Army pay

[Arkie Jim]

One of the things that I've been thinking is that we should change the pay scale and benifits for member of congress to that of the military. Give a senator the rank of a general and a member of the house a rank of a colonel and pay them accordingly. They would also get the same amount of staff as those ranks receive, and the same benifits and perks. Best of all, put them on the military medical plan. After 20 years, they get half their pay in retirment and if they serve 30 years, give them 75% of their pay just like the military does it.

That alone would save the country a bunch of money, and make the govenrment more likely to take care of the military becasue it would be helping them out too.

Eddie

Hi Eddie---My pet peeve is the salary and the retirement benefits received by the Senate and Congress. I really have not gotten into the procedures about their retirement but I am going to. Do they get full retirement if they serve only one term or if they are expelled from office for corruption.

The Senate and Congress works about 3 months of the year and make about $175,000 a yr. They exempt themselves from many laws they mandate to the public, like Healthcare. How many bills and laws increase their personal financial income.
One shocking thing that most Americans may not realize is that about 1/2 of the Congress are millionares and about 2/3 of the Senate. Seems the parties choose them because they can contribute to their campaign finances and allow the GOP and DNC to limit the amount of money they spend.

Financial reform needs to be fixed so that we as citizens can run for office and compete against them.
I also agree that all Government Workers should have a pay scale and paid according the number of years they serve. If we limit their terms to only 2 than we still should treat them like our military, no retirement.
The military gets no retirement for serving 10 yrs. or less than 19.5 yrs. unless it is disability. The military truely does serve our Republic and the cost is their lives in many cases. The Congress and Senate can say they serve the people, but that is debatable--some do and others serve themselves and the party. Next post I will list a link to a website where I write blogs about these subjects.

 

[foggy1111]

Good topic! I was in the Army during the mid 60's and was green as grass....and 18 years old and bullet proof. I remember one pay day during basic training pretty well.

When I got back to my barracks after being paid.....a game of two-card guts was going strong. I think it cost $2.00 to get cards. I played three hands and matched the pot each time....as each time I held a pair of face cards, only to get beat by a better pair. I think about 12 guys played. The last hand I played....I held K's and I was beat by a pair of Aces. :confused2:

My pay was gone plus about two weeks pay that I had to borrow. I sponged smokes until our next pay day. What a lesson! I became much more careful of the game and whom I played with in the future. :laughing:

 

[jinjimbob]

They need to make it so you can't retire after 20 years, it should be the same retirement age as everyone else, 67 these days.

Should be equal for all, and I'm sure 99.9% of people went into the military because of a draft in the old days or because they want to, not serving anyone. They do it today because they want a job.

I think the whole serving thing is a very good marketing gimmick by the military.

 

[J_J]

They need to make it so you can't retire after 20 years, it should be the same retirement age as everyone else, 67 these days.

Should be equal for all, and I'm sure 99.9% of people went into the military because of a draft in the old days or because they want to, not serving anyone. They do it today because they want a job.

I think the whole serving thing is a very good marketing gimmick by the military.

I don't think you have any idea what it means to serve your country and do the things we were asked to do. Like flying 100 feet above the water taking pictures of ships carrying missiles, dropping bombs and torpedoes, etc. Flying in thunder storms so bad you puked almost the whole time. Long long hours, little rest , and bad food, which you couldn't keep down anyway. Flying in the North Atlantic with very little or no heat. If you crashed in the water or bailed out , you were dead within about 8 min. Flying in the Caribbean, with no air condition. You could be deployed at a moments notice for months at a time. Ask those Army, Marines and Air force, if they think they deserve their retirement pay for all the wars and police action they were involved in. Do they deserve to retire in 20 years, He** yes. I flew as an aircrew member for 20 of my 22 years, USN.

Maybe you did serve in the military and sat on the sidelines and never were in any danger. A lot of our friends died so we all could live free.
I was proud to serve and learned a lot, and I am happy to have a good health care system and retirement benefits.

I was not drafted. $85 per month in 1960

I for one totally disagree with you on this subject.

 

[Quickster2]

I agree 100%. I grew up as an Air Force "brat". My Dad was a three war vetaran starting off as Marine in WW2 and retiring after 30 Years a Colonel from the Air Force. I also spent 4 years in the Army plus two in the reserves. To say the miltary should not be able to retire in 20 years is shameful and that person does not understand what it takes "to serve".

 

[dave1949]

I agree 100%. I grew up as an Air Force "brat". My Dad was a three war vetaran starting off as Marine in WW2 and retiring after 30 Years a Colonel from the Air Force. I also spent 4 years in the Army plus two in the reserves. To say the miltary should not be able to retire in 20 years is shameful and that person does not understand what it takes "to serve".

I agree. Never served but worked with military members enough to know there is nothing easy about it - even when nobody is shooting at you. It is a demanding life that takes dogged determination. 20 years of that is plenty enough to expect from people IMO.

I also agree with Bob about not being the world's policeman. It's good to keep a separation in mind between the worthiness of those willing to risk all and the worthiness of the task given to them.
Dave.

 

[scoutcub]

Hi Eddie---My pet peeve is the salary and the retirement benefits received by the Senate and Congress. I really have not gotten into the procedures about their retirement but I am going to. Do they get full retirement if they serve only one term or if they are expelled from office for corruption.

The Senate and Congress works about 3 months of the year and make about $175,000 a yr. They exempt themselves from many laws they mandate to the public, like Healthcare. How many bills and laws increase their personal financial income.
One shocking thing that most Americans may not realize is that about 1/2 of the Congress are millionares and about 2/3 of the Senate. Seems the parties choose them because they can contribute to their campaign finances and allow the GOP and DNC to limit the amount of money they spend.

