Pay and Pension in the White House

[Got Stripers]

This government shutdown is so frustrating on many levels, but what really pisses me off is the political players are getting paid while our men and women in the military aren't. Term limits, pay scale, pensions, it's all wacky and the only people who can make a change are the only ones who will suffer if they do.

[Nebe]

I think it was a republican who drafted the bill to freeze pay. Yet they blame the democrats. Flush all these turds down the drain when it’s time to vote. ALL of them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[DZ]

It sucks - I just got home after being told to leave work. Been a DOD employee for 40 years and been through plenty of these - most end up being a paid vacation for me which I actually hate. I'd rather work. The real power stands with us federal workers - we should show up to work anyway - but I can't get others to join me. If Fed workers would just show up anyway the leverage of a Gov shutdown would disappear and we wouldn't be used as pawns.

[wdmso]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42766159


US shutdown: White House voicemail changed to blame Democrats
.
The Vice-President just told troops in the field that Democrats are playing games with their pay.


I am all ways disgusted when the parties us the Military as a political toy..

the longest shut down lasted 17 days fyi Note: Each servicemember has the option of receiving his or her pay one or two times a month. If they select to receive their pay twice a month they will receive semi-monthly pay on the 15th of each month - if the 1st or 15th falls on Saturday or Sunday, payday is the Friday before.

so this line the dems are taking pay away from the Troops is a lie

and when it ends everyone gets back pay no one losses any money

what hasn't been mentioned since Oct this is what the 4th CR and dems approved and went along with the 1st 3 ... Republicans thought the could feed the dems what ever they wanted and the dems would blink its what they usually do ... and play along ... this time they did not and Republicans dont know what to do besides scream Obstruction which i find ironic coming from the party of NO

[spence]

Freaking GOP holds both houses of Congress and the Presidency and can't even fund the government. Big problem here is POTUS doesn't understand his own position and hence nobody can negotiate.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Freaking GOP holds both houses of Congress and the Presidency and can't even fund the government. Big problem here is POTUS doesn't understand his own position and hence nobody can negotiate.

It required 60 votes in the senate. The GOP doesn't have 60 seats in the senate. The GOP can't force 9 democrats to vote for the funding if they don't want to.

Part of this, at least a part, is whether or not it's acceptable for the minority party to demand that an un-related issue (like, oh, say DACA) be inserted into a bill required to pass to keep the government operating.

When the GOP was in the minority and they threatened to do the same thing, Schumer et al had some harsh criticism for them. We have seen those videos. How is this any different form that?

They all stink, both parties, and we need non-ideologues who can actually solve problems.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

It required 60 votes in the senate. The GOP doesn't have 60 seats in the senate. The GOP can't force 9 democrats to vote for the funding if they don't want to.

Part of this, at least a part, is whether or not it's acceptable for the minority party to demand that an un-related issue (like, oh, say DACA) be inserted into a bill required to pass to keep the government operating.

When the GOP was in the minority and they threatened to do the same thing, Schumer et al had some harsh criticism for them. We have seen those videos. How is this any different form that?

They all stink, both parties, and we need non-ideologues who can actually solve problems.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

It required 60 votes in the senate. The GOP doesn't have 60 seats in the senate. The GOP can't force 9 democrats to vote for the funding if they don't want to.

Part of this, at least a part, is whether or not it's acceptable for the minority party to demand that an un-related issue (like, oh, say DACA) be inserted into a bill required to pass to keep the government operating.

When the GOP was in the minority and they threatened to do the same thing, Schumer et al had some harsh criticism for them. We have seen those videos. How is this any different form that?

They all stink, both parties, and we need non-ideologues who can actually solve problems.

The GOP couldn't even get all the Republicans on board. The issue here isn't the Dems or even DACA which most everyone (including Trump before his aids suggested it was a bad idea) supports...the issue is the disconnect between the Senate Republicans and the Whitehouse.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The GOP couldn't even get all the Republicans on board. The issue here isn't the Dems or even DACA which most everyone supports...the issue is the disconnect between the Senate Republicans and the Whitehouse.

