Market Watch Publishes Lies to Help Effort to Cut Military Retirement
Market Watch has recently published one of the most atrocious articles yet that is promoting the cutting of military retirement by someone named Anne Tergesen who according to her bio has never served a day in the military, but has suddenly become an expert on military retirement. Let’s deconstruct her article:
In recent years, countries including the U.K., Poland, Ireland and Sweden have raised the age of eligibility for military pensions.
The U.S., on the other hand, is sticking with the status quo—and at a time of strained budgets, that’s a potentially costly problem.
How is this even relevant? Is Ireland responsible for maintaining global security and their soldiers facing repeated deployments? If the servicemembers in these nations are not asked to do the same amount work, deployments, strain on the body, etc. of a US servicemember this is a irrelevant comparison. The country that comes the closest to the US military that she points out is the UK military which we will discuss later.
The military retirement system permits members of the armed forces who serve full time for at least 20 years to retire as early as age 37 with a defined-benefit pension. On Jan. 29, the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission released a report that recommends no changes to the benefit eligibility requirements for the military’s pension plan, though it did recommend some significant changes in its structure.
Notice how these civilian writers looking to cut military retirement always throw in the phrase that servicemembers can retire as early as 37. They make it sound like all these 37 year olds are chilling at the beach with scantily clad waitresses/waiters serving them mai tais. What they never mention is how much a military retiree is making. The vast majority of retirees are in the E6 – E7 range. An E6 at 20 years is making $3,724 a month before taxes and other deductions. Yes military pay has deductions for things such health care and family dental plans. So people retiring at these ranks at 20 years are not the millionaires getting ready to chill out on the beach that Tergesen is alluding her readers to believe. In fact using the military retirement calculator an E6 retiring in 2015 at 20 years of service with a high 3 would make $1,640 after taxes. Yes retirement pay is taxed and also this number does not include deductions for health care. Yes health care is not free for military retirees unlike what most people think. For those that retire higher in rank they will have a larger monthly benefit. Due to the up and out system few people are able to stay in long enough and achieve the higher ranks where the military retirement is quite good. Most people retire with enough extra money coming in every month to pay the mortgage while they find a job to make money to live on. So military retirees are not all out on the beach at age 37 getting back rubs and drinking mai tais.
Let’s continue with Tergesen’s article:
John Turner and Bruce Klein, economists at the Pension Policy Center in Washington, D.C., subsequently released their own report, arguing that the military needs to “modernize” its pension system. Their principal recommendation: To raise the eligibility age for benefits.
Note that when you hear the word modernize that is a code word for cuts not beneficial to servicemembers.
Turner and Klein’s report is full of detail about how the U.S. compares to many of its NATO allies. On average, the report says, “the eligibility age for U.S. military pensions is lower by 15 years compared with the United Kingdom, and by 20 years compared with some other NATO countries.” Moreover, it adds, the eligibility age has not been changed in nearly 70 years — a period during which life expectancy has increased dramatically.
Once again other countries military retirement is irrelevant unless they are asked to conduct the same workload as the US military under the same conditions. For example the Dutch military has their own labor union. Could you imagine if the US military had a union and could go on strike? As far as the UK military Tergesen just flat out lies. The UK military which is the closest to the US military in regards to the demands of the force receives retirement benefits at age 40 if you have served at least 18 years. So if you someone joins at age 18 they have to serve 22 years which is two years higher compared to the US military. However, if someone joined the UK military at age 22 they would only have to serve 18 years to receive a pension which is 2 years less than what is required for US military retirement. Heck the UK military get not just one lump sum payment, but two as part of their retirement! It is funny how Tergesen doesn’t mention that. It isn’t like it is hard to find, the UK military’s pension system is just posted on the homepage of their website:
Every month, the Army pays into a pension fund on your behalf. And when you retire, you will receive a monthly payment based on your final salary.
