Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
That's funny -- I was thinking about the same issue last night, but the hypo I came up with was when my middle eastern neighbor's 11-year old daughter gets gang-raped by a bunch of Bushites seeking to fight the war on terror at home.

The fundies fuck BOYS, Sidd... BOYS. Thats why thhey hate the gays so much. Those suave bastards are taking up all the good meat.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by ironweed I for one would find it hard to look anyone over there in the eye and tell them that the war in Iraq has made the world a safer place.

Right. Perfect timing for an "are we more safe after Iraq" discussion. You'd instead announce to a nation currently grieving over the loss of innocents that it's their fault b/c they caused Muslims to hate them even more than before Iraq. Brilliant.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mister_Ruysbroeck
No, I fully expect to be in the non-qual exec plans by age 45 at the latest.

Which will get clawed back when you try to terminate the qualified plans, while maintaining your own fat-cat pensions.

Motherfucker, I hate greedy executives. WTF, why have nonqual plans. Just fucking save the buckets of cash you get paid. There's no god-given right to tax deferral.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Galloway's speech was, at the best, very poorly timed. Saying "I told you so" so quickly is offensive.*

But, if the war and occupation of Iraq were supposed to make the west safer from terrorism (the "flypaper" theory, etc.), and it turns out not to do so, then at some point do we start questioning whether we should continue the occupation? And at what point?

Or do we just keep saying "stay the course."?


*As is saying "don't you go stabbing Blair in the back now, you liberals, it's your fault anyway." And so forth.

I never bought the "flypaper" theory, but it seems to me we're stuck with the occupation. Once you invade a country, you have a responsibility to its citizens to provide basic security. You can't just kick their army's ass and leave the country in anarchy. If we left now, Iraq would be the next Afghanistan.

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by Spanky
I will concede that is the case on the Arkansas conspiracies. But there were also tons of White House conspiracy theories. I was sent a book that documents Clinton's cocaine dealing while in the White House.

Which reminds me. When I was working on the campaign, in the primary, there was a fundraiser for then Governor Bush in Los Angeles. The same fundraising company was also doing a fundraiser that same evening for Ceders Sinai hospital in Los Angeles. I hung out back stage for the second fundraiser because Bill Maher was MCing and I wanted to meet him and see the show. Many of the donors came and paid for both events.

This former beauty queen from Texas, who I was working with, in her unbelievably thick accent and stupid smile said that she had just talked to that nice man "Mr. Maher" and asked him that he not make any jokes about the "Governor" because there were many people at the fundraiser who were also at the Bush fundraiser. When I told her that she just insured that he would do the opposite, she to me, with much condensension, that she had thoroughly charmed him, and he was putty in her hands, and he would do no such thing.

Of course the entire monologue focused on the Governor. My favorite joke was that HW Bush invaded Panama to insure that Cocaine supply line to his son was not interrupted.

I guess that about says it all about the blowjob skillz of former beauty queens from Texas.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Which will get clawed back when you try to terminate the qualified plans, while maintaining your own fat-cat pensions.

Motherfucker, I hate greedy executives. WTF, why have nonqual plans. Just fucking save the buckets of cash you get paid. There's no god-given right to tax deferral.

I don't understand why anyone gets a pension in the first place (other than those to which they contribute, which I do understand). Why should anyone get paid again for work they've already gotten paid for? Goofy idea past its time.

Why do govt workers get a pension after 25 years of service? Aren't we trying to move the retirment age UP? WTF?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I don't understand why anyone gets a pension in the first place. Why should anyone get paid again for work they've already gotten paid for? Goofy idea past its time.

Yes, well, work on the greater evil first -- bloated executive pensions dragging down companies.

In a more serious answer, the cut in pay I took going in house was, at least to me, partially offset by a fairly generous match that is 100% vested immediately, and a non-stingy pension. I'm pretty sure, absent some major changes on the planet (which, based on the bombings this morning, are not imminent in the least), that if they were to freeze the pension they would increase the match so as to make up for it.

ETA can gov't workers commence their pensions after 25 years? Or do they just have some fucking incredibly long vesting schedule? I'll be entitled to some tiny amount (at age 65) after I'm here 5 years, or when they freeze the plan, whichever comes first.

Note to anyone who might work where I work who has figured out who I am -- to my knowledge, there have been no discussions of discontinuing the pension plans.

EATA for Ty, I think GM is clawing back $235 million or something from the already underfunded PBGC. Whoo hoo!

