Slashdot Mirror
The Quiet Fury of Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
An anonymous reader writes "Activities, technologies, equipment, or other matters regarding the U.S. Department of Defense are a common topic on Slashdot, both as stories and in discussions. Despite that, we seldom see stories regarding the senior leadership of DoD as we do for technologists, the political branches, and lately the NSA. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who served under both Presidents Bush and Obama, has released a rather biting memoir of his tenure as the Secretary of Defense. The Wall Street Journal has an excerpt: '... despite everyone being "nice" to me, getting anything consequential done was so damnably difficult — even in the midst of two wars. I did not just have to wage war in Afghanistan and Iraq and against al Qaeda; I also had to battle the bureaucratic inertia of the Pentagon, surmount internal conflicts within both administrations, avoid the partisan abyss in Congress, evade the single-minded parochial self-interest of so many members of Congress and resist the magnetic pull exercised by the White House, especially in the Obama administration, to bring everything under its control and micromanagement. Over time, the broad dysfunction of today's Washington wore me down, especially as I tried to maintain a public posture of nonpartisan calm, reason and conciliation. ... difficulties within the executive branch were nothing compared with the pain of dealing with Congress. ... I saw most of Congress as uncivil, incompetent at fulfilling their basic constitutional responsibilities (such as timely appropriations), micromanagerial, parochial, hypocritical, egotistical, thin-skinned, and prone to put self (and re-election) before country.' — More at The Washington Post."
Nothing surprising.. basically he is just telling us what we already know about US politics in the modern age.
the system is not perfect, but it would be a lot worse if we allowed one person to have to much power and make too many decisions without input from stakeholders
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
He knew what it was like long before he got that post. What was he expecting, a sudden influx of invisible pink unicorn poop?
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
I have a hard time taking what I've read of the criticism online already seriously. Is it really so damning the Obama didn't consider Afganistan "his war", and "wanted to get out"? Or be "skeptical" of the plans put in place by the military leadership?
I mean it sounds like what we heard in the 2000s from the bush administration where enough patriotism and "believing in the troops" was what it took to make a war work. Expecting that from the common person is annoying and immature, but expecting it from the president sounds extraordinarily naive.
This is the problem of everyone who tries to work with other people, it's something you see at every job where your interests are not aligned perfectly with everyone else's. If you think that's bad, try dealing with an HOA.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The most frustrating part of this to me is that people die - both combatants and not - as a consequence of decisions made by these clowns.
My name is Anonymous Coward and I have non-specific cynicism to contribute to the discussion! Look at how helpful I'm being!
SNAFU = " "Situation Normal: All Fucked Up".
Anyone who expects to gain pleasure or be appreciated for serving in our political system is making a big mistake.
We actually did reduce military funding. Twice even. It's not completely politically untenable like taxes that target the plutocratic class as much as the working and middle classes.
Washington is a bunch of Type-A, borderline personality disorder sociopaths, as that's what it generally takes in order to claw one's way up to that level. Arguably that pressure-cooker is present in any group of political elite, from the Politburo to the King's Court.
This whining reminds me a bit of a civilian telecom contractor that went to Iraq to serve military needs, that complained that when some soldiers offered to give him some rudimentary weapons training on the range if he could get the ammo, complained about how hard it was to get ammo. In one of the most heavily armed bases in the world. Sure, he'd probably have to scrounge or scavenge or "borrow" ammo, but as a civilian it was not their job to supply it to him, and they were being nice by offering to give him some training at all.
This guy should have known what internal battles he'd face up there, that's part why Presidents visibly age so dramatically while in office. It's rough on top.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Robert Gates for President!
I've never been the one to raise the "How is this News for Nerds?" cry. In fact, I'm often the one trying to explain how it could interest a nerd. But I'm really at a loss here. The lampshade hung over the first two sentences didn't help.
resist the magnetic pull exercised by the White House, especially in the Obama administration, to bring everything under its control
Jesus, just by winning a couple of elections that guy thinks he's in charge.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
I know, everyone is thinking term limits will solve the problem. I think that's backwards: with term limits, you have a perpetual stream of newcomers coming into congress who haven't a clue what is going on but who are determined to "fix things". With short terms, you have congress critters spending an inordinate amount of their time, attention and money on getting reelected, and making political and strategic choices for the country with reelection as the goal rather than making the country better.
We can't get money out of politics, but we can lessen it's importance. Give 'em job security, I say.
Barbra Boxer and Hank Johnson (although neither of these involves Gates, the point remains).
sure, you have politics in the military industrial complex that is the pentagon. its how the mess hall gets halliburton contractors and your usual patrols are augmented by blackwater; its not going anywhere. but the tits-up congress is actually a pretty recent concoction.
in the face of a progressive president who shows signs of championing some popular reforms like wealth equality, immigration and healthcare, i'd say turning congress into a total clusterfuck with the addition of some well funded tea-based fringe group was a very tactically minded decision on the part of americas plutocrats. If the bus is going in the wrong direction, slash the tires and damn the consequences i say.
Good people go to bed earlier.
