Trump is caving

[Kierland]

All BS. He is super great and has a smart brain. He is the Greatest leader in the history of the world.
Sin,
88BrokenRoosterJoeDale

[Screw_Michigan]

When I referred to a national emergency, I meant our dysfunctional government that has been corrupted by big money, some from outside the country. Which is why I'm in favor of legislation limiting campaign contributions to US citizens only, with a maximum of $1000.

Good idea

[Screw_Michigan]

Nobody said you had to like it. Just deal with it.

Nancy Pelosi is your president.

[Goober McTuber]

Yes, if Shakespeare was a babbling retard.

Projecting again, I see. Another shot of whiskey might help you— your eighth for the morning, perhaps?

IKYABWAI.

[Goober McTuber]

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/th ... s-get-paid

The article talks about “furloughed and essential workers are guaranteed backpay,” so unless I am completely misreading this, everyone get their money regardless of their status as nonessential and essential.

I don't believe contracted workers will get back pay.

[Goober McTuber]

Especially since these same federal employees make 50% more on average than a civilian worker doing the same type job.

Link, please.

[Goober McTuber]

Yes, if Shakespeare was a babbling retard.

President Donald Trump is the latest Washington politician to learn a hard lesson: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi knows how to wield her power effectively.

The pitched battle between the two leaders over whether the President would deliver his State of the Union address in the House chamber next week, in the midst of the ongoing government shutdown, ended after Pelosi rescinded her invitation on Wednesday. Within minutes, Trump threatened to find an alternative location to deliver the speech -- only to back down hours later.

At her weekly press conference Thursday, Pelosi calmly called the dispute "so unimportant" for most Americans. But even this minor victory demonstrates the California Democrat is comfortable in her position to go toe-to-toe with a President who has confounded so many others who have found themselves at odds with him.
"She is ruthless and relentless in advancing toward her goals, whether political or policy," says Michael Steel, who worked as former House Speaker John Boehner's top spokesman. "She understands that power and the opportunity to get things done is a brief and transitive thing."

That helps make her the most formidable political opponent Trump has encountered in his short political career. Since declaring for president in 2015, Trump has essentially bested every foe he's faced. He dispatched the 16 Republicans in the 2016 primary, beat Hillary Clinton in the general election and then bent the party to his will after taking office. Since he became President, those who have opposed Trump have either lacked the power to do it effectively (Democrats), fallen in line (Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz) or have departed the political arena entirely (Jeff Flake, Bob Corker).

But while the Trump train careened generally unimpeded when Republicans were in charge, Pelosi is a real immovable object --knowledgeable in the institutions of Washington, empowered by a unified party behind her and intimidating to a President unaccustomed to dealing with a woman in power. She has the ability and incentive to stand firmly and confidently in opposition. And in the first test of this week, Trump blinked.

"She's been in the fight before," says Nadeam Elshami, Pelosi's former chief of staff. "She knows where the power lies."

Most importantly, she knows where her power lies, having spent four years as speaker working with a president in each party.

"She understands the tools of the speakership," said Patrick McHenry, the eight-term Republican from North Carolina who also served during Pelosi's first time with the gavel.
"She has an excellent understanding of power dynamics," says Steel.

A life in politics

Pelosi's tenure in Democratic leadership has been defined by a kind of old-school urban politics approach shaped by her upbringing in the midst of the Baltimore Democratic political machine. Her father, Thomas D'Alesandro, was a five-term congressman from Maryland and later Baltimore's mayor for 12 years, and her older brother also served as mayor. Pelosi moved to San Francisco and became a powerful figure in that city's own Democratic machine before her run for Congress in 1987.

This machine-politics pedigree manifests itself in her well-known ability to exert dominance on her caucus. Throughout the eight years Pelosi was minority leader during the Obama and Trump administrations, Democrats remained unified on every major vote. She maintained that unity through the first vote of the new Congress, her election as speaker, despite the serious threats to her leadership from critics within the caucus.

