[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

That's easier said than done. When the average family income hasn't gone up much over the past 20 years, but inflation has, how do you expect people to put money into retirement when they are trying to tread water or completely submerged? It's easy for guys like yourself to sit back and think that everything is ok, because it is in your little world. It's not. Try being dirt poor. Try being from a broken home. Try getting a opportunity where there are no opportunities. It's not as easy as we make it out to be. Hey guys, it worked for me so it must work for everybody else. I agree with you that something must be done with SS. Whether the government invests in bonds or some other low risk investment, it needs to happen.

You know everyone that works is paying 6.2% of their income into SS, plus the employer match of 6.2%. As you mention, if SS is either privatized or "lock-boxed" any low risk investment is better than what we have now.

You have no clue about where I've come from or what I've been through, so it is unwise to make such assumptions.

Different time, different era. You can't cut people's pay when inflation is constantly rising. I work for the state (I know you said federal), and I can assure you that we haven't seen a raise in 3-4 years due to budget issues. However, during that time, inflation has continued to rise. Now you want to cut pay? I think you are a tad misguided about government employees. I have no issue with freezing pay but a big "No" to pay reduction. Hey, if you want to reduce some federal pay, lets start with Congress. I'm all for that.

I have no issue with a freeze vs. a cut. I also have no issue with cutting congressional pay & retirement benefits.

I'm in the private sector (day job) and I haven't had a raise in over 4 years. I also owned a small restaurant that I needed to sell due to the poor economic situation. I very clearly understand things aren't easy, but we have to get gov't spending under control at all levels and employee costs are a major factor in gov't spending.

Doesn't change a thing. I could care less if their premiums haven't increased in 100 years, it should stay that way. Call it a benefit for having to deal with the crap they do. I'm 100% against messing with any veterans health care plans. (combat or non)

My guess is the veterans would disagree with you, and so do I. Who cares if it's wounded or non-wounded. They still served our country and to disrespect them this way is horrible. Thanks guys for serving our country!! I'll continuing waving my little American flag around while handing you a bill for increase premiums! GO AMERICA!!!

If my understanding is correct, the premiums that are in question are a supplemental to the basic care that is provided to retired veterans. If a retired veteran uses a military or VA hospital there is no charge. Veterans who do not retire have no benefits (unless disabled).

Also keep in mind serving in the military is a voluntary decision. To stay until retirement is a plan and economic/career decision our veterans make for their futures by weighing the cost/benefit. They understand premiums can increase. Also a large percentage of veterans are "double-dipping" with second careers, so they don't fit the image of a homeless disabled vet in a wheelchair.

I have no problem with the number of troops we have, I just think we don't need to keep beefing our military up with more and more war machines. China is about to get their first air craft carrier, and yet they are one of the biggest military forces in the world. You don't need all the over priced equipment to maintain superiority. A bit of this military spending is coming from sponsoring wars (Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Afghan, Pakistan) we have no business being involved in. The more missiles we keep firing the higher the costs keep rising.

We have to maintain our technological superiority, reduce risk to human life, become more efficient and lethal, and more cost effective. Achieving these objectives requires R & D dollars. Should we be continuing weapons systems that don't fit into our new missions in an evolving world....of course not. But we have to develop new tech that reduces the human risk/expenditures. And I agree we don't need to overtly continue in wars we don't need to be in.