This is actually quite interesting. We have now moved from 'everyone knows' to someone has actually spelled it out.
There are a lot of ordinarly people out there who are not in the 'everyone' category and may now become aware of this.
No one will ever need more than four wars...
Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
I saw most of Congress as uncivil, incompetent at fulfilling their basic constitutional responsibilities (such as timely appropriations), micromanagerial, parochial, hypocritical, egotistical, thin-skinned, and prone to put self (and re-election) before country.
He never said any of this publicly while holding his position because he didn't want to lose his job. I feel that most politicians and cabinet appointees feel this way, but they always hold it all in until they leave office and are ready to author their "tell all" memoir. Maybe if someone actually spoke the truth while in office the problems plaguing our government would have a better chance of being addressed.
Of course since they are all "prone to put self (and re-election) before country" they would never dare to challenge the party line. Robert Gates included.
the takeover by the military industrial complex has already happened
Any time the govt hands out money, a feedback loop is created in which the recipients of tax dollars feed money and resources back into the political system in order to keep the money and favors flowing. The military industrial complex is only one of those feedback loops. A much, much bigger loop is the welfare/bureaucracy complex. Other loops involve labor unions, the education system, non-military corporate welfare, stockmarket pumping, ag subsidies, highway construction subsidies, foreign aid, mass transit subsidies, loose laws governing personal injury lawsuits, abortion industry subsidies, ...
The professional left NEVER talks about any of the feedback loops besides the military one, though, for partisan and ideological reasons. I'll take the complaints seriously when the left starts complaining about teachers unions as well as military contracts. Military contracts are at least Constitutional.
I did not just have to wage war in Afghanistan and Iraq and against al Qaeda; I also had to battle the bureaucratic
An article about commanders fighting each other about plans and egos, it mentioned during WWII Gen. Marshall arrives at his office early in morning. During the day he has to fight the British, fight the Soviets, fight the French, fight the Belguims, fight the Dutch, fight the Aussies, fight the Canadians,. Then late at night when Marshall returns home, his wife reminds him that he needs to fight the Germans.
mfwright@batnet.com
. I saw most of Congress as uncivil, incompetent at fulfilling their basic constitutional responsibilities (such as timely appropriations), micromanagerial, parochial, hypocritical, egotistical, thin-skinned, and prone to put self (and re-election) before country.
. I saw most of [insert big corporation] as uncivil, incompetent at fulfilling their basic corporate responsibilities (such as reasonable deadlines and funding), micromanagerial, parochial, hypocritical, egotistical, thin-skinned, and prone to put self (and promotion/ambition) before teamwork and progress.
Its news that human beings are self interested, ignorant, and vain? How did this ingenue become secretary of defense?
Here's a news flash for Bob Gates: People in Washington, running the gov. are no better/worse than the general populace. People don't suddenly become 'better' because they get elected to office, or go work for a congressman, or the white house. When you take the job of Secretary of Defense, you get paid for three things:
1. Up holding your duty to the constitution
2. Setting an example for your subordinates
3. Navigating the politics of government
If you don't want to compromise yourself, these things are all thankless arduous tasks. They wear you out. It goes with the territory. Cry me a river Bob Gates.
As a US citizen Mr. Gates is free to speak his mind as dictated by the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. He can also now expect to come under "friendly fire" as the political wheels churn but he knew that before writing the book. I see this is a useful debate as candidates are vetted for the coming elections. He may have his biases but as an longtime insider I'd like to hear what he has to say.
That's upper middle class high "income" earners, who pay out the ass. Plutocrats pay less than you, since their new money for the year is (almost)entirely capital gains.
I don't work for the DoD... But it sometimes sure feels like it.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
we can't get competent people to run for public office in this country. Over the years I have worked many times with local, state and federal government agencies. Almost universally, the experience Gates had has mirrored my own. Incompetent management, grandstanding, petty interdepartmental feuds, smothering regulations and endless meetings. If I could sum up the entire experience in a single word it would be this: frustration. Is it any wonder that we can't get talented people to run for public office? High achievers are used to getting things done. Some of them come to Washington thinking that they can cut through the rubbish that slows everyone else down. Good luck with that. I'm sure that many in the press will paint Gates as some sort of grumpy malcontent. But he's actually doing us a favor.
I think its always refreshing to hear from a non political person in Washington DC. A Defense secretary is a great person to get insight into what is and is not working under a administration. I think its almost common knowledge that most President use a political model when making military decisions. Its why a lot of our recent military missions have failed. No President really listens to what his military advisers are telling him. Its far more important to have a positive for the Presidents political future. I personally never thought the Bush administration or Obama's has had any decent people in foreign policy. The results of that show dreadfully on how the World now views America. It would not be so bad to have such a bad President who knows little about foreign affairs. But to put people in the Secretary Of State position of not having any more credibility then the President is even worse. No doubt in my mind that all the men and woman lost in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will be for nothing. We will have gained no peace, made no friends in this part of the World and weakened the US military significantly as well as our economy.