"The GOP couldn't even get all the Republicans on board"

True. It's also true that if they had all the Republican senators, that would have had exactly zero effect on the outcome. True or false?

I like that there are moderate Republicans. Sometimes they do things I like, sometimes they don't.

"The issue here isn't the Dems or even DACA "

Then your issue isn't the shutdown. Because the Dems caused the shutdown by demanding that DACA be part of it. DACA has nothing to do with operational funding.

"even DACA which most everyone supports"

If that's true, then we have a responsibility to let our elected officials know that. That has nothing to do with the operational budget. The ems inserted it in there thinking it would put pressure on the GOP to pass it. It didn't work.

"the issue is the disconnect between the Senate Republicans and the Whitehouse"

No, it's not. Because even if all the Republican senators were in agreement, we'd be in the same exact situation. They don't have 60 seats.

They should let the dems have their way with DACA, and th eprice is the dems agree to the wall. Hell, the tax windfall we're getting from Apple alone will fund the wall.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"The GOP couldn't even get all the Republicans on board"

True. It's also true that if they had all the Republican senators, that would have had exactly zero effect on the outcome. True or false?

I like that there are moderate Republicans. Sometimes they do things I like, sometimes they don't.

"The issue here isn't the Dems or even DACA "

Then your issue isn't the shutdown. Because the Dems caused the shutdown by demanding that DACA be part of it. DACA has nothing to do with operational funding.

"even DACA which most everyone supports"

If that's true, then we have a responsibility to let our elected officials know that. That has nothing to do with the operational budget. The ems inserted it in there thinking it would put pressure on the GOP to pass it. It didn't work.

"the issue is the disconnect between the Senate Republicans and the Whitehouse"

No, it's not. Because even if all the Republican senators were in agreement, we'd be in the same exact situation. They don't have 60 seats.

They should let the dems have their way with DACA, and th eprice is the dems agree to the wall. Hell, the tax windfall we're getting from Apple alone will fund the wall.

its called governance (The action or manner of governing)the GOP has not idea on how to Govern. The last 8 years they were the party of NO!! now they are the party of we dont know how... ..

[JohnR]

3 R senators didn't vote for it and 2 D senators did, IIRC.

I would actually be impressed if they could pass a real budget that is not a Continuing Resolution.

Originally Posted by wdmso

its called governance (The action or manner of governing)the GOP has not idea on how to Govern. The last 8 years they were the party of NO!! now they are the party of we dont know how... ..

Sure - all Republican's fault. Always the Republicans. Only the Republicans.

It is both parties

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

its called governance (The action or manner of governing)the GOP has not idea on how to Govern. The last 8 years they were the party of NO!! now they are the party of we dont know how... ..

"The last 8 years they were the party of NO!! "

Then using that logic, isn't that what the Democrats are now?

"the GOP has not idea on how to Govern"

It would appear that the public disagrees with you. The GOP controls the White House, both chambers of Congress, and a HUGE majority of state legislatures and governorships. How do you explain that?

[Nebe]

But Spence. Trump is the great deal maker ! Oh wait. He’s also the master of bankruptcy. What a train wreck.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

I don't mind that they get paid. They are working to try to get a budget passed. I hope that the gov. ees that are required to come to work are getting paid.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I hope that the gov. ees that are required to come to work are getting paid.

They are not, they will get paid their next payday as it is for the pay period ending last Saturday. After that it will depend on how long the shutdown continues as to whether they get their next check. They will receive all back pay when this is resolved.

The folks living paycheck to paycheck could be hurting if this drags out.

[Pete F.]

The GOP did not even have unity in its own party.
"A shutdown falls on the President's lack of leadership. He can't even control his party and get people together in a room. A Shutdown means the President is weak"
Donald Trump 2013
I do think it is time for some new politicians and I think the past year will produce some.

[Raider Ronnie]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

This government shutdown is so frustrating on many levels, but what really pisses me off is the political players are getting paid while our men and women in the military aren't. Term limits, pay scale, pensions, it's all wacky and the only people who can make a change are the only ones who will suffer if they do.

