Profile | Entries | Thread Author | Posts | Activity |
---|---|---|---|---|
Here's what keeps getting lost in the Wisc union debate. This is about public sector workers having the right to collective bargain. This isn't about private labor, corporate greed, or the destruction of the middle class. This is about public sector workers paying their fair share of benefits and their right to collective bargain. By definition, public sector workers are paid by the state, which essentially represents all taxpayers of that state as a whole. So collective bargaining by these unions against the state allows a minority sub-sector of taxpayers and citizens to collective bargain against the other tax payers of that state. If the public sector unions win, then by default the rest of the taxpayers (aka the State) loses. What you have is the majority of taxpayers in a state being held hostage by collective bargaining of a minority into paying said minority a higher wage and benefit package then the free market would otherwise allow. I have no problem with private sector unions, as demonstrated through recent history most private sector unions will put themselves out of a job by being too greedy and sucking the company dry. I do have a problem with this happening in the public sector, since states can't declare BK and restructure debt. When these unions bleed the state dry, my taxes go up and everyone pays more so the union workers can continue to be overpaid. How about this proposal: When public sector union wages or benefits cause a state to run a defecit, the public sector workers have to balance the budget through increased union dues... pass that and you can keep your collective bargaining. |
Stiln | 8 |
|
|
Koaj, I respect your knowledge and viewpoints and I know you you know your shit. I agree loans is a rather simplistic description of what happened with TARP, but at the end of the day money went to the banks from the treasury and was paid back with interest at a later date... that is basically a loan. I didn't like the way it happened either, Paulson picked winners and losers and counter party risk became an excuse to save some firms and let others fail. My original point (see pg 2) started to explain to cd#'s why tax money to supplement overpaid union benefits and pensions is diferent from private companies making profits and paying bonuses. |
kaponofor3 | 73 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by be easy:
"Why do you care about union benefits, the fucks on Wall Street get million dollar bonuses"? Well, see the bonuses on Wall Street come from profits of a private company, not tax dollars. The bonuses they pay out don't affect my paycheck directly. that would be nice if it were true. I assume you are referring to the bailouts, which were loans not entitlements. Banks could not payout bonuses until those were repaid. Besides, I was speaking in general terms, I didn't want to confuse CD with too many details. The only company that hasn't paid back a bail out and is handing out bonuses is GM... go figure. |
kaponofor3 | 73 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by cd329:
First thing they need to do is stop the padding of the pensions and taxpayers wont have to pay anything extra. The politicans need to pass this law and the unions are just gonna have to suck this one up. Pensions werent designed to pay you more in retirment then when you were actually on the job. Time for politicians to stop this insane practice that should have never happened in the first place. Like i said if states or cities want to change things for workers thats fine, change it for new people coming on, not people who already put in their time working for what they were told they would get. Tell me Rick if at the end of the week, you were supposed to make 1k, but when you went to pick up your check it was only for 500, would you just roll over and say thats okay? You would be mad as hell and would be storming into your bosses officewanting your other 500 bucks that you worked for. See it doesnt matter if this is in the public sector or private sector, if your told what your gonna make and you work the hours then you should damn well be paid those amounts. Like i have already said if employers want to reduce wages and benefits, then let the employees know before they actually perform the work, that way they can decide if they want that job.