"Resist the magnetic pull exercised by the White House"? Uh...idiot your job is to enforce the President's policies! If you find that your disagreements are that broad, you resign. You make your case, defend it as well as you can, and if the boss says "F it, I want to do it this way," you accept that as the way leadership works. The concerns of a President are larger than that of any Secretary. The top guy is the one ultimately responsible for outcomes so it's always easier for the junior officers to come up with daring, risky plans.
Crying about the self-interests of Congressmen? Uh...that's what Congress is!
While I agree with his complaints about how our government is functioning, he's not the one bearing the brunt of partisan warfare.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
You solution would just result in unsuitable people being there longer. The real solution is to make their job much less important. To re-distribute those powers that congress has amassed and push them back out to the states. Let the states be responsible for their own roads and bridges. Let the states be responsible for their own housing and medical/health. They could do it better...if they were collecting the majority of the tax revenue instead of the Federal government.
The problem with congress is that they have centralized too much power and responsibility and they cannot do it well.
The states aren't children anymore. They need to grow up and become little countries of their own.
The news is that he was recently interviewed in WaPo on this subject.
but yes i think members of congress should be limited to 3 terms 2 in office and 1 in prison
i also think that if a member of congress gets money from an industry group then they should be BANNED from working in that industry for 15 years (not counting any prison term).
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
"Duty" offers the familiar criticism of Congress and its culture, describing it as "truly ugly." Gates's cold feelings toward the legislative branch stand in stark contrast to his warmth for the military. He repeatedly describes his affection for the troops, especially those in combat.
Gee, he hates the career politicians who constrain his freedom to act, and loves the people in his chain of command? I'm stunned. Really. You could knock me over with a sledgehammer.
Gates's severe criticism is even more surprising -- some might say contradictory -- because toward the end of "Duty," he says of Obama's chief Afghanistan policies, "I believe Obama was right in each of these decisions." ... The sometimes bitter tone ... contrasts sharply with the even-tempered image that he cultivated during his many years of government service ... In "Duty," Gates describes his outwardly calm demeanor as a facade. Underneath, he writes, he was frequently "seething" and "running out of patience on multiple fronts."
So he's saying highly placed officials are under a lot of pressure, try to do what they believe is right, are often in highly contentious situations, have to suppress their emotional reactions, and on sober reflection ultimately support each other? My goodness, these exciting revelations have me so wound up I may go over to the couch and have a little snooze.
Pop media trying to turn pedestrian normality into sizzling drama. Yawn.
You want to do something interesting, Gates? Surprise me. Tell me about your fight against the F-35. Tell me about how hard you fought, the times you really put yourself on the line, to get that boondoggle cut. Oh, you didn't? That's why we're still paying for that stupid porkbarrel piece of shit that you opposed? So you're saying you talk the talk, but didn't walk the walk. You want to get me excited about your dedication to America, show me you took a risk for what you believed in when doing so had no upside for you. Don't just whine about how hard it was because everyone else were jerks; I can get that story from every single person on the planet.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
When they actually pay that rate without using dodges and loopholes... Let's be honest here. The middle class doesn't have the same access to accountants and lawyers, so appealing to the rate is meaningless if you're trying to argue that the plutocrats are paying just as much as the average worker.
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
By "most Americans", I take it you refer to the dirt poor, who have nothing to pay, and to the filthy rich, who simply do not pay.
Working stiffs pay 25 to 33%. Note the word "working". People who WANT TO WORK, but can't find anything better than a minimum wage job only pay 15% - like Romney. People who fall into the 35% bracket are no longer "working".
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/tax-brackets.aspx
Please don't sing Romney's praises to me, for paying 15% taxes. I pay considerably more than that. Worse, like any other politician, he makes his money at our expense, THEN cheats on those taxes!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Congress really DOES represent the people!
were nothing compared with the pain of dealing with Congress. ... I saw most of Congress as uncivil, incompetent at fulfilling their basic constitutional responsibilities (such as timely appropriations), micromanagerial, parochial, hypocritical, egotistical, thin-skinned, and prone to put self (and re-election) before country.
Has Gates considered blogger moderation and karma whoring to mitigate the dysfunction? I'm sure Ralph Reed might do something for extending unemployment benefits if we gave him a cookie.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
EXCELLENT!!
I got to "3 terms" and I start thinking "what a dumbass". "2 in office and 1 in prison" makes my day though!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Capital gains tax rate is 15% - 20%. I'm in the 1%, and my effective total tax rate (both state and federal combined) is about 28%. You're thinking about municipal bonds, which can have a zero tax rate, or carried interest, which is taxed at a much lower rate.
I'm not opposed to zero tax rate on muni bonds, as this results in (a) rich people investing in their local communities and (b) local communities having to pay a lower interest rate on their bonds (because of the zero tax rate on munis, investors can price that in and expect a "smaller" return on investment, because the after-tax earnings are then theoretically the same as for a high-grade corporate bond.)
Low tax rate on carried interest just seems... stupid.