Military is paid through till 1st of February.
Me thinks this is all to deflate the upcoming state of the union address.
What pisses me of is if you search each senator & congressman (woman) annual government salary, how many years they have served, and their net worth..........
How the hell can a senator making $190k a year, serve whatever many years and be worth 10-100s of millions ???
The math doesn’t add up other than each and every one of them is taking huge sums of $$$ for corporate and outside us influence!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

It's all about being able to say I blah...blah...blahh
They have screwed things up so bad lawyering the rules to death in the last 40 years that we need to do a hard reset on Congress and get it back to how it is supposed to work.
The way it works best is if you have to compromise to get things to pass, it keeps things pretty much in the middle, middle is good.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

It's all about being able to say I blah...blah...blahh
They have screwed things up so bad lawyering the rules to death in the last 40 years that we need to do a hard reset on Congress and get it back to how it is supposed to work.
The way it works best is if you have to compromise to get things to pass, it keeps things pretty much in the middle, middle is good.

Being in the middle of stupid ideas or in the middle of unconstitutional legislative proposals are not good places to be.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Being in the middle of stupid ideas or in the middle of unconstitutional legislative proposals are not good places to be.

Reaching a consensus among your colleagues would likely put you in the middle.
Letting the liberal AND conservatives have too much power has put us where we are today
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...ok/1019429001/

The fastest growing states

8. Arizona
•1-yr pop. growth rate: 1.66%
•Current population: 6.93 million
•2015 population: 6.82 million
•10-yr pop. growth rate: 14.96%

Arizona’s population grew by 1.7% in 2016, more than twice the 0.7% national population growth rate. Much of Arizona’s growth was due to new residents migrating to the state. A net total of 61,544 Americans relocated to Arizona that year, the fourth most of any state. Many of those moving to Arizona likely came for employment opportunities. From 2015 to 2016, Arizona’s unemployment rate fell from 6.0% to 5.3% — one of the largest percentage-point drops of any state over the period.

7. Colorado
•1-yr pop. growth rate: 1.68%
•Current population: 5.54 million
•2015 population: 5.45 million
•10-yr pop. growth rate: 17.37%

Colorado’s population grew by 1.7% in 2016, among the fastest pace of any state. Like many of the fastest growing states, domestic migration contributed the most to Colorado’s rapid population growth. A net influx of 50,216 Americans relocated to Colorado in 2016, more than all but five other states. Colorado has sustained rapid population growth throughout the past decade. Since 2006, the state’s population has increased by 17.4%, the fastest pace of any state other than Texas and Utah. The population growth occurred alongside a steep decline in unemployment. Just 3.3% of the Colorado labor force is unemployed, tied with Vermont as the sixth lowest unemployment rate of any state.

6. Oregon
•1-yr pop. growth rate: 1.71
•Current population: 4.09 million
•2015 population: 4.02 million
•10-yr pop. growth rate: 11.51%

Since 2006, Oregon’s population has grown at an average rate of 1.1%. The state’s population growth rate spiked in 2016, when the number of residents in the state grew 1.7% — faster than nearly any other state. Approximately 3 in every 4 new Oregonians in 2016 moved to the state from elsewhere in the country, with the remaining population increase due to natural growth — the number of births less the number of deaths. Many new residents likely came to Oregon for economic opportunity. The state’s unemployment rate fell from 5.6% in 2015 to 4.9% in 2016, one of the largest percentage-point declines of any state.

5. Washington
•1-yr pop. growth rate: 1.78%
•Current population: 7.29 million
•2015 population: 7.16 million
•10-yr pop. growth rate: 14.40%

Washington state’s population grew by 1.8% in 2016, more than twice the 0.7% national population growth rate. Washington has sustained relatively fast population growth over the past decade. The state’s population increased by 14.4% from 2006 to 2016, the eighth fastest pace of any state. The state’s strong population growth over the past decade was accompanied by a substantial increase in GDP. From the second quarter of 2006 to the second quarter of 2016, Washington’s GDP grew at an average rate of 2.2% a year — the fourth fastest pace of any state. Washington’s information sector — which includes industry giants Microsoft, Amazon, and Expedia — grew faster than in any other state other than Pennsylvania over that period.

