The big dirty secret of why you should worry about a fraud crackdown more than Goldman Sachsrevealed for the first time by an anonymous private equity 'hypocrite' and 'liar.'
#1
I doubt that much will happen with Goldman Sachs. They will probably pay a fine. I don't expect the DOJ criminal probe to lead to much. G-S is probably just a sop to the donk base to appease their anger. Much ado. Congressmen/women will get their face time on the cameras for the folks back home. After all, it is an election year. Some will drop the f-bomb occasionally to give the semblance of having cojones. One thing that has not been factored into fraudonomics is the depth and breadth of anger amongst the voters.
#6
I almost trust the guy on the street who might hold me up more than Wall Street or Washington. At least you know what you are faced with. The robbery is transparent--not covered up like cat scat.
#1
The long term goal is a global Islamic calaphate. The short term goal, according to a very articulate Pakistani Army Major I recently heard speak, is an Islamic unification of the Middle East. Something akin to a United States of Islam, which, according to the Major, is a long held goal of the faith. Perhaps this explains the thorn in the side that the nation of Israel must represent.
#2
The short term goal, according to a very articulate Pakistani Army Major I recently heard speak, is an Islamic unification of the Middle East.
The Islamic Caliphate. Only the Caliph can declare jihad and have the force of islamic law.
Posted by: ed ||
04/30/2010 9:08 Comments ||
Top||
#3
the fun is when the Caliph-wannabe's play Highlander: "There can be only ONE! Die!"
Given Arab military courage, capabilities and tactical genius, it's a good bet most of them will kill each other off or die of fright
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/30/2010 18:35 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The Crusaders and after were defeated, in part, by the pervas SECTARIAN-GEOPOL COMPETITION amongst the Christian nations of Europe. HOWEVER, THE RISE OF NATIONALISM, ETC, AMONG CHRISTIAN EUROS IRONICALLY BROALDY SERVED TO INCREASE ITS INFLUENCE AMONG THE MUSLIM STATES.
Makes you feel like a drone bee or a worker ant. You guys pay up and a little less whining please out there in flyover land. You are making too much money as it is. The din in Washington is giving us a migraine. And besides, it is the patriotic thing to do.
0For decades, public sector unions have peddled the fantasy that government employees were paid less than their counterparts in the private sector. In fact, the pay disparity is the other way around. Government workers, especially at the federal level, make salaries that are scandalously higher than those paid to private sector workers. And let's not forget private sector workers not only have to be sufficiently productive to earn their paychecks, they also must pay the taxes that support the more generous jobs in the public sector.
Data compiled by the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis reveals the extent of the pay gap between federal and private workers. As of 2008, the average federal salary was $119,982, compared with $59,909 for the average private sector employee. In other words, the average federal bureaucrat makes twice as much as the average working taxpayer. Add the value of benefits like health care and pensions, and the gap grows even bigger. The average federal employee's benefits add $40,785 to his annual total compensation, whereas the average working taxpayer's benefits increase his total compensation by only $9,881. In other words, federal workers are paid on average salaries that are twice as generous as those in the private sector, and they receive benefits that are four times greater.
The situation is the same when state and local government compensation data is compared with that of the private sector. As the Cato Institute's Chris Edwards notes in the current issue of the Cato Journal, "The public sector pay advantage is most pronounced in benefits. Bureau of Economic Analysis data show that average compensation in the private sector was $59,909 in 2008, including $50,028 in wages and $9,881 in benefits. Average compensation in the public sector was $67,812, including $52,051 in wages and $15,761 in benefits." Those figures likely underestimate the true gap on the benefits side because the typical government employee gets a guaranteed defined benefit pension under very generous terms, while the private sector norm is a 401(K) defined contribution plan that is subject to the ups and downs of the economy.
With the federal deficit and national debt heading into the stratosphere, taxpayers can no longer afford to support such lucrative government compensation. Public sector pay and benefits at all levels should be reduced to make it comparable to the wages and benefits earned by the average working taxpayer. The first politician to propose a five-year plan for this purpose is likely to be cheered mightily by taxpayers!
