WWTBAM Bored

A home for the weary.
It is currently Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:42 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 209 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 10:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:52 pm
Posts: 3724
Location: Merion, Pa.
jarnon wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:
jarnon wrote:
McCabe has retired, effective immediately, so he won't be the trigger of the next "Saturday night massacre."

I thought McCabe's resignation wasn't effective until early March.
He's taking all his accumulated time off between now and then, so he doesn't have to work another day.
Now that McCabe has been fired just before becoming eligible for a full pension, he no longer has to hide his feelings about the Trump administration.
Quote:
I have been an FBI Special Agent for over 21 years. I spent half of that time investigating Russian Organized Crime as a street agent and Supervisor in New York City. I have spent the second half of my career focusing on national security issues and protecting this country from terrorism. I served in some of the most challenging, demanding investigative and leadership roles in the FBI. And I was privileged to serve as Deputy Director during a particularly tough time.

For the last year and a half, my family and I have been the targets of an unrelenting assault on our reputation and my service to this country. Articles too numerous to count have leveled every sort of false, defamatory and degrading allegation against us. The president’s tweets have amplified and exacerbated it all. He called for my firing. He called for me to be stripped of my pension after more than 20 years of service. And all along we have said nothing, never wanting to distract from the mission of the FBI by addressing the lies told and repeated about it.

No more.

The investigation by the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) has to be understood in the context of the attacks on my credibility. The investigation flows from my attempt to explain the FBI’s involvement and my supervision of investigations involving Hillary Clinton. I was being portrayed in the media over and over as a political partisan, accused of closing down investigations under political pressure. The FBI was portrayed as caving under that pressure, and making decisions for political rather than law enforcement purposes. Nothing was further from the truth. In fact, this entire investigation stems from my efforts, fully authorized under FBI rules, to set the record straight on behalf of the Bureau and to make it clear that we were continuing an investigation that people in DOJ opposed.

The OIG investigation has focused on information I chose to share with a reporter through my public affairs officer and a legal counselor. As Deputy Director, I was one of only a few people who had the authority to do that. It was not a secret, it took place over several days, and others, including the Director, were aware of the interaction with the reporter. It was the same type of exchange with the media that the Deputy Director oversees several times per week. In fact it was the same type of work that I continued to do under Director Wray, at his request. The investigation subsequently focused on who I talked to, when I talked to them, and so forth. During these inquiries, I answered questions truthfully and as accurately as I could amidst the chaos that surrounded me. And when I thought my answers were misunderstood, I contacted investigators to correct them.

But looking at that in isolation completely misses the big picture. The big picture is a tale of what can happen when law enforcement is politicized, public servants are attacked, and people who are supposed to cherish and protect our institutions become instruments for damaging those institutions and people.

Here is the reality: I am being singled out and treated this way because of the role I played, the actions I took, and the events I witnessed in the aftermath of the firing of James Comey. The release of this report was accelerated only after my testimony to the House Intelligence Committee revealed that I would corroborate former Director Comey’s accounts of his discussions with the President. The OIG’s focus on me and this report became a part of an unprecedented effort by the Administration, driven by the President himself, to remove me from my position, destroy my reputation, and possibly strip me of a pension that I worked 21 years to earn. The accelerated release of the report, and the punitive actions taken in response, make sense only when viewed through this lens. Thursday’s comments from the White House are just the latest example of this.

This attack on my credibility is one part of a larger effort not just to slander me personally, but to taint the FBI, law enforcement, and intelligence professionals more generally. It is part of this Administration’s ongoing war on the FBI and the efforts of the Special Counsel investigation, which continue to this day. Their persistence in this campaign only highlights the importance of the Special Counsel’s work.

I have always prided myself on serving my country with distinction and integrity, and I have always encouraged those around me to do the same. Just ask them. To have my career end in this way, and to be accused of lacking candor when at worst I was distracted in the misty fo chaotic events, is incredibly disappointing and unfair. But it will not erase the important work I was prevailed to be a part of, the results of which will in the end be revealed for the country to see.

I have unfailing faith in the men and women of the FBI and I am confident that their efforts to seek justice will not be deterred.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 14446
Quote:
I have unfailing faith in the men and women of the FBI and I am confident that their efforts to seek justice will not be deterred.


