A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Apparently "Jeff Gannon" -- that's James Guckert for any of you who knew him through his other businesses, NTTAWWT -- had really good access to all sorts of information: he knew about the invasion of Iraq before the rest of the media, and he also broke the story that Mary Mapes was the producer at CBS News who got the fake Bush ANG docs. Oh, and he also seems to have had a classified CIA memo identifying Valerie Plame as an operative. Funny, that.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Apparently "Jeff Gannon" -- that's James Guckert for any of you who knew him through his other businesses, NTTAWWT -- had really good access to all sorts of information: he knew about the invasion of Iraq before the rest of the media, and he also broke the story that Mary Mapes was the producer at CBS News who got the fake Bush ANG docs. Oh, and he also seems to have had a classified CIA memo identifying Valerie Plame as an operative. Funny, that.

And, from the pics I saw, he's got a huge wang.

[Replaced_Texan]

I didn't realize this, but Brazoria, Matagorda and Galveston counties here in Texas opted out of Social Security 24 years ago, transferring the retirement taxes of county employees into private investment accounts.

Here's an article on what the retirees think of the whole thing: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/san...d/10933779.htm

That's the good news: As the nation prepares to debate a momentous potential change in the bedrock federal retirement plan, there are some real-world experiences in Texas available to be studied as test cases.

The bad news is that the verdict is decidedly inconclusive. No one here can agree whether county retirees are better off than they would have been had they stayed with the Social Security system - a dilemma that precisely mirrors the emerging complexities of the national Social Security debate.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I didn't realize this, but Brazoria, Matagorda and Galveston counties here in Texas opted out of Social Security 24 years ago, transferring the retirement taxes of county employees into private investment accounts.

Go look at the history of PERA. Same sort of thing. Most PERA retirees have done much better than they would have on SS - but, it's a fairly affluent group (they all have jobs), there were no real transition costs, and the model is far different from what is being contemplated for the Bush SS accounts.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I didn't realize this, but Brazoria, Matagorda and Galveston counties here in Texas opted out of Social Security 24 years ago, transferring the retirement taxes of county employees into private investment accounts.

Here's an article on what the retirees think of the whole thing: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/san...d/10933779.htm

Wow - I didn't know counties could do that. When you say the county you mean the country government correct? Or everyone in the county?

Who else can legally opt out of social security?

[Spanky]

Strike my last question. I just was able to access the article and my questions have all been answered.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
Wow - I didn't know counties could do that. When you say the county you mean the country government correct? Or everyone in the county?

Who else can legally opt out of social security?

No one, any more. Certain state and local governmental entities were permitted to do so over a particular period of time on the condition that they maintain a particular type of plan with particular contribution rates. If I still worked where I worked when I had to deal with this, I would have more info, but I don't so I don't. In any event, they can't opt out anymore.

I think there is some kind of church exception, too, but it involves poverty vows or something and I'm pretty sure they investigate and make sure you really are under a vow of poverty that is religious before they let you off the hook.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I've actually getting some zeroes in checks as a Plaintiff the last few years which shocks me.

Of course there were the airline coupons which were useless- then I got a check for $1.50 (honest) from my car lease. But then a $1000 check from an old government job class action- and now- knock wood- an expected $3000 Canadian times four coming soon. Those two were much more limited classes that the typical class action poster child case.

I apologize if you already answered this before I joined, but what was the government class action, and what is the Canadian class action?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
No one, any more. Certain state and local governmental entities were permitted to do so over a particular period of time on the condition that they maintain a particular type of plan with particular contribution rates. If I still worked where I worked when I had to deal with this, I would have more info, but I don't so I don't. In any event, they can't opt out anymore.

I think there is some kind of church exception, too, but it involves poverty vows or something and I'm pretty sure they investigate and make sure you really are under a vow of poverty that is religious before they let you off the hook.

It seems weird that this was changed in 1983. You would think taking away the opt out option from local governments would be something that Reagan would have vetoed. Maybe it was buried in some big legislative "package". Reason number 573 we need a federal line item veto.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
I apologize if you already answered this before I joined, but what was the government class action, and what is the Canadian class action?

Canadian train wreck a few years back, and government screwing a bunch of serfs out of a few $$$ that, taken with interest over time got me to about $1000.

Working for the Feds is weird because bean counters are always trying to screw every employee for a few bucks because across the entire work force it turns into mega-bucks. When I was in government old timers told me a story of when OPM or whatever realized that they were paying salary wrong. They took your salary and paid you in 26 bi-weekly increments. Someone realized that by doing that you were being paid for 365 days across only 364 days. So they went to factoring that into to each paycheck.

They did something like that, but which was wrong, our union sued and years later I got the big bucks!

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
It seems weird that this was changed in 1983. You would think taking away the opt out option from local governments would be something that Reagan would have vetoed. Maybe it was buried in some big legislative "package". Reason number 573 we need a federal line item veto.

Um, shut it. And/or read "Showdown At Gucci Gulch" about the tax stuff that went on in the 80s, especially TRA '86 but also stuff that kind of led up to it.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Canadian train wreck a few years back, and government screwing a bunch of serfs out of a few $$$ that, taken with interest over time got me to about $1000.

Working for the Feds is weird because bean counters are always trying to screw every employee for a few bucks because across the entire work force it turns into mega-bucks. When I was in government old timers told me a story of when OPM or whatever realized that they were paying salary wrong. They took your salary and paid you in 26 bi-weekly increments. Someone realized that by doing that you were being paid for 365 days across only 364 days. So they went to factoring that into to each paycheck.

They did something like that, but which was wrong, our union sued and years later I got the big bucks!

I like that you were in a union and took the money. I would think you would have had to have opted out or something for ideological reasons.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I like that you were in a union and took the money. I would think you would have had to have opted out or something for ideological reasons.

Sugar i handled grievances for the union- do you find that attractive? (Fed labor law is the most frustrating area of law I've heard of- you really can only win on procedure- did management fuck up in documenting and setting the punishment. When a manager wants to screw someone for bad reason he'd be really careful- when the employee deserved to get fired the manager would be lax and not cross all the Ts. We could usually only help the truly guilty.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Um, shut it.

Now now, be nice to the new guy.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Now now, be nice to the new guy.

That was nice.

No, Hank, your inability to stand up for your beliefs makes you, if anything, less attractive.