Political Move Cave-In

[jillio]

Those benefits are still earned as part of compensation. Much different than entitlements.

Still full of hypocrisy. smh

 

[jillio]

Are you jealous? I mean, really. Some people find better jobs than others. So?

My late FIL worked all his life for an automotive industry with extremely good benefits, better than any government job. So?

There's nothing wrong with seeking a job with good benefits, especially if one works hard at that job.


Take advantage? That is so insulting to all government employees. If they put in the labor, why shouldn't they be compensated?

Jealous? I was actually offered more than one postion with the government through agency work. I turned it down.

Right. Government jobs offfer no benefits outside the same ones received in the private sector. Then what is the great advantage in securing a government job?

You can work for the government if you so choose. But you cannot take advantage of the benefits provided through government employment for 38 years, continue to live off that pension, and then turn around and accuse everyone else of looking for entitlements. Same thing as "Hands off my Medicare." Well, I guess you can do it; but expect to have the hypocrisy pointed out.

And before you say, "I never..." I was using the "you" in a generalized sense, and not a specific one.

 

[deafskeptic]

found this tidbit of info regarding long term temps at Federal level:
Source is OPM.gov

If your position is excluded from coverage because your appointment is limited to one year or less, you will be eligible to enroll under 5 U.S.C. 8906a when you have completed one year of current continuous employment, excluding any break in service of 5 days or less. You must pay both the employee and the Government shares of the premium.
The one-year requirement may be met at the end of a one-year appointment in a single agency or it may be based on a series of shorter appointments served in one or more agencies, as long as you have not had a break in service of more than 5 days.
In many cases, a temporary appointment lasts one year. If your appointment is renewed at the end of that year, you are eligible to enroll.

That's more than what I would have gotten via Manpower for a long term temp job.. not that I can find many via Manpower where I live. i will grant that the long term temp would have to pay both employee and government shares but I don't think manpower would offer anything so generous.

 

[Reba]

Oh? Which civil service workers don't get the benefits? From what I can see, many get better benefits than they would in the private sector.

Many are better than private sector but not all are "golden." There are also some workers who leave government service for private sector jobs.

Regardless, the worker is worthy of his hire.

 

[Reba]

Jealous? I was actually offered more than one postion with the government through agency work. I turned it down.

Jealous because your current job doesn't pay as well as a government job, regardless of whether or not you were offered one.

Right. Government jobs offfer no benefits outside the same ones received in the private sector. Then what is the great advantage in securing a government job?

I never said that. I said that there are some private sector jobs that pay better than civil service.

You can work for the government if you so choose. But you cannot take advantage of the benefits provided through government employment for 38 years, continue to live off that pension, and then turn around and accuse everyone else of looking for entitlements. Same thing as "Hands off my Medicare." Well, I guess you can do it; but expect to have the hypocrisy pointed out.

You really can't see the difference between one person working for a salary and another person receiving money without working?

You really can't see the difference between one person making mandatory paycheck deductions to a retirement fund and Medicare in order to someday maybe get some of that forced investment back, and another person collecting benefits without having paid into the pot?

...and you claim that others are obtuse? Incredible.

And before you say, "I never..." I was using the "you" in a generalized sense, and not a specific one.

Are you addressing the generalized "you" in that sentence, too?

If you aren't replying to my specific posts, then don't quote them in your posts.

 

[deafskeptic]

Many are better than private sector but not all are "golden." There are also some workers who leave government service for private sector jobs.

Regardless, the worker is worthy of his hire.

I would imagine that's a lot better than what many would get in private sector especially if they're jobs like being cooks.

My brother could earn a lot more in the private sector as a computer system analyst but he chose to work for EPA instead.

 

[jillio]

Many are better than private sector but not all are "golden." There are also some workers who leave government service for private sector jobs.

Regardless, the worker is worthy of his hire.

I don't think anyone claimed that they were all golden; just that as a rule, benefits for government jobs is better than that found in the private sector, and job security is greater. The point being made by bringing that into the discussion was that one cannot take advantage of the greater benefits and job security for 38 years, continue to be supported by the pension from that job, and also, in the same breath, accuse other government workers as getting entitlements. Well, again, one can. But then one must be prepared to have the hypocrisy pointed out. Just like the hypocrisy of "hands off my Medicare".

 

[TXgolfer]

Jealous? I was actually offered more than one postion with the government through agency work. I turned it down.

Right. Government jobs offfer no benefits outside the same ones received in the private sector. Then what is the great advantage in securing a government job?

You can work for the government if you so choose. But you cannot take advantage of the benefits provided through government employment for 38 years, continue to live off that pension, and then turn around and accuse everyone else of looking for entitlements. Same thing as "Hands off my Medicare." Well, I guess you can do it; but expect to have the hypocrisy pointed out.

And before you say, "I never..." I was using the "you" in a generalized sense, and not a specific one.

Sure you can, those benefits were earned. It's that simple.

 

[jillio]

Exactually. But you are forgetting that she is the hero of those getting entitlement.

Who exactly is getting entitlements? You seem to have some sort of group in mind, but it is so vague that you never get around to being specific. Just vague references that really don't mean much...especially coming from someone who took advantage of government employment for 38 years. In ubt fact, I doubt seriously that, in the private sector, you would have been able to maintain employment at one single company for that length of time. One of the advantages of government jobs is that it is very difficult to get fired. Greater job security. Espcecially with a disability.