- When you join the Armed Forces, you will automatically be enrolled into the scheme – and you won’t be asked to pay a penny
- After two years of Regular service you’ll have earned an Army pension that will be paid when you get to the age of 65
- Anybody aged over 40 who has served for at least 18 years gets the right to claim an immediate pension linked to their final salary, a tax-free lump sum on leaving the Army and a second lump sum when they turn 65
- The pension scheme will change on 1 April 2015 and from this date Reserve Forces will also be automatically enrolled
So this an obvious lie or she is utterly incompetent. Either way not good for Tergesen.
The upshot? “With current life expectancies, U.S. military personnel on average can expect to receive a pension for more than twice as many years as they served in the military.” In 2012, the U.S. spent $52.9 billion on military retirement benefits, versus $57.5 billion on pay for active military personnel, Turner and Klein say. The unfunded liability for military pensions: $934 billion in 2012.
I always looked at military retirement as the half the pay the military owes me from my service. Glad to see the numbers actually validate that belief. Next Tergesen was not happy mentioning this phrase once, but she had to include it twice in the same article:
According to current rules, enlisted men and women who join the military at the youngest age possible, 17, can begin collecting benefits as young as 37. For officers, who are required to have a college degree, the earliest age to collect benefits is typically 41 or 42, the report notes.
Then she throws this line in the article with no analysis explaining why this is the way it is:
The longer you serve, the more generous the benefit: Someone who serves for 40 years will receive 100% of final pay.
So few people serve 40 years that this fact is pretty much irrelevant. Those that do serve 40 years are usually four-star generals who would be the equivalent of a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, but makes no where near the same amount of money. The retirement they are given is seen as a way to retain them in service so they do not go seeking opportunities with those same Fortune 500 companies.
In contrast, other nations have reduced the costs of their military pensions. In recent years, the U.K. has raised its eligibility age for a military pension to 55; Poland has raised its age to 55, Ireland to 50, Portugal to 60, and Sweden to 61. In contrast, the U.S. last changed its age of military pension eligibility in 1947.
She can’t seem to get enough about passing off lies about the UK military. Let me explain what her claim really means; the UK has an option where a servicemember can serve to and retire at age 55 to receive a larger pension. A servicemember can still leave service before age 55 and if the servicemember has over 18 years of service they get a lower fixed pension that begins immediately with not one, but two lump sum bonuses. Once again you can read the different retirement options on this British military website. If anything it is arguable that the British military’s retirement is even better than the US military’s retirement system.
Unbelievably Tergesen goes on to not once, not twice, but now three times bring up this same talking point!:
Rules “that permit collection of pension benefits for people in their late 30s and early 40s need to change,” Turner and Klein argue.
Here is more lies pushed by Tergesen:
Such a recommendation would impact officers far more than enlisted men and women. The reason: Fewer than 17% of enlisted personnel meet the 20-year vesting requirement to receive a pension. But among officers, 49% collect a pension. Overall, more than 60% of those who are eligible for benefits take them at the earliest possible time. As a result, the average age for first drawing benefits is 42, Turner and Klein report.
Here is what the military compensation commission said about the number of servicemembers who retire:
Commissioners said about 75 percent of troops could get some retirement pay under the proposal. Currently 83 percent of servicemembers separate before the 20-year threshold without any pension. [Stars & Stripes]
That means 17% of servicemembers overall reach the 20 year retirement age. I have no idea where she got the 49% of officers number from. Any officer who reaches 20 years can look back and see that no where near half their officer basic class is remaining. Just the up and out system ensures this happens much less the people who leave on their own or get removed from service for various reasons. Less than 20% is far more accurate. So where did Tergesen get this number from? Thin air?
The Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission did make one significant recommendation governing retirement benefits. Its proposal: To automatically enroll military personnel in the federal Thrift Savings Plan, a 401(k)-like retirement plan—and have Uncle Sam kick in up to 6% of pay annually as an employer contribution. In a 401(k)-style plan, military personnel could build up some retirement savings even if they served less than 20 years, as many do.
In return, the government would reduce some of the benefits in the defined benefit pension plan.
