1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

Military thinning ranks

Discussion in 'Fred's House of Pancakes' started by MarinJohn, Oct 4, 2006.

  1. MarinJohn

    MarinJohn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    3,945
    304
    0
    Let's see...news keeps telling us the ranks are not filled to capacity, indeed they are having problems recruiting. Now this 'early retirement' program. IS ANYONE IN CHARGE IN DC??? For you argumentative types, I can't cite this news source yet, as I just got a call from an officer in current service asking me as his financial advisor if the package is a good deal. Lets digest this a bit. The military spends great amounts of time and money training personnell and expects in return those personnell will serve faithfully and not take the training and duck out into private enerprises. Then the military gets the bright idea to take these fully trained officers and offer them a package (bribe) to LEAVE early, fully trained. Readers, it's OUR MONEY they are wasting on the training and then golden parachutes. Between politicans spending us into eternal debt and upper eschelon military advisors making these kind of financial decisions we will not recover from this administration without massive tax increases. WHEN WILL THE MADNESS STOP?
     
  2. Marlin

    Marlin New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2005
    1,407
    10
    0
    Location:
    Bucks County, PA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    You have no idea what his role in the military is. For example, in Massachusetts, there are lots, and lots of Air Force officers who have nothing to do with flying planes. Instead these men work with defense contractors, such as Raytheon, on defense projects. They're active duty officers, just not the kind that would be deployed out of the country.

    Why would it surprise you to find that various non-fighting roles in the military are overstaffed? You don't think it would be appropriate in such circumstances to "thin the ranks"?
     
  3. MarinJohn

    MarinJohn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    3,945
    304
    0
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Oct 4 2006, 11:50 AM) [snapback]328012[/snapback]</div>
    Actually I know exactly what his role in the military is (your financial advisor needs to know everything) and without giving much away for his safety and my business privacy obligations, I can tell you he has been deployed for most of 3 years out of the country to combat zones, called me from his cell phone while driving his combat vehicle as evidenced by the noise in the background, and that's how I got this info hot off the press. I must wonder at your response. It felt like you were trying to discount my original post by bringing up possibilities to which you have no personal knowledge. Possibilities discount nothing. facts could. OP stands as near to fact as I am able to discern or I would have indicated it was heresay or a possibility or some other disclaimer.

    btw this particular personnel position is extremely sensitive, skilled, highly trained, a position in which I believe no individual could perform without all long-term (years) associated training. This is not a cookie-cutter plug-in-a-grunt job. However, even if it were a dime-a-dozen position, the point of the OP remains in that as far as I know the military is hurting for personnell and should value all comers to the extent of their skills in these troubled times. Giving intense training then cutting people loose offering bonuses to leave early to fully trained, combat hardened troops with many years of service doesn't pass my smell test. Before you offer up the excuse that perhaps 'conduct unbecoming an officer' is the reason doesn't cut it for 2 reasons: in such cases the military doesn't offer golden parachutes they just fire your nice person. And also this offer is aparantly being made to multiple tens of thousands of people.
     
  4. Marlin

    Marlin New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2005
    1,407
    10
    0
    Location:
    Bucks County, PA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Oct 4 2006, 03:40 PM) [snapback]328018[/snapback]</div>
    Well, yes, I was discounting your post. There are many here who jump at conclusions without thinking first, and take individual incidents and turn them into sweeping generalizations and indictments. This is particularly true whenever politics or SUVs are involved.

    Your original post is a great example of a knee-jerk reaction that goes ballistic with one incident and virtually no information. I don't care if you know his underwear size, I seriously doubt you are in full possession of all the facts regarding the size and scope of this alleged "early retirement" program. Yet you went ballistic all the same.
     
  5. Sufferin' Prius Envy

    Sufferin' Prius Envy Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    3,998
    18
    0
    Location:
    USA
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Oct 4 2006, 11:22 AM) [snapback]327994[/snapback]</div>
    Wow! Speaking of argumentative types . . .
    Are you not arguing against a program before you know any details, rational behind implementation . . . or even if it truly exists? :huh:

    Vesting service members earlier (less than a 20 year retirement) has been hinted at for years. The packages would be adjusted accordingly, but would give greater flexibility in obtaining a logical force structure. Most of the training expense happens in a soldier's first few years. Early vesting would give that soldier something more to consider during their first reenlistment – other than, “geeeze, I think I will get out and get a better paying civilian job because I can't handle 16 more years of this for a retirement.†16 more years to a kid in their early 20s is an eon away – I KNOW, I WAS THERE and that was my thought pattern! :blink:
    The worst thing a soldier or sailor could do to the military is leave after only four years . . . all that training and, in many cases, only a three year payback for the military, because the schooling itself often takes a year.

    Just how many senior infantry personnel are needed to slowly trudge through the mud with the much younger troops? Being able to cull out unnecessary overhead fat (10 to 19 year career personal) with an early retirement has major benefit potential for military planners.

    This is from a 1981 CBO testimony before the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee . . .
    http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6522&sequence=0

    argumentative or just anti-military?????