> Wow, the labor union "elected those democrats". Whoda thunk that?
Unions are a significant voting bloc but obviously not enough to put
candidates in office without the support of non-union voters. They can
however make the difference in a close race. So what the dude said isn't
really that far from the truth.
>
>Thanks Republic^h^h^h er, other guys!
>
>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2011/04/27/house_votes_to_limit_bargaining_on_health_care/
>
>"It’s pretty stunning," said Robert J. Haynes, president of the
>Massachusetts AFL-CIO. "These are the same Democrats that all
>these labor unions elected."
>
>Wow, the labor union "elected those democrats". Whoda thunk that?
that's a huge mistake Dems voting for this. They need to be in
contrast with the Reeps on this issue. This is a winning issue for
Dems in 2012, if the perception is that the Reeps want to destroy
unions and Dems want to save them.
--
Gerry Peters
> I find it interesting that city and state governments running out of
> money, and trying to trim Cadillac benefit packages is a Reeps vs Dems
> thing.
>
> The people who are paying for those Cadillac benefits don't have
> Cadillac benefits, yet the paupers get to pay for the ruling class'
> luxury.
What you are describing as "Cadillac" benefits is no doubt what many
working class people could reasonably expect as part of their compensation
not that long ago.
We'll get those middle class working stiffs yet!!! They'll have nothing by
the time we're done! Yeah baby!!!
Well it's obvious that both sides of the two party dictatorship has
been bought and paid for by interest other than the people of the
USA.
time to shit can the 2 parties, IMO.
> Just raise my taxes, so the slugs in government can have their Cadillac
> benefit packages!
You calling RR a slug?
>Paupers paying for the ruling class's perks! Yeah baby!
Stick to the plan G!!! We nned to make damn sure that no working people get
any benefits of any kind! Who the fuck do they think they are?
There will be no plans for anyone soon, pal. Wait a while longer and
they'll gut the whole fucking economy.
>I work more than a fourth of the year to
> pay for someone else's Cadillac benefit package
The percentage of your tax dollar that pays for the health benefits of
gov't employees is probably way less than 1%. And the claim that you work
one forth of the year to pay your taxes is probably not accurate either.
>who most likely does
> a shitty job at what they do.
Can't argue with that. RR is dicking around in here all day while he is
supposed to be working. If this is any indication of the typical work ethic
of gov't employees we are getting shanked in a major fucking way!
> Tax freedom day was April 12 2011 this year
You posted about it at the time and I posted a link demonstrating why
it's misleading and mostly innaccurate. Even just knowing yourself what
you actually pay in taxes should have told you that.
Here's a different link that basically tells the same story.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/12/tax-freedom-day-middle-class_n_843847.html
So The Rich *do* pay more!
"The Tax Foundation's calculation, however, doesn't account for
America's richest citizens paying taxes at significantly higher rates
than middle- and low-income taxpayers. Instead, they simply divide total
taxes collected ($3.628 trillion) by the net national product of the
country ($13.107 trillion)."
>The killer robot Gerry Peters <Gerry...@nospam.com> grabbed the
>controls of the spaceship cakewalk.coffeehouse and pressed these
>buttons...
>
>>>Thanks Republic^h^h^h er, other guys!
>>>
>>>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2011/04/27/house_votes_to_
>>>limit_bargaining_on_health_care/
>>>
>>>"It's pretty stunning," said Robert J. Haynes, president of the
>>>Massachusetts AFL-CIO. "These are the same Democrats that all
>>>these labor unions elected."
>>>
>>>Wow, the labor union "elected those democrats". Whoda thunk that?
>>
>> that's a huge mistake Dems voting for this. They need to be in
>> contrast with the Reeps on this issue. This is a winning issue for
>> Dems in 2012, if the perception is that the Reeps want to destroy
>> unions and Dems want to save them.