So Tergesen’s answer is turn over military retirement to Wall Street. I recommend everyone watch this PBS Frontline report on how well the 401k system is working. Military retirees will not benefit from this plan, but Wall Street will if the system turns into a 401k. So is Tergesen basically a propagandist for the Wall Street firms that would get their hands on the huge amount of military retirement money? Considering the lies in this article this is arguable. Either that or she is just incompetent and jealous of military retirees because her own 401k plan sucks so bad. I’ll let readers choose which one it is.
American servicemembers are greedy, selfish… and racist.
Nobody should get retirement pay at 37 even if they put in a hard 20 years. They still have decades of productive labor ahead of them… and a monthly retirement check discourages the full effort they really need to be putting into a new tax-generating career.
How else will America pay hospital bills for illegal aliens to have multiple anchor babies that immediately go on a lifetime of welfare?
Just because someone left the military doesn’t mean they no longer need to serve their nation. Talk of retirement checks is unpatriotic.
Service guarantees citizenship?
Anyway, no one beleives Buck Turgidson.
Turd Ferguson?
I agree…overhaul the retirement system by making it mandatory that service members have their very own 401K upon graduating boot camp, with the appropriate matching funds coming from the military. By doing this the young military member will become educated on how to manage their own $$$, since they will not be allowed to withdraw any of it until EAS or retirement. Upon reaching retirement years, whether it be 15-20-25-30 (no more than that), then the military must deposit a lump sum that the military member would normally receive up to average life expectancy & out the door they go. The military washes their hands of these former members, medical comes from an now combined TRICARE/VA, & Bobs your uncle.
Yeah a 401k is a great deal for everyone except the person who must rely on it to support themselves.
It is a scam.
Some of us are old enough to remember a time when the middle baby boom generation joined the work force and there was a concept called a job for life. Young people left school and went to work at large companies like GM, IBM and ATT&T. Those companies were very stable and reliable and when you signed up you understood their retirement program. After working for them for 35-40 years they would pay you some percentage of your income for the rest of your life.
That all started to change by about the 80’s. Globalization, out sourcing, automation, mergers, acquisitions, spin-offs — corporate employment was no longer as reliable as it was. About that time the accounting guys started to introduce the concept of individualized retirement plans — 401K’s. The company would no longer be responsible for providing for the employees’ retirement. The employees would be responsible for their retirement investment decisions. Many employees at the time thought that was great. The economy was booming and Wall Street was setting records.
Then the Dot Com bubble burst. We were left with the new normal. The bonds of loyalty and dependency between companies and employees were no longer there. Those with the skills to make it in the new free agent world thrived and those without the skills struggled.
What that all has to to do with our flattened middle class incomes is another story. But it offers a model for what to expect for the future of the military with the coming changes.
Military manpower relies on recruiting and retention. We know that only a very small fraction of our population pool, less than 1%, join the military. Many of those who have joined say they have expectations of trust and loyalty for their service. While they expect to make sacrifices they expect to be rewarded for those sacrifices. If the military starts looking no different than any other corporate employer they have to choose from, how much trust and loyalty should they expect? Why would they choose to make the sacrifices the military requires for no more reward than the can get from an other company?
Expect to see our military having to hire a butt load more contracted employees in the future. Checkmate. The military industrial complex wins.
“making it mandatory that service members have their very own 401K upon graduating boot camp”
“Leadership” will gush about “the safety and security of this investment in America’s fighting forces”.
Politicians will emphasize “a better financial future for the brave men and women in our military” while bragging about “the vast savings that are passed on to the taxpayer”.
This system will be immediately gamed by a Wall Street-based multinational which seems to make most of its profits through royalties paid to its Irish subsidiary, residing at a Dublin P.O. box, which holds the patents on its investment algorithms and associated software used by their American branch office. This allows it to pay no US taxes… and actually get tax credits based on domestic operating expenses.