 

[deafskeptic]

I don't think anyone claimed that they were all golden; just that as a rule, benefits for government jobs is better than that found in the private sector, and job security is greater. The point being made by bringing that into the discussion was that one cannot take advantage of the greater benefits and job security for 38 years, continue to be supported by the pension from that job, and also, in the same breath, accuse other government workers as getting entitlements. Well, again, one can. But then one must be prepared to have the hypocrisy pointed out. Just like the hypocrisy of "hands off my Medicare".

Exactly. I didn't mention that the same source that I cited also indicates that short term temporary workers for the government get no benefits.

If I were given the choice between a job as a cook for the private sector and the public sector, I would pick the public sector just because they're more generous. Odds are good I would get only part time perma jobs as cook in the private sector and it'd have no benefits.

 

[jillio]

Exactly. I didn't mention that the same source that I cited also indicates that short term temporary workers for the government get no benefits.

If I were given the choice between a job as a cook for the private sector and the public sector, I would pick the public sector just because they're more generous. Odds are good I would get only part time perma jobs as cook in the private sector and it'd have no benefits.

Right. But they would just keep shifting you from temp position to temp position to maintain the appearance of keeping you employed.

 

[Reba]

I don't think anyone claimed that they were all golden; just that as a rule, benefits for government jobs is better than that found in the private sector, and job security is greater.

Ask someone in civil service about RIFs.

The point being made by bringing that into the discussion was that one cannot take advantage of the greater benefits and job security for 38 years, continue to be supported by the pension from that job, and also, in the same breath, accuse other government workers as getting entitlements. Well, again, one can. But then one must be prepared to have the hypocrisy pointed out. Just like the hypocrisy of "hands off my Medicare".

Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. Someone criticizing unearned benefits but receiving earned benefits is not hypocrisy.

Ever since I've drawn a paycheck, a portion has been deducted, or I've paid directly into the Medicare fund, whether or not I wanted to. Of course, I expect someday to get back something for all that money I've paid in. If I had never paid in anything, I wouldn't expect to get anything back.

Do you really believe that people who get Medicare after decades of employee "contributions" are getting something they didn't earn?

 

[rolling7]

smh. Just one time, just one single time, I would like to read one of your posts and find a cohesive thought in it anywhere. It has yet to happen. Have you been checked for age related dementia?

Xxx

 

[rolling7]

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

"It is incumbent on every generation to pay it's own debt as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world."

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent government from wasting the labor of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

Thomas Jefferson

 

[jillio]

Ask someone in civil service about RIFs.


Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. Someone criticizing unearned benefits but receiving earned benefits is not hypocrisy.

Ever since I've drawn a paycheck, a portion has been deducted, or I've paid directly into the Medicare fund, whether or not I wanted to. Of course, I expect someday to get back something for all that money I've paid in. If I had never paid in anything, I wouldn't expect to get anything back.

Do you really believe that people who get Medicare after decades of employee "contributions" are getting something they didn't earn?

Exactly. And that is exactly what the poster has done. Say one thing and do another.

No, and you are missing the point of the "keep your hands off my Medicare" analogy. The Tea Partiers were ranting about government run insurance programs being unnacceptable, but their Medicare is a government run insurance program. They want it to continue, but they don't want government options for anyone else. That, again, is hypocritical.

 

[jillio]

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

"It is incumbent on every generation to pay it's own debt as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world."

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent government from wasting the labor of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

Thomas Jefferson

And these quotes would apply how?

 

[Reba]

Exactly. And that is exactly what the poster has done. Say one thing and do another.

No, and you are missing the point of the "keep your hands off my Medicare" analogy. The Tea Partiers were ranting about government run insurance programs being unnacceptable, but their Medicare is a government run insurance program. They want it to continue, but they don't want government options for anyone else. That, again, is hypocritical.

They want it to continue because they paid so much money into it. If the government could return those "contributions" so they could pay for commercial health insurance, maybe they wouldn't have to "rant."

The problem is, you can't compare government option insurance with Medicare because Medicare is NOT optional.

 

[jillio]

They want it to continue because they paid so much money into it. If the government could return those "contributions" so they could pay for commercial health insurance, maybe they wouldn't have to "rant."

The problem is, you can't compare government option insurance with Medicare because Medicare is NOT optional.

Yes, you can compare the two. Especially when a fringe group is opposed to any government run health care insurance, but demand that their own be left alone. Like I said, perfectly willing to take for themselves, but not willing to allow others to have the option. If the contributions made over the years were refunded, there is no way it would be sufficient to purchase private insurance with the same degree of coverage. Why? Because of the very fact that this is government run insurance program, and therefore, much, much more inexpensive than private coverage. The amount paid in contributions is minor when compared to the cost of any other private plan. Even the lousy coverage of an HMO is more expensive.

 

[Reba]

Yes, you can compare the two. Especially when a fringe group is opposed to any government run health care insurance, but demand that their own be left alone. Like I said, perfectly willing to take for themselves, but not willing to allow others to have the option.

Medicare recipients don't "take" for themselves--they pay for it.

Medicare is NOT an option.

 

[jillio]

Medicare recipients don't "take" for themselves--they pay for it.

Medicare is NOT an option.

Like I said, it is a benefit to living in the U.S. and having government run insurance available at retirement age. You could not take everything paid in Medicare contributions over your entire work history and purchase private insurance with even remotely close coverage. In fact, most private carriers would not even sell you a policy at retirement age. Too big a risk of you actually filing claims they would have to pay out. You are guaranteed coverage as the direct result of a goverment run insurance.