1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

More than 100k people sign the petition to have Piers Morgan deported

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Obamanation, Jan 9, 2013.

  1. earlpearl

    earlpearl Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,584
    Likes Received:
    150
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    155
    #21
    :D o-cheapnation, my friend, by refusing to comment on the $107.5 million per year 5 guys are earning from tax payers you support it, don't you. By avoidance, you simply tacitly like the fact that 5 guys are scamming tax payers for $107.5 million per year.

    come on o-nation you like that scam, don't you. come on fess up. quit avoiding it. I've put it in front of you multiple times. quit hiding behind your glass of expensive scotch.

    Don't be shy man. Fess up!!!!! :D
     
    earlpearl, Jan 11, 2013 IP
  2. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #22
    You had it, and then you lost it. Still waiting for you to put some meat on your proposal. Right now, as it stands, your proposal sounds a bit like, "There should be world peace". Uh, ok.
     
    Obamanation, Jan 11, 2013 IP
  3. Corwin

    Corwin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,438
    Likes Received:
    107
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    195
    #23
    I agree, too. Earl, you've hit the nail on the head. In Democrat-dominated Massachusetts it's lowest bidder be damned, the money goes to friends. I assume that in Republican-dominated Texas it's the same - one party domination guarantees corruption. They get past the "lowest bidder" by disqualifying anyone lower than the inside vendor.

    It's an open secret in Boston that the reason why this city doesn't have Fios is that Verizon won't pay Mayor Menino (D) his demanded bribe. How can I get outraged when that's the way the system is allowed to work? Am I supposed to assume that if a Republican was mayor things wold be different?

    Now, Earl, if you can tighten your proposal in a NON-PARTISAN way without your usual biased diarrhea, I'll support you.
     
    Corwin, Jan 12, 2013 IP
  4. earlpearl

    earlpearl Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,584
    Likes Received:
    150
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    155
    #24
    so....

    A) you are against world peace. pretty tea partyish of you...if you can get others to fight the wars and your kids and grandkids can pay for it.

    B). so you like the idea of hard working tax payers directly supporting 5 guys to the tune of $107.5 million/year


    C) If I were to tackle an area of govt overspending, something I agree is a problem, I would be happy to tackle the ridiculous overspending on government contracting. Its outrageous. The taxpayers bear the burden.

    For instance, I referenced the salaries of the 5 CEO's that are the biggest contractors to the US. Those 5 guys made a total of $107.5 million in 2011.

    Tax payers direct paid their salaries. 5 guys. $107.5 million. By comparison the CEO's of the other members of S& P 500 companies averaged CEO pay of LESS THAN 1/2 of the Contractors.

    Here is my proposal. Do something like what sports leagues do with free agency. Baseball limited certain high quality free agents to an average salary of the top 125 baseball salaries. That was something like $13.3 million/year. A limited number of quality free agents were given free agency with a caveat offer of $13.3 million/year for a 1 year contract, and if another team wanted them they would have to give the original team a high draft choice.

    Somewhat complicated....but really what the hell. These quality ball players are getting guarenteed contracts for $13.3 million.

    Limit CEO income of govt contractors to an average of what other CEO's make that is less than 1/2 of the other CEO's throw in some other technical caveats.

    Boom!!! We just saved tax payers over $50 million/year.

    Are you for saving tax payers $50 million/year or are you against it?
     
    earlpearl, Jan 12, 2013 IP
  5. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #25
    No, I said complaining about high Govt. Contractor CEO pay is the same as complaining about lack of world peace. Useless. Propose a solution.


    Finally! A concrete proposal, and one I can support. I have no doubt those contracting agencies will find other ways to exploit taxpayers after such a law, but yes, I would definitely be in favor of such a proposal.

    Now its your turn. After all the partisanship, what do you think of my proposals in the OP?
     
    Obamanation, Jan 12, 2013 IP
  6. earlpearl

    earlpearl Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,584
    Likes Received:
    150
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    155
    #26
    I don't know anything about the structure of pension funds. I've had to save my own money, invest, etc. I went somewhat risky when I was younger, got lucky or smart and am conservative now.

    I understand they are a problem but am admittedly ignorant about how they are structured and where the problems come from.

    I have seen as much reporting about public salaries being lower than private salaries. Living in the DC area I definitely know many federal employees. I know some that have had fed jobs "forever". I've also worked virtually exclusively in the private world. When in commercial real estate some of my landlord clients were among the wealthiest people in the region and the country. I met tenant clients who owned businesses. They were way wealthy. Look, I know cops that love to moonlight, etc.

