E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSSAN DIEGO -- Imagine joining the Navy ten years ago with a career in mind. Now, sailors with that career plan are getting pink slips as the military looks for places to save money.
Since June, 16,000 mid-career sailors have been waiting to find out if they will be forced out early.
Last week, the Navy began its layoffs when the first of two rounds of personnel cuts were announced.
Read the original story at nbcsandiego.com
"Nobody ever wants to pass this sort of bad news to somebody," said Captain Winton Smith, Naval Station San Diego's commanding officer. "It's a very difficult thing for any commanding officer to sit down with a hard charger and to tell them to prepare for the next chapter of their life.”
Smith had to do that with two of his sailors last week. The Navy recently reviewed 16,000 sailors in 31 job categories where it had surpluses; all had served between 7 and 14 years. The Navy was looking for extra sailors to layoff.
"It can come down to a particular rating is simply over-manned, and we just have to reduce the number of people within that rating", said Smith.
These jobs range from aviation electricians to religious program specialists. In June, the Navy allowed sailors to apply to transfer to under-manned ratings, like medical professionals, to avoid being let go. But about 3,000 in the Navy will have to leave. To ease the transition, the Navy provides services including programs that help sailors translate their skills to public sector certifications.
"Our sailors have amazing leadership skills, and they've already started to make their own plans, and we're just here to help augment them and get them connected with all those resources that can help them with their goals", said Mary Kirby of Naval Station San Diego’s Fleet and Family Services.
The second round of lay-offs is expected to be announced near the end of this month, and those will affect the more senior sailors in the group up to the senior chief level.
The San Diego Fleet and Family Support Center is ready to help sailors who find their Navy careers ending early. Here is the contact information:
Phone: (619) 556-7404 Website: http://www.cnic.navy.mil/SanDiego/FleetAndFamilyReadiness/SupportServices/index.htm
Leave a Comment:
When it all comes out in the wash....7 to 14 years is plenty of time to prepare for under manned mos's, and the military keeps one abreast of the needs, and locals. It's a matter of personal achievement, need, and want....if one want's a career to be stable in the military these day's.
Great! We give billions to a nation that is our enemy - Pakistan; more billions to a nation lead by a idiot - Karzi, who would fight for Pakistan against us, if we attacked it, and now we can't keep our own men in uniform in uniform.
We really need a man in the White House who has the ability to lead and achieve things - rather than help preside over the dis-assembly of our military; someone who isn't more focused on achieving social agendas he thinks are important (even if most people couldn't disagree with him less) at the expense of America's future and it security.
Oh please, we've given billions to Pakistan and Afghanistan long before Obama came into office. This has very very little to do with anything Obama's done. If we can't get by spending hundreds of billions on defense each year then we have bigger problems than anyone realizes.
JFix Yes, we did give Pakistan billions before Obama; but that was then, this is now. You judge a leader by what he actually accomplishes - unfortunately, America is still waiting for Obama to accomplish something that actually is related to making America stronger - be it economically or militarily.
If ever there was someone who had a great way with words, one must admit, he is the man! Of course, there is that little fly in the ointment of character ditty that says, "Actions speak louder than words."
Stoops,,, Karzi isn't the leader of Pakistan, he's in Afghanistan.. You sound as knowledgeable as your conservative candidates --- NOT AT ALL
Also didn't you also used to try and tell us that Obama was born in Kenya?
As far as who you gonna put in the White House, you have no clue. You've got the choice of idiots ranging from cut & run Ron Paul who won't go to war for Israel,, Newt who likes Obama's policies,, Romney who was for Obama's policies before he was against them,,, and Perry who is still stuck under his "Perry Rock"
Did you listen to those nuts tonight? This was supposed to be their night for national security --- A card they can no longer play after the damage conservatives already did to our national security
Never said Karzi was the leader of Pakistan, Jim - I assumed anyone reading would already know he was the leader of Afghanistan - and no, that must have been you who said Obama was born in Kenya - that would be in keeping perhaps with your lack of attention to detail.
Obama signed a bill to help you guys find new jobs. We have no choice, but to send that aid. It's part of our a$$ kissing duties! The wars are winding down, and the politicians no longer need you. It's not personal, just business.
