Just for those that serve, not public servants
 
 

       The Horse Forum > Life Beyond Horses > General Off Topic Discussion

Just for those that serve, not public servants

This is a discussion on Just for those that serve, not public servants within the General Off Topic Discussion forums, part of the Life Beyond Horses category

    Like Tree10Likes

     
    LinkBack Thread Tools
        05-22-2012, 12:42 PM
      #1
    Trained
    Just for those that serve, not public servants

    "The House Armed Services Committee recently forwarded the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2013 (HR4310) to the full House for a vote. The bill omitted many of the TRICARE Fee increases proposed by the White House. The Office of Management and Budget issued a response in which they stated that senior advisors would recommend that President would veto the bill if it passed Congress." from military.com

    Remember that those that "serve" in either house get 100% of their pay after they "serve", and medical and are exempt from "Obama Care".

    Not mentioned by Julia? Why not? Julia doesn't need defense, vote, or pay taxes?
         
    Sponsored Links
    Advertisement
     
        05-22-2012, 12:48 PM
      #2
    Green Broke
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Missy May    
    "The House Armed Services Committee recently forwarded the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2013 (HR4310) to the full House for a vote. The bill omitted many of the TRICARE Fee increases proposed by the White House. The Office of Management and Budget issued a response in which they stated that senior advisors would recommend that President would veto the bill if it passed Congress." from military.com

    Remember that those that "serve" in either house get 100% of their pay after they "serve", and medical and are exempt from "Obama Care".

    Not mentioned by Julia? Why not? Julia doesn't need defense, vote, or pay taxes?
    ???? - I am sure you have a point in there somewhere, at least I hope you do, but I am having trouble finding it.
         
        05-22-2012, 12:54 PM
      #3
    Weanling
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by themacpack    
    ???? - I am sure you have a point in there somewhere, at least I hope you do, but I am having trouble finding it.

    I'd say that makes you part of the problem.
         
        05-22-2012, 01:11 PM
      #4
    Trained
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by themacpack    
    ???? - I am sure you have a point in there somewhere, at least I hope you do, but I am having trouble finding it.


    My point is - the military gets no where near the benefits that some slob in public office does. Politicians wanted Obama care for the peons they rule over, but made themselves exempt (you and I pay for their premium health care after they serve - for life, and their 100% of salary retirement pay). Yet, Obama and advisers want to raise the rates for Tri-care. I don't have a problem with it - IF public servants also got Tri-care, not premium care, and IF public servants got 50% of their pay, not 100% after they leave office.

    Julia, the new "virtual" obama cartoon, depicts his version of how the government will take care of you cradle to grave...it leaves out who will defend the "helpful" government and the disparity between retirement pay and medical benefits between those that "serve" in the military and those fearless titans that "serve" in office.....taking fire whilst deciding what cake "Julia" needs to eat. And, of course..true valuation of who will pay for the cake, frosting, plates, party hats, etc.,.
         
        05-22-2012, 01:32 PM
      #5
    Green Broke
    Lots of things to be upset with congress about. But you really need to get your facts straight before regurgitating internet lies. When you post false info your entire argument looses merit. Congress members are under the same retirement plan as other federal workers and it is not better than military retirement.
    Congress has to pay into their plan, and pay social security tax, Congress men don't draw a dime till they are 62 unless they have 20 years of combined federal service, and then they still don't get a dime till 50. At leat one "Peon" should probably do some research,,, but here I made it easy for you:
    http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7...df/RL30631.pdf
    Allison Finch likes this.
         
        05-22-2012, 01:56 PM
      #6
    Trained
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Joe4d    
    lots of things to be upset with congress about. But you really need to get your facts straight before regurgitating internet lies. When you post false info your entire argument looses merit. Congress members are under the same retirement plan as other federal workers and it is not better than military retirement.
    Congress has to pay into their plan, and pay social security tax, Congress men don't draw a dime till they are 62 unless they have 20 years of combined federal service, and then they still don't get a dime till 50. At leat one "Peon" should probably do some research,,, but here I made it easy for you:
    http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7...df/RL30631.pdf
    Oh, gee, I stand corrected, its:

    Members of Congress are eligible for a pension at age 62 if they have completed at least five years of service. They are eligible for a pension at age 50 if they have completed 20 years of service, or at any age after completing 25 years of service. The amount of the pension depends on years of service and the average of the highest three years of salary. By law, the starting amount of a member’s retirement annuity may not exceed 80 percent of his or her final salary.

