Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Disagree is what I am saying, but access can be a benefit. If you don't agree with me on that, have fun, you need to go read a book on networking and it's impact on your future.

WalMart is always hiring.

Edited by matmacwc
  • Upvote 2
Posted

Disagree is what I am saying, but access can be a benefit. If you don't agree with me on that, have fun, you need to go read a book on networking and it's impact on your future.

WalMart is always hiring.

Oh, no doubt. Sucking up to a drug dealer can be helpful too, if you need a few Gs on the side or perhaps an ex knocked off. Doesn't make it right, and it doesn't change the company you keep, or your actions around them. What you call "networking."

But I understand for a guy like you, it's a skill in your vocabulary to slob and suck. For a guy like you. As for me, the only way WalMart would enter this equation between you and myself, is if I bought the company, you applied for a job, and I told you "not just no, but hell no." Followed by,

"We don't hire ass kissing politician-wannabes without principle at WalMart. I know you're used to doing that in one uniform, but it won't be the WalMart uniform."

  • Downvote 14
Posted

Oh, no doubt. Sucking up to a drug dealer can be helpful too, if you need a few Gs on the side or perhaps an ex knocked off. Doesn't make it right, and it doesn't change the company you keep, or your actions around them. What you call "networking."

But I understand for a guy like you, it's a skill in your vocabulary to slob and suck. For a guy like you. As for me, the only way WalMart would enter this equation between you and myself, is if I bought the company, you applied for a job, and I told you "not just no, but hell no." Followed by,

"We don't hire ass kissing politician-wannabes without principle at WalMart. I know you're used to doing that in one uniform, but it won't be the WalMart uniform."

37068676.jpg

  • Upvote 4
Posted (edited)

Oh, no doubt. Sucking up to a drug dealer can be helpful too, if you need a few Gs on the side or perhaps an ex knocked off. Doesn't make it right, and it doesn't change the company you keep, or your actions around them. What you call "networking."

But I understand for a guy like you, it's a skill in your vocabulary to slob and suck. For a guy like you. As for me, the only way WalMart would enter this equation between you and myself, is if I bought the company, you applied for a job, and I told you "not just no, but hell no." Followed by,

"We don't hire ass kissing politician-wannabes without principle at WalMart. I know you're used to doing that in one uniform, but it won't be the WalMart uniform."

Soo, are you hiring? Cause this airline boom isn't working out, just figured because you own WalMart. I will bring my own knee pads!

And I am done, back to why military retirement is under attack.

Edited by matmacwc
Posted

MOAA's thoughts. Heck, I might even join.

https://www.moaa.org/factvsfiction/

Best article I've seen on the subject. Uses facts and historical trends to debunk every myth currently being sold to the American public regarding military personnel costs. Please read and share. This article NEEDS to gain traction.

  • Upvote 1
Posted

I just joined MOAA, thanks sputnik :beer:

MOAA's thoughts.  Heck, I might even join.

 

https://www.moaa.org/factvsfiction/

 

Also just joined.

All officers should join MOAA; all enlisted should join AFSA. This is an escalating war of money and constituency sizes. Political finance reform is immensely important, but nobody can play with one hand tied behind the back.

Until you can vote, vote with your wallet. Sadly, lobbyists usually push more change than writing your congressman.

Sent from my HTC One X+ using Tapatalk

  • Upvote 1
Posted (edited)

From that article:

"One House aide said that leadership may be waiting before making a decision on the retirement benefits to see how strongly the issue resonates back in lawmakers’ districts.

"If members come back and go to leadership and say they’re really getting hit on this, leadership might be in a mood to adjust it,” the aide said. “If they come back and there’s not as much passion behind it, that tells you it will be a completely different story.”

UFB. Most individual military members are not vocal with their congressional representatives, which does not bode well for us...

I wrote all 3 of my congressmen. Zero responses so far. Next stop is to their local offices.

Edited for poor formatting...

Edited by RTB
Posted (edited)

That means a four-star officer retiring with 40 years of experience would receive a pension of $237,144, according to the Pentagon. Base pay for active-duty top officers is $181,501, according to Navy Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, a Pentagon spokesman. Housing and other allowances can boost their compensation an additional third.

unless there's some fuzzy math happening to stir the hornet's nest...uningbelievable.

Edited by day man
Posted

In 2007, Congress passed a Pentagon-sponsored proposal that boosted retirement benefits for three- and four-star admirals and generals, allowing them to make more in retirement than they did on active duty. The Pentagon had requested the change in 2003 to help retain senior officers as the military was fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and wanted to entice officers to remain on active duty.

Oh yeah. I remember that DoD marketing campaign. Let us screw you for 40 years and we will make it up to you. If they really wanted to entice officers to remain on AD why did it start in 2007, for you? Why not for Year Groups 1998+ with wavers for 30+ continuous days BOG in AFG/PAK 2001 and 2002.