>
>I find it interesting that city and state governments running out of money,
that's because the stimulus money ran out and the House won't order
any more stimulus. remember the Reep lie that the stimulus didn't
work. BS it did work. When it came out they said it would save
teachers, cops, firemen, etc jobs, now that it's run out we're seeing
the effect and it would have been far worse when the economy was worse
2 years ago.
>and trying to trim Cadillac benefit packages is a Reeps vs Dems thing.
>
>The people who are paying for those Cadillac benefits don't have Cadillac
>benefits, yet the paupers get to pay for the ruling class' luxury.
Cadillac benefits is a Reep talking point and a lie. In almost every
case they are very modest benefits, besides those workers had money
deducted from their salary to pay for those benefits, they deserve
them
--
Gerry Peters
> Working people. That obviously would exclude you so no worries.
I only wish that were true. At least I'm not making my living getting over
on the taxpayers you fucking dirtbag.
> Republicans wrote all this then?
>
> http://www.usajobs.gov/ei/benefits.asp
Where's the Cadillac part? Seems like what once would have been considered
a pretty standard benefits package. The fact that you view it as lavish
only serves to demonstrate how far typical employee compensation has fallen
over the years.
> It is lavish,
Which part?
Would a benefits package like that be considered lavish say, 20 or 30 years
ago?
>and paid for with some of the money removed from my
> paycheck.
Well, Lord knows if you were somehow able to keep all that money the whole
fucking planet would come screeching to a halt! No benefits, no fucking
firemen, nothing. IT WOULD ALL STOP!!! AND THE WORLD WOULD BE A BETTER
PLACE!!!
I'd actually be all in favor of a lifetime Glennbo-only tax holiday.
Anything to not have to listen to you cry about it so much. <g>
> The killer robot Gregor <sl...@nospam.com> grabbed the controls of the
> spaceship cakewalk.coffeehouse and pressed these buttons...
>
>> Cadillac plan my ass
>
> Our health insurance program is a nationally recognized model
> 10 paid holidays every year
> 13 days of sick leave
> 13 to 26 vacation days
> a social security benefit
> a 401(k) type plan
> special bonuses such as a recruitment bonus
> student loan repayment programs
> Etc. Etc. Etc.
I'm not seeing the problem. A Cadillac plan would have to include stuff
like a membership at the gym, massages, golf outings. You know, stuff like
what the corporate assholes get.
What's listed above was once pretty standard stuff.
OK. Is every federal gubment employee in a high risk occupation? Out
of all of the employees covered by the plans described G's link, what
percentage of them do you think are police or fire protection?
Maybe we should have fed gubment employee seasons. We would get revenue
from license/tag sales PLUS all fed gubment jobs could be considered
hazardous!!!!!!!!!!!
(Don't forget the Cody '!' rule)
> #2.) Glennbo's loaded description of "Cadillac" is plainly dishonest,
It really seems a lot more like a "Chrysler" plan to me. Not that bad, but
it ain't no Cadillac!
I didn't see G-man blaming F&P. You didn't answer the questions about
how F&P are covered under the fed employee plans.
Well g'blo, you have to expect to pay some sort of premium for choosing
to live in Bumfuck! :-D
dick
The True Spirit of '08:
<http://tinyurl.com/2j78qt>
The Boss Confronting "The American Taliban"®
<http://tinyurl.com/bt75g8>
(he's right behind me, isn't he?)
That all sounds great, BUT, we haven't seen the costs for these plans.
How can you claim how cheap they are without some real analysis? If you
had numbers that pointed out how the fed employees plans cost the same,
in total, as equal private sector plans, then pool size might be a good
point.
And nothing has been posted that addresses the fact that these plans are
subsidized by people that don't get the benefit.
And not all of the contributors are as wealthy as Glennbo!
> And nothing has been posted that addresses the fact that these plans
> are subsidized by people that don't get the benefit.
How is this different from private sector plans where the employer makes a
contribution?
> And not all of the contributors are as wealthy as Glennbo!
Well, that goes without saying! <g>
You know I hear what you are saying and feel your pain so to speak.