When I was in , it was called RIF..reduction in force. I slid by, by cousin was RIF'd with 17 years active duty and 9 purple hearts, my buddy was supposed to be RIF'd, but when he was flown to the separation center in California he pulled a fast one. He went into the personnel office and saw someone he knew from Vietnam and they did re-enlistment papers and some overworked officer signed them and he was good for another 6 years. What they really should do is slow down on the recruiting and let those stay in that want. Back then I was allowed to re-enlist as a hashmark seaman. Those were the good old days though...no PC to deal with.
Billions to illegals, Afghan, Irag, Pakistan, and IMF, but nothing to support our men in the Navy. What a croak of crap!
Did these folks man stone frigates or are they just not the cream of the salt-water crop. To be honest, the quality of the service is determined by retention of the best and NONE of the services want to be the employer of last resort and overloaded with folks well beyond their 'best before' date with skills only at finding the softest billets.
There must be a gene found in Democrats that when one of them find themselves as President only then manifests its pernicious, debilitating effects (on America).
Keep in mind it was that aw shucks Peanut farmer, who would-be King - I mean President - Jimmy Carter, who eliminated most of our covert operatives in Asia during his tenure;
then along came Clinton, who, in addition to being too politically correct to take advantage of three - count them three- opportunities to take out Osama bin laden and give a Yes order (probably didn't have any yeses left after giving so many to Monica); who also gutted the C. I. A. of 30 percent or more of our covert operatives in Europe in his albeit - not deliberately intentioned - but for all practical purposes it "doesn't make no never mind" (as the Amish might put it) given the ultimate effect efforts to weaken us and set us up for 9/11.
Now, we have another Democrat, Obama
(Oh, I forgot to mention Harry Truman - who caved into the Chinese and gave them North Korea and didn't allow MacArthur to do what he could have done more or less easily - kicked Chinese butt back over their border);
now we have another Democrat happily (if not merrily) overseeing a further dismantling of our military - mayhap thinking that maybe this way we can finally impress upon our "friends", like the French, that we will soon cease to be a threat to their false, high opinion of themselves as actually being a force to be reckoned with - by our ceasing to be a world power - thus precluding them ever needing to feel as utterly inadequate as their actions (or rather lack thereof) justify them feeling.
Time for change in Washington and the White House we can count on!
Hey FatCatGets more info that most people don't know the Navy isn't the only branch of the arm forces that are doing the same thing too. So I'm just passing on more info for you and others too
Once again the government screwed the people who do the most for our country . If push ever comes to shove look for a government quick turn around and screw these same people again . This is how they will do it . They will recall each and every one of them . They will use the old excuse of FOR THE GOOD OF THE SURVICE and force them back on to active duty . Discharged or not they will be ordered back into uniform .
What is troubling is that our last two democratic Presidents have gutted the military. Clinton had his RIF (Reduction In Force) that forced out many at the mid career level. The Army (that is all I can speak personally about) spent years trying to fill the void left in that leadership vacuum. We had many fine leaders that had to leave the service because of politics. Here comes round two. Its not JUST about cost savings at this point, it's about replacing the experience that these NCO's and Officers have that cannot be replaced.
The U.S. Military will suffer because of this, and NOT because of the money factor.
How is this any different then, what American business has been doing for the last 10 years? This is what usually happens, when a war winds down. It happened after World War 2, it happened after Korea, and it happened after Viet Nam.
Seems all the anti-religious posters on here would be happy that they're discharging Chaplain's Assistants. The guys have to change with the times, the Navy ran out of the need for Sail Repairmen after the advent of steam. Need to change to IT or if you want a senior rate a BM or QM.
Stoops is nothing more than a blowhard conservative idiot! I served in the Army under Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton. There were RIFs under all three. Anytime the numbers in a specialty at a given paygrade exceed the needs of the service thises actions occur. Every service member is fully briefed on this reality. Each can decide to retrain to the needs of the service or receive walking papers. It's that simple. This is not a demobilization RIF, which is coming, by the way. The Navy is trying to be fiscally responsible, fulfill its staffing needs and better manage its human resources. Private enterprise in states like Virginina would never go to such extents to retrain and retain people. They would just lay them off without warning. Stoops-GET OVER IT! You have a very competent President who appointed very competent secretaries and they are doing their due diligence to keep the US military the best in the world.
WTF is a religious program specilist and why the eff are the people's tax dollars supporting this religious bs in the military in the forst place. No wonder they have no funds when they waste tons of it on religion bs in the Navy. The Navy is a place of work and training, not for religion or your religious beliefs to be supported. You support all that religion and religious bs on your own dime and own time.
