Posted on 12/24/2013 6:25:34 AM PST by Zakeet
With veterans' groups fighting against cuts in military pensions, the Associated Press (AP) is out with a story suggesting that in light of active duty military pay, healthcare, and "quality of life" benefits, retiring military personnel should be able to the weather the cuts that Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) has pushed through.
According to the AP, "compensation" for active duty military "is competitive with the private sector."
They try to bolster this point by showing that "an Army private with fewer than two years of service and no dependents earns on average about $40,000 annually." Later in the paragraph they clarify that the $40,000 is not all salary--only two thirds of it is. The other third is food and housing allowance.
So these privates are only getting about $33,000 a year to go overseas and become targets for Al Qaeda and other terrorists groups, but it is still okay to cut their pensions?
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Where are most of the children of our illustrious representatives working? The vast majority of them are in the private sector. At least Great Britain has a vestige of honor left amongst their nobility... the royal lads have been under arms a time or two. I would add that their salaries aren't likely to be as much of a factor in their lifestyles, as that of a US military member.
Just typing this makes my blood boil.
Military pay isn't remotely close to matching the civilian equivalent salary market. They struggle on a daily basis to make ends meet. In working, their salaries, hardly, if at all, surpass the welfare crowd when taking in all of their benefits, whom DO NOT WORK!
I was an airborne heavy drop parachute rigger (43 ECHO), and a precision free-fall parachute demonstrator (United States Army Parachute Team). Both jobs are highly specialized, and are recognized as such in the civilian world.
Civilian riggers and parachute test jumpers worked for NASA, and all of the flight testing contractors like Boeing, Lockheed- Martin, General Dynamics, Grumman, Martin Baker, etc. They also worked as contractors for all branches of the military via their parent companies (NGO contractors).
I made $8,000 in 1982, as an E-1 and as an E-2.
In 1983, I made a whopping $9,000, receiving a promotion to E-3.
In 1984, my income soared to $10,000, and with it, a promotion to E-4.
I was married with one child, living off post. My salary included separate rations and basic allowance for quarters.
Financially, it was the toughest time of my adult life.
I found a house renting for $150.00 a month in Spring Lake, NC., sitting on 6 acres in the country. Half of the year, it was scenic (summer). In the winter, once the grass and weeds withered, the automobile bumpers that the owner stored on the land (5.5 acres worth) could be seen, and it was indeed quite the sight/eyesore.
It’s Hillary Clinton’s dream come true.
my sentiments too!! I joined just before viet nam, but served during the period of TET - so at first there was no GI bill, just a chance to man up and travel. Seemed like a good deal. Now they sign up for a paid college bonus and 40K when I was overseas I earned 120 a month as a Sargent. If you called home it cost $5.00 a minute. Now Skype...someone needs to get a perspective of the changes.
I was a Navy Wife in a previous life, as well as being in the CAARNG. We were living outside of San Diego, ‘80-81 and between us brought home $700 a month - $500 of which was rent, LOL! No on-base housing for lowly pukes like us!
Those were the Gravy Days for us at the start of our military careers. *SMILE*
Well I certainly didn’t earn that much!
When I enlisted my base pay was $133 per month (1969).
Over the years it gradually increased so that in 1989 my take home pay (after taxes and all that) was about $3300 per month. I managed to live.
When Carter capped our pay in the 70’s I had to work a part time job to afford to feed my family. We had no credit cards but owned a home and had a car payment. There were no food stamps to be received.
When I retired I got 50% of my base pay - so when I retired in 1989 my retirement pay before taxes was about 1350 bucks.
What I can find for the 2013 chart says an E-2 with more than 2 years service earns 1717.00 per month - thats a far cry from 40 grand per year!
To add to your list - move as often as every 18 months so you have no home and your spouse has no job; have every promise made to you written in disappearing ink; be unable to write laws to improve your financial condition; have to wait with a sick child instead of going to the front of the line; and the list goes on.
BTW - in 1978 Congress voted themselves a $500 per day tax exemption because it was so expensive to live inside the beltway. Three years earlier that’s what I was paid per month for flying combat in SEA. So, I guess it was 30 times more dangerous to live and work inside the beltway than it was in Vietnam. A question if you please - where are the KIA, WIA, and MIA lists for Congress critters from that era?
And they wonder why no one respects them?
I think welfare cuts are survivable too
oh yea - in Europe off base housing for those under e3 was outrageous. But the PX was cheap. LOL I’m not liking the four one year tours or even four 6 month tours in “combat” areas, when the natives are less than helpful. But every like me volunteered - it was our way and theirs to get away and make something of your life.
Thanks to all former and active duty freepers chiming in today.
I find it ironic / in fact, down right hilarious that the spell check underlines with red color, the word freeper, or any variant thereof.
Merry Christmas ya’ crazy bunch of freepers... and, may I proselytize the following: I am / we are - all - Phil Robertsons!
Thank you.
Dang nab it Muskie... I meant to post to all!
For your listening and dining pleasure ladies and gentlemen-
My post meant for all.
>>> You know the rules- you post / you comment.
Thanks to all former and active duty freepers chiming in today.
I find it ironic / in fact, down right hilarious that the spell check underlines with red color, the word freeper, or any variant thereof.
Merry Christmas ya’ crazy bunch of freepers... and, may I proselytize the following: I am / we are - all - Phil Robertsons!
Thank you. <<<
Son of a _________ sponges of my wealth steal enough money to get cuts. Don’t! Cut me or my fellow Veterans retirement you _____________ congressional freaks!!!!!!
I just retired in June. From what I understand the only “cut” is that the cost of living raise will not be as much as usual but only for “working age” veterans. I’m not crazy about the idea but I can deal with it. Unlike the government I budget my money carefully and don’t spend more than I take in.
I only wish that they would cut other areas also. Such as welfare and a whole bunch of stupid so called “entitlement” programs.
Ya, I remember my pop telling me he was getting $67/mo as an E5 .. o.O (’63-’66).
oops... 63-68..
Four - no shoring up the tax laws/rules against illegal immigrants or rampant welfare fraud. Nope, can’t do any of that, so just cut the veterans’ benefits.
I’d like to see a radio station do a contest for letters from veterans’ wives about their husbands serving overseas, and award the third runnerup Michelle’s yearly shoe allowance, second runnerup her clothing allowance, and the winner the price of just one of these vacations of theirs. Miss Congeniality can get what it costs to fly the dog seperately in Air Force Mutt or whatever it is.
Clarify the public image of the Emperor laughing at us fools while telling us to eat our shovel ready peas.
I don’t tbink reason or debate will communicate to people as much as simple clear images that make adrenaline rise in all those people who are just surviving.
Just brainstorming. Merry Christmas all...
They are cutting the COLA for retirees and disabled vets so that they don’t have the cut welfare or benefits for illegals.
The King and the vermin in his Regime aren’t worthy of licking the bottoms of our troops boots. I believe the same unworthiness goes for 95% of the US Congress.
Active Duty/Retiree ping.
Ryan has bought into the same Socialist lie as what the AP is hawking: If you have any more money than someone else might have (even if you earned it through the most difficult circumstance and with great personal sacrifice) then government has every right to come along and take your money, because someone else or some other government program wants it.
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.