Financial reform needs to be fixed so that we as citizens can run for office and compete against them.
I also agree that all Government Workers should have a pay scale and paid according the number of years they serve. If we limit their terms to only 2 than we still should treat them like our military, no retirement.
The military gets no retirement for serving 10 yrs. or less than 19.5 yrs. unless it is disability. The military truely does serve our Republic and the cost is their lives in many cases. The Congress and Senate can say they serve the people, but that is debatable--some do and others serve themselves and the party. Next post I will list a link to a website where I write blogs about these subjects.

I agree with you and Eddie on this. These politicians will eagerly look at any and all programs to cut costs, including military pay/benefits, while giving themselves a pay raise. Eddie's idea is reasonable, put them on a military pay schedule, with similar military health benefits.
Given the amount of politicians in this country, I also think the cost savings would be tremendous. Whatever happened to leadership by example?
Arkie - perhaps you could start a thread here on the subject...?

 

[RTII]

They need to make it so you can't retire after 20 years, it should be the same retirement age as everyone else, 67 these days.

Should be equal for all, and I'm sure 99.9% of people went into the military because of a draft in the old days or because they want to, not serving anyone. They do it today because they want a job.

I think the whole serving thing is a very good marketing gimmick by the military.

Wow! I find this view both narrow minded and ungrateful. With no effort to try and understand what the men and women in our forces do, go through, and sometimes sacrifice for our nation. To compare what they do as just another job is rediculous.

 

[scoutcub]

They need to make it so you can't retire after 20 years, it should be the same retirement age as everyone else, 67 these days.

Should be equal for all, and I'm sure 99.9% of people went into the military because of a draft in the old days or because they want to, not serving anyone. They do it today because they want a job.

I think the whole serving thing is a very good marketing gimmick by the military.

I'd also have to disagree with this statement.
I spent 25 years in the military in 3 different branches, and won't even go into the sacrifices my family and myself have made in that time, or the ultimate sacrifice that many others have made.
The majority of people that go into the military get out after their initial tour - it's a hard life with many sacrifices that most folks don't like. The ones that stay, realize and accept what they're up against and are rewarded with a modest pension after 20 years of service. I'd say under 5% of military retirees can really "retire" on the pension - it helps with the finances but would be very difficult to fully retire on.

 

[Arkie Jim]

Arkie Jim - You posted "Note**--Many have said stop the wars and bring our military home.--I hope we learned a valueable lesson at Pearl harbor about placing all of your eggs in one basket.--I do not think our military will ever be all at home if so, ever whom makes that decision is very very stupid."

I have to strongly disagree with your position. You used Peal Harbor as an example of us placing all of our eggs in one basket which augments my point about bringing all of our troops and equipment home and closing all overseas bases. Look at So. Korea right now ..we have up to 50,000 troops there and No. Korea is threatening to use Nukes..If we were not there they may not even have the same incentive but certainly we would be spared the loss of our troops and not be drawn into a possible nuclear showdown with China. Why should we still have troops in the UK, Japan, Germany etc. ? That is all on our dime..

I say we should bring all troops and equipment home and spend the money on our own people and tell the world we will be happy to help them in a time of need , we will be good neighbors but if they harm us or any of our interests we will destroy them unmercifully. Having our assets and men and women of the military scattered all over the world trying to impose our will on other countries and be the worlds policeman as well as imposing our form of govenment on others should be stopped and is not wise or affordable . Our constant intervention in the internal affairs and occupation of other countries inspires terrorists to attack us .

That is my opinion but what do I know ?

Opinions are great---Terrorist are going to attack us anyway, we are Christians a enemy of Islam, history denotes that.
Remember the song Jerry Bulter sang about Only the Strong Survive. Many small nations would not be able to survive without a Big Brother to help them or threaten their more powerful counterparts.
Face it or not, we are the police force of the free world, that is why many nations depend on us for help. Giving is a great way to have friends and neighbors, not just taking all of the time.
If we all come home as you suggest than we need a Nuclear Capability to defend ourselves and help the weaker. Imagine us against the world without NATO or any other allies, could we defeat them---no we could not--could we nuke them--- of course.
The UN is suppose to be doing the job we do--take care of the weak, but that is not the case.
What would we spend our money on in this country--more entitlements---I can see us fixing our roads and things that is in bad shape.--Public housing is a laugh in this country---Look at some HUD housing--people do not care it is free.
Do we give to the poor or everyone that holds out their hands--How about making people work for a living, that is the start. How about stop giving SSI to drug addicts or those that fake disabilities to keep from working.
How about punishing Deadbeat Dads than we can stop a lot of entitlements.
How about allowing unwed teens to fend for themselves or tell the families to raise their grandkids, not the taxpayers.
Pearl Harbor was use as an example because it would be a delight for some rogue country to nuke our entire military---Norfolk Naval Base would get all of our carriers--3-4 air bases would destroy our Air Force--How long could we defend this country--would we do as England did and move our industry underground to prevent attacks, how about our gas and oil supplies in Houston and New Orleans.
We are a rich Republic but we get help from others and we are allies with them.
We can not allow our military to be cradled up and exposed.
Just my opinion and I do enjoy debates about the issues---Visit some countries that have defended themselves at home and see what war did to them.---Destroyed their homes, their economy, food supply, water, hospitals and much more.
Remember the world depends on our stocket market for the worlds economy. When we go they go--When we go down, they do also.