When Utopias fall....San Bernadino City Attorney shares a bit of reality.... [Archive]

Alaskapopo

12-05-2012, 03:54 AM

Funny thing is that many CA cities including this one (probably) are broke because of "safety" which means firefighter and police pensions/costs.

So are you saying these heros should be thrown to the curb when its time to retire. I hope not. Nice way to pay someone back for a life of service and risking their own life. Not sure about california but up here the costs issues are not the pensions but rather health care costs that were out of control going up at three times the rate of inflation. Get those under control and affording the pensions that these dedicated men and women worked hard for would be easy. It has always been that government jobs paid less than private sector jobs but had better benefits. Now people are attacking that. Our states retirement system has changed for new hires to where its no better than a 401K and guess what its hard to keep people once they realize how fucked their getting. So they stay 5 years get vested and then move on. What is next military retirements. I don't think you can blame the financial woes of the country on unions and hard working cops and firefighters. Look rather towards corporations getting huge tax breaks like GE who did not pay a dime in taxes due to all the loopholes in the tax system. I have also seen cities and state governments fight dirty.
Pat

Joe in PNG

12-05-2012, 05:48 AM

Sadly, when it is time for cuts, it is always cops, firefighters, ect under the knife. Never the Special Assistant to the Undersecretary to the Council Associate for Extraneous Urban Affairs desk...And the really sad thing? Give the government more money, and they hire this guy a staff.

LittleLebowski

12-05-2012, 08:11 AM

So are you saying these heros should be thrown to the curb when its time to retire. I hope not. Nice way to pay someone back for a life of service and risking their own life. Not sure about california but up here the costs issues are not the pensions but rather health care costs that were out of control going up at three times the rate of inflation. Get those under control and affording the pensions that these dedicated men and women worked hard for would be easy. It has always been that government jobs paid less than private sector jobs but had better benefits. Now people are attacking that. Our states retirement system has changed for new hires to where its no better than a 401K and guess what its hard to keep people once they realize how fucked their getting. So they stay 5 years get vested and then move on. What is next military retirements. I don't think you can blame the financial woes of the country on unions and hard working cops and firefighters. Look rather towards corporations getting huge tax breaks like GE who did not pay a dime in taxes due to all the loopholes in the tax system. I have also seen cities and state governments fight dirty.
Pat

I know the data I cite and it's from non partisan sources. I will happily read the data you have that says the CA cities facing bankruptcy due to public worker compensation costs are seeing the costs go up because of health care costs. I see that you are speaking from firsthand knowledge of your locale; I would caution you that I am as well as a homeowner in CA, as a former resident, as a concerned and very interested taxpayer, and as a relative of a prominent CA politician.

TCinVA

12-05-2012, 08:33 AM

And honestly, I can't blame the unions for getting the best deal they could get for their members.

...and there you identify the core problem with unions.

The "best deal" they can get, especially when it comes to public unions, is a bunch of Little-Orphan-Annie promises about Tomorrow in return for votes for politicians (always an upstanding bunch) today. That's all fine and dandy today when the politicans don't have to pay for the promises, but the world economy runs in cycles and when there's a downturn and revenue is short and all those promises come due it's a different story.

This isn't helped by the fact that a large chunk of the time the promises are not backed up by actually paying for them by the politicians who make the promises to get the votes of the public employees even when the economy is booming.

It's always struck me as absurd to hear public employee unions negotiate for the stars and then complain that a bunch of the promises that the politicians made them weren't fully funded.

Well...duh. What did you expect? Politicians to tell the truth?

The whole thing is unseemly. Forced extraction of union dues from public employees that are handed up to union staff which in turn spend those dues in the effort to elect politicians who promise ever more to the unions who are giving them money and organization. That's not democracy...that's corruption.

During the warlord period in China there was a particular warlord who wasn't providing much in the way of rations for his troops. When his troops complained, he said "If you have guns, why should you be short of rations?" In other words: Hey, dudes! You've got guns. Peasant farmers have food. Use the guns to get the food.

The whole politician/public union nexus reminds me an awful lot of that arrangement.

BaiHu

12-05-2012, 08:56 AM

It's not the corporations. It's not the evil rich, it's not even the middle class! The corporations and evil rich are being slammed all the way down to the middle income earner. Why? Because CA has become a fantasy land of "fairness".

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2012/11/but-its-all-about-fairness-144000.html?m=1

California has people with gender identity issues suing, unsuccessfully for now, the state for state funded sex changes....while in jail! Meanwhile, it was successful in MA.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/09/04/michelle-kosilek-transgender-murder-convict-surgery-approved_n_1855192.html

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

ford.304

12-05-2012, 09:09 AM

It's a real nasty problem for everyone.

Unions ask for more compensation.
Politicians say "I can't pay you anything today, but I can promise you a lot more when you retire (when I've moved on to the state legislature).
Union leaders say it's a lot better than nothing, and hey, most of us are close to retiring anyway.
Worker takes job with mediocre pay but with promise of awesome retirement benefits.
Worker stays at job for 40 years because of promise of awesome benefits, doesn't want to lose what he's accrued by moving somewhere he likes better.
Worker retires, politicians say "holy crap, we can't afford any of this."

The workers are honestly getting screwed if you change any of their promised benefits, but everyone else is getting completely screwed by continuing to promise it.

The solution is to pay what has been earned, and then massively re-adjust compensation for current and future employees (higher pay up front, lower uncapped benefits).

Oddly, this situation only seems to happen when the union is doing the negotiating instead of the individual, and it only seems to get *this bad* when it's the unions negotiating with guys they helped put into office.

I would like to see the rest of the budget for the county. Fire and police are always the ones getting cut because they're the ones that panic citizens into passing levies, but they aren't the majority of the government workers getting these same union pension schemes.

LittleLebowski

12-05-2012, 09:14 AM

The words "union pensions" have very different meanings in different states. CA is not AK, IL is not OH, and so on. One should not generalize this sort of thing.

TCinVA

12-05-2012, 09:16 AM

The workers are honestly getting screwed if you change any of their promised benefits, but everyone else is getting completely screwed by continuing to promise it.

...and that's why everyone involved needs to turn on the group that's doling out promises of tomorrow in return for votes today.

That's the crux of most of our social problems today: We've bought into the idea that those dudes in Washington/Sacramento/City Hall are A.) capable of fixing problems B.) capable of dealing in good faith C.) have someone else's best interest at heart. This despite plenty of evidence that none of those things are even remotely true.

Fire and police are always the ones getting cut because they're the ones that panic citizens into passing levies, but they aren't the majority of the government workers getting these same union pension schemes.

Public schools in a lot of these places are even worse...but in some areas public schools are their own government entity separate from the city/county government. If the city/county government doesn't have control of public education, then police/fire are probably going to be the majority of their expenditures.

Chuck Haggard

12-05-2012, 10:26 AM

BaiHu

12-05-2012, 10:34 AM

TCinVA

12-05-2012, 10:34 AM

Having an insider track into being able to see where the money flows in the various health care systems, a HUGE issue in California is the number of folks who do not pay any taxes, are often not even citizens, but are getting free health care of some sort from the system.

The bill for this is massive.

I remember seeing a statistic somewhere a while ago which said that a whopping huge great majority of births happening in a particular area were from illegal immigrants...who weren't paying the bills. And then folks wondered why a hospital shut down.

As a society we have to re-learn that medicine and doctors don't grow on trees. Medical care costs money. The other day I had a conversation with a woman who was offended at the idea that money should dictate whether or not she gets a particular treatment.

"Do you understand that medicine costs money? That the expertise necessary to treat a condition like brain cancer requires more than a decade of specialized education, training and experience? That the diagnostic equipment necessary to find the cancer in the first place costs billions to research and develop? All the money to create that life-saving treatment has to come from somewhere. These things do not appear magically. The money has to exist, and if you can't pay for it yourself what you're asking is that others either help you pay for it or do it for you. Hence the existence of medical insurance."

"Well years ago it didn't cost that much!"

"No, dear one, it didn't. That's because years ago the diagnostic equipment, surgical equipment, and treatment options that we have today didn't exist. Years ago you would just be dead. Now, at least, there is some hope for at least some people."

"Everyone should have that!"

"And there again we get right back to the heart of the question: Those advances did not fall from the sky. They took time and money to develop. You wouldn't come to work if they stopped paying you tomorrow, but you expect somebody who put in a lot more time and effort into just being qualified for their job to do it for free?"

BLR

12-05-2012, 10:52 AM

Yes! Did you see the article I posted where 1% of Californians pay about 50% of the taxes? While middle income earners of 50k pay a state income tax equivalent to a millionaire tax in any other state.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

That's pretty much the story for the nation. Top 10% pay 90%. And are demonized for it.

The reality of it is a population that takes more than it gives is doomed to failure. What I don't understand is how the Dems went from "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" to "The evil rich need to pay their fair share" when it's already the vast majority of the bill.

The Bill Whittle video linked to previoulsy explained it best. The "real" Repubs/Conservs need to start believing in their own message.

TCinVA

12-05-2012, 10:57 AM

The reality of it is a population that takes more than it gives is doomed to failure. What I don't understand is how the Dems went from "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"

Well, one of the reasons was that the guy who said that didn't really mean it. It was a nice quote and all, but like so many words from politicians the reality wasn't quite up to par with the rhetoric.

If you haven't read Robert Karo's books on LBJ, by all means do so. It's one of the most depressing series of books you'll ever read, but it's without question the best snapshot of what politics during that time actually was that I've ever seen. Those books are probably one of the greatest historical works we'll ever see in our lifetimes.