They will charge shockingly-high management fees while offering shockingly-low rates of return to a captive audience forced by law to invest in their 401(k)… in which the 20 to 40 year commitment will allow them to kick the financial can further down the road by using this tasty influx of cash to prop up the immediate value of junk bonds of bold-sounding companies (with double commission on sales), re-repackaged sub-prime housing loans that were made to minorities on welfare to knowingly manipulate official government statistics on minorities & housing & minority housing, incomprehensible derivative structures that are both circular and recursive and may not even exist except to skim another layer of fees in their creation, and “investments” in politically-connected venture companies bragging at star-studded groundbreaking ceremonies that they will be a leader in the manufacture of low-carbon buggy whips amid the polite applause of gathered congressmen hoping they stay in business long enough to complete the next election cycle.
Generous political contributions to both parties and two retired generals on their board of directors will insure they win the 108.2 billion dollar no-bid contract (plus management fee per account) that could have been managed by a high school kid with a freeware version of Excel.
Profit will be privatized.
Risk will be socialized.
Eventually, the bailout will be necessary to “protect the brave men and women of our military who have worked hard and played by the rules” and certainly deserve the 1% return, less management fees, they made over the last 20 years after military retirement while they worked a second career of maintaining the burger-flipping machine at McWorkerbee or as an Advanced Special Security Response Operative in the Directorate of Domestic Enforcement for Urban Order working under the Department of Glorious Homeland Security and Freedom.
We would see the number of homeless veterans skyrocket.
War dogs who volunteered to serve in Bush II’s invasion(war it couldn’t win) of Iraq shouldn’t get shyte. You can include Afghanistan(not even fought correctly=war it couldn’t win bombing mountains and their tops Kekeke!!!) in that since it was Saudi Arabia who paid to have the twin towers attacked. Two joke wars ought not get anyone anything but your whining about money is funny. You go on about this/that ain’t comparable then try comparing capitalist CEO’s with socialist generals/DOD. Kekeke!!!
“Nobody should get retirement pay at 37 even if they put in a hard 20 years.”
That sounds unbelievable or stupid and possibly both. But okay then, not even someone who has the so-called “PTSD” oh my, or has a deadly disease with a minimal amount of time to live. Or, not even the 22 vets who kill themselves everyday because that money wouldn’t do anything to help them idiots anyway.
I’m with you, cut the war dogs “retirement.”
“serve their nation.”
You don’t fool anyone because you ain’t serving anyone but yourself just like the war dogs. Let me reiterate…the 2.5 million or about three-quarters of 1 percent of war dogs(including some illegal aliens) who served in the Iraq/Afghanistan “wars” do not deserve any “retirement,” perhaps some war dog food though.
http://bcove.me/1x4j2brd
For an interactive map showing where in America war dogs fighting in Iraq/Afghanistan were from and war dog enlistments per capita see below…
http://www.theatlantic.com/media/interactives/2015/01/chickenhawk/index.html?v=17#pce
Contractors are FAILURES ~ Ooops, I meant to title that…
http://bcove.me/1x4j2brd
“…the 2.5 million or about three-quarters of 1 percent of war dogs(including some illegal aliens) who served in the Iraq/Afghanistan “wars” do not deserve any “retirement,”…”
That inane statement pretty much invalidated this and every other rant you have spewed. Adding that showed us (yet again) you have zero credibility or grasp of reality – but I’m going to give you a chance to prove you are right. Please explain the mechanism by which illegal aliens join the US armed forces. How many have you personally met?
For f*** sake Leon where have you been…?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/25/policy-to-allow-undocumented-immigrants-in-military/16225135/
Leon… if you talk to the retard, it wants to talk more.
Our new program is to ignore everything. He will fade away.
Leon, some of these “misfits” must be aliens too and what is worse an illegal alien or an American felon…?
Using forged docs to recruit ain’t out of the question either Leon, DUUUH!!!
