Tricare, Military Pensions and Fairness

[GregLee]

Yes in the from of higher interest payments.

So paying interest reduces the principal? I think you're putting me on.

 

[clifp]

So paying interest reduces the principal? I think you're putting me on.

I am at loss at what point you are trying to make and tired of the guessing game. Perhaps using more than two sentences replies might help.

 

[GregLee]

I am at loss at what point you are trying to make and tired of the guessing game. Perhaps using more than two sentences replies might help.

Well, let me see if I can explain it to you at greater length. I had asked, "Are you now paying off the national debt that was incurred in your parents' day?". You answered, "Yes in the from of higher interest payments." Since your answer implied you think paying interest on the national debt pays off the national debt, and since that is silly, I was just giving you the opportunity to correct what you had said.

Is that clearer?

 

[REWahoo]

"The problem you see"? Where is the problem, actually?

I understood that was your suggestion. Do you understand what I am asking?

I don't see how my reasoning could be flawed. What reasoning?

You say "eventually someone has to pay", but how do you know that?

But is it really?

I'm beginning to suspect this is either a bot or someone working on a master's degree in applied noodgism...

 

[beowulf]

In some ways, this is similar to an ongoing thread with regard to the possibility of raising the retirement age for all sorts of civil servants. The same budget arguments are being floated over there. As the recipient of both a civil service and military pension, I will say the same thing I said over there and have been pounded for it. Each of us made our choices for our careers based on many facts, one of which was the promise of pensions and health care. Though, in most cases, I don't think that was a primary factor for any of us at the start of our careers. I don't have a problem with raising retirement ages or years of service for new hires/enlistees or those very early in their careers (they can adjust, leave, etc.). But, for those of us close to or already retired, it's kind of late to ask us to make sacrifices for the taxpaying public that made choices that turned out to be poor.

I said it on that thread and I'll say it here - a lot of this ill feeling over what others get is based on on the fact that we get something and they don't. The fact that they could have is not a factor in their argument - only that they have to pay for something they don't directly benefit from today. It was great for them when we were the one's going on overseas deployments and not seeing our families, it was great for them when we were the one's protecting them from harm, but as someone said earlier, now that we are too old to do that, we are just another tax burden to them.

IMHO, there are many, many more things that our government spends money on - from failing agencies to failing programs - that should be cut before any cutting to military pensions and healthcare. I don't think I derive any real benefit from what DOE currently does, so we may as well cut that. And I certainly don't understand why elderly immigrants to this country receive social security when they have never contributed to it. And I won't even start on benefits for illegal immigrants that we all pay for.

And I'm definitely +1 for the comment that I'll be damned if we should be ones to make the first sacrifices to balance the budget. Don't cut taxes, eliminate useless programs, cut the size of the federal bureaucracy (which has become bloated beyond belief by successive administrations), seal our borders and have faith that the economy will recover and all those underwater homes will be afloat again.

Remember, every program, every expenditure has its own lobbyists and advocates who will fight tooth and nail to keep the money to them flowing. That's why it's almost impossible to defund an existing program or agency. It's just dandy to gore an ox, unless it's your own - do it to someone else. If we don't fight for our benefits, no one else will.

 

[tjscott0]

But is it really? Are you now paying off the national debt that was incurred in your parents' day?

File:USDebt.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As the chart shows, my parents [WW II generation} did pay the debt incurred by their parents. Since 1980 though, the debt was allowed to rise until the the Clinton administration benefited from a booming economy & reduced defense spending as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Then the Bush administration of deficit spending on guns & butter continues the ever increasing mountain of debt. And the answer to you question: No my generation hasn't paid for the increased debt incurred by my parent's generation in the 1980 or the debt my generation has incurred since 2000. But the rising debt cain't be ignored forever.

The medicare program is unsustainable.
File:Medicare and Medicaid GDP Chart.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
File:GAO Slide.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Entitlement spending will exceed government revenue between 2030 & 2040. Our country will be bankrupt. The sooner the unfunded future liabilities are addressed the less painful the solution will be. I doubt politicians will pursue that course as such action could lead to a loss of their seat. People are angered by a loss or reduction on of benefits & tax increases. And corporate welfare such as agricultural subsidies are inviolate due to lobbyist contributions. So mebbe you're right. Grab all ya can before it hits the fan. Personally it won't affect me as I'm childless & should be dead by then.

 

[clifp]

Well, let me see if I can explain it to you at greater length. I had asked, "Are you now paying off the national debt that was incurred in your parents' day?". You answered, "Yes in the from of higher interest payments." Since your answer implied you think paying interest on the national debt pays off the national debt, and since that is silly, I was just giving you the opportunity to correct what you had said.

Is that clearer?

Not at all clearer if you were trying to make a larger point.

I never said that paying interest pays of the national debt. What I said is the previous generations debts have resulted in greater interest payments for this generations, and if we carry on the tradition it will result in higher interest payments to future generations.

You are factually incorrect, paying interest does reduce the level of national debt. To prove that take the opposite case what would happen to the national debt if we didn't make any interest payments? Do agree that would increase the national debt?. National debt consists of both principal and accumulated interest. The US debt situation is bad but isn't so bad that we can't even pay the interest accumulated debt..