DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Lawmaker wants to make 100,000 active duty troops reservists & National Guardsmen

**BenWired306** · 09-24-2011, 08:58 PM

Sounds like a good idea... IF we can break our habit of trillion dollar safaris in the Middle East. If you call up reservists to repeatedly serve on deployments, not only are you pissing them off (because their education/career plans get dropped into the trash can) - you're not saving money because reservists get payed per diem while called up on active duty (at least that's how I understand it).

Also, there's a few points that sound like pure speculation and wishful thinking to me:

He also recommends canceling an Army plan to assign soldiers to South Korea on three-year tours accompanied by their families. Shutting down that move would avoid spending billions on family-related construction projects, Coffman said. For starters, isn't putting someone on one 3 year tour in Korea cheaper than putting 3 people on 1 year tours (or whatever the current timeframe is)? Also, I really doubt family housing in Korea is going to cost "billions". I know construction is a gravy train (thanks Cheney), but I don't think its THAT expensive, is it?
Shifting active-duty end strength into the Guard and Reserve would save $90 billion over 10 years. The average total annual cost to have one soldier on active duty is $130,000, compared to $43,000 for a National Guardsman and $37,000 for an Army Reserve soldier, according to a statement from Coffman’s office. As I said above, that's assuming we're not constantly calling up reservists to invade random countries.
Long-term savings would be even greater. Coffman said retirement benefits for Guard and Reserve retirees are about one-third of the cost for benefits of active-duty military retirees, which would “yield billions of dollars in lifetime retirement savings and would ease the burden on the currently strained military retirement system.” That's a pretty big assumption, IMO. The vast majority of Active Duty members get out before the 20 year mark - I don't know the stats, but I'll bet a lot more Reservists stay in for the full 20 years than Active Duty.

His letter to the deficit reduction committee is just his latest suggestion about cutting the budget. Earlier this year, Coffman unsuccessfully called for closing the Selective Service System, which he said is no longer needed. Nickles and dimes. Again, I don't know the stats - but I doubt it costs very much to run a website and a roster of names. Just because we don't need a draft now doesn't mean we won't later.

He also has tried to reduce Defense Department spending on tuition assistance, an issue still open for debate as Congress works on the 2012 military budget. Thanks asshole. So I guess soldiers don't "need" education? How much are YOU getting paid to sit in a chair and cut other people's benefits? Go f___ yourself.

09-24-2011, 08:58 PM	#3
BenWired306 Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 471 Senior Member	Sounds like a good idea... IF we can break our habit of trillion dollar safaris in the Middle East. If you call up reservists to repeatedly serve on deployments, not only are you pissing them off (because their education/career plans get dropped into the trash can) - you're not saving money because reservists get payed per diem while called up on active duty (at least that's how I understand it). Also, there's a few points that sound like pure speculation and wishful thinking to me: He also recommends canceling an Army plan to assign soldiers to South Korea on three-year tours accompanied by their families. Shutting down that move would avoid spending billions on family-related construction projects, Coffman said. For starters, isn't putting someone on one 3 year tour in Korea cheaper than putting 3 people on 1 year tours (or whatever the current timeframe is)? Also, I really doubt family housing in Korea is going to cost "billions". I know construction is a gravy train (thanks Cheney), but I don't think its THAT expensive, is it? Shifting active-duty end strength into the Guard and Reserve would save $90 billion over 10 years. The average total annual cost to have one soldier on active duty is $130,000, compared to $43,000 for a National Guardsman and $37,000 for an Army Reserve soldier, according to a statement from Coffman’s office. As I said above, that's assuming we're not constantly calling up reservists to invade random countries. Long-term savings would be even greater. Coffman said retirement benefits for Guard and Reserve retirees are about one-third of the cost for benefits of active-duty military retirees, which would “yield billions of dollars in lifetime retirement savings and would ease the burden on the currently strained military retirement system.” That's a pretty big assumption, IMO. The vast majority of Active Duty members get out before the 20 year mark - I don't know the stats, but I'll bet a lot more Reservists stay in for the full 20 years than Active Duty. His letter to the deficit reduction committee is just his latest suggestion about cutting the budget. Earlier this year, Coffman unsuccessfully called for closing the Selective Service System, which he said is no longer needed. Nickles and dimes. Again, I don't know the stats - but I doubt it costs very much to run a website and a roster of names. Just because we don't need a draft now doesn't mean we won't later. He also has tried to reduce Defense Department spending on tuition assistance, an issue still open for debate as Congress works on the 2012 military budget. Thanks asshole. So I guess soldiers don't "need" education? How much are YOU getting paid to sit in a chair and cut other people's benefits? Go f___ yourself.
	Quote