BLR

12-05-2012, 11:23 AM

Well, one of the reasons was that the guy who said that didn't really mean it. It was a nice quote and all, but like so many words from politicians the reality wasn't quite up to par with the rhetoric.

If you haven't read Robert Karo's books on LBJ, by all means do so. It's one of the most depressing series of books you'll ever read, but it's without question the best snapshot of what politics during that time actually was that I've ever seen. Those books are probably one of the greatest historical works we'll ever see in our lifetimes.

I'm trying to be nicer. ;)

I don't need any more depressing things in my life. This semesters students saturated me on disappointment.

Savage Hands

12-05-2012, 12:30 PM

Funny thing is that many CA cities including this one (probably) are broke because of "safety" which means firefighter and police pensions/costs.

That is what happened to Vallejo, CA which was the first city to recently bankrupt here and it will continue with others :(

Dagga Boy

12-05-2012, 12:37 PM

One thing I can address is the California pension issues as I was right in the middle of it. When the 3% at 50 formula came into being it was a "interesting" solution to a major issue. Several issues were at play.

First: There was a supposed "need" and desire for college educated cops and firefighters (as the first guy recruited off a college campus by my P.D., I still don't really understand why). At the time, college grads were being scooped up into the private sector with very high paying jobs that generally paid 4x's the starting wages for a police officer or fireman.

Second: Law Enforcement and Firefighting are a young man's sport. It is not a place for old guys who actually work in the field. Older safety employees were getting hurt often with career ending injuries and they were less efficient as workers having worked on the streets for over 30 years with the associated injuries and stresses of these jobs. Many places don't allow their safety employees to work over 20 years. This is actually a good idea. Keep in mind that the entire PERs system is really designed for retired safety employees to die within a couple years of retirement. Unlike a 401(k), when you and your spouse die, its all over. Your pension is not an asset or part of your estate that can be handed down to your kids. It used to work well when a retired safety employee died a year or two after retiring and then a half for the spouse till they died, and it was all over.

In order to recruit "qualified" candidates, and to get rid of early medical retirements and the associated costs, 3% at age 50 was used to recruit college graduates away from the private sector and get older employees out before they are liabilities in this type of work. It was a good idea and worked. Then like any program that worked, it was abused. First, the municipalities used this program as a bargaining carrot. We sold our souls to the devil and gave up pay raises and other benefits for years during negotiations to get on this program. The municipalities politicians saw this and realized that this was a great bargaining chip........that wouldn't affect anything till well after they were gone. Of course, all the other unions wanted these types of pensions as well. Then the very high wage city management people wanted the same type of pensions that the safety employees were getting. Pretty soon, these big pension plans are being handed out like candy with no thought (or concern) of the long term effects.

The reality is that these programs should have been a short term "fix" and transitions should have been made to provide higher wages to recruit the types of employees you want (which would have had to have been budgeted for with the means you have "right now", rather than paying for down the road), and using 401(k) type plans for retirement like the private sector. The politicians have failed, and the public safety unions have failed. I just hope my check keeps coming. I left California because the progressives have built the utopia they want. They provide an insane level of benefits to illegal aliens with no checks in affect to curb abuse. It is a state that caters to a huge number of "consumers" and demonizes the "producers" and "providers". It is HORRIBLY top heavy in administration vs. workers in the private sector. The politicians and progressives have destroyed one of the best places in the world to live. I spoke with a moving truck. You want to punish those who pay the taxes and use very little public resources, fine........you win (don't get me started on their gun control laws). I now provide nothing to the State of California, and simply redistribute my wealth to the State of Texas. California is reaping what it has sown.

Savage Hands

12-05-2012, 12:37 PM

I'd say the blame lies not with the individuals, but with their unions and the politicians that used taxpayer dollars to buy themselves votes, knowing full well that the long-term carrying costs of those pensions depended upon impossible assumptions of continued economic growth.

And honestly, I can't blame the unions for getting the best deal they could get for their members.
It's politicians and voters that get the pointed finger of blame from me.

Will be interesting to see if Californian voters wise up now that their ignorance is coming to roost.
The rest of us are only slightly behind.

The problems are with the liberal voters who would never break party lines in their lifetimes, and those people are in the Bay Area and Los Angeles.

For example, the red areas control the majority of voting here:

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/img.php?year=2010&st=CA&off=5&elect=0&fips=6&type=map

Suvorov

12-05-2012, 01:11 PM

The problems are with the liberal voters who would never break party lines in their lifetimes, and those people are in the Bay Area and Los Angeles.

For example, the red areas control the majority of voting here:

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/img.php?year=2010&st=CA&off=5&elect=0&fips=6&type=map

Thanks for posting this.

I love to hear comments about "California voters should wise up to their ignorance." ANYONE who has spent any time in Kalifornia will know that it is far from a monolithic state. This map shows the reality. While the colors on this map are reversed, it proves the point that Kalifornia is a HUGE red state of 10 million controlled by a thin dark blue coast of 20 million. I can say that I have NEVER voted for a known anti-gunner (Arnold did fool me the first time), and continually vote against the tax and spend party. Lot of good it does, there is just no way to overcome the current demographics. Short of a state civil war or a total collapse that will cause the leaches to flee to other states, there is no hope for Kalifornia ever regaining its balance.

ford.304

12-05-2012, 01:31 PM

Thanks for posting this.

I love to hear comments about "California voters should wise up to their ignorance." ANYONE who has spent any time in Kalifornia will know that it is far from a monolithic state. This map shows the reality. While the colors on this map are reversed, it proves the point that Kalifornia is a HUGE red state of 10 million controlled by a thin dark blue coast of 20 million. I can say that I have NEVER voted for a known anti-gunner (Arnold did fool me the first time), and continually vote against the tax and spend party. Lot of good it does, there is just no way to overcome the current demographics. Short of a state civil war or a total collapse that will cause the leaches to flee to other states, there is no hope for Kalifornia ever regaining its balance.

Looks like a microcosm of the rest of the US.

Always interesting what people's gut reaction to the realities of those maps are. "Look, people from all over the place have these same opinions, it's only a couple cities where people have these dumb ideas" versus "The majority of people live in those cities, who cares about what the few throwbacks living in the country think."

Shellback

12-05-2012, 01:51 PM

So are you saying these heros should be thrown to the curb when its time to retire.
Pat

So you're saying because someone puts on a uniform and does their job that makes them a "hero"? When everyone is a "hero" than no one who ever truly deserves the title is.

A firefighter, an EMT, or a police officer doing his job does not make him or her a hero. It earns him or her the amount which they are paid. To be a hero, one must go above and beyond the call of duty. Go beyond what is expected of them.

A uniform does not make a person a hero. An occupation does not make a hero. And calling men and women heroes that haven’t earned it belittles the contributions of those who fought, bled, risked their lives, and died to be called such.

RoyGBiv

12-05-2012, 02:14 PM

I love to hear comments about "California voters should wise up to their ignorance." ANYONE who has spent any time in Kalifornia will know that it is far from a monolithic state. This map shows the reality. While the colors on this map are reversed, it proves the point that Kalifornia is a HUGE red state of 10 million controlled by a thin dark blue coast of 20 million. I can say that I have NEVER voted for a known anti-gunner (Arnold did fool me the first time), and continually vote against the tax and spend party. Lot of good it does, there is just no way to overcome the current demographics. Short of a state civil war or a total collapse that will cause the leaches to flee to other states, there is no hope for Kalifornia ever regaining its balance.
I love to hear arguments from Conservative Californians trying to claim their state is not dominated by Democratic/progressive voters. Yes, I am fully aware that the land area of California is dominated by those who would vote Conservative. Too bad votes aren't weighted by land ownership any longer.

It gets worse when you consider all the illegal immigrants living in those rural red counties. (I have friends living east of Porterville.) Honestly, I feel bad for y'all. The tax and spend political fiasco isn't going to get resolved through legal migration, so, again, I think it will be interesting to see if Californian voters (the majority that continue to vote tax & spend) wise up now that their ignorance is coming to roost.

If California can pull off a turnaround, then there's hope for the rest of us.

Savage Hands

12-05-2012, 02:25 PM

I love to hear arguments from Conservative Californians trying to claim their state is not dominated by Democratic/progressive voters. Yes, I am fully aware that the land area of California is dominated by those who would vote Conservative. Too bad votes aren't weighted by land ownership any longer.

It gets worse when you consider all the illegal immigrants living in those rural red counties. (I have friends living east of Porterville.) Honestly, I feel bad for y'all. The tax and spend political fiasco isn't going to get resolved through legal migration, so, again, I think it will be interesting to see if Californian voters (the majority that continue to vote tax & spend) wise up now that their ignorance is coming to roost.

If California can pull off a turnaround, then there's hope for the rest of us.

We're about the same 60/30ish split as the rest of the country, so we're all in trouble...

TGS

12-05-2012, 02:30 PM

Thanks for posting this.

I love to hear comments about "California voters should wise up to their ignorance."

Dontcha'know? Anyone from CA, NJ, NY, MA, MD or IL are automatically stupid, freedom hating people that deserve what they get. There's no other way it can be, the internets said so.

Tamara

12-05-2012, 02:46 PM

Dontcha'know? Anyone from CA, NJ, NY, MA, MD or IL are automatically stupid, freedom hating people that deserve what they get. There's no other way it can be, the internets said so.

Just so long as y'all understand that. ;)

(I was born in Chicago and would probably have a very different outlook on firearms issues if I hadn't been smuggled out to freedom in a hot air balloon when I was still in elementary school. I can understand folks being born places, but I do have to confess looking askance at folks who move to those places with their eyes open as an adult. I literally cannot imagine voluntarily moving someplace that would make me sell a bunch of my possessions just for the privilege of paying taxes there; it'd have to be a pretty hellacious job offer, and even then... I just don't know.)

