Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s because the taxpayer funds a huge portion of their expenses (housing while on base, no down payment for Va loans, the list goes on). Welfare queens to the max

+1. Even one of Reagan's hires (Stockdale, I think his name may be) wrote a book a few years ago describing the US military as socialistic. But if you dare question it, you're labeled a "communist" or worse. DH has several retired military in his family, and when they start bragging about their free health care and whatnot at Thanksgiving, I say "you're welcome."

Maybe when the conversation turns to the safe and free society we live in, your retired military family members can turn to you and say, “You’re welcome.”

Oh, they do, at every turn.

Good, I’m glad you are making sure to thank them for their service.

You are thanking them, right, and that’s why they’re saying, “You’re welcome”?

Thanking them for their service is cringe. They didn’t do it for you.

This.

The elephant in the room is that many people join or stay in the military because it is their best (financial ) option.

That is not politically correct but it is true. (That is why they use bonuses to get them to re-up, not flags or the constitution!)

Come on. That's not true. Of all the officers that got to retirement there isn't a single one I know that did it for a paycheck. Many easier careers that don't totally burn your family and regularly puts you at risk.

My spouse and I both got out at 8 (dual military, both service academy graduates). The majority of our former peers that we know that are staying in until retirement are…very average. Many of them were open about staying in until retirement simply to get retirement pay. Nice people, but very average in intellect, skill, and ambition. This label is true for both the ROTC graduates and the service academy graduates that we know; only OCS and prior service officers defy this trend in my experience. They definitely don’t have many options for stable pay and benefits at the level that they have in the military, although laughably more than a few have commented that they could have been “CEO level” if they had gotten out pre or post company command. Their wives are also to this day, even post GWOT era, the most into the “I am a military spouse! Thank me and my family! We serve too!” culture, way more than the enlisted wives that I knew. There are of course exceptions to every generalization. A small minority are exceptional.

To be fair, officers' wives are typically more educated (like attracts like), so they do sacrifice more than the high school grad who marries her first boyfriend right after he graduates from basic. For the latter, the military lifestyle is a step up. For the former, it's forfeiting what could have been.

That’s a really interesting point that I hadn’t considered.

Your observation actually makes a lot of sense and explains the persistent, perceived sense of entitlement that I saw from so many officers’ wives.

Although, lol, I think maybe some of the wives are as delusional about their forfeited potential as their “I could have been CEO of a Fortune 500 company” officer husbands who choose to stay in until retirement.

+1 DP here. From what I have seen, military wives have an elevated lifestyle, compared to what they would otherwise have (had they not married an officer). Burial in Arlington Cemetery, for one. She would have had that being a teacher?

"Burial in Arlington Cemetery" is part of an "elevated lifestyle?" You have to be dead to be buried, and if you're dead, you have NO lifestyle, never mind "elevated."

You are being obtuse. Would they have had free housing and stipends and additional pay without the military lifestyle? In the meantime, they get to move to areas and live in places they would not have otherwise been able to live.

It is not the sacrifice you think it is. It is a choice. If they lose someone to war, yes it is certainly a sacrifice. I know, my family lost everything to war. They were given nothing for both parents working 60 hour weeks (hint: not at home). They were not paid for special assignments, et al.

I am not being obtuse. You used a benefit that you can only use once you are DEAD as an example of an "elevated lifestyle." You are being absurd.
And military members do not get "free housing." They work for it. That's like saying everyone that works a job gets "free money" in the form of a paycheck.

Poor example, but you certainly know the point. People do not join the military, even officers, for no reason. It is for the benefits. But continue being obtuse - how is that working for you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s because the taxpayer funds a huge portion of their expenses (housing while on base, no down payment for Va loans, the list goes on). Welfare queens to the max

+1. Even one of Reagan's hires (Stockdale, I think his name may be) wrote a book a few years ago describing the US military as socialistic. But if you dare question it, you're labeled a "communist" or worse. DH has several retired military in his family, and when they start bragging about their free health care and whatnot at Thanksgiving, I say "you're welcome."

Maybe when the conversation turns to the safe and free society we live in, your retired military family members can turn to you and say, “You’re welcome.”