    There are a lot of conflicting reports comparing govt and private sector jobs. Some say govt workers are overpaid vs the private and some say govt workers are underpaid versus the private. I bet most of those reports have a bias one way or the other depending on who is doing the writing.

    My own perspective is that many of the fed versus private jobs are very different. Difficult to compare. OTOH, contractors often do fed work. I was one for about 1 year. I did this totally unique kind of work in a tiny subspecialty...and I had no idea who if anyone was doing something similar and what they were being paid. I didn't care. I was trying to figure how to change from brokerage to something different and interesting. I was sort of lucky in that I had some strong investments helping me along.

    On the contractor side, I assume the contractor engineers I was working with were getting market professional salaries (whatever they were) on the private side. Some of them had gone in and out of govt. I don't know if base salaries were markedly different.

    But without a doubt the contractors were charging the feds something like 2.5 to 3 times the salary rates for the contractor engineering work. On that basis the taxpayers were getting screwed. Those engineers could have been direct working for the feds and saved taxpayers 2.5 to 3 times each hour of work.

    Just a huge huge rip off to tax payers.


    I never ask people their salaries. For a guy who has lived in the DC area as long as I ...I have no idea how fed salary rates and promotions and schedules work.

    I know in this area when lawyers switch from the gov to private they tend to make much much much more. At least the ones who go work for private firms that end up servicing corporations on some aspect of federal law...so on that basis I'd say that the private sector pays significantly more than the public sector.


    With all the folks I know or know of that make their money from govt salaries not one is rich off of it. So I think that slicing salaries from fed workers at $180,000 is inappropriate. At the corporate level there are many higher ups that make dramatically more. By higher ups they aren't big top folks. They are corporate people with some specialty in a world of great big amts of money and a lot of very healthy salaries.

    I do know that in the fed budget there are 3 big scary areas that suck money out of the fed budget: defense, health care and retirement with it primarily being social security not fed govt pensions. Those are the 3 areas that need to be hit.

    With health care there is an issue that overlaps with private health care. The US, private and public spends disproporionately way way more than other nations on health care. It sucks up money from our GDP at a huge rate and percentage. If within the US you could bring overall health care costs to GDP ratio's similar to other nations....everyone would save across the board. Taxpayers would save on reduced monies going to medicare and medicaid, and private folks would save on direct health care and insurance. Private businesses that provide insurance coverage in benefits would save.

    That would be great.

    I'd seriously look at those


    Having yapped about all this stuff, I suspect various states and localities have far bigger issues with pension funds than the feds, proportionately speaking. Nations can run deficits. They can't be huge forever but they can live with them. States need to balance budgets. States should probably deal with this pension issue first. States and localities hire far more workers in the aggregate than do the feds and their abilities to raise monies are more limited.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2013
    earlpearl, Jan 12, 2013 IP
  7. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #27
    @earl: So from all that, I'm trying to figure out if you support any of my proposals. It seems your reasoning was:

    1) There are bigger fish to fry
    2) Pay cuts for the tens of thousands of federal employees who make a SALARY in excess of 180k make no sense because so many federal employees make less
    3) You don't know about the structure of pension funds so you cant comment on it

    Not sure if I read you right, or what to think about it if I did, but let me at least explain the difference between a defined contribution pension plan vs a defined benefit pension plan.

    Defined contribution stipulates that the employee will contribute toward his pension, the employer will contribute toward his pension, and the amounts each will contribute will be defined and front loaded (paid up front). This has several implications:

    1) The money is paid up front so it is always part of the current budget
    2) Dips and rises in the market effect the amount the pension fund will be worth at maturity, so the amount received by the pensioner will adjust accordingly without impacting future state budgets
    3) Pension contributions made by the employer can be fairly considered when determining the actual value of the compensation package.
    4) As the amount of money in the pension account is finite, residual money in the pension account can be passed on to heirs/successors
    5) The pensioner is essentially spending a savings account at retirement, which discourages early retirement and abuse of the system.

