Trump admin to stop National Guard deployment day before benefits kick in

[BmorePat87]

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/498471-trump-plans-to-halt-national-guard-deployments-before-retirement

Quote:An official with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) said in an interagency call on May 12 reported on by Politico that the guardsmen will face a “hard stop” on June 24 to prevent them from reaching the 90 days of duty credit needed to qualify for early retirement and education benefits.

Deployed in late March, on June 24 most will hit 89 days of duty credit.

National Guard members must be enlisted for 20 years to qualify for a pension at age 60, but for every 90 days served in a federal emergency, they are able to speed up retirement by 3 months and qualify for reduced tuition at public universities.

The official noted that many states still needed the National Guard deployed, so there had to be a "unified messaging" given how controversial the decision to prevent them from qualifying for benefits will be.

Any Trump defenders wanna give a crack at this one?

[Dill]

(05-19-2020, 01:19 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/498471-trump-plans-to-halt-national-guard-deployments-before-retirement

The official noted that many states still needed the National Guard deployed, so there had to be a "unified messaging" given how controversial the decision to prevent them from qualifying for benefits will be.

Any Trump defenders wanna give a crack at this one?

Probably things like this have to happen to help Trump voters realize whom they voted for.

A president who avoided the draft, sneered at POWs, and "knows more than the generals," will never really have service members' backs when trusting his own instincts.

If Trump can be shown this hurts his re-election chances, I am confident something will be done to fix this.

[BmorePat87]

(05-19-2020, 01:54 PM)Dill Wrote: Probably things like this have to happen to help Trump voters realize whom they voted for.

A president who avoided the draft, sneered at POWs, and "knows more than the generals," will never really have service members' backs when trusting his own instincts.

If Trump can be shown this hurts his re-election chances, I am confident something will be done to fix this.

It definitely gives him a way to manufacture a win by saying it was never his intention and he's reversing course. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Veterans make up a very small percentage of the population. That’s why politicians have successfully whittled away at their benefits for years without too much of a fuss from the general public. This will be the same. Soon to be forgotten in the rear view mirror.

[*Nately120*]

Trump seems to be proof that having an R next to your name is all it takes to be the pro troop candidate. His words and actions show just how much the long term propaganda has achieved for that side.

[Dill]

(05-19-2020, 02:29 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Veterans make up a very small percentage of the population. That’s why politicians have successfully whittled away at their benefits for years without too much of a fuss from the general public. This will be the same. Soon to be forgotten in the rear view mirror.

Yeah, but service members and their families, past and present, will take note.

If this screw is not unscrewed, then Trump will lose another percentage point or two from his formerly steady 38% support, solid in swing states.

Add to that the 3-4 points he'll be losing from the senior demographic.  Then 1/2 from evangelical women and another 1/2 from farmers.

Unless he bumbles into a big "win" like a quick war with Iran with few casualties that imposes a U.S. friendly regime there --or Biden has a debilitating stroke--he is not likely to win re-election.

[*Nately120*]

(05-19-2020, 03:41 PM)Dill Wrote: Yeah, but service members and their families, past and present, will take note.

If this screw is not unscrewed, then Trump will lose another percentage point or two from his formerly steady 38% support, solid in swing states.

Add to that the 3-4 points he'll be losing from the senior demographic.  Then 1/2 from evangelical women and another 1/2 from farmers.

Unless he bumbles into a big "win" like a quick war with Iran with few casualties that imposes a U.S. friendly regime there --or Biden has a debilitating stroke--he is not likely to win re-election.

We shall see.  I can see Trump winning 2 terms despite losing the popular vote both times and getting impeached in his first term.  The rules are just that slanted towards Republicans. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-19-2020, 03:41 PM)Dill Wrote: Yeah, but service members and their families, past and present, will take note.

If this screw is not unscrewed, then Trump will lose another percentage point or two from his formerly steady 38% support, solid in swing states.

Add to that the 3-4 points he'll be losing from the senior demographic.  Then 1/2 from evangelical women and another 1/2 from farmers.

Unless he bumbles into a big "win" like a quick war with Iran with few casualties that imposes a U.S. friendly regime there --or Biden has a debilitating stroke--he is not likely to win re-election.

That’s about all that will happen. Veterans haven’t regained retirement health benefits they lost in the 90s.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

Shitty, but predictable, move.

Military pay isn't much, but if you were activated for 89 days, that's 89 days of pay that an otherwise furloughed worker wouldn't have gotten. (Though as I type this, now I wonder how that interacts with the boosted unemployment checks that they potentially could have gotten if they were laid off or furloughed). Just wondering if there were some people who came out financially ahead from being activated for 89 days or it was universally a financial downside with the boosted unemployment checks.