I have a feeling those efforts are going to intensify. And that Mueller will now have some more ammunition in regard to obstruction of justice charges.

The number of people lining up at Mueller's door is getting so long, he's going to have to install a take-a-number machine to keep order.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2018 3:53 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 16342
Location: By the phone
jarnon wrote:
jarnon wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:
I thought McCabe's resignation wasn't effective until early March.
He's taking all his accumulated time off between now and then, so he doesn't have to work another day.
Now that McCabe has been fired just before becoming eligible for a full pension, he no longer has to hide his feelings about the Trump administration.
Quote:
I have been an FBI Special Agent for over 21 years. I spent half of that time investigating Russian Organized Crime as a street agent and Supervisor in New York City. I have spent the second half of my career focusing on national security issues and protecting this country from terrorism. I served in some of the most challenging, demanding investigative and leadership roles in the FBI. And I was privileged to serve as Deputy Director during a particularly tough time.

For the last year and a half, my family and I have been the targets of an unrelenting assault on our reputation and my service to this country. Articles too numerous to count have leveled every sort of false, defamatory and degrading allegation against us. The president’s tweets have amplified and exacerbated it all. He called for my firing. He called for me to be stripped of my pension after more than 20 years of service. And all along we have said nothing, never wanting to distract from the mission of the FBI by addressing the lies told and repeated about it.

No more.

The investigation by the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) has to be understood in the context of the attacks on my credibility. The investigation flows from my attempt to explain the FBI’s involvement and my supervision of investigations involving Hillary Clinton. I was being portrayed in the media over and over as a political partisan, accused of closing down investigations under political pressure. The FBI was portrayed as caving under that pressure, and making decisions for political rather than law enforcement purposes. Nothing was further from the truth. In fact, this entire investigation stems from my efforts, fully authorized under FBI rules, to set the record straight on behalf of the Bureau and to make it clear that we were continuing an investigation that people in DOJ opposed.

The OIG investigation has focused on information I chose to share with a reporter through my public affairs officer and a legal counselor. As Deputy Director, I was one of only a few people who had the authority to do that. It was not a secret, it took place over several days, and others, including the Director, were aware of the interaction with the reporter. It was the same type of exchange with the media that the Deputy Director oversees several times per week. In fact it was the same type of work that I continued to do under Director Wray, at his request. The investigation subsequently focused on who I talked to, when I talked to them, and so forth. During these inquiries, I answered questions truthfully and as accurately as I could amidst the chaos that surrounded me. And when I thought my answers were misunderstood, I contacted investigators to correct them.

But looking at that in isolation completely misses the big picture. The big picture is a tale of what can happen when law enforcement is politicized, public servants are attacked, and people who are supposed to cherish and protect our institutions become instruments for damaging those institutions and people.

Here is the reality: I am being singled out and treated this way because of the role I played, the actions I took, and the events I witnessed in the aftermath of the firing of James Comey. The release of this report was accelerated only after my testimony to the House Intelligence Committee revealed that I would corroborate former Director Comey’s accounts of his discussions with the President. The OIG’s focus on me and this report became a part of an unprecedented effort by the Administration, driven by the President himself, to remove me from my position, destroy my reputation, and possibly strip me of a pension that I worked 21 years to earn. The accelerated release of the report, and the punitive actions taken in response, make sense only when viewed through this lens. Thursday’s comments from the White House are just the latest example of this.

This attack on my credibility is one part of a larger effort not just to slander me personally, but to taint the FBI, law enforcement, and intelligence professionals more generally. It is part of this Administration’s ongoing war on the FBI and the efforts of the Special Counsel investigation, which continue to this day. Their persistence in this campaign only highlights the importance of the Special Counsel’s work.

I have always prided myself on serving my country with distinction and integrity, and I have always encouraged those around me to do the same. Just ask them. To have my career end in this way, and to be accused of lacking candor when at worst I was distracted in the misty fo chaotic events, is incredibly disappointing and unfair. But it will not erase the important work I was prevailed to be a part of, the results of which will in the end be revealed for the country to see.

I have unfailing faith in the men and women of the FBI and I am confident that their efforts to seek justice will not be deterred.
As I understand it, he already has in enough service time to retire with his pension. He just needs to retire from a federal job -- any federal job -- after he turned 50 today, and apparently it doesn't matter how long (or short) a time he holds that job. A couple of Democratic Congressman have already offered him positions which, if my understanding is correct, would allow him to receive his full pension after he retires from them, even if he only holds the job for a day or two.

