Jump to content

Welcome to SECTalk.com

Welcome to SECTalk.com -- The Home of 6 Straight National Titles!

You are currently accessing our site as a guest which means you can't access all of our features such as social groups, sports betting, and many more. By joining our free community you will have access to all of these great features as well as to participating in our forums, contacting other members, and much more. Registration only takes a minute and SECTalk.com is absolutely free, so please join today!

If you have any problems registering or signing in, please contact us.

2015 SECTalk.com Fundraiser
Progress: $1,100 of $2,570 raised

Senate Democrats, Paul Ryan....You're Dead to Me

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1
Crimson Kicker8

Crimson Kicker8

    Formerly known as Crimson Kicker8

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • Posts:
    8,905
  • Age:
    33
  • Joined:
    Sep 2006
  • Location:
    McGuire AFB, NJ
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    2,873
So there's a new bipartisan (Paul/Murray) budget bill that just passed the Senate (on overwhelming party lines, Dems in favor, Repubs against).  Yay for bipartisanship!  Idiots.
http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t2

The budget includes reducing the cost of living allowance (COLA) for retired military veterans of working age (approx 38-62) by 1%.  They're touting it will save $6B.  That's what they're touting.......the fine print shows that the $6B in savings is over 10 years.  There is currently debate on whether wounded veterans are also hit by the COLA restriction.

The fine print also shows that a tax credit loophole that benefits illegal aliens was left untouched in lieu of hitting veterans instead.  Said loophole for illegal aliens costs $4.2B in 2010, but don't mess with those guys, they're a good portion of the Democrat's voting block (and don't you dare imply a law that requires them to show an ID before voting).  Senator Sessions of Alabama and Senator Wicker of Mississippi co-sponsored an amendment to restore those COLA benefits to veterans while Sessions went a step further and targeted the illegal alien welfare loophole.  All of it was squashed by the Democratic controlled Senate.
http://dailycaller.c...lfare-loophole/

Now what's the big deal about losing the 1% COLA for vets?  Are any of them going to starve in the cold from this? Probably not, but the real danger lies in precedent and proportionality.  This cut now opens up the door for everything to be targeted in the realm of military retirements (precedent).  The Air Force alone is tasked with reducing another 25,000 Airmen going into 2014, trying to cut overall costs within the branch.....so why is it that the military is always THE FIRST to brunt these budget concerns (proportionality)?

A lot of people give lip service to reducing the deficit until it's their turn to reduce.  Well, I've been in the Air Force 10 years come March '14, and I can tell you within that time I've seen non-stop cutting.  Cutting of manpower, material, training, moral and family programs.....everything, and it's only getting worse every year.  These cuts have cost me a commission, and if they continue on this pace they could costs me a career (to say nothing about what may be left in retirement benefits 10 years down the road).

So Paul Ryan, so Senate Democrats, you can go f*ck yourselves to kingdom come, because I haven't seen a single budget cut measure that targets your paltry asses.

Rant over, tl;dr.
Posted Image

#2
possumslayer

possumslayer

    Orange & White Supremacist

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • Posts:
    7,629
  • Age:
    48
  • Joined:
    Oct 2013
  • Location:
    Lincoln county Tennessee
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    3,572
Funny their doing the cuts on military... butt not on all federal employees..

#3
Crimson Kicker8

Crimson Kicker8

    Formerly known as Crimson Kicker8

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • Posts:
    8,905
  • Age:
    33
  • Joined:
    Sep 2006
  • Location:
    McGuire AFB, NJ
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    2,873

View Postpossumslayer, on 19 December 2013 - 06:40 AM, said:

Funny their doing the cuts on military... butt not on all federal employees..
They'd argue that military members constitute a larger block, and therefore produce more savings when cut.  If you were to cut Congress's pay, it wouldn't even be a drop in the bucket as far as savings is concerned.  My point is you need to  stand up on some friggin principal.  As a military leader, you never ask someone do to something that you yourself aren't willing to do.  You lead by example.  I'm tasking members of Congress to do the same damn thing.  You want to cut more Airmen?  You want to slice into retired veterans pay?  Reduce yourselves and reduce your benefits also.  If you aren't willing to do that, then I have no time for you.
Posted Image