How can he if congress keep putting roadblocks in his way just about every time he proposes something. I've never seen a congress so oppose against the president.
Just because u join the military doesn't mean u renounce your religious faith.
Arieus,
First off, there is the old saying 'there is no such thing as an athiest in a foxhole'. What is troubling to me is your apparent opinion that Military Members cant exercise their chosen faith. Often, its ones personal faith and beliefs that get them through unspeakable circumstances. The Chaplains and their assistants serve a vital role in todays Armed Forces.
I would assume through your post that you never had the inclination to serve. Thats fine, no one forced you to, but dont sit on the sideline and b!tch about something that you never had the balls to do.
WOW, this thread is truley amazing thread.
Folks it is called a RIF or Reduction in Force, it has been around
since the beginning of time in the military.
It has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans, or who the
president is. It has everything to do
with is the weapons system, Job etc. that you are supporting, is it still in
need?
It has nothing to do with the skills of the Individual Airman, Sailor
or Soldier but the Job and sometimes location of the person.
I was RIF'd from the USAF in 1987 when my unit was closed and we
were the last with our aircraft,
BTW who was president in 1987? Oh Yeah REAGAN! Mr. Defense!
During the Vietnam war they had a RIF of over 58,000.
Old Sarge - I think just as highly of you as you think of me.
If you define competence - in terms of a President - as someone who:
....has no clue about how to keep his eye on the ball of what the nation really needs - a working economy, rather than another bloated, federally mandated rat hole program that will ultimately cause more problems than it will ever solve (Obama care);
...if you define competency as doing everything humanly possible to encourage rather than discourage illegal aliens from entering the country;
...if you define competency as getting some of the lowest "respect" ratings ever from retiring military men and women as "competency"; well then, I suppose you, in your "See no evil; hear no evil; speak no evil" teeny, weeny, narrow ultra liberal "mind", will undoubtedly call him competent - even incredibly so.
However, just because you say it, doesn't make it is so!
In my opinion, this is a terrible waste of training, experience and knowledgeable military service members! These are the people they should be retaining. My daughter is in the Navy now, and she is very disappointed in the proposed reduction in their benefits, and the increased costs that they themselves have to pay for, especially their own necessary gear. For the actually men and women serving, the country should be supporting them, not charging them!
Ask Lockheed Martin for a contribution.
They are sure getting enough money for building that JSF-35A, B and C. And they still don't know what the final price will be.
How many is it that the government plans to buy? around 2500 sofar they are at 150 million a copy and still don't know the final price.
Sure could set some aside for saving some SAILORS jobs.
cynical75 - well stated.
Not only Lockheed, but also look at all other Defense Contractors like Haliburton and Boeing. They all have overrun Defense Contracts which totals over $1 Trillion Dollars.
The Armed Forces needs Fixed Bid Contracts with 0, that's Zero, re-negotiating. If costs run-over, too bad, the Defense Contractors and Wall Street have to eat it. Its the American way.
The People of the United States would then know exactly what a meal costs for a soldier, or the exact costs of a jet fighter, or the exact costs of a truck part, etc.
well its a shame to lay off any personnel....but hey maybe the post office is hiring???their sure not worried about saving any money,,,,and serviceman get credit on their scores!!!! the govt . bails out car companies // and banks for billions and they can't keep their serviceman working
this country seems to be getting worse instead of better
The post office has not taken a dime of taxpayer money since 1982. It is totally funded by revenue of selling stamps and delivering mail.
However they are capped in how much they can charge for services and what services they can provide, so they can't compete directly with UPS, FedEx, etc.
So don't try to paint the USPS as some poster child for govt ineptitude. Congress is the best model for that poster.
Yeah didn't they announce last week they lost 5.1 bil. that seems pretty inept to me.