A story in Friday's Los Angeles Times bears out the notion that McCabe is being treated differently than other similarly situated agents have been treated. For one thing, the investigation into his alleged misdeeds apparently proceeded at lighting speed as compared to similar investigations in the past. For another, the FBI's usual practice when it wants someone gone is to allow them to retire. With these facts as background, it seems pretty clear that firing McCabe two days before he became eligible for a full pension was, in fact, an act of political retribution.

It's good to know that someone is looking out for whistleblowers. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2018 8:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 9335
Location: In Texas of course!
Bob78164 wrote:
It's good to know that someone is looking out for whistleblowers. --Bob


I only he'd also gotten blowjobs from an intern he'd be your perfect federal employee, wouldn't he? The man is a disgrace. But I guess that's why the Dem party loves him so much, even without the BJ.

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2018 8:29 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 16342
Location: By the phone
BackInTex wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
It's good to know that someone is looking out for whistleblowers. --Bob


I only he'd also gotten blowjobs from an intern he'd be your perfect federal employee, wouldn't he? The man is a disgrace. But I guess that's why the Dem party loves him so much, even without the BJ.
What's your evidence that he's a disgrace?

Ordinarily I'd be inclined to credit the disciplinary board's findings. But given what appear to be clear procedural improprieties, you (well, anyone whose mind wasn't made up in advance) have to wonder whether the board was motivated to find a reason to discredit McCabe. It's clear that there's enough cause for concern to justify an investigation into the board's procedures.

But we'll probably have to wait until next January before that investigation actually occurs. I intend to do my part to see that it happens. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2018 9:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 3334
Location: Lacey, Washington
The media feels it is such a shame and outrage that this guy gets fired just before he is eligible to get his pension. What they're not asking, but is a concern to me, is how and why this guy gets to retire at the age of 50 AND gets a frickin PENSION? Fro what I understand, it is at least $60,000 a year for the rest of his life.

Who the hell is so generous with my tax money? He is supposed to be working for the public. That's supposed to be a duty and a sacrifice, not a racket. Why don't I, or anyone I know of, get a pension?

I would have gladly retired 12 years ago if they were giving me $60,000 a year. And is there any loophole to it that you can't work another job once you get the pension? Probably not. This is what I'm outraged about.

PS:
Quote:
I intend to do my part to see that it happens.


You go ahead and do your part, bob-tel. I noticed you haven't responded to my post or apologized to me. I guess you have no answer.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2018 10:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 14446
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Who the hell is so generous with my tax money? He is supposed to be working for the public. That's supposed to be a duty and a sacrifice, not a racket. Why don't I, or anyone I know of, get a pension?


I do not begrudge anyone who serves in the military or a police organization from getting enhanced retirement benefits. I doubt your job runs the risk of your getting shot on a regular basis. Mine doesn't, and when I worked in government service it didn't.

According to his Wikipedia page, McCabe started his FBI career on the SWAT team in the New York field office. He later became a supervisory special agent at the Eurasian Organized Crime Task Force before getting into higher management positions. He was part of the investigation into the Boston Marathon bombings. He later secured the arrest of Ahmed Abu Khattala for involvement in the Benghazi attacks.

But you think that giving men and women like him a pension is a racket. What you really mean when you say, "we thank you for your service" is "we thank you for your service as long as it doesn't cost me anything."

That's about as disgusting a statement as you've ever made on this Bored.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2018 10:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 14446
BackInTex wrote:
The man is a disgrace.


Was he a disgrace when he helped catch the Boston Marathon killers or the Benghazi terrorists? Or the people he put away on the Organized Crime Task Force?

The irony of this entire situation is that the vast majority of FBI agents probably are Republicans who are being villified by everyone in the Trump administration as part of some vast conspiracy to elect Hillary that wound up doing the one thing that, more than anything, cost her the election, namely the reopening of the e-mail investigation at a time when all Comey had to do was sit on it for two weeks and Hillary would probably have been elected.

The reason there is little "evidence" of collusion so far is that Mueller runs a tight ship. Remember George Papadapolous? No one had heard of him until he pled guilty, and it now appears he has a heck of a lot of information about Trump campaign activities.