Just "Nancy"

Pelosi frequently exerts soft power. Rep. Ed Perlmutter, the Colorado Democrat who helped broker a deal between Pelosi and rebellious members who tried to block her rise to the speakership, told reporters in December that Pelosi maintains good relationships across the caucus. "She has a lot of skills and knowledge that most of the rest of us don't," Perlmutter said. "She is very good at what she does, and she's got a lot of relationships, and there's a lot of respect for her within our caucus."

But Pelosi is also unafraid to use retaliation as a tool. Most recently, Reps. Kathleen Rice and Anthony Brindisi, both House Democrats from New York who had been critical of Pelosi during the 2018 campaign and voted against her for speaker, were denied committee assignments they had lobbied for, moves seen as retribution by Pelosi.

That kind of perception has earned her respect (and perhaps a bit of fear) from Trump.

"I think the President has respect for allies or opponents who he sees as strong," said Marc Short, Trump's former legislative director in the White House and a CNN contributor. It's no accident that Trump, so deft at assigning humiliating nicknames to dismiss his foes, refers to Pelosi simply as "Nancy."

Hard won respect

That respect for the speaker is a change of pace for Trump, who publicly and privately has shown no such feelings toward Pelosi's GOP predecessor. In a scene from his forthcoming book Team of Vipers, former Trump aide Cliff Sims describes a phone conversation between Trump and Paul Ryan, who had just criticized the President's response to the deadly white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.

"Paul, do you know why Democrats have been kicking your a-- for decades?" Sims recalls Trump saying. "Because they know a little word called 'loyalty.' Why do you think Nancy has held on this long?"

Short said Trump's grudging respect for Pelosi means there's more opportunity for the Democratic speaker and the Republican President to work together where they may have common ground on policy, particularly on infrastructure and some elements of health care. That, of course, could only happen if the two sides reach the so-far elusive agreement on the shutdown and border wall.

Sitting House Republicans, however, see a vulnerability behind Pelosi's holding the line during the shutdown. "Her projection of strength is a bit of an artifice," said McHenry, who adds the freshmen Democrats are a "raucous set" clamoring for confrontation, not negotiation, with Trump. "It limits her capacity to negotiate."

GOP leadership, meanwhile, is arguing that Pelosi's tough stance on postponing the State of the Union is unreasonable and self-destructive. "I think it's time for the Democratic Party to have an intervention with the speaker," Wyoming congresswoman Liz Cheney, the chairman of the House GOP conference, told reporters Thursday.

Not every Republican thinks Pelosi is a problem for Democrats. In fact, some admit that she just might be the perfect foil to Trump: a woman, well-versed in the art of political combat, and vested with the power of an office she knows how to wield.

"I think her entire life and background have prepared her to be an effective opponent for President Trump," Steel said.

After a long day of partisan battles on Capitol Hill, Pelosi took in a basketball game between the Washington Wizards and her visiting hometown team from the Bay Area -- the reigning NBA champions who last year declined the traditional visit to the White House in protest of Trump -- fittingly nicknamed the Warriors.

Nice job eating Pelosi's stanky pussy there.

I didn't write the article, dumbfuck Dohron.

[Screw_Michigan]

I don't believe contracted workers will get back pay.

They aren't guaranteed back pay which means they will likely get zero.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... eddfc960a6

Her debt was mounting: $156 for the gas bill, $300 for electricity, $2,000 for the mortgage. She could no longer afford her blood pressure pills. But what stung Audrey Murray-Wright most was rationing the groceries.

“I never, ever want to tell my son, ‘Don’t drink all that milk so you can save your brother some,' ” she said, choking up.

Murray-Wright, a cleaning supervisor at the National Portrait Gallery, is one of more than a million federal contract workers nationwide whose income halted when the government partly shuttered for 35 days.

Unlike the 800,000 career public servants who are slated to receive full back pay over the next week or so, the contractors who clean, guard, cook and shoulder other jobs at federal workplaces aren’t legally guaranteed a single penny.

They’re also among the lowest-paid laborers in the government economy, generally earning between $450 and $650 weekly, union leaders say.

