Tuition Assistance Suspended for all Branches

reply to post by SilentKillah


I disagree, i believe it is politics. TA is not even a blip in the DOD budget. It was under used to the point that more than once while I was active duty, they talked of doing away with it. I have no doubts with extended deployments and cuts in manning/ extended roles, that its utilized even less these days. Not sure what it cost acrossed the military but I'd guess it's less than cost of one 6 month deplyment for one carrier.

I am personally glad that they have cut the funding. It should be a real eye opener to those who voluntarily serve the profit driven military industrial complex. They do not care about you and never will. You are just an expendable asset or a pawn to them. Anyone who serves in today's military is a fool.

Originally posted by braunbear
reply to post by TheMadVet

 

And your pissed with Obama, why???
Quit watching Fox News, pick a channel...any channel, just not Fox...
I'm an ex-vet-- watching and worrying about my VA benefits-- but I'm NOT blaming the wind!
Blame the 1%, politicians-- all of them...

Not watching Fox does not make Obama less guilty, get your logic straight. All he does is against common people, you don't need any news channel to see that, unless you are blinded by your favorite channels' propaganda. Stop drooling and look around you.

Originally posted by Echo3Foxtrot
Good luck getting promoted without that CCAF. Time to pinch every penny so you can climb the ranks.

Honestly, cutting the TA for the military does suck. But at the same time, they could have cut far worse things.

CCAF only comes into play after E-7 as far as Air Force goes. But that's no different than in the civilian workforce and many companies don't pay any TA for employees. Unfair that it's been taken away for a short period of time (6 months)? yes... end of the world? definitely not.

reply to post by ChuckNasty

Stop thinking about being entitled to stuff.

While a couple may applaud your stand up and pee like a big boy story, I don't quite feel the same.
This is not "entitlement" it is just.
If you go to work for a company and they tell you your benefits package has been cut or you will have to work for free, (slavery) ALL sane thinking individuals would be pissed.
These "entitlements" are part of what draws people into doing these crappy jobs, it is a recruitment tool.
Say all of a sudden your wife tells you, "I'm quitting my job and not doing any housework either so that I can spend more time with my new boyfriend, but I still expect you to support me", you may just tell her to take a flying @#$%.
By the way, how many "cuts" have the politicians who made this necessary taken?
Not that they actually need their paychecks as their crooked deal corporate kickbacks dwarf their payscale.
But they sure do got us fighting over the last piece of cheese don't they?

Originally posted by Jdawg9909
I am personally glad that they have cut the funding. It should be a real eye opener to those who voluntarily serve the profit driven military industrial complex. They do not care about you and never will. You are just an expendable asset or a pawn to them. Anyone who serves in today's military is a fool.

Sounds like any company that exists if you ask me. You're just a tool to get the job done in any corporate mindset. So why the negativity toward those who serve the work force with a purpose of defending our country? What makes them different than those who serve corporate America by putting iPhones in people's pockets of putting video games in the family room?

Originally posted by g146541
reply to post by ChuckNasty

 

Stop thinking about being entitled to stuff.

While a couple may applaud your stand up and pee like a big boy story, I don't quite feel the same.
This is not "entitlement" it is just.
If you go to work for a company and they tell you your benefits package has been cut or you will have to work for free, (slavery) ALL sane thinking individuals would be pissed.
These "entitlements" are part of what draws people into doing these crappy jobs, it is a recruitment tool.
Say all of a sudden your wife tells you, "I'm quitting my job and not doing any housework either so that I can spend more time with my new boyfriend, but I still expect you to support me", you may just tell her to take a flying @#$%.
By the way, how many "cuts" have the politicians who made this necessary taken?
Not that they actually need their paychecks as their crooked deal corporate kickbacks dwarf their payscale.
But they sure do got us fighting over the last piece of cheese don't they?

Way overboard with this. A perk or benefit from a company may be a deciding factor of why someone picked one company over the other, but nobody is talking about making anyone work for free. They still get their base pay, BAS, BAH and many other entitlements from their work. They just aren't having their education paid for... for 6 MONTHS!

Originally posted by TheMadVet
I am enraged.

Thank you dear government and thank you Obama.

Sorry your Enraged, why dont you calm down , and Direct your anger where it belongs.

We all knew cuts were coming.

It was up to the DoD to determine what to cut..............

They could have cut new Planes, Deployments, thousands of Non-Personal items, but they choose to Cut TA's....Why????...so the Armed Forces would be angry with the Gov.

Do you get it yet, your own DoD is using the front line troops as Pawns ...Again.

Originally posted by swimmer15
reply to post by SilentKillah

 

I disagree, i believe it is politics. TA is not even a blip in the DOD budget. It was under used to the point that more than once while I was active duty, they talked of doing away with it. I have no doubts with extended deployments and cuts in manning/ extended roles, that its utilized even less these days. Not sure what it cost acrossed the military but I'd guess it's less than cost of one 6 month deplyment for one carrier.