The hammer is coming down pretty soon and that's what has Trump scared.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2018 12:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 3334
Location: Lacey, Washington
silverscreenselect wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Who the hell is so generous with my tax money? He is supposed to be working for the public. That's supposed to be a duty and a sacrifice, not a racket. Why don't I, or anyone I know of, get a pension?


I do not begrudge anyone who serves in the military or a police organization from getting enhanced retirement benefits. I doubt your job runs the risk of your getting shot on a regular basis. Mine doesn't, and when I worked in government service it didn't.

According to his Wikipedia page, McCabe started his FBI career on the SWAT team in the New York field office. He later became a supervisory special agent at the Eurasian Organized Crime Task Force before getting into higher management positions. He was part of the investigation into the Boston Marathon bombings. He later secured the arrest of Ahmed Abu Khattala for involvement in the Benghazi attacks.

But you think that giving men and women like him a pension is a racket. What you really mean when you say, "we thank you for your service" is "we thank you for your service as long as it doesn't cost me anything."

That's about as disgusting a statement as you've ever made on this Bored.


Of course, hockey puck. Anything I say is disgusting to you. Multiply the McCabes by thousands and thousands. I ask myself, why haven't any of the companies I've ever worked for had a pension plan for their workers? Of course, to you it's easy. Because they're greedy, just like me. But I would say it's because they just can't afford to, or they're prohibited by some law or other. So why does our federal government, which is supposed to be fiscally prudent, give expensive pensions to their workers? Did Lois Lerner risk her life to discriminate against conservative groups? She apparently got her pension, plus bonuses, and never faced any punishment.

I don't know what the average federal worker gets for retirement benefits, and neither do you, because, apparently, we are not supposed to know.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/14/pensions-for-retired-feds-including-lois-lerner-are-kept-secret/
http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/15/we-cant-find-out-how-much-retired-federa

And of course, these two reporters are disgusting to for asking the same question I did.

Why is that, Hockey Puck?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2018 12:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 3334
Location: Lacey, Washington
Bob78164 wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
It's good to know that someone is looking out for whistleblowers. --Bob


I only he'd also gotten blowjobs from an intern he'd be your perfect federal employee, wouldn't he? The man is a disgrace. But I guess that's why the Dem party loves him so much, even without the BJ.
What's your evidence that he's a disgrace?


Earlier post from bob-tel:

Quote:
No one who wants to shoot up a school is going to be deterred by the possibility that they might run into an armed teacher.


Where's your evidence for that?

Here's the thing, bob-tel: People base their OPINIONS on what they know and what they believe. You believe, based on your experience, that "No one who wants to shoot up a school is going to be deterred by the possibility that they might run into an armed teacher.". You may be right, you may be wrong. You could probably find a "study" that "suggests" that's the case, and it will probably have been commissioned by one of George Soros' dummy organizations, but that is not 'evidence'. Many people believe that they WILL be deterred. And even if they aren't, they believe it will ultimately save lives. They may be right, they may be wrong. But their concern and compassion is every bit as genuine and sincere as yours is. Many, if not most of the people who hold that opinion also have children in school. Your problem, and that of hockey puck, is you don't understand that fact. Or, you just don't want to believe it and think yourself to have superior moral compassion than those who disagree with you. Neither does the mainstream media, apparently.

BiT believes, from what he knows and his experience, that McCabe did disgraceful things. His OPINION is as valid as yours. So get off your high horse, man. Quit demanding 'evidence' from other people when you're so quick to spout your opinions as fact. If you have no idea why he would have such an opinion, at least give him the courtesy of researching it for yourself. Maybe then you'd learn something.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2018 3:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 14446
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
I ask myself, why haven't any of the companies I've ever worked for had a pension plan for their workers? Of course, to you it's easy. Because they're greedy, just like me. But I would say it's because they just can't afford to, or they're prohibited by some law or other.


Well, actually Flock, you're right for once. Not all that long ago, say 30 years or so, a lot of companies offered pensions. And then they figured out that offering 401 and similar plans was a lot cheaper so many of them did away with pensions. It's not because they "can't afford to." Many of those same companies are reporting record profits and stock prices year after year. It's because it's cheaper. And because workers bought into, one way or another, the idea that somehow 401 plans were better than company pensions. The only workers who still have pensions are those few with strong unions that people like you want to do away with.