Alaskapopo

12-05-2012, 02:58 PM

I know the data I cite and it's from non partisan sources. I will happily read the data you have that says the CA cities facing bankruptcy due to public worker compensation costs are seeing the costs go up because of health care costs. I see that you are speaking from firsthand knowledge of your locale; I would caution you that I am as well as a homeowner in CA, as a former resident, as a concerned and very interested taxpayer, and as a relative of a prominent CA politician.

So basically its the same in your area. The pensions themselves are not the problem but rather an out of control health care industry. The solution is not to screw the workers over but rather do something to get health care costs under control. One method that has my interest right now is consumer driven health care.
Pat

Alaskapopo

12-05-2012, 03:00 PM

That's pretty much the story for the nation. Top 10% pay 90%. And are demonized for it.

The reality of it is a population that takes more than it gives is doomed to failure. What I don't understand is how the Dems went from "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" to "The evil rich need to pay their fair share" when it's already the vast majority of the bill.

The Bill Whittle video linked to previoulsy explained it best. The "real" Repubs/Conservs need to start believing in their own message.

This has been covered before but the rich are not paying their fair share. look up Warren Buffet.
Pat

BLR

12-05-2012, 03:01 PM

So are you saying these heros should be thrown to the curb when its time to retire. I hope not.

Huh. I always thought Audey Murphy was a "hero." I don't consider my next door neighbor, a LEO, a "hero." He's a great guy, and I'd do anything to help him. But he's not a hero.

And just so we are clear on this, calling every LEO and FF a "hero" dillutes the term for real heros. LEOs and FFs can be heros. Some FFs at the WTC were "heros."

And, despite what the unionized left is saying, public workers benifits are responsible for the massive debt and deficet in the US. Ask Wisconsin 'bout it.

Oh, and LL said nothing of "throwing to the curb." Reforming and revising a system to make it sustainable, you know, so they actually have a retirement to look forward to is hardly "throwing to the curb."

JMHO.

Alaskapopo

12-05-2012, 03:03 PM

So you're saying because someone puts on a uniform and does their job that makes them a "hero"? When everyone is a "hero" than no one who ever truly deserves the title is.

A firefighter, an EMT, or a police officer doing his job does not make him or her a hero. It earns him or her the amount which they are paid. To be a hero, one must go above and beyond the call of duty. Go beyond what is expected of them.

A uniform does not make a person a hero. An occupation does not make a hero. And calling men and women heroes that haven’t earned it belittles the contributions of those who fought, bled, risked their lives, and died to be called such.

By the very nature of their jobs these professions are hero's. They save lives and risk their own. Simply put if you keep lowering pay and benefits the job will no longer be worth it. How much is your life worth? We are paying people to risk their lives and some of us here want to screw them if they make it to retirement.
Pat

Alaskapopo

12-05-2012, 03:05 PM

Huh. I always thought Audey Murphy was a "hero." I don't consider my next door neighbor, a LEO, a "hero." He's a great guy, and I'd do anything to help him. But he's not a hero.

And just so we are clear on this, calling every LEO and FF a "hero" dillutes the term for real heros. LEOs and FFs can be heros. Some FFs at the WTC were "heros."

And, despite what the unionized left is saying, public workers benifits are responsible for the massive debt and deficet in the US. Ask Wisconsin 'bout it.

Oh, and LL said nothing of "throwing to the curb." Reforming and revising a system to make it sustainable, you know, so they actually have a retirement to look forward to is hardly "throwing to the curb."

JMHO.

If you reform it to the point its no longer worth doing the job then what will you have. As for not considering LEO's and Firefighters hero's ok fine then lets say the same of our service men and women. Sounds like there is simply a lot of anti leo hate here.
Pat

BLR

12-05-2012, 03:05 PM

This has been covered before but the rich are not paying their fair share. look up Warren Buffet.
Pat

Please explain how "the rich" - gotta love this class warfare stuff - are not paying "their fair share" when 10% of "the rich" are paying 90% of the bill. I really would like to hear your reasoning here. You do realize the data is not on your side here, right?

Honestly, I view people who say "the rich" now exactly the same as people who say "disrespecting."

Savage Hands

12-05-2012, 03:06 PM

Just so long as y'all understand that. ;)

(I was born in Chicago and would probably have a very different outlook on firearms issues if I hadn't been smuggled out to freedom in a hot air balloon when I was still in elementary school. I can understand folks being born places, but I do have to confess looking askance at folks who move to those places with their eyes open as an adult. I literally cannot imagine voluntarily moving someplace that would make me sell a bunch of my possessions just for the privilege of paying taxes there; it'd have to be a pretty hellacious job offer, and even then... I just don't know.)

Many of us were born here and have deep roots here... If it wasn't for our family and jobs that we don't hate, we'd moved out long ago. We all have reasons for doing what we do but it doesn't mean we shouldn't fight for our rights where we are.

BLR

12-05-2012, 03:09 PM

If you reform it to the point its no longer worth doing the job then what will you have. As for not considering LEO's and Firefighters hero's ok fine then lets say the same of our service men and women. Sounds like there is simply a lot of anti leo hate here.
Pat

Ok. Cool. So what does that make a Medal recipient? If everyone in the USMC is a "hero," what is Abell, Dwyer or Kelly (USMC Medal Recipients)? Super heros?

Is a AFRL researcher a hero? How about a Marine who landed on Iwo Jima? Same thing?

Alaskapopo

12-05-2012, 03:14 PM

Please explain how "the rich" - gotta love this class warfare stuff - are not paying "their fair share" when 10% of "the rich" are paying 90% of the bill. I really would like to hear your reasoning here. You do realize the data is not on your side here, right?

Honestly, I view people who say "the rich" now exactly the same as people who say "disrespecting."

Simple when you pay 15% of your income when your Romney making millons and when your a working class joe and you pay 28% of your income your paying more and that is not right and that is going to change.
Again read up on Warren Buffett. Plus while you're complaining about the government giving some guy on wellfare a cell phone GE is screwing the feds over by paying no taxes on millons in profits.
Pat

Alaskapopo

12-05-2012, 03:15 PM

Ok. Cool. So what does that make a Medal recipient? If everyone in the USMC is a "hero," what is Abell, Dwyer or Kelly (USMC Medal Recipients)? Super heros?

Is a AFRL researcher a hero? How about a Marine who landed on Iwo Jima? Same thing?

Ok so you think people who are called upon to risk their lives are no better than a dishwasher at Ihop.
Pat

TGS

12-05-2012, 03:18 PM

Ok so you think people who are called upon to risk their lives are no better than a dishwasher at Ihop.
Pat

I don't think that's what he's saying.

BLR

12-05-2012, 03:24 PM

BLR

12-05-2012, 03:30 PM

I don't think that's what he's saying.

It emphatically is not.

Blackhawk down:

Pilot of the helicopter - not a "hero." He got into a bad situation. He's among the "best" in the nation for being in the Military to begin with. But not a hero.

Shughart: Went in knowing it would be the end. THAT guy is a hero in the truest sense of the word. Calling Officer Friendly a "hero" simply because he is a LEO dillutes the title for Shughart. Something I am vehemently against.

Why would you want to dillute the title for Shughart? That seems a little odd to me.

BLR

12-05-2012, 03:32 PM

Ok so you think people who are called upon to risk their lives are no better than a dishwasher at Ihop.
Pat

Seriously? That is your argument? You think I'm saying that?

Never mind, dude. There is no point.

RoyGBiv

12-05-2012, 03:35 PM

I also find your insistant reference to Warren curious. That's the Warren who is fighting his best in court to not pay his taxes, but got up infront of the States w/ Barry and said he should be paying more? Is that the guy? You'll forgive me if I'm reluctant to accept anything to do with him as evidence for your argument.
Just to pile on some additional reality, here's some recent "reading".
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybowyer/2012/11/29/when-warren-went-left-the-ideological-seduction-of-warren-buffett/

Maybe it’s time for us to consider the idea that the usually very rational Buffett is in this case not reasoning at all, but simply emoting. That by adopting the Buffett Rule as the new operating principle of American tax reform, we’re not tapping into the best that his higher brain functions have to offer, but instead taking his own private psycho-drama of paternal conflict and hard coding it into the law of the land.

And, like a 3-card monty dealer waving his hands to distract you while his accomplice picks your pocket, how is it that seemingly nobody notices or cares that the tax increases Obama wants on "the rich" will cover less than 2 weeks of government spending? For 10 days of revenue, how many jobs will be lost/not created? And people think think this game is a winner?

TR675

12-05-2012, 03:39 PM

Seems to me that the act of putting on a uniform and a badge, while admirable, does not a hero make. Being a "hero" necessarily entails going above and beyond the call of duty to perform an extraordinary feat or otherwise being uncommonly brave, virtuous, etc. as expressed through some action. In other words, to be a real hero you have to do something uncommon, brave, virtuous - your status of hero does not rest on your status of being something, unless that something is, of course, a hero.

This is not to say that our unmedaled, unsung firefighters, cops and soldiers are not praiseworthy; they are, and I would not be surprised if a greater percentage of them as opposed to the rest of us have the capability to be heroic. But cops, firefighters, soldiers, etc. join up for many different reasons, some not especially wonderful. And I would imagine many do not get a chance to prove their innate heroism, just as some are never recognized for their bravery.

