Page 7 of 59 FirstFirst ... 345678910111757 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 873
  1. #91
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin
    Posts
    6,027

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    Quote Originally Posted by myv65 View Post
    Folks are gonna think I'm harsh here, but to my eye the low wages offered to pick up garbage are one of the greatest incentives to further your education and make yourself more valuable. Until the wages for that work get to the point that we can't employ people to do the job, I say we're probably paying too much.
    I can agree with that.

    Here's another reason to stay in school.


  2. #92
    Joined
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Age
    40
    Posts
    6,498

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    Quote Originally Posted by myv65 View Post
    But that's just it BD, the numbers are inflation adjusted. Sure, you can get into a whole new thread arguing what really constitutes the cost of living but the bottom line is that the union folks have all been buying big screen TVs and SUVs and more house than they need, just like the rest of us non-union types.

    How quickly we've become a society where folks believe a smartphone, cable TV, and a shiny new car are "rights" of some sort.

    I think the stats bb posted beg the question. Why should we be paying these people (inflation adjusted) more than in the past? And don't mistake my point here, I think the question applies universally. If you're not doing something to make our standard of living rise, why should yours rise?

    Folks are gonna think I'm harsh here, but to my eye the low wages offered to pick up garbage are one of the greatest incentives to further your education and make yourself more valuable. Until the wages for that work get to the point that we can't employ people to do the job, I say we're probably paying too much.

    When we artificially prop up those wages, are we really, really doing a service to the guys picking up trash? I think it's little better than entitlement programs that give "just enough" to string people along through life as opposed to genuinely improving their lot by making them better people.

    The quandry is that, for the foreseeable future, we *need* trash collectors, and snow plow drivers, and people to stand around 8 hours a day holding a sign that says "slow - workers ahead". Fine, but if you choose to do something so mindless I don't feel compelled to pay you enough to upgrade your life.

    The other quandry, to me, is that teachers have thrown in their lot with people who stand around 8 hours (sometimes 12 ) holding that stupid sign. I want our teachers to enjoy greater returns for producing greater results. I want to cull the lousy teachers from the herd. We can't do either one. Right or wrong, the remedy at hand is to crush the teacher's union right along with all the others.

    Perhaps most frustrating of all, I look at the guys driving snow plows and I see guys who *could* do many other things. Whether they sloughed off in school, or had a broken family, or any other of the difficulties of youth I don't know. I just think it's waaaayyyyyy too late when they've committed to driving that truck til 55 to try getting them onto a more productive and fruitful path. And it drives me nuts that we have made underachievement such an institution. Rather than bluntly saying, "You know what, our biggest single problem is people bringing kids into this world not just without a clue of how to raise them, but without any intention of attempting to raise them." Fix the schools? You've got to be kidding me.

    I've got to be careful what I write here, because my spouse works in the educational system. The stories I hear make me sick. A single parent released from prison take all but one of her multiple kids back from a foster home. How do you explain to an 8 y/o why her crack head mom doesn't want them back, but took all your siblings? How do you explain that if that 8 y/o survives the immediate distress, they'll actually have a much better chance than any of their siblings? What do you do when kids say, "Mom told me to act up in class so she could get disability for me"? It's truly mind boggling.

    I know I've strayed a fair bit from the initial topic, but in my mind's eye these things are all tied together in a tenuous way. We have got to get serious about the cultural tail spin that exists in this country. School "reform" is a misguided joke, at best, and a diversion from the real problem. I see this union debate similarly. They've focused on the teachers, because the *good* ones truly are underappreciated and underpaid. They're also far from the majority of those who would be impacted by this legislation, and it's the plow drivers and mop bucket pushers sitting in the shadows who really have my ire. We ought to be discussing the *real* problems and not chasing after the fluff.
    Here's the $69,000 question for ya myv65:

    Based on your preface of what is "deserving" of a pay increase, do you believe that the people making $380K/yr or more (as stated in BB's article) deserve their 33% pay increase?

    I mean hell, I could list off about 10 professions with the potential of making that kind of money off of the top of my head that I can say without a doubt do not deserve to get that big of a raise. If we are saying that guys who pick up trash don't get a raise, then let me be the first to say that bankers, stockbrokers, and lawyers don't get a friggin raise either. At least by your criteria.

    And yes, if it makes me a socialist, I truly believe that the stockbrokers, bankers, and lawyer-types should be the one forking over the dough so the trash man does not have to take a pay cut. I'll happily pay my share as well.