So, in the name of "progress" and record stock prices, companies did away with pensions. Yet, you're upset that federal workers, who make less money than their counterparts in the private sector, have one of the few benefits that people like you happily haven't given away in the name of free enterprise. And those workers with the most dangerous jobs of all have the best pensions.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2018 7:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:25 am
Posts: 12378
Location: mired in the bureaucracy
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
I don't know what the average federal worker gets for retirement benefits, and neither do you, because, apparently, we are not supposed to know.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/14/pensions-for-retired-feds-including-lois-lerner-are-kept-secret/
http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/15/we-cant-find-out-how-much-retired-federa

And of course, these two reporters are disgusting to for asking the same question I did.

Why is that, Hockey Puck?

I believe I can shed some light on this. First, federal employee salaries are available online, such as at https://www.generalschedule.org/. All employees with the same grade get the same base salary. Each state has a "location adjustment" based on cost of living.

Second, pensions for federal employees are based on a number of factors. Those who have been employed fall under one of two pension systems - Federal Employee Retirement System or Civil Service Retirement System. The calculations are different for each system - as I recall, FERS was based on a 6% figure, and employees were not eligible for Social Security. CSRS changes the calculation to allow retirees to claim Social Security and they can also make contributions to what is known as the Thrift Savings Plan, up to 3% of their salary, matched by the government.

That is why it would be hard to determine what a pension might be - it's based on many different factors. And it's not hard to see why disclosure could be a violation of privacy, since it would involve revealing how much someone may or may not have contributed through the TSP or how much they are receiving from Social Security, or even which retirement system they fall under.

_________________
"Elen sila lumenn omentielvo...A star shines on the hour of our meeting."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2018 7:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 3334
Location: Lacey, Washington
silverscreenselect wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
I ask myself, why haven't any of the companies I've ever worked for had a pension plan for their workers? Of course, to you it's easy. Because they're greedy, just like me. But I would say it's because they just can't afford to, or they're prohibited by some law or other.


Well, actually Flock, you're right for once. Not all that long ago, say 30 years or so, a lot of companies offered pensions. And then they figured out that offering 401 and similar plans was a lot cheaper so many of them did away with pensions. It's not because they "can't afford to." Many of those same companies are reporting record profits and stock prices year after year. It's because it's cheaper. And because workers bought into, one way or another, the idea that somehow 401 plans were better than company pensions. The only workers who still have pensions are those few with strong unions that people like you want to do away with.

So, in the name of "progress" and record stock prices, companies did away with pensions. Yet, you're upset that federal workers, who make less money than their counterparts in the private sector, have one of the few benefits that people like you happily haven't given away in the name of free enterprise. And those workers with the most dangerous jobs of all have the best pensions.


No, I was wrong about how pensions went away. I wouldn't knee-jerkingly say 'greed' like you, but it was a cost-cutting move, made possible by Congress in 1978. And it caught on, replacing pensions. I would rather have a pension, but in reality, it probably wouldn't have helped me, or many other people. The longest I was with one single company was 14 years, and that ended because the company went out of business. I probably wouldn't have benefitted from one. And most people nowadays don't or can't stay with one company their whole career. Federal Government workers, as far as I can tell, stay federal government workers their whole careers. It seems to be very difficult to fire a bureaucrat, and their company will continue until it can't hide it's debt anymore. Then we'll all be worrying about other things besides pensions and 401k's.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:50 am 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 16342
Location: By the phone
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
The media feels it is such a shame and outrage that this guy gets fired just before he is eligible to get his pension. What they're not asking, but is a concern to me, is how and why this guy gets to retire at the age of 50 AND gets a frickin PENSION? Fro what I understand, it is at least $60,000 a year for the rest of his life.
It's because he spent at least 20 years, not just as a federal employee, but as a law enforcement officer in the line of fire. He's position as Deputy Director doesn't count toward his 20 years.

