A Medical Enlisted Military Web Community,
For all Military Services.
Past, Present, Future and Relatives of,
All are Welcome.

Saturday, December 14, 2019

Read the names in the article. Remember who wants to shaft you..

I believe deep down in my heart, that anyone “VOTING” on military issues, must volunteer for a 15 month Deployment to IRAQ or AFGHANISTAN prior to being eligible to vote for us in the military.

Get off your asses and see what is really going on.  Go sweat where we sweat, go miss your family where we miss our family.  Go eat “1” Meal a day because “OP TEMPO” is to damn high.  Go wait on the TARMAC again and again to be pushed back again and again when you thought you were going home to be told, Nope you have been extended. (Your Tour).

Go have your entire unit deploy back to the United States after doing a 10 month deployment only to forget “YOU” over in IRAQ because your unit parted you out to another unit who needed a doc, but forgot to pick you up when it was time to leave.  Explain that to the MOM who is anxiously waiting at home.

Then, and only THEN vote on issues regarding taking some of our benefits away or paring them down.

Then you can vote from Experience.

Da-Chief

From NavyTimes

In a bullets-or-bonuses debate about financial pressures facing the Defense Department, service personnel chiefs ceded no ground to the competing needs for weapons modernization.

At a Nov. 17 forum sponsored by the Military Officers Association of America, the Army, Navy and Air Force personnel chiefs rejected the idea of a joint medical, legal and chaplain corps to save money on training and management, insist­ing on the continued need for ser­vice-specific training and duties.

And while they expressed a will­ingness to consider altering the military retirement system so that people don’t have to serve 20 years to earn some form of retire­ment benefit, they balked at the idea of doing so while the nation is at war.

“Let’s tread very carefully in this area while we are at war,” said Lt. Gen. Michael Rochelle, the Army’s personnel chief.

That could mean putting off change for some time. At the same forum, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs said he did not fore­see a quick end to conflict.

“The belief of the Joint Chiefs is, we are entering an era of persis­tent conflict,” said Marine Gen. James Cartwright, who warned of hot spots “broadly spread across the planet” that are “difficult to solve and move on.” On consolidating officers corps that appear to have common du­ties across the services, Lt. Gen. Richard Newton III, Air Force personnel chief, said he doesn’t see the need.

Rochelle and Vice Adm. Mark Ferguson, the chief of naval per­sonnel, agreed.

Cartwright described the issue facing the military as not just per­sonnel programs pitted against hardware, but a three-way bal­ancing act because of the contin­ued high operating costs of global deployments.

He did not talk about ways to cut personnel costs, but he said buying weapons systems that are adapt­able and have lesser support needs could reduce hardware and operat­ing costs. A prime example, he said, is unmanned aerial vehicles that can be used for a variety of missions, quickly adapted to new requirements and sent overseas with little or no ground support.

Ferguson said one reason that personnel costs are rising is that the military benefits package means the Defense Department now ranks among the top 50 em­ployers in the U.S.

Personnel costs are up 31 per­cent since 2001, he said.

Another panelist, Charles Abell, a former Pentagon person­nel chief who also served as staff director of the Senate Armed Ser­ vices Committee, has argued in the past about benefits being too generous, but he said the services cannot cut existing benefits, especially in wartime.

However, letting troops keep what they have does not mean giving them more. National eco­nomic problems could make re­cruiting and retention easier and reduce the need for new or ex­panded benefits, he said.

Comments

One Response to “Read the names in the article. Remember who wants to shaft you..”
  1. Doc1_12 says:

    When we all voluntarilly signed on, we knew there would be separations, and the hardships. We knew there would be people in Washington D.C. voting to control our lives, and making decisions that make absolutely no sense to us.
    So, what do we do? We do our jobs as we're told, we sit on that tarmac day after day. We learn the hard way that we don't tell our families when we're coming home because it isn't going to happen.
    War or no war, in the Navy, we are going to suffer through deployments. It's a fact of life. If you didn't know that war was a possibility, or that war was going to cause a hardship when you signed up, well, your bust.
    For those of us who have been part of the volunteer armed forces era, we knew what we were getting into, even though we never thought it may happen. But the military has always been the military, the government has always been the government, and neither of them will ever change. Well, I recant that. My son is in the Navy now, and from what I understand, things are a lot easier than they were 20 years ago, so there are some changes.
    So, you are right in the respect that you can express your opinion, and I'm glad you did. But I hope you don't carry that around with you, because it's going to eat you alive, and for something that isn't going to change, and something that you won't get changed, is it worth taking your mind off the mission, and risking the lives of others, or not being able to take care of your Marine?
    Let it go… We signed up for this…