  3. #93
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    West Richland, WA
    Posts
    6,397

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    Yes, that does make you a socialist. Our system only says you should have an opportunity, it does not guarantee equal outcomes.
    Brian

  4. #94
    Joined
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Age
    40
    Posts
    6,498

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    Quote Originally Posted by bk94si View Post
    Yes, that does make you a socialist. Our system only says you should have an opportunity, it does not guarantee equal outcomes.
    Cool

  5. #95
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    West Richland, WA
    Posts
    6,397

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    You do know that Socialism doesn't work, right?
    Brian

  6. #96
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin
    Posts
    6,027

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackDragon24 View Post
    And yes, if it makes me a socialist, I truly believe that the stockbrokers, bankers, and lawyer-types should be the one forking over the dough so the trash man does not have to take a pay cut. I'll happily pay my share as well.
    WHY?! Why penalize the ones who have been successful in life.

    I'll never understand why the left hates wealthy people. They worked for their money! Sure, some inherited it, and some got bailed out by the government, and some made it illegally or something - but I'd like to believe that by and large, most wealthy people in this country got this way through hard work.

    I hate this "Oh, if you make over $100,000 a year, you're a bad person who should be taxed more and more" mentality. THAT'S unfair.

  7. #97
    Joined
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Age
    40
    Posts
    6,498

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    Quote Originally Posted by Keven View Post
    I hate this "Oh, if you make over $100,000 a year, you're a bad person who should be taxed more and more" mentality. THAT'S unfair.
    Shit man life's unfair. It's unfair that I have to pay for the school system even though I don't have kids. It's unfair that I have to pay city taxes for a public transportation system I don't use. I still say its a lot more unfair for janitor-man to take a pay cut than it is for lawyer man.

    Conservatives like to refer this as liberal guilt, and liberals refer to this as having a conscience.

    Hating people who make over $100K/yr is completely different than expecting them to step up and take the brunt of the hit when necessary. Especially when it can be argued quite convincingly that folks in their tax bracket are a big reason as to why we got into this mess in the first place.

    Living in a society is not as black and white as we would like it to be.

  8. #98
    Joined
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Age
    40
    Posts
    6,498

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    Quote Originally Posted by bk94si View Post
    You do know that Socialism doesn't work, right?
    AFAICT, there is no system of government that has worked indefinitely.

    We had a pretty good model for capitalism until Reagan took over. Problem is that if we were to return to pre-Reagan capitalism, folks with your mindset would call that socialism

    So pardon me if I take the socialist moniker with a grain of salt and a dash of pride.

  9. #99
    Joined
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Home
    Posts
    6,875

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackDragon24 View Post
    Here's the $69,000 question for ya myv65:

    Based on your preface of what is "deserving" of a pay increase, do you believe that the people making $380K/yr or more (as stated in BB's article) deserve their 33% pay increase?

    I mean hell, I could list off about 10 professions with the potential of making that kind of money off of the top of my head that I can say without a doubt do not deserve to get that big of a raise. If we are saying that guys who pick up trash don't get a raise, then let me be the first to say that bankers, stockbrokers, and lawyers don't get a friggin raise either. At least by your criteria.

    And yes, if it makes me a socialist, I truly believe that the stockbrokers, bankers, and lawyer-types should be the one forking over the dough so the trash man does not have to take a pay cut. I'll happily pay my share as well.
    That's a lot more than a $69,000 question. Since you've asked, however, I'll tell you what I think. First, let me dream a little, OK? In my dreams everyone learns at least enough to be financially literate. You see, those bankers and stock brokers that bother you are only able to fleece the willing / ignorant. Lest you think I'm exempting myself, there was a time when I was really stupid with money. Oh, I had the ridiculous SAT scores and scholarships that said I was smart, but you can be "smart" and still be a fool. I worked through college, and courtesy of a very nice co-op program I made a lot more than your typical college student. It didn't stop me from graduating with well over $20K in debt, and heck, it might have been over $30K. I really don't remember.

    I spent lots of money I didn't have on lots of stuff that I didn't need. To make matters worse, I borrowed money to buy much of it. The third strike is that pretty much all of it wasn't really worth anything in the long haul.

    After I got out of school, I was fortunate to have a decent job. More than that, I was fortunate to actually start "getting it" when it came to money. From day 1, I put away money for savings, ~10%, and doing it from the get go I never "missed it". When I got a raise, I didn't change my expenses. I upped my payments. Also while still in college, I started dating the girl who is now my wife of nearly 20 years. While working out from under debt, she was in college and accumulating a bit more. She also worked throughout, and with my help graduated with far less debt than I. Before she even graduated, we married and learned to live within our means.

