women in uniform make you wouldn't have made the comment "a career is a sacrifice?".

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jan-01-14 3:06 PM

Thanks for the forgiveness.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jan-01-14 3:04 PM

Gavin, you did not follow the conversation. Capricorn1 is talking about career military. He referred to that as being an elite group and I disagree with the word elite and said exceptional would be better. Then you decided to attack me.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Jan-01-14 1:36 PM

It has long been the case that people pursued lower paying and dangerous careers because of the security and benefits, especially retirement benefits. It’s only right to let retirees and near retirees receive the benefits they earned. There’s nothing wrong with changing benefits for people just entering these fields as they can decide if the career is still worth pursuing.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidBross

Jan-01-14 12:18 PM

"Listening to the Paul Ryan Budget Reduction Bill, I've decided it is very good, except for the part that cuts...." I imagine many people could have written that first sentence and then ended it with their own example of what shouldn't be cut. Politicians know that, and that is why things don't get cut.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hopeforfuture

Jan-01-14 12:04 PM

CMReeder-you had to go an spoil a very interesting thread. Your forgiven. Happy New Year

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 74 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web