The Economist Goes After Veterans

[UNLV2001]

On 12/9/2024 at 2:53 PM, sean327 said:

https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/11/28/american-veterans-now-receive-absurdly-generous-benefits

This article is full of stupid takes. It doesn't factor in 20 years of endless war and the fact that battlefield trauma care has improved. It's also very hypocritical of them since they were one of the biggest cheerleaders for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Most of you know my background, so I'm curious how you see this.

Sadly there's a boat load of veterans who supported the candidates & party that will rip these benefits away 

Also a lot of general public that might have voted to gong their ACA, Medicare & Social Security 

[masterfrog]

On 12/10/2024 at 1:28 PM, UNLV2001 said:

Sadly there's a boat load of veterans who supported the candidates & party that will rip these benefits away 

Also a lot of general public that might have voted to gong their ACA, Medicare & Social Security 

As they should if they really care about the future of the country. 

[UNLV2001]

On 12/10/2024 at 12:36 PM, masterfrog said:

As they should if they really care about the future of the country. 

Same with state governments - Do away with pensions & state provided health insurance !! 

[HR_poke]

On 12/10/2024 at 1:37 PM, UNLV2001 said:

Same with state governments - Do away with pensions & state provided health insurance !! 

Unless they can fund it from some other means.  Wyoming told workers the trade off for a well funded pension was that they are going to make only 70% to 75% of market value.  Not like some of the other unfunded pensions from Fire and Police groups that gave their employees 100%+ of their salary plus cost of living raises afterwards.  My wife's grandfather's pension from Portland Police is like $100k per year and he retired in the 80's and never made it higher than a patrolman.

[UNLV2001]

On 12/10/2024 at 1:11 PM, HR_poke said:

Unless they can fund it from some other means.  Wyoming told workers the trade off for a well funded pension was that they are going to make only 70% to 75% of market value.  Not like some of the other unfunded pensions from Fire and Police groups that gave their employees 100%+ of their salary plus cost of living raises afterwards.  My wife's grandfather's pension from Portland Police is like $100k per year and he retired in the 80's and never made it higher than a patrolman.

My point was facetious - As I think who I was replying to is supposedly a state employee - So the hypocrisy is what I was exposing 

Pensions obviously different than Social Security - Most of the push to "privatize" SS is to hand Wall Street more $$ for fee collection 

Reality for most working stiffs is that they probably aren't going to save up seven figures in retirement savings over the course of a lifetime of health / job / marriage / family issues 

Not that SS is supposed to be the end all of retirement income, it's original purpose was supplemental income, but there's a shit load of people who are going to be surprised how little they will get in SS after a lifetime of work 

[InnZoneU]

On 12/10/2024 at 1:17 PM, UNLV2001 said:

My point was facetious - As I think who I was replying to is supposedly a state employee - So the hypocrisy is what I was exposing 

Pensions obviously different than Social Security - Most of the push to "privatize" SS is to hand Wall Street more $$ for fee collection 

Reality for most working stiffs is that they probably aren't going to save up seven figures in retirement savings over the course of a lifetime of health / job / marriage / family issues 

Not that SS is supposed to be the end all of retirement income, it's original purpose was supplemental income, but there's a shit load of people who are going to be surprised how little they will get in SS after a lifetime of work 

Your point was facetious.  He answered it literally.  But will likely say that's not what he said.  

[stanfordchef]

 

[stanfordchef]

On 12/10/2024 at 3:50 AM, HR_poke said:

That's my big worry. My dad thought his got caught up in that same fire. But I got his a couple weeks after his funeral.  Thanks, glad to hear others were able to get some info.

 

@sean327 sorry to derail your thread. Been having a hard time since my dad passed in November and I couldn't even get him his flag he deserved for his service....

Sorry for your loss man. Can’t imagine how tough that’s been. If you ever need to talk lmk. 

[UNLV2001]

On 12/10/2024 at 1:43 PM, InnZoneU said:

Your point was facetious.  He answered it literally.  But will likely say that's not what he said.  

I'm guessing he's thinking along lines or debt & deficits - But SS could be solvent with a little tax policy tweak 

Why does anyone earning $176,000+ get an instant raise when they hit the SS exemption threshold -- If anything remove the exemption in it's entirety and or make the first $20K if earned income SS tax exempt 

[InnZoneU]

On 12/10/2024 at 1:52 PM, UNLV2001 said:

I'm guessing he's thinking along lines or debt & deficits - But SS could be solvent with a little tax policy tweak 

Why does anyone earning $176,000+ get an instant raise when they hit the SS exemption threshold -- If anything remove the exemption in it's entirety and or make the first $20K if earned income SS tax exempt 

If MAGAs were serious about SS reduction, they'd go for means testing first and kicking off/out the high rollers who don't even remotely need it.  Boom.  Billions saved just off that.

[UNLV2001]

On 12/10/2024 at 2:11 PM, InnZoneU said:

If MAGAs were serious about SS reduction, they'd go for means testing first and kicking off/out the high rollers who don't even remotely need it.  Boom.  Billions saved just off that.