4. Florida
•1-yr pop. growth rate: 1.82%
•Current population: 20.61 million
•2015 population: 20.24 million
•10-yr pop. growth rate: 13.46%

In 2014, Florida overtook New York as the third most populous state in the country. Florida has continued to grow at a near nation-leading pace. The state’s population grew by 1.8% in 2016, far more than the 0.7% national population growth rate. Like many of the fastest-growing states, Florida’s rapid population growth was largely due to migration. About 9 in every 10 new Floridians either moved to the state from elsewhere in the United States or from another country — one of the largest such shares nationwide — while the rest of the state’s population increase was due to natural growth.

3. Idaho
•1-yr pop. growth rate: 1.83%
•Current population: 1.68 million
•2015 population: 1.65 million
•10-yr pop. growth rate: 14.60%

The population of Idaho increased by 1.8% in 2016, the third fastest pace of any state. Idaho has a relatively high birth rate, and natural growth — births minus deaths — accounted for about one-third of all new Idahoans in 2016. The remaining population growth was due to the large influx of residents from other parts of the country. A net total of 17,143 Americans relocated to Idaho in 2016, far more than in most states. The state’s population growth coincided with a substantial decline in unemployment. Idaho’s unemployment rate fell from 4.2% in 2015 to just 3.8% in 2016, today one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country.

2. Nevada
•1-yr pop. growth rate: 1.95%
•Current population: 2.94 million
•2015 population: 2.88 million
•10-yr pop. growth rate: 16.55%

The population of Nevada increased by 2.0% in 2016, the second fastest pace of any state. Nevada has sustained strong population growth over the past decade, growing by 16.5% from 2006 to 2016 — nearly twice the 8.3% national growth rate. Despite strong population growth, Nevada’s overall economic output declined over that time. The state’s arts, entertainment, and recreation and accommodation and food sectors — which comprise a larger share of Nevada’s GDP than in any other state — shrunk 13.0% from the second quarter of 2006 to the second quarter of 2016, more than in any other state nationwide. Nevada’s GDP contracted by 9.0% overall during that time, the largest decline in the country. Industries that benefit from population growth, however, such as educational services and health care, grew at a faster pace than in a majority of states.

1. Utah
•1-yr pop. growth rate: 2.03%
•Current population: 3.05 million
•2015 population: 2.99 million
•10-yr pop. growth rate: 20.82%

The population of Utah grew by 2.0% in 2016, nearly three times the 0.7% national population growth rate and the fastest pace of any state. Unlike most fast-growing states, the majority of Utah’s population increase was due to natural growth. Utah has the largest average family size in the country, and there were 1,854 births per 100,000 people in Utah in 2016 — far more than the national rate of 1,286 births per 100,000 Americans. Utah also has the lowest death rate in the country. While Utah’s high birth-to-death ratio accounted for most of the state’s population growth, Utah’s population also grew more from inbound migration than many other states. The state’s population increased by 0.8% due to net migration in 2016, more than double the 0.3% national figure and the ninth highest rate of any state.


The fastest shrinking states

4. Connecticut
•1-yr pop. growth rate: -0.23%
•Current population: 3.58 million
•2015 population: 3.58 million
•10-yr pop. growth rate: 1.68%

The population of Connecticut shrank by 0.2% in 2016, the fourth largest decline of any state. Connecticut’s population has declined substantially in recent years, and the state has lost a net total of approximately 20,000 residents since 2013. Many of those leaving Connecticut are young, college-educated professionals. Since 2010, the median age in Connecticut has risen from 40.0 years to 40.9 years.