#1
This is another prove that this crapy rantburg blog feed trash to readers!!!
What a bunch of crap. But unfortunately, ignorant unthinking readers will swallow this pap whole.
1. The vast majority of federal employees have to have a college degree. So comparing the average wages these college graduates earn to the average wages of private citizens is misleading.
2. Federal employees pay taxes just like everyone else. So if they earn more, they pay more. The author implies in the first paragraph that this isn't so.
3. The wages earned in our household as federal employee are less than what a private citizen in the same technical field would earn. This is partly made up by the benefits. I have a master's degree in mine technical specialty, I have worked for Uncle Sam for over 15 years brings home less than $90K for our family of 4. So we are not getting rich.
I would be more than willing to be reimbursed for what I do as compared to the private sector
**** you rantburg for pandering to the sh*t of America (the tea party and the bastard GOP)
Posted by: *** you rantburg **** without readers ||
04/30/2010 2:49 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Looks like our feed to NPR has attracted our first NPR troll.
Awwww! How kewt.
I redacted his first comment but I left this one in in case anyone wanted a chew toy.
#5
I would be more than willing to be reimbursed for what I do as compared to the private sector
Well, what are you waiting for? If you had any brains you'd stay move to where the money is best.
I'll bet you wouldn't make it two steps in the private sector.
I used to work in a government job. I was actually pulled aside and told on more than one occasion to reduce my productivity so that I wouldn't give management any ideas. I'd say the average worker where I worked probably put out about a quarter of what one would do in the private sector if you counted all the breaks, gabbing, meetings, and long lunches.
And yes, I know that some government workers actually do work hard, but usually they don't have to since job descriptions are so narrow.
As for your point about the article suggesting that government workers don't pay taxes: Go back to school and learn to read. What the author is suggesting is that private workers have to pay the government workers out of their taxes. You pay taxes too, but it just makes you less expensive to the government. Every government worker probably takes about ten private workers to fund, and the government jobs just take away from the higher private sector productivity they would have doing the same job. If it was even necessary. It's a lose-lose situation. That's why government jobs are bad.
#6
Hello, hateful NPR listener. Without pointing out the numerous spelling and usage errors in your college-educated post ("in mine technical specialty"??), I would like to say that the Washington Examiner said this, not Rantburg. We are just a little link aggregator and we put snarky comments inline. Actually, the low population here is rather nice.
Question: have you ever used the phrase "flyover territory" in a hateful manner? How did that make you feel?
#9
Yeah, but that's not the point, BrerRabbit, his needs are more. He is giving all his abilities allow, but his needs are greater.
No wonder he's angry!
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/30/2010 6:24 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I'm betting *** you rantburg **** without readers is a high schooler on dope or a union thug on whiskey. My evidence is the other comment in the sinktrap. I'd say he's a true troll.
#11
The vast majority of federal employees have to have a college degree.
Maybe in the fishbowl of the Beltway with all those offices and shiny buildings. However, those government organizations which actually do work as oppose to 'administrate', the ratio is much smaller. One large sector of the government that is working even this day in Iraq and Afghanistan will have officers and senior NCOs with degrees, but the 'vast' number of everyone else in the 'ranks' are not. Of course, by your own style of discourse one would make a reasonable observation that you don't count those as 'real' employees. Considering that they 'serve', as in 'public servant', rather than lord over their fellow citizens, it's unlikely you could ever identify with them.
#12
I have worked for Uncle Sam for over 15 years brings home less than $90K for our family of 4.
really (Sarcastic sneer) I make 15,540 and have plenty so you make 5-3/4 more than me and still bitching? F**k Y*U, Rich Asshole.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
04/30/2010 7:12 Comments ||
Top||
#13
You bring up a good point Mr. LoveTheCock.com (aka Federal Employee). So let's examine that a bit more.