Oh, they do, at every turn.

Good, I’m glad you are making sure to thank them for their service.

You are thanking them, right, and that’s why they’re saying, “You’re welcome”?

Thanking them for their service is cringe. They didn’t do it for you.

This.

The elephant in the room is that many people join or stay in the military because it is their best (financial ) option.

That is not politically correct but it is true. (That is why they use bonuses to get them to re-up, not flags or the constitution!)

Come on. That's not true. Of all the officers that got to retirement there isn't a single one I know that did it for a paycheck. Many easier careers that don't totally burn your family and regularly puts you at risk.

My spouse and I both got out at 8 (dual military, both service academy graduates). The majority of our former peers that we know that are staying in until retirement are…very average. Many of them were open about staying in until retirement simply to get retirement pay. Nice people, but very average in intellect, skill, and ambition. This label is true for both the ROTC graduates and the service academy graduates that we know; only OCS and prior service officers defy this trend in my experience. They definitely don’t have many options for stable pay and benefits at the level that they have in the military, although laughably more than a few have commented that they could have been “CEO level” if they had gotten out pre or post company command. Their wives are also to this day, even post GWOT era, the most into the “I am a military spouse! Thank me and my family! We serve too!” culture, way more than the enlisted wives that I knew. There are of course exceptions to every generalization. A small minority are exceptional.

To be fair, officers' wives are typically more educated (like attracts like), so they do sacrifice more than the high school grad who marries her first boyfriend right after he graduates from basic. For the latter, the military lifestyle is a step up. For the former, it's forfeiting what could have been.

That’s a really interesting point that I hadn’t considered.

Your observation actually makes a lot of sense and explains the persistent, perceived sense of entitlement that I saw from so many officers’ wives.

Although, lol, I think maybe some of the wives are as delusional about their forfeited potential as their “I could have been CEO of a Fortune 500 company” officer husbands who choose to stay in until retirement.

+1 DP here. From what I have seen, military wives have an elevated lifestyle, compared to what they would otherwise have (had they not married an officer). Burial in Arlington Cemetery, for one. She would have had that being a teacher?

"Burial in Arlington Cemetery" is part of an "elevated lifestyle?" You have to be dead to be buried, and if you're dead, you have NO lifestyle, never mind "elevated."

You are being obtuse. Would they have had free housing and stipends and additional pay without the military lifestyle? In the meantime, they get to move to areas and live in places they would not have otherwise been able to live.

It is not the sacrifice you think it is. It is a choice. If they lose someone to war, yes it is certainly a sacrifice. I know, my family lost everything to war. They were given nothing for both parents working 60 hour weeks (hint: not at home). They were not paid for special assignments, et al.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s because the taxpayer funds a huge portion of their expenses (housing while on base, no down payment for Va loans, the list goes on). Welfare queens to the max

+1. Even one of Reagan's hires (Stockdale, I think his name may be) wrote a book a few years ago describing the US military as socialistic. But if you dare question it, you're labeled a "communist" or worse. DH has several retired military in his family, and when they start bragging about their free health care and whatnot at Thanksgiving, I say "you're welcome."

That’s super obnoxious on your part. We can’t even get appointments at Walter Reed or find a place to park, so I’d tell you quickly to shove it. Trust me, you wouldn’t think military healthcare was such a great deal if you actually had to use it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s because the taxpayer funds a huge portion of their expenses (housing while on base, no down payment for Va loans, the list goes on). Welfare queens to the max

+1. Even one of Reagan's hires (Stockdale, I think his name may be) wrote a book a few years ago describing the US military as socialistic. But if you dare question it, you're labeled a "communist" or worse. DH has several retired military in his family, and when they start bragging about their free health care and whatnot at Thanksgiving, I say "you're welcome."

Maybe when the conversation turns to the safe and free society we live in, your retired military family members can turn to you and say, “You’re welcome.”

Oh, they do, at every turn.

Good, I’m glad you are making sure to thank them for their service.

You are thanking them, right, and that’s why they’re saying, “You’re welcome”?

Thanking them for their service is cringe. They didn’t do it for you.

This.

