Senate donks vote to cut military pensions

[AZGrizFan]

So, the answer is no, it would not upset you. Fire hundreds of thousands of employees, but just don't touch the military.

I have no problem with the idea that 50% of federal employees are unnecessary. However, I do have a problem with double standards.

I never said "don't touch the military". But there are a NUMBER of different retirement calculations out there depending on when you began your service. There were a number of ways they could have done it without being as painful as they made it. But that's this administration's objective in just about every interaction it seems...make it as painful as possible.

[HI54UNI]

Yes.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=38422&p=845136#p845109

He must have retired higher than O-6.

Even O-10 doesn't work.

[Ibanez]

He must have retired higher than O-6.

Even O-10 doesn't work.

Well I doubt Cleets is lying.

[Grizalltheway]

Even O-10 doesn't work.

Well I doubt Cleets is lying.

I don't. Either that or he included VA medical benefits in the total.

[ASUMountaineer]

So, the answer is no, it would not upset you. Fire hundreds of thousands of employees, but just don't touch the military.

I have no problem with the idea that 50% of federal employees are unnecessary. However, I do have a problem with double standards.

Excellent contribution!

[ASUMountaineer]

I never said "don't touch the military". But there are a NUMBER of different retirement calculations out there depending on when you began your service. There were a number of ways they could have done it without being as painful as they made it. But that's this administration's objective in just about every interaction it seems...make it as painful as possible.

No argument there. However, you did admit that that you would not be bitching had they done this to other federal workers. If the military losing a small portion of their pensions is wrong, it should be for any federal employee, no?

[Ibanez]

I never said "don't touch the military". But there are a NUMBER of different retirement calculations out there depending on when you began your service. There were a number of ways they could have done it without being as painful as they made it. But that's this administration's objective in just about every interaction it seems...make it as painful as possible.

This was bi-partisan. 12 Senators and 169 Republicans voted for it. That's 64.8% of the Republicans in Congress.

[Ibanez]

I never said "don't touch the military". But there are a NUMBER of different retirement calculations out there depending on when you began your service. There were a number of ways they could have done it without being as painful as they made it. But that's this administration's objective in just about every interaction it seems...make it as painful as possible.

No argument there. However, you did admit that that you would not be bitching had they done this to other federal workers. If the military losing a small portion of their pensions is wrong, it should be for any federal employee, no?

Federal Employees are now paying more into their pensions.

[ASUMountaineer]

No argument there. However, you did admit that that you would not be bitching had they done this to other federal workers. If the military losing a small portion of their pensions is wrong, it should be for any federal employee, no?

Federal Employees are now paying more into their pensions.

Damnit, why do you have to ruin me giving Z shit? Geez, Raul!

[Ibanez]

Let's just make it clear. The GROWTH RATE of the pension as it ties to a COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT has changed. The base pension has not. Just the COLA. It's just been reduced by 1%. They are still getting a COLA, just 1% less.

[Ibanez]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/17/politics/ ... ?hpt=po_c1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Pentagon: The deal reverses billions in budget cuts so that the military's discretionary budget will actually go up $2 billion next year (over the budget-cut amount this year).

Federal employees: A technical change in the bill allows federal workers who are married without kids to obtain health benefits under a new, cheaper "self plus one" category. They currently have no option but "single" or "family" plans.

TSA: The Transportation Security Administration wins from increased security fees -- the budget gives the agency more reliable funding.

• Appropriators: The Murray-Ryan plan means appropriators are back on the canvas and will decide how to carve up more than $1 trillion, agency by agency.

Young, career military: This compromise deal will mean less retirement pay for military retirees younger than 62. Specifically, it cuts the annual cost-of-living adjustments to a level under inflation.

• New federal workers: If you start your job after January 1, this budget bill would cut your pay by 1.3%. That would be an increased, mandatory contribution to the federal pension fund.

