Iraq condemns impromtu Trump visit of US troops, plans vote to expel them

[tinselwolverine]

It's called being a responsible adult. Government workers aren't special...they will just have to figure it out like the rest of us do.

Besides that, nobody knows how long is shut down will last or how creditors will respond.

The action creditors took when facing mass delinquencies back in 2008 was to go running and crying to the federal government for a bail out.

 

[turok]

It's called being a responsible adult. Government workers aren't special...they will just have to figure it out like the rest of us do.

Then send the US Coast Guard and TSA employees home, along with the SS and any other government functionary (ICE, border patrol) who isn't being paid but is deemed essential but who is not very "special".

 

[turok]

AFAIAC, if Trump persists upon having a wall/slatted fence built across thousands of miles of land and river, interfering with animal migration patterns, using eminent domain to take away US citizens private property, and eliminating or reducing the size of publicly owned parkland, then it s/b taken out of the nearly $700B annual military/defense budget. As after all he considers these caravans of asylum-seekers as terrorist threats, necessitating military action.

The $5B amount which he currently demands is not sufficient to fund more than maybe 1/5th of it, not including cost overruns and unforeseen construction complications. So yet another government shutdown (or shutdowns) might be in store before he leaves or is forced from office.

 

[turok]

No "more than 10%" pay increases are in store for all 900,000 of those not special federal employees next year, as Dear Leader nixed them. In fact they not only won't be receiving any pay increase, but also no regional adjustments are in store for those who live and work in areas with a higher cost of living.


"In a letter to House and Senate leaders in August, Trump described the pay increase as "inappropriate."

"We must maintain efforts to put our Nation on a fiscally sustainable course, and Federal agency budgets cannot sustain such increases, the President wrote."

Trump also stressed that a pay freeze would not affect the federal government's ability to attract qualified workers. He cited his statutory authority to adjust pay out of "national emergency or serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/29/politics/trump-executive-order-federal-workers-pay-freeze/index.html

A 2.1% pay increase for <1M federal employees is somewhat minor, when compared to his spending and losses elsewhere, such as income lost from the 1% and corporate tax-cuts, his overly bloated military/defense budget, perhaps also the costs of building his wall, which originally Mexico was supposedly going to pay for, he and his family's travel, lodging, and security costs, and his rallies/golf trips.

He also boasted often of his bigly role in creating a booming economy. So its government being/remaining "fiscally sustainable" must hinge upon how much that those feds earn in salary annually. I would guess that most aren't so very thrilled about being the lone group who must "bite the bullet" at this point.

 

[turok]

https://twitter.com/BetoORourke/status/1078711815259996161

 

[tomdalton22]

Then send the US Coast Guard and TSA employees home, along with the SS and any other government functionary (ICE, border patrol) who isn't being paid but is deemed essential but who is not very "special".

they know exactly what they signed up for...they know that if there is a shutdown they still have to work. They will get paid, but their checks will be late. Of course, there are hundreds of thousands of federal employees that don't have to work during the shut down that will get paid anyway thanks to very generous union contracts. Those people love it...they are rooting for an extended vacation!

 

[sggatecl]

He just makes it up as he goes along ..

It’s when he talks like this that I wonder who in their right mind voted for this guy or can’t see that he’s a fucking imbecile.

“They had plenty of people that came up, they said, 'You know, we could make it smaller. We could make it 3%, we could make it 2%, we could make it 4%,'" Trump told the troops about the latest pay raise. "I said, 'No. Make it 10%. Make it more than 10%.'"

They? Who the fuck is they? Who said 2%...?


Nobody. It’s all a lie.

I posted the numbers that flat out shut that 10% shit down. They don't care. Lies are part and parcel to this administration. Everyone knows it, the Trumpets have embraced it or ignore it.

 

[tigermud]

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press...d-planned-benghazi-attack-10-days-in-advance/

 

[Spartanmack]

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press...d-planned-benghazi-attack-10-days-in-advance/

pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, we're talking about whether or not already above market wage earners with far more generous retirement benefits than the private sector will be getting the right sized raise when they go back to work where they will be paid in full for all the time they didn't actually work. Lies that get people killed aren't nearly as important as promises unfulfilled by politicians, because that's NEVER happened prior to this administration.

 

[Gulo Blue]

above market wage earners

Gov employees above market? What part of the gov? In my field, it lags behind market rates. You take the job for stability or love of country or interest in the work or prestige and access to 'power', but not for the salary. It's not far behind, but it is behind. Lots of stories of people leaving their gov jobs and being hired back as contractors, getting paid more to do the same job.


I think on average, gov jobs pay better, but on average, gov jobs have more responsibility. 'Average' includes a lot of lower end private jobs that don't exist in the same ratios on the gov side.