The elephant in the room is that many people join or stay in the military because it is their best (financial ) option.

That is not politically correct but it is true. (That is why they use bonuses to get them to re-up, not flags or the constitution!)

Come on. That's not true. Of all the officers that got to retirement there isn't a single one I know that did it for a paycheck. Many easier careers that don't totally burn your family and regularly puts you at risk.

My spouse and I both got out at 8 (dual military, both service academy graduates). The majority of our former peers that we know that are staying in until retirement are…very average. Many of them were open about staying in until retirement simply to get retirement pay. Nice people, but very average in intellect, skill, and ambition. This label is true for both the ROTC graduates and the service academy graduates that we know; only OCS and prior service officers defy this trend in my experience. They definitely don’t have many options for stable pay and benefits at the level that they have in the military, although laughably more than a few have commented that they could have been “CEO level” if they had gotten out pre or post company command. Their wives are also to this day, even post GWOT era, the most into the “I am a military spouse! Thank me and my family! We serve too!” culture, way more than the enlisted wives that I knew. There are of course exceptions to every generalization. A small minority are exceptional.

To be fair, officers' wives are typically more educated (like attracts like), so they do sacrifice more than the high school grad who marries her first boyfriend right after he graduates from basic. For the latter, the military lifestyle is a step up. For the former, it's forfeiting what could have been.

That’s a really interesting point that I hadn’t considered.

Your observation actually makes a lot of sense and explains the persistent, perceived sense of entitlement that I saw from so many officers’ wives.

Although, lol, I think maybe some of the wives are as delusional about their forfeited potential as their “I could have been CEO of a Fortune 500 company” officer husbands who choose to stay in until retirement.

+1 DP here. From what I have seen, military wives have an elevated lifestyle, compared to what they would otherwise have (had they not married an officer). Burial in Arlington Cemetery, for one. She would have had that being a teacher?

"Burial in Arlington Cemetery" is part of an "elevated lifestyle?" You have to be dead to be buried, and if you're dead, you have NO lifestyle, never mind "elevated."

You are being obtuse. Would they have had free housing and stipends and additional pay without the military lifestyle? In the meantime, they get to move to areas and live in places they would not have otherwise been able to live.

It is not the sacrifice you think it is. It is a choice. If they lose someone to war, yes it is certainly a sacrifice. I know, my family lost everything to war. They were given nothing for both parents working 60 hour weeks (hint: not at home). They were not paid for special assignments, et al.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s because the taxpayer funds a huge portion of their expenses (housing while on base, no down payment for Va loans, the list goes on). Welfare queens to the max

+1. Even one of Reagan's hires (Stockdale, I think his name may be) wrote a book a few years ago describing the US military as socialistic. But if you dare question it, you're labeled a "communist" or worse. DH has several retired military in his family, and when they start bragging about their free health care and whatnot at Thanksgiving, I say "you're welcome."

Maybe when the conversation turns to the safe and free society we live in, your retired military family members can turn to you and say, “You’re welcome.”

Oh, they do, at every turn.

Good, I’m glad you are making sure to thank them for their service.

You are thanking them, right, and that’s why they’re saying, “You’re welcome”?

Thanking them for their service is cringe. They didn’t do it for you.

This.

The elephant in the room is that many people join or stay in the military because it is their best (financial ) option.

That is not politically correct but it is true. (That is why they use bonuses to get them to re-up, not flags or the constitution!)

Come on. That's not true. Of all the officers that got to retirement there isn't a single one I know that did it for a paycheck. Many easier careers that don't totally burn your family and regularly puts you at risk.

My spouse and I both got out at 8 (dual military, both service academy graduates). The majority of our former peers that we know that are staying in until retirement are…very average. Many of them were open about staying in until retirement simply to get retirement pay. Nice people, but very average in intellect, skill, and ambition. This label is true for both the ROTC graduates and the service academy graduates that we know; only OCS and prior service officers defy this trend in my experience. They definitely don’t have many options for stable pay and benefits at the level that they have in the military, although laughably more than a few have commented that they could have been “CEO level” if they had gotten out pre or post company command. Their wives are also to this day, even post GWOT era, the most into the “I am a military spouse! Thank me and my family! We serve too!” culture, way more than the enlisted wives that I knew. There are of course exceptions to every generalization. A small minority are exceptional.

To be fair, officers' wives are typically more educated (like attracts like), so they do sacrifice more than the high school grad who marries her first boyfriend right after he graduates from basic. For the latter, the military lifestyle is a step up. For the former, it's forfeiting what could have been.

That’s a really interesting point that I hadn’t considered.

Your observation actually makes a lot of sense and explains the persistent, perceived sense of entitlement that I saw from so many officers’ wives.

Although, lol, I think maybe some of the wives are as delusional about their forfeited potential as their “I could have been CEO of a Fortune 500 company” officer husbands who choose to stay in until retirement.

+1 DP here. From what I have seen, military wives have an elevated lifestyle, compared to what they would otherwise have (had they not married an officer). Burial in Arlington Cemetery, for one. She would have had that being a teacher?

"Burial in Arlington Cemetery" is part of an "elevated lifestyle?" You have to be dead to be buried, and if you're dead, you have NO lifestyle, never mind "elevated."

You are being obtuse. Would they have had free housing and stipends and additional pay without the military lifestyle? In the meantime, they get to move to areas and live in places they would not have otherwise been able to live.

It is not the sacrifice you think it is. It is a choice. If they lose someone to war, yes it is certainly a sacrifice. I know, my family lost everything to war. They were given nothing for both parents working 60 hour weeks (hint: not at home). They were not paid for special assignments, et al.

I am not being obtuse. You used a benefit that you can only use once you are DEAD as an example of an "elevated lifestyle." You are being absurd.
And military members do not get "free housing." They work for it. That's like saying everyone that works a job gets "free money" in the form of a paycheck.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s because the taxpayer funds a huge portion of their expenses (housing while on base, no down payment for Va loans, the list goes on). Welfare queens to the max

+1. Even one of Reagan's hires (Stockdale, I think his name may be) wrote a book a few years ago describing the US military as socialistic. But if you dare question it, you're labeled a "communist" or worse. DH has several retired military in his family, and when they start bragging about their free health care and whatnot at Thanksgiving, I say "you're welcome."

Maybe when the conversation turns to the safe and free society we live in, your retired military family members can turn to you and say, “You’re welcome.”

Oh, they do, at every turn.

Good, I’m glad you are making sure to thank them for their service.

You are thanking them, right, and that’s why they’re saying, “You’re welcome”?

Thanking them for their service is cringe. They didn’t do it for you.

This.

The elephant in the room is that many people join or stay in the military because it is their best (financial ) option.

That is not politically correct but it is true. (That is why they use bonuses to get them to re-up, not flags or the constitution!)

Come on. That's not true. Of all the officers that got to retirement there isn't a single one I know that did it for a paycheck. Many easier careers that don't totally burn your family and regularly puts you at risk.

My spouse and I both got out at 8 (dual military, both service academy graduates). The majority of our former peers that we know that are staying in until retirement are…very average. Many of them were open about staying in until retirement simply to get retirement pay. Nice people, but very average in intellect, skill, and ambition. This label is true for both the ROTC graduates and the service academy graduates that we know; only OCS and prior service officers defy this trend in my experience. They definitely don’t have many options for stable pay and benefits at the level that they have in the military, although laughably more than a few have commented that they could have been “CEO level” if they had gotten out pre or post company command. Their wives are also to this day, even post GWOT era, the most into the “I am a military spouse! Thank me and my family! We serve too!” culture, way more than the enlisted wives that I knew. There are of course exceptions to every generalization. A small minority are exceptional.

To be fair, officers' wives are typically more educated (like attracts like), so they do sacrifice more than the high school grad who marries her first boyfriend right after he graduates from basic. For the latter, the military lifestyle is a step up. For the former, it's forfeiting what could have been.

That’s a really interesting point that I hadn’t considered.

Your observation actually makes a lot of sense and explains the persistent, perceived sense of entitlement that I saw from so many officers’ wives.