    We bought a small house. We drove our cars a looonnnngggggg time. By the time I was 30, I was out of debt (less a small mortgage) and she was well on her way out, too.

    It's been several years since we've had any debt other than a mortgage. Our cars are 2002 and 2003 vintage, both in excellent shape, and when we replace them we'll buy with cash.

    We're not exactly rich, but we're saving ~$20K a year, give away ~20K a year, and just finished building a beautiful home on 17 acres. Even in this crapola market, our assessment came in about $140,000 higher than our construction loan. I was the general contractor, with the help of family and friends we did 100% of electrical, 100% of tile work, 100% of stone veneer, 100% of paint and stain, virtually all cabinet installation, all appliance installation, eh, you get the idea. It was nine interesting months for a couple who each have full time jobs. We still own our last home, and it's not under water, either, though I couldn't sell it for anything near what I put into it right now. So we sit on it, and rent it for now.

    I've been very, very fortunate. I had dirt poor parents, and grew up on an old-fashioned family farm. We lacked nothing but money growing up, and didn't know to miss that. All 10 kids, I'm the youngest, went to college. All of us had to pay our own way through work, scholarships, loans, and grants. I do not underestimate the value of what my family *did* provide. We had loving parents. We had inate abilities and were encouraged to use them. We simply expected to do well, and never knew failure.

    Call me biased, but I think our nation would be a lot better off if kids grew up the way I did. Seeing the myriad issues kids bring into my wife's school, sheesh. It's why I'm such a strong advocate of *before they get to* school reform.

    Now, to the real world. I don't have the answer. I do think the single greatest thing we could do as a nation is eliminate career politicians. Things are a lot more sane when folks get into an office for altruistic reasons, serve their time, and then go back to real life. As is, our pols on both sides have been largely bought and paid for several times over. Take my local boy, Paul Ryan. He's a bit younger than me, and in my humble estimation about as honest as they come. He says it the way it is when it comes to finances. He still plays the games, however, and I don't always like it. He's far preferable, however, to the vast bulk of the other clowns in DC.

    Anyway, without breaking the strangehold of money influences over our politicians, I'm not sure we're going to accomplish much.

    To your question regarding salaries, no banker or stock broker is going to make millions or billions with guys like me. I've (finally) gotten control over my finances and though truly anything can happen, I'm pretty confident the whole nation would be in the crapper for me to run into financial problems. I have a tough time coming down on, say, professional athlete salaries when we've got people who can't rub two nickels together, yet will spend money for (insert athlete's name here) sports apparel. It's just nuts. Same goes for the Hollywood crowd. Tough to come down on the stupidity of a Paris Hilton or Kim Karadashian or Miley Cyrus when we're plunking down money we don't have and sending it their direction.

    Where we do agree, and what really grates on my nerves, are the thousands, maybe millions, of overpaid execs who aren't worth the packages they receive. I saw this first hand. I worked at a company that was 153 years old when it crashed and burned. We went from a family owned outfit to a conglomerate. When times were good, our executive roles grew far faster than our overall sales. We went from 6 VPs to over 50 in a period of a few years. The economy tanked, and some really stupid decisions by upper management left us holding about $300 million in equipment with a bankrupt buyer. With annual sales a little to the low side of $1B, we were toast.

    To this day I get riled by the first two things that the bankruptcy judge approved. (1) the lawyer fee schedules and (2) the golden parachute packages. They estimated the cost at ~$24M for ~115 "executives" whose knowledge was critical to maintaining the financial value of the company as they sought a buyer. In a word, ••••••••. These were the same clowns who had only been with the company a few years, ie, just long enough to destroy it. Us run of the mill guys, who had a severance package of 1 week pay per year of service, eventually got zilch. Total cost if they had paid us our severance? ~$8 million. Yeah.

    Anyway, stuff like the above is why I grudgingly acknowledge that *some* government involvement is needed. Not so much to curtail executive pay as to do things like prevent the financial shenanigans that allow people to reap huge sums without risking their own hide and heck, why not put in legislation that rewards companies with tax breaks for keeping executive compensation under control? You wanna pony up big bucks for an exec, fine, here's your full tax bill. You wanna invest in growth and train / hire / expand your common workers, here's your tax credit.