    Defined benefit plans, which are most current federal and state benefit plants, have a guaranteed payout of a certain amount (80% of your current salary?) every year after retirement. This too has several obvious implications:

    1) The money in the pensioner will receive is not finite, so budgeting for it is difficult
    2) The money owed to the pensioner is not taken out of the current years budget. Rather, it is treated like a debt with a maturity date at which time payments will start.
    3) Nobody knows how long they will live post retirement, so determining what the real compensation package is for a defined benefit pension recipients is practically impossible until they are dead.
    4) Because the money is never accounted for up front, games can be played with the rules surrounding the pension, creating massive opportunities for fraud and abuse. A few examples are "inheritable pensions" where a person's spouse can continue to receive his pension payments after he dies. Not surprisingly, guys with these types of pensions have very little trouble getting obscenely young wives, and the state picks up the tab. Another popular gimmick in California has been setting up the opportunity to retire as early as your late 40s and early 50s, allowing some pensioner to collect more money from their pensions than they earned during their working years.

    These are not complicated concepts, and I would be very surprised if you did not already understand the differences before I spelled them out. There is a reason why most every private company has already moved off of defined benefit programs. They would be broke if they didn't.

    I would also take issue with your assertion that this problem is the small fish. The combined state's pension shortfalls are already projected around 5 TRILLION dollars and the Federal government is already on the hook for most of that. That alone is nearly triple the size of Obama's debt reduction targets, which he plans to meet mostly with new taxes. The Federal pensions are damn big as well.

    Even if the pensions were not such a large budgetary item, why would we ever attack Social Security, Medicare, or raise taxes before addressing a program which is outright taxpayer abuse?
     
    Obamanation, Jan 12, 2013 IP
  8. earlpearl

    earlpearl Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,584
    Likes Received:
    150
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    155
    #28
    thanks for the quick tutorial. I'm at no position to take a stance on the issue. The last thing I'd do is take the opinion of someone or some info from a person with a known strong political bias, either right or left. I just never do that. I'd have to study up on it to weigh in.

    I know states and local jurisdictions have serious issues. Let them deal with it first. I like when experiments are done on changes. It flushes out all the pros and cons before one does it corporate or nation wide. Forget all the political propaganda beforehand. Try it differently and see how things turn out on an experimental basis.

    I am aware that certain civil servants, (from my awareness) bulk up on overtime and other issues prior to retiring to boost their retirement benefits. That of course sounds like a rip off to me.

    As to fed govt salaries above $180,000.

    I think your proposal is bullshit and another effort from the far right to create an "enemy" out of a certain class and then pound on that enemy for emotional support from the far right.

    Look, I suspect that when fed employees make $180,000 they have very senior positions. At those rates they have to be considered similar to people in very similar positions in big corporations. The corporate folks make mucho mucho more at those positions. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 700,000 and up. Look up senior positions in big corporations. Lots of high paying jobs there. The feds are bigger than any big corporation and senior managers for feds have to oversee similar sizes of staffs and diversity as do the corporate managers and/or specialists.

    The percentage of feds that earn over $180k has to be pretty small. Its got to be a senior type job. Shit, members of congress are at $175,000 or so. It can't be that many relative to the total federal payroll.

    I suspect at that level they are underpaid relative to senior corporate people in big companies, which is comparable in my mind. There is little need to cut their salaries if they are underpaid...unless you are a teapartier and simply want to turn them into villains.

    All in all, fed payroll is small compared to doling out monies. Federal employment is small compared to the number of contractors. Its estimated that private contractors total around 7 million plus. Fed employment is in the 2-3 million person range.

    Up to 7 million govt contractors. That is 5% of the US work force. Remember actual fed payrolls has scarcely grown in 20 years plus but the govt is MUCH bigger and much of that occurred during the Bush years when he grew the contracting totals like crazy.

    I'd shave contractors or move them onto the fed salary schedules and off those contracts that rip off tax payers. Frankly if you moved a lot of those millions of contractors off those cost + salaries where the fed pays the contractors up to 2,3, 4, 5 times the workers rate...taxpayers would save dramatically more.
     
    earlpearl, Jan 12, 2013 IP
  9. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #29
    @Earl: The highest office in the land only pays 400k, and while there is no equivalent in the private sector, the highest paid private sector CEO makes orders of magnitude more.

    There is a reason they call it public service. The compensation package is not supposed to match that of the private sector, and yet several studies show that employment in the public sector pays more, often double than the private sector. Consider also that it takes an act of god to be fired from a public job.

    Double pay, guaranteed generous pension, impossibility to fire, and the general lack of accountability that comes with government work. Its pathetic. I interviewed a guy just two days ago who was trying to move from the public sector. He had a graduate degree from a decent California school. He may have been the single least qualified applicant I have ever interviewed in my entire life. We had a laugh discussing how this guy had managed to retain gainful employment for over 20 years with a six digit compensation package, and then we sobered thinking about the fact that, even though we would never hire him, we are already paying his salary.