stc1 - In 2006 the Republican Congress start funneling 5.1 billion from the postal service - guess you don't keep up with the news, they want to privatize them and are especially going after them because they're unionized - same old same old - it's been all over the news papers - except Faux - try reading something - anything - they also want to lay off 100,000 postal workers and give the business to UPS & Fedex - except those carriers are more expensive and don't touch rural areas
stc 1993 Before you start branding postal workers as inept because of the Postal Service lost 5.1 billion this year you should know something about what you are talking about. Yes. the USPS has lost money since 2007. That is because the Republican controlled (with 232 Republicans in the House and 55 Republicans in the Senate) 109th Congress passed and Bush signed a law, HR 6407, in 2006 that requires the USPS to pay into a fund 5.5 billion per year every year from 2007 to 2016 to pre fund retires health care cost for the next 75 years. That's 100% of 75 years cost to be paid in 10 years. No business or government agency does that. The federal government does not set aside anything to pay future health care or retirement cost and no large business sets aside more that 30% of anticipated future cost. When this law passed I was working as a mechanic for the post office and most of us understood that this was the Republican's death tole for the Postal Service. Ask any Republican and they will tell you that they want to abolish all government services and turn them over to companies. This plan will result in the loss of 575,000 post office jobs and end up turning mail delivery over to Fed Ex and UPS. If you don't like stamps for under 50 cents each how are you going to like stamps for $5 each with no home pick up without making a call to Fed Ex or UPS etc to arrange pick up for an additional fee of another $10 at least. Good bye forever to Saturday service.
By the way Congressman Darrell R Ca is trying to get a bill passed to do away with Postal worker's union rights. For those of you are thinkng NO POST OFFICE STRIKES - Federal law prohibits strikes by postal workers. The main thing that the workers really get from their union membership is the right to grieve safety issues and supervisors contract violations and their violation of Federal laws. During my 12 years working for the P.O I witnessed many contract violations and outright violations of law. The Union does meet with management for pay negotiations but without the right to strike you can imagine who has be loudest voice.
As far as lazy, inept workers go I saw that most workers really busted their butts to get the mail out or to do whatever their jobs were. The major screw offs were the A$$ kissers who ran to management to tattle on everyone else. Most of the real loses to the Postal Service is caused by poor and just stupid decisions by supervisors or management. From what I saw there isn't much done when upper management totally waste money or spends money in ways that cost the Postal Service far too much. After more than a quarter of a centry in the Air Force I was totally shocked what management could do without any control.
Keep voting Republican and you might just get what you vote for: NO Post Offices, NO Medicare or Medicaid, NO Social Security and taxes that bleed you dry unless you are a millionaire.
Just curious, but why... didn't they consider laying off those with more minimal time invested in whatever particular field? The article didn't make the reasoning completely clear to me. Could this be yet another instance of keeping the younger, cheaper, less experienced personnel on while letting the older, more expensive, very experienced personnel go?
That's becoming typical far too often now. What's the deal?
yep
Or, they have to many people in whatever rank, and not enough newer people. So they get rid of the people in whatever rank is overstaffed, and keep the ones in ranks that are not overstaffed.
No they are not just trying to keep the younger people because they are cheaper. Having been in the Navy.... Once a sailor has served their initial 4 years, there is no guarantee that you will be approved to stay in the Navy. that is approved through Washington DC. With all the cuts that they are making the Navy still has a job to do. They have cut the number of first enlistment sailors that are allowed to stay in now they have started forcing career sailors out.
It is RIDICULOUS!!!! These are men and women that have served their country with pride. Many have served multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. And yes, sailors have also been in country, not just on ships. As a country we should not replay a sailors loyalty in our time of need by saying.... We are pulling out of Afghanistan so we no longer want to keep you around.
Betcha this has an impact the next time that we need our men and women to volunteer during a time of conflict.
Look - the conservative butt draggers want the government to run like a business. This is the way a business operates. At least 14 million Americans can testify to that.
Like it or not - these are overpaid government workers - just like the rest.
See how easy it is to be a conservative?
Come on Nerm, You know how much conservatives hate it when they get what they voted for!
Maybe a military hiring freeze means no more oil wars..........(LOL!.....Nah, just kidding....)
Keep reducing taxes for the wealthy (who never serve in the military) and then wonder why we can't afford big military spending. Wake up folks we are headed for a plutocratic corporatocracy that serves only the wealthy.
I spent 24 years in the service and I NEVER met the kid of any millionaire serving in uniform. They won't serve, won't send their kids to serve and refuse to pay taxes then scream when we have to cut programs.
lol if their kids do serve, they hide out in the guard.
Wizard, for years all the branches of service have retained personnel baised upon their year groups and how many people they think they will need years in the future. It is easy to control those with a few years in service by slowing up or speeding up recruitment and by not allowing first termers to reenlist. When a long war stops those with about 5 to 14 years becomes the group in the most danger of losing their careers for two reasons first because normally recruiting and reinlistment was high during those earlier years in support of the war and second because without a war for the servicemen and servicewomen to fight the military has no need for those service members to stick around until they are eligible to retire after 20 or more years of service. Additionally keeping the service members who have 5 to 15 years in and stopping recruitment of new people would create a terrible problem for many years to come. The initial thing that would happen is that promotion would stop as all the senior ranks would be over filled and would stay that way for at least another 10 to 15 years unless we got into another war very quickly. That happened after the Korean War and many people were not promoted until the Viet Nam War started. The next thing that would happen is that when the people who were retained reached retirement age the service would not have the mid-year group personnel needed because they had stopped recruitment of those people years before.
