“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.