I wonder if we shouldn't go the other way. Term limits have long been discussed, and have asymptotically-approaching-zero chance of passage since those who benefit from the system as-is would have to give up something. How about making Congress a LIFETIME elected position? At least then the non-stop campaigning and pandering would have no reason to continue. As it is, with re-election rates as they are (somewhere well north of 90% I believe), this wouldn't even represent much change in the institution.
Maybe then people would also pay closer attention to whom they are voting in. Okay, sorry, don't know what I was thinking there.
Perscriptio in manibus tabellariorum est.
Working stiffs pay nothing like 25 to 33% in federal taxes. That may be their top marginal rate, but it's not applied to their whole income. I pay 26% overall (AMT rate) to the Feds. That's from the first dollar. And you'd better believe I work for it.
So the "special dood" who was groomed from his teen years to be a CIA/DoD stooge (evidently his uncle was a SecDef, Thomas Gates, under Eisenhower), and who boiled cats as a "well adjusted" teen, who was kept from become the CIA director by a large scale public mutiny of the CIA employees at the time he was acting director, who was first appointed by George Weasel Bush, then reappointed by the clueless Obama (who still hasn't learned to play chess) once again, in yet another of his many "memoirs" criticizes some dems --- simpleton political theater for the Ameritards. Ho hum......
difficulties within the executive branch were nothing compared with the pain of dealing with Congress. ... I saw most of Congress as uncivil, incompetent at fulfilling their basic constitutional responsibilities (such as timely appropriations), micromanagerial, parochial, hypocritical, egotistical, thin-skinned, and prone to put self (and re-election) before country.
..and here's a Republican complaining about Congress and his own party just prior to the last election:
"...an insurgent outlier -- ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition"
..and yet even more of these clowns got sent to Congress weeks later. There's another Congressional election coming up later this year, and most predictions currently are that there will be even more of these ideological fundamentalists and their more reasonable but still Republican allies in Congress next year, primarily due to voters who don't like them not caring enough to go vote. They might even take over the Senate too.
And anyone would look a little groggy and unsteady on their feet when they are being bled dry. There was a report I read recently that the Pentagon could not account for a trillion dollars missing. The system is upside down. The people with the most power should live locally and be elected locally. The way it stands, the people with the most power will never come up for election in your state.
....an intelligent comment (i kan reed) at /. ! ! ! Thank you.
"But being told to fight the war, then being second guessed on how to fight the war was the problem."
As if there was some magical way to fight these wars that would lead to victory and these poor picked on honorable military folks just need the politicians to get outta their way so they can get it done.
Haven't these ridiculous wars only taught the world that the US military ain't much use unless you want to bomb the fuck out of someone?
It is very good to get Gates point of view of the situation, but remember the Military has a specific mission that doesn't always match the goal of the society. Take for example Vietnam War, the military rightly asks themselves how they could have better fought the war and win it, also how the military could have avoided most of the political fallout from the cost of running the war. However what the military never, and can never, ask themselves is are we fighting the right war. Even people who still believe in the domino theory, like Henry Kissinger, think that Vietnam could have been a cheaper delaying action and neighboring countries where we had more stable governments could have been the better place to make a stand. Likewise in Iraq and Afghanistan today, there is no reason to believe a democratic government reflecting the will of the people would be a staunch U.S. ally. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have democracy, but to me it puts sharp limits on how large a price the U.S. should pay to achieve the goal. It will be inherently frustrating for the Military, after all real people are dying (big HINT, think very carefully before starting a war!), none the less that doesn’t mean you throw more lives away without real measurable benefits. Interestingly, Gates has much worse words for Congress than the President, though most of the headlines I see are about the Gates comments about the President. I bet the lack of support in foreign policy from Congress figures into the President’s decisions about the war.
I saw most of Congress as uncivil, incompetent at fulfilling their basic constitutional responsibilities (such as timely appropriations), micromanagerial, parochial, hypocritical, egotistical, thin-skinned, and prone to put self (and re-election) before country.
I'm guessing this won't be on the reading list of the Congressional book of the month club (though it probably should be).
So, you're refuting the source I linked to? Do you have a better source to back up your claim?
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
The only low-ish rates are long term capital gains, and I do think we get significant structural benefit to the country by rewarding long-term investing over quarter-by-quarter speculation.
The only way not to pay taxes on significant income is to get that income on muni bonds, which is just fine. You don't get any more "take home pay" from muni bonds vs corporate bonds, you just avoid transferring money from the local government paying the interest to the federal government.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Romney only "pays 15%" because he gives a ton of money to charity (20% of his income IIRC). That is, in fact, praiseworthy. Do you pay more than 35% in combined taxes+charity?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
...which is the real story here. It also helps with speaking tours, etc. All to basic milk as much $$ post the time served.
Oh, boo hoo, Mr. 15-20%. I'm not the 1% and I pay more than you(marginally on the top part of my income, not to be deceitful). I'm literally bawling over your exorbitant taxes.
You don't understand how tax rates work. Everyone (until AMT kicks in) pays 10% on their first hunk of income (for convenience, let's use the married filing jointly numbers).
