Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Carolyn who wrote (22462)	1/28/2014 11:59:48 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Recommended By ManyMoose Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23908

When discussing veterans and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, President Obama said, "As this time of war draws to a close, a new generation of heroes returns to civilian life. We’ll keep slashing that backlog so our veterans receive the benefits they’ve earned, and our wounded warriors receive the health care – including the mental health care – that they need," while failing to acknowledge Obamacare has destroyed those healthcare benefits in Tricare. The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched. The proposal is causing a major rift within the Pentagon, according to U.S. officials. Several congressional aides suggested the move is designed to increase the enrollment in Obamacare’s state-run insurance exchanges. The disparity in treatment between civilian and uniformed personnel is causing a backlash within the military that could undermine recruitment and retention. The proposed increases in health care payments by service members, which must be approved by Congress, are part of the Pentagon’s $487 billion cut in spending. It seeks to save $1.8 billion from the Tricare medical system in the fiscal 2013 budget, and $12.9 billion by 2017. Many in Congress are opposing the proposed changes, which would require the passage of new legislation before being put in place. “We shouldn’t ask our military to pay our bills when we aren’t willing to impose a similar hardship on the rest of the population,” Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and a Republican from California, said in a statement to the Washington Free Beacon. “We can’t keep asking those who have given so much to give that much more.” Administration officials told Congress that one goal of the increased fees is to force military retirees to reduce their involvement in Tricare and eventually opt out of the program in favor of alternatives established by the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

To: Carolyn who wrote (22462)	1/30/2014 12:38:51 AM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 23908

Obama Uses Army Ranger As Prop During Speech, But Cuts Military Healthcare And Pension Benefits Weasel Zippers Nickarama January 28, 2014 11:43 pm Obama recognized U.S. Army Ranger Corey Remsburg during the SOTU speech. Remsburg got a standing ovation, as he was escorted to his seat. He nearly died from a roadside bomb while serving in Afghanistan but has fought back from numerous injuries. Remsburg deserves all plaudits. Obama however was using him to demonstrate his, Obama’s, care and concern for the military. Yet, Obama has no love for the military, and that is demonstrated by his actions. -National defense has drastically declined under Obama, despite being “a core constitutional function of government”, while entitlement spending has tripled. Defense spending is 14%, entitlement spending 70% of spending. This has left soldiers wanting, everything from supplies to hot meals that they used to get. - His “Rules of Engagement” in Afghanistan have reportedly resulted in thousands dead or injured, including the deaths of Seal Team VI, the guys that got Bin Laden. These rules are driving morale right into the basement. - He is tripling the Tricare military health premiums - He fought Republican opposition in order to be able to cut veterans benefits that had been promised, harming exactly the people Remsburg would represent, young disabled Afghanistan veterans. So when your actions deliberately target and harm those you claim to be praising, forgive me, Mr. President, if I don’t take your professed concern seriously… Link

To: Carolyn who wrote (22462)	2/24/2014 11:13:46 AM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Recommended By lightshipsailor Respond to of 23908

The Pentagon argues that personnel costs are simply too big a share of the defense budget to ignore. "Personnel costs reflect some 50 percent of the Pentagon budget and cannot be exempted in the context of the significant cuts the department is facing," Adm. John Kirby, the Defense Department's top spokesman, told the Journal. "Secretary Hagel has been clear that, while we do not want to, we ultimately must slow the growth of military pay and compensation." There is an old axiom that states, "Do not fuck with a soldier's pay or food". American soldiers can and do read. Pay raises are exploding higher all across our government without complaint from other department heads. Cutting all government pay including the military would be accepted. Singling out our military for cuts while everyone else is getting handsome raises is going to be a very big mistake. In my mind it will be a deliberate mistake with profound negative consequences that are easy to predict and that must be desired. credit unclewest

To: Carolyn who wrote (22462)	2/26/2014 1:34:03 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 23908

Letter to Congress Opposing Gutting the Military ................................................................................ Bloggers & Personal ^ \| 26 Feb 14 \| Xzins Dear Congressman ________, The proposed cuts in national defense will injure the security of the United States of America. 1. The most common enemy the USA is now fighting consists of insurgents. The only remedy for insurgency that has worked is General Petraeus' surge strategy of ground troops. It worked in Iraq and Afghanistan when consistently applied, and it's the only thing that has worked. The only way to "air power" insurgents is to bomb villages, and that will never happen. That leaves ground troops being the only answer. Cutting the Army at this time is completely irrational. 2. The national strategy of being able to fight 2 simultaneous wars is still the right strategy. There is no time in American history when engagement in one war hasn't caused another enemy to at least think of attacking because America was occupied elsewhere. History aside, it is logical for one enemy to take advantage of an opponent's distraction by another enemy. We are now of a strength to fight only one ground war at a time. The optempo of the Iraq/Afghanistan campaigns has proved that. Our troops, both active and reserve, have been "rode hard and put away wet." An army of 450,000 or less is simply not able to put the shooters on the ground that makes effective prosecution of one war a certainty. 3. The only thing that has made the Iraq/Afghanistan campaigns possible has been our National Guard and Reserve. They need an increase -- certainly not a cut...as proposed by this administration. It is utter insanity to contemplate gutting the National Guard and Reserve. 4. Once that defense money is channeled into entitlements -- and it will be -- it will never be recoverable in the US budget. That will mean that any threat at all will further balloon America's debt. I believe experience with the military will support the 4 points above. Please reject these thoughtless cuts the way they are proposed. Work to ensure America is able to keep its enemies away from our shores and continually worried about our abilities.