Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Denverian, I'm not sure why you joined the Air Force-and I commend you for your service. However, I'm a bit surprised by your lack of vision on the part of serving at all. Young men and women who VOLUNTEER to serve in the military (pay check or not), are at risk of war, terrorist threats, work related death, etc... on a daily basis 24 hours a day. Fighting in a war isn't the measure of whether a pension, medal, pass, or pay raise is warranted. You left the Air Force because it wasn't for you or you were disgruntled or just simply parenoid that your time would eventually come. Either way, don't spend the rest of your life despising those who dared to do what you were insecure about continuing to do. Try and celebrate the fact that both of you at one time or another served as the front line of defense for your country when others did not. Joining the military is a choice just as not joining is a choice. When given a choice--choose wisely.
USAF MSgt, Retired, Dept. of the Army Civilian (not just sitting around)
You've got it twisted playboy...that's not what i'm saying.
I left the military because i didn't like it...it had NOTHING to do with retirement benefits or money. I didn't enlist because i needed the money, i enlisted for the travel, the chance to do something different, and because i wanted to see the Cold War firsthand. I was comfortable before i joined the Army, and i'm comfortable now. Money has never and will never be a major issue for me because i don't need much of it to live.
When i say that the retirement pay wasn't enough to remain in the military, i meant that looking down the road, the pension itself, regardless of the amount, wasn't enough to make me do something for another decade and a half that i really didn't want to be doing. In fact, the retirement didn't even come into play. It was a total non-factor, and if i had to do it over again, i'd do it the same.
As for your sour grapes argument, you're just flattering yourself. Military retirement isn't something worth having sour grapes over. Everyone i've ever known that retired had to go right back to work anyway, so that's nothing to be envious of. My opinion on the matter is an objective opinion based on my observations. I don't hate the military (if i did, i'd just say so...in your face OR online...i'm not a coward) and i don't have "sour grapes," or whatever asenine argument you're throwing out there.
A lot of yapping but not making much sense. Stop bawling, get over the fact you couldn't hang.
A lot of yapping but not making much sense. Stop bawling, get over the fact you couldn't hang.
LOL...hang with what? Dude, the Army was the easiest job i've ever had. Ever seen the winners walking across the stage at Army retirement ceremonies? Yea...real tough stuff.
I didn't start working until i GOT OUT of the Army. You're going after the wrong guy dude. I know better. You're not going to convince anyone about the so called ability to "hang" in a shamfest like the military is. GTFOH.
it is interesting how people seem more willing to cut SS for someone that actually cointributed to that system but seem to find a military pension untouchable. It is not a common practice to not have people contribute towards their pension, yet the military does it.
I suspect it is also common to have a retirement age as well. and not allow early payments. Even SS reduces what you get if you draw before 65... why give the military everything at 40? why noot put them off until 60?
Why not restructure the plan?
Yes I know they do a largely thankless job that can place them in harms way.... but I also know they joined and were not forced to do so... it was their choice.
My point all along.
Nothing should be sacrosanct. And i don't know why so many people think the military pension should be.
What is the purpose of pushing people out at 20 years? Is it the physicality of the job at those lower ranks? So, you (not you, personally) could go in at 18 and they can force you out at 38. Yikes.
The military is a young person's game. It is very hard on the body. I'm confused by the handful of posters on this board who think that working for 30 years in the military is a viable option. They must have had, or have known people, with very cushy desk jobs. That's not the reality most live. The average person in his late 30s/early 40s is no longer able to do everything the military requires of him or her physically.
As for the people who think the military is a sham, they certainly have not served this past 10 years. It's been anything but a "sham." But I get it. War's over. Time to spit on us. The Vietnam treatment was delayed for my generation of veteran, but it's time for us to get it, I guess. I wish we could at least wait until after 2014, since we're still doing the combat rotations and all.
I can see the plan as proposed to be potentially workable for brand new recruits. As has been pointed out most kids at 18-20 years of age aren't thinking about that, they're looking at their college benefits. The real test happens when they hit the end of their second enlistment at the 8-10 year point where they have to make the decision to continue or bail. If people feel that the benefits are strong enough to deal with all the additional BS that goes along with the military when compared to what they could pull as a civilian, they’ll stay.