So their first $18150 of adjusted gross income (which takes out any deductions, like mortgage interest or just the standard deduction, meaning that at least the first $12400 in income for this couple has no taxes at all) generates a total of $1815 in tax liability. Then they pay 15% of income earned up to $73800, which generates (73800-18150)*0.15 = $8347.50 in tax liability.
A couple earning $73800 in taxable income, which means at least $86200 in total income, pays $1815 + $8347.50 in federal income tax, or $10162.50, not $73800*0.15 = $11070; their effective tax rate is 11.8% over all their income.
If the same couple increase their taxable income to $148850, the top of the 25% bracket, and remember that is at least $161250 before taxes, they will pay (148850-73800)*0.25 = $18762.50 in additional federal tax, for a total of $28925 in federal income tax, making an effective federal income tax rate of 17.9% across all their income.
Gates is a conservative Republican.
I found his criticism to be mellodramatic and uneven.
One time Obama is a 'micromanager' and the next he's 'out of touch'
What galls me most is that he criticized the Obama admin. for questioning his generals hard and not accepting their pat answers. Like we're supposed to feel bad when a General in charge of a war gets his feelings hurt?
I *expect* strict oversight of the men making the direct decisions about wars, especially the double-boondoggles of Iraq and Afghanistan that Obama was given.
In the case of General Petraus, he damn well needed to be questioned, disrespectfully even, because of this whole mess: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petraeus_scandal
Where was Gates's keen eye there? Did he admit *any* actual mistakes?
Thank you Dave Raggett
Tea Party may not be that Stupid! ymmv
Implementing war should not be easy, so it's a bit of a relief that he encountered so much annoying bureaucracy that made it difficult. It should be difficult. It should be damned near impossible. Frankly he didn't encounter enough annoying bureaucracy.
I would not want obama to be a lifetime senator, Thats just an example but the same could be said about 99% of them
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Incidentally, the hypothetical married couple that pay exactly 15% on federal income tax income make at least $113875 before tax, if my BOTEC is correct.
Looks like half the military budget is for benefits. That makes it difficult to cut the budget.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303755504579204141223865178
Republicans are Control Freaks.
Seriously...which party is the one that wants to stick a probe up a woman's yahoo?
Make Congress a limited term, but enforce retirement after the fact, with all compensation being pegged to the median income.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
When you stop saying Unions were only necessary 200 years ago and yet we have the largest wealth gap in the history of mankind.
My idea is that we should keep their salaries and retirement at their present levels, but limit them to military take-home pay and benefits while in office; for example, a first time senator would get the pay and benefits of an O-1, or a third-term representative would be able to collect the pay and benefits of an E-3. They wouldn't get to collect the remainder of their pay until they had been out of office and refrained from lobbying for ten years or the length of time they had been in office, whichever was shorter.
Not to be a negative Nancy, but if I recall the last big war was in was Vietnam. Wasn't some actual President impeached for evidence showing him trying to prolong the war for his own political gain?
Book Summary: Politicians are all a bunch of assholes.
You don't understand how tax rates work. Everyone (until AMT kicks in) pays 10% on their first hunk of income (for convenience, let's use the married filing jointly numbers)...
Thank you; you saved me a lot of typing and hopefully, educated some folks and maybe even encouraged some to do a little research. In my opinion, if more people understood how wealth was generated and taxed in this country, we would have a much higher standard of living all around. Compound interest is a pretty amazing thing and so is the market; as little as $25 a week into investments to start out with when beginning a career can get you on the path to retirement in your 40's if that is what you want - even for the "common man", and even if your employer doesn't contribute. Again, just my opinion and personal observation. Sadly, most folks get it figured out too late (like 5 years before they want to retire, then realize it's not gonna happen).
Anyway, end of that rant.
"Life is not magic." Dr. Ron Weiss - "If we don't play God, who will?" Dr. James Watson
Random House lists the price of the hardcover book as $35, but the price of the ebook at $14.99. Guess which one I'll buy.
The Officer Evaluation System actually has a mechanism in it to force it to keep everyone from being rated as the best. The senior rater ranking for the officer is given on the form and the profile of the senior rater's rankings is shown beside it. So if the rater puts everyone in the top block, that shows up and each person in the top block is average. If the rater does as he is supposed to and only puts a select few in the top block, then that rating has real meaning. Even a rating in the second block can have significant meaning if the bulk of the people are in the lower blocks. If a rater has too many people in the top block, he gets advised to change the way he is doing his ratings.
I wonder if we shouldn't go the other way. Term limits have long been discussed, and have asymptotically-approaching-zero chance of passage since those who benefit from the system as-is would have to give up something. How about making Congress a LIFETIME elected position? At least then the non-stop campaigning and pandering would have no reason to continue. As it is, with re-election rates as they are (somewhere well north of 90% I believe), this wouldn't even represent much change in the institution.
Maybe then people would also pay closer attention to whom they are voting in. Okay, sorry, don't know what I was thinking there.
You'd give them more power? This is why we need a national initiative - think of it like a feedback prevention mechanism - when things are going well we don't interfere directly with congress, but the citizens are ultimately in charge in case they go rogue. Say what you will about California's silly policies, but at least it represents the mad Californians.