A really bad part of this situation is that during the war the services did everything they could to sell these young on a career in the service of 20 or more years.
It is a terrible shame that the military cannot retain all those who have served honorabily during a war. It is also a terrible shame that officers and enlisted are not treated the same when they are RIFed, Reduction In Force. When I was in the military from 1966 to 1993 officers were paid at least $30,000 while enlisted personnel, and that includes NCOs, Non-Commissioned Officers, got nothing. During that time we were paid less than half what comparable ranks are now paid. Only Congress can change the law on haw much service members are paid. If you really want to help these honorable, patriotic war heros write to your congress member and ask them to authorize a separation payment for ALL these service members being forced out
GOOD LUCK on getting congress to authorize any payment no matter how well earned!
John Love, USAF SMSgt, Retired Disabled Viet Nam Vet
That's because we don't feel it is necessary to advertise our economic background. Just because you didn't realize it doesn't mean we don't exist.
Active duty almost eight years now with three tours overseas. And trust me, I'm not the only one by a long shot.
Sorry Armyguy, I was also thinking like Vet24 but have to agree that just like there are liberal millionaires there must be millionaires or their children in the military - but there sure are lot more poor people in the military that rich ones.
Thank you for your service.
John
Sure there aren't as many rich kids in the military; because there are more people in the USA that aren't rich, than ones that are. I served with many who came from rich families. We were enlisted also. One guy, from my state, I didn't know he was from a family with millions, until I was home on leave and saw it in the newspaper. In fact, the rich guys seemed to work harder, just to prove they were just like the rest of us.
Actually Rich People usually serve as Officers and I don't see any Admirals layed off
I imagine the deal is they have no money to pay the men, money goes to other countries now... we wouldnt want them mad so we lay off our men and our service men at that.
How about ousting the Politicians (AKA Comedians) in Congress (AKA Jokerville) for doing useless nonsense this year. Yes the Comedians do produce a lot of hot air (AKA Methane). All i see is a lot of bickering, BTW how old are these Comedians both in physical age and mental age. This is just a total waste of space in Jokerville.
As for the Navy, ousting good people who are dedicated, they say what goes around, comes around.
Give it enough time and their will be a shortage of the people they ousted.
BTW is there anyone out there that can dispute the "Law of Constant Stupidity" with regards to the Comedians?
About time. . .
Soon, city municipalities won't be able to afford the police that protect the wealthy 1% who can't afford more taxes to help pay for navy personnel..........
If they can hang around long enough there will be another war and maybe there will be a recall.
If we get a Republican in the White House we very well might be in another war before the ink is dry on these sailors discharge papers. I forgot which republican hopeful it was who two days ago threatened to bomb Iran if elected but now everybody wants to be a War President since Bush f'ed it up so badly.
I propose we lay of ALL of the US Senators, ALL of the US Representatives and their entire staff and that would save a lot of wasted money since they aren't doing their jobs. IF they were in the private sector, they would have been out the door long ago. They keep only the productive.
Maybe we better wake up before it is really too late IF it isn't already
No mention of any officers being affected by the lay offs, curious.
Thousands of officers also. Article in Navytimes.com
I was in a long time ago. Back then in the Navy an E-3 or above could stay 20 years. The E-3's were called "Leading Seaman", and had the power of an E-5. In fact the Boatswains Mates in deck division feared the leading seaman more than the chief. Where the leading seaman stood apart was he was a top notch seaman at sea and strictly business, but usually a h#!! raiser in port, which back then was not held against you. Back then, you could remain in the paygrade you were comfortable with and the Navy saw benefit in this policy and it worked.
blackbeard - speaking of Officers - The Army has 230 Generals - Navy 160- Air Force - 208 - Marines - 60
So you realize how top heavy we are - during WW11 with 10 million service men and women we had a lower proportionate Top Brass - now we have 1 to 1 1/5 million service men and women with more Top Brass
You do realize that the supposed one time stimulus of 2009 is now a permanent part of baseline spending for the past 3 years, right? That means we spent about $750 billion extra for 2009...and 2010...and 2011...
