Ted, I'm not sure you caught the vocabulary, but when GDER used the term "stop loss" he meant that, even though he was eligible to retire by federal law, the Department of Defense used the war on terrorism as justification to hold up his retirement until they deemed him dispensable. It's the equivalent of the WWII assignment "for the duration". Not only could he not drop out (despite being "vested" to do so) he wasn't even able to learn when he would be permitted to retire.

Many civilians didn't have the choice to ease out, either. Several on this board exploited buy-out opportunities or were forced into early retirement. A military retirement doesn't "tail off", you can't "consult", and you sure can't go part time. And, although it's going to take another world war to do so, military retirees are still subject to recall. I don't think many civilians would accept a retirement from their company if they were required to adhere to its code of conduct and be ready to go to work on 30 days' notice. While I'm flattered that someone still thinks highly enough of my TOMAHAWK skills to threaten me with a chance to use them again, I'm not impressed enough to go hanging around the weapons shop to freshen my resume'.

You have a way of expressing your sentiments to antagonize instead of persuade. You could rhapsodize about much better it is for most retirees to tail off gradually, to build up their hobbies, to consult part-time or volunteer, to ease into retirement activities, etc. You could stress the advantages of slowing down instead of pulling the ejection lever. Instead you seem to choose to vilify those of us who feel the need for a vacation and who elect to STOP to pursue other activities.

Your devotion to denigrating the perceived "dropouts" is crossing the line between "persuasive discourse" and "trolling". I propose that you focus on the positive side of your method of retirement and the pleasures it brings you. In return I'll keep talking about the things that I enjoy doing, too, especially when I can educate people who are clearly unhappy with their current avocations yet can't (or won't) assume responsibility for their own fulfillment & entertainment. I also won't derogate those who can't make a "clean break" or go "cold turkey" of being "unable to commit to ER" and "wimps".

But before I do, I'll say once again that I spent 24 years defending the right of guys like you to make inflammatory statements about ex-Marines and dying Americans. Perhaps I should remind you that, unlike many of your combat compatriots, today all of these people are volunteers. They weren't coerced into doing something they didn't embrace. I have a lot of friends & acquaintances (in all the services!) risking their assets to defend our right to live our lives as we choose, and every one of them would trade places with any of us ERs in a heartbeat. They also know that we've more than paid our dues, and they don't begrudge anyone who "drops out". Instead, they're hoping to live vicariously through our example and they look forward to emulating it. I look forward to teaching them.

So if you're gonna leave the board, then LEAVE already. If you're gonna stay, then be polite!!

__________________
*

Co-author (with my daughter) of “Raising Your Money-Savvy Family For Next Generation Financial Independence.”
Author of the book written on E-R.org: "The Military Guide to Financial Independence and Retirement."
I don't spend much time here— please send a PM.

At a minimum its no better or worse than any other opinions. Seems ok to me.

On the other hand perhaps the investment advice of a guy who thinks we all need to be back in the workforce needs further analysis

__________________
Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful. Just another form of "buy low, sell high" for those who have trouble with things. This rule is not universal. Do not buy a 1973 Pinto because everyone else is afraid of it.

I'm fully aware that the military does not offer the option of gradually tailing off (except that some military retirees move on to civilian jobs with DoD). But practically every military retiree is sufficiently young and fit that they are capable of continuing to earn money (and thereby support themselves and the economy) in some manner.

I am also fully aware that the opportunities for people to "phase into" retirement by cutting back on their hourly work schedule are limited. That's why I have repeatedly advocated the need for changes to laws and customs that will create more opportunities for people to do this. But a bunch of people justifying and even glorifying the concept of "early retirement" from the workforce is hardly helpful in advancing this concept.

I am also aware of the obvious fact that fighting a war does not mean that everyone, even of military age, should join or remain in the armed forces. I do feel, however, that when the U.S. is at war, people have a particular obligation to pay the taxes required to compensate people in the armed forces for their extraordinary sacrifices, and to provide them with the very best equipment that money can buy. And a fundamental fact of economics is that the more people who are participating in the civilian workforce -- regardless of what their particular job is -- the more equitably this tax burden will be distributed.

As an Army officer who served in Korea in 1967, I saw first hand the implications of the U.S. fighting a war that the American people (even the majority who nominally supported the war) were unwilling to support by paying higher taxes. The best equipment was, quite properly, being sent to Vietnam where the action was the hottest. But that left us in Korea and, I suppose, in Europe, with obsolete, often poorly-functioning equipment and virtually no air support.

