Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

I earn <$200K and don't get overtime, period. Then again I drive a Nissan and think Jennifer Granholm is fuckable so we know I'm not about optimizing.

I think i was a 12 or 13 when i quit, so that was like 40 or so, but plus OT and the gov paid 60% of my law school tuition. how Reagan didn't cut the free tuition I do not know.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

we had OT turned on and off, and 15s had trouble getting approval anytime. but maybe there are jobs where the 15s had it authorized?

Overtime for salaried employees?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

we had OT turned on and off, and 15s had trouble getting approval anytime. but maybe there are jobs where the 15s had it authorized?

I don't know of any, but YMMV.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

They clearly are inclusive, and I don't know why anyone would read it the way you suggest. In any event, if you back out the numbers, it would show basically the same number making over $180k as making between $160 and $170k (about 17000) and 37000 making between $150k and $160k--which is a lot fewer than the number making over $160k.

You would expect to see a bar graph with the number of people making money in certain ranges: $140K-$150K, $150K-$160K, etc.

As you say, their approach gets the same proportions but more or less doubles the numbers, making them sound more impressive.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I think i was a 12 or 13 when i quit, so that was like 40 or so, but plus OT and the gov paid 60% of my law school tuition. how Reagan didn't cut the free tuition I do not know.

The ghost of RR texted me with this governance tip: "If you must create a govt job, make it one at the 33% bracket."

Personally I think it was a mistake to underestimate RR's intelligence even at the very end.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Overtime for salaried employees?

well our salary covered 7.5 hrs 5 days a week, and we weren't keeping up with the growth in workload. so they authorized OT so we could keep meeting our very critical date goals.

you have to remember my branch of government is probably the single most important ignition center for the fuel that builds our economy. it was specifically ordered in the constitution: not to brag.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You would expect to see a bar graph with the number of people making money in certain ranges: $140K-$150K, $150K-$160K, etc.

As you say, their approach gets the same proportions but more or less doubles the numbers, making them sound more impressive.

*you* might, but one would not, as I would not. It's showing how many people are over a certain threshold.

It does serve as another example of how graph construction can be completely accurate and slanted to one's point at the same time.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

well our salary covered 7.5 hrs 5 days a week, and we weren't keeping up with the growth in workload. so they authorized OT so we could keep meeting our very critical date goals.

you have to remember my branch of government is probably the single most important ignition center for the fuel that builds our economy. it was specifically ordered in the constitution: not to brag.

Did they allow the sort who would order RBV's at the Grand to work there?

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

So lucky that he does? Or so lucky that the Rs go back to harping on that nonsense? Or both?

The former. We need death panels.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

Overtime for salaried employees?

This is the kind of stuff that gets my blood boiling. We pay them for full time work, and yet I see them kicking off early and lounging around on the porch at the Grand. Meanwhile, I have to get in early and leave late just to pay the tuitions, cars, mortgages, servants, liquor bills and other necessities.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

This is the kind of stuff that gets my blood boiling. We pay them for full time work, and yet I see them kicking off early and lounging around on the porch at the Grand. Meanwhile, I have to get in early and leave late just to pay the tuitions, cars, mortgages, servants, liquor bills and other necessities.

2.

eta: whiff?

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Only in summary. I think it's not enough, largely bc most of it won't get through.

Skimming thru the summary:

"This option eliminates the [Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools], saving about $1.8 billion in 2015."

WHAT? How do they manage to spend anything like that much on something like that? If anyone objects to this, they're brain dead.

Also: I note that it calls for a total elimination of earmarks--seriously, if Nancy doesn't run with that one in the lame duck, she doesn't deserve here seat, much less a leadership position.

It calls for the elimination of the mortgage deduction, closing of other tax loops, lowering of taxes, increase in retirement age, decrease in cost of living adjustments, and other areas. I'm sure if anything passes, it will be a bastardization, but I'm encouraged, at least on a quick read of the summary, that they at least had some guts.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

It calls for the elimination of the mortgage deduction, closing of other tax loops, lowering of taxes, increase in retirement age, decrease in cost of living adjustments, and other areas. I'm sure if anything passes, it will be a bastardization, but I'm encouraged, at least on a quick read of the summary, that they at least had some guts.

It doesn't take much guts for two unelected rich guys to suggest that a lot of other people make sacrifices.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

It calls for the elimination of the mortgage deduction, closing of other tax loops, lowering of taxes, increase in retirement age, decrease in cost of living adjustments, and other areas. I'm sure if anything passes, it will be a bastardization, but I'm encouraged, at least on a quick read of the summary, that they at least had some guts.

It all sounds pretty good and necessary to me - http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...8S58.DTL&tsp=1 .

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

It calls for the elimination of the mortgage deduction, closing of other tax loops, lowering of taxes, increase in retirement age, decrease in cost of living adjustments, and other areas. I'm sure if anything passes, it will be a bastardization, but I'm encouraged, at least on a quick read of the summary, that they at least had some guts.

To me, it looks aggressively small-government, flatter tax focused. This ought to be a Republican wet dream. But from what I can see, they're virtually silent. Fox is more focused on the controversy over a pedophilia guide being sold on Amazon than this.

If I could find a way to quantify it, I'd offer a bet that Obama will be more of a deficit hawk over the next two years than Boehner or McConnell, and will stick his neck out over more of these recommendations than both of them combined.