I'm pretty much in the same boat. I can't help but think that these
"Cadillac" plans should be the norm. It seems as if the rest of the
world is getting better gigs while the USA pays for it all. I know
that Iraq got national health care...WTF? Why can't we? Hell we paid
for russian army dudes to buy houses a few decades ago. Why are we
doing this shit?
Why is it that the gov. wants more money from us. They take that money
and give it to other countries that hate us. Why can't the gov. put
the money back into the very people that it's supposedly looking out
for?
just my observation.
In the private sector, which rarely has plans this 'good'(1), the
contributions are made by consumers that decide whether or not they are
willing to pay the price for goods/services to maintain these benefits
for the employees of the company they are buying from. This is an
automatic control on spending on the part of the company.
The gubment gives no choice to it's 'consumers'. Gubment employers are
unconstrained as there is no option for price inflation to offset
compensation inflation. In the case of gubment, tax increases are the
equivalent price inflation - with zero specific controls to balance
things out. Taxes are not optional. Buying stuff is.
(1) Corporations are the exception employer. A good deal of them, if
not most, 'self insure'. They outsource plan administration to an
insurance company, but they are still constrained by the profitability
requirement to meet overall compensation cost as they directly pay for
claims + admin.
Well, you're just describing the difference in sources of revenue between
gov't and private sector. The context of this discussion is whether these
employees are getting "Cadillac" type benefits. You pointed out that these
plans are subsidized, but private plans are often subsidized also. The
source of the revenue is really not relevant to the question of whether
these gov't plans stand out as being extravagant compared to plans offered
in the private sector.
The fact that anyone would consider a reasonable allotment of paid sick
leave and vacation time extravagant is a sad commentary on what people have
been conditioned to expect in terms of compensation in the private sector.
"Beat down that working class! Beat those fuckers down!"
And people wonder why America's middle class is a dying breed.
The source of revenue *is* the very heart of the discussion
> The source of revenue *is* the very heart of the discussion
Well, the justification offered for cutting these plans is that they are
lavish. That has been disputed, and it was in that context that you pointed
out that the gov't plans were subsidized; as if that stood as evidence that
the plans were overly generous. The source of revenue has no bearing on
that part of the discussion.
A) They are 'lavish' compared to what those paying for the plans have
available.
B) If it weren't for the cost to taxpayers, nobody would give a shit.
TN seemed more reasonable during the time I lived there. Is your 50-60
hours gubment time, or is the amount beyond 34-36 (;-)) the additional
time you choose to work?
No trueier words have been spoken. I don't think that they should do
it to the expense of the American public. I'd like to see them quit
pissing the money away on other countries and C!4 black budgets.
I"m all for an intervention. First thing we have to do is get rid of
the Two Party Dictatorship.
> A) They are 'lavish' compared to what those paying for the plans have
> available.
Perhaps by today's standards. At one time those kinds of plans were pretty
standard.
> B) If it weren't for the cost to taxpayers, nobody would give a shit.
I don't think that makes for a good excuse to continue lowering the
standard of compensation for middle class working people. We should be
trying to maintain a decent standard that would encourage private sector
companies to provide more robust benefits if they want to compete for
desireable employees.
It's interesting that conservatives were once focused on beating down the
poor at every available opportunity. Perhaps realizing that the poor really
don't have much to get fucked out of to begin with the target has become
the middle class.
I agree. We need to close a good portion of the US bases overseas, cut
the military spending in half. We'd still spend way more than any
other nation.
The fix for SS is easy, just raise the $100K limit. Anyone that makes
over $100K/ yr stops paying into SS on anything above $100K. Raise the
taxes a little on millionaries and we won't have to gut medicare and
education, etc. This is what Ryan and other Reeps are hearing in town
halls from their Reep constituents.
>
>I"m all for an intervention. First thing we have to do is get rid of
>the Two Party Dictatorship.
amen, neither party really represents the people
--
Gerry Peters
>The killer robot Gerry Peters <Gerry...@nospam.com> grabbed the controls
>of the spaceship cakewalk.coffeehouse and pressed these buttons...