That's $2.25 trillion above and beyond what was "normal" deficit spending under Bush before he and the Pelosi/Reid congress passed TARP in 2008. So try adding our normal deficit spending of about $400-$500 billion to the roughly $750 billion that was the amount that the "sold-as-one-time-only"stimulus and amazingly you arrive at roughly $1.1 to $1.3 trillion dollar deficits that our government has run every year since Obama took over.
That, Vet24, is a spending problem, not a taxation problem! $1.2 trillion dollar deficits is the new normal. Where is your outrage? Borrowing hasn't stopped either. You can blame the previous administration for spending and borrowing and those criticisms are absolutely warranted, but wake up! $1.2 trillion dollar government spending deficits has absolutely zero to do with "plutocratic corporatocracy".
If it's really as easy as collecting a little more taxes, why can't the government just tell us how much they need? When you add up your bills, you have a figure that tells you how much money you need to allocate, right. Why is it wrong to expect the government to tell us what the bottom line is? Truth is, you never will get that number because the government will spend every penny we give them then justify why they need more.
nonkjo, You have conveniently forgotten the massive tax cuts passed by bush along with the two wars of aggression that he did not pay a dime on or even include in his budgets, as well as the fact that he never vetoed a single spending bill which that the Republican congresses passed like drunken Republicans on their first shore leave in 20 years ( I would never mean to disparage sailors or any other military member in that comparison ). Obama has had to jump into the engineer's seat of a racing out of control economic train wreck and try his best to bail our nation out of the greatest disaster since the Great Depression while the Republicans in the House and the Senate who should have been acting like sensible adults but who have done everything they could to keep trying to wreck the country so they could blame it on Obama and the Democrats. In addition to having to bail us out of this economic train wreck President Obama has had to start paying for the wars and to pay the interest for the money borrowed from China while the Republicans have refused to allow taxes to be raised as we must. Just like a family who hits the lottery (Bush started with a surplus) and who quits their job (Bush cut taxes) and who spends all they have (Bush spent everything the United States had) and who uses their good credit to borrow and buy on credit everything they wanted (Bush and the Republicans again). Now that family's life is in the toilet and the for them to ever get out of the hole every member of the family must work together to accomplish anything (Boner and McConnell have both said that their top priority is to make Obama fail IE To HeII with the country). I would almost wish that the Republicans would win both houses and the Presidency and have to deal with their own Shlt but I know that they would really take America to HeII with a smile on their faces. If you believe in Trickle Down Economics or as Bush Sr called it Voodoo Economics: go set in a two story outhouse and see what Trickles down on you. If you don't understand this (and I wouldn't expect a republican to understand it). HINT: __IT Stinks
John 1970924,
You would do well to listen to a little bit of Milton Friedman because you obviously don't know what the hell your talking about when you blatantly mischaracterize "trickle down economics"...
How old are you John? Do you own a smart phone John? There was a time when portable phones used to be carried in a satchel the size of a laptop bag. I know because I had one for my job. Used to be, only the wealthy were able to use them as a personal phone because they were prohibitively expensive for normal use. Fortunately, we live in a capitalist country where companies, driven by profit, had a motivation to make those phones better, smaller, lighter and more powerful than a lot of computers from 5 years ago..a phone!
Imagine being able to travel back to 1988 and show the guy carrying around that "satchel phone" a modern "smart phone". THAT is trickle down economics, John! It has nothing to do with equal distribution of wealth. Trickle down economics means that the portable phone that was once the province of the rich is now commonplace. What makes that smart phone in your hand possible is the R&D, manufacturing, sales, distribution, advertising jobs that are created because a company like Motorola had an idea to make phones better and more widely available. Trickle down economics means that advertising revenue for the new phone is created. It means that somewhere out there, a chemist just sold a new high-impact polymer that makes up the phones outer case. It means that some guy or gal at the Verizon or AT&T store has a job selling the phone. It means that somewhere in the US a paper mill just received an order to supply the cardboard for the new Motorola phones box. It means a technical writer gets hired to write a manual for the phone. Trickle down economics means that a forklift operator in a warehouse somewhere is on the job helping to ship out orders for pallets of smart phones Motorola is selling...Trickle down economics is only a mystery to the voluntarily stupid. There is not one proponent of trickle down economics that says everyone will be equally rich or prosperous. What they say is that trickle down economics is the best way for each of us to find where we can best determine the level of our own prosperity.