While you're right that there are larger cuts that can be made, you must also realize that those cuts cannot come from just any area of military budget. The cuts must come from "discretionary budget" which is the money that is left for the leaders to decide where it goes. This is TDY funding, civilian personnel funding, assistance funding, etc. Not developmental and program funding. Sure... a commander can use discretionary funds to plan a deployment and this can remove than plan to save money. However most deployments are not funded by discretionary budget and instead from other sources of funding. I don't deal that high level funding of that nature, but I deal with budgets enough within my unit to know how to cut funding at my level in this situation.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by TheMadVet
I am enraged.

Thank you dear government and thank you Obama.

Sorry your Enraged, why dont you calm down , and Direct your anger where it belongs.

They could have cut new Planes, Deployments, thousands of Non-Personal items, but they choose to Cut TA's....Why????...so the Armed Forces would be angry with the Gov.

Do you get it yet, your own DoD is using the front line troops as Pawns ...Again.

Planes and standard deployments are not a part of the discretionary budget. I do agree that many other cuts could be made (stoping privatized housing construction for instance). I also agree with your final statement.

But I would like to see the F-35 program ceased... that solves a big chunk of the budget right there. Unfortunately it's funded by other means.

reply to post by TheMadVet


I am so sorry. This is just wrong. I have been looking for it to happen. My husband and three brothers were in Viet Nam and they did the same to them. Made all kinds of promises then take them away.

If the Federal Government is so broke, where is it getting money to give pay raises to Congress and other higher-pay-grade federal employees?

Sal

Is this only for the Airforce?

Originally posted by SallieSunshine
If the Federal Government is so broke, where is it getting money to give pay raises to Congress and other higher-pay-grade federal employees?

Sal

All federal civilian pay increases have been frozen for the past 3 years. This year we were supposed to receive a .05% increase butI don't think it's going to happen. Congress's pay raise for this year was blocked.

Change in Scheduled Pay Rates for Members of Congress

Note: Schedule 6 of Executive Order 13635 showed pay rates for Members of Congress that would have taken effect on April 1, 2013, by implementing the pay rate adjustments required by section 601(a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31), taking into account the delayed effective date of the General Schedule increase. Those pay rate adjustments for Members of Congress were subsequently blocked by section 802 of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-240, January 2, 2013). Thus, the rates for Members of Congress in Schedule 6 will not be implemented as shown in the Executive order. Schedule 6 also provided the pay rate for the Vice President that is scheduled to take effect on April 1, 2013, based on the pay adjustment required by 3 U.S.C. 104. The President’s FY2013 Budget proposal asked Congress to freeze pay for the Vice President and other senior political officials. However, Congress has yet to enact legislation blocking that pay rate adjustment, and therefore it is still scheduled to take effect under current law. For current pay rates for Members of Congress, see Schedule 6 of Executive Order 13594 (PDF file) [729.39 KB]. Otherwise, continue to Executive Order 13635 (PDF file) [553.61 KB].

www.opm.gov...

For current pay rates for Members of Congress, see Schedule 6 of Executive Order 13594

Originally posted by CodeRed3D
Is this only for the Airforce?

Air Force is the only service I've heard of thus far. Others may be following suit.

reply to post by SWCCFAN


If this is true, then just have the military move you instead of doing it yourself. The military will not move you without paying for it.

reply to post by SilentKillah


I get what your saying, basically "something" had to be cut, and the most obivous candidate for cuts was "discretionary" funding. Because TA falls under that then it is no wonder why this happened.

The thing is, this is just a drop in the bucket of what needs to be cut across the board in order to really fix things. I'd rather see the DoD cut R&D because the hyper speed at which we are churning out new tech is gluttonous IMO. But the big guys seem to think otherwise and they know way more than I ever could about our need for new tech.

I hate that the TA is suspended, but I too think it is tip of the iceberg and it will make a lot of service members reconsider re enlisting. Then again, the army is already looking for any excuse in the book to toss soldiers out, because in the future we will not need these huge armies, our tech will replace a lot of those jobs, just as tech has replaced private sector jobs. Civilians have been feeling this pinch for awhile now. I guess it's our turn now. It used to be the military was one of the best ways to become upwardly mobile and for generations it enabled people to better their circumstances in life, those opportunities are dwindling fast; this is just one small sign of what is coming down the pipeline. It's a reality check for those with eyes to see what it means, I know I do.

Originally posted by g146541
reply to post by ChuckNasty

 

Stop thinking about being entitled to stuff.

While a couple may applaud your stand up and pee like a big boy story, I don't quite feel the same.
This is not "entitlement" it is just.
If you go to work for a company and they tell you your benefits package has been cut or you will have to work for free, (slavery) ALL sane thinking individuals would be pissed.

