These are retirees, they have pensions, this isn't a McDonalds situation and you know it.

> The article also seems to suggest that they AREN'T trying to ban former Generals from getting jobs

> Bar four-star officers from going to work for companies that receive $1 billion or more in contracts with the Pentagon annually.

You purposefully left off the end of the sentence? You know, the part about regulation? Cause nowhere in the article does it say they are trying to stop retired generals from taking these jobs, just that they would like to regulate it to prevent conflicts of interest. I get the feeling that maybe you haven’t read the article yet?

I was responding to:

> These are retirees, they have pensions

Retiring at 51 after a 30 year role is not conducive to survival on the pension.

So is the issue that they'd have to work at McDonald's or that they don't want to return to their pre elevation job? Or that they want a cushy retirement job somewhere? Something else? Be clear if you're trying to make a point please.

The idea that a government pension should sustain you from 50 onwards is not a good one.

And their pensions are way better than most everybody else: https://www.pogo.org/analysis/senator-questions-retirement-p...