As for the "Bush Tax Cuts":
Really? Obama bailed us out by spending $1.2 trillion dollars more than we took in every year since he's been president. Except for 2008 when Bush passed TARP, his annual deficits hovered in the vicinity of $450 billion. So, lets pretend that "if only Bush hadn't passed tax cuts for the rich" the was wouldn't have hurt economically. You still fail to account for the fact that Obama is spending almost three quarters of a trillion dollars in deficits (that's after you apply what you claim is lost revenue from tax cuts that would have paid for the wars...so the popular fantasy goes!). God, I hope your not an accountant or a financial adviser.
No John, I didn't conveniently forget anything. Bush was absolutely wrong for spending the way he did. Don't sneakily try to act like, if I don't agree with you I support him. I don't agree with Republican spending over the past decade either. But the truth about the Bush Tax cuts is that Bush got a double whammy with the dot com bubble bust (funny how GW didn't run around blaming Clinton, huh?) and he had 9/11 happen when he was less than 7 months in office. The Bush Tax Cuts were passed with bipartisan support. After the initial tax cuts, domestic GDP growth went from .3% to 2.5% in 2001. In 2003, unemployment was the lowest ever since WWII. By 2004 GDP growth was the highest ever in 20 years. Even Paul Krugman, the oracle of liberal economics doesn't dispute these numbers. He does try to minimize them by saying republicans don't acknowledge earlier times of prosperity which in no way addresses the inconvenient facts. I'm sure you're semi Google literate. These figures aren't hard to find. The are published by the Buereau of Labor and Statistics and the National Center for Policy Analysis among other places.
So what are you really left with John? Unoriginal talking points? But I have faith that you will choose not to think. I'm not sure why I would waste my time on your silly argument.
Maybe I have hope for you?
B.S.
What's a shame is these people have been working towards a retirement/pension... and you get zip if you leave before 20 years... but then that's what is happening to people in the civilian workforce also...
Well, not quite. At my company I'm vested in the pension plan after 5 years. So if I get laid off after working there 5 years or longer, I'll get at least part of my pension when I reach retirement age. I think most other companies have similar rules, so in the private sector, you don't usually end up with nothing at all if you get laid off before you reach retirement. Of course, in civilian jobs, you also can't retire at 38 and collect a pension for the rest of your life--something that's still possible in the military.
What angry (feigned, it seems) posters are totally overlooking in this story is that the Navy offered cross-training to virtually all the sailors they've target for early release. Go on, read the story again. Sailors were offered cross-training into under-manned fields such as medical and others. Only about 3,000 total sailors may be released; apparently, sailors who either would not or could not cross-train.
Denny I saw that as well but my 27 years of service taught me that those offers of cross-training often turn out to be smoke and mirrors or are all closed or have unbelievable requirements. I'm sure that the Navy could have mandatory cross-trained them if it so desired. I joined the Air Force with a guaranteed job as an electronic repairman. I had the highest score possible in Electronics. Half way through basic training I was sent to the office to see a full Colonel who informed me that I would be in a new career field. I ended up transporting explosives and went to Viet Nam twice during my first enlistment. After reenlisting I went to Viet Nam again. Never did work in electronics but I had a heck of a wonderful career.
I have a better idea that will save the country even more money: lay off ALL career politicians with 7 to 14 years of service. Only in America can you get canned in a job where you willingly risk your life. You would think that should count for something...
Ain't budget cuts and deregulation a kick in the pants?
Why do they bother recruiting people then. Laying off the experienced and bring in ones that need training does not make sense.
Aren't there enough people unemployed and on the dole?
Of every dollar the government spends 41 cents is borrowed. It looks like the credit card is maxed out.
Why would the Navy or for that matter any branch of the service sacrifice a piece of equipment in the tune of billions $$$ for a 3,000 mid-career Sailors or troops?
Congress notify's the services that their budgets would be cut, while at the same time tells them they can't cut or cancel this or that program/equipment, so you know what you need to do...simple.
The same hand has been dealt and played. We've seen this with firefighters, policemen and our school teachers yet, we can't seem to see the forest through the trees, but keep voting against your interest and you too will be on the cutting block, so the few can keep making $$$.