Population going up while the job base is going down. This is gonna keep happening until the politicians get out of bed with the crooks and say enough is enough, the country is more important then filling their greedy pockets with cash. Your paycheck analogy might be relevant, except guess what, you're not working. You are sitting on your ass collecting a pension check. And most likely, you retired a good decade or two before anyone else in the private sector would have. I don't know of any private sector jobs where you can retire after 20 or 25 years of working, that's just not realistic. Why should anyone that is a public sector worker and gets paid by my taxes have that luxury? So guess what, if your pension is underfunded and your benefits drop, you might need to go get a part time job, or start working again... that's what the rest of the country does if their retirement benefits drop because their 401k or IRA went down. Grow up. And while I'm at it, let me address some of the other points you keep stumbling to make in your idiotic rants: - "Why didn't I just work in the public sector if the benefits are sooo great?" I don't have the patience to teach kids and putting out fires seems like a waste of intelligence. Besides, I don't think the answer to fixing underfunded govt and union pensions is for everyone to work in the public sector. Somehow I think cutting benefits and bringing them back in line with the private sector makes the most sense, but maybe that's just me. - "Why aren't you mad at the greedy corporations that move jobs overseas?" See in America we believe in this thing called capitalism. So a company will try and cut their expenses as much as possible to maximize value and profit for the shareholder. Do I like jobs going overseas... no, but we can't be a free market society and mandate that companies only hire domestic labor. Ironically, it is the inflated cost of doing business because of higher taxes and union labor that pushed out most of the jobs you are referring to. Look at the auto unions if you want a prime example of killing the goose that lays the golden egg. "Why do you care about union benefits, the fucks on Wall Street get million dollar bonuses"? Well, see the bonuses on Wall Street come from profits of a private company, not tax dollars. The bonuses they pay out don't affect my paycheck directly. And just so you know, Wall Street makes up about 1/10th of 1 percent of the private labor market, so it's not really a relevant comparison of private sector jobs. On average, the public sector worker makes about $40 an hour in wages and benefits. The private sector worker makes about $28. In 2009 for the first time there were more public sector workers making over 100k than private sector workers. These discrepancies are disturbing when you realize that our taxes are being used to overpay public workers while they work, and then allow them to retire early and over compensate them during retirement. Frankly I don't care what benefits you were promised. Those promises were made on unrealistic expectations of future returns. If the funds aren't there, and cuts need to be made, your benefits might have to go down. Bernie Madoff made a lot of promises to his clients, and we both know how that turned out. Union and govt pensions are ponzi schemes too, it's just the taxpayer getting fleeced.
|
kaponofor3 | 73 |
|
|
Congrats on another great season. You have said it before, but you are consistently steady, and you always grind out a winning season. I'll look for your threads next fall, take it easy.
|
3rd_and_Long | 30 |
|
|
Most people don't like unions because they promote inefficient labor policies and cost all citizens more money in higher taxes. Look at the most inefficient, bloated sectors of our economy and you will find one thing in common... unionized labor. Auto industry, education, police, fire fighters, federal and state employees. Unions promote a non-competitive wage and unrealistic benefits. What Fortune 500 company can you retire from at 50 or 55 after working for 25 years? Why in 2010 for the first time in history did the federal government have more people making 6 figure incomes than the private sector? I will agree that unions are good for the people in them, who doesn't want to be overpaid with benefits that are ridiculously out of line with comparable positions in the private sector? Unfortunately they aren't good for everyone else that isn't in them, because it's a zero sum game and someone else has to pay for those benefits and higher pay... usually it's the tax payer. |
RichardA | 26 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by cashin:
Your're kidding, right? Taxation based on age & when someone happened to be born? Agree wholeheartedly with politicians kickin the cans down the road, but that's ludicrous. It's tough & a shame that you younger folks are having to live with the waste & bad decisions of our politicians as well as the excessive greed & dishonesty that has expanded & deepened, but whoever said life was fair?
No, I'm not kidding. And you're missing the point, I am not suggesting a variable tax rate for age or birth date, don't be ignorant. I am addressing the fact that politician after politician keeps pandering to the AARP and going on TV to say that cutting any benefits to seniors is off limits. That any austerity measures that involve senior benefits, current Social Security age limits, or Medicare costs is going too far. Frankly I don't give a shit if they raise the age to collect benefits tomorrow, next year or 10 years from now. I don't expect to ever get them anyway, so I really don't care if someone who has participated in the policies of the last 30 years has to work an extra year or two before they can collect SSI. This isn't about age based tax policies, this is about the segment of our population that is most responsible for our current financial state sharing the burden that the rest of us are being expected to shoulder. Cutting senior benefits or raising the SSI age should not be off limits if we are making across the board changes in government spending and entitlements. |
juelesbenedict | 7 |
|
|
So after the SOTUA, debate about where to cut spending and try to reduce the deficit is again front and center. One thing I am tired of hearing about is the majority of politicians that consider Baby Boomer issues and anything involving 55+ voters off limit. Let's be honest here and address some facts. Our country is close to the breaking point because of debt and over consumption that has been predicated over the last 30+ years. This is not an overnight issue, and it is not exclusively related to the most recent recession... Washington and Wall Street have been blowing bubbles for decades. That being said, let's address 2 basic assumptions:
1) The standard of living and consumption for the past 30 years was artificially sustained by debt fueled policies that kicked the can down the road 2) People that profited or benefited most from this artificial wealth creation would be those that were in their prime earning potential during this time period.