Not in 1998, but sounds like a nice split. Captures all post-9/11 officers plus the ones who spent the most time in OEF/OIF.

Posted

This could explain some of the deafening silence from our leadership management when the cuts came down last month.

For the last time... they aren't leaders. They're managers. No more, no less.

Posted

Senators from VA that originally voted for pension cuts:

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00281

...if the issue was this important to offer an amendment 3 weeks later, then they should have fixed it the first time, or voted no.

Posted (edited)

FYI

-----

The Honorable Carl Levin

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

228 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

-----

The Honorable Howard McKeon

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services

U.S. House of Representatives

2120 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

-----

The Honorable Paul Ryan

Chairman, Committee on the Budget

U.S. House of Representatives

207 Cannon House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

-----

The Honorable Patty Murray

Chairman, Committee on the Budget

United States Senate

624 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Ms. Chairman:

-----

More contact information available via:

https://www.congressmerge.com

https://www.ita.doc.gov/ita_sec/Address%20and%20Salutation.htm

Sent from my HTC One X+ using Tapatalk

Edit: Holy crap tapatalk, pull it together.

Edited by deaddebate
Posted (edited)

FYI<br />-----<br />The Honorable Carl Levin<br />Chairman, Committee on Armed Services<br />United States Senate<br />228 Russell Senate Office Building<br />Washington, DC 20510<br /><br />Dear Mr. Chairman:<br />-----<br />The Honorable Howard McKeon<br />Chairman, Committee on Armed Services<br />U.S. House of Representatives<br />2120 Rayburn House Office Building<br />Washington, DC 20515<br /><br />Dear Mr. Chairman:<br />-----<br />The Honorable Paul Ryan<br />Chairman, Committee on the Budget<br />U.S. House of Representatives<br />207 Cannon House Office Building<br />Washington, DC 20515<br /><br />Dear Mr. Chairman:<br />-----<br />The Honorable Patty Murray<br />Chairman, Committee on the Budget<br />United States Senate<br />624 Dirksen Senate Office Building<br />Washington, DC 20510<br /><br />Dear Ms. Chairman:<br />-----<br />More contact information available via:<br />https://www.congressmerge.com/<br />https://www.ita.doc.gov/ita_sec/Address%20and%20Salutation.htm<br /><br />Sent from my HTC One X+ using Tapatalk<br /><br />

Please! Make it stop!

Edited by ChiefSlapahoe
Posted

So, last I heard, USAFA didn't count for retirement calculation. That part of the GO article is wrong.

However to the fuzzy math question(s): The GO base pay is limited to somewhere around $11K/mo however the pay tables go up to somewhere around $20K/mo near the 40 years of service range. In the past, GO retirement pay was limited to a max of 75% * base pay when retiring at 30 years to 40 years, but the law passed in 2007 changed it to allow the full 2.5%/yr, meaning at 30 years it is 75% base pay and at 40 years it is 100% base pay.

Posted
Well, most military members don't ever pull down a retirement, either. Personally, I have no vested interest in what happens to military retirement, so I can understand why others don't care either.

Yes, I get that most people won't see a retirement. However, the slippery slope aspect of this should concern everyone. As I said before, taking from those that have served is now on the table.

Posted

Here´s the reply from my congressman. He´s an Army Guard Lt Col and he voted for the budget, but I´m happy with the answer that he´s co-sponsoring an amendment to undo the COLA change:

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns with the recent budget deal and military retirement. It is good to hear from you.

As you know, Chairman Paul Ryan and Senator Patty Murray negotiated a budget agreement to replace the automatic, across-the-board cuts of sequestration with targeted reductions in other areas. The agreement included a provision to reduce by one percent the cost-of-living adjustment for military retirees under the age of 62.

It should come as no surprise that I did not agree with everything in this deal. If it had been my decision, I would not have included this COLA provision. Unfortunately, this was a take-it-or-leave-it offer, which is why I am a cosponsor of a bill that would repeal this provision and offset the increase in spending by eliminating a loophole that allows illegal immigrants to receive a tax credit.

I believe there is a better way to reform military compensation and am glad these changes do not go into effect until 2016, giving Congress and the military community time to address this issue along with broader compensation reforms. However, doing so would not be possible without moving away from governing by crisis, providing much-needed certainty, and getting back to regular order, and that is what the Ryan-Murray budget allows. Putting Congress back in control of America's purse strings ensures that we will be able to take care of the men and women in our armed forces

Thank you again for contacting me. Please continue to keep me informed of the issues that are important to you and be sure to visit my website, www.womack.house.gov , for more information and to sign up for my newsletter.

Sincerely,
SteveSig.jpg
Congressman Steve Womack
Member of Congress

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...