TriCare to be Cut to Encourage Enrollment in Obamacare.

[daynightindicator]

Gosh, what an interesting polarity between the generations.

Not sure about the rest of my generation, but I was raised to expect to have to support myself entirely for my entire life - no government entitlements, pensions, etc. I was raised to never expect anyone but me to care about taking care of me later in life, and my parents promoted saving/investing to make sure i personally procured enough for retirement. Maybe my parents were super paranoid, but they were right when they told me life isn't fair.

Healthcare and retirement had absolutely nothing to do with my decision to serve - probably because I was too young and dumb to realize that they are a really big deal. I just looked at it as a cool, exciting adventure with some perks.

Now I'm not saying the government doesn't have an obligation to people who signed up with certain expectations of the reimbursement they would receive for their service, but I'm just saying in the end, there's only one person/entity you can ever expect to take care of you - and that's you.

[Guest]

I'm saying it sucks but isn't surprising. Personally I don't plan my life based on promises of future good deals from the government or any particular company.

Now I'm not saying the government doesn't have an obligation to people who signed up with certain expectations of the reimbursement they would receive for their service, but I'm just saying in the end, there's only one person/entity you can ever expect to take care of you - and that's you.

Interesting perspectives. I was a bullet proof tough guy once.

It will be interesting when you're at a stage where you have real obligations that you intend to meet with the assets you thought were part of your fool proof fail safe plan and realize those assets may be at risk.

Of course, if your approach is to be some kind of Doomsday Prepper who can live off the land and tells his kids to suckit up and figure out some way to pay for their $500k college education themselves because life is all about looking out for yourself than this is all moot.

[nsplayr]

Of course, if your approach is to be some kind of Doomsday Prepper...

I think we can all look to for some wisdom in pursuing that path.

[HeloDude]

...we shouldn't have taken an axe to anything (DOD, arts programs, national parks, transportation, food stamps, foreign aid, etc.).

That's awesome how you compare defense spending to federal spending on the arts and food stamps. This is what is wrong with our country.

...so why make deep cuts to programs and services that people rely on and that do a lot of good...

Because the federal government wasn't intended to be 'Uncle Sugar' to everyone who wants a handout. If a state wants to tax the $hit out of their folks to give free handouts to folks, then so be it--I don't have to live in that state. Local governments and charities have always done a much better job in taking care of the people who can not truly take care of themselves. It's horrible that half the country thinks a bloated bureaucracy called the federal government can solve all of the problems.

By the way...if you haven't seen it yet...research what percentage of income Romney gave to charity compared to Obama--very telling. And if you think that's sad, take a look at Biden's--crazy sad.

So we shouldn't have made huge cuts to anything!

Have you not seen the freaking federal debt caused by ongoing trillion dollar deficits??! The federal government can't even balance its budget and most on the left don't want any cuts (unless it's from defense). For the record, I think there does need to be some cuts to defense (even though it's actually one of the few things specifically called for in The Constitution). But like CH said, it's not the driving problem. Besides, defense spending only accounts for 20% of the federal budget but yet took half of the cuts. Yes, the GOP went for it to at least get the idea of cutting the budget on the table...at least they finally got the talk of cuts going.

Sounds good, let's throw in reforming the tax code while we're at it. What's the plan and how do you get 60 senators and half the House to back it?

You mean like actually getting half of the country to pay some sort of federal income tax? Again, CH summed this one up pretty well. The country doesn't have a tax problem (other than the one I just laid out), but rather a huge addiction/spending problem.

Personally I don't plan my life based on promises of future good deals from the government

Funny...you vote for the people that make promises of good deals...or should I say good handouts.

[nsplayr]

That's awesome how you compare defense spending to federal spending on the arts and food stamps. This is what is wrong with our country.

That's how the government looks at it man...all the things I listed are discretionary spending. The fact that you find one program or category more important is your opinion and everyone's got one.

If a state wants to tax the $hit out of their folks to give free handouts to folks, then so be it--I don't have to live in that state.

Why is this ok for a state but not for the nation? You don't have to live in the United States either. Doesn't logically make sense...either it's a good idea or it's not.

By the way...if you haven't seen it yet...research what percentage of income Romney gave to charity compared to Obama--very telling. And if you think that's sad, take a look at Biden's--crazy sad.

Romney did give a lot to charity and that's good for him. While that's an admirable personal quality giving to charity certainly isn't a requirement, free country and all. Romney is probably the best example of the whole "self-sufficiency apart from the government" idea on a personal level being a Mormon, they're big into taking care of their own and stockpiling stuff for bad times.

Yes, the GOP went for it to at least get the idea of cutting the budget on the table...at least they finally got the talk of cuts going.

And since they controlled about 1/2 of Congress they got to cut from about 1/2 the accounts they wanted and the Democrats got to pile on cuts where they wanted, that's how it works. Few of the cuts were necessary IMHO in the short term but at least we agree on the source of our current problem now that we're actually faced with the cuts.

You mean like actually getting half of the country to pay some sort of federal income tax?

In a broader reform to the entire system, sure, but that's another conversation.

Funny...you vote for the people that make promises of good deals...or should I say good handouts.

You don't huh? Must be a Ron Paul guy which is cool but clearly I'm not.

Alright, that's enough for one day...I've been in enough gangbangs to recognize when it's no longer really entertaining...we'll have plenty of opportunities to debate politics over the next 6-9 months.

Edited February 29, 2012 by nsplayr

[magnetfreezer]

That's how the government looks at it man...all the things I listed are discretionary spending. The fact that you find one program or category more important is your opinion and everyone's got one.

If only there were some document that we all swore to uphold that specifically listed the things that the government was authorized to spend money on and what's just my opinion.

Everyone also has an opinion on how to fly against an SA-XYZ but one way hopefully gets you home and the other way probably won't.

[Danger41]

Not sure about the rest of my generation, but I was raised to expect to have to support myself entirely for my entire life - no government entitlements, pensions, etc. I was raised to never expect anyone but me to care about taking care of me later in life, and my parents promoted saving/investing to make sure i personally procured enough for retirement. Maybe my parents were super paranoid, but they were right when they told me life isn't fair.

Healthcare and retirement had absolutely nothing to do with my decision to serve - probably because I was too young and dumb to realize that they are a really big deal. I just looked at it as a cool, exciting adventure with some perks.

Now I'm not saying the government doesn't have an obligation to people who signed up with certain expectations of the reimbursement they would receive for their service, but I'm just saying in the end, there's only one person/entity you can ever expect to take care of you - and that's you.

I felt exactly like you until my wife got pregnant, lost her job, and short notice pcs'd. Luckily, I was still in a position to provide, but it definitely is a gut check when you get thrown out of your comfort zone and lose about 40% of your family income and take on a ton of expenses (this kid is going to be 10 feet tall at the rate he eats).

I'm in the camp that doesn't mind adhering to ROE but calls foul when they change mid-game. Especially when there are WAY more glaring problems than retirees getting their pills for cheap. No need to beat that dead horse anymore.

[Loach]

HeloDude, on 28 February 2012 - 10:43 PM, said:

If a state wants to tax the $hit out of their folks to give free handouts to folks, then so be it--I don't have to live in that state.

Why is this ok for a state but not for the nation? You don't have to live in the United States either. Doesn't logically make sense...either it's a good idea or it's not.

nsplayr: I'm going back to my freshman Poli Sci class (Fall, 1991), but if I dust off the cob webs in that seldom used wing of my brain, I seem to remember that sovereignty resides in the states. The 10th Amendment says something about the powers not specifically delegated to the federal gov't are reserved to the states and the people. It's the concept of federalism, and the notion that the states (as they were sovereign entities) were best at knowing the needs/wants of their citizens. That's why criminal law is generally a state issue (and yes, I'm familiar with USC 18, as I'm a gun carrying federal officer when I'm not on military leave). The states decide how we live, not the federal gov't. If we don't like it, we can move to another state. So, you want high taxes and every social program in the world, move to a liberal NE state (where I unfortunately reside). You want low taxes and the ability to carry concealed w/o having to give up your first born, move to Tx or Wyoming (as an example -- I really don't know the laws of those two states). This was the agreement that was enterd into when the Consititution was ratified, as some states were reluctant to join the union. The purpose of the fed gov't -- defense, printing money, appointing ambassadors/foreign affairs, customs, etc. I think we've expanded on that in the last 200 years, wouldn't you agree?

[ClearedHot]

Senators Clash Over Idea Of More Pentagon Cuts

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=147569495

"Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad, the committee chairman, said that given the country's fiscal crisis more savings must be found in the core defense budget, and that it would be impossible to address the nation's deficit without doing so."

[Ram]

China just got a boner.

[nsplayr]

China just got a boner.

A really small one.

[Tank]

A really small one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1G30gIjZWKk&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL53DD4686E5A50882

Not Chinese but still funny....

[nsplayr]

Senators Clash Over Idea Of More Pentagon Cuts

https://www.npr.org/t...oryId=147569495

"Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad, the committee chairman, said that given the country's fiscal crisis more savings must be found in the core defense budget, and that it would be impossible to address the nation's deficit without doing so."

This may be among his recent concerns...

During a budget hearing today on Capitol Hill, Sen. Kent Conrad, D-North Dakota, asked Department of Defense leaders, "What is the cost per soldier, to maintain a soldier for a year in Afghanistan?" Under Secretary Robert Hale, the Pentagon comptroller, responded "Right now about $850,000 per soldier."

Link

Edited February 29, 2012 by nsplayr

[Spur38]

What's the cost of the President's illegal alien aunt in Mass. per year + the other 12,000,000?

[Smokin]

"Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad, the committee chairman, said that given the country's fiscal crisis more savings must be found in the core defense budget, and that it would be impossible to address the nation's deficit without doing so."

Bullshit. If you applied this logic to the average family, people would be selling their cars so they buy a new mansion. The nearly exponential increase in the big three entitlement programs are going to bankrupt our country, not defense spending. And your reference to the $850K per soldier per year is similarly illogical. Obviously war is expensive and when fly in Baskin Robins for 800 Chiefs who shouldn't be there in the first place, it doesn't get any cheaper. But they're not talking about cutting back on downrange spending, they're talking about taking away the entitlements of the military. Finally, if we're going to cut entitlements, we should start with those who have done little or nothing to earn them rather than those who have earned them with blood, sweat, and tears.

[nsplayr]

And your reference to the $850K per soldier per year is similarly illogical.

That quote was in there for context...I happened to read a different article where Sen. Conrad recently was concerned with the cost of keeping so many troops in Afghanistan and how that cost has increased dramatically in recent years, largely due to tensions with Pakistan. Maybe that's driving his mindset WRT cutting defense spending. He also mentioned "core defense spending" without being more specific, it's unclear exactly what he means by that.

But they're not talking about cutting back on downrange spending...

Except that they are.

Edited February 29, 2012 by nsplayr

[Guest]

Entitlements have a long tail and it is money owed/obligated in the future. Cutting future dollars is also easy because people don't reach backwards with their votes. Entitlements to small groups are especially vulnerable because the recipients do not represent a large voting block. That, of course, is where military entitlements fall.

Military entitlements are typically protected because the 99% who are not veterans feel an obligation to those who were willing to do for them what they could not or were not willing to do for themselves.

It is especially interesting when we see people in the 1% who believe we should expect to attract the best talent to defend the other 99% without offering valuable and meaningful long term incentives. Quite remarkable, actually.

[nsplayr]

Didn't know where else to put this, but the Supreme Court just upheld all of "Obamacare." Chief Justice Roberts joined the 4 more liberal members. Opinion attached; warning, it's long.

Edited June 28, 2012 by nsplayr

[Spartacus]

Obama to Soldiers: Pay Up

Threatens to veto bill unless it hikes health care fees for service members

Thoughts?

[Jaded]

Obama to Soldiers: Pay Up

Threatens to veto bill unless it hikes health care fees for service members

Thoughts?

FreeBeacon is a very poor source to get info from. Much of the stuff from them is either not true or hyperbole.

[nsplayr]

A much more fair and balanced look at the story.

And this article has a better explanation of the reason for the veto threat:

"If the cumulative effects of the bill impede the ability of the administration to execute the new defense strategy and to properly direct scarce resources, the president's senior advisers would recommend ... that he veto the bill," the White House said in a statement of administration policy.

Edited June 29, 2012 by nsplayr

[Guest]

Why single out the military? I saw a bunch of soldiers in the Atlanta airport today and I was reminded how little money those kids make. Doesn't seem right to hammer them just because they can't fight back.

Bullying.

ns, your quote is spin. You know that.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Rainman A-10

[Vertigo]

Why single out the military? I saw a bunch of soldiers in the Atlanta airport today and I was reminded how little money those kids make. Doesn't seem right to hammer them just because they can't fight back.

Bullying.

ns, your quote is spin. You know that.

So no cuts to the military are warranted or ??

[M2]

So no cuts to the military are warranted or ??

Sure cuts in the DoD are warranted, but not before the freeloaders. Sorry, but there's a huge difference between earned and entitled...

[Spartacus]

A much more fair and balanced look at the story.

And this article has a better explanation of the reason for the veto threat:

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?

FreeBeacon is a very poor source to get info from. Much of the stuff from them is either not true or hyperbole.

It is easy for you to say that while not providing any evidence that the article is "not true or hyperbole".