#4
possumslayer

possumslayer

    Orange & White Supremacist

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • Posts:
    7,629
  • Age:
    48
  • Joined:
    Oct 2013
  • Location:
    Lincoln county Tennessee
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    3,572

View PostCrimson Kicker8, on 19 December 2013 - 10:46 AM, said:

They'd argue that military members constitute a larger block, and therefore produce more savings when cut.  If you were to cut Congress's pay, it wouldn't even be a drop in the bucket as far as savings is concerned.  My point is you need to  stand up on some friggin principal.  As a military leader, you never ask someone do to something that you yourself aren't willing to do.  You lead by example.  I'm tasking members of Congress to do the same damn thing.  You want to cut more Airmen?  You want to slice into retired veterans pay?  Reduce yourselves and reduce your benefits also.  If you aren't willing to do that, then I have no time for you.
cut em all..IRS and all department s in the fed...also the entitlement crowd...military especially wounded veterans should be left alone!

#5
Crimson Kicker8

Crimson Kicker8

    Formerly known as Crimson Kicker8

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • Posts:
    8,905
  • Age:
    33
  • Joined:
    Sep 2006
  • Location:
    McGuire AFB, NJ
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    2,873
And objectively, if it comes to the point where further military benefits have to be cut, then I'm willing to make that sacrifice, but every other damn group had better been cut by that point as well.  This hitting the military first and often BS has got to stop.
Posted Image

#6
possumslayer

possumslayer

    Orange & White Supremacist

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • Posts:
    7,629
  • Age:
    48
  • Joined:
    Oct 2013
  • Location:
    Lincoln county Tennessee
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    3,572
Kicker..do you except this tooo kill recruiting? Especially the smart kids that could become officers?

#7
nova

nova

    Intergalactic planetary bulldawg!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • Posts:
    8,835
  • Age:
    31
  • Joined:
    Dec 2009
  • Location:
    Huntsville, AL
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    4,147
The whole thing's a joke.  Out of a $4 trillion budget we're saving $20 billion over 10 years.  Until we tackle entitlements we're screwed no matter what we do.

#8
nova

nova

    Intergalactic planetary bulldawg!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • Posts:
    8,835
  • Age:
    31
  • Joined:
    Dec 2009
  • Location:
    Huntsville, AL
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    4,147

View PostCrimson Kicker8, on 19 December 2013 - 02:13 AM, said:

A lot of people give lip service to reducing the deficit until it's their turn to reduce.  Well, I've been in the Air Force 10 years come March '14, and I can tell you within that time I've seen non-stop cutting.  Cutting of manpower, material, training, moral and family programs.....everything, and it's only getting worse every year.  These cuts have cost me a commission, and if they continue on this pace they could costs me a career (to say nothing about what may be left in retirement benefits 10 years down the road).


And you'll continue to see such things until DoD mismanagement is fixed.  Huge expensive procurement programs for questionable weapons systems at the expense of personell and training is killing us.

#9
Crimson Kicker8

Crimson Kicker8

    Formerly known as Crimson Kicker8

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • Posts:
    8,905
  • Age:
    33
  • Joined:
    Sep 2006
  • Location:
    McGuire AFB, NJ
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    2,873

View Postpossumslayer, on 19 December 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:

Kicker..do you except this tooo kill recruiting? Especially the smart kids that could become officers?
No, I don't think it will kill recruiting.  As far as I know, all the branches regularly hit their recruiting numbers.  And you've got to figure that if downsizing the force is their overall goal, then target recruiting numbers are going to shrink as well.  As dangerous as cutting retirement benefits is as far as precedent is concerned, the military still offers many solid perks in terms of taking care of yourself and your family  As far as officers go, there won't be any shortage there anytime soon.  Academy grads form the bulk of the officer corps with OCS/OTS and ROTC programs picking up from there.  Because the officer side is so overmanned (for the Air Force at least), I don't think it will see a short fall of people tryingto join.

Edited by Crimson Kicker8, 19 December 2013 - 07:19 PM.