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I don't understand why anyone gets a pension in the first place (other than those to which they contribute, which I do understand). Why should anyone get paid again for work they've already gotten paid for? Goofy idea past its time.

The same could be said for any non-cash employment benefit, no? The pension doesn't materialize out of thin air. It's part of a compensation package--some immediate, some deferred, some non-cash. Now, I know as a GA, it's supposed to be all cash, all now; but some rational people, who look at the longer term as well as tax consequences, may prefer compensation in other forms and at other times.

As for gov't, it depends on the gov't, and it depends on what promise was made to the workers.

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Right. Perfect timing for an "are we more safe after Iraq" discussion. You'd instead announce to a nation currently grieving over the loss of innocents that it's their fault b/c they caused Muslims to hate them even more than before Iraq. Brilliant.

Your feelings regarding the appropriate timing for this discussion are even more irrelevant than usual, and your predictable distortion of my comments is even more offensive. Kudos!

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb


ETA can gov't workers commence their pensions after 25 years? Or do they just have some fucking incredibly long vesting schedule? I'll be entitled to some tiny amount (at age 65) after I'm here 5 years, or when they freeze the plan, whichever comes first.

The fed'l gov't plan (civilian--military is different) vests after 5 years, but can't be taken until 62 (or 65, or somewhere thereabouts). And it's based on some formula, that i think is pretty typical, like avg. of high-three years of salary, multiplied by years of service divided by 30, and then maybe there's some further multiplier reflecting whether you took it early or late.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Yes, well, work on the greater evil first -- bloated executive pensions dragging down companies.

In a more serious answer, the cut in pay I took going in house was, at least to me, partially offset by a fairly generous match that is 100% vested immediately, and a non-stingy pension. I'm pretty sure, absent some major changes on the planet (which, based on the bombings this morning, are not imminent in the least), that if they were to freeze the pension they would increase the match so as to make up for it.

Oh God. Exec pensions are insane. The problem I see with pensions is not directly economic, but subtle. They tend to create swaths of middle management in large orgs/govt who just phone in work for the last decade winding toward their retirement package. They're standing around for the last years of their careers like Randall Tex Cobb at the end of the Holmes fight, just waiting it out... Thats fucked up. Those people should be eviscerated from the work force. All they do is steal cash from the mouths of people below them. The problem is the inverse pyramid in corporate life. From the midddle up its a mess of pigs at a traugh, and not enough accountability.

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Oh God. Exec pensions are insane. The problem I see with pensions is not directly economic, but subtle. They tend to create swaths of middle management in large orgs/govt who just phone in work for the last decade winding toward their retirement package. They're standing around for the last years of their careers like Randall Tex Cobb at the end of the Holmes fight, just waiting it out... Thats fucked up. Those people should be eviscerated from the work force. All they do is steal cash from the mouths of people below them. The problem is the inverse pyramid in corporate life. From the midddle up its a mess of pigs at a traugh, and not enough accountability.

How does a pension cause that, rather than just salary? If someone can get away with doing the minimum because s/he's no longer concerned about promotions, etc., then why would a pension change that, assuming the person is not in a position to earn more money toward retirement by billing or selling a lot and earning big bonuses?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The fed'l gov't plan (civilian--military is different) vests after 5 years, but can't be taken until 62 (or 65, or somewhere thereabouts). And it's based on some formula, that i think is pretty typical, like avg. of high-three years of salary, multiplied by years of service divided by 30, and then maybe there's some further multiplier reflecting whether you took it early or late.

They may be able to commence at 55 if they have enough service? And retire from active service? That's not uncommon. Actually, it's pretty damn common, not just not uncommon.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
How does a pension cause that, rather than just salary? If someone can get away with doing the minimum because s/he's no longer concerned about promotions, etc., then why would a pension change that, assuming the person is not in a position to earn more money toward retirement by billing or selling a lot and earning big bonuses?

Companies don't like to terminate people who are one or two years away from being eligible for an unreduced early retirement benefit. It's also harder to get a job at 55, or 60, or whatever, so they don't want to leave.

OTOH, the dangling apple of unreduced early retirement benefit is keeping someone I really need* around here for a couple more years, even though her boss treats her like shit.

*who I guess could be characterized as middle management, but who works her fucking ass off.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
You think Soc. Sec. will be there for you?

Of course it will. Because he will be old, and will vote, and the younger folk, who will be paying for his retirement, won't.