I know lawyers that fall into the 35%, or even 39.6% that absolutely work their ass off. that's not even partner level at a big enough firm.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
And the AMT can rot in hell. It was originally aimed at 155 returns, not everybody who lives in a two-professional household.
I'm in the UK and I earn about 50% above the median average income here. I pay around 35 - 40% tax, when you factor in local council taxes as well as income tax and national insurance.
I'm interested in knowing what the typical US middle income tax hit is, when factoring in all levels of taxation (sales tax not being counted). Any one able to give me an idea? I only ever hear about federal taxes when I read newspaper here in England.
Also, the talk from AC above about municipal bonds confuses me - I thought that sates and city level governments weren't allowed to run deficits in the USA, so how can they issue bonds? (Is a bond issue not just a form of deficit spending?).
(I'm not disputing the facts, I just think I don't understand the details and want some help).
If Robert Gates doesn't want to be considered just a cog in the machine (which he was), then maybe he should have tried to change it at the time? When he was, you know, the Secretary of Defence? Instead of milking it later in memoirs.
Or is this an admission that raising concerns through the proper channels doesn't work, and you have to go public to get any traction and visibility? Because that'd be an interesting spanner to throw into that other open case.
So losing a congressional seat in election gets you executed? I like that.
Should mention that Romney's favorite charity is a big old scam and not all that 'charitable'.
Letting popular religious scammers retain their tax deductability is another issue.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Now mod me up... bitchez! lolz.. You gotta admit I had you there for a moment, right?
Yeah, I figured the objection would be "but I don't like his choice of charities, someone else should decide that for his money". It's always a call for more central power, always.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
1. As demonlapin points out, you don't understand how tax brackets work.
2. Tax experts have pointed out, literally hundreds of times, that the attacks against Romney's income tax rate were politically motivated sound-bites meant to outrage people like you, who don't understand how taxes work. Here are just a couple of links: http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2012/01/19/media_promote_myths_about_romneys_15_99470.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/27/1137048/-The-myth-of-Romney-s-tax-rates
It took me ten seconds to google "Romney tax myths"
3. Your source includes no claim or evidence that Romney "cheats on [his] taxes." The ones who decide whether or not a person is "cheating on his taxes" is the IRS. To my knowledge, the IRS has never accused or indicted Romney of tax fraud. Please tell us all how you know otherwise.
lllll AJ
Wars are a lot easier to get into than out of. Those who ask about exit strategies or question what will happen if assumptions prove wrong are rarely welcome at the conference table when the fire-breathers are demanding that we strike—as they did when advocating invading Iraq, intervening in Libya and Syria, or bombing Iran's nuclear sites. But in recent decades, presidents confronted with tough problems abroad have too often been too quick to reach for a gun. Our foreign and national security policy has become too militarized, the use of force too easy for presidents.
Today, too many ideologues call for U.S. force as the first option rather than a last resort. On the left, we hear about the "responsibility to protect" civilians to justify military intervention in Libya, Syria, Sudan and elsewhere. On the right, the failure to strike Syria or Iran is deemed an abdication of U.S. leadership. And so the rest of the world sees the U.S. as a militaristic country quick to launch planes, cruise missiles and drones deep into sovereign countries or ungoverned spaces. There are limits to what even the strongest and greatest nation on Earth can do—and not every outrage, act of aggression, oppression or crisis should elicit a U.S. military response.
This is particularly worth remembering as technology changes the face of war. A button is pushed in Nevada, and seconds later a pickup truck explodes in Mosul. A bomb destroys the targeted house on the right and leaves the one on the left intact. For too many people—including defense "experts," members of Congress, executive branch officials and ordinary citizens—war has become a kind of videogame or action movie: bloodless, painless and odorless. But my years at the Pentagon left me even more skeptical of systems analysis, computer models, game theories or doctrines that suggest that war is anything other than tragic, inefficient and uncertain.
Really, though, the tithes taken by the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints is mostly dedicated to running their missionary program(i.e. marketing department) and the salaries of religious figures. It's only charity because religious institutions are assumed to be de facto charities in the U.S. Calling it a scam is misleading and unkind, but calling it a charity is incredibly misleading as well.
What if we made it like jury duty? Citizens get conscripted to Congress for a specified amount of time, during which they get paid current congressional salary, and when that time is up, they go on about their lives, and we get a fresh batch.
That's definitely overly simplistic, but it sure beats douche bags like Rod Blagojevich actually attempting to SELL A SENATORIAL SEAT.
Gee, that sounds just like the Stephen Harper regime in Canada.
I think you'll find many missionaries also do charitable work while they're in-country. But I expect the tithes are 10% of his income (at least, that's the tradition in Western culture), and the other half is "real" charity.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/tax-planning/quick-tax-rate-calculator.aspx
according to that page actualy to pay 25% you have to file single and make 235,500 a year.