Given the above basic assumptions, which I believe are more than difficult to dispute, it can be rather fairly extrapolated that those individuals 55+ benefited the most from the past 30 years of debt fueled growth and kicking the can down the road. As a child of a Baby Boomer, I have no reservation in stating that I think both my generation and those coming after me, have been screwed by the policies of Baby Boomer politicians and leaders. They have kicked the can down the road until it can no longer be kicked anymore. The tab is coming due, and I for one think those 55+ should be expected to pay their fair share and then some. Why should the fact that they are now close to, or at the point of retirement mean that me and my generation must bear the brunt of the austerity they necessitated? I have held a tax-paying job for over 15 years, I started working in one form or another as soon as I could get a work permit in my teens. I am willing to accept the fact that I will probably never recoup everything I have put into social security. Frankly I don't count on it, or expect it, I will make the necessary investments to meet my own retirement goals. But I do have an issue with the same generation that has borrowed from our future for the past 30 years, to now say that asking them to share the sacrifice necessary to put us back on track is unfair. They reaped the majority of the benefits from the last 30 years, it's time they helped pay for it. |
juelesbenedict | 7 |
|
|
replied to
Game-changer! Arizona / Montana / Pennsylvania / Georgia / Texas may pass 2012 eligibility law
in Politics Quote Originally Posted by Anent:
Christ, what a waste of money and attention. We should be less interested in where our President was born and more interested in their job performance. Most of the people eligible to vote in this country DON'T EVEN VOTE!!!!! But they take the time to read the tabloids and headlines about Obama not really being an American. Total ignorance. You should be embarrassed to mention ignorant voters and defense of Obama in the same sentence. As evidenced by Howard Stern's skit, and numerous other news clips, the majority of Obama supporters voted for him based on one criteria, and we all know it has nothing to do with being able to lead. Talk about ignorance... |
5_for_Fighting | 22 |
|
|
AZ head coach took the under.
Seriously, how has AZ even won one game this year? D Alexander is awful, missing wide open receivers. |
depeche2 | 5 |
|
|
I can already tell you what his solution would be... Just tax the rich at a higher rate to make up for it. That worked great for the the Roman Empire, bread and circuses for the masses and make the rich pay for it at a 70% tax rate. What no libs seem to be able to grasp is that taxing the "rich", while great in theory doesn't generate any additional revenue, as it just encourages them to shelter more of their income. If you want to generate additional revenue you should start with the coporations that have billions in off shore balance sheet cash. Funny how two of the biggest corps with off shore money are MSFT and GOOG, which are both cozy with the current admin. I guess like most progressives they want to give away other peoples money but dodge taxes on their own. |
Mikael99 | 48 |
|
|
Good story, way to pay it forward. Much respect |
kindergartencapper | 43 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by don juan:
You had so much hatred in your heart for two solid years. You have bashed your President at every turn, not matter if it was good for you, or good for your fellow American. You sided with Wall Street as if they had your best interest at heart. You degraded the first women Speaker of the House day after day, the likes of which I have not seen in my lifetime. All the while you were claiming not to be sexist or racist. You bashed Harry day after day. Three of the most decent Statesmen/Stateswoman on earth. All of them were concerned with the welfare of others and tried to make peace on earth. According to the pollsters.. you will be satisfied tomorrow. . I just wonder if that will be on your conscience for the rest of your life. Sleep well. Don Juan . Thanks for worrying about my conscience, you are right... the past two years are nothing like the civilized and polite dissent of the left wing during the Bush years. Save the drama and take what's coming, after the last two years of shoving their socialist agenda down the throats of the American public against popular opinion, they've earned it. |
don juan | 60 |
|
|
He is prob thinking about Kim's booty...