It seems like our society, recognizing that the jobs we ask these folks to do are dirty, dangerous, and often undercompensated, offers compensation of another kind in the form of blind hero-worship. This becomes problematic when the hero-worship and, worse, automatic deference is expected by the worshipees and any counter-thoughts get shouted down...

TCinVA

12-05-2012, 03:48 PM

And, like a 3-card monty dealer waving his hands to distract you while his accomplice picks your pocket, how is it that seemingly nobody notices or cares that the tax increases Obama wants on "the rich" will cover less than 2 weeks of government spending? For 10 days of revenue, how many jobs will be lost/not created? And people think think this game is a winner?

Bringing math into it is unfair.

RoyGBiv

12-05-2012, 03:52 PM

Bringing math into it is unfair.

Apologies... How about sarcasm? Even better, math sarcasm, starting at about 1:30.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ

BaiHu

12-05-2012, 03:54 PM

Simple when you pay 15% of your income when your Romney making millons and when your a working class joe and you pay 28% of your income your paying more and that is not right and that is going to change.
Again read up on Warren Buffett. Plus while you're complaining about the government giving some guy on wellfare a cell phone GE is screwing the feds over by paying no taxes on millons in profits.
Pat

I really can't believe you are still going here. As Bill already said, you're wrong. As Roy already said, you are wrong. As my post previously stated on the Walmart/Twinkies thread, you are wrong. As I will detail in Warren Buffet's own words, you are wrong.

WB Quotes:

“I am an outspoken advocate of paying large amounts of income taxes – at low rates.”

“My net worth is the market value of holdings less the tax payable upon sale. The liability is just as real as the asset unless the value of the asset declines (ouch), the asset is given away (no comment), or I die with it….Investment decisions should be made on the basis of the most probable compounding of after-tax net worth with minimum risk.”

“We need 80% to consolidate earnings for tax purposes, which is a step important to us.”

"In the case of WPPSS, the “business” contractually earns $22.7 million after tax (via the interest paid on the bonds),and those earnings are available to us currently in cash. We are unable to buy operating businesses with economics close to these. Only a relatively few businesses earn the 16.3% after tax on unleveraged capital that our WPPSS investment does and those businesses, when available for purchase, sell at large premiums to that capital."

"That’s because bonds are as sound as a dollar – and we view the long-term outlook for dollars as dismal. We believe substantial inflation lies ahead, although we have no idea what the average rate will turn out to be. Furthermore, we think there is a small, but not insignificant, chance of runaway inflation. Such a possibility may seem absurd, considering the rate to which inflation has dropped. But we believe that present fiscal policy – featuring a huge deficit – is both extremely dangerous and difficult to reverse. (So far, most politicians in both parties have followed Charlie Brown’s advice: “No problem is so big that it can’t be run away from.”) Without a reversal, high rates of inflation may be delayed (perhaps for a long time), but will not be avoided. If high rates materialize, they bring with them the potential for a runaway upward spiral."

“The faith that foreigners are placing in us may be misfounded. When the claim checks outstanding grow sufficiently numerous and when the issuing party can unilaterally determine their purchasing power, the pressure on the issuer to dilute their value by inflating the currency becomes almost irresistible. For the debtor government, the weapon of inflation is the economic equivalent of the “H” bomb, and that is why very few countries have been allowed to swamp the world with debt denominated in their own currency. Our past, relatively good record for fiscal integrity has let us break this rule, but the generosity accorded us is likely to intensify, rather than relieve, the eventual pressure on us to inflate. If we do succumb to that pressure, it won’t be just the foreign holders of our claim checks who will suffer. It will be all of us as well.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm tired of the few populist talking heads going out there and trying to ruin the lives of the other 300 million people in our country. They are uneducated, thoughtless and lack any critical thinking other than saving their own ass and making sure that they keep theirs and you don't get access to the same opportunities.

Buffet is a hack d-bag that made BILLIONS over working hard and working the tax system hard. There is NO INVESTMENT where you don't consider all of your risks INCLUDING taxes!! Buffet is the epitome of what is wrong with this Country and Romney is the epitome of what is right with this Country. I'll prove it simply.

Romney, who earned money and paid full boat on taxes, then invested his money into other companies so that other people could earn a living. Now those people earning a living AND Romney can invest towards a growing base of earners. At some point, Romney, as well as the people who made money due to Romney's investment, get to pay 15% ON WHAT THEY ALREADY PAID TAXES ON, so that they can be REWARDED for INVESTING in the NEXT GENERATION.

Buffet did almost exactly that with one exception. Now that HE'S got HIS, he's now making it more difficult for ANYONE ELSE to do what he and Romney have done.

So who's the evil rich guy??

My source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/11/30/buffetts-billions-cant-buy-him-exemption-from-his-tax-averse-past/

peterb

12-05-2012, 04:06 PM

Seems to me that the act of putting on a uniform and a badge, while admirable, does not a hero make.

This is not to say that our unmedaled, unsung firefighters, cops and soldiers are not praiseworthy; they are, and I would not be surprised if a greater percentage of them as opposed to the rest of us have the capability to be heroic. But cops, firefighters, soldiers, etc. join up for many different reasons, some not especially wonderful. And I would imagine many do not get a chance to prove their innate heroism, just as some are never recognized for their bravery.

It seems like our society, recognizing that the jobs we ask these folks to do are dirty, dangerous, and often undercompensated, offers compensation of another kind in the form of blind hero-worship. This becomes problematic when the hero-worship and, worse, automatic deference is expected by the worshipees and any counter-thoughts get shouted down...

I'm a small-town(small time?) volunteer firefighter/EMT, and I've never thought of myself, or the job, as heroic. It's just another way of helping folks who are having a really bad day. Some individuals may perform acts that rise to the level of heroism, but that's exceptional.

IMO, as has been pointed out, active service is a younger person's game, and it makes sense that pensions should be structured for that reality, but there's no reason to make them gold-plated.

The dilution of heroism that I resent is when victims of spectacular mishaps are labelled as heroes.

Joe in PNG

12-05-2012, 04:23 PM

An analogy: I'd liken it to a family member in financial difficulty because of bad lifestyle choices. I could just give them money, but they would likely waste it and make things worse. Instead I'd insist on them taking action to reform whatever choices got them in the trouble in the first place.

The same thing with the current out of control government spending. Give them more tax money and they would just find a way to spend twice what they take in. First, we need to chop, shrink, reduce, remove, and change the spending habits of our federal, state, and local governments.

Alaskapopo

12-05-2012, 05:25 PM

You do realize that Romney (it really is quite sickening he has become the lefts whipping boy. Do you have ANY idea how much he has given to chairity?) paid $60 MILLION in taxes on his $250 million? And that the 15% rate you cite has nothing to do with reality? He paid well above 28% on the money he invested. So in reality, he paid close to 50% on that first (lets face it, he's not in our tax bracket) then paid an additional 15% on the return on investment into companies that enabled companies to continue to employ people.

So, please, how again is he not paying his fair share? He paid more than you and me combined, yet drives the same roads. He paid orders of magnitude more than you and me but gets the same medicine, breaths the same air, drinks the same water, and so on. With his $60 MILLION in taxes, he has actually supported FAR more people than you and I. Furthermore, he has donated ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more than you and I will ever make.

So call me crazy, I'd say Mitt has done more than his "fair share."

I also find your insistant reference to Warren curious. That's the Warren who is fighting his best in court to not pay his taxes, but got up infront of the States w/ Barry and said he should be paying more? Is that the guy? You'll forgive me if I'm reluctant to accept anything to do with him as evidence for your argument.

I don't care how much he has given to charity nor do I have a problem with him for taking advantage of a tax system that favors the rich. What I am saying is that the rich need to pay their fair share and they are not. It does not matter how much he paid in total because he also made a lot more. Everyone should pay the same percentage of their income.
Pat

TGS

12-05-2012, 05:34 PM

RoyGBiv

12-05-2012, 05:34 PM

the rich need to pay their fair share
Why is it that if Citizen A pays 25% of their $40,000 salary ($10,000) and Citizen B pays the same 25% of their $1,000,000 salary ($250,000) that somehow that's not "fair".?

Please define "fair" so we can all be on the same page.

Please try to restrain yourself from arguing about loopholes and deductions before you define "fair".
Dems and GOP are both guilty of pandering to their constituents by creating special interest deductions. Defining "fair" as a base goal should be done irrespective of today's tax system if you want to have a fruitful discussion about it.

BaiHu

12-05-2012, 05:51 PM

I don't care how much he has given to charity nor do I have a problem with him for taking advantage of a tax system that favors the rich. What I am saying is that the rich need to pay their fair share and they are not. It does not matter how much he paid in total because he also made a lot more. Everyone should pay the same percentage of their income.
Pat

Pat,
You really have to start looking at the differences between percentages and cold hard cash.

If I told you that Obama's 1.6 trillion tax increases on the rich, which is a total of 160 billion a year, you'd say that's a good start, right? But that starts to a) eat into our slowing GDP and b) is only paying for 10% of the federal yearly budget and c) it doesn't even pay down the debt!

You cannot tax any group enough to solve this problem. You must cut this budget and you must cut the fat-all of it. Entitlements and subsidies be damned. If you don't, we won't have any money for anything. The rich will just move to another country. Ya know, the ones you tried to beat to death with taxes.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

Alaskapopo

12-05-2012, 06:15 PM

Why is it that if Citizen A pays 25% of their $40,000 salary ($10,000) and Citizen B pays the same 25% of their $1,000,000 salary ($250,000) that somehow that's not "fair".?

Please define "fair" so we can all be on the same page.