I would predict that the only people who would choose to stay at that point are the unskilled and unmotivated. The skilled and motivated, at that point, have their undergraduate in hand and have developed their skills to the point where their civilian compensation would be greater than their enlisted compensation. Why would anybody want to deal with constant moves, deployments, long hours, risk of death or injury, etc., when they can get a job performing similar technical or management duties without those wild cards? Let’s use the mid ‘90’s benefits changes as evidence to support this theory.
Then there’s the matter of not grandfathering those who are currently in….. if this were to happen I would quit (as would a very large number of others in the 9-20 year range). I’ve been in for over 13 years, and at the eight year point it was that 20 year pension and long term health care benefits that kept me going.
This point of view is not from the poor soul that’s had to deploy out of country for 1/3 of his career. I’m single and have no family to take care of or be separated from. Fortunately I haven’t had to deploy much or even move very often. Who I am is the person with a highly valued skill-set who could make a killing as a civilian. I chose to stay in for the “winning lottery ticket” at the end. If you take away that lottery ticket without a *significant* bump in immediate take home pay I’m punching out. If I am not let out of my contract…. fine, however, you’ll only get the amount of effort from me that you are telling me that I’m worth, which would be a lot less than it is right now.
Is that selfish? Maybe it is, but I prefer to call it being honest and open. I’m simply spelling out what everybody else will be thinking. But if America is going to pull the rug out from under me then the “I’m happy to serve my country” aspect of my career goes right out the window.
The military is a young person's game. It is very hard on the body. I'm confused by the handful of posters on this board who think that working for 30 years in the military is a viable option. They must have had, or have known people, with very cushy desk jobs. That's not the reality most live. The average person in his late 30s/early 40s is no longer able to do everything the military requires of him or her physically.
As for the people who think the military is a sham, they certainly have not served this past 10 years. It's been anything but a "sham." But I get it. War's over. Time to spit on us. The Vietnam treatment was delayed for my generation of veteran, but it's time for us to get it, I guess. I wish we could at least wait until after 2014, since we're still doing the combat rotations and all.
SGM's go over 30 all the time, manage to stay fit, and thrive. The difference in health between 38-48 years old is no big deal if u stay fit as you're required to do. There should be no steep decline in health. People live longer and are healthier than they once were. And soldiers don't drink and smoke nearly as much as they used to.
And to deny "shamming" as an Army pastime is laughable. Yea, on deployments its a different story, but garrison? C'mon....let's stop with the hype. You KNOW I'm right. Hell, there are a million old school jokes about shamming in the Army. It's the first place that I heard the saying "you can work me long, but u can't work me hard." No one in civilian life says sh*t like that.
I also think people are downplaying deployments. Going on a deployment may as well be the same as being locked in a prison for the same length of time. Think about it... both involve greatly reduced freedoms, being restricted to a very specific area in a place you would otherwise never choose to go, and constant danger to life and limb. The only difference is that you get paid to be deployed... although, compared to the money paid to contractors to "deploy" your military compensation is extremely poor.
I also think people are downplaying deployments. Going on a deployment may as well be the same as being locked in a prison for the same length of time. Think about it... both involve greatly reduced freedoms, being restricted to a very specific area in a place you would otherwise never choose to go, and constant danger to life and limb. The only difference is that you get paid to be deployed... although, compared to the money paid to contractors to "deploy" your military compensation is extremely poor.
I agree that deployments are sort of the monkey wrench in this argument.
I see it this way: the way the modern military does deployments encourages multiple deployments and a ridiculous ops tempo. They send you for a year (6 months for Marines and i think 90 days for Air Force...stupid really...it should be uniform), then you get a year or two of downtime before redeploying again.
In the wars where we had the most success, soldiers were in the war until it reached it's conclusion. This encouraged the wrapping up of wars as fast as possible. But the way it is now....putting soldiers in for a pre-determined amount of time, building "little America's" featuring Popeyes, Subway, Burger Kings, Baskin-Robbins and other crap, only encourages long, drawn out conflicts lasting years.
This stuff has to change. If we commit to a conflict, it needs to be wrapped up as soon as possible so our troops can go the hell home. We've gotta stop nation building, and we also need to put a halt to playing world cop. It's too expensive, and places too much of a burden on our soldiers.
They send you for a year (6 months for Marines and i think 90 days for Air Force...stupid really...it should be uniform), then you get a year or two of downtime before redeploying again.
Depends on the job, but most are on 6 months in the Air Force. After my 6 month deployment, they were planning on sending me to Korea for a year if I re-enlisted. Hell with that!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