I would be dropping passes too |
sagebrush | 6 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by don juan:
Rick. In my mind, it is still the Republican economy. Let me tell you why.... The Republicans were in control of the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives when G.W. Bush decided to go to war, without any idea how to pay for it. He knew taxes where just cut. What did he do about it? Did he announce a War Tax of some sort ? NO. Furthermore, he turned a blind eye to the tripling of oil prices, ( you know, the free market mentality ) thereby causing inflation throughout the economy. Meanwhile the repulsicans suppressed wages, by allowing millions of illegals to come in, and by squashing 11 yearly attempts by the Democrats to increase the minimum wage. ( but, they increased their own wages 11 years in a row ).. Before he left office, he added to that debt with the first stimulus package. Then he walked away washing his hands of the mess. And to this very day he Cheney are still in hiding. Now you have the gall to ask me if this is President Obama's economy. lol. NO, not until we recover from this catastrophe DJ, are you sure you really want to bring up illegal immigration being the Repub's fault? The Dems have been courting the Hispanic vote for years, and given the current position of the JD in the AZ case sure doesn't help make the case that the Repubs are the ones supporting illegal immigration and suppressing the minimum wage. And BTW, you and your party blaming Bush sure is getting tired. I was more than ready for him to leave office during his second term and I was against a lot of his positions, including the invasion of Iraq. But Bush is out of office, and Obama ran on a promise of change and improvement in this country. So far, he has only made things worse, which is why the Dems will get crushed on Tues and he is likely to be a one term president unless he starts making some better decisions. |
don juan | 49 |
|
|
You are assuming Wade can add... I doubt he can do that kind of math in his head. |
pucku27 | 22 |
|
|
Seriously, what do you have a staff up in the booth for? Terrible coaching. |
behindthadeuce | 14 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by Anent:
blast75 With all due respect, I'll lay out my thoughts: I always find discrimination irrational. That's not just "how life is in the military." Doesn't have to be, doesn't need to be. Has nothing to do with comradeship, unit readiness, or national security. Treating someone differently because they're gay is wrong. Why would you treat your friend differently because he's gay? Would you want your gay friend to treat you differently because he finds out your not gay? We all have our differences because we are all different, all unique human beings with a unique genetic code. So, like it or not, we are all different. The challenge it seems is to not use that fact as a wedge between people, as a divider. We are not all the same, sexual preferences, cultural differences, religious differences, etc. and I don't think we should "pretend" that we are - DADT's policy. But treating people with respect, despite those differences, would be the way to go, it seems. So, I guess that's how I feel in general. And the reality is, that despite all these very real differences, we are still all basically the same - the same fears, the same dreams, the same bodies (minus the disfigured). We're basically the same. I don't see what the big deal is about someone being gay, It's just that simple. The purpose of the military, right now, is to fight terrorism. If a gay soldier wants to enlist in that fight, let 'em. Keeping it private is different from not being allowed to say something! Anent,
You make a rational argument, but it is one that is theoretical and not practical. The truth of the matter is that the bond between soldiers is based on trust and being comfortable within your unit. If you know that a fellow soldier is openly gay, your level of comfort is not there. To reference your example, if you had a friend that you found out was gay it would be impossible for that not to affect your level of comfort with that person. You can say that isn't right, or it's close minded, but that's just reality. You say you aren't gay, so I will give you a hetero example... There's an old saying: Girls have guy friends, but guys just have girls they haven't fckd yet. Basically, if a guy is friends with a girl, it's because he is hoping to seal the deal down the road. Now, think what would happen if you made a move on a girl that thought you were just friends, and she wasn't into it. You think she would hang out with you again, or be comfortable around you? Knowing that someone is attracted to you, or could be because of their sexual orientation, changes the dynamic of a relationship, soldiers in the military are no different. |
Anent | 78 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
Where exactly is my dreamland? Exaggerate a bit more, you are on a roll. Koaj, At least you are consistent..instead of finding a solution you would rather harm millions of people and society in general by "blowing everything up", great way to approach a problem. jueles, understand that nothing you pay to the government is guaranteed to be returned to you, nothing at all. SS is a tax which has not been properly assessed to perform what it is supposed to. At some point SS should be given to those who NEED it, and if you are earning more than the worker who is funding SS then it needs to be phased out for the good of those who REALLY need it. Would you rather take what you feel is yours (traditional selfish approach) knowing that you are going to also TAKE from people years in front of you who ALSO paid into the system, and in fact at HIGHER rates and levels than you..if you are near retirement you paid much much less than current payees. SS was not properly projected and there has to be sacrifices. Every single government "benefit" or "program" has either steep entry requirements (like SSI or welfare ) or comprehensive phase out limits (medicaid, medicare, most all federal tax exemptions and credits) I dont know of any other government program that has zero phase in or phase outs, and that makes no sense and is not sustainable.