• Unemployed: The budget agreement does nothing to address unemployment benefits, which expire this month for about 1.3 million Americans.

• Air travelers: This plan boosts the TSA security fee to $5.60 for each one-way trip.

• Scammers and con artists: The budget deal makes it harder for anyone to access and use the Social Security numbers of dead people. And prisoners? Think twice about trying to get an unemployment check. That's illegal, and this deal will make it harder for you to pull off that scam.

• Gas and oil industry: Two hits: The petroleum industry is set to lose a $50 million research program and a kind of backdoor moneymaker in which oil companies purposely overpay into a federal fund and gain higher-than-market interest payments from the government as a result.

• Wealthy federal contractors: This may be hard to believe, but right now, federal law will pay up to $952,308 in salary for any single contract employee. The Murray-Ryan budget deal would cut that down to $487,000.

• The years 2016-2023: While this budget deal significantly blunts forced budget cuts (the "sequester") set for the next two years, it would leave those cuts at full power for the following seven years. In addition, this bill adds a new set of forced budget cuts and a few extended fees (customs fees, for example) for 2022 and 2023.

• The long-term future of the U.S.: Medicare. Social Security. These fiscal monsters may be silent now, but are set to rise over the next two decades to become huge financial threats to both the federal budget and the U.S. economy. This bill does not address the coming long-term problems.

[CID1990]

I call bullshit.

But I do agree with the rest of your post.

I have an in law that retired as a Lt. Col and she makes close to that in retirement. So, Clenz is probably right.

That's because she's blowing dudes on the side down at the Southern Belle.

[AZGrizFan]

I never said "don't touch the military". But there are a NUMBER of different retirement calculations out there depending on when you began your service. There were a number of ways they could have done it without being as painful as they made it. But that's this administration's objective in just about every interaction it seems...make it as painful as possible.

No argument there. However, you did admit that that you would not be bitching had they done this to other federal workers. If the military losing a small portion of their pensions is wrong, it should be for any federal employee, no?

Only those federal employees who have a chance of being shot at.

[SDHornet]

Excellent contribution!

Damn straight.

[TheDancinMonarch]

No argument there. However, you did admit that that you would not be bitching had they done this to other federal workers. If the military losing a small portion of their pensions is wrong, it should be for any federal employee, no?

Only those federal employees who have a chance of being shot at.

Postal workers.

[ASUMountaineer]

Excellent contribution!

Damn straight.

[ASUMountaineer]

No argument there. However, you did admit that that you would not be bitching had they done this to other federal workers. If the military losing a small portion of their pensions is wrong, it should be for any federal employee, no?

Only those federal employees who have a chance of being shot at.

Thanks for the verification.

[SDHornet]

Damn straight.

[Ibanez]

I have an in law that retired as a Lt. Col and she makes close to that in retirement. So, Clenz is probably right.

That's because she's blowing dudes on the side down at the Southern Belle.

Is that all of you got? I see you've taken a page out of the D1b playbook.

[ASUMountaineer]

[AZGrizFan]

Only those federal employees who have a chance of being shot at.

Thanks for the verification.

You are welcome. Did they reduce the COLA for all federal government retirees? Or just the military?

[Grizalltheway]

Thanks for the verification.

You are welcome. Did they reduce the COLA for all federal government retirees? Or just the military?

Don't most military retirees (maybe excluding generals, admirals, etc) go on to have other careers after they leave? I'm thinking most other governments workers are closer to official retirement age when they leave and depend more on their pensions.

[Skjellyfetti]

Only those federal employees who have a chance of being shot at.

Well, most of the Navy is fucked there.

[CID1990]

Only those federal employees who have a chance of being shot at.

Well, most of the Navy is **** there.

I was shot at while in the Navy.

In the Caribbean, of all places.

[AZGrizFan]

Only those federal employees who have a chance of being shot at.

Well, most of the Navy is fucked there.

You obviously have no idea what the Navy's mission is, then.