Comments on: The Price Of The Parasitical Class

By: M. B. Moon

M. B. Moon — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 22:38:46 +0000

The problem with Bush is he made it look like any idiot could be President.

Almost, but not quite.

By: Myron Pauli

Myron Pauli — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 22:26:34 +0000

The “new” federal plan started in the 1980’s doesn’t have that same “retire at 55” stuff – it works more like a 401k with a little piece of “pension” and Social(ist) (In)security. Still, most state employees retire in 30 years – teachers in their mid 50’s – and cops/firefighters after 20 years.

And so far, the government doesn’t have to fund their pensions in advance – unlike private companies that are supposed to actually fund their plan. Yes, it is a very nice racket.

The ex-Congressmen get $150,000 pensions and then $ millions as lobbyists – like Dole, Daschle, and the rest of the whores. The ex-Generalissimos and Colonels do quite well with the contractors. Ex-cops become “homeland security” consultants – all bringing in large pensions and ripping more off the government.

By: Barbara Grant

Barbara Grant — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:00:44 +0000

Myron’s right about higher-level military personnel retiring and getting nice jobs at high levels within government contracting firms (one does not call them “commercial firms”) that do business with the military and/or civilian agencies–because firms are looking for _contacts_ who can provide _contracts._ Abandon all notion of performance-based awards.

I’d add that the same holds true of high-level employees at the state level, who can then turn around and help firms doing business with their states win contracts.

Pretty soon, we’ll have two types of people in this country–those who work for the government, and those who do not, the former being a “favored class.” Especially with those new 600,000 positions that BHO wishes to create.

By: Dan Maguire

Dan Maguire — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 19:31:37 +0000

I suppose if one started in the private sector in their 20’s, lived frugally, had a pension plan in addition to the 401(K), and generally behaved like a sane person, one could retire by 55. But it certainly wouldn’t come as a matter of course, and I’d want a lot of inflation hedges in the retirement portfolio.

By: Myron Pauli

Myron Pauli — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 18:07:10 +0000

You are watching the tip of the iceberg. Civilians often have to work to 55 or 60 (even more with the newer system) but the military and cops can retire in the 40’s – and collect pensions for TWICE AS LONG as they ever worked. Discount shopping at military commissaries and unlimited golf, tennis, and swimming at the Officers Clubs (we maintain billions of $$ of infrastructure in the US and overseas to keep the Generals happy). Even better, most of them get paid even more for private contractors (Lockheed Martin, Boeing, etc.) peddling overpriced junk to the people they promoted to take their place. Nice racket if you can get it.

The other scandalous part is that it is heavily weighed to the top of the echelon. The enlisted grunts who come back with Post-Traumatic-Stress-Disorder from making Afghanistan the paradise it is today — they get drummed out of the service, no retirement, no fancy golf games at the officers clubs, and no Vice-President job at Northrop Grumman awaits them. Those suckers arrive home to an alcohol and drug habit and a spouse set on divorcing them.

Anna’s benefits from Linda’s 19 years as a state employee – ZERO!

[In what private company is retirement at age 55, or even 60???!!]

By: M. B. Moon

M. B. Moon — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 03:15:17 +0000

I see strong government as a “spiked club” between several strangers. Even if one would rather be peaceful, he may fight to pick up the club before anyone else can.

The story of the “tar baby” applies when it comes to government intervention too.

And also this my fellow citizens: I am offended by much of your behavior yet I recognize that I should not run to the government to outlaw your behavior. Yet some of you, in your fervent self- righteousness, have no such inhibition.

Pragmatism is the rule of the day. But that assumes either no Creator or that He is unprincipled. That seems a rather dangerous assumption so I submit that pragmatism is a foolish philosophy.