Please try to restrain yourself from arguing about loopholes and deductions before you define "fair".
Dems and GOP are both guilty of pandering to their constituents by creating special interest deductions. Defining "fair" as a base goal should be done irrespective of today's tax system if you want to have a fruitful discussion about it.

That would ge great but that is not how it works. Look up Warren Buffet on taxes. He pays less than his sectary because the capital gains rate is 15% while her income is a wage taxed at a higher rate.
Fair is everyone pays the same percentage of thier income. (flat tax)

MDS

12-05-2012, 06:25 PM

Is this topic really repeating itself? We didn't get enough with 30+ pages in the Twinkie thread?

Come on. "When Utopias fall" is the title. We should be talking about the Mini-14 and LA riots. :p Goes perfect with the OP.

+1 - though you might say that talking about how horrible this repeating topic has become, falls neatly under "When Utopias fall"...

I know there's a way to ignore particular people on this forum, is there a way to ignore a thread so it doesn't show up when you click "New Posts?"

Alaskapopo

12-05-2012, 07:25 PM

+1 - though you might say that talking about how horrible this repeating topic has become, falls neatly under "When Utopias fall"...

I know there's a way to ignore particular people on this forum, is there a way to ignore a thread so it doesn't show up when you click "New Posts?"

People are entitled to ignore the truth all they want. Fortunately one way or another taxes are going up for the rich. Either by Bush era tax cuts going away for everyone or a compromise where they go away just for the middle class.
Pat

Alaskapopo

12-05-2012, 07:29 PM

It emphatically is not.

Blackhawk down:

Pilot of the helicopter - not a "hero." He got into a bad situation. He's among the "best" in the nation for being in the Military to begin with. But not a hero.

Shughart: Went in knowing it would be the end. THAT guy is a hero in the truest sense of the word. Calling Officer Friendly a "hero" simply because he is a LEO dillutes the title for Shughart. Something I am vehemently against.

Why would you want to dillute the title for Shughart? That seems a little odd to me.

So only true hero's are in the military in your opinion. So those men and women in police and Firefighter uniforms on 911 who died trying to save lives meant nothing?

Frankly I am tired of people trying to balance the budget off the back of my salary and pension. I am also tired of some people trying to vilify unions which represent working class americans.

Pat

Shellback

12-05-2012, 07:31 PM

By the very nature of their jobs these professions are hero's. They save lives and risk their own. Simply put if you keep lowering pay and benefits the job will no longer be worth it. How much is your life worth? We are paying people to risk their lives and some of us here want to screw them if they make it to retirement.
Pat
Firefighters running into burning buildings, police confronting active shooters, military personnel doing the combat grind day in and day out, those are heroes. Those in the policing profession who don't patrol the streets, the soldier who doesn't enter the combat zone, those aren't heroes.

Yes, these people are generally good and they do perform necessary public service functions but just wearing the uniform doesn't make them a hero in any sense of the word. There are many jobs that are inherently more dangerous than being a police officer, that is a fact.

By your definition Daniel Harless from Canton, OH is a hero and by my definition he's a psychopath with a badge who threatens the very lives of the people he's sworn to protect. That piece of shit should be behind bars for myriad different reasons. You do realize that there are officers who are caught every single day being child molesters, rapists, possessing child porn, murdering people and every other crime that exists don't you? Are those police officers heroes as well? Let's look at facts and be intellectually honest.

If you reform it to the point its no longer worth doing the job then what will you have. As for not considering LEO's and Firefighters hero's ok fine then lets say the same of our service men and women. Sounds like there is simply a lot of anti leo hate here.
Pat
There is no anti-LEO hate here, from myself or anyone else, far from it actually. In case you're wondering I have family members who wear badges and some of my very dearest friends sport'em too. The one thing they all have in common is none of them consider themselves a hero in any sense of the word, although several of them could legitimately wear the title.

P.S. Twinkies and taxes go together, not this thread too. :)

Joe in PNG

12-05-2012, 07:38 PM

Simple version:
Fix crazy spending first. THEN fix taxes.

Alaskapopo

12-05-2012, 07:41 PM

Firefighters running into burning buildings, police confronting active shooters, military personnel doing the combat grind day in and day out, those are heroes. Those in the policing profession who don't patrol the streets, the soldier who doesn't enter the combat zone, those aren't heroes.

Yes, these people are generally good and they do perform necessary public service functions but just wearing the uniform doesn't make them a hero in any sense of the word. There are many jobs that are inherently more dangerous than being a police officer, that is a fact.

By your definition Daniel Harless from Canton, OH is a hero and by my definition he's a psychopath with a badge who threatens the very lives of the people he's sworn to protect. That piece of shit should be behind bars for myriad different reasons. You do realize that there are officers who are caught every single day being child molesters, rapists, possessing child porn, murdering people and every other crime that exists don't you? Are those police officers heroes as well? Let's look at facts and be intellectually honest.

There is no anti-LEO hate here, from myself or anyone else, far from it actually. In case you're wondering I have family members who wear badges and some of my very dearest friends sport'em too. The one thing they all have in common is none of them consider themselves a hero in any sense of the word, although several of them could legitimately wear the title.

P.S. Twinkies and taxes go together, not this thread too. :)

Yes there are bad cops and bad soldiers what is your point. Both are still heroic professions. No hate here but on the same token your trying to vilify unions that are simply trying to help represent us so we get a fair wage and good benefits.

While the crime rate has gone down officer deaths and assaults have gone up dramatically in the last few years. A officer is killed every 5 days. The reason for this is dwindling training budgets, lay offs so cops end up working without back up. People are asking us to do more with less to the point it is getting us killed. I am sick and tired of the whinning from certain groups trying to say my pension is gold plated. BS. I will get around 25K a year when I retire. Trying living on that in Alaska. A couple of months back a state trooper I know was shot twice in the head on a traffic stop. Fortunately both were grazing wounds and he shot his attacker who died later. Last year in in a small Alaska town 2 officers were gunned down in the street.
Pat

BLR

12-05-2012, 07:46 PM

dookie1481

12-05-2012, 07:49 PM

So only true hero's are in the military in your opinion. So those men and women in police and Firefighter uniforms on 911 who died trying to save lives meant nothing?

Frankly I am tired of people trying to balance the budget off the back of my salary and pension. I am also tired of some people trying to vilify unions which represent working class americans.

Pat

You are either being deliberately obtuse or have horrible reading comprehension.

MDS

12-05-2012, 07:55 PM

People are entitled to ignore the truth all they want.

People are also entitled to rant about random BS on the Internet. Doesn't mean I want to read it. In fact, it feels a little like flipping through channels and catching a couple of seconds of hardcore XXX goatse action. But that's just me.

Fortunately one way or another taxes are going up for the rich. Either by Bush era tax cuts going away for everyone or a compromise where they go away just for the middle class.

Sweet. I left my crystal ball in my other trousers today, so I'll have to take your word for it.

Alaskapopo

12-05-2012, 08:04 PM

Pat - please go back to post #32 and read it carefully.

I state, in plain English, some of the firefighters at the World Trade Center were hero's in the truest sense of the word. They went up the stairs knowing the risk. And they paid the price. Hence, they are heros. I realize this didn't fit the narrative you wanted, but unfortunately, it's in black and white in post 32.

So, to directly answer your question with factual information, without resorting to emotional argument and making outlandish claims, no. That is not my opinion. It has never been my opinion. It will not become my opinion. And, FWIW, resorting to statements like your IHOP comment do not bolster your argument.

How about returning the favor, and explaining to me why you believe diluting Shughart's status by calling everyone who dons a uniform a hero?

How about explaining, without resorting to half truths and outlandish claims, why it is you think Mitt Romeny isn't paying "his fair share" in light of the preponderance of evidence that he in fact does?

Please do so without resorting to the, frankly false and misleading, talking points of MSNBC.

I have explained the tax issue again and again. Not sure why its that difficult to understand for some. If one person is paying 15% and another is paying 30% its not fair. So back to the topic to be a hero you have to die by your defination. Those that have risked their lives by running into a burning building but lived are not? Is that correct. There are jobs more dangerious on a day to day basis than being a police officer. That is true however our job is still dangerious and getting more so day by day unfortunately and if some folks in this thread have their way it will get even worse as more and more funding is cut and staffing is reduced further along with pay. Lower the pay enough and the good officers will leave. I could quit and take a job in private security on the North Slope and make more money have similar medical benefits. The only thing I have better is the retirement package. If you slash things too much the job will not be worth doing. Then who are you people going to call when someone is breaking into their home or stealing the car.
Pat

TGS

12-05-2012, 08:09 PM

So, here's my attempt at making a useful conversation out of this mess:

20 years ago, residents of LA (particularly the Koreans) had to take to arming themselves to protect their neighborhood when the police were unable (or unwilling, according to many) to protect them. Some reports are full-blown firefights with as many as 500 rounds fired by the Korean residents alone. So, here's the ironic part: Rodney King moved to San Bernardino afterwards. Now San Bernardino residents are being told to arm themselves. Not related, but I find it ironic none the less.

I'm the kind of person that enjoys copious amounts of pictures in my books when I read, so here's something:

1193

I'd post more, but it seems like I can't post anything larger than a thumbnail with resolution better than an Atari these days.