45% of Federal employees are college graduates vs 29% for the US overall. Yet the average Federal salary (only 45% college grads) is $79,197 ($119,982-$40,785) while the median full time salary for a bachelor's degree holder (includes the higher paid Fed employees who skew the numbers a bit) is $56,118 (2007, US Census pg. 9). But that 40% salary differential becomes an 80% differential when the $41K Fed benefit package is included vs the civilian package.
Mr. LoveTheCock.com,
Now that you were good enough to provide us with your salary ($90K), let's examine your personal situation and compare that with industry. The median mining engineer salary is $75,960. But, that data is skewed by the oil and gas industry salary of $97,840. Since I am going to assume you don't make your living producing oil and gas, the comparable civilian salary is $73K, or if your specialty is classical mineral mining - $69K.
But that is not the end of it. Now let's calculate your bennies. The average Fed bennies were $40,785. Of that $10K was in medical coverage expenses ($40B for 4M employees) and not tied to salary. The rest ($31K) is tied to salary (retirement, days off, ...). Your share of that $90k*($30.8/$79.2K) = $35.0k, for a total bennies package of $45.0k (medical + salary based) for an effective annual pay package of $135,000.
Do you still want to trade jobs with the (overpaid) civilian mining engineer who is making $73k plus $10-15K bennies (IFF he works for a company generous enough to contribute 2% into his 401K)? Not to mention risks of layoffs and the entire company going bust, for which the Feds seem compelled to do for the entire minerals and mining sector. Otherwise Mr. LoveTheCock.com, you come across a selfish, entitled, foul mouthed prick and a not very bright example of the species Dodo Federalis. But unlike the dodo, the Feds seem intent on dragging the entire country into first irrelevance, then extinction.
Oh, by the way, real personal income for Americans decreased by 3.2% last year. What was your Federal cost of living increase, Mr. LoveTheCock.com? (For the non Feds out there, it seemed to have been 3.9%, while national debt increased by $2.35 trillion.)
Posted by: ed ||
04/30/2010 8:02 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Maybe he is one of those losers that get paid $250. a week from a George Soros group.
I wonder if he used a government computer to post this? hmmm.
Yep... thats all we need. More government workers.
Simply genius. Why didn't China or the Soviet Union think of this?
#15
I know a federal employee who worked for an agency. This person decided to leave the government and go into the private sector. The supervisor said: "You know you are leaving a life time job!"
An overly simplified example of revenue, profit, and costs relationships. Suppose a small company (assume a proprietorship) operates on a 5% profit margin (fairly modest). The small business owner realizes he/she has to fork out $1,000,000 in new costs to purchase (fill in the blank, e.g. buy health care insurance, new pollution device, green energy compliance, diversity training, a new machine, create a new job, pay new taxes, etc.). In order to pay for this new $1,000,000 in costs, the company must generate $1,000,000 / 0.05) = $20,000,000 in revenues. If the company is viable, it may be able to satisfy the requirement to spend this $1,000,000 or it might just go out of business and thus lose the benefit it creates to society by creating jobs (and wealth). The current crop of whiz kids in Washington either dont understand such oversimplified basic economics because they have never run a business or they just dont care. And that is the gist of part of the problem in Washington.
#16
I have a master's degree in mine technical specialty, I have worked for Uncle Sam for over 15 years brings home less than $90K for our family of 4.
You have a college education? Dude, you got ripped off.
#17
What sickens me is not only do incompetent in-laws of the politically connected make so much and pay so little, it's the sanctimonious cant about their public service.
Mob turncoat Ron Previte earned more than $1million from the FBI for snitching out Skinny Joey Merlino, a penny ante Philly street thug. Somehow I don't think we got our money's worth and I am quite sure that Ron was not a college graduate who selflessly dedicated decades to the public good.
Posted by: regular joe ||
04/30/2010 14:57 Comments ||
Top||
#18
We frequently refer to 'Rantburg University' around here. I particularly enjoy seeing people like YRWR get an education ...