Although, lol, I think maybe some of the wives are as delusional about their forfeited potential as their “I could have been CEO of a Fortune 500 company” officer husbands who choose to stay in until retirement.

+1 DP here. From what I have seen, military wives have an elevated lifestyle, compared to what they would otherwise have (had they not married an officer). Burial in Arlington Cemetery, for one. She would have had that being a teacher?

"Burial in Arlington Cemetery" is part of an "elevated lifestyle?" You have to be dead to be buried, and if you're dead, you have NO lifestyle, never mind "elevated."

You are being obtuse. Would they have had free housing and stipends and additional pay without the military lifestyle? In the meantime, they get to move to areas and live in places they would not have otherwise been able to live.

It is not the sacrifice you think it is. It is a choice. If they lose someone to war, yes it is certainly a sacrifice. I know, my family lost everything to war. They were given nothing for both parents working 60 hour weeks (hint: not at home). They were not paid for special assignments, et al.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s because the taxpayer funds a huge portion of their expenses (housing while on base, no down payment for Va loans, the list goes on). Welfare queens to the max

+1. Even one of Reagan's hires (Stockdale, I think his name may be) wrote a book a few years ago describing the US military as socialistic. But if you dare question it, you're labeled a "communist" or worse. DH has several retired military in his family, and when they start bragging about their free health care and whatnot at Thanksgiving, I say "you're welcome."

Maybe when the conversation turns to the safe and free society we live in, your retired military family members can turn to you and say, “You’re welcome.”

Oh, they do, at every turn.

Good, I’m glad you are making sure to thank them for their service.

You are thanking them, right, and that’s why they’re saying, “You’re welcome”?

Thanking them for their service is cringe. They didn’t do it for you.

This.

The elephant in the room is that many people join or stay in the military because it is their best (financial ) option.

That is not politically correct but it is true. (That is why they use bonuses to get them to re-up, not flags or the constitution!)

Come on. That's not true. Of all the officers that got to retirement there isn't a single one I know that did it for a paycheck. Many easier careers that don't totally burn your family and regularly puts you at risk.

My spouse and I both got out at 8 (dual military, both service academy graduates). The majority of our former peers that we know that are staying in until retirement are…very average. Many of them were open about staying in until retirement simply to get retirement pay. Nice people, but very average in intellect, skill, and ambition. This label is true for both the ROTC graduates and the service academy graduates that we know; only OCS and prior service officers defy this trend in my experience. They definitely don’t have many options for stable pay and benefits at the level that they have in the military, although laughably more than a few have commented that they could have been “CEO level” if they had gotten out pre or post company command. Their wives are also to this day, even post GWOT era, the most into the “I am a military spouse! Thank me and my family! We serve too!” culture, way more than the enlisted wives that I knew. There are of course exceptions to every generalization. A small minority are exceptional.

To be fair, officers' wives are typically more educated (like attracts like), so they do sacrifice more than the high school grad who marries her first boyfriend right after he graduates from basic. For the latter, the military lifestyle is a step up. For the former, it's forfeiting what could have been.

That’s a really interesting point that I hadn’t considered.

Your observation actually makes a lot of sense and explains the persistent, perceived sense of entitlement that I saw from so many officers’ wives.

Although, lol, I think maybe some of the wives are as delusional about their forfeited potential as their “I could have been CEO of a Fortune 500 company” officer husbands who choose to stay in until retirement.

+1 DP here. From what I have seen, military wives have an elevated lifestyle, compared to what they would otherwise have (had they not married an officer). Burial in Arlington Cemetery, for one. She would have had that being a teacher?

I taught officers as a college professor at a military university and the new generation of officers is very different. The high achievers I met had wives who were: a national newscaster, a surgeon and a congresswoman. (Not all of them were like this but a significant proxy). They are not all teachers and nurses anymore. All pretty successful in their own right, no time to swan around being “the officers wife” because they were busy with their own careers. Also a lot more commuter marriages with the women not giving up their own good jobs every time the husband got transferred.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Got married early, earned extra for every deployment since were married. Lived cheaply on base or got the housing and family allowance (tax free) and bought houses in every state they were based. When dh was active duty, he got like $3k in housing allowance in the DC area which paid our mortgage and it was tax free.
Free healthcare for the military member, much reduced healthcare for kids, reduced cost daycare, tax free groceries and booze, VA loans (dh is considered sufficiently disabled so we get no cost refis), no student debt. Also much better to go in as officers and not enlisted.

