military benefits and the budget
12-14-2013, 01:56 PM
#21
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2011
Position: At the handlebars
Posts: 95
10 yard gain, first down! Standby...after the play, we decided on a rule change...you need 20 yards for a first down. Fourth down and 10...woohoo!
I guess we should have thrown the ball further. Would have been nice to know.
I guess we should have thrown the ball further. Would have been nice to know.
12-14-2013, 02:06 PM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,265
Slept through H.S. civics class, I see. Its the House of Representatives that originates funding bills. They are then passed or modified by the Senate. After that, a conference committee irons out the differences and the Budget is passed by CONGRESS.
All the President does is sign it into law.
But then you probably agree with Megyn Kelly that its historical fact that Santa and Jesus were white.
All the President does is sign it into law.
But then you probably agree with Megyn Kelly that its historical fact that Santa and Jesus were white.
12-14-2013, 04:49 PM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Position: B737
Posts: 1,204
12-14-2013, 07:02 PM
#24
Retired
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: whale wrangler
Posts: 3,527
Chignutsak - i respectfully couldn't disagree with you more. This article gives my perspective far more eloquently than I could say.
Mickey in the Middle: An Open Letter to Congressman Ryan and Senator Murray
Mickey in the Middle: An Open Letter to Congressman Ryan and Senator Murray
12-14-2013, 07:28 PM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Center seat, doing loops to music
Posts: 845
That guy is clueless. Has he not heard of Air Reserve Technicians? His whining may be justified in his mind, but his myopic view on the worth of civilian federal employees does nothing for either side. He just comes off as a selfish whiner. Furthermore, military personnel enjoy good benefits based on the DODs inability to adequately stratify the relative hardship of the individual member in his MOS/AFSC. Put another way, there's a lot of shoes retiring on the coat tails of benefits drawn up as equitable for limb-less trigger pullers. I digress.
12-14-2013, 07:45 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Center seat, doing loops to music
Posts: 845
401k's for the median have done a crappy job so far. Most people's 401Ks are crappy, the level of involvement in funds-tinkering is not adequate, plus individual funds management is inefficient, though highly profitable to the managers (of course). The balances speak for themselves. To simply brush off the realities of 401k balances as some flippant schadenfreude of "you deserve it you under-saver consumerist" doesn't help anyone, as we will pick up the tab as taxpayers for that social deficit anyways.
I hate to sound supportive of Social Security, but that's exactly what the majority will rely on in the future and probably where the retirement vehicles need to go into, for future generations of inflation-adjusted paycut employees. Put another way, you can't self-fund a 50% of peak income retirement out of your own funds, and live well while doing it. Not to the current American standard. No way no how. And before people get all self-righteous (easy to do when you're on the 75-99th percentile of National household income), recognize that a drastic cost of living downgrade in order to be able to retire on peanuts will in it of itself affect the very consumer driven GDP that keeps the tax paying young employed in the first place. So it's not as simple as everybody huddling up and living 3 generations to a house and sharing the fire logs in the winter and cancelling pay-per-view. Never mind that it's not gonna happen anyways.
We're all in this together as W-2 earners. We need to band together and fight for our collective ability to fund a suitable retirement. At a minimum, employers should be offering 100% employer funded B-funds, pooling accounts together to lower the cost of fund-administration. But they're not gonna do that in a labor surplus. Hence the government will step into that mess via the public uproar when the 401k default comes to roost on our collective heads. Then we will vote ourselves the expansion of the Social Security program. It's literally the predictable outcome. The sidelined NEVER die quietly. They vote themselves a bridge, or they torch the streets. I don't want this Country to fail, but the 401k's gotta go.
I hate to sound supportive of Social Security, but that's exactly what the majority will rely on in the future and probably where the retirement vehicles need to go into, for future generations of inflation-adjusted paycut employees. Put another way, you can't self-fund a 50% of peak income retirement out of your own funds, and live well while doing it. Not to the current American standard. No way no how. And before people get all self-righteous (easy to do when you're on the 75-99th percentile of National household income), recognize that a drastic cost of living downgrade in order to be able to retire on peanuts will in it of itself affect the very consumer driven GDP that keeps the tax paying young employed in the first place. So it's not as simple as everybody huddling up and living 3 generations to a house and sharing the fire logs in the winter and cancelling pay-per-view. Never mind that it's not gonna happen anyways.