I'm okay with paying a pension to someone who spends 20 years in the line of fire. Aren't you? --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2018 10:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 14446
Bob78164 wrote:
I'm okay with paying a pension to someone who spends 20 years in the line of fire. Aren't you? --Bob


Conservatives like to wrap themselves up in the flag and claim to support our military and police until it comes time to actually spend money on them.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2018 11:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 3334
Location: Lacey, Washington
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
The media feels it is such a shame and outrage that this guy gets fired just before he is eligible to get his pension. What they're not asking, but is a concern to me, is how and why this guy gets to retire at the age of 50 AND gets a frickin PENSION? Fro what I understand, it is at least $60,000 a year for the rest of his life.
It's because he spent at least 20 years, not just as a federal employee, but as a law enforcement officer in the line of fire. He's position as Deputy Director doesn't count toward his 20 years.

I'm okay with paying a pension to someone who spends 20 years in the line of fire. Aren't you? --Bob


First of all, bob-tel, I admitted I was wrong about the cause of pensions being replaced by 401K's. Admitting you were wrong about something is something you refuse to do, even though you have a history of being wrong about a great many things.
Second of all, my original point of that post was questioning why public servants get pensions while the rest of us deal with 401k's. I think by my own research, I've answered that question. I still don't think it's right, but I understand why.

This just shows that you DON't read my posts. You just react. You are not the only one.

Third of all, you seem to only respond to those posts where you can either shake a pointy stick or act like you are the ultimate authority on the subject. Where's your response to calling me 'infantile'? I've noticed you haven't used 'donny' in a while, but it might be you haven't gotten the chance to. But you haven't yet addressed the other point on that post. Or the other post where I responded to your demand that BiT explain his opinion. Also, you've never responded to my question about Obama over a year ago. When you know you are wrong, you just ignore it.


Last edited by flockofseagulls104 on Mon Mar 19, 2018 11:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2018 11:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 3334
Location: Lacey, Washington
silverscreenselect wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
I'm okay with paying a pension to someone who spends 20 years in the line of fire. Aren't you? --Bob


Conservatives like to wrap themselves up in the flag and claim to support our military and police until it comes time to actually spend money on them.


Showing your bigotry again, hp. You, like bob-tel, do not read my posts. You knee-jerkingly react to them with stereotypes like this.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2018 12:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:04 pm
Posts: 3498
earendel wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
I don't know what the average federal worker gets for retirement benefits, and neither do you, because, apparently, we are not supposed to know.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/14/pensions-for-retired-feds-including-lois-lerner-are-kept-secret/
http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/15/we-cant-find-out-how-much-retired-federa

And of course, these two reporters are disgusting to for asking the same question I did.

Why is that, Hockey Puck?

I believe I can shed some light on this. First, federal employee salaries are available online, such as at https://www.generalschedule.org/. All employees with the same grade get the same base salary. Each state has a "location adjustment" based on cost of living.

Second, pensions for federal employees are based on a number of factors. Those who have been employed fall under one of two pension systems - Federal Employee Retirement System or Civil Service Retirement System. The calculations are different for each system - as I recall, FERS was based on a 6% figure, and employees were not eligible for Social Security. CSRS changes the calculation to allow retirees to claim Social Security and they can also make contributions to what is known as the Thrift Savings Plan, up to 3% of their salary, matched by the government.

That is why it would be hard to determine what a pension might be - it's based on many different factors. And it's not hard to see why disclosure could be a violation of privacy, since it would involve revealing how much someone may or may not have contributed through the TSP or how much they are receiving from Social Security, or even which retirement system they fall under.


Earendel beat me to it. (Although he had it backwards -- FERS retires get social security benefits and CSRS are limited to recovering SS just for was earned on non-CSRS jobs.)

I was going to suggest that Flock find another place to get some of his info, because those two sites apparently can't research worth a damn.

A simple Google search of federal employee retirement benefits immediately gives you:

https://www.opm.gov/retirement-services ... mputation/

That pension (and the health insurance coverage and matching "savings plan" contributions) is an incentive to hiring better federal employees. Love of country and public service can only take a person so far. As an attorney, I probably am making, at a minimum, half of what I would make in private practice, and it could be a third.