The population loss has likely hurt the state’s economic potential. While the U.S. GDP grew by 12.1% from the second quarter of 2006 to the second quarter of 2016, Connecticut’s GDP fell by 3.7%, the largest contraction of any state over that time other than Nevada.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman;1135767[B

The fastest shrinking states[/B]

4. Connecticut
•1-yr pop. growth rate: -0.23%
•Current population: 3.58 million
•2015 population: 3.58 million
•10-yr pop. growth rate: 1.68%

The population of Connecticut shrank by 0.2% in 2016, the fourth largest decline of any state. Connecticut’s population has declined substantially in recent years, and the state has lost a net total of approximately 20,000 residents since 2013. Many of those leaving Connecticut are young, college-educated professionals. Since 2010, the median age in Connecticut has risen from 40.0 years to 40.9 years.

The population loss has likely hurt the state’s economic potential. While the U.S. GDP grew by 12.1% from the second quarter of 2006 to the second quarter of 2016, Connecticut’s GDP fell by 3.7%, the largest contraction of any state over that time other than Nevada.

CT is in the death spiral. Our population is shrinking as people don't want to pay current taxes. But current taxes aren't anywhere near enough to pay our debt (unfunded debt is now estimated at $35,000 for every human being in the state). So the state will raise taxes. Which will incentivize more people to leave, which will reduce our tax base. Which will force the state to raise taxes on the masochists still here, which will incentivize more to flee, which...

It's a self-perpetuating cycle of decreasing revenue and increasing expenses. They call that the death spiral. in the private sector Very difficult to escape from.

CT has so much going for it. To be one of the few states losing population? That's what "failure" looks like.

[PaulS]

Nashville historically votes liberal. Tenn. conserv. If taxes are your main point, Tenn. wins. Educ. poverty rate, opportunity, etc. Conn wins.

Not a lot of insurance jobs in Tenn.(although I did have a insur. client in Brentwood in a prior job).

States and territories
Rank State Poverty Rate(by Household Income) People in Poverty
by Household Income
(in thousands) 2014 Poverty Rates
(includes unrelated children) Supplemental Poverty Measure (2010-2014 average)
(Geographically Adjusted)
- United States 14.8% 45,950 16.0%[1][2]

4 Connecticut
10.8% 376 10.6% 12.5%

41 Tennessee
18.2% 1,165 16.7% 15.5%

tough to read - sorry


Following from US news and world reports on an overall rating on crime, educ. opportunity, etc.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings

US News and World reports - 2014
Conn - #12
Tenn #39


Fattest states:
Conn: 21.4%
Tenn: 31.6%
fattest state Miss. 33.8%

Life expectancy at birth - Conn near top, Tenn near bottom
bachelors degree or higher - Conn near top, Tenn near bottom

The reddest states have long been the poorest. If the gov. didn't transfer lots of $ to those red states life there would be even worse.


another article';

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/31/op...y-is-blue.html

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Nashville historically votes liberal. Tenn. conserv. If taxes are your main point, Tenn. wins. Educ. poverty rate, opportunity, etc. Conn wins.

Not a lot of insurance jobs in Tenn.(although I did have a insur. client in Brentwood in a prior job).

States and territories
Rank State Poverty Rate(by Household Income) People in Poverty
by Household Income
(in thousands) 2014 Poverty Rates
(includes unrelated children) Supplemental Poverty Measure (2010-2014 average)
(Geographically Adjusted)
- United States 14.8% 45,950 16.0%[1][2]

4 Connecticut
10.8% 376 10.6% 12.5%

41 Tennessee
18.2% 1,165 16.7% 15.5%

tough to read - sorry


Following from US news and world reports on an overall rating on crime, educ. opportunity, etc.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings

US News and World reports - 2014
Conn - #12
Tenn #39


Fattest states:
Conn: 21.4%
Tenn: 31.6%
fattest state Miss. 33.8%

Life expectancy at birth - Conn near top, Tenn near bottom
bachelors degree or higher - Conn near top, Tenn near bottom

The reddest states have long been the poorest. If the gov. didn't transfer lots of $ to those red states life there would be even worse.


another article';

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/31/op...y-is-blue.html

"Educ. poverty rate, opportunity, etc. Conn wins. "

Nope. The marketplace has spoken , and they say you are wrong.