BLR

12-05-2012, 08:17 PM

I have explained the tax issue again and again. Not sure why its that difficult to understand for some. If one person is paying 15% and another is paying 30% its not fair. So back to the topic to be a hero you have to die by your defination. Those that have risked their lives by running into a burning building but lived are not? Is that correct. There are jobs more dangerious on a day to day basis than being a police officer. That is true however our job is still dangerious and getting more so day by day unfortunately and if some folks in this thread have their way it will get even worse as more and more funding is cut and staffing is reduced further along with pay. Lower the pay enough and the good officers will leave. I could quit and take a job in private security on the North Slope and make more money have similar medical benefits. The only thing I have better is the retirement package. If you slash things too much the job will not be worth doing. Then who are you people going to call when someone is breaking into their home or stealing the car.
Pat

I'm really dumbfounded by this, Pat.

Underlined sentence 1: It has been explained and shown in this thread that is a false statement. Romney paid the same 30% on his wages that the rest of us did. He, paid 15% capital gains on his investments, just like the rest of us. This really isn't that complicated. Furthermore, you do realize that if you confiscated all the wealth of those evil "rich" it wouldn't even begin to pay off those pensions and benefits, right? So, again, how about answering my question?

Underlined sentence 2: Please see my original "hero" post. Audey Murphy - Audey didn't die in combat, but is widely recognized as a true hero in WWII. So, again, how about answering my question? I'd like to hear your answer.

Wondering idly, what's the percentage of home invasions/car thefts that are stopped in the act by the police?

Again, Pat, these kinds of off the wall statements are not helping your argument.

Alaskapopo

12-05-2012, 08:18 PM

You are either being deliberately obtuse or have horrible reading comprehension.

And you have been blinded by the right wing political machine. That has done a great job at brainwashing people into believing that taxing the rich less and paying the middle class and working poor less wages is a good thing.
Pat

Alaskapopo

12-05-2012, 08:22 PM

I'm really dumbfounded by this, Pat.

Underlined sentence 1: It has been explained and shown in this thread that is a false statement. Romney paid the same 30% on his wages that the rest of us did. He, paid 15% capital gains on his investments, just like the rest of us. This really isn't that complicated. Furthermore, you do realize that if you confiscated all the wealth of those evil "rich" it wouldn't even begin to pay off those pensions and benefits, right? So, again, how about answering my question?

Underlined sentence 2: Please see my original "hero" post. Audey Murphy - Audey didn't die in combat, but is widely recognized as a true hero in WWII. So, again, how about answering my question? I'd like to hear your answer.

Wondering idly, what's the percentage of home invasions/car thefts that are stopped in the act by the police?

Again, Pat, these kinds of off the wall statements are not helping your argument.

Its farily simple when you realize that income made off of investments is still income and should be taxed at the same rate. There is no reason you should pay half the tax rate for investment earnings. It should be the same rate. Perhaps if people like Romney paid a fair tax we would be able to pay fire fighters and police officers a fair wage and not slash their retirement benefits. Just a thought.

As for home invastions and burglaries. Not sure why you have not connected the dots that if the police investigate a crime after the fact and lock the suspect up he will be delayed in committing future crimes hence. You don't just have to catch a criminal in the act to stop them. Although I personally have caught burlgars in the act. I have also caught people with stolen cars and arrested them and had the cars returned to their owners. My first department was fairly busy and we were at 18 officers staffing. Through bad management that number dropped down to 3 officers. Surprize surprize an area with little to no homicides had 5 in one year and crime in other areas rose dramatically and did not come back under control until more officers were hired. They are now at 12 officers. Again you make the job not worth doing and no one of any qaulity or integrity will.

Also if you taxed corporations and the rich at a fair level we would not be in the trouble we are.
pat

BLR

12-05-2012, 08:28 PM

Its farily simple when you realize that income made off of investments is still income and should be taxed at the same rate. There is no reason you should pay half the tax rate for investment earnings. It should be the same rate. Perhaps if people like Romney paid a fair tax we would be able to pay fire fighters and police officers a fair wage and not slash their retirement benefits. Just a thought.
pat

So, no comment on the hero thing? Because I'd really like to hear your logic on this.

As for the above, I'll repeat, again, you do realize that if you took all the wealth from those evil rich, you couldn't support those pensions/benifits for even two whole weeks. Do you realize that? This isn't conspiracy, it's pretty simple math (the irony of this statement in light of the Twinkie thread isn't lost on me ;) ).

As for taxing corporations? Seriously? You cannot be this ill informed.

BLR

12-05-2012, 08:35 PM

Pat - food for thought for you:

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/04/18/wsj-shows-taxing-the-rich-wont-cover-the-bill/

BaiHu

12-05-2012, 08:50 PM

Hey Pat,
Why do you keep dodging me?
I've posted enough on the Twinkies thread and here to give you a friggin' MBA and you always dodge my points about your man Buffet.
I give you Warren Buffet ver-f'ing'-batim (in post 48) that a) taxes effect investment and b) he's not a big fan of big tax/spend initiatives.
Where is your proof?
Where is your due diligence?
I bring facts to the table and I get ignored.
Do want to know how you make me feel?
Like I do when the gov't doesn't hear guys like me.
Because when I put down logic, evidence and sited sources, people like that say, "lalalala, I can't hear you!" b/c they don't want to know what I'm saying b/c it doesn't jive with their bias or narrative.

Sorry to everyone except Pat for writing in big letters, I was just feeling like my posts were being ignored ;)
Lastly, thanks for those who aren't ignoring this and keep bringing it up for Pat's review :cool:

BaiHu

12-05-2012, 08:54 PM

Pat - food for thought for you:

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/04/18/wsj-shows-taxing-the-rich-wont-cover-the-bill/

Could ya clear some space? I'm trying to PM ya.

Thanks!

Shellback

12-05-2012, 08:55 PM

Yes there are bad cops and bad soldiers what is your point. Both are still heroic professions. No hate here but on the same token your trying to vilify unions that are simply trying to help represent us so we get a fair wage and good benefits.

While the crime rate has gone down officer deaths and assaults have gone up dramatically in the last few years. A officer is killed every 5 days. The reason for this is dwindling training budgets, lay offs so cops end up working without back up. People are asking us to do more with less to the point it is getting us killed. I am sick and tired of the whinning from certain groups trying to say my pension is gold plated. BS. I will get around 25K a year when I retire. Trying living on that in Alaska. A couple of months back a state trooper I know was shot twice in the head on a traffic stop. Fortunately both were grazing wounds and he shot his attacker who died later. Last year in in a small Alaska town 2 officers were gunned down in the street.
Pat
My point addressed your comment that all police and firefighters were heroes and it's not true.

The numbers of officers killed has been going down since the 1950's up until about 3 years ago. However, when you look at percentages of officers killed in the line of duty they are at an all time low.

The FBI's conservative estimate of how many citizens killed by police is 1 per day (http://abcnews.go.com/US/t/story?id=95584&page=1), not including criminal acts. So it looks to be about the same.

You're more likely to get killed by cops (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/09/71743) than you are terrorists.

I had lots more info but typing, linking and everything else on this iPad isn't nearly as easy as my laptop. It sucks when anybody dies, regardless of their job.

Alaskapopo

12-05-2012, 08:55 PM

So, no comment on the hero thing? Because I'd really like to hear your logic on this.

As for the above, I'll repeat, again, you do realize that if you took all the wealth from those evil rich, you couldn't support those pensions/benifits for even two whole weeks. Do you realize that? This isn't conspiracy, it's pretty simple math (the irony of this statement in light of the Twinkie thread isn't lost on me ;) ).
As for taxing corporations? Seriously? You cannot be this ill informed.

On the hero thing I am done with discussing it with you as you and others obviously have a low opinion of police and firefighters and your not going to listen to reason. You simply want to pay as little as possible and the horror if your taxes went up in any amount to support these men and women who risk their lives for you.

For the part in red I simply don't believe it.
Pat

Alaskapopo

12-05-2012, 09:06 PM

My point addressed your comment that all police and firefighters were heroes and it's not true.

The numbers of officers killed has been going down since the 1950's up until about 3 years ago. However, when you look at percentages of officers killed in the line of duty they are at an all time low.

The FBI's conservative estimate of how many citizens killed by police is 1 per day (http://abcnews.go.com/US/t/story?id=95584&page=1), not including criminal acts. So it looks to be about the same.

You're more likely to get killed by cops (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/09/71743) than you are terrorists.

I had lots more info but typing, linking and everything else on this iPad isn't nearly as easy as my laptop. It sucks when anybody dies, regardless of their job.

http://www.newser.com/story/136374/police-line-of-duty-deaths-up-13.html
The number of deaths has not droped since the 50's The worst year was 1973 and we are heading back to those levels ever since the ecomony took a dump. But then to you police lives must not be worth much.

Your facts don't take into account the citizens getting killed are criminals trying to assault or kill police officers. Those are not just random innocent bystanders.

It seems fairly obvious to me here that some people in this thread are just right wing lemmings who think that cops should be paid as little as possible and if they die it sucks but they are not too upset so so long as they don't have to pay any more taxes.

Pat

Alaskapopo

12-05-2012, 09:08 PM

BaiHu

12-05-2012, 09:12 PM

On the hero thing I am done with discussing it with you as you and others obviously have a low opinion of police and firefighters and your not going to listen to reason. You simply want to pay as little as possible and the horror if your taxes went up in any amount to support these men and women who risk their lives for you.

For the part in red I simply don't believe it.
Pa

No, no, no! 1000 times NO!

We are saying that you cannot increase taxes and magically fix this problem without reducing the spending!

You seem to believe that the magic of taxing the top earners at 'some fair percentage' will solve all the ills and you are dead wrong!!

The spending is moving at a higher speed than the taxing can service it; the car thief is outrunning the police cruiser, capice??