They also earn money from renting out any houses owned outright.

All civilians also earn money from renting out any houses own outright.

While earning a stipend for housing?? Sign me up!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s because the taxpayer funds a huge portion of their expenses (housing while on base, no down payment for Va loans, the list goes on). Welfare queens to the max

+1. Even one of Reagan's hires (Stockdale, I think his name may be) wrote a book a few years ago describing the US military as socialistic. But if you dare question it, you're labeled a "communist" or worse. DH has several retired military in his family, and when they start bragging about their free health care and whatnot at Thanksgiving, I say "you're welcome."

Maybe when the conversation turns to the safe and free society we live in, your retired military family members can turn to you and say, “You’re welcome.”

Oh, they do, at every turn.

Good, I’m glad you are making sure to thank them for their service.

You are thanking them, right, and that’s why they’re saying, “You’re welcome”?

Thanking them for their service is cringe. They didn’t do it for you.

This.

The elephant in the room is that many people join or stay in the military because it is their best (financial ) option.

That is not politically correct but it is true. (That is why they use bonuses to get them to re-up, not flags or the constitution!)

Come on. That's not true. Of all the officers that got to retirement there isn't a single one I know that did it for a paycheck. Many easier careers that don't totally burn your family and regularly puts you at risk.

My spouse and I both got out at 8 (dual military, both service academy graduates). The majority of our former peers that we know that are staying in until retirement are…very average. Many of them were open about staying in until retirement simply to get retirement pay. Nice people, but very average in intellect, skill, and ambition. This label is true for both the ROTC graduates and the service academy graduates that we know; only OCS and prior service officers defy this trend in my experience. They definitely don’t have many options for stable pay and benefits at the level that they have in the military, although laughably more than a few have commented that they could have been “CEO level” if they had gotten out pre or post company command. Their wives are also to this day, even post GWOT era, the most into the “I am a military spouse! Thank me and my family! We serve too!” culture, way more than the enlisted wives that I knew. There are of course exceptions to every generalization. A small minority are exceptional.

To be fair, officers' wives are typically more educated (like attracts like), so they do sacrifice more than the high school grad who marries her first boyfriend right after he graduates from basic. For the latter, the military lifestyle is a step up. For the former, it's forfeiting what could have been.

That’s a really interesting point that I hadn’t considered.

Your observation actually makes a lot of sense and explains the persistent, perceived sense of entitlement that I saw from so many officers’ wives.

Although, lol, I think maybe some of the wives are as delusional about their forfeited potential as their “I could have been CEO of a Fortune 500 company” officer husbands who choose to stay in until retirement.

+1 DP here. From what I have seen, military wives have an elevated lifestyle, compared to what they would otherwise have (had they not married an officer). Burial in Arlington Cemetery, for one. She would have had that being a teacher?

"Burial in Arlington Cemetery" is part of an "elevated lifestyle?" You have to be dead to be buried, and if you're dead, you have NO lifestyle, never mind "elevated."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Got married early, earned extra for every deployment since were married. Lived cheaply on base or got the housing and family allowance (tax free) and bought houses in every state they were based. When dh was active duty, he got like $3k in housing allowance in the DC area which paid our mortgage and it was tax free.
Free healthcare for the military member, much reduced healthcare for kids, reduced cost daycare, tax free groceries and booze, VA loans (dh is considered sufficiently disabled so we get no cost refis), no student debt. Also much better to go in as officers and not enlisted.

They also earn money from renting out any houses owned outright.

All civilians also earn money from renting out any houses own outright.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know many that completely retire after 20 years. Usually they move onto a government contractor position. Those can pay a lot, plus they simultaneously get their pension and low-cost healthcare.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s because the taxpayer funds a huge portion of their expenses (housing while on base, no down payment for Va loans, the list goes on). Welfare queens to the max

+1. Even one of Reagan's hires (Stockdale, I think his name may be) wrote a book a few years ago describing the US military as socialistic. But if you dare question it, you're labeled a "communist" or worse. DH has several retired military in his family, and when they start bragging about their free health care and whatnot at Thanksgiving, I say "you're welcome."