“U.S. is recruiting misfits for army / Felons, racists, gang members, right-wing militia groups, and large numbers of neo-Nazis and skinhead extremists” are now serving in the military. “Recruiters are knowingly allowing neo-Nazis and white supremacists to join the armed forces, and commanders don’t remove them from the military even after we positively identify them as extremists or gang members,” said Scott Barfield, a Defense Department investigator quoted in the report. ”
With a growing majority of Americans opposed to the war in Iraq and even ardent hawks refusing to enlist in droves, new policies creating a lower-quality officer corps and the Pentagon pulling out ever more stops and sinking to new lows to recruit and train troops, a new all-volunteer generation of UUUU’s may emerge — the underachieving, unable, unexceptional, unintelligent, unsound, unhinged, unacceptable, unhealthy, undesirable, unloved and uncivil — all led by the unqualified, doing the unnecessary…”
Just to fill in the ranks…
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/U-S-is-recruiting-misfits-for-army-Felons-2468928.php
“Last year, despite NASCAR, professional bull-riding and Arena Football sponsorships, popular video games that doubled as recruiting tools, TV commercials dripping with seductive scenes of military glory, a “joint marketing communications and market research and studies” program designed to attract, among others, dropouts and those with criminal records for military service, and at least $16,000 in promotional costs for each soldier it managed to sign up, the U.S. military failed to meet its recruiting goal….
…In February, the Baltimore Sun wrote that there was “a significant increase in the number of recruits with what the Army terms ‘serious criminal misconduct’ in their background” — a category that included “aggravated assault, robbery, vehicular manslaughter, receiving stolen property and making terrorist threats.” From 2004 to 2005, the number of those recruits rose by more than 54 percent, while alcohol and illegal drug waivers, reversing a four-year decline, increased by more than 13 percent.
In June, the Chicago Sun-Times reported that, under pressure to fill the ranks, the Army had been allowing into its ranks increasing numbers of “recruits convicted of misdemeanor crimes, according to experts and military records.” In fact, as the military’s own data indicated, “the percentage of recruits entering the Army with waivers for misdemeanors and medical problems has more than doubled since 2001.”
…One beneficiary of the Army’s new moral-waiver policies gained a certain prominence this summer. After Steven Green, who served in the 101st Airborne Division, was charged in a rape and quadruple murder in Mahmudiyah, Iraq, it was disclosed that he had been “a high-school dropout from a broken home who enlisted to get some direction in his life, yet was sent home early because of an anti-social personality disorder.”
Recently, Eli Flyer, a former Pentagon senior military analyst and specialist on the relationship between military recruiting and military misconduct, told Harper’s magazine that Green had “enlisted with a moral waiver for at least two drug- or alcohol-related offenses. He committed a third alcohol-related offense just before enlistment, which led to jail time, although this offense may not have been known to the Army when he enlisted.”
With Green in jail awaiting trial, the Houston Chronicle reported in August that Army recruiters were trolling around the outskirts of a Dallas-area job fair for ex-convicts.
“We’re looking for high school graduates with no more than one felony on their record,” one recruiter said. ”
…”The Army has even looked behind prison bars for fill-in recruits — in one reported case, they went to a “youth prison” in Ogden, Utah. Although Steven Price had asked to see a recruiter while still incarcerated, he was “barely 17 when he enlisted last January” and his divorced parents say “recruiters used false promises and forged documents to enlist him.”
While confusion exists about whether the boy’s mother actually signed a parental consent form allowing her son to enlist, his “father apparently wasn’t even at the signing, but his name is on the form too.”
Little wonder that Aryan Nation graffiti is now apparently competing for space with American inner-city gang graffiti in Iraq.
In the latter half of the Vietnam War, the U.S. military started to crumble from within and American troops began scrawling “UUUU” on their helmet liners — an abbreviation that stood for “the unwilling, led by the unqualified, doing the unnecessary…”
Chicken/EGGHEAD says…
“Our”
Why is it that EGGHEADS like you have a false sense of imagination that live in a fantasy world?
I missed that link, do you have a make believe team that includes illegal aliens and felons that have agreed with you?
Show link EGGHEAD!
Pat Tillman had a false sense of “team” and look where that got him? Go ahead EGGHEAD, keep dreaming!
For f*** sake Leon where have you been…?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/25/policy-to-allow-undocumented-immigrants-in-military/16225135/
Yes I have heard of this being bandied about.
It has been in effect for how long?
How many illegal aliens are currently in the US armed forces and how long has this policy been in effect?