    I contracted to the government twice during the 90s. From my experience, government work is the most degrading, uninspiring, non productive, unrewarding, work there is. Everything is political. Success is rarely rewarded. Failure is rebranded as success for next years budget.

    I decided it was the nature of the beast. There is no bottom line to meet. There is no missed deadline that can get you terminated. Next years budget is assured. Next years COLA is assured. Raises and bonuses are assured, and most certainly not based on merit. There is no amount of failure that can ever result in the business going bankrupt, because it is not a business.

    For some people, I would imagine it is the perfect job, and that is fine. Just don't ask the taxpayers to reward that type of work environment with the compensation packages provided in the private sector, where failure results in termination.
     
    Obamanation, Jan 12, 2013 IP
  10. earlpearl

    earlpearl Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,584
    Likes Received:
    150
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    155
    #30
    O-nation: govt work isn't for me either. I did it briefly twice; once when I got of college and decided "this sucks for me". and quickly quit and went into the corporate world, got more business skills, and moved on. I did it once for a year for a govt contractor. I hated it. It wasn't for me. When I worked for the contractor I worked closely w/ 2 guys who were contractors but had both come out of govt. They were sharp as shit and knew their stuff as unique experts in their field. One now works for the world bank, which puts him in world wide expert level...though I suppose that is like working for the govt. The other went back to the feds and has a big shot job. That guy is great, talented, and is worth at least 10 times his salary, whatever it is in terms of value he can give. With regard to the 2nd guy...you can't compare his job and salary to anything in the corporate world. He does something (or did on the expertise he had) that nobody else does anywhere. What is he worth as the world's best? $ 5 million, $50 million, $300 million or maybe somewhere around $100-200,000. I have no idea.

    Business is not some dream world of unbridled competitive sharpness. There are all sorts of weird and unfunctional stuff that occurs all the time, often with people acting like idiots, and screwing everything up.
    Some of the major fuck ups happen at the very top.

    Since corporate salaries are so much higher than govt salaries why pick on every day joe's making $180,000 and up in the govt world. There are corporate wastes of workers making 10 times that in the corporate world...and you might be supporting them via your tax dollars but you are supporting their ineptitude by buying their products or services...that are priced higher than they should be because the company is paying worthless clowns.
     
    earlpearl, Jan 12, 2013 IP
  11. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #31
    Why is it you think hearing about one waste of money is supposed to make me feel better about some other waste of money? I just don't get it. I agree with your idea of capping executive pay for government contracting organizations, but you seem to take issue with trying to reign in compensation at the lower levels, or at the direct government employment level. One doesn't preclude the other, and the pension hole is by far a bigger drain on taxpayer dollars.

    I don't have any original ideas on how to make government jobs more productive, more inspirational, more rewarding of merit. In my opinion, it quite simply isn't the nature of the beast. A wise man once said, "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.". What seems to be the best possible thing to do is restrain government's growth as much as possible. It is a necessary evil.

    Are there some superstars who work for the government? Of course there are. Some of the best superstars working for the government work on the seal teams and are paid next to nothing despite being some of the most elite skilled labor on the face of the planet. It is why it is called public service. These people are usually very successful and become wealthy when leaving the government to work for the private sector, which is as it should be.

    I am also intimately aware of the fact large companies are often completely dysfunctional and keep well paid inept people around. Were capitalism allowed to take its course, many of these companies would fall under the wheels of newer, harder working, more agile companies with fresher ideas, though in practice, those new companies usually end up being acquired by a larger, more wealthy company, mired down in mediocrity.

    None of this is any excuse for tolerating blatant misuse of taxpayer dollars while our idiot of a president is talking about raising taxes and Republicans are talking about cutting benefits. The simple and obvious truth of that should be apparent to you.
     
    Obamanation, Jan 12, 2013 IP
  12. Corwin

    Corwin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,438
    Likes Received:
    107
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    195
    #32
    Well, the model of government is the opposite of the model of private business.

    In private business, you are rewarded for spending as little as possible, having only as many people as is needed to do the job, and making as much of a return on the money as possible.

    In government, you are rewarded for spending as much money as you can, having as many people as you can get to work for you, and you are actually punished for making a profit.

    I don't see how you can psychologically motivate government employees.
     