Maybe when the conversation turns to the safe and free society we live in, your retired military family members can turn to you and say, “You’re welcome.”

Oh, they do, at every turn.

Good, I’m glad you are making sure to thank them for their service.

You are thanking them, right, and that’s why they’re saying, “You’re welcome”?

Thanking them for their service is cringe. They didn’t do it for you.

This.

The elephant in the room is that many people join or stay in the military because it is their best (financial ) option.

That is not politically correct but it is true. (That is why they use bonuses to get them to re-up, not flags or the constitution!)

Come on. That's not true. Of all the officers that got to retirement there isn't a single one I know that did it for a paycheck. Many easier careers that don't totally burn your family and regularly puts you at risk.

My spouse and I both got out at 8 (dual military, both service academy graduates). The majority of our former peers that we know that are staying in until retirement are…very average. Many of them were open about staying in until retirement simply to get retirement pay. Nice people, but very average in intellect, skill, and ambition. This label is true for both the ROTC graduates and the service academy graduates that we know; only OCS and prior service officers defy this trend in my experience. They definitely don’t have many options for stable pay and benefits at the level that they have in the military, although laughably more than a few have commented that they could have been “CEO level” if they had gotten out pre or post company command. Their wives are also to this day, even post GWOT era, the most into the “I am a military spouse! Thank me and my family! We serve too!” culture, way more than the enlisted wives that I knew. There are of course exceptions to every generalization. A small minority are exceptional.

To be fair, officers' wives are typically more educated (like attracts like), so they do sacrifice more than the high school grad who marries her first boyfriend right after he graduates from basic. For the latter, the military lifestyle is a step up. For the former, it's forfeiting what could have been.

That’s a really interesting point that I hadn’t considered.

Your observation actually makes a lot of sense and explains the persistent, perceived sense of entitlement that I saw from so many officers’ wives.

Although, lol, I think maybe some of the wives are as delusional about their forfeited potential as their “I could have been CEO of a Fortune 500 company” officer husbands who choose to stay in until retirement.

+1 DP here. From what I have seen, military wives have an elevated lifestyle, compared to what they would otherwise have (had they not married an officer). Burial in Arlington Cemetery, for one. She would have had that being a teacher?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s because the taxpayer funds a huge portion of their expenses (housing while on base, no down payment for Va loans, the list goes on). Welfare queens to the max

+1. Even one of Reagan's hires (Stockdale, I think his name may be) wrote a book a few years ago describing the US military as socialistic. But if you dare question it, you're labeled a "communist" or worse. DH has several retired military in his family, and when they start bragging about their free health care and whatnot at Thanksgiving, I say "you're welcome."

Maybe when the conversation turns to the safe and free society we live in, your retired military family members can turn to you and say, “You’re welcome.”

Oh, they do, at every turn.

Good, I’m glad you are making sure to thank them for their service.

You are thanking them, right, and that’s why they’re saying, “You’re welcome”?

Thanking them for their service is cringe. They didn’t do it for you.

This.

The elephant in the room is that many people join or stay in the military because it is their best (financial ) option.

That is not politically correct but it is true. (That is why they use bonuses to get them to re-up, not flags or the constitution!)

Come on. That's not true. Of all the officers that got to retirement there isn't a single one I know that did it for a paycheck. Many easier careers that don't totally burn your family and regularly puts you at risk.

My spouse and I both got out at 8 (dual military, both service academy graduates). The majority of our former peers that we know that are staying in until retirement are…very average. Many of them were open about staying in until retirement simply to get retirement pay. Nice people, but very average in intellect, skill, and ambition. This label is true for both the ROTC graduates and the service academy graduates that we know; only OCS and prior service officers defy this trend in my experience. They definitely don’t have many options for stable pay and benefits at the level that they have in the military, although laughably more than a few have commented that they could have been “CEO level” if they had gotten out pre or post company command. Their wives are also to this day, even post GWOT era, the most into the “I am a military spouse! Thank me and my family! We serve too!” culture, way more than the enlisted wives that I knew. There are of course exceptions to every generalization. A small minority are exceptional.