There's another policy that would help 

[HR_poke]

On 12/10/2024 at 4:17 PM, UNLV2001 said:

My point was facetious - As I think who I was replying to is supposedly a state employee - So the hypocrisy is what I was exposing 

Pensions obviously different than Social Security - Most of the push to "privatize" SS is to hand Wall Street more $$ for fee collection 

Reality for most working stiffs is that they probably aren't going to save up seven figures in retirement savings over the course of a lifetime of health / job / marriage / family issues 

Not that SS is supposed to be the end all of retirement income, it's original purpose was supplemental income, but there's a shit load of people who are going to be surprised how little they will get in SS after a lifetime of work 

I got that your point was facetious, but underfunded pensions are a huge reason some states are strapped for cash.  Colorados PARA(sp?) Fund caused the legislature to withdrawal most funding for higher education, causing colleges and universities to run mostly off tuition. Making even community college too expensive for most people.  It's an issue that needs to be addressed somehow.

[HR_poke]

On 12/10/2024 at 4:43 PM, InnZoneU said:

Your point was facetious.  He answered it literally.  But will likely say that's not what he said.  

[Cowboy Up]

On 12/10/2024 at 3:11 PM, InnZoneU said:

If MAGAs were serious about SS reduction, they'd go for means testing first and kicking off/out the high rollers who don't even remotely need it.  Boom.  Billions saved just off that.

Never happen cause the rich just get richer and the middle class funds it.

[SalinasSpartan]

On 12/10/2024 at 2:11 PM, InnZoneU said:

If MAGAs were serious about SS reduction, they'd go for means testing first and kicking off/out the high rollers who don't even remotely need it.  Boom.  Billions saved just off that.

I think that solution would just be something of a poison pill that would ultimately lead to end of social security. Once you “means test” it becomes something that’s just for the poors, and programs for the poors are always easier to cut.

[halfmanhalfbronco]

On 12/10/2024 at 5:40 AM, happycamper said:

I think multiple things can be true.

First, we took what, 2? 3? million kids and dropped them in Iraq and Afghanistan for a generation in a constant low level guerilla war. It tore them up physically and mentally.

Second, as the rebuttal states, the wars were framed as our patriotic duty to stop terrorism. We tore up a solid fraction of our young generation for what we thought, and what we told ourselves, was the right thing to do.

Third, people in uniform are compensated... pretty well. It's not exactly popular to say that, but the total compensation someone gets in uniform is generally a lot higher than what you can get in private industry. Base pay looks low, but nobody else gets tax-free money for housing and for food and free health care and bumps up for being married and having kids. Nobody else gets such high levels of education assistance that can also transfer to your kids and spouse. And pretty much nowhere gives you a pension after 20 years, and especially doesn't offer you a pension and a retirement savings account option together. There's a reason why a lot of "traditional values" as in stay at home moms and large families still remain in military families... they can afford it. All this money comes from somewhere. It makes sense that a publication called "The Economist" is going to see this as the tallest nail to pound money from, in a cold blooded numbers only fashion. 

Fourth, both of the wars we were in that did the vast majority of the injuries to servicemembers are pretty unpopular. We spent trillions of dollars and a generation to weaken our geopolitical standing. The stink of that is going to be in politics for a long time. 

Fifth... it doesn't really matter that much. We owe it to our vets, especially our disabled vets, to provide care and coverage. Not only is it the right thing to do but to be honest, having a big payment albatross around our neck for a few generations after our military adventures might be enough of a warning that we don't do it for a while (or even just plan them better. I'm pretty convinced there was no way Afghanistan didn't end the way it did or even worse. Iraq... Iraq could have gone a lot better). 

Also, they don't have to pay cover fees at the titty bars.

 

[CoachKenFTW]

On 12/10/2024 at 4:18 PM, Cowboy Up said:

Never happen cause the rich just get richer and the middle class funds it.

That's exactly the way Congress designed it to be. I' could tell you to make Congress change it,  But if you don't like the system now, you'd really hate the new one.

[Chile_Ute]

On 12/10/2024 at 2:52 PM, UNLV2001 said:

I'm guessing he's thinking along lines or debt & deficits - But SS could be solvent with a little tax policy tweak 

Why does anyone earning $176,000+ get an instant raise when they hit the SS exemption threshold -- If anything remove the exemption in it's entirety and or make the first $20K if earned income SS tax exempt 

Raise the exemption threshold and SS is solvent.  Given the percentage of wealth increase per capita it should have been increased a long time ago.

[CoachKenFTW]

On 12/12/2024 at 2:49 PM, Chile_Ute said:

Raise the exemption threshold and SS is solvent.  Given the percentage of wealth increase per capita it should have been increased a long time ago.

The SS cap went up nearly 5% from 2024 to 2025, nearly double the raise in SS benefits for the same period. 

[Chile_Ute]

On 12/12/2024 at 8:38 PM, CoachKenFTW said:

The SS cap went up nearly 5% from 2024 to 2025, nearly double the raise in SS benefits for the same period. 

Should have been adjusted a long time ago.