And back to my original questions you did not answer…
Please explain the mechanism by which illegal aliens currently and previously join the US armed forces.
How many have you personally met?
I do not have sekrit mooslim negro time travel powers so I have no idea if the schlock you linked to will ever allow illegal aliens in the US military at some point in the future.
REMINDER: Your assertion was there have been and are currently illegal aliens serving in the US armed forces. Either prove it or admit you are wrong, as briefly as possible.
EXAMPLE: “I was completely wrong about illegal aliens in the US armed forces.”
^
| period. end of sentence.
“It has been in effect for how long?”
I don’t know how long the military has forged or allowed forged documents to suffice, probably similar to how American employers allow for illegal aliens to be employed.
“How many illegal aliens are currently in the US armed forces and how long has this policy been in effect?”
That information is top secret…
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-military-classifies-information-afghanistans-troops/story?id=28581473
“Please explain the mechanism by which illegal aliens currently and previously join the US armed forces.”
When?
Well, can’t you see the date on the link I provided. Though non-U.S. citizens have been recruited since before that or when Bush made it so.
How?
Don’t you know how military recruiters recruit criminals and/or felons? I suppose they recruit illegal aliens in a similar manner but I’m sure there isn’t any science involved.
U.S. gov’t(IRS) has been doling out tax refunds to illegal aliens for years…
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/14/tax-credits-to-illegals-likely-from-midlevel-repor/?page=all
I don’t see how the DOD is any different but even if I used the Freedom of Information Act to find out the exact numbers for you Leon I’d bet that info. would be blocked.
http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/how-get-citizenship-through-military-service.html
“The Immigration and Nationality Act (I.N.A.) allows people born in other countries to gain U.S. citizenship through military service — in some cases without going through the usual preliminary step of getting a U.S. green card (lawful permanent resident). The exact legal requirements depend on whether you served during peace or war time.
If you enlist in the U.S. armed forces during wartime, you can apply for U.S. citizenship after as early as your first day of service. (See I.N.A. Section 329, 8 U.S.C. Section 1440.) Various periods of wartime count, including the time that began September 11, 2001 and will end whenever the U.S. President announces a cease to the hostilities.”
You’re not talking about legitimate means by which ILLEGAL aliens have joined the military. It’s no secret the military has foreigners in it. You are attempting to deflect. Conversation over. You fail.
General Maxwell Taylor–one of the first of the Rhodes Scholar–educated brains before that became cool had a comment that would have been so appropriate to the responses of one tbonetylr in this string: “It takes great courage to try to defend such stupid statements.”
That worthy even compounded their thoughtlessness by using USA Today—a liberal rag—in evaluating things military!! It would be wiser to use Putin as an objective expert of the US Armed Forces than to use any Gannett entity [which unfortunately now includes all the Military Service and Industry publications (e.g., Army Times)].
Give ole tbonetylr (and his source) credit for the exact statement of how the Obama Whitehouse staffed itself, including the National Security Staff and UN representation. QUOTING tbonetylr: In June, the Chicago Sun-Times reported that, under pressure to (diversify) the ranks, . . .had been allowing into its ranks increasing numbers of “recruits convicted of misdemeanor crimes, according to experts and military records.” AND: U.S. is recruiting misfits for the [Democrat party and administration] Felons, racists, gang members, [racist] militia groups, and large numbers of neo-[Islamics] and [terrorists]” are now serving in the military. “Recruiters are knowingly allowing neo-[Islamics] and [parolees from GITMO] to join the [administration], said Scott Barfield, a Defense Department investigator quoted in the report. ”
See how easy it is, tbonetylr, when you delete context and prattle on for your favorite hobbyhorse?
You did not satisfactorily refute a single point raised by GI Korea. But then, that wasn’t your intention was it? “It takes great courage to try to defend such stupid statements.” LTD
Louis T Dechert says illiterately…”General Maxwell Taylor–one of the first of the Rhodes Scholar–educated brains before that became cool had a comment that would have been so appropriate to the responses of one tbonetylr in this string: “It takes great courage to try to defend such stupid statements.”
Please translate that into real English dumbazz.