I would gladly pay that
for my family situation i have to make 375,30 to pay 25%
I would gladly do so and still plenty of money left even putting 4 kids through private school and pay my credit cards off.
As it is right now i pay about 2% in fed taxes and have no money
If he found the situation even more difficult than usual, that's news.
Gates may characterize it all honestly and accurately (I don't know, but assume he does,) his perspective is naturally going to be limited... at best... likely it'll be myopic. The press, they are much more myopic.
The fact he seems upset the Exec branch was trying to micromanage them indicates a lack of understanding or an arrogance of sorts .The Pentagon functions too autonomously. It's as if they think they are their own branch of government when they are completely under the Exec branch (except for declaring war - something Congress abdicated to the Exec long ago.) They are too big, too bloated, too corrupt, too dangerous to our republic, the industrial military complex NEEDS a lot of downsizing and more -real- management to keep them in check.
Congress doesn't have to say about it other than funding and Exec oversight. Since they are heavily tied into the industrial military complex they have to get their hands into everything - force the buying of fighter jets that can't fly in the rain, keep wasteful military bases in their districts, etc.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
and the other half is "real" charity.
Possibly. It's certainly not worth prying into now private-citizen Mitt Romney's personal finances without evidence of wrongdoing.
If you have evidence of this scandal, by all means, let's see it.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
How about making Congress a LIFETIME elected position?
Hanging them from a lamppost after a set number of years? Sounds good...
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
> I saw most of Congress as uncivil, incompetent at fulfilling their basic constitutional responsibilities (such as timely appropriations), micromanagerial, parochial, hypocritical, egotistical, thin-skinned, and prone to put self (and re-election) before country.
So, pretty much business as usual, then.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Also, the talk from AC above about municipal bonds confuses me - I thought that sates and city level governments weren't allowed to run deficits in the USA, so how can they issue bonds? (Is a bond issue not just a form of deficit spending?).
Well, the issuance of debt obligations such as bonds don't count as "deficits". I think the definition of a deficit is the budgeting of the expenditure of money without having yet identified the means of acquiring it. A bond issue is different in that the money is borrowed first through their sales. It's merely semantics, of course, but it's an important distinction.
There is nothing wrong with governments borrowing money in order to finance public works or infrastructure projects. Indeed, that's how state and local governments historically have built things. Furthermore, governments do short term borrowing from banks, etc. all the time. Government expenditures are generally even throughout the year but tax revenue doesn't come in evenly.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
We actually did reduce military funding. Twice even. It's not completely politically untenable like taxes that target the plutocratic class as much as the working and middle classes.
Wasn't one of those a sequestration cut that was put there partially because the idea of cutting the military was so verboten that it would make a deal to avoid it more likely?
I stole this Sig
Why? Just do what the Canadian Conservative government did, give them a small lump sum payment, close down all but one office and other supporting structures and go on about how you support the military. As a bonus pretty quick enough veterans are committing suicide that the total number of veterans drops.
At that you can get rid of benefits for everyone who isn't a politician and save all kinds of money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Wow, who knew?
Table-ized A.I.
Ah, man! I just realized that, in retrospect, I managed to direct a thread I started about this having nothing to do with geekdom in a decidedly geeky direction. It's just like Lincoln said, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and prove yourself a nerd." Or something like that.
I think his point was that Obama wouldn't have been on the ticket in the first place. If it was for a lifetime position, the election would be a *Big Deal*.
And I'm having trouble seeing the downside over what we have now. My main objection, is that it would make us like the Romans. Which means either: The Romans weren't as bad as I thought they were; or I'm already too far gone myself to be worth saving.
Either way, in hindsight, I now regret reading your post.
Working stiffs pay nothing like 25 to 33% in federal taxes. That may be their top marginal rate, but it's not applied to their whole income. I pay 26% overall (AMT rate) to the Feds. That's from the first dollar. And you'd better believe I work for it.
Interjecting facts into the discussion? Get the hell out of here. Nevermind the rich actually do pay most of the tax by a large margin, it's more fun to blame those greedy bastards for all the ills of society.
I hope all will feeling good these days and happy with love and I think also enjoying life, I like this very much and interesting points also www.Eachknowledge.blogspot.com
Really, though, the tithes taken by the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints is mostly dedicated to running their missionary program(i.e. marketing department)
Missionaries are unpaid volunteers. Moreover, they pay all of their own expenses (or, rather, their families do, since few 18-19 year olds can come up with the ~$14K it costs to maintain them for two years). There is a missionary fund which is used to subsidize missionaries whose families can't afford it, but that doesn't come out of tithing, it's a separate donation category.
and the salaries of religious figures
Essentially all LDS leaders are unpaid volunteers, also. I believe there may be some small stipends for the very few senior, full-time leaders who aren't independently wealthy, but that's almost none of them (nearly all were very successful professionals or businessmen before becoming full-time clergy).
I don't know if a breakdown of how the church's revenues are spent is made public, but I guarantee that your assumed expenditures are wrong.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
While I'm not qualified to comment on the legitimacy or not of attacks on Romney, I must point out that search phrase has some inherent bias.