    This is NOT the same as military, do you know someone that spent a 5 year in the military that collects a pension? Do you know anyone that collected 80% of their pay as a "starting amount"?

    And, they are NOT under tricare or obamacare.

    Its not better than military retirement? You really need to get your facts straight before regurgitating internet lies.
         
        05-22-2012, 02:15 PM
      #7
    Banned
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Joe4d    
    lots of things to be upset with congress about. But you really need to get your facts straight before regurgitating internet lies. When you post false info your entire argument looses merit. Congress members are under the same retirement plan as other federal workers and it is not better than military retirement.
    Congress has to pay into their plan, and pay social security tax, Congress men don't draw a dime till they are 62 unless they have 20 years of combined federal service, and then they still don't get a dime till 50. At leat one "Peon" should probably do some research,,, but here I made it easy for you:
    http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7...df/RL30631.pdf
    Dang...talk about the pot calling the kettle black...

    Sorry, but as a retired federal employee, I asssure you that Congress does NOT have the same retirement plan as all federal employees...it is far better. It is also better than the military in that there is vesting at 5 years (just as with any federal employee), albeit it is a small percentage with only 5 years' service. You are also wrong about them not drawing a dime until they are 62. All federal employees can begin drawing an annuity at their minimum retirement age, but it is age reduced at 5% a year for every year under 62.


    On the other hand Missy, their retirment plan is NOT 100% of their pay, and their medical plan is the same as for retired federal employees - it is not free - it is a group plan where the employee contributes a portion and the government contributes a portion - just as any other group plan.

    The government has several retirement plans - the Congressional retirement plan is most similar to that for federal employees that carry a gun, which is better than that for regular government employees.

    Aside from that, and back to the OP, it would come as no surprise to me if Obama vetoed such a bill. Typical of all radical liberals, he is not military friendly to say the least...which comes as no surprise.

    I have never understood why the military must put in 20 years to be vested in their retirement plan while civilian federal employees only need 5 years. It doesn't make sense, but there is no surprise there either...
    Missy May likes this.
         
        05-22-2012, 02:34 PM
      #8
    Trained
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Faceman    
    Dang...talk about the pot calling the kettle black...

    Sorry, but as a retired federal employee, I asssure you that Congress does NOT have the same retirement plan as all federal employees...it is far better. It is also better than the military in that there is vesting at 5 years (just as with any federal employee), albeit it is a small percentage with only 5 years' service. You are also wrong about them not drawing a dime until they are 62. All federal employees can begin drawing an annuity at their minimum retirement age, but it is age reduced at 5% a year for every year under 62.


    On the other hand Missy, their retirment plan is NOT 100% of their pay, and their medical plan is the same as for retired federal employees - it is not free - it is a group plan where the employee contributes a portion and the government contributes a portion - just as any other group plan.

    The government has several retirement plans - the Congressional retirement plan is most similar to that for federal employees that carry a gun, which is better than that for regular government employees.

    Aside from that, and back to the OP, it would come as no surprise to me if Obama vetoed such a bill. Typical of all radical liberals, he is not military friendly to say the least...which comes as no surprise.

    I have never understood why the military must put in 20 years to be vested in their retirement plan while civilian federal employees only need 5 years. It doesn't make sense, but there is no surprise there either...
    Awe, faceman, I already stood corrected.
    But there is another wrinkle in this whole "unfair" deal....congress will gush out a bazzillion pages of obama care, but do nothing about the fact that it is extremely difficult to find a medical doctor that accepts tricare, difficult relative to say...bluecross federal. One can easily argue that the patient can file their own claims and pay non-negotiated charges, up front - but that is true of all insurance.
    While I am no fan of Obama's, I have to say military medical and retirement has been on the downhill slide for a while, now. But this latest "will veto" is just glaring anti-military antics.
         