    Corwin, Jan 14, 2013 IP
  13. earlpearl

    earlpearl Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,584
    Likes Received:
    150
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    155
    #33
    alrighty o-nation. Directly. I think its inappropriate on many many levels to cut govt salaries for people making $180 k and above.

    Of course there are about 37 tea party members of congress whom I think should immeidiately go off the govt payrolls, and since they have so limited a perspective on the health of Americans, we might as well just cut out the costs for their entire offices for about 6 months until reasonable human beings are elected to replace them. then they can staff up again.
     
    earlpearl, Jan 14, 2013 IP
  14. earlpearl

    earlpearl Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,584
    Likes Received:
    150
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    155
    #34
    O-Nation: Its very interesting that the incredibly vast majority of feds earning more than $180,000/year are doctors: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/2011-05-02-high-paying-government-jobs_n.htm

    Did you know that? I didn't. The percentage of docs to the rest of all govt folks earning more than $180,000 is extraordinary. Than on top of that they have years of experience inside the feds...accruing time, promotions, etc. to get to that level.

    then you compare that total to what docs earn on the outside: http://www.medscape.com/features/slideshow/compensation/2012/public

    the fed docs are earning less. When you read between the lines the fed docs are probably earning a lot less than the docs with similar levels of experience from that survey...though it didn't break down data that way.

    A new doc most of the time works for someone else, or if their new their business is slow. They make less. Docs make more money with more experience like every other type of job, especially in professions.

    So while our earlier conversation tended to compare corporate execs and managers the real comparisons are with docs.

    Frankly I believe this cut the high priced fed employees chatter is more political propaganda from the far right that creates villains and then attacks them. I think its unwarrented. In view of the fact that we are primarily speaking of docs and that it appears fed docs with a lot of experience probably trail private docs by a lot of income I think its even more unwarrented.

    Frankly retired docs have lots of income, in my experience. I wouldn't worry about the pensions for fed docs. As much as it is..and its probably very sweet, especially for those who have hit the $180k and above level my suspicions is that it pales in comparisons to the savings docs from the private world have.

    I think its a bullshit idea.
     
    earlpearl, Jan 14, 2013 IP
  15. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #35
    Well at least that is honesty. Tens of thousands of federal workers making a salary of more than 180k, not including those fat defined benefit pensions I mentioned, and you think that is just fine. No surprise there. With wages like that for talentless, unmotivated, paper pushing, middle management hacks, it is perfectly understandable why government jobs are a destination, not a fall back.

    You better look out. Another few years of all our money flowing to the federal government and I may move my operation to DC, so I too can grow fat feeding off the blood of our society's productivity.

    [Edit]Nice article. Clearly you didn't read it, so let me quote something you missed:

    I'll grant you this much. 180k is an arbitrary number, and it is based on salary alone, not compensation package. I'm a progressive guy, how about we take entire compensation package (Medical Benefits, Sick Days, Vacation Days, Pension Benefits, etc) into account and start making cuts at the 100k level. Better still, lets take jobs that have a comparable job in the private sector and cap government compensation to the median package offered by the private sector. Considering Federal employment is for life, it should still be a highly desirable job, right?
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2013
    Obamanation, Jan 14, 2013 IP
  16. earlpearl

    earlpearl Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,584
    Likes Received:
    150
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    155
    #36
    I see you completely avoided the substance of my research and writing. Typical tea party dodge. No meat, no substance, no brains.

    I was even offering to buy you some scotch. I gotta take it back. you don't even deserve the cheap stuff.
     
    earlpearl, Jan 14, 2013 IP
  17. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #37
    I see you didn't read my comment edit.

    [Edit]By the way, you should note your public sector physician's salary list starts at 150, not 180, and truth be told, there are some general practitioners making less than 100.
     
    Obamanation, Jan 14, 2013 IP
  18. earlpearl

    earlpearl Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,584
    Likes Received:
    150
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    155
    #38
    Did you read those stats. The vast vast majority of feds making $180k and above are docs. If you look at the stats, it can't change that much.

    On a fed docs versus private docs basis the fed docs are making less than that survey shows....and that survey of doc salaries shows a lot of docs at younger ages...they haven't even hit peak earning potential. The fed docs are making less than the private docs.

    Meanwhile the fed docs earning $180k and above all have to have significant experience.

    Nice idea o-nation. Drive docs out of fed service. End up with more dead soldiers. that is where tea party thinking leads us.
     
    earlpearl, Jan 14, 2013 IP
  19. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #39
    Don't make us desperate.
    [​IMG]
     
    Obamanation, Jan 18, 2013 IP