Spartacus

= more federal government power and less power at the state level.

Seen both of those before.

Hhmmm. Point taken, but I do think that it is relevant to the discussion. In any case I think the best thing for the country right now would be a compromise. Obama and the Dems think they have a mandate, (I disagree), and the Republicans are going to have to give some on this thing. I say let the Dems have their tax increase on the wealthy because that is probably the only way we are going to get a deal. This way we can hopefully pass a budget sometime during the year and if all of this goes south the Dems will "own" the situation because they got what they wanted. If it turns out good and the economy gets better then great.

I find it ironic that the liberals believe these things but then turn around and institute policies that make it even worse for the poor. How much have gas and food prices risen since Obama took office? His policies have helped to make those prices go up. I also find it ironic that there seems to be a correlation between his policies and corporations' unwillingness to grow and hire more workers. They are all afraid to grow because they don't know if they could make it under this administration. Look at what Obamacare has already done to a lot of jobs? Immediately after Obama was reelected look at how many business started announcing layoffs and cuts to their full-time workforce in exchange for more part-time workers. Aren't things like this disproportionately affecting the poor? Taxes aside if we had policies that encouraged business growth and didn't penalize businesses as much wouldn't a lot of this be negated and we would have less of a revenue problem?

Take the opinions and advice here as you wish and with a grain of salt but don't make the mistake of thinking that you will be able to impress, show ability, or relate with the fighter pilots. As a pointy nose type myself I can say that you have a high likelihood of pissing people off by trying to show them those things. I know you just want to do good and fit in but the best thing that you can do is kick butt at everything that you do and then show that you are a bro with a good attitude. The last thing you should be trying to do is impress a group of fighter pilots. I think that will be borderline impossible.

Wow. So you see it differently? Having been a UPT IP we could always tell when a kid had previous instrument time. We couldn't always tell that in the other phases. I had more than one dude tell me later on that the instrument phase was much easier for him because he already understood the instrument concepts while it was clear that other kids in the class were struggling somewhat to grasp all of it. Just my 2 cents. Make fun of it more if you want. I was trying to give genuine advice to someone who clearly wants set himself up for success.

I'm not going to dive into the weeds concerning this argument yet. What I do want to say is that the Dems are in a much stronger position than the Republicans on this one. It should be obvious by now that I am a strong conservative, but I think the Tea Party is one of the biggest factors that should be blamed for this one. Their almost total inability to compromise and their extreme stances didn't help anything. (Yeah, I know almost everyone wouldn't compromise either.) The Dems don't really need to compromise on anything with this and they will still come out looking great. If there is a deal they will almost for sure get some tax increases, which is exactly what they want. If there is no deal and we go off the fiscal cliff then they still get a lot of what they want and will be able to point at the Republicans as not being willing to compromise AGAIN. I think the country is sick and tired of the politicians not being willing to compromise for the greater good and the Republicans will need to come to the table hat in hand willing to swallow their pride. That is the position that they are in right now and if they don't do that and we go off the cliff then good luck with that one.

Ok dude, just my opinion here but flying a glider some would be good. Just getting in the air will be good for you. However, realize that hard work is what is going to make you do well in the end. In UPT I saw dudes walk through the door with over a thousand hours flight time and they kicked butt (this was because they were good dudes and worked hard though), but I also saw one dude with over a thousand hours self eliminate because he didn't like military flying. "It scared him." I also saw people who couldn't spell airplane before IFS get DG out of UPT. It is about attitude, hard work, and aptitude. Get a slot, and then go into it with a thick skin, humble attitude and a willingness to work harder at it than anything you've worked for before and you'll be fine one way or the other. Also, again just my opinion, but the best flight time that you could get before UPT is instrument time because instrument flying from civilian to military does cross over well and you'll be more prepared for those flights and potentially ahead of your peers in that area once you hit the instrument phase. Probably wouldn't be a game changer though. Good luck with everything.

You could be like this dude: Just don't following his lead with the flight control check starting at 00:43.

I'm in.

I have personally dealt with this. There are just more hoops to jump through now. Send me a PM if you want to hear more details etc about how to deal with it.

I know a guy who lived this scenario. He earned an MBA, got hired on with a good company with good pay and was promptly handed a big project. He sucked and couldn't hack it and was canned pretty much before he had completely moved into his office. He ended up moving back to his hometown and is not able to use his MBA. Last I heard he picked up a job he didn't want just to put food on the table and it doesn't even pay that well. He got himself into a huge mess.

I've seen you post that before. Care to enlighten us? I am going to go out on a limb here but I would bet your success in finding a good non-a-word job is correlated to your success within the AF and having been a patch wearer. Whether it is because of that directly or the hook ups (relationships/networking) that you had because of that I wonder if the rest of us who don't go to WIC would experience similar success on the outside? (Obviously ymmv) Or, is it more of playing the game, using a head hunter, being willing to relocate anywhere, and applying broadly in many different fields in many different positions? I just think that it is a tough pill to swallow for a lot of us to walk away and not go to an airline unless we are making 100k-125k+ (my numbers only) flying a desk. To my knowledge a job that pays in that range is going to be tough if not impossible to find for someone who has just walked out of the AF after 10 years. Maybe it is easier for someone who just served 20+ but in this economy the airlines for a lot of us at least provide a small measure of hope that we will have a career that pays pretty well a little down the road.