We're all in this together as W-2 earners. We need to band together and fight for our collective ability to fund a suitable retirement. At a minimum, employers should be offering 100% employer funded B-funds, pooling accounts together to lower the cost of fund-administration. But they're not gonna do that in a labor surplus. Hence the government will step into that mess via the public uproar when the 401k default comes to roost on our collective heads. Then we will vote ourselves the expansion of the Social Security program. It's literally the predictable outcome. The sidelined NEVER die quietly. They vote themselves a bridge, or they torch the streets. I don't want this Country to fail, but the 401k's gotta go.
12-14-2013, 08:50 PM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,839
That guy is clueless. Has he not heard of Air Reserve Technicians? His whining may be justified in his mind, but his myopic view on the worth of civilian federal employees does nothing for either side. He just comes off as a selfish whiner. Furthermore, military personnel enjoy good benefits based on the DODs inability to adequately stratify the relative hardship of the individual member in his MOS/AFSC. Put another way, there's a lot of shoes retiring on the coat tails of benefits drawn up as equitable for limb-less trigger pullers. I digress.
12-14-2013, 10:37 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Center seat, doing loops to music
Posts: 845
The guy is not clueless. I'm sure he doesn't have the gift of gab that you do hindsight2020, but many of his points are on the mark. As to limbless trigger pullers......everyone has a job to do to take the fight where it needs to go, even if you don't pull a trigger. Even with a 'Solider's Load' - you don't go far without support. I'm sure you already know this but it seems you might have forgotten it for a moment.
12-15-2013, 05:44 AM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2012
Position: Babysitter
Posts: 975
401k's for the median have done a crappy job so far. Most people's 401Ks are crappy, the level of involvement in funds-tinkering is not adequate, plus individual funds management is inefficient, though highly profitable to the managers (of course). The balances speak for themselves. To simply brush off the realities of 401k balances as some flippant schadenfreude of "you deserve it you under-saver consumerist" doesn't help anyone, as we will pick up the tab as taxpayers for that social deficit anyways.
I hate to sound supportive of Social Security, but that's exactly what the majority will rely on in the future and probably where the retirement vehicles need to go into, for future generations of inflation-adjusted paycut employees. Put another way, you can't self-fund a 50% of peak income retirement out of your own funds, and live well while doing it. Not to the current American standard. No way no how. And before people get all self-righteous (easy to do when you're on the 75-99th percentile of National household income), recognize that a drastic cost of living downgrade in order to be able to retire on peanuts will in it of itself affect the very consumer driven GDP that keeps the tax paying young employed in the first place. So it's not as simple as everybody huddling up and living 3 generations to a house and sharing the fire logs in the winter and cancelling pay-per-view. Never mind that it's not gonna happen anyways.
We're all in this together as W-2 earners. We need to band together and fight for our collective ability to fund a suitable retirement. At a minimum, employers should be offering 100% employer funded B-funds, pooling accounts together to lower the cost of fund-administration. But they're not gonna do that in a labor surplus. Hence the government will step into that mess via the public uproar when the 401k default comes to roost on our collective heads. Then we will vote ourselves the expansion of the Social Security program. It's literally the predictable outcome. The sidelined NEVER die quietly. They vote themselves a bridge, or they torch the streets. I don't want this Country to fail, but the 401k's gotta go.
I hate to sound supportive of Social Security, but that's exactly what the majority will rely on in the future and probably where the retirement vehicles need to go into, for future generations of inflation-adjusted paycut employees. Put another way, you can't self-fund a 50% of peak income retirement out of your own funds, and live well while doing it. Not to the current American standard. No way no how. And before people get all self-righteous (easy to do when you're on the 75-99th percentile of National household income), recognize that a drastic cost of living downgrade in order to be able to retire on peanuts will in it of itself affect the very consumer driven GDP that keeps the tax paying young employed in the first place. So it's not as simple as everybody huddling up and living 3 generations to a house and sharing the fire logs in the winter and cancelling pay-per-view. Never mind that it's not gonna happen anyways.
We're all in this together as W-2 earners. We need to band together and fight for our collective ability to fund a suitable retirement. At a minimum, employers should be offering 100% employer funded B-funds, pooling accounts together to lower the cost of fund-administration. But they're not gonna do that in a labor surplus. Hence the government will step into that mess via the public uproar when the 401k default comes to roost on our collective heads. Then we will vote ourselves the expansion of the Social Security program. It's literally the predictable outcome. The sidelined NEVER die quietly. They vote themselves a bridge, or they torch the streets. I don't want this Country to fail, but the 401k's gotta go.
