I just read that both ryan and mcconnell now admit they do want to end food stamps.

Look, they are going to kill some of us, that much is sure. When do the people REACT? Dont know.

of traitors?

Was it in the works before trump?

It was signed into law by President Obama on Nov 25, 2015

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2016

Also as the OP states, prior to this bill those who served but did not reach 20 years, got no pension at all. So this law was designed to make sure that those who serve, but left before they were retirement eligible, get something. As someone who did serve, but didn't stay long enough to retire, I think something is better than nothing.

and signed into law by President Obama.
Passed the House 370-58 on Nov 5, 2015; Passed the Senate 91-3 Nov 10, 2015
So while the initial bill may have been written by a Republican, given the vote totals, in the end it appears to have been an actual bipartisan effort.

Link: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s1356

As to the merit of the changes made to the military retirement system, taken as a whole this is an improvement for those who make it to 12 years, but do not make to 20 years.

"taken as a whole this is an improvement for those who make it to 12 years, but do not make to 20 years..."

And its corollary, "taken as a whole, this is a detriment to those who make it to twenty years, and make it past twelve years..."

But I get your narrative. It's damned consistent, so to speak.

Because they don't do 20 years. The military can't promise every person who enlists thst they can dtay in for 20 years. With today's small force they don't need as many senior people. I'm the past they would have been forced out with no retirement savings.

You'd be surprised how many progressives there are serving in the military. There's just as large a contingent of Greenpeace and Sierra Club supporters as there are militia-loving Dominionist Oafkeepers. The progressives are just a lot quieter and actually get their work done.

For 3/4th of the people serving, the Military was pretty much way to get the education or training they couldn't afford either in time or money- and later to support themselves or family through the benefits they could get.
If forced between working three full time minimum wage jobs and still not being able to get ahead, or signing up and getting paid a living wage (for a single person, at least) while you get training, full benefits, unlimited sick and 30 days paid leave - and with the option to access paid college up to graduate level if you stuck with it for a few enlistments, what would you do?
That's why most people joined. Not because they were particularly patriotic or rah-rah-kill-them-all types.

Haele

because he can.

Here is hint: "part of the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act"

It was signed into law by President Obama on Nov 25, 2015

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2016

Still, if it was an Obama thing, why didn't trump overturn it? I thought everything Obama = bad.

This is essentially the same pension benefit package civilian federal civil servants have been getting since 1984. Smaller basic pension and "save on your own" via 401k (I'd bet there's a govt match to savings) and investment (I'd bet Thrift Savings Plan).

working for less and putting one's life on the line."

Basically yes, though I have problems with both the "working for less" (just plain very, very wrong) and the pretense that everyone puts his life on the line (a conceit those who never worried about that are welcome to as long as I don't pay for it). Those who do, or could realistically be called on to and know it, or just those who are given no choice but to work in 110 degree summers and more, are a different matter.

In any case, we owe our military people (enlisted anyway, officers do just fine) more, not less. And that's one basic reason I've never voted for a tax decrease in nearly 50 years. We have big debts we haven't paid.

who signed up." This is the contract they made, and the govt needs to honor it. Changing the terms mid-stream for people is wrong. Changes should only apply to new recruits so they know what they are signing up for.

Some years later Congress changed the rules so that I, and many others, who didn't use the old GI Bill by a certain date, because we were still on active duty, lost those benefits.

So when I did get out and went to college, I ended up paying out of pocket for all expenses.

What a crap program that was for people who got deployed a lot. I started it, but cashed out when it was clear that the limitations for its use made it nothing more than a tax-deferred CD for most people - if you couldn't take the time for those college/university courses when you were in, it was worth about as much as an IRA once the fees (because you didn't use it at an approved learning facility) were taken out because you only had five years to use it after you got out - and if you couldn't afford to put aside the money in the first place, why put into it.

The Montgomery GI Bill was better, but it still retained that old "if you didn't use it within 10 years, you lost it." IME, most people spent those first 10 years after their enlistment trying to get another career up and running, and didn't have time to take a couple years off to get a BS or BA. I didn't have time to get back to serious university coursework myself to attempt to get a degree until I had been out for 12 years.
I know people who are just starting up on finishing their degree and it's been over 20 years - with that GI bill they thought they had access to now taken from them.

Haele