The most obvious consequence of this was the capture of the U.S.S. Pueblo by the North Koreans in early 1968, as the result of U.S. forces being spread too thinly to provide the ship with the armed protection that any idiot should have known that it required. I'm particularly reminded of this sordid incident because the commander of the Pueblo, Lloyd Bucher, was in my estimation a hero who was largely scapegoated by upper level Navy brass. He died a couple of weeks ago after having his career and life essentially ruined by his alleged "failure" to function "properly" in an impossible situation.

So if you don't like my negative comments about people who want to drop out of the workforce, maximize their social security benefits and reduce their taxes, and then claim that they are doing the rest of the country some sort of favor, screw you. Just don't read them.

"Sc**w you"! Nice comment Ted. With that, I suspect you have just lost whatever semblance of respect you may have enjoyed on this board!

Perhaps with a little work "screw you" can be elevated to something truly curmudgeon - ly and 'crusty'.
And possibly submitted as the basis for a thesis at Curmudgeon U.

The nice thing about achieving Curmudgeon status is that anybody else's opinion is discounted.

I come down pretty much on Ted's side in all of this. Where we disagree is in the amount of Government that we want and its role. I prefer solutions that call for less Government and more personal responsibility. At the heart of this is the need to support Government at the level it has reached and is progressing toward. The key is spending.

Of course, you can immediately see that more Government and more social security benefits require more workforce participation. I view that outcome as inferior to advancing more personal choice and personal freedom. But if you accept the present role of the Government and its continual expansion, you must admit that Ted has some excellent points.

Have fun.

John R.

I think the recently departed "Ted" was a smart guy, at
least about investing. Once he slipped over into
politics he lost me completely. Probably because I
am solidly ensconced way outside of mainstream
political thought (and proud of it). The brief way I
usually explain is that Rush Limbaugh is a wimpy
liberal compared to me. No kidding!

John Galt

Ted, I agree that it is completely irresponsible to fight a war that isn't properly funded. Could you send that message to the current administration? And, of course, there are two solutions to the funding problem: more taxes or fewer wars.

Ya know, i'm not even sure this even qualifies as "politics". Well, I suppose almost anything does if you get worked up enough about it.

What it sounds like is an idealogy that not only has little chance in catching on in america, its antithemic to the intent of this discussion board. I dont know about you folks but I'm here to enjoy some nice talk about how we got the heck out of a pointless rat race, the fun things we do now, and laugh about dryer sheet jokes. I'm not here to be told that I'm immoral and unrespectable for being successful and getting off the merry go round. Further, its square in the face of the american dream: get a job, work your way up, get married, buy a house, have some kids, work hard, retire and smell the roses.

The irony of it all is the picture Ted painted - - the cyber souring person who descends into a web site and hoses it for everyone else by being too aggressive in pitched discussions on their single minded views? - - it appears that he's the only one behaving in this manner. Did anyone else notice that there was a nice upswing in people registering and getting involved over the past few weeks while all of us "cybersauers" were supposedly screwing things up? That is up until a couple of days ago when this crap started. Hardly anyone has posted here in the last few days. Except about Ted.

In the meanwhile, would someone bump the needle on the victrola? Its skipping. As far as i'm concerned the thin skinned left wing drama queen routine that makes us all want to feel guilty has worn even thinner.

I went to catholic school buddy, good luck piling any more guilt on me.

__________________
Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful. Just another form of "buy low, sell high" for those who have trouble with things. This rule is not universal. Do not buy a 1973 Pinto because everyone else is afraid of it.

Ha Ha Ha
Oh! The memories! That sweet, sweet pain!

Ouch. I've been trying to avoid the pot-calling-the-kettle-black attack, TH. But as long as the cat's out of the bag, I have to say that I've been waiting for Ted to tell us that we're self-loathing, have a persecution complex, and have delusions of grandeur

You know...I've long thought there might be a small group of conspiracy theorists after me. Then I realized I was too likable and not important enough

__________________
Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful. Just another form of "buy low, sell high" for those who have trouble with things. This rule is not universal. Do not buy a 1973 Pinto because everyone else is afraid of it.

Geez, Ted, you got me. I never realized that ERs were responsible for the PUEBLO attack. "... a kingdom was lost, all for the want of a horse shoe nail."

I'm done with you. I'm going to enjoy socializing & ruminating with the rest of the people on this ER board, but you have achieved the last word with me. Have a good life...

__________________
*

Co-author (with my daughter) of “Raising Your Money-Savvy Family For Next Generation Financial Independence.”
Author of the book written on E-R.org: "The Military Guide to Financial Independence and Retirement."
I don't spend much time here— please send a PM.

I've heard of drawn out goodbye's, but this one takes the cake!