    As is, our government has a very, very poor record of all things business. Barney Frank is the poster boy. Cracks me up that he still claims he did what he could to avert a housing crisis, blah, blah, blah. What a huckster. The stimulus? As I noted earlier, our state balanced its budget courtesy of a cash infusion from the feds. Problem is we're out of balance because of things like *not* adjusting staffing levels to match current demands. In the case of teachers, since it's the hot topic, we kept them on staff even with dropping enrollment. OK, great, it allowed them to pay their bills a while longer, but it did nothing, absolutely nothing about the long term problem. The enrollment is still down, and we're still overstaffed, and now Uncle Sam isn't coming riding to the rescue with bags of cash.

    I'm beyond rambling now, so will cut this off shortly. Bottom line, our pols on both sides do not have my trust with very few exceptions. Eliminating career politicians would be a good start. Eliminating pensions for politicians would be a nice addition. Criminy, the guys vote for their own retirement and health care packages. Some of the rest is tougher. We need to stem the tide of horrible home lifes that is killing our schools. We need people to take responsibility for their own lives. We need to quit driving our opposing views into greater discord and start agreeing to some of the basics.

    Simple fact is that we both, and by in large all of us, want a strong prosperous nation. We disagree on a lot of the particulars, but we all want prosperity. Is it really that tough to sit back and objectively look at cause / effect for every last item in the debate?

  10. #100
    Joined
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Vvardenfell
    Age
    58
    Posts
    10,850

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    I eagerly await a rationale as to what a "hater" this dude is.


    Easy: a self-serving one. Although I'm fairly certain they are the only kind. Strikes are always embarrassing to incumbent politicians, no matter who is striking. The embarrassment is worse if it's the government on strike. And if the union wins then it will probably cost the government more - money it needs to pay for the pork.


    M

  11. #101
    Joined
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,751

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackDragon24 View Post
    We had a pretty good model for capitalism until Reagan took over. Problem is that if we were to return to pre-Reagan capitalism, folks with your mindset would call that socialism
    .
    The system was already screwed by the time Regan got in office. I would say of recent presidents, Nixon holds the most blame.




    Back to what everyone was talking about.

    Instead of teaching kids to work for someone else. How about we teach people to go into business for themselves. I dont understand the mentality that you have to get your lively hood from someone else. Go get it yourself!

    And if your a garbage man who doesnt like what he gets paid. Im sure you could advertise your waste collection services in a variety of ways outside of picking it up in front of someones house and requiring a large garbage truck.

    Point being, you want money. Go get it! Stop waiting for someone to give it to you.The best you will ever be is someones employee .

  12. #102
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,269

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    Quote Originally Posted by myv65 View Post
    ...finished building a beautiful home on 17 acres.
    Awesome...

    Especially the part about doing so much on your own.

  13. #103
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Obamaland
    Age
    37
    Posts
    9,532

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    Quote Originally Posted by Keven View Post
    Jesus, you're acting like what Walker is asking the teachers to put on shackles. Wisconsin has one of the best benefits packages for state and municipal employees int he country. Asking them to contribute 50% to their pension (which is money they get back when they retire) and pay more to their health care is completely reasonable.
    But he also wants to strip them of their collective bargaining rights. When that bill passes (which I fully expect it to), what do you think will happen to the teacher's pay and benefits?
    [/quote]

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    ^^^ I think it's comical to hear the left droning about how taking collective bargaining away will lead to the demise of civilization as we know it. When in fact the trends overseas show the exact opposite to be the truth.
    Oh, I though you didn't care about what happens overseas! When lite brought Germany into the discussion you were like "Bah this ain't no Germany!" ha ha Since when does a conservative give two shits about what happens overseas?

    a) whenever it can support their argument

    b) when it's another excuse for war

    Quote Originally Posted by myv65 View Post
    But that's just it BD, the numbers are inflation adjusted. Sure, you can get into a whole new thread arguing what really constitutes the cost of living but the bottom line is that the union folks have all been buying big screen TVs and SUVs and more house than they need, just like the rest of us non-union types.

    How quickly we've become a society where folks believe a smartphone, cable TV, and a shiny new car are "rights" of some sort.

    I think the stats bb posted beg the question. Why should we be paying these people (inflation adjusted) more than in the past? And don't mistake my point here, I think the question applies universally. If you're not doing something to make our standard of living rise, why should yours rise?

    Folks are gonna think I'm harsh here, but to my eye the low wages offered to pick up garbage are one of the greatest incentives to further your education and make yourself more valuable. Until the wages for that work get to the point that we can't employ people to do the job, I say we're probably paying too much.