Alaskapopo

12-05-2012, 09:13 PM

Pat - food for thought for you:

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/04/18/wsj-shows-taxing-the-rich-wont-cover-the-bill/

http://www.zompist.com/richtax.htm

Alaskapopo

12-05-2012, 09:17 PM

No, no, no! 1000 times NO!

We are saying that you cannot increase taxes and magically fix this problem without reducing the spending!

You seem to believe that the magic of taxing the top earners at 'some fair percentage' will solve all the ills and you are dead wrong!!

The spending is moving at a higher speed than the taxing can service it; the car thief is outrunning the police cruiser, capice??

In the other thread I told I agree spending needs to be cut and you even agreed with some of the cuts I proposed. However we can not fix this problem without raising revenue as well and its high time the rich pay their fair share. I am not even talking about a progressive tax. I want a flat tax where they pay the same as everyone else.

You and others seem to want to cut spending on essential services like police and fire. That makes no sense. You cut programs you don't need first. The community library goes, civic center goes etc. You don't cut the people risking their lives to keep you safe. By the same logic you would cut military pay and pension benefits as well.
Pat

BaiHu

12-05-2012, 09:24 PM

You can't seem to understand that its not right to tax one person who makes millions at 15% while his sectary makes far less and pays 28%. This is the point you keep ignoring.
Pat

No, the point you are ignoring is if Buffet thinks he doesn't pay enough taxes, then he can just write an EFFIN' check! Instead, he chooses to be a duplicitous d-bag by crying for populist measures while saying, "Gee, I wish I could help, but the gov't just doesn't ask me for any money."

He literally has 'won the game' of financial autonomy and is now fine with changing the rules on everyone else trying to make a buck. This is akin to a Catholic standing next to a Jew in Nazi Germany screaming, "I'm not the Jew! I'm not the Jew, but he is!" As long as Buffet's money is safe, then he's okay. Meanwhile, people with your mindset drink the poison Kool Aid as you scream, "I'm not the rich guy! I'm not the rich guy!"

BLR

12-05-2012, 09:25 PM

Could ya clear some space? I'm trying to PM ya.

Thanks!

Done.

BaiHu

12-05-2012, 09:27 PM

In the other thread I told I agree spending needs to be cut and you even agreed with some of the cuts I proposed. However we can not fix this problem without raising revenue as well and its high time the rich pay their fair share. I am not even talking about a progressive tax. I want a flat tax where they pay the same as everyone else.

You and others seem to want to cut spending on essential services like police and fire. That makes no sense. You cut programs you don't need first. The community library goes, civic center goes etc. You don't cut the people risking their lives to keep you safe. By the same logic you would cut military pay and pension benefits as well.
Pat

I never said cut cops. I'm telling you that your measures will guarantee a cut in cops/fire/ems, etc. Why? Because politicians don't give a rat's ass, just like Buffet. They only care that they keep their power and their money (both sides) and the way to guarantee they get those things is threatening the public that they'll lose services they need if they don't pass these new taxes. In reality, they can cut peripheral (read: BS) services, balance the budget, keep taxes low and pay cops/fire/ems.

Alaskapopo

12-05-2012, 09:30 PM

No, the point you are ignoring is if Buffet thinks he doesn't pay enough taxes, then he can just write an EFFIN' check! Instead, he chooses to be a duplicitous d-bag by crying for populist measures while saying, "Gee, I wish I could help, but the gov't just doesn't ask me for any money."

He literally has 'won the game' of financial autonomy and is now fine with changing the rules on everyone else trying to make a buck. This is akin to a Catholic standing next to a Jew in Nazi Germany screaming, "I'm not the Jew! I'm not the Jew, but he is!" As long as Buffet's money is safe, then he's okay. Meanwhile, people with your mindset drink the poison Kool Aid as you scream, "I'm not the rich guy! I'm not the rich guy!"

I don't blame him or Romney I blame the system we have that is skewed to favor the rich. I respect Buffet because he speaks the truth.
Pat

Shellback

12-05-2012, 09:32 PM

http://www.newser.com/story/136374/police-line-of-duty-deaths-up-13.html
The number of deaths has not droped since the 50's The worst year was 1973 and we are heading back to those levels ever since the ecomony took a dump. But then to you police lives must not be worth much.

Your facts don't take into account the citizens getting killed are criminals trying to assault or kill police officers. Those are not just random innocent bystanders.

It seems fairly obvious to me here that some people in this thread are just right wing lemmings who think that cops should be paid as little as possible and if they die it sucks but they are not too upset so so long as they don't have to pay any more taxes.

Pat
Never mind man. Have a good one.

Alaskapopo

12-05-2012, 09:37 PM

Never mind man. Have a good one.

I think there is a false perception that cops and firefighters are rich and have great retirements. I am not rich and when I do retire I am going to have to move out of Alaska to a state with a lower cost of living to make it. That is with me also putting as much as I can into a suplemental retirement account.
pat

RoyGBiv

12-05-2012, 09:39 PM

http://www.zompist.com/richtax.htm

I don't know a single person, not one, that has ever said to me "I shouldn't have to pay any more in taxes (gross amount) than the average middle class family". To suggest that is the GOP mentality is to be Rachel Maddow or Chris Matthews. In other words, not worth the air they consume. (No, I don't like Rush or O'Riley either).

If you espouse to this:

Is it fair to tax double-income households more? Well, why not? If you have a double income, you can certainly afford to pay more than those of us who have just one.Then I'd be wasting electrons to continue to debate it with you.

One last thing... The Dems have promised and failed to reduce spending more times than I can count. To be 100% honest, the GOP is no supermodel of spending restraint either. As a taxpayer, I have absolutely ZERO confidence that raising my taxes will result in less spending. Cut spending first, build some credibility, then come talk with me about increasing taxes.

Alaskapopo

12-05-2012, 09:41 PM

I never said cut cops. I'm telling you that your measures will guarantee a cut in cops/fire/ems, etc. Why? Because politicians don't give a rat's ass, just like Buffet. They only care that they keep their power and their money (both sides) and the way to guarantee they get those things is threatening the public that they'll lose services they need if they don't pass these new taxes. In reality, they can cut peripheral (read: BS) services, balance the budget, keep taxes low and pay cops/fire/ems.

I am not for raising taxes just to do it. I also agree the budget needs to be balanced. What I was reacting to was what seemed to be a resentment to police and fire fighters forming unions so they can bargain for the best pay and benefits possible. People in the private sector do it as well. Everyone wants a fair wage and a retirement plan that will see them through when their older.
Pat

Alaskapopo

12-05-2012, 09:43 PM

I don't know a single person, not one, that has ever said to me "I shouldn't have to pay any more in taxes (gross amount) than the average middle class family". To suggest that is the GOP mentality is to be Rachel Maddow or Chris Matthews. In other words, not worth the air they consume. (No, I don't like Rush or O'Riley either).

If you espouse to this:
Then I'd be wasting electrons to continue to debate it with you.

One last thing... The Dems have promised and failed to reduce spending more times than I can count. To be 100% honest, the GOP is no supermodel of spending restraint either. As a taxpayer, I have absolutely ZERO confidence that raising my taxes will result in less spending. Cut spending first, build some credibility, then come talk with me about increasing taxes.

I am not aligned with either the republican or democratic party. I vote for the canidates based on the issues not the party. As for taxes I simply want a flat tax. I don't think there is a more fair system than that.
Pat

JDM

12-05-2012, 10:13 PM

littlejerry

12-05-2012, 10:32 PM

You can't seem to understand that its not right to tax one person who makes millions at 15% while his sectary makes far less and pays 28%. This is the point you keep ignoring.
Pat

I believe the guy paid 35% on his millions when he made them and is now paying 15% on the gains he made from whatever sums he risked in the markets.

Should we tax you at 28% now and then again when you use your retirement/pension funds?

Alaskapopo

12-05-2012, 10:36 PM

I believe the guy paid 35% on his millions when he made them and is now paying 15% on the gains he made from whatever sums he risked in the markets.

Should we tax you at 28% now and then again when you use your retirement/pension funds?

The money that comes back from his investments is new income and should be taxed the same as the money he made in wages. Not one bit of difference.
My retirement pension funds will be taxed at what ever tax bracket I am in when I retire. The are taken out pre-tax for the time being. I have no problem paying the same tax on retirement income as I do on my wages however so long as everyone pays the same. Flat tax it is simple and fair. I don't agree with the much reduced capital gains rate.
Pat

Alaskapopo

12-05-2012, 10:39 PM

I haven't read this entire thread, but I have read the posts that have been reported. There's nothing particularly bad, but this is your friendly reminder to play nice or don't play at all.

Discuss ideas, not each other.

If I have inadvertnely insulted anyone I appologize. While I may hate some of the theorys of beliefs coming from some posters I have no problem with them personally. This is just politics.
Pat

Mike Honcho

12-05-2012, 11:59 PM

FAIR! WAAAAAAHHHHH!

Jesus. :rolleyes:

Alaskapopo

12-06-2012, 12:05 AM

FAIR! WAAAAAAHHHHH!

Jesus. :rolleyes:

So you think its better we don't strive to have a fair tax system.
Just because life is not fair does not mean we should not do everything possible as a society to make it that way.
Pat

MDS

12-06-2012, 12:07 AM

The money that comes back from his investments is new income and should be taxed the same as the money he made in wages. Not one bit of difference.
My retirement pension funds will be taxed at what ever tax bracket I am in when I retire. The are taken out pre-tax for the time being. I have no problem paying the same tax on retirement income as I do on my wages however so long as everyone pays the same. Flat tax it is simple and fair. I don't agree with the much reduced capital gains rate.
Pat

You know, maybe I'm just misunderstanding you here. If you could answer a couple of questions, it might clarify your position to me (and maybe to others.) To set the stage, my understanding is that if I buy some Apple stock for $10, then sell that stock in a year for $100 - you're saying the $90 I made should be taxed at the same rate as my ordinary salary. If that's not right, ignore the rest of this and let me know. So, questions:

1. Would you be OK with eliminating taxes on corporate revenues? Because that would make your proposal more palatable, at least for stocks and similar securities.