Posted Image

#10
Crimson Kicker8

Crimson Kicker8

    Formerly known as Crimson Kicker8

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • Posts:
    8,905
  • Age:
    33
  • Joined:
    Sep 2006
  • Location:
    McGuire AFB, NJ
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    2,873

View Postnova, on 19 December 2013 - 02:08 PM, said:

And you'll continue to see such things until DoD mismanagement is fixed.  Huge expensive procurement programs for questionable weapons systems at the expense of personell and training is killing us.
I think weapon system procurement is only a fraction of the problem.  C-17's are no longer produced, the F-35 is in serious trouble of coming to operational fruition, and there is serious talk of scrapping the KC-10 and A-10 fleets all together.  Oh, and the KC-135 is about to be retired.  It appears that defense spending is being slashed across the board.
Posted Image

#11
nova

nova

    Intergalactic planetary bulldawg!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • Posts:
    8,835
  • Age:
    31
  • Joined:
    Dec 2009
  • Location:
    Huntsville, AL
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    4,147

View PostCrimson Kicker8, on 19 December 2013 - 07:23 PM, said:

I think weapon system procurement is only a fraction of the problem.  C-17's are no longer produced, the F-35 is in serious trouble of coming to operational fruition, and there is serious talk of scrapping the KC-10 and A-10 fleets all together.  Oh, and the KC-135 is about to be retired.  It appears that defense spending is being slashed across the board.

Out of the cases you mention, only the KC-135 is not being scrapped or curtailed in order to preserve funding for the F-35.  Think about it for a second, the AF is giving up proven airlift, refueling and close air support aircraft in order to support a fighter that it's entirely possible may be functionally obsolete for projected threats by the time it fields and may not work at all.  The design tradeoffs necessary to get an aircraft that could satisfy AF, Navy and USMC requirements mean that it has some serious holes in it's capability....

The KC-135 is less problematic because they are actually getting replacements in the KC-46, but again, preserving funding for other things like the F-35, they're not getting as many as we've had KC-135s.  That's offset by the fact the KC-46 is a more capable aircraft but at the same time, what happens when you need a tanker at X number of places and only have enough for X-1 places.  Somebody goes without that's what....

ETA

When you break it down, by the time you factor in RDT&E expenditures, the AF is going to spend nearly as much on the F-35 this coming year, as it does on EVERY OTHER procurement program it has going.

Edited by nova, 19 December 2013 - 08:03 PM.


#12
Crimson Kicker8

Crimson Kicker8

    Formerly known as Crimson Kicker8

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • Posts:
    8,905
  • Age:
    33
  • Joined:
    Sep 2006
  • Location:
    McGuire AFB, NJ
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    2,873

View Postnova, on 19 December 2013 - 07:56 PM, said:

Out of the cases you mention, only the KC-135 is not being scrapped or curtailed in order to preserve funding for the F-35.  Think about it for a second, the AF is giving up proven airlift, refueling and close air support aircraft in order to support a fighter that it's entirely possible may be functionally obsolete for projected threats by the time it fields and may not work at all.  The design tradeoffs necessary to get an aircraft that could satisfy AF, Navy and USMC requirements mean that it has some serious holes in it's capability....

The KC-135 is less problematic because they are actually getting replacements in the KC-46, but again, preserving funding for other things like the F-35, they're not getting as many as we've had KC-135s.  That's offset by the fact the KC-46 is a more capable aircraft but at the same time, what happens when you need a tanker at X number of places and only have enough for X-1 places.  Somebody goes without that's what....

ETA

When you break it down, by the time you factor in RDT&E expenditures, the AF is going to spend nearly as much on the F-35 this coming year, as it does on EVERY OTHER procurement program it has going.

To be honest, I don't really know what is and isn't being curtailed to support the F-35.  The 135's are nearing the end of their lifespan which explains their retirement, and the AF has to decide if the 59 KC-10's in the inventory will remain in order to supplement the upcoming KC-46, or to scrap them in favor of making the tanker fleet KC-46 exclusive.  The KC-10's are starting to show their age, as they have not had a major avionics upgrade in their 30+ year lifespan, so the AF doesn't know if upgrading their fleet is worth the price in lieu of replacing them with 46's.  But you're absolutely right about the KC-46, it will be much more capable than the Extenders and Stratotankers, but will also be more expensive and likely limited in availability.  I can't get into details of locations, but we are drawing down in many parts of the world.  In theory, demand on aerial refueling operations should begin to curb somewhat (although AR never really goes away, even in the most peaceful of circumstances).

I don't rightly know why the A-10 is on the chopping block, it seems like a perfectly capable asset for the type of wars we're fighting.  I'm not a fighter guy though so I'm not as in the loop with that side of the house. Since the F-35 is slated to replace the F-16, a multi-role fighter, I'm guessing they see the Lightning II as a suitable replacement for  the Thunderbolt II in that regard.
Posted Image

#13
nova

nova

    Intergalactic planetary bulldawg!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • Posts:
    8,835
  • Age:
    31
  • Joined:
    Dec 2009
  • Location:
    Huntsville, AL
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    4,147

View PostCrimson Kicker8, on 19 December 2013 - 11:21 PM, said:

To be honest, I don't really know what is and isn't being curtailed to support the F-35.  

Honestly I'm only going by what I read plus what filters through the DoD grapevine.  All signs point to F-35 or bust from what I'm seeing.

View PostCrimson Kicker8, on 19 December 2013 - 11:21 PM, said:

I can't get into details of locations, but we are drawing down in many parts of the world.  In theory, demand on aerial refueling operations should begin to curb somewhat (although AR never really goes away, even in the most peaceful of circumstances).

Remember what I do.  I see the drawdowns from the Army side because I play a small part in moving the aircraft. :)

View PostCrimson Kicker8, on 19 December 2013 - 11:21 PM, said:

I don't rightly know why the A-10 is on the chopping block, it seems like a perfectly capable asset for the type of wars we're fighting.  I'm not a fighter guy though so I'm not as in the loop with that side of the house. Since the F-35 is slated to replace the F-16, a multi-role fighter, I'm guessing they see the Lightning II as a suitable replacement for  the Thunderbolt II in that regard.

The A-10 is nearly perfect for COIN operations, the only way it could be better is if it was a turboprop instead of a jet.  And you're exactly right, the AF thinks they can do the CAS mission with the F-35, via PGMs, which myself and a lot of others aren't convinced of.  Even if it is capable, that's an asset that's damn expensive to buy and operate for that mission, especially compared to the A-10s which are very cheap to operate and were long ago paid for.

It's very close to the same nonsense the Army is talking about.  They're considering scrapping all the OH-58Ds and replacing them a smaller number of AH-64s.  It's ludicrous to use a bigger more expensive asset to do a mission that can be done by a much cheaper one...

#14
Neil Caudle is Superman

Neil Caudle is Superman
  • Members
  • PipPip
  • Posts:
    4,074
  • Age:
    26
  • Joined:
    Sep 2012
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    1,415

View PostCrimson Kicker8, on 19 December 2013 - 10:46 AM, said:

They'd argue that military members constitute a larger block, and therefore produce more savings when cut.  If you were to cut Congress's pay, it wouldn't even be a drop in the bucket as far as savings is concerned.  My point is you need to  stand up on some friggin principal.  As a military leader, you never ask someone do to something that you yourself aren't willing to do.  You lead by example.  I'm tasking members of Congress to do the same damn thing.  You want to cut more Airmen?  You want to slice into retired veterans pay?  Reduce yourselves and reduce your benefits also.  If you aren't willing to do that, then I have no time for you.

Actually cutting Congress's pay (and their Posted Imageing insanely huge pensions) would save a shit ton of money...

532 congressmen at $174,000 a year costs us $92,568,000 a year. They don't deserve anywhere near that amount of money, IMO. Personally I think they should make what firefighters/cops/teachers make on average and no more, but even if you cut their salaries in half (Still would be overpaying them), that'd save over $45,000,000 a year.
That doesn't seem like a whole lot, but I'm guessing their aides, secretaries, etc. are all overpaid, too, and they'd be sure to cut their salaries if their own salaries were cut. Plus, Congressional retirement pensions are like $70,000 a year or something insane. Those could be cut, too.


IMO Congress should've never been allowed to have any control over what they get paid... Posted Imageers don't do shit and get paid more than a whole squad of cops get paid per year.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users