I mean, as a first sentence/paragraph you made me stop reading the rest of your tripe. You’re similar to chicken/EGGHEAD.
Leon LaPorte,
“It’s no secret the military has foreigners in it.”
AND…it’s no secret the military has ILLEGAL ALIENS in it.
You “fail” in your attempt to “deflect!”
Tbone, you are the copy pasta master. Please share with us the appropriate section of current US Code which contains the language specific to your assertion.
HINT: If an individual falsifies documents in order to the military that does not denote legal policy.
Gentlemen, never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.
You cannot have a debate with Tbone because winning you over to his proposed point of view is not his goal.
You certainly have seen this before with Tom. Were there no lessons learned?
I am not sure if I have underestimated the cleverness of Tbone or overestimated the cleverness of those who seriously eengage him.
Leon says…”copy pasta master”
I’m not sure what that means unless it’s what he himself does as well?
Leon says…”share with us the appropriate section of current US Code which contains the language specific to your assertion…”
Okay, when you and everyone else here on the ROKDROP does the same you idiot!
“in order to the military that does not”
I sense a grammar error above, please fix you drunk dummy!
“I sense a grammar error above, please fix you drunk dummy!”
I sense a grammar error above. Please fix you drunk dummy!
chickenhead/EGGHEAD why don’t you fix this since Leon can’t and must rely on you to do so…
“in order to the military that does not”
This ought to be good you numbskull(s)!!!
Hahahahaha!!!!!
Correcting Run-On Sentences
1. Use a period. The easiest way to fix a run-on is to split the sentence into smaller sentences using a period.
Example: I love to write papers. I would write one every day if I had the time.
2. Use a semicolon. Inserting a semicolon between independent clauses creates a grammatically correct sentence.
Example: I love to write papers; I would write one every day if I had the time.
3. Use a comma and a coordinating conjunction. A comma, paired with a coordinating conjunction (such as and, but, or or), will correct a run-on sentence.
Example: I love to write papers, and I would write one every day if I had the time.
4. Use a subordinating conjunction. A subordinating conjunction (such as because, unless, and although) can connect two independent clauses in a different way.
Example: Because I love to write papers, I would write one every day if I had the time.
i·ro·ny1
ˈīrənē/
noun
a literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character’s words or actions are clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character.
Example:
The former English teacher didn’t recognize the irony when using improper sentence structure to correct another person’s grammar.
18 U.S. Code § 2388 – Activities affecting armed forces during war
(a)Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or
Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(b)If two or more persons conspire to violate subsection (a) of this section and one or more such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in said subsection (a).
(c)Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, has committed, or is about to commit, an offense under this section, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(d)This section shall apply within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, and on the high seas, as well as within the United States.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2388
“On average, the military recruits about 5,000 non-citizens each year, nearly all of them permanent U.S. residents, or so-called “green card” holders. Starting in 2006, DoD began accepting some foreigners with nonpermanent visas, such as students or tourists, if they had special skills that are highly valued.
After entering military service, foreigners are eligible for expedited U.S. citizenship. Since 2001, more than 92,000 foreign-born service members have become citizens while serving in uniform.”
“For the first time, the program — known as Military Accessions in the National Interest, or MAVNI — will be open to immigrants without a proper visa if they came to the U.S. with their parents before age 16. More specifically, they must be approved under a 2012 Obama administration policy known as Deferred Action for Child Arrivals, or DACA.”
“[A]dministration officials emphasized that the number who would succeed in enlisting would be very small, probably not more than a few dozen. The requirements are stringent and the program is currently limited to 1,500 recruits each year, and already has a huge backlog of applicants.”
So… yes, there is a program to allow illegal aliens into the military.
On the other hand, “illegal aliens” who grew up as American in American culture with American values and loyalty to American goals and ideals (if there still is such a thing) are not the same as some border-hopping wetback looking to make a quick buck and then march in a Reconquista demonstration while complaining the welfare papetwork isn’t in Spanish and the hospital emergency room was so full that his wife had to wait an hour to get a bed to deliver her 5th anchor baby.