I'm sorry folks, but any and all who have served in the U.S. Armed Forces knows this whether the want to admit it or not, so my question is why -prior military or not act so surprised? It's not about these Sailors nor has it ever been about the troops, we hear often the rhetoric from our government leaders and many citizens...oh our brave troops...oh how I support the troops, well the bottom-line like everything else is $$$, so when it comes down to people in this case Sailors or a piece of hardware, which brings tons of $$$ to someone's pocket then guess who wins, not to mention very little hardware is for use by our troops (Sailors) and will be in R&D for the next 5 -15 years with mega$$$ re-do's...keep it going.
If you are wondering I am a 30 years veteran.
Glad I'm not the only one who noticed that little detail about mentioning only enlisted
I joined the Navy eleven years ago... served less than four because of a medical discharge (my second medical discharge, as it turned out--the first one being for a shoulder injury from 1993 that finally healed well enough for me to re-join in 2000). Although unhappy that my body couldn't keep up with the demands of that lifestyle enough for me to do my job, despite two gos at it, I was glad to have served. Now, hearing this? I'm glad to have gotten out.
One of the problems I was facing was that because I was a returning sailor, that time counted against me and thus I had less time to advance than your average newly-joined E-3. And if you don't advance, you don't stay in. I was in an overcrowded rate that allowed me only a few opportunities to advance from Airman/E-3 to Third Class/E-4, and then Third Class to Second Class/E-5, before I risked running out of time and being discharged. (The fun part being, I HAD been a Third Class/E-4 during my first enlistment, but lost that privilege when I rejoined and had to enter as an Airman/E-3 again.) Basically, my rate was asking everyone not only for perfect evaluation skills but also for qualifications that, ten years earlier, would've been more fitting for a First Class than a Third Class, along with scoring 90% or higher on the advancement test.
Things had gotten cutthroat... and now you can see where that's leading. One of my saving graces would've been if I could have been capped, but because of the office that I worked in, my advancement was not seen as "crucial" as that of another sailor in an equally tough rate, and because the Petty Officer was of the same rate as that other sailor, I lost out.
Other factors that can kick you out are physical fitness standards--a three-strikes, you're out process--so I won't be the least bit surprised that if someone fell ten seconds short on a run, one push-up short, or one sit-up short, then they'll be hitting the road as well as the advancement failures.
StandUp, Thanks for your service. Like you I got out after 4 (I had a promotion to E5 pending) I went back in 20 months later and lost my stripe and all my time in grade as well as having been injured badly during my first enlistment (I was injured in an accident in Vietnam but the hospital there denied that anything was wrong with me so it did not stop me from reenlisting; also I went back in while the war was still on and my AFSC was in great need). In lots of ways I was very lucky because the war was so unpopular that reenlistment's were at record lows and promotions were really opening up so I made rank very quickly.
I know that federal jobs are so hard to find now but you would get credit toward retirement and would would get 5 extra points for your service and another 5 points for disability. Those 10 points can help and their are some unknown programs for disabled vets. I applied for a job with the post office but they refused to hire me for more than four years due to my disability. I kept trying and finally lucked out and got a job reserved for disabled vets and on the day before I was to go to work a wonderful lady in personnel called me and asked me if I wanted a job as a mechanic - what I wanted from the start. She said that they had several openings for mechanics that were not filled and I got the job the next day. In my 12 years there I got promoted several times and ended up making twice my starting pay. Sorry to say that my injuries finally got the best of me and I had to retire early this year. I am not able to do any kind of work and am taking so many narcotics (prescription of course) that between the injuries and the drugs I do not get around on my own very much. Darn I do wish that I could work again.
If you want some info on federal jobs (I don't know of any jobs just some rograms that might help you to get a fed job. Lert me know and I'll get in touch with you.
John
For Jim-Arizona, sailors have no option to cross-rate if they want to advance; advancement is based on ones rating (i.e. their specialty whether it be cook, mechanic, corpsman, or nuclear reactor operator). One cannot merely say "I want to be an "AD1" (jet engine mechanic First Class Petty Officer), if he's been flipping burgers or working on black boxes. As a retired Commander, USNR and Former F-14 Radar Intercept Officer, the Navy needed pilots not RIO's as the F-14 was phased out; all of the hooting and hollering in the world wouldn't put me in the front seat. It used to be called "right-sizing", but this is how the Navy pays for wars...aircraft carriers, ships, submarines and airplanes will still be built, if there is money to be saved, it's by cutting people, or cutting civilian jobs...which Mr. Obama probably just established a ton of, something stupid as it ends up robbing Peter to pay Paul.