Get the opportunity? With a minimum of 20 years active service required to meet eligibility for retirement, the only thing stopping opportunity is the individual himself. "I didn't have a chance to plan" translates to personal fiscal irresponsibility. Especially these days, since the military now throws so many plans in the troops' faces on a continual basis. I came from nowhere and started with nothing, and have worked full-time since I was 14 just to survive - I don't have much sympathy for people who claim lack of opportunity.Originally Posted by Tom Odom
Tom, I did not state that retirement packages were "greed driven". What I was trying to say was that I viewed a demand for the government to pay a 40-something (non-disabled) military retiree enough to permit him to sit on his ass all day long in front of the TV or in a fishing boat without a need to work for the next 40+ years of his life was greedy and parasitic. I think the basic retirement package is a pretty good deal, that just needs better tweaking to adjust for cost-of-living and inflation.
And normal retirement and retiring with a disability are two very different things. Sure, I've lost some hearing, and have a bit of pain once in a while from an incident in service, but essentially I am much more healthy and fit than my civilian peers in the same age group. This despite, or because of, having spent much of my career in units that forced us to fall out of aircraft and hump loads over truly lovely terrain. Ultimately, having had a couple of my close friends and many people I've worked with over the years end up truly disabled, I would feel like an ugrateful parasite if I uttered a word about asking for additional "disability" for any minor complaint. Perhaps it is unfair of me to state my personal perception in a comprehensive manner that way.
Tom, the largesse drawn by certain types of political appointees is something that is a point of contention with a lot of people. Definitely unjustified - almost without exception. In a slightly smaller scale it equates to the almost obscene departure packages received by some execs from struggling companies - even when they are let go for incompetent leadership. In those cases corporate shareholders tend to make more noise than does the American public for those similar political packages that you are referring to. But when you compare (non-disability/medical) military retirement, and the age of that retirement with damn near any plan in the private sector, we are very lucky indeed. This isn't to say that we don't earn it, but I'm just not one to feel entitled to anything.
Anyway, in the end, I don't see where I said anything that should be construed as "offering a target" for cuts in benefits. I believe that I did state that military retirement is not something you can survive on with no other source of income. But I hold to the other half of that view in that I strongly believe that anyone with half a brain should be well enough set-up after 20 or more years in the military to do well in civilian life. The vast majority do. We damn sure should not have our benefits cut, and, as Stan implied, there should be a better system for keeping them in line with real inflation. But as a taxpayer I don't think I should fund someone to sit at home for the entire latter of half of their life in what would be essentially welfare. This would only increase the prevalence of those who squeeze through 20 years or more of personal fiscal irresponsibility by having the military look after him (like the CSM living above his means whose BC covers for bouncing checks), and then retire with a feeling of entitlement to everything the state will give him to continue a life of parasitic bliss.
Bookmarks