I don't follow your logic Wall, I understand that nothing that you pay government is promised in return, believe me I have little faith in govt. My point was simply to question why you and other lefters are so defensive of pension benefits, and state that they must be honored regardless of sustainability or insolvency. But when it comes to SS and the fact that it either currently is, or soon will be insolvent, your solution is to phase out benefits according to need or income. What is the difference between a state pension and SS? Why do you defend the unconditional payout of one, and the restricted payout of the other. In regards to your take on my assumed selfishness, I am 30 years old and no where near to collecting benefits on SS. I would much rather scrap the program and stop paying now, than to continue paying into a program I will never see a dime from. If not wanting to fund someone's else retirement makes me selfish, so be it. I for one am living within my means and saving accordingly since I assume SS will not be there for me. If boomers and other retirees didn't do the same, that's not my problem. Go back to work if you have bills to pay, but don't tax me so you can stop working at 62. If you think this selfish, I don't know what to tell you. IMHO, true selfishness is expecting your children's generation to pay higher taxes because you underfunded your retirement and don't want to keep working. I am not asking for a handout, or some free subsidy, I am proposing a solution that ends the practice of taking money I earned to fund someone elses retirement. Retirement is a privelege, not a right, and should be reserved for those who planned accordingly. |
kaponofor3 | 60 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
WW, I guess you havent heard me the previous 50 times. Phase out SS..you make more in retirement income than the average working family, the benefit phases out like every single other government program/benefit. The answer to the deficit is to conserve when times are tight, spend where it makes the most sense to expand and knock out debt when the times are good. Politicians (all of them) are not good at part two..spending wisely and retiring debt when receipts are good...because they are only interested in keeping their jobs and not representing us or acting in a responsible fashion. Taxing imported labor is a no-brainer..create a similar import tax as we do on other imports and assign it to domestic companies who outsource labor. Also tax raw goods which are available here but also which US companies are going around our economy to find the cheaper product. If you want to be a US company and sell to US consumers and not use available US raw goods or labor then your products are taxed as other NON-US companies who import either finished goods or raw inputs. You would be surprised how this would stimulate companies to bring labor back to the US..instead of rewarding companies for going around our economy, tax them as we do other foreign companies.
Phase out SS with income restrictions huh? So if I pay SS my entire working life but I am smart with my money and save enough to create a portfolio that supplements my retirement, I don't get any of my money from SS back. That seems logical... anything else I can pay into with the promise of never seeing my $ again if I am successful?
Under that logic perhaps we should phase out union and government pensions as well with income restrictions. I know a lot of retired cops and teachers that double dip, hell that's half the problem with the system right now. But wait, I forgot that would violate the "contract" that these retirees have with their pension. I guess the "contract" we have with the federal governement to get out SS benefits isn't the same thing Wall? |
kaponofor3 | 60 |
|
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.