To be fair, officers' wives are typically more educated (like attracts like), so they do sacrifice more than the high school grad who marries her first boyfriend right after he graduates from basic. For the latter, the military lifestyle is a step up. For the former, it's forfeiting what could have been.

That’s a really interesting point that I hadn’t considered.

Your observation actually makes a lot of sense and explains the persistent, perceived sense of entitlement that I saw from so many officers’ wives.

Although, lol, I think maybe some of the wives are as delusional about their forfeited potential as their “I could have been CEO of a Fortune 500 company” officer husbands who choose to stay in until retirement.

+1 DP here. From what I have seen, military wives have an elevated lifestyle, compared to what they would otherwise have (had they not married an officer). Burial in Arlington Cemetery, for one. She would have had that being a teacher?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s because the taxpayer funds a huge portion of their expenses (housing while on base, no down payment for Va loans, the list goes on). Welfare queens to the max

+1. Even one of Reagan's hires (Stockdale, I think his name may be) wrote a book a few years ago describing the US military as socialistic. But if you dare question it, you're labeled a "communist" or worse. DH has several retired military in his family, and when they start bragging about their free health care and whatnot at Thanksgiving, I say "you're welcome."

Maybe when the conversation turns to the safe and free society we live in, your retired military family members can turn to you and say, “You’re welcome.”

Oh, they do, at every turn.

Good, I’m glad you are making sure to thank them for their service.

You are thanking them, right, and that’s why they’re saying, “You’re welcome”?

Thanking them for their service is cringe. They didn’t do it for you.

This.

The elephant in the room is that many people join or stay in the military because it is their best (financial ) option.

That is not politically correct but it is true. (That is why they use bonuses to get them to re-up, not flags or the constitution!)

Come on. That's not true. Of all the officers that got to retirement there isn't a single one I know that did it for a paycheck. Many easier careers that don't totally burn your family and regularly puts you at risk.

My spouse and I both got out at 8 (dual military, both service academy graduates). The majority of our former peers that we know that are staying in until retirement are…very average. Many of them were open about staying in until retirement simply to get retirement pay. Nice people, but very average in intellect, skill, and ambition. This label is true for both the ROTC graduates and the service academy graduates that we know; only OCS and prior service officers defy this trend in my experience. They definitely don’t have many options for stable pay and benefits at the level that they have in the military, although laughably more than a few have commented that they could have been “CEO level” if they had gotten out pre or post company command. Their wives are also to this day, even post GWOT era, the most into the “I am a military spouse! Thank me and my family! We serve too!” culture, way more than the enlisted wives that I knew. There are of course exceptions to every generalization. A small minority are exceptional.

To be fair, officers' wives are typically more educated (like attracts like), so they do sacrifice more than the high school grad who marries her first boyfriend right after he graduates from basic. For the latter, the military lifestyle is a step up. For the former, it's forfeiting what could have been.

That’s a really interesting point that I hadn’t considered.

Your observation actually makes a lot of sense and explains the persistent, perceived sense of entitlement that I saw from so many officers’ wives.

Although, lol, I think maybe some of the wives are as delusional about their forfeited potential as their “I could have been CEO of a Fortune 500 company” officer husbands who choose to stay in until retirement.

+1 DP here. From what I have seen, military wives have an elevated lifestyle, compared to what they would otherwise have (had they not married an officer). Burial in Arlington Cemetery, for one. She would have had that being a teacher?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Got married early, earned extra for every deployment since were married. Lived cheaply on base or got the housing and family allowance (tax free) and bought houses in every state they were based. When dh was active duty, he got like $3k in housing allowance in the DC area which paid our mortgage and it was tax free.
Free healthcare for the military member, much reduced healthcare for kids, reduced cost daycare, tax free groceries and booze, VA loans (dh is considered sufficiently disabled so we get no cost refis), no student debt. Also much better to go in as officers and not enlisted.

They also earn money from renting out any houses owned outright.