And I wouldn't defer to the IRS as some absolute arbiter. These are the folks who decided to spend time investigating neighborhood groups applying for 501c4 status while declining requests to investigate juggernauts like Crossroads GPS, Priorities USA and Americans for Prosperity. Again, I'm not accusing or absolving Romney but the IRS seems to prefer path of least resistance.
Howdy howdy howdy
I'm really not sure about this idea but if their pensions could be raided like my social security currently is, I might be in.
Howdy howdy howdy
Must be nice. I pay just about 30% even, and I am most certainly not rich. And I understand how brackets work, that is also from "first dollar."
I am lucky enough to have quite a few entrepreneurial friends. I sure look forward to cracking seven figures so I can get my taxes back down into the teens...
Pragmatism as he did it only works if you're dealing with people who have a political aim that isn't "Get the nigger out".
All his pragmatism did was to go from the position he wanted and work out what a "reasonable compromise" from his opponents' wishes would be, then offer that compromise from the off.
Meaning that
a) the opposition can get even more by moving even more extremely away, because that makes the offered compromise, ideally, what they want from the off. This rewards exremism in his opponents.
b) the opposition now demand a compromise FROM THAT POSITION and painted him as "uncompromising emperor" if he didn't give up more than half of the difference.
While I've seen exceptional incompetence in Government officials, I've seen things not much better in big corporations. They are a bit better since they kinda need to support themselves, but not by much.
Management is ncompetent- check
Feuds between departments- check
Covery your arse attitude to everything- check
Lots of red tape and internal regulations- check
Endless meetings- check
And I can definitely use "frustration" as a word describing my experience in one of the places where I tried to "cut through the rubbish" and get things done. Right now I don't think there is much difference between government and big corporations- both are big organizations with way too much power to screw with people's lives.
--Coder
What about his unique perspective? And The Reminiscence of Atlas Shrugged within congress?
I didn*t had the patience to read rest of the story, because first 3 lines were so boring to start with....
How to slant the news by editing. This comment which slams Congress and by implication Republicans is omitted by the Post. They only put in the parts that criticize Obama.
of course people who micromanage their people can be out of touch with a product & how it is used...but there is *context* to this comment, re: TFA
you can pick apart phrasing like an English major but that's not some counterpoint or rhetorical 'slam'...TFA and Gates's book present a contradictory narrative.
one time, Obama is 'out of touch' with his generals...then he's a 'micromanager' of his generals
those two cannot exist simultaneously...you litterally must be constantly 'in touch' to do the things that make you a 'micromanager'
but that wasn't even my major point, and you know it...
Gates's book is melodramatic crap...the generals mentioned, especially Petreaus and John Allen were corrupt & not to be trusted and Obama was *right* to mistrust them: http://snowboarding8090.com/rubrika/pioneers/shawn-farmer/
Thank you Dave Raggett
that was a link about snowboarding
here's the link about Petreaus/John Allen's corruption: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petraeus_scandal
Thank you Dave Raggett
I liked Mr Gates. I thought he was a thoughtful man, and still respect him, but really, why now? Why did he not leave before? It would have been more effective. Now, it just looks like he is doing it for the money and is no different than the congressmen and women he complains about.
so why do we need to hear from consumate example pushing what he calls a book?
I don't think Gates ever got over Ronald Reagan ignoring his advice and working with Gorbachov to end the cold war.
My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!
You are completely full of shit and the IRS's own numbers put the lie to your nonsense.
Bullshit.. Bullshit, bullshit and more bullshit. Go look at the numbers from the IRS. You are just spouting off the usual rabble-rouser's nonsense.
If you look at the net paid taxes as a percent of income, the rich still pay way more than everyone else in all cases but a few aberrations, and they _especially_ pay more than the "most Americans" (> 50%).
You fucking liar. Those are statutory rates, not effective rates. It has nothing to do with reality. Most Americans (> 50%) pay in the low to mid single digits in Federal income taxes.
You are an idiot. Your linked source means nothing, nobody pays the statutory rate for their income.
Thanks for the compliment, asshole.
And, what are the statutory rates on the dividends and such which people like Romney pay taxes on, again? Oh yeah, 15% - the second LOWEST tax rate on the chart. That is the statutory rate, as you point out - not the effective rates paid after the rich bastids take advantage of the loopholes and tax shelters. The only people paying lower percentages are those people who have nothing. Look at that 10% tax bracket again - an individual paying 10% can't afford to pay for much of ANYTHING. $9,000/year income? Let's get real - we spend half of that or more JUST FOR FOOD in my home! We pay about 1/3 of that JUST FOR ELECTRICITY.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
As long as we are talking about pie in the sky ideas...
Or ignore the term limit debate, and just get all money out of political elections. Public funding for any candidate that gets X signatures. Set amounts of free air time (radio, tv, etc..). Required Y number of debates for all candidates.
Strictly limit any outside spending, advertising, and repeal citizens united. Strengthen and expand libel and slander laws to become a serious threat for political news shows and advertising. Basically, organizations like Fox and MSNBC would be out of business.