 

[Michchamp]

So if I'm reading this right, after the attack, the Obama administration learned that the terrorists who conducted the attack planned it 10 days before doing it.

and this is supposed to be a "smoking gun" because the Obama Administration did not publicly reveal this information immediately... even though the attack was long over and revealing it didn't matter in any way or affect anything, and there were no more attacks after this?

 

[tomdalton22]

Gov employees above market? What part of the gov? In my field, it lags behind market rates. You take the job for stability or love of country or interest in the work or prestige and access to 'power', but not for the salary. It's not far behind, but it is behind. Lots of stories of people leaving their gov jobs and being hired back as contractors, getting paid more to do the same job.


I think on average, gov jobs pay better, but on average, gov jobs have more responsibility. 'Average' includes a lot of lower end private jobs that don't exist in the same ratios on the gov side.

This is an interesting article about it

https://fee.org/articles/a-look-at-...ompared-to-their-private-sector-counterparts/

 

[Michchamp]

I think we need to agree on a rule for how to understand terrorist attacks. tell me if I got this right:

If a terrorist attack occurs...

... and...

1) A Republican is president.
- The President "kept us safe"
- We can invade any country we want, regardless of whether they had anything to do with the attack
- The President should not be criticized - at all and for any reason - because to do so would be to "give our enemies comfort"
- Support the troops. this means everything and nothing

2) A Democrat is president
- pull your hair out while jumping up and down and screaming incoherently for the next 10-15 years
- insist on endless investigations of who knew what and when, regardless of the cost. It's okay to waste "taxpayer dollars" only in this instance
- this excuses everything bad a Republican politician might do in the future, forever

Presidential Obligations

In order to "keep us safe"...

1) If a Republican is president... the President has to do nothing, not even if he or she was being warned an attack was imminent for months.

2) If a Democrat is president... the President must investigate all terrorist threats, and if one is detected, Go all "Tom Clancy" and personally kill the terrorists, and on his own dime. If he orders the CIA/Military to fight the terrorists, credit instead goes to the highest ranking Republican in the Senate, and the president should be impeached for treason.

That seem right?

 

[Michchamp]

Also,
in terms of magnitude of harm,

if a Republican is president, 2900 innocent civilians dying on American soil is no big deal. He still "kept us safe."

But if a Democrat is president, 4 Americans dying, all in government service, and serving in a war-torn country, is an unspeakable tragedy, and we all must immediately spend every moment in fear until a Republican is president again.

 

[tomdalton22]

I think we need to agree on a rule for how to understand terrorist attacks. tell me if I got this right:

If a terrorist attack occurs...

... and...

1) A Republican is president.
- The President "kept us safe"
- We can invade any country we want, regardless of whether they had anything to do with the attack
- The President should not be criticized - at all and for any reason - because to do so would be to "give our enemies comfort"
- Support the troops. this means everything and nothing

2) A Democrat is president
- pull your hair out while jumping up and down and screaming incoherently for the next 10-15 years
- insist on endless investigations of who knew what and when, regardless of the cost. It's okay to waste "taxpayer dollars" only in this instance
- this excuses everything bad a Republican politician might do in the future, forever

Presidential Obligations

In order to "keep us safe"...

1) If a Republican is president... the President has to do nothing, not even if he or she was being warned an attack was imminent for months.

2) If a Democrat is president... the President must investigate all terrorist threats, and if one is detected, Go all "Tom Clancy" and personally kill the terrorists, and on his own dime. If he orders the CIA/Military to fight the terrorists, credit instead goes to the highest ranking Republican in the Senate, and the president should be impeached for treason.

That seem right?

That seems "left".

The "right" point of view will be entirely different.

 

[Spartanmack]

So if I'm reading this right, after the attack, the Obama administration learned that the terrorists who conducted the attack planned it 10 days before doing it.

and this is supposed to be a "smoking gun" because the Obama Administration did not publicly reveal this information immediately

so far, you're correct. but here's where you go off the rails completely

...even though the attack was long over and revealing it didn't matter in any way or affect anything, and there were no more attacks after this?

For weeks, the Obama administration not only didn't reveal this fact, they LIED about it continuously and blamed it on an obscure internet video. They sent Susan Rice on a political talk show tour to push this narrative they knew to be false and Hillary lied to the faces of the victims' family members about who was responsible for the deaths of their loved ones. They continued to deny the truth about the attack all throughout Obama's reelection because it directly refuted his claim of victory over terrorist groups in that region. Not revealing it clearly mattered and it definitely affected a lot of things. Otherwise, why not only not reveal it but also lie about it repeatedly for weeks?

