Posted on 12/12/2013 11:24:42 AM PST by Sleeping Freeper
Edited on 12/12/2013 11:27:38 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
“If non-negotiable bonds are not ‘safe’, then what is?”
Well, if I were to be able to choose between a negotiable financial instrument, and a non-negotiable instrument, I know which one I would choose.
It was an illusion. They took the money and recycled it back into the budget for spending as soon as it was allocated to the “non-negotiable” bonds.
“That makes it a contract. Yes, a contract is sort of a promise”
You are correct - actually a contract IS a promise. However, the government cannot honor it’s contract/promises.
They will either renege on the contract, or pay it with dollars of drastically lower value than the dollars originally promised.
There are too many promises made to too many people.
You cannot, for instance, expect me to pay you benefits that were promised to you by someone else.
The perverse problem we have is that military and other government retirement benefits are awarded to people who then must be paid by people who cannot fund their own retirement because they are taxed so much to pay yours.
That may be immaterial to many. The faces are obscured when the money gets laundered through the federal government, so its easy to say “we have the money” or “we should pay my benefit before someone elses benefit” when the taxes are coupled with defacto money printing.
But in the end you have to say to me (or other productive taxpayers) that you deserve my money for your retirement before I deserve my money for my retirement. That’s a tough argument to make successfully over the long-term. That’s why we are borrowing torrentially right now.
When the borrowing must end I will simply stop working my private sector enterprise instead of working so that you can get a paycheck in retirement. Millions of people will make the same calculation.
There is no difference to the taxpayer - from a financial standpoint - where the money goes. We can’t fund the active promises we have right now. One way or another you are not going to get the money you expect - nor will anyone else who relies on a “promise” from government.
The course we are on now only guarantees that the cut-off to federal benefit recipients of all kinds will be sudden.
The outrage that military is the first to go is well placed. I’m a veteran, so I know about this. But it’s all a charade to make people think that we are doing something to remain solvent. We are not doing anything of the kind.
I wish we had a vibrant private sector that could support the size of federal benefit recipients - minus sponges - because that would mean I could pay for your retirement and my own.
I can’t do it. I don’t have enough money for you and for me.
It’s not my fault that you accepted a promise from the government at face value. We’re all going to pay the price.
Government lied to all of us. Our founding fathers understood this, and sought to keep our government limited - we’ve tossed that idea out the window - but the reality is not changed - we don’t have the money for everything promised.
From your posts it seems that you may be a federal civilian employee likely embittered because your salary “scale” has been frozen for several years.
Someone up-thread said that federal civilian employees are also subject to the 1% reduction in Cost of Living increases in their pensions. I did some research and found out that is correct for a retirement system called “FERS”. However there is a MAJOR difference in how FERS came about for civilian employees compared to what’s happening now to military service members.
FERS was established in the mid-1980s but only applied to NEW federal employees hired in 1985 or later (apparently already employed civil service employees were also allowed to VOLUNTARILY move to FERS if they desired). Sweetening the deal for these FERS people was that the federal government would provide a free match (of up to 5% of salary each year) of the FERS employees contributions to their 401K plan. So the NEW (1985 & later) federal employees covered under FERS will shortly be completing the 30 years in a typical career and be eligible for retirement and will have 30 years of these 401K matching contributions to help compensate for the annual 1% reduction in their COLA increases.
I don’t think most of us would have a problem with this if the Ryan budget deal made the change only for new (i.e., entering active duty January 2014 or later) service members in a fashion similar to what was done for civilian employees and also offered those new service members some matching of their 401K contributions. But the Ryan budget didn’t do any of this—it willy-nilly covered ALL (future AND current) service members and all current military retirees who are under age 62. This shows how they think about service members relative to how they thought about civilian employees (such as Congress critters who are apparently covered under FERS).
His argument is a flat lie. We barely get any raise after taxes. A puny $35 or so a month. BS. He will never get a vote of mine in any election. Nothing but a liberal puke in my book now. Supporting his pal Obama.
Exactly. If you hear of any kid thinking of the military, tell them that. Tell them a military retiree suggested that. Everyone out there tell any and all kids thinking of the military that. Screw going for a career. Do only 3 years. Do it in a job that you can bring out and sell that training and experience to a civilian employer. The training is top notch. So use it against them. Train and walk. Earn a better living out side because you will get nothing in the military any more. Used up, beat up, broken up, and pi$$ed on later on. Sorry for the French, but the US government makes me mad enough to puke. The sorry lying good for nothing thief can go straight to Hades as far as I am concerned.
“The perverse problem we have is that military and other government retirement benefits are awarded to people who then must be paid by people who cannot fund their own retirement because they are taxed so much to pay yours.”
Again, the money was already paid. At best, your argument would be that the general population borrowed money from me and now refuses to pay it back - ie, the general population is STEALING MY MONEY - because it was already paid into an account for me. The American taxpayer then ‘borrowed’ it to pay for things he wanted free, and now he is refusing to repay the loan and telling me it is unfair for me to expect him to repay my loan.
“You just can’t see that the article is in error which is what prompted me to post in the first place. Colas usually run in the 1%-3% range. Reducing 3% by 1% results in a COLA of 2.97%. Reducing a 3% COLA by one percentage point results in a COLA of 2%....See the difference? Now do you understand that a one percent reduction in the COLA is in fact chump change....”
*******************************************************************
Your first statement (”reducing a 3% COLA by 1% results in a COLA of 2.97%”) does not accurately reflect what will be happening as a result of the language in the Ryan budget. Your 2nd statement (reducing a 3% COLA by one percentage point results in a COLA of 2%) is correct. This legislation will have a substantial impact on our currently retired service members and current active duty service members who decide to stay in long enough for a pension.
By the way, I served 7 years active duty and decided to get out (didn’t join the reserves which was a mistake in retrospect). I don’t get a military pension and will not be getting one. But I certainly don’t begrudge the pensions earned by folks who decided to stay in for a career. They earned it.
I’ll make no more comments on this thread as it is descending into bickering.
Your first statement (”reducing a 3% COLA by 1% results in a COLA of 2.97%”) does not accurately reflect what will be happening as a result of the language in the Ryan budget.
No but it exactly portrays what this article said. I am not arguing the merits of Ryans proposal either way. I am trying to point out that no one should rely on this article as an accurate source of information on the effects of his proposal.
This unreliable and irresponsible journalism is the point of every post I have made here. A point that seems to go totally un-noticed by you.
No it wasn’t paid. It was a deliberate scheme to defraud. Now that you find the money is gone you accuse me of stealing it from you.
The money is gone and the only chance of getting some of your benefits secured is through the very private sector you now resent for “stealing” from you.
You need a vibrant private sector. If everyone insists on full payment of whatever promises the government made, you will get pennies on the dollar. If you don’t kill the private sector with taxes you might get more.
We are just debating. Nothing personal intended.
Definitely grounds for a major lawsuit.
Point is they ought to pay attention to who and what they vote for. Elections have consequences
I've got a post office pension, which isn't much, a lot less than outsiders might think, but it's a lot more than many people have. I worry about the young people of today. It's not easy to enjoy one's retirement if the children and grandchildren are headed for the poorhouse. If my pension has to be cut I'll just have to take it like a man and be thankful for what I've got.
I never thought of it that way with regard to my mother. She was in a great deal of pain which she tried to fight through. She lived to be 92, and even at that age, in that sort of pain, she strove to be independent and hated the idea of being a burden on others. She even did everything she could to take care of Dad during his final illness when she could barely move herself. That being said, I'm sure fibromyalgia can be used as a convenient diagnosis to placate whiny patients.
I hope you weren’t being sarcastic with the best wishes for my family.
No, I was being sincere even if it may have seemed sarcastic. I feel bad that your husband may be having the rules of the game changed on him, and I hope for a happy and just resolution in your sister's case. I would feel terrible if one of my siblings was involved in a fraudulent situation.
I think I've been watching too much MSNBC. At least I didn't mention the bourgeoisie or the proletariat. A better way to put it might be to say that I wish the best for everyone, and that the powers that be use their influence in a way that doesn't impede the citizenry in their individual pursuits of happiness.
I am with you on this.
UNTIL EVERY SINGLE POS CHEATER, SLACKER, CRIMINAL WELFARE/SS/DISABILITY/PENSION/ENTITLEMENT IS REVIEWED, ADJUSTED OR CUT, I DO NOT WANT ONE CENT OF ANY MILITARY SPENDING, NO MATTER HOW WASTEFUL, TO EVEN BE CONSIDERED FOR ANY CUT. WHEN BIKE TRAILS, STUDIES ON THE SEXUAL HABITS OF THE SPOTTED SALAMANDER, MIDNIGHT BASKETBALL, PBS (AND 100 MILLION OTHER EXPENDITURES THAT ARE DROWNING US) ARE CUT AWAY, THEN, AND ONLY THEN, WILL I CONSIDER ANY CUTS IN DEFENSE OR BENEFITS TO VETERANS OR RETIREES.
Sorry about the All Caps. I am glad my parents are dead and don’t have to be subjected to this crap.
Thanks. That data like most polls is skewed.
Here is data, from US 2010 Census, table 521, less skewed:
Number of Vets in 2010: 22,658,000
US population in 2010: 311,963,411
Percent of Veterans in USA in 2010: 7.263%
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0521.pdf
I don’t have the time and capability to find out how many retired vets and disabled vets, we have and their % of the population. This data should be gathered and used a club against the Obamaites to prevent cuts in $’ to our retired and disabled vets.
Again thanks to you for your service.
Dave
“No it wasn’t paid. It was a deliberate scheme to defraud. Now that you find the money is gone you accuse me of stealing it from you.”
Yes, it was paid. That you and other taxpayers borrowed it so you could buy things you wanted without being charged for it does not change the fact that it was paid for, in advance, by money from the Department of Defense.
Now you and other taxpayers refuse to reimburse the fund because you still want to spend money on other things. That is theft. You borrowed the money and you refuse to repay it because you - generic you, not you personally since I’m sure you don’t like what the government does with money either - are a thief.
Ok. I am one!
Oh, and I meant to say, you’re here in Alabama, aren’t you?
Martha Roby voted for this. She “Represents” us retirees from Ft Rucker, Maxwell AFB and Gunter AFB.
Lotta good she done us. /s
Wouldn't it be ironic if the US Senate could stop this outrage?
Wouldn't it be ironic if the US Senate could stop this outrage?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.