    When we artificially prop up those wages, are we really, really doing a service to the guys picking up trash? I think it's little better than entitlement programs that give "just enough" to string people along through life as opposed to genuinely improving their lot by making them better people.

    The quandry is that, for the foreseeable future, we *need* trash collectors, and snow plow drivers, and people to stand around 8 hours a day holding a sign that says "slow - workers ahead". Fine, but if you choose to do something so mindless I don't feel compelled to pay you enough to upgrade your life.
    I think you miss the point that these guys aren't just button pushers. They run alot of heavy equipment which requires training, and skill to operate and with that comes responsibly for the life of yourself, co-workers, and anyone else in the area. You and I probably see some kind of road work every day not thinking of the risk these guys take when digging a ditch less than 10 feet away from highway traffic. As far as I'm concerned, these guys deserve a living wage. And everytime spending needs to be cut, I can guarantee that it will come from the guys who do these jobs if they don't have collective bargaining rights. I don't understand why the people who do these jobs have to be viewed as low lifes. Just because these people don't have a piece of paper in their hand that says they can do something shouldn't mean they are less deserving of a decent wage.

    Quote Originally Posted by bk94si
    Our system only says you should have an opportunity, it does not guarantee equal outcomes.
    Oh really? Where?

    Quote Originally Posted by bk94si View Post
    You do know that Socialism doesn't work, right?
    You know the capitalism doesn't either, Huh huh huh.. .

    As BD pointed out. No form of government has ever lasted indefinitely. Even our founding fathers knew that this nation would one day succumb to corruption. In a perfect world. Socialism could work. But socialism in it's pure form fails because there is no reward for success. Capitalism fails because it would only lead to plutocracy. We need regulations and elements of socialism to ensure everyone will at least have a chance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Keven View Post
    WHY?! Why penalize the ones who have been successful in life.

    I'll never understand why the left hates wealthy people. They worked for their money! Sure, some inherited it, and some got bailed out by the government, and some made it illegally or something - but I'd like to believe that by and large, most wealthy people in this country got this way through hard work.

    I hate this "Oh, if you make over $100,000 a year, you're a bad person who should be taxed more and more" mentality. THAT'S unfair.
    I'll never understand why the right hates the middle class. Here we have an entire thread of people griping about how union workers are making too much money, and thats just NOT FAIR? Boo F***ing Hoo! Yet here you are saying that rich people work for their money and we shouldn't complain about them being rich because they own it fair in square. But for whatever reason, the union workers don't earn any of their money so you can gripe about that all day long


    As another election draws near; the G.O.P. are yet again filled with a stupid confidence that the they will win the White House. What they don't realize about people like Trump, Carson, and Cruz is that their rhetoric only resonates within an echo chamber, but not the American people. They live in an illusion of falsehood and distorted truth and only seek information and opinions that confirm these beliefs and instantly reject anything that contradicts them because only their opinions matter. Their notion of freedom is freedom for themselves and those alike to them, but not the rest of the country which has changed.
    These are the reasons why the G.O.P is set to lose in 2016. And when that happens, rest assured that they will have myriad of conspiracy theories blaming everyone and everything from the liberal media, to Oprah, to welfare moms, and pretty much everyone but their own disgusting selves.



  14. #104
    Joined
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Home
    Posts
    6,875

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    Quote Originally Posted by JustinC939 View Post
    I think you miss the point that these guys aren't just button pushers. They run alot of heavy equipment which requires training, and skill to operate and with that comes responsibly for the life of yourself, co-workers, and anyone else in the area. You and I probably see some kind of road work every day not thinking of the risk these guys take when digging a ditch less than 10 feet away from highway traffic. As far as I'm concerned, these guys deserve a living wage. And everytime spending needs to be cut, I can guarantee that it will come from the guys who do these jobs if they don't have collective bargaining rights. I don't understand why the people who do these jobs have to be viewed as low lifes. Just because these people don't have a piece of paper in their hand that says they can do something shouldn't mean they are less deserving of a decent wage.
    No, I do not miss that point. I've run heavy equipment, both in the construction business and heavy manufacturing. I've got the advantage of having run tractors dating back to the late 40's all the way through operating a CNC machine and a variety of other heavy manufacturing machines including lathes, planers, mills, radial drill presses, etc. That's the advantage of growing up on a farm and then going through a co-op program that ran you through darn near every area of a ~$1B heavy equipment manufacturer.