It's funny that your side excuses away lies that result in American deaths and the denial of any responsibility for those deaths. You literally accuse people of engaging in conspiracy theories about Benghazi then when they're proven right, you try to dismiss it as no big deal. All while bemoaning how Trump lied about the size of his inauguration crowd or how much of a raise government employees are going to get for pages and pages on multiple threads. Maybe your New Year's resolution should be to gain a little perspective and maybe some self awareness.

 

[Gulo Blue]

This is an interesting article about it

https://fee.org/articles/a-look-at-...ompared-to-their-private-sector-counterparts/

What I said above, I mean to say with the understanding that articles like this exist. Between either the bias of the source or the methodology or the fact that I'm only familiar with a few parts of industry, there's something that's not captured. It's a widely understood situation that you work for the government for other reasons and go to private industry to cash in. I would like to see some of the examples where these claims of higher paid government employees come from.

 

[Spartanmack]

I think we need to agree on a rule for how to understand terrorist attacks. tell me if I got this right:

If a terrorist attack occurs...

... and...

1) A Republican is president.
- The President "kept us safe"
- We can invade any country we want, regardless of whether they had anything to do with the attack
- The President should not be criticized - at all and for any reason - because to do so would be to "give our enemies comfort"
- Support the troops. this means everything and nothing

2) A Democrat is president
- pull your hair out while jumping up and down and screaming incoherently for the next 10-15 years
- insist on endless investigations of who knew what and when, regardless of the cost. It's okay to waste "taxpayer dollars" only in this instance
- this excuses everything bad a Republican politician might do in the future, forever

Presidential Obligations

In order to "keep us safe"...

1) If a Republican is president... the President has to do nothing, not even if he or she was being warned an attack was imminent for months.

2) If a Democrat is president... the President must investigate all terrorist threats, and if one is detected, Go all "Tom Clancy" and personally kill the terrorists, and on his own dime. If he orders the CIA/Military to fight the terrorists, credit instead goes to the highest ranking Republican in the Senate, and the president should be impeached for treason.

That seem right?

This is pure nonsense. the attacks of September 11 were thoroughly investigated - you may even recall that a 600 page report was published by the federal government and made available to public for sale in hardcopy or free download. you can still buy it on Amazon today if you'd like to read it. It was produced at the request of both President Bush and Congress.

 

[Spartanmack]

Gov employees above market? What part of the gov? In my field, it lags behind market rates. You take the job for stability or love of country or interest in the work or prestige and access to 'power', but not for the salary. It's not far behind, but it is behind. Lots of stories of people leaving their gov jobs and being hired back as contractors, getting paid more to do the same job.


I think on average, gov jobs pay better, but on average, gov jobs have more responsibility. 'Average' includes a lot of lower end private jobs that don't exist in the same ratios on the gov side.

I'm referring more to the union represented clerical level workers. I'm sure there are lots of lawyers, engineers and other professionals who take government jobs for experience, exposure, networking, etc that are going to make them more marketable for certain higher paying private sector jobs in the future and there are some who do those jobs out of a sense of civic duty. But on the whole, the average government schlub makes more and has more generous retirement benefits than the average private sector worker mainly because they negotiate their contracts with the same people they vote into office.

 

[Michchamp]

so far, you're correct. but here's where you go off the rails completely



For weeks, the Obama administration not only didn't reveal this fact, they LIED about it continuously and blamed it on an obscure internet video. They sent Susan Rice on a political talk show tour to push this narrative they knew to be false and Hillary lied to the faces of the victims' family members about who was responsible for the deaths of their loved ones. They continued to deny the truth about the attack all throughout Obama's reelection because it directly refuted his claim of victory over terrorist groups in that region. Not revealing it clearly mattered and it definitely affected a lot of things. Otherwise, why not only not reveal it but also lie about it repeatedly for weeks?

It's funny that your side excuses away lies that result in American deaths and the denial of any responsibility for those deaths. You literally accuse people of engaging in conspiracy theories about Benghazi then when they're proven right, you try to dismiss it as no big deal. All while bemoaning how Trump lied about the size of his inauguration crowd or how much of a raise government employees are going to get for pages and pages on multiple threads. Maybe your New Year's resolution should be to gain a little perspective and maybe some self awareness.

It sounds like - even reading the links posted by Tigerdump - that the Obama Administration only lied about what they learned after the attacks had already occurred.

You seem to be trying to argue that they lied, then the attacks happened?

Or more attacks happened after the embassy attack because they lied? which were???

What were the things that happened because they lied (assuming arguendo that they did lie)?

Why would they lie? Maybe because this whole "war on terror" is a boondoggle to justify permanent interventions in the Middle East, and has been since 2001, and our government - particularly our military - hasn't been forthcoming about the facts on the ground since it began?