I guess that I now am on Flock's "bad side" due to my $60,000+ pension (in current year dollars), plus SS and a retirement account, when I retire after nearly 40 years of federal service. :wink:

_________________
Here's Wylie's kick, it's high, it holds
up there, Rodgers takes the ball at the 30, he's hit and got away,
back up field to the 35, to the 40, he's to the 45, he's to the 50 to
the 45, to the 40, to the 35, to the 20, to the 10, he's all the way
home........[crowd cheering].......HOLY MOLY, MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD DID
THAT PUT 'EM IN THE AISLES.....JOHNNY THE JET RODGERS JUST TORE 'EM
LOOSE FROM THEIR SHOES!!!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2018 12:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 3334
Location: Lacey, Washington
Appa23 wrote:
earendel wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
I don't know what the average federal worker gets for retirement benefits, and neither do you, because, apparently, we are not supposed to know.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/14/pensions-for-retired-feds-including-lois-lerner-are-kept-secret/
http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/15/we-cant-find-out-how-much-retired-federa

And of course, these two reporters are disgusting to for asking the same question I did.

Why is that, Hockey Puck?

I believe I can shed some light on this. First, federal employee salaries are available online, such as at https://www.generalschedule.org/. All employees with the same grade get the same base salary. Each state has a "location adjustment" based on cost of living.

Second, pensions for federal employees are based on a number of factors. Those who have been employed fall under one of two pension systems - Federal Employee Retirement System or Civil Service Retirement System. The calculations are different for each system - as I recall, FERS was based on a 6% figure, and employees were not eligible for Social Security. CSRS changes the calculation to allow retirees to claim Social Security and they can also make contributions to what is known as the Thrift Savings Plan, up to 3% of their salary, matched by the government.

That is why it would be hard to determine what a pension might be - it's based on many different factors. And it's not hard to see why disclosure could be a violation of privacy, since it would involve revealing how much someone may or may not have contributed through the TSP or how much they are receiving from Social Security, or even which retirement system they fall under.


Earendel beat me to it. (Although he had it backwards -- FERS retires get social security benefits and CSRS are limited to recovering SS just for was earned on non-CSRS jobs.)

I was going to suggest that Flock find another place to get some of his info, because those two sites apparently can't research worth a damn.

A simple Google search of federal employee retirement benefits immediately gives you:

https://www.opm.gov/retirement-services ... mputation/

That pension (and the health insurance coverage and matching "savings plan" contributions) is an incentive to hiring better federal employees. Love of country and public service can only take a person so far. As an attorney, I probably am making, at a minimum, half of what I would make in private practice, and it could be a third.

I guess that I now am on Flock's "bad side" due to my $60,000+ pension (in current year dollars), plus SS and a retirement account, when I retire after nearly 40 years of federal service. :wink:


You get what you signed up for. I'm not a liberal who gets upset about what other people make. My point, which got sidetracked, is why all the media are so upset about that he doesn't get his pension, and don't talk about the things he may have done or not done to get himself fired.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 5:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 9335
Location: In Texas of course!
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
The media feels it is such a shame and outrage that this guy gets fired just before he is eligible to get his pension. What they're not asking, but is a concern to me, is how and why this guy gets to retire at the age of 50 AND gets a frickin PENSION? Fro what I understand, it is at least $60,000 a year for the rest of his life.
It's because he spent at least 20 years, not just as a federal employee, but as a law enforcement officer in the line of fire. He's position as Deputy Director doesn't count toward his 20 years.

I'm okay with paying a pension to someone who spends 20 years in the line of fire. Aren't you? --Bob


Even dirty cops? Really? Have you no desire for accountability?

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:30 am 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 16342
Location: By the phone
BackInTex wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
The media feels it is such a shame and outrage that this guy gets fired just before he is eligible to get his pension. What they're not asking, but is a concern to me, is how and why this guy gets to retire at the age of 50 AND gets a frickin PENSION? Fro what I understand, it is at least $60,000 a year for the rest of his life.
It's because he spent at least 20 years, not just as a federal employee, but as a law enforcement officer in the line of fire. He's position as Deputy Director doesn't count toward his 20 years.

I'm okay with paying a pension to someone who spends 20 years in the line of fire. Aren't you? --Bob


Even dirty cops? Really? Have you no desire for accountability?
He's not, and never was, a dirty cop, even if the disciplinary panel was right. And given what appear to be clear procedural irregularities, the panel's findings are, to say the least, subject to question.

Sadly, I am quite confident that the current Congress will refuse to ask those questions. So we'll have to wait until January to start getting the answers we deserve. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 11:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 3334
Location: Lacey, Washington
Bob78164 wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
It's because he spent at least 20 years, not just as a federal employee, but as a law enforcement officer in the line of fire. He's position as Deputy Director doesn't count toward his 20 years.

I'm okay with paying a pension to someone who spends 20 years in the line of fire. Aren't you? --Bob


Even dirty cops? Really? Have you no desire for accountability?
He's not, and never was, a dirty cop, even if the disciplinary panel was right. And given what appear to be clear procedural irregularities, the panel's findings are, to say the least, subject to question.

Sadly, I am quite confident that the current Congress will refuse to ask those questions. So we'll have to wait until January to start getting the answers we deserve. --Bob

If you are going to claim there were procedural irregularities, please list them and justify your claims.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 12:16 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 16342
Location: By the phone
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
BackInTex wrote:

Even dirty cops? Really? Have you no desire for accountability?
He's not, and never was, a dirty cop, even if the disciplinary panel was right. And given what appear to be clear procedural irregularities, the panel's findings are, to say the least, subject to question.

Sadly, I am quite confident that the current Congress will refuse to ask those questions. So we'll have to wait until January to start getting the answers we deserve. --Bob

If you are going to claim there were procedural irregularities, please list them and justify your claims.
Sure. When John Yoo was subject to departmental discipline for writing the torture memos, he got six months to respond to the panel's findings. McCabe got four days. After Yoo submitted his lengthy brief contesting the panel's action, the Department took another six months to consider the matter before reducing the recommended discipline. Here, the Department made the decision in one day.

More generally, it is routine for the Bureau to allow similarly situated agents to retire or resign rather than firing them. But in this case, Donny's very public victory lap, expressly linked to the ongoing investigation into his conduct, makes clear that what was really going on was a warning shot to any current federal employees who might have information adverse to Donny.

It may be that the panel's decision was, in fact, supported by the facts, and I understand that eventually its report will be made public so we'll be able to better judge its merits. But from where I sit, this bears all the hallmarks of a political hit designed to intimidate potential whistleblowers. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 12:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 3334
Location: Lacey, Washington
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
He's not, and never was, a dirty cop, even if the disciplinary panel was right. And given what appear to be clear procedural irregularities, the panel's findings are, to say the least, subject to question.

Sadly, I am quite confident that the current Congress will refuse to ask those questions. So we'll have to wait until January to start getting the answers we deserve. --Bob

If you are going to claim there were procedural irregularities, please list them and justify your claims.
Sure. When John Yoo was subject to departmental discipline for writing the torture memos, he got six months to respond to the panel's findings. McCabe got four days. After Yoo submitted his lengthy brief contesting the panel's action, the Department took another six months to consider the matter before reducing the recommended discipline. Here, the Department made the decision in one day.

More generally, it is routine for the Bureau to allow similarly situated agents to retire or resign rather than firing them. But in this case, Donny's very public victory lap, expressly linked to the ongoing investigation into his conduct, makes clear that what was really going on was a warning shot to any current federal employees who might have information adverse to Donny.

It may be that the panel's decision was, in fact, supported by the facts, and I understand that eventually its report will be made public so we'll be able to better judge its merits. But from where I sit, this bears all the hallmarks of a political hit designed to intimidate potential whistleblowers. --Bob


I see you're back to your infantile form, there bob-tel.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 12:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 9335
Location: In Texas of course!
Bob78164 wrote:
But in this case, Donny's very public victory lap, expressly linked to the ongoing investigation into his conduct, makes clear that what was really going on was a warning shot to any current federal employees who might have information adverse to Donny.

It may be that the panel's decision was, in fact, supported by the facts, and I understand that eventually its report will be made public so we'll be able to better judge its merits. But from where I sit, this bears all the hallmarks of a political hit designed to intimidate potential whistleblowers. --Bob


Bobbie,
1) Who discovered the evidence against McCabe?
2) Why was there an investigation in the first place?
3) Who reviewed that evidence and made the recommendation to fire him?
4) Who fired him (based on the recommendation that was based on the findings of the investigation)?

I won't give you the answers but I'll give hints.
1) Not Trump
2) Not Trump
3) Not Trump
4) Not Trump


If McCabe had bragged about being able to grab some woman's genitals (not bragging about doing it, just about being able to) would that change your mind about firing him? What if he offered her a cigar before grabbing?

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 209 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Americanized by Maël Soucaze.