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/30/2010 16:10 Comments ||
Top||
#19
I still think it's Barney Frank
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/30/2010 18:37 Comments ||
Top||
Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Al-Qaeda leader from the Washington, D.C. area but now hiding in Yemen, played a role in the 9-11 attacks, along with attempted attacks in 2006 on the Canadian Parliament and in 2007 against U.S. soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey. Then on November 5, 2009, he succeeded in helping instigate the deadly attack on Fort Hood, Texas leaving 14 Americans dead and 30 wounded. Al-Awlaki then dispatched a second assassin to bomb a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day, which attempt fortunately failed. Awlaki has since released a video claiming credit for the Fort Hood and airliner attacks, acknowledging his role, and praising the attackers.
Yet the Obama Administration continues to deny the Fort Hood attack was terrorism, failed to grant the casualties the same status as that given casualties from the 2001 Pentagon attack, conspicuously omitted even mention of the words "radical Islamic terrorism" in the official DOD report on the shootings, and will not acknowledge the role of political-correctness in stifling whistleblower warnings of the impending attack.
Now the Administration is refusing to fully comply with a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee subpoena that the Pentagon share documents and witnesses concerning the incident. Senate Homeland Security Chairman Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Ranking Minority Member Susan Collins (R-MA) issued the subpoena after the Administration refused to provide those documents on the request of the committee.
The Administration bases their denial on the argument that releasing the information might endanger their prosecution of Major Nidal Hasan. As a state judge who presided over murder trials for 20 years before coming to Congress, that's ludicrous. Any prosecutor who can't win a conviction against Hasan with literally dozens of eyewitnesses doesn't need to be a prosecutor.
House and Senate members are not convinced that the Pentagon is taking the necessary steps to provide maximum deterrance to similar attacks in the future, or to respond to the aftermath of this attack. This is why subpoenas have been issued, and why I have introduced legislation to remedy these shortcomings. As to the specific bills I introduced this year dealing with the Fort Hood attack, no floor or committee action has yet been taken, but the text of the bills are under consideration for inclusion in this year's Defense Authorization Act.
The Fort Hood Families Benefits Protection Act, HR 4791 in the House and S 2807 by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) in the Senate, would award both military and civilian casualties of the Fort Hood attack the same status as that awarded unilaterally by the Department of Defense to the casualties of the Pentagon attack on September 11, 2001. All casualties would be deemed eligible for the Purple Heart or the DOD civilian award equivalent. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has also been asked to make that determination unilaterally as did former Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in 2001.
The Military Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, HR 4267, protects service members from politically-correct disciplinary action for reporting or taking protective steps against radical Islamic threats.
There is a new Al-Qaeda attack scheme against America that has emerged since 2001, that must be recognized by the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security. "Lone wolves" are being actively recruited by Al-Awlaki and his like over the internet, and encouraged to attack alone if necessary. The attackers may be dysfunctional individuals or even mentally unbalanced, but that makes no difference. The results of the attack are all that matter to Al-Qaeda. Major Hasan, the underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Colleen Rose and Jamie Paulin-Ramirez - the American women implicated in the plot to kill a Swedish cartoonist for drawing Mohammed - all are concrete examples of this new Al-Qaeda attack strategy.
It is a strategy that must be recognized, trained for, and guarded against by our Armed Forces and law enforcement agencies. Refusing to acknowledge reality is not the way to make that happen.
#1
I was curious at the time if this incident would be classified as a combat related GWOT incident. After reading the Pentagon report (spit) I had little doubt. Absolutely appalling. Thank God for Senator John Cornyn. Come on NOVEMBER!
The numbers are shocking: 12,000 people killed in a cycle of violence between Christians and Muslims stretching back more than a decade.
The location: Nigeria, the most populous nation in Africa, lying on the continent's fault line between the largely Muslim north and predominantly Christian south.
The number of people convicted and sentenced for the killings: Zero.
That's just one of many stark assessments about the level of religious persecution around the world today in a huge new report from the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.
The report names more than two dozen countries as offenders. Some engage in what's classically thought of as religious persecution.
#4
Hagar's son Ishmael. Abraham's original name was Abram, as Sarah's was Sarai, before they altered them to mark God's promise...that's what you were thinking of, Besoeker.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