And even as they began returning to work Monday, they were bracing for more pain. President Trump’s new deadline for Congress to earmark funding for his proposed border wall is Feb. 15. Agencies could close again if no deal is reached.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Bernie could have been your guy, but instead you chose a Thatcher-redux, neo-liberal water-carrier for the plutocrats.

...and for their blood and toil the American Worker was offered "identity politics", in lieu of a decent living wage.

Enjoy your bean stew dumbfucks...'cause there ain't no magic beanstalk.

[Carson]

Especially since these same federal employees make 50% more on average than a civilian worker doing the same type job.

Link, please.

Yeah, gotta go with Gobbles on this one.

[Left Seater]

According to the CBO, the average civilian government employee is paid better than their corporate counterparts in most cases. The feds salary is more for all but those holding a masters degree or higher. However when including benefits the compensation to those federal employees with a masters degree is higher than the corporate sector.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52637

So we have that going for us as tax payers, above average wages and benefits for government employees.

[Rooster]

Especially since these same federal employees make 50% more on average than a civilian worker doing the same type job.

Link, please.

Yeah, gotta go with Gobbles on this one.

/sigh
Is it that difficult to look stuff up for yourself? Fine...
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52637

[Mikey]

/sigh
Is it that difficult to look stuff up for yourself? Fine...
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52637

Those data are at least four years old, and they don't show anything close to 50% higher.

Rack you for looking it up yourself, though.

[Mikey]

According to the CBO, the average civilian government employee is paid better than their corporate counterparts in most cases. The feds salary is more for all but those holding a masters degree or higher. However when including benefits the compensation to those federal employees with a masters degree is higher than the corporate sector.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52637

So we have that going for us as tax payers, above average wages and benefits for government employees.

This actually kind of surprised me, because we're usually told the opposite. It's difficult to make a direct comparison for several reasons, one being that the federal workforce, in general, tends to be more highly educated than the private work force. One thing that these data don't apparently account for is that federal employees are being required to cover more and more of their retirement contributions.

I worked for the Feds for about five years in the mid 90s, at an EPA lab in Las Vegas. I believe that my salary was competitive, but on the low side, with comparable jobs in the private sector. Again, hard to compare because I was moving from San Diego to Vegas, and had looked unsuccessfully for a job in my field in San Diego for nine months before taking that position. The benefits were good, though, especially the vacation time and the compressed work schedule, which allowed me to take alternating Fridays off.

It was a positive experience overall. I worked with great people (mostly) and learned a lot. There were some folks who had been around for 30 or 40 years and mostly sat around waiting to retire, though. And my time there did end on a very sour note.

During my last year they created a new management position at the lab, which I applied for. It would have been a big bump in pay grade (from GS13 to GS14), but I was completely qualified for it, got along well with my peers, and actually served on a temporary basis in the position successfully for six months during the application period.

When I didn't get the job, and I asked why, the only answer I got was that I "wasn't the person they were looking for." Not other explanation at all. In fact, they didn't hire anybody, closed the position, and reopened again about a year later, hiring a (by then) former co-worker who wasn't as qualified as I was. I'm convinced that the reason was one of two things (or both). The fact that I was (and still am) a white male worked against me. I also think that the lab director, who would have been my immediate superior, may have seen me as some kind of competition. He was a fine arts major from Chico State with no technical background running a government lab. I have a few opinions on how he got there, but won't go into that here. The fact that they didn't hire anybody, I believed, left me no recourse on discrimination grounds so I decided then that it was time to pack my bags. I had no prospects of future advancement there.

[Rooster]

/sigh
Is it that difficult to look stuff up for yourself? Fine...
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52637

Those data are at least four years old, and they don't show anything close to 50% higher.

Rack you for looking it up yourself, though.

Actually it does, with the exception of those with a Masters degree and higher— which would be expected since they can earn far more money on the civilian side. High school and some college is around 50% more pay according to the graph at the top of the page. As for the age of the article, things like pay don’t change substantially in the gubbmint over the course of 4 years.

[Mikey]

/sigh
Is it that difficult to look stuff up for yourself? Fine...
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52637

Those data are at least four years old, and they don't show anything close to 50% higher.

Rack you for looking it up yourself, though.

Actually it does, with the exception of those with a Masters degree and higher— which would be expected since they can earn far more money on the civilian side. High school and some college is around 50% more pay according to the graph at the top of the page. As for the age of the article, things like pay don’t change substantially in the gubbmint over the course of 4 years.

Your logic is truly Trumpian.

which would be expected since they can earn far more money on the civilian side

Isn't that the whole point of the discussion? Government employees at those levels make less than private sector employees.
You're saying that civilian employees only make more because it would be expected, so that doesn't count.

The comparison at those levels is probably more valid anyway. The private sector data at the lowest level includes basically everybody without a college degree. Most federal jobs at least require a HS diploma and probably some amount of experience, skewing the government average a lot higher.

But again, not even near 50% higher.

I took the liberty of downloading the underlying data to make a comparison (I added the last two columns).



As you can see the difference in wages isn't close to 50% in any of the categories, and only above 50% at the lowest level when you add in the benefits. And again, this is highly biased lower on the private sector side. You could argue this but you would be wrong.

[Derron]

Your logic is truly Trumpian.

Rack you for the big word there. Excellent working it into a sentence. Next time you can mix in super, literally, amazing, legit and all the other must have speech words that the millennial's babble all day long, and that will truly validate your position as hating Trump.

POTUS is hanging out in your dome damn near as much as Screwed in the Ass's head.

Here is the definition of " Trumpian" by dictionary.com. Glad to see it is not a biased take at all.

What does Trumpian mean?
Trumpian refers to the bombast, egotism, and lies, or anti-establishment, authoritarian, bigoted ideologies that some associate with the language, conduct, and viewpoints of President Donald Trump.

[Mikey]

Your logic is truly Trumpian.

What does Trumpian mean?

It means whatever I decide it means, dumbass.

Any argument with the actual point I was making?

I didn't think so.

[Derron]

As you can see the difference in wages isn't close to 50% in any of the categories, and only above 50% at the lowest level when you add in the benefits. And again, this is highly biased lower on the private sector side. You could argue this but you would be wrong.

And the fact that a good number of the Federal leach jobs do not exist in the private sector, where employees actually have to produce value for the money they are paid. Seems like a apples to apples thing to me.

[Left Seater]

According to the CBO, the average civilian government employee is paid better than their corporate counterparts in most cases. The feds salary is more for all but those holding a masters degree or higher. However when including benefits the compensation to those federal employees with a masters degree is higher than the corporate sector.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52637

So we have that going for us as tax payers, above average wages and benefits for government employees.

This gem was in a Q & A link from LS's link above:

Question. CBO found the dispersion of federal wages is constrained relative to those in the private sector. What may be causing this? What are the practical implications of these constraints?

Answer. The difference between the wages of the highest- and the lowest-paid employees was smaller in the federal government than in the private sector, even after accounting for employees’ education and other observable traits. The narrower dispersion of wages among federal employees may reflect the constraints of federal pay systems, which make it harder for managers to reward the best performers or to limit the pay of poor performers. Such constraints probably both limit the government’s ability to attract and retain highly qualified workers and cause the government to pay more than necessary to retain workers who are less productive.

So not only do we pay more for fed employees, we get less from them.

Sounds much like unions...oh wait.

[Mikey]

If I had to make a wager on the data, I would say that the reason private sector individuals with a doctorate make more than public sector individuals with a doctorate has more to do with the occupations and business structures than anything else. Attorneys and physicians in private practice tend to own their own businesses (or a share of it) and thus profit as business persons. Attorneys and physicians in the public sector are merely employees. They own no business and thus do not profit from it. The separation in incomes in that circumstance seems quite obvious. But it also appears in other areas. If you have a PhD in a marketable field, you are likely going to some day start your own business or acquire some interest in the business you work for (stock options etc.). Again, this does not happen in the public sector. And this has real consequences. Those with skin in the game tend to innovate and reap financial benefits as compared to those in the public sector. When was the last time the U.S. government or any agency thereof came up with a valuable innovation? Not too often, and takes a lot of thought to consider. NASA, which does a lot of research, mostly innovates through contractors who are paid to do so (and who profit from their innovations through future contracts). It isn't too often that NASA goes to Boeing or some other contractor and says "hey guys, we just invented this new device, will you build it for us?" It usually goes the other way. NASA or the DoD or some other agency sends out a list of specs and solicits bids, and then private business innovates and competes to try to suckle from the public teet.

It kind of goes back to the saying I used to hear a lot when I was in college: Those who can, do. And those who can't either teach or work for government. That isn't a blanket statement against all. But on the whole, and particularly with professionals with PhD's, it seems to fit. The best and brightest can do far better in most instances outside the constraints of the federal pay system, which leaves those positions to be filled with the people who are there. And the best and brightest go on to private practice and do better over time.

Is that logic fucked up and outside your personal experiences, Mikey? You left after five years. How would you have done by comparison if you had stayed in that position and not gone into the private sector?

I agree with what you're saying, to a point. There are a lot of corporate attorneys out there making huge $$. I think that attorneys working for the government, while their scale is probably higher than your general GS pay scale (there's something called SES - Senior Executive Service), I'm pretty sure that they max out at a fraction of what a top level corporate shyster can make. Also, I think that the trend with physicians is moving away from private practice, at least in urban and suburban centers, and more towards corporate medicine, or whatever it may be called. Our primary physicians, for example, are with the UCSD Health System, which has offices spread around San Diego County, a huge modern hospital complex and affiliations with other local hospitals, access to a large network of specialists, and centralized billing, appointments and records. I don't know what their pay scale is but, for the most part, everything there is very high quality.

The choice for a highly credentialed professional to go into government comes down to a few factors.

Less pressure to "succeed" (i.e. bring in a profit) than in a private practice or in the corporate world.
More job security (though maybe not these days).
Don't really care about getting rich.
Desire to serve the public good. Believe it or not this actually does play into some peoples' decisions, even the "best and the brightest." Possibly even more so for some of the best and the brightest.

In my case, I was desperate for a fucking job. I had never thought of working for the government, or ever moving to Las Vegas (Henderson, actually). I had gotten laid off, had two small kids, was living off my wife's income (she was looking at a potential RIF at General Dynamics as well), a small inheritance, and some low wage part time work. I applied for this job on a whim and after six months (nine months of no real prospects) I got to interview in Vegas. Even though I left that job five years later in a really pissed off state of mind, it was probably one of the best moves I could have made. This was almost 30 years ago. It was very hands-on and I learned a hell of a lot about things that I still work on today. Also gained a lot of self-confidence running some pretty large projects, and was doing something that I thought could have an important effect on a lot of people. My other best move was getting out when I did.

I decided that I had pretty much hit the ceiling there when I got turned down for the promotion. I'm not against giving some preference, all other things being equal, to groups who have been historically discriminated against. My wife sure saw a lot of the good old boy network at GD while an engineer there in the 80s. But in my case there wasn't even any competition. The job was open for six months and, as far as I know, I was the only qualified person to apply. My impression was that they were looking for a woman, or some other minority and, because they didn't find anybody that fit that description, they shut it down rather than hire me. That was absolutely the last straw as far as I was concerned.

[Derron]

But in my case there wasn't even any competition. The job was open for six months and, as far as I know, I was the only qualified person to apply. My impression was that they were looking for a woman, or some other minority and, because they didn't find anybody that fit that description, they shut it down rather than hire me. That was absolutely the last straw as far as I was concerned.

So this explains why Screwys beloved government has mediocre people performing shit jobs. You left government service after being passed over for promotion even with AA and all. How many other instances has this happened ? Perfectly well qualified people leave and take their talents elsewhere. Private business gains and the government continues fleecing the taxpayers. But no performance measurements involved, so it is all good.

[Screw_Michigan]

So this explains why Screwys beloved government has mediocre people performing shit jobs. You left government service after being passed over for promotion even with AA and all. How many other instances has this happened ? Perfectly well qualified people leave and take their talents elsewhere. Private business gains and the government continues fleecing the taxpayers. But no performance measurements involved, so it is all good.

Says the government tit sucker.