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

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
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.

For military? I think they can retire after 20 years with full benefits, but I could be wildly wrong. I believe that after 20 years, the only change is that your high-three years of salary (or whatever the basis for setting the pension is) will increase.

The 20-year rule is why all the defense contractors and such start lining up at the doors of the majors and captains, looking to get them into the procurement areas. The soldiers can cash out at full pay, and take another job. Pretty cushy, although generally deserved for their years of service.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

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?

I think the pension creates a sense of security. You watch it grow over years and it becomes the post retirement lifeline. Its "safe," whereas the account you have with your broker isn't psychologically seen as such a safe lifeline. Partly, my impression stems from hearing people I know gush about how they have it made based on their pensions. In these parts, people brag about moving from DE to PA when they get pensions for tax reasons. Its viewed as a safety net. And frankly, I think safety nets are bad things. They stunt growth and ambition. People don't take as many chances. But I guess you could say, when looking at the housing market, maybe its not such a good thing for Americans to take chances.

[Replaced_Texan]

To Orange for mass transit systems.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The 20-year rule is why all the defense contractors and such start lining up at the doors of the majors and captains, looking to get them into the procurement areas. The soldiers can cash out at full pay, and take another job. Pretty cushy, although generally deserved for their years of service.

That ain't just the military. I have a family friend doing that now. Totally able to work, but happily sitting out his late 50s laughing his ass off. God bless him. I mean, really... he worked it. But something seems wrong about it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Great advice, you are the Neville Chamberlain of your time.

Sounds to me more like Sen. George Aiken (R--Vt.).

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I think the pension creates a sense of security. You watch it grow over years and it becomes the post retirement lifeline. Its "safe," whereas the account you have with your broker isn't psychologically seen as such a safe lifeline. Partly, my impression stems from hearing people I know gush about how they have it made based on their pensions. In these parts, people brag about moving from DE to PA when they get pensions for tax reasons. Its viewed as a safety net. And frankly, I think safety nets are bad things. They stunt growth and ambition. People don't take as many chances. But I guess you could say, when looking at the housing market, maybe its not such a good thing for Americans to take chances.

If a person was ambitious and took chances in his or her 20s, 30s, and 40s, is being a bit less professionally ambitious and growth-oriented in the 50s and 60s really so bad? I'm not talking about slacking off so much as easing up in favor of channeling one's energy elsewhere. You're the one who's always saying nobody says on their deathbead I should have spent more time at the office.

I hope to hell I have a safety net when I'm in my 50s, especially in light of how difficult it is to find a job or switch careers at that age.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
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.

Powell's "Pottery Barn" theory. Bush didn't much like that one.


Unfortunately, it's true -- but how much more of this shit? Twelve years of last throes?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
We're never going to be able to turn the fundies living in tents, any more than you'd be able to do so with the fundies living here in tract homes. The only thing we can do is to deprive them of the support of the masses of enabling non-fundamentalists who make it so much easier for them to plan and carry out these attacks. It's them who we should target with the magnificence of American culture, and I think we could do so successfully.

Fundamentalism is a modern phenomena. You don't have to worry about the people living in tents. You have to worry about the people who have left the tents for the cities, and become disaffected.

[Mister_Ruysbroeck]

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.

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

Most pensions came about, I believe, because the unions realized their members couldn't or wouldn't save for retirement, so they forced the companies to do it for them. The trade off was lower up-front salaries for the employees.

The transition to 401(k)s has come about b/c the companies got sick of funding the pension plans and have found that people will, indeed, save money if they are given enough incentive.

And regarding the retirement age thing, it seems you don't understand how pensions work. Being vested after 25 years of service doesn't mean you can start drawing after that time. Most plans have a minimum retirement age before you can get your money out.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ironweed
Don't know the numbers, but my impression was that public opinion in Britain was never behind the invasion in the first place (except maybe for that window where Blair was saying Iraq posessed the capability to strike with bio/chem WMD in under an hour). Blair has stayed in office despite his terrible numbers on this issue simply because the Tories are more ineffectual than the Democratic party right now, if that can be believed.

But be that as it may --

War in Iraq/London bombings: Correlation or causation? If you think they would have happened anyway then Galloway is an ass and an appeaser. 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. Maybe GWB should tell them that all he has to offer is blood, sweat and tears (their later albums) and see how that goes over?

The bombings in Spain and the bombings today were committed with standard explosives. A week ago I walked on the DC subway at rush hour with a carry on suitcase. It could have contained explosives. The Iraq war (putting aside it's ultimate value) was never intended to stop the presence of standard explosives.

The web site pronouncement included Afghanistan as justification, not just Iraq. So Iraq wasn't intended to stop this sort nor does it appear to have been the sole motivation. In fact, I believe Scotland Yard has broken up several imminent attacks over the past few years. Some sounded like they would have been very very horrific- worse that today if that matters. Some of these thrawted attacks were pre-Iraq invasion.

To claim Iraq was wrong because of today, is to claim that the only response to any of this is to hope it stops.

Remember, in Spain AFTER the announcement of withdraw from Iraq, they found more bombs on train tracks.

The situation is fucked. It is the situation we are in.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Powell's "Pottery Barn" theory. Bush didn't much like that one.


Unfortunately, it's true -- but how much more of this shit? Twelve years of last throes?

I thought it was great the way they were able to twist this against Kerry. He'd note that Iraq is fucked up, and the Rs would say, "What would you do differently?" Of course, there's not a lot that you can do differently. We're stuck. You can't undo the decision to go there in the first place.

[Mister_Ruysbroeck]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
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.

Same goes for my company. No imminent plans to discontinue the pension. Don't count on having rollerballs in a couple of months, however. You'll use Bic pens, and you'll like it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
If a person was ambitious and took chances in his or her 20s, 30s, and 40s, is being a bit less professionally ambitious and growth-oriented in the 50s and 60s really so bad? I'm not talking about slacking off so much as easing up in favor of channeling one's energy elsewhere. You're the one who's always saying nobody says on their deathbead I should have spent more time at the office.

I hope to hell I have a safety net when I'm in my 50s, especially in light of how difficult it is to find a job or switch careers at that age.

Most of the people who took chances in 20-40s don't find themselves relying on pensions. A lot of people hit a point where they realize they have to work for themselves to make as much as they want.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The bombings in Spain and the bombings today were committed with standard explosives. A week ago I walked on the DC subway at rush hour with a carry on suitcase. It could have contained explosives. The Iraq war (putting aside it's ultimate value) was never intended to stop the presence of standard explosives.

The web site pronouncement included Afghanistan as justification, not just Iraq. So Iraq wasn't intended to stop this sort nor does it appear to have been the sole motivation. In fact, I believe Scotland Yard has broken up several imminent attacks over the past few years. Some sounded like they would have been very very horrific- worse that today if that matters. Some of these thrawted attacks were pre-Iraq invasion.

To claim Iraq was wrong because of today, is to claim that the only response to any of this is to hope it stops.

Remember, in Spain AFTER the announcement of withdraw from Iraq, they found more bombs on train tracks.

The situation is fucked. It is the situation we are in.

So you admit that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with stopping terrorism?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
So you admit that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with stopping terrorism?

I assume you mean this as a joke, but I'm really not in the right frame of mind.

Iraq was intended to stop/lessen the possibilty that the bombs today would have been something other than standard explosives.

To stop things like happened today requires identifying and stopping people moled into our country and our allies countries. Britian does not play with this shit. I expect you'll see some big changes over the next few months there re. how fundamentalist can preach hate. I expect you will see big arrests.