Anyone who still had a good job for them despite the lockdowns while they were activated got hosed by this.

- - - - - - - -

TLDR: National Guard people got a $20k signing bonus, Active Duty got $0 signing bonus, so F 'em... not that I am still salty about not getting a signing bonus.

[Benton]

(05-19-2020, 01:19 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/498471-trump-plans-to-halt-national-guard-deployments-before-retirement



Any Trump defenders wanna give a crack at this one?

1- Was the fema official an Obama appointee? Just asking. 
2- the national guard isn't really military. It's not like they're in wars or dangerous situations. They're basically a camping club. They go camping one weekend a month for a couple years and get free college. Now they have to camp longer.

[HarleyDog]

(05-19-2020, 07:08 PM)Benton Wrote: 1- Was the fema official an Obama appointee? Just asking. 
2- the national guard isn't really military. It's not like they're in wars or dangerous situations. They're basically a camping club. They go camping one weekend a month for a couple years and get free college. Now they have to camp longer.

This wasn’t a serious post was it? Or were you being for real?

[HarleyDog]

(05-19-2020, 07:02 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Shitty, but predictable, move.

Military pay isn't much, but if you were activated for 89 days, that's 89 days of pay that an otherwise furloughed worker wouldn't have gotten. (Though as I type this, now I wonder how that interacts with the boosted unemployment checks that they potentially could have gotten if they were laid off or furloughed). Just wondering if there were some people who came out financially ahead from being activated for 89 days or it was universally a financial downside with the boosted unemployment checks.

Anyone who still had a good job for them despite the lockdowns while they were activated got hosed by this.

- - - - - - - -

TLDR: National Guard people got a $20k signing bonus, Active Duty got $0 signing bonus, so F 'em... not that I am still salty about not getting a signing bonus.  

Not necessarily. Many companies pay the difference if you take a loss. 2 companies I’ve worked for in the past did this. Although, I do think that was in case of national emergency and not war, but tbh I’m not 100% sure.

[Benton]

(05-19-2020, 07:21 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: This wasn’t a serious post was it? Or were you being for real?

I was giving it my best trump answers, deflection followed by belittling.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(05-19-2020, 07:25 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Not necessarily. Many companies pay the difference if you take a loss. 2 companies I’ve worked for in the past did this. Although, I do think that was in case of national emergency and not war, but tbh I’m not 100% sure.

I think what you're talking about with the covering the difference is voluntary, so each company might be a bit different.

By law you're only guaranteed that you will have your job to return to once your activation is over, and that you aren't allowed to be discriminated against by your employer because of your activation.


- - - - - -
...yup, just looked it up. You're not guaranteed any money from your previous job while activated. It's pretty much dependent upon if they're a horrible company or not. Sounds like you had a couple decent ones.

[Dill]

(05-19-2020, 07:02 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: TLDR: National Guard people got a $20k signing bonus, Active Duty got $0 signing bonus, so F 'em... not that I am still salty about not getting a signing bonus.  

Are you talking about recent signing bonuses--2019-20?

10 years ago they were going by MOS.

[Belsnickel]

(05-19-2020, 07:28 PM)Benton Wrote: I was giving it my best trump answers, deflection followed by belittling.

I was about to post a video response someone made in response to de Blasio saying that about ARNG.

[HarleyDog]

(05-19-2020, 07:48 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I think what you're talking about with the covering the difference is voluntary, so each company might be a bit different.

By law you're only guaranteed that you will have your job to return to once your activation is over, and that you aren't allowed to be discriminated against by your employer because of your activation.


- - - - - -
...yup, just looked it up. You're not guaranteed any money from your previous job while activated. It's pretty much dependent upon if they're a horrible company or not. Sounds like you had a couple decent ones.

Yes, that’s correct. It was an added benefit by company choice only.

(05-19-2020, 07:57 PM)Dill Wrote: Are you talking about recent signing bonuses--2019-20?

10 years ago they were going by MOS.

Signing bonuses are based on positions of need. So if your a combat infantryman and they are below their strength in number in that job, then the bonus is to attract soldiers to enter that field whereas if an enlistee was to choose a different career which they are not weak in numbers, than little or no bonus would apply. I believe retainment bonuses to keep you enlisted work the same way. In some cases when they are over strength they will offer early-out bonuses and reduce your commitment if you were ready to transition back to civilian life. 

[fredtoast]

The reserves are a good deal. Not a lot of commitment and some good benefits.

BUT...they are still subject to being called into active duty. I remember after 9-11 a lot of reserves were shocked that they were actually going to be called into active duty. There were many cases where a husband and wife were both in the reserves and when they both got called up they had to find people to take care of their children.