If you look at states as a whole, sure CT wins, we have Fairfield County and they don't. We win because we have a section of our state that's an easy commute to Manhattan.

There are certain cities in the Carolinas and TN that stink (also there are cities in CT that stink). However, there are cities in the Carolinas and TN that compare very well with nice CT suburbs in terms of quality of live, and far lower taxes. That is where many people are moving.

If those places are as crappy as you said, they would not all be on Amazon's list of finalists. Note that CT was bounced in the first round, but TN and NC are among the finalists.

CT liberal elites like to say the south is nothing but meth heads and trailer parks. Not remotely true. Look at Fort Mill SC. Rock bottom prices, and public schools as good as Avon CT. Those are the places we should be trying to emulate, but liberals won't concede they're doing anything better.

[PaulS]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1135776
If those places are as crappy as you said, they would not all be on Amazon's list of finalists. Note that CT was bounced in the first round, but TN and NC are among the finalists.

[/QUOTE]

And all of the 20 cities (except I think Indiapolis) are liberal. So which of the following 20 cities do you think are conservative? I've entered my guesses.

Austin, Tex. – liberal
Boston– liberal
Chicago– liberal
Columbus, Ohio – Voted 80% for Obama
Dallas – 2nd most liberal city in Texas after Austin
Denver– liberal
Indianapolis - conservative
Los Angeles– liberal
Miami – leans liberal
Montgomery County, Md. – liberal
Nashville– liberal
Newark– liberal
New York– liberal
Northern Virginia– liberal
Philadelphia– liberal
Pittsburgh– liberal
Raleigh, N.C. – liberal
Toronto– liberal
Washington– liberal

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

And all of the 20 cities (except I think Indiapolis) are liberal. So which of the following 20 cities do you think are conservative? I've entered my guesses.

Austin, Tex. – liberal
Boston– liberal
Chicago– liberal
Columbus, Ohio – Voted 80% for Obama
Dallas – 2nd most liberal city in Texas after Austin
Denver– liberal
Indianapolis - conservative
Los Angeles– liberal
Miami – leans liberal
Montgomery County, Md. – liberal
Nashville– liberal
Newark– liberal
New York– liberal
Northern Virginia– liberal
Philadelphia– liberal
Pittsburgh– liberal
Raleigh, N.C. – liberal
Toronto– liberal
Washington– liberal

How many cities that are mid-size or larger, aren't left of center?

People from CT are not moving to the Nashville suburbs because they like the liberal politics of the city of Nashville. Nor are people from CT moving to the Charlotte suburbs because they like the liberal politics of the city of Charlotte. They are moving to the Nashville /Charlotte suburbs because it's a much better bargain than the CT suburbs. They want to be near the cities of Nashville/Charlotte, because regardless of politics, many people like to be near a city for the food, music, sports, etc...

You are bending over backwards in a desperate attempt to convince yourself that there is zero connection between Connecticut's brand of liberalism, and the fact that people are moving to the Carolinas and TN.

If people in CT want to live near a smallish city that's liberal, they would stay right where they are, Hartford is plenty liberal.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Not a lot of insurance jobs in Tenn.(although I did have a insur. client in Brentwood in a prior job).

[/url]

Tele-commuting. Allowing a lot of people to flee CT.

There are tons of math-related jobs in Charlotte, sometimes referred to as the banking capital of the country.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Tele-commuting. Allowing a lot of people to flee CT.

There are tons of math-related jobs in Charlotte, sometimes referred to as the banking capital of the country.

And Charlotte is liberal
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

And Charlotte is liberal
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You sure? The taxes are dirt cheap and they don’t give unions a blank check.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by PaulS

And Charlotte is liberal
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So is Asheville, in that county Clinton beat Trump by 14 points...as did most cities in NC or by more...I think in CLT she was up by 30.

I guess the next question would be if Trump's base is benefiting from the current economic environment or if it's mostly going to the Dems.