TheWorx

Quick! note on previous post. I don't have any objections to how much the U.S. Government decides to pay its employees in salary and even retirement benefits; however allowing them to retire at age 50 at sizable fractions of their regular salary is nothing short of freewheeling on the part of Uncle Sam. The FBI, according to the present director, only accepts 5% of applicants. The draw may be service to country or sweet compensation. One is noble and the other self-serving but neither should merit the right to retire with partial salary unless disabled on the job. It just borders on the reason many revolutions are fought. They are ought against the privileged. If I have and you have, there is no reason to fight other than greed. If bureaucrats (including defense and law enforcement) want to ride "high on the hog," they and we should ask that it be Federal law that whatever benefit is granted to the Federally-employed, also be granted to the rest of us. Not to level th...

At first I thought McCabe was being targeted unfairly; then, I learned that he was retiring at age 50 with a $55,000 yearly pension. Then I learned that the man had a net worth of 11 million dollars. Over the course of 15 years--the time between his retirement at age 50 and the time the rest of us schmucks are allowed to retire--he would increase his wealth by $825,000. Why do we tolerate this largess for our public officials? These sobs at the top of the FBI are incapable of differentiating between the Mafia and inside traders and counterfeiters--and people like those of Ruby Ridge or Waco. They were powerful enough to erase the latter from existence; the former are still with us. Have they kept us safe from foreign actors and from our own country? I bring your attention to 911 and the Parkland Shooter and I ask them to answer for why they should be able to retire at 50; BTW, only to keep on making money in the private sector which they invariably will do. I see them all the time on...