>
>>>> Well, I think they need to be cut off at the checkbook.
>>>>
>>>> The Treasury Department takes in about $177 billion a month on average.
>>>> Interest on public debt only costs $19 billion a month.
>>>> Average monthly spending -- minus interest -- is $276 billion.
>>>> That means we're short $118 billion every month.
>>>>
>>>> The *only* way to make these irresponsible fuckers at the helm get it
>>>> together is to have an intervention, and get them off the crack pipe!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>No trueier words have been spoken. I don't think that they should do
>>>it to the expense of the American public. I'd like to see them quit
>>>pissing the money away on other countries and C!4 black budgets.
>>
>> I agree. We need to close a good portion of the US bases overseas, cut
>> the military spending in half. We'd still spend way more than any
>> other nation.
>>
>> The fix for SS is easy, just raise the $100K limit. Anyone that makes
>> over $100K/ yr stops paying into SS on anything above $100K. Raise the
>> taxes a little on millionaries and we won't have to gut medicare and
>> education, etc. This is what Ryan and other Reeps are hearing in town
>> halls from their Reep constituents.
>
>We also need to close the tax loopholes that the uber rich, and HUGE
>companies like GE exploit to pay little if any taxes.
amen to that also. There are solutions without gutting the middle
class.
--
Gerry Peters
> If the central banking system hadn't made the buying power of a dollar
> vanish, a lot of things could be like they used to be. A dollar
> currently has about 5 percent of the buying power it did in 1913, when
> the Federal Reserve System was created.
Taking that for what it's worth, how would you suggest combatting the
problem? Who are the beneficiaries of the Federal Reserve Banking system?
I'm in agreement with you guys on this, but I think there is one more
step. We also need to insist on a leaner, efficient government that has
national priorities.
Ok you got it!
Why don't they get us to solve the nations problems?
--
Gerry Peters
> Follow the U.S. constitution Article 1 Section 8 that says that
> Congress shall have the power to coin (create) money and regulate the
> value thereof.
>
> Also, in 1935, the US Supreme Court ruled the Congress cannot
> constitutionally delegate its power to another group.
Ok, I'm on board. How do we make it happen?
>> Who are the beneficiaries of the Federal Reserve Banking system?
>
> Might be these guys.
>
> Rothschild Bank of London, Warburg Bank of Hamburg, Rothschild Bank of
> Berlin, Lehman Brothers of New York, Lazard Brothers of Paris, Kuhn
> Loeb Bank of New York, Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy, Goldman Sachs
> of New York, Warburg Bank of Amsterdam, and Chase Manhattan Bank of
> New York.
Sounds like some powerful players. How do we fight back? Do you think
putting limits on corporate campaign contributions might help?
because we're idjuts on a piss soaked buss filling in a crater?
lulz
Oh so you believe it now that G'bo lays it out. I've been bztching
about the Fed Reserve for years, pal. That some evil shzt. Just look
at how it was formed and that'll tell you all you need to know.
Plus don't forget that Kennedy signed this executive order. That
sealed his fate.
http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/executiveorder11110.htm
Alot of powerful cats in charge of the Fed Res. crooked fucks the lot
of them.
Which makes him a good one to watch. He's gonna sling alot of shit in
the air. it will provide many lulz
> Oh so you believe it now that G'bo lays it out.
I said I'd go along for the ride. The difference is that he's not wasting
my time with amateurish YouTube bullshit to support his argument. He's
explaining things he believes in, in his own words. I have learned to trust
that when he posts a link it ain't some flim-flam, right-wing bullshit.
Big dif Z.
Given the past few days' events/revelations, he's now a shoe-in to *ensure*
a base-split.
> It will be like Reagan F**kin' Squared!!
More like Johnson F**kin' Squared, unless I've once more underestimated
America's electoral stupidity.