WOW! I don't really know what to say. You make a lot of assumptions here and I'm pretty much done with you, but here is my last point: IMO people in the military are making some big sacrifices that the average civilian doesn't understand. We all know them and understand them but they may not, 6 month deployments, 365's, being away from family, losing friends etc. I'm sorry but there aren't many civilian jobs that require that of their employees so to me there is absolutely no justification for a comparison between the two like you are doing. Finally, your comments are laced with ignorance, selfishness, and mockery. Did you ever stop and think that maybe not everyone thinks like you do in being so self-centered? Not everyone only cares about their bottom line and expects the government to take care of their friends and family. You clearly don't understand or at least agree with that so you say that I am spouting drivel and am not being logical just because I don't agree with your point of view. There are strong arguments for both sides that are logical.

Well, I do take it personally and I think a lot of others do too. I am constantly amazed at the character and dedication of the people that I serve around and they ARE better than the average person in this country IMO. I also love walking into the pharmacy on base and filling a prescription only to find out that the 80 year old volunteer handing me that prescription is a retired O-6. He doesn't have to be there doing that but he and most of those that I serve with are doing it for more than just themselves. They don't talk about entitlements and wanting the government to take care of their friends and families. They talk about service and things that are bigger than themselves, so for you to say what you said here is ignorant, offensive, and down right disgusting. You should be worrying about what you can do to help your family and friends and not what the government can do. That is nothing but a cop-out. The ideas and thoughts that you presented are the same as those that are hurting our country and gotten us into this mess IMO. I suggest that you apologize for what you have said on a forum full of people that have sacrificed a lot in the service of their country or else maybe you should just lay low for a while.

Well, sure if you only pick what you want to out of each article that is what they say, but If you actually read an entire article that you post you will read things like: and Look, I am not going to argue with you anymore. We will just go in circles. For some reason you think that Tricare won't be touched. That's fine, but I say they are trying to touch it and the title of this thread also "eludes" to it as well. Enough said... Edited for accuracy.

Read your own WSJ link dude. The Obama budget wants to raise Tricare fees for everyone, and wants to raise co-pays for everyone. For me the fact of the matter is that I do not trust the current administration to have military members' best interests in mind. The administration has established a pattern with regard to the military and some people are pissed. Example: When Obama first took office he pretty quickly tried to establish that wounded combat vets would have to pay for their own healthcare once they were out of the military. This meant that even if they had lost a limb and received the MOH the government wouldn't be helping them with healthcare costs once out of the military. This was so unpopular that the administration finally gave up on it, but to me it illustrates how they view the military and how the military should be dealt with.

The Tricare fees may not be a major portion of what the administration is saying but it is part of it and the hikes are part of what the POTUS wants. I don't think the Freebeacon article is saying that the Tricare fees are the only reason for the administration saying that the bill will be vetoed, although the article only talks about that point, which is all the article is focusing on. I never stated that Freebeacon was the best and most credible news source in the world, but am still waiting for someone to say that what they are saying is wrong. The POTUS does want the hikes, and as an opinion news source they are focusing on that fact, and as a member of the military I appreciate that someone is out there choosing to point that out. It will affect military members' lives.

I especially like how both articles you posted don't talk about the Tricare rate hikes. Nice job. So I guess you don't care about the huge target on your back? I take it you are for losing your pension, losing other benefits, and paying more for Tricare then too? It is easy for you to say that while not providing any evidence that the article is "not true or hyperbole".

Obama to Soldiers: Pay Up Threatens to veto bill unless it hikes health care fees for service members Thoughts?

This brings me to another question. (and I've heard some stuff on this before) Say you show up to a base with 2 years left on your ADSC and you go through training (maybe PIT or IPUG or something like that) and they want you to sign a 3 year commitment due to the training you just received. Is it true that you don't have to do that because they can't make you sign something that takes you past your ADSC? Any sources on this? Anyone have experience with this?

I've never understood this 7 day opt thing. Can someone explain it to me? I was wondering the other day if for example you have 4 years left on your ADSC when you show up to a new base how that would work. Theoretically you would do 3 years and then what? Do you 7 day opt and then get to stay at your base for another year before you separate? Are there time limits to this?

Those guys have some big brass balls. I don't know if I could do what they did, but good on them for sticking it to the man. I personally think stuff like this needs to happen more often when it is warranted instead of everyone just being yes men.

The sad thing is that he has already been mentored. You should have seen what happened when he ran for a position in the CGOC, and to be honest I'm surprised he is still participating after the mentoring he received. FWIW, he is a good dude.

You know I am really tired of people saying that cuts need to be everywhere and that it is not that big of a deal if tricare fees increase etc. (Yes, nsplayer I'm looking at you.) The problem with all of this is the principle behind it for me. Are defense civilians seeing increases, Congress, the judicial branch, other agencies? NO! The people who are putting their lives on the line, (fwiw, I say this while I am thinking about the Army and Marines mostly because I don't feel I or most of the AF has to put their lives on the line) have to worry about losing their retirements, increased tricare fees, and other benefits such as TA etc because the military is an easy target. I will stop complaining about this sort of thing AFTER the beauracrats and government aristocrats start cutting their own benefits etc first! Just another reason to punch at the end of my commitment...