        05-22-2012, 02:52 PM
      #9
    Super Moderator
    I WISH I had the same retirement as the military!! They have full retirement after 20 years of service. Pretty sweet. I work in law enforcement, which is pretty dang stressful, too. In NC, we have to work 30 years for a full retirement. You can't imagine the wear and tear this job does on you. The average lifespan, post LE retirement, is five years. FIVE years.

    I guess I should have gone the military or other federal route.
         
        05-22-2012, 02:54 PM
      #10
    Banned
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Missy May    
    Awe, faceman, I already stood corrected.
    But there is another wrinkle in this whole "unfair" deal....congress will gush out a bazzillion pages of obama care, but do nothing about the fact that it is extremely difficult to find a medical doctor that accepts tricare, difficult relative to say...bluecross federal. One can easily argue that the patient can file their own claims and pay non-negotiated charges, up front - but that is true of all insurance.
    While I am no fan of Obama's, I have to say military medical and retirement has been on the downhill slide for a while, now. But this latest "will veto" is just glaring anti-military antics.
    True. The last really good friend the military (or the federal civil service) had was Reagan, and that is starting to be a long time ago. I could understand the Dems of course, but Bush was not very military friendly either when it came to pay and benefits. When I was in the military in Vietnam it was still for the most part slogging around the jungle shooting and hacking at the enemy - not terribly different than the middle ages. But today things are a lot different. Even low ranking soldiers are far more high tech and have to have more edspertise than we did. But the pay doesn't reflect that, nor does it reflect the supervisory/management expertise required (the pay has never really reflected that part of the job). Just as with the federal civil service there are some mundane jobs that are overpaid or paid at a similar level to th3e private sector, but when it comes to professional and technical jobs, neither the military nor the civil service pay anywhere close to the private sector. The stupid comparisons that are published are very annoying because they compare the "average" pay of private sector workers with the "average" pay of federal workers...but there is no comparison whatsoever. Much, if not most, of the private secotor works at Walmart, McDonalds, convenience sotores, etc. while most of the public sector is professional or technical.

    But the bottom line is both the military and civil service folks are the gtovernment's employees, so when it is time for cuts guess where they are made? Of course for the Dems, the objective is to pay the people that don't feel like working - not those that do work...
         

    Quick Reply
    Please help keep the Horse Forum enjoyable by reporting rude posts.
    Message:
    Options

    Register Now

    In order to be able to post messages on the The Horse Forum forums, you must first register.

    Already have a Horse Forum account?
    Members are allowed only one account per person at the Horse Forum, so if you've made an account here in the past you'll need to continue using that account. Please do not create a new account or you may lose access to the Horse Forum. If you need help recovering your existing account, please Contact Us. We'll be glad to help!

    New to the Horse Forum?
    Please choose a username you will be satisfied with using for the duration of your membership at the Horse Forum. We do not change members' usernames upon request because that would make it difficult for everyone to keep track of who is who on the forum. For that reason, please do not incorporate your horse's name into your username so that you are not stuck with a username related to a horse you may no longer have some day, or use any other username you may no longer identify with or care for in the future.

    User Name:
    Password
    Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
    Password:
    Confirm Password:
    Email Address
    Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
    Email Address:

    Log-in

    Human Verification

    In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


    Old Thread Warning
    This thread is more than 90 days old. When a thread is this old, it is often better to start a new thread rather than post to it. However, If you feel you have something of value to add to this particular thread, you can do so by checking the box below before submitting your post.

    Thread Tools

    Similar Threads
    Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
    4-h public presentation topics lopinslower917 Horse Talk 0 01-06-2012 09:58 PM
    Public Enemies Mira Movies, Music, and TV 6 07-23-2009 11:53 AM
    Public Apology Meg Horse Talk 1 01-15-2009 10:28 PM
    Do whiskers serve a purpose? Jubilee Rose Horse Grooming 20 06-13-2008 12:33 PM



    All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:54 PM.


    Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
    Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
    Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0