> EVRYBODY wants those f**ckin' shitballs FIRED
That sentiment seems rampant (at least among a large and vocal minority),
true... but how then will you or any of your faveourite loony-pundits
explain the fact that almost *NO* one accepts the actual America proposed by
the Republicans, but intenend to vote for them anyhow?
Well not to be an azz..but I posted an entire youtube series about the
formation of the Fed Reserve that was well documented years ago. It
laid out exactly what the Fed Res. is, how it was formed, how Kenedy
tried to stop it.... No one took the time to watch it.
You know I love Conspriacy therooies.... yep sometimes it's not true..
but damn if I don't NO THINGs...LOl
no hate brotha.. good to see you have a open mind about it.
Peace.
Oh, ye of little faith...
> Well not to be an azz..but I posted an entire youtube series
A *YouTube series*.
Really?
I look at YouTube for casual entertainment, and it's great for that. Any
asshole can post stuff there, just like here.
Problem: There is no one verifying the credibility of what is posted on
YouTube.
No one.
Ever.
You got that?
Nobody has ever won a Pulitzer Prize for shit they posted on YouTube.
Why is that?
It is simply not a valid source of news and information. I know you want it
to be, really really bad, but you're compleyely out of your fucking mind if
you think anybody is ever going to accept that shit as anything but the
crap that it is.
Trump has so many skeletons in his closet he'll make the swift-boat
attacks look like a little-girl's tea party. :-D
Therefore I wholeheartedly endorse Trump, as he obviously carries the
amoral shield for the conservatics and will cost them a fortune and the
election to defend. Bring him on! :-D
dick
The True Spirit of '08:
<http://tinyurl.com/2j78qt>
The Boss Confronting "The American Taliban"®
<http://tinyurl.com/bt75g8>
(he's right behind me, isn't he?)
Have ye not learned yet that idjuts and conservatics are devoid of
critical thinking skills and so easily fooled and defend their folly
enthusiastically! Forever! :-D
<chortle>
The Fish Lady and Weasel Rug!
This is gonna be delightful, bitch! :-D
Well it's the internet. People post documentaries on You Tube as well,
pal. There are news feed from other countries that tell the truth
about what is going on in the world.
Just like TV....you can watch Sponge Bob Square pants or you can watch
the history channel.
So don't shoot the messenger because you don't like the container the
message is carried in.
> So don't shoot the messenger because you don't like the container the
> message is carried in.
>
If your message has merit there's an excellent chance it will be published
somewhere other than YouTube. If you are content to believe whatever
bullshit any asshole feels like dishing out YouTube is your trusted news
source.
I would never shoot a messenger, but if he's full of shit enough times I
will not waste my time with his messages.
No worries, dude. If you don't want to know the truth that's cool.
I've verified the video contents. There are many credible sources that
have documented how the Fed. Reserve was formed. The videos just
condense all the different information from books and sources into one
form.
I'll save the trouble of posting them again. Good luck with finding
out about it on your own [if you even care enough to].
peace.
Nope. It's not a problem of money coming in. It's a problem of the
gov.t throwing it out the fucking window. Taxing the population to
death is not a solution to spending problem.
That is a fact.
Well dick said that the bush crater is filling with piss soaked buss
passes. Is that were it all went?
The fact remains that the more money you give them the more they'll
spend. It's sickening.
Even more so the Fed Reserve is fucking with a countries money...most
the the "big wigs" that control it don't live in that country.
Funny how dat works.
You're a fool if you believe that.
Nobody's rocking the boat now except the conservatics in Congress trying
to seal the deal for their Big Money friends.
You are an idiot if you blieve that, ,pal.
They are tanking the dollar so they can come up with this great plan
of making the north american union. It will save us all and make us
stronger like the EU...
Wait for it... it's coming, pal.
Correct. And the biggest waste of spending is coming from the military
and these wars. We got Bin Laden, time to declare victory and leave
Afghanistan. No reason to cut medicare or SS. Just cut this bloated
military budget. No reason in the world to raise taxes on the middle
class and poor, up it a little on the millionaires and we'll be fine
--
Gerry Peters