    My point stands. You've got all manner of union jobs that are not substantially different than in years past. You've got a bunch of other union jobs that now require fewer people courtesy of technology. For the latter, I'd say, yeah, they're now worth more because we're doing the same tasks with less labor and they've got additional smarts to make it happen. Show me where we've reduced labor hours and I'll show you where you can justify higher wages.

    All too often what I see in my locale is taking on new tasks to justify or expand existing staffing levels. In my little city, the roadways are immaculate and many of our medians have pretty flowers all summer long. It didn't used to be this way, and you'd be hard pressed to correlate our flowers with increased business activity. For much of the last two years, my city has the distinction of leading the whole friggin' state in unemployment.

  15. #105
    Joined
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Crazy AZ USA
    Posts
    3,516

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    Quote Originally Posted by myv65
    On the other, at least in Wisconsin, the scales have been sliding heavily in favor of the public sector employees for probably 10 years or more. Our historical industrial job base is a shadow of its former self, and the family-supporting wages that it provided are largely gone. While our average wage in the private sector has probably dropped in inflation adjusted dollars (an assumption on my part), our public packages have exceeded inflation. It's pretty basic math to show that we can't sustain the trend.
    ....

    Wages have stagnated? Well yeah, but so has the work. I know I'm generalizing here, and I get it that technology has worked its way into some of these jobs, sometimes in a big way. Believe me, with what I do for a living I really get that part.
    ....

    Folks are gonna think I'm harsh here, but to my eye the low wages offered to pick up garbage are one of the greatest incentives to further your education and make yourself more valuable. Until the wages for that work get to the point that we can't employ people to do the job, I say we're probably paying too much.
    ....

    Perhaps most frustrating of all, I look at the guys driving snow plows and I see guys who *could* do many other things. Whether they sloughed off in school, or had a broken family, or any other of the difficulties of youth I don't know. I just think it's waaaayyyyyy too late when they've committed to driving that truck til 55 to try getting them onto a more productive and fruitful path. And it drives me nuts that we have made underachievement such an institution. Rather than bluntly saying, "You know what, our biggest single problem is people bringing kids into this world not just without a clue of how to raise them, but without any intention of attempting to raise them." Fix the schools? You've got to be kidding me.
    ....

    Now, to the real world. I don't have the answer. I do think the single greatest thing we could do as a nation is eliminate career politicians. Things are a lot more sane when folks get into an office for altruistic reasons, serve their time, and then go back to real life. As is, our pols on both sides have been largely bought and paid for several times over. Take my local boy, Paul Ryan. He's a bit younger than me, and in my humble estimation about as honest as they come. He says it the way it is when it comes to finances. He still plays the games, however, and I don't always like it. He's far preferable, however, to the vast bulk of the other clowns in DC.
    If no one has been reading your stuff, mv, here are some clips I enjoyed. You and I are much alike.

    One statement, however-

    Quote Originally Posted by myv65 View Post
    You see, those bankers and stock brokers that bother you are only able to fleece the willing / ignorant.
    I think you are about to get a rude awakening. While there is truth in what you say, the thought is incomplete. Unless you stopped taking pay and paying taxes, the bankers are diligently working on fleecing you more and more everyday anyhow.

    Since Bush shook us down for the TARP, I've been on a quest to figure out the how and why. I think the math should really be quite simple for you:

    How do you pay for growing demand without the means to do so? How does the government pay its bills without a private sector that can no longer make the income and pay the taxes?

    Simple: Borrow.

    When you borrow, you pay interest on the debt. Who profits from debt?

    Right now, interest rates are about as low as they're going to get yet to pay the interest on the debt is heading toward 20% of our total tax revenues. Moreover, our government is upping our total debt level almost 12% this year and borrowing makes up nearly 45% of our budget THIS year alone.

    Jobs aren't increasing and what jobs there are, are declining in wage and benefits in the private sector.

    What do you think is going to end this vicious cycle? WHY should our government employees feel ENTITLED to their jobs?
    Last edited by AeroSim; 02-23-2011 at 11:40 AM.
    "We say in our platform that we believe that the right to coin money and issue money is a function of government....

    Those who are opposed to this proposition tell us that the issue of paper money is a function of the bank and that the government ought to go out of the banking business. I stand with Jefferson rather than with them, and tell them, as he did, that the issue of money is a function of the government and that the banks should go out of the governing business."

    William Jennings Bryan.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •