Report: Cut retirement to pay for weapons

[unhappycamper]

Report: Cut retirement to pay for weapons
By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Friday Oct 23, 2009 9:29:58 EDT

A new report from an independent think tank suggests that drastic cuts are needed in personnel benefits in order to pay for weapons modernization.

Some recommendations from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments might be welcomed by service members and their families, such as a proposal to cut the cost of permanent change-of-station moves by extending tour lengths by 50 percent.

But other recommendations strike at the heart of the military pay and benefits system. The report by Todd Harrison says the promise of retired pay after 20 years is an example of the generous benefits that led to financial problems in the auto industry, requiring a government bailout.

“Few employers today offer pensions and health care benefits for retirees, must less a package that becomes effective after only 20 years of service,” Harrison wrote. “Even GM’s much-derided labor contracts did not provide benefits this rich.”

Harrison said big reductions in benefits, such as requiring more service to earn retired pay and charging more for health benefits, are “politically difficult” but that modest changes, if begun soon, could help control costs.


Rest of article at: http://marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/10/military_benefitscuts_report_102209w/

[BOSSHOG]

1. Establish conservative death panels

Just kill veterans when they attain retirement age. We need to feed the war machine so pro-life fake patriots (who never serve in the military) can wallow in the continuing deaths of non-white, non-christian humans.

[Ikonoklast]

9. Waste of resources.

Why pay for retirement, when you can have vets gound up into an even paste, baked to a turn, and then used as chow in the mess halls.

Money gets saved at every step.

Just a Modest Proposal.



The military is only useful in that they are now used mostly to keep economic hegemony over the rest of the world, and in that mission they are failing badly.

Poor return on the investment.

Economies must be made.

[AllentownJake]

2. Fucking assholes

People put their lives on line for 20 years and you want to cut their benefits?

I'm guessing this think tank was full of people who never served a day of their life in the military.

[Angry Dragon]

3. They should also look

at the benefits that congress takes for granted. I wonder how much money that would save.

[glowing]

4. They are the stupidest fucking chickenhawk pencil pushing fucks.

People in the military are not "regular employees". They risk life and limb to fight in wars that profiteers engineer. They and their families suffer... If anything, they don't have enough Vet services or enough benefits while serving.

[Obamanaut]

5. I seem to recall a change in the retirement and benefits many

years ago that resulted in the loss of a multitude of probable careerists. Medicare only at age 65 rather than health care for life as was promised at enlistment, for example.

After not too long a period the change itself was changed, and resulted in Medicare at 65 with Tricare as a supplement.

This may not be totally accurate. Some of the memory cells suffered damage during the 60's and now I'm paying the price.

[izquierdista]

6. Further down the wrong road

I'd like to see a lot less retired military drawing pensions too. But I want it to be because there aren't many military retirees. Which would mean there isn't a large military. Which would mean we aren't fighting two wars with 700+ overseas bases. Which means the defense budget would be about a quarter of what it is now. Which means you don't have to pay for weapons in the first place. Then you might have enough left over to pay veterans the benefits they are due.

[Metta]

7. It's good they're blatant about sacrificing people and families and keeping war companies $ sacred.

Happy karma to them.

[angstlessk]

8. I thought this was going to be about the cost to maintain our 'ghost fleets' of

out dated and out modded weapons, etc....only this is so bad as to not even be able to consider such an aberration!

[struggle4progress]

10. According to Sourcewatch, CSBA is funded by DoD and various contractors. That military contractors

want DoD monies shuffled away from service personnel towards weapons is, of course, not surprising -- though it is disgusting to see this sort of crap and to see it supported with public dollars. We should look into any public funding for CSBA -- and cut it

[Trillo]

11. "charging more for health benefits"

We already have THE MOST EXPENSIVE healthcare in the world. Top dog. Number 1.

Medicare for Anyone.

[onethatcares]

13. hell we already have the most EXPENSIVE MILITARY IN THE WORLD

I wasn't shouting.......................................................honestly. :argh: :banghead: :banghead:

Peace

[onethatcares]

12. why not pull the troops out and

use them for actual "DEFENSE" instead of occupation and invasion?

Or, on the other hand, why not take these think tank assholes and cut their pay and benefits to the rank of an E4, and stick a rocket launcher up their ass for good measure.

jesusonacreamsicle, we got enough modern weapons to blow the entire fucking world up thirty eight times over. Would someone tell me why?

Peace

BTW, North Korea has one hell of a standing army. How would they move it around the world?