Absolutely! I want to chime in and say how deeply sorry I am in regards to these cuts. I am wholly unsurprised by them as our nation's politicians seem to be thinking more about the bottom line for themselves and the large companies behind them than their constituency. My grandfather was a former NAF Chief of Staff of the USAF and comptroller for 1/3rd of the USAF. He would be weeping right now if he were alive. These are not "entitlements"--they were expected seemingly guaranteed benefits that were part of the contract that was given to our service men. Your comparison is excellent. The idea of "entitlement" has been recently injected into the political rhetoric in such a manner as to imply that it is something that spoils people. On the contrary, if one actually looks up what "entitled" means, this is the definition: "Give (someone) a legal right or a just claim to receive or do something." Anybody that uses the word "entitlement" should learn the actual definition of it first because the misuse of it simply belies their ignorance.

You all had a contract with the US government and what really has occurred would legally be a breach of contract. However, it's already been shown through the Supreme Court's decision in US v. Stanley that a soldier cannot file a tort action against the US government. Previous cases in regards to service contract breaches have been dismissed. It is absolutely reprehensible and honestly, I think this is the primary reason why they are making cuts to active duty and veteran's benefits. You guys are unlikely to be able to successfully sue them while a defense contractor whose contract has been breached will have a high power legal team and the ability to sue. Logically, the first place that should be cut would be our spending in various countries. We should be taking care of and assuring the promises made to our own people before we ever spend a dime outside of our country. I am so sorry.

Originally posted by Mijamija
reply to post by SilentKillah

 

I get what your saying, basically "something" had to be cut, and the most obivous candidate for cuts was "discretionary" funding. Because TA falls under that then it is no wonder why this happened.

The thing is, this is just a drop in the bucket of what needs to be cut across the board in order to really fix things. I'd rather see the DoD cut R&D because the hyper speed at which we are churning out new tech is gluttonous IMO. But the big guys seem to think otherwise and they know way more than I ever could about our need for new tech.

I hate that the TA is suspended, but I too think it is tip of the iceberg and it will make a lot of service members reconsider re enlisting. Then again, the army is already looking for any excuse in the book to toss soldiers out, because in the future we will not need these huge armies, our tech will replace a lot of those jobs, just as tech has replaced private sector jobs. Civilians have been feeling this pinch for awhile now. I guess it's our turn now. It used to be the military was one of the best ways to become upwardly mobile and for generations it enabled people to better their circumstances in life, those opportunities are dwindling fast; this is just one small sign of what is coming down the pipeline. It's a reality check for those with eyes to see what it means, I know I do.

Your summary is spot on! I would love to see large scale weapons system development cut. Additionally consolidation of many weapons system components to create effective tools for our Airmen, Soldiers, Marines, and Seamen. Make education a key to user concepts modernization of the existing tools. What they're doing is effectively hurting our people and in the end will have a trickle down effect on our immediate military supported economies.

Take Hampton Roads/Norfolk VA area for instance. It's built on Navy, Air Force, and Army. What happens when approx. 100,000 civilians lose their 20% pay in this area? They stop buying, eating out, supporting those others in the community who have established business for us.

What happens when those separating from Active duty don't have education to become eligible for local jobs? They move finding jobs elsewhere or become unstable in the community. With the PTSD from these numerous deployments to hostile environments and no funding for programs to support these vets, what do we have? A community full of future vets on the street. This is what I foresee... call me farfetched if you want... only time will tell.

It is a little hard for me to understand why anyone is surprised by this development. Y`all really did not see this coming? Of course the US government is going to screw over anyone who gets involved with them at any level. That is how the US gov rolls. Fight in the US armed forces and they will forget about you when you need them, pay taxes and you will get very little in return, salute the flag and they will use you loyalty for their own agenda while being more than willing to toss you away when you are not useful anymore. Besides think about it, the US gov has to use the carrot on a stick method to get anyone to fight in their military. That you tell all of you something about the `honor of serving.`

I am also deeply sorry that you for that letter from the US Gov. They need not be doing that to you. I hope there is a way to get around it and give you exactly what they promised you. Hell, fight for it if you have to just make sure they don`t rip all of y`all off. I am sure many fighters will be getting letter like yours.

My point is that the sad material reality of the USA is that it was a very good idea which got too large and too powerful for any one nation to keep at bay. American Democracy has run amok and now soldiers are feeling the burn of the need for the capitalist class to increase profits. I will not be surprised to see entire units of private armies fighting along side actual US fighters in order for the government to allow the private sector to bastardize the entire notion of war into a stable business model. I am sorry but is not a good way for humans to be operating together. A standing army should at least only have US citizens choosing to join the ranks with no strings attached except treason.