2. What if I buy a home for $100K, then sell that home 10 years later for $200K - should I be taxed as if that $100K profit were ordinary income like my salary? If so, what if I sell at a loss, should I be able to deduct that? Would your answers be any different if it were a car or any other asset? If so, where would you draw the line?

Just making an attempt here to clarify, because I really hope I'm misunderstanding you...

Mike Honcho

12-06-2012, 12:17 AM

So you think its better we don't strive to have a fair tax system.
Just because life is not fair does not mean we should not do everything possible as a society to make it that way.
Pat

While we're at it, we can put everybody's money in a big pile, and then evenly redistribute it to everybody in the country. SUPER FAIR!

Honestly, the way money is taken in is farther down the "needs fixing" list than the way money goes out (and probably only needs fixing to make more people pay, not more $ from people already paying through the nose). And yes, that includes government employee pensions.

Fair's where you go to ride the Tilt-A-Whirl. This "mean ol' 1% holdin' down the common man" bullshit was old back in the OWS heyday. It's an absolute fossil now.

littlejerry

12-06-2012, 03:18 PM

You know, maybe I'm just misunderstanding you here. If you could answer a couple of questions, it might clarify your position to me (and maybe to others.) To set the stage, my understanding is that if I buy some Apple stock for $10, then sell that stock in a year for $100 - you're saying the $90 I made should be taxed at the same rate as my ordinary salary. If that's not right, ignore the rest of this and let me know. So, questions:

1. Would you be OK with eliminating taxes on corporate revenues? Because that would make your proposal more palatable, at least for stocks and similar securities.

2. What if I buy a home for $100K, then sell that home 10 years later for $200K - should I be taxed as if that $100K profit were ordinary income like my salary? If so, what if I sell at a loss, should I be able to deduct that? Would your answers be any different if it were a car or any other asset? If so, where would you draw the line?

Just making an attempt here to clarify, because I really hope I'm misunderstanding you...

Furthermore, do you believe you need to pay 28% on any profit you make from buying/selling guns second hand?

joshs

12-06-2012, 03:24 PM

Furthermore, do you believe you need to pay 28% on any profit you make from buying/selling guns second hand?

Don't you already have to report any profit made off the sale of a gun as regular income?

Alaskapopo

12-06-2012, 07:15 PM

You know, maybe I'm just misunderstanding you here. If you could answer a couple of questions, it might clarify your position to me (and maybe to others.) To set the stage, my understanding is that if I buy some Apple stock for $10, then sell that stock in a year for $100 - you're saying the $90 I made should be taxed at the same rate as my ordinary salary. If that's not right, ignore the rest of this and let me know. So, questions:

1. Would you be OK with eliminating taxes on corporate revenues? Because that would make your proposal more palatable, at least for stocks and similar securities.

2. What if I buy a home for $100K, then sell that home 10 years later for $200K - should I be taxed as if that $100K profit were ordinary income like my salary? If so, what if I sell at a loss, should I be able to deduct that? Would your answers be any different if it were a car or any other asset? If so, where would you draw the line?

Just making an attempt here to clarify, because I really hope I'm misunderstanding you...

1. No income is income in my opinion it does not really matter how you made that money.
2. Yes minus the rise of inflation in your homes value. Yes if you lose money I agree you should be able to claim a loss.
3. As for cars etc if you make money on a sale in a reportable amount say over $600 I believe you should pay tax. A lot of people make a living buying old cars and fixing them up and selling them at a profit. Why should they be taxes less than someone who just works at a job for money?

Alaskapopo

12-06-2012, 07:20 PM

While we're at it, we can put everybody's money in a big pile, and then evenly redistribute it to everybody in the country. SUPER FAIR!

Honestly, the way money is taken in is farther down the "needs fixing" list than the way money goes out (and probably only needs fixing to make more people pay, not more $ from people already paying through the nose). And yes, that includes government employee pensions.

Fair's where you go to ride the Tilt-A-Whirl. This "mean ol' 1% holdin' down the common man" bullshit was old back in the OWS heyday. It's an absolute fossil now.

No that would not be fair. Those who work harder or longer should get paid more. I am not for wealth redistribution like you want to imply. I am also not for a tax system that favors those that make their money from investment income vs working for a living. (earning a wage).
No the rich are not paying through the nose as has been pointed out they are paying far less than their fair share.
I would rather raise taxes and pay more than screw people out of their hard earned pensions rather their government employees or not. There is a lot of demonizing of government employees on here and frankly that is ignorant. Lets cut your retirement savings see how you like it.
Pat

TGS

12-06-2012, 08:00 PM

BaiHu

12-06-2012, 09:12 PM

Alaskapopo

12-06-2012, 09:27 PM

FWIW, when I was in the Marines a lot of my fellow officers bitched a lot when the proposal to cut benefits came down. It would have turned the average officers retirement from just over $1mil to over $300,000. I asked them, "What, ya pissed that you'll have to buy a retirement like the rest of working America?" They usually shut up.

With that said, I haven't seen anyone demonize government employees in this thread. You might be surprised to find out that a lot of people on this forum are current or former government employees, actually.

You've got a whooooole lot of chips on your shoulder, and nowhere near enough salsa to go with it.

They would have every right to bitch and fight it. When they took the job they were promised X amount as a retirement. Then the employer wants to back out and lower that amount. That is the same as me buying a car and saying these high payments are not really working out for me. I want to only pay X instead and just doing it and expecting to keep the car. Historically goverment jobs have had lower pay than the private sector but the good side was better job security and better retirement and benefits. Now people are trying to cry foul its pretty much envy like you have accused the 99% of having concering the 1%. The real solution is to raise the standards so everyone has a liveable retirement and that can be accomplished by making the 1% pay their fair share of taxes.

No chip on my shoulder just a real observation that some people are willing to sell the people down the river that risk their lives for them as part of their job.
Pat

Alaskapopo

12-06-2012, 09:29 PM

I didn't say this, so technically I'm not posting anything, I'm just passing along a piece of wisdom I received via email tonight. Enjoy!

A lesson in irony.
The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, is proud to be distributing the greatest
amount of free meals and food stamps ever.
Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S.
Department of the Interior, asks us to "Please Do Not Feed the Animals."
The National Park Service's stated reason for the policy is because the
animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take
care of themselves.
This ends today's lesson.

Police and Fire don't recieve handouts they work and risk their lives for the pay and benefits they get. That is a lot more than I can say for the CEO's and others in the 1%. I am all for stopping corporate welfare in the form of tax breaks to big corporations and the wealthiest individuals. Your comparision is insulting frankly. You're comparing people on welfare to the hero's who protect your community.
Pat

LittleLebowski

12-06-2012, 09:31 PM

They would have every right to bitch and fight it. When they took the job they were promised X amount as a retirement. Then the employer wants to back out and lower that amount. That is the same as me buying a car and saying these high payments are not really working out for me. I want to only pay X instead and just doing it and expecting to keep the car. Historically goverment jobs have had lower pay than the private sector but the good side was better job security and better retirement and benefits. Now people are trying to cry foul its pretty much envy like you have accused the 99% of having concering the 1%. The real solution is to raise the standards so everyone has a liveable retirement and that can be accomplished by making the 1% pay their fair share of taxes.

No chip on my shoulder just a real observation that some people are willing to sell the people down the river that risk their lives for them as part of their job.
Pat

In what document were they promised what, exactly? Be specific.

Does "fair share" mean "more" or the "the same as everyone else?"

Define "rich."

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

TGS

12-06-2012, 09:48 PM

They would have every right to bitch and fight it. When they took the job they were promised X amount as a retirement.

No chip on my shoulder just a real observation that some people are willing to sell the people down the river that risk their lives for them as part of their job.
Pat

There's a reason it's called "service to the nation" or "service to the community." Not getting what you want, what you were promised, or what you need is part of the package. This is something I learned within the first week of my basic training in the Marines, that our wants and even needs as public servants is just about last on the list of "things to do." I'm appalled that you haven't learned it after an entire career of claiming to be a servant to the public.

LittleLebowski

12-06-2012, 09:53 PM

Police and Fire don't recieve handouts they work and risk their lives for the pay and benefits they get. That is a lot more than I can say for the CEO's and others in the 1%.

Do you know how much in taxes GE paid last year? Do you know who appointed the CEO of GE to a commission and what on?

It's all well and good to have informed debate. For instance, my wife worked with the Teamsters every day for years. Her father dealt with unionized CA firefighters and police every day after retiring as a Colonel in the Corps; both examples leading me to research on my own what is going on with the multimillion dollar corporations known as "unions." However, you're just repeating talking points from union propaganda and theDailyKos.

Instead of just being "that guy who thinks contrary to whatever is posted," how about doing some honest research and debate? That is examining and attempting to prove for yourself the veracity of that which is directed at you rather than replying with staid talking points. There is more to the world than small town Alaska and the internet; many of us here have the life experience off which to recount that honestly to you. Most of us admire some one who can admit when they were wrong or at least present an intelligible argument.

Or....you could just talk about guns if you don't want to engage in honest debate and possible learning.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

BaiHu

12-06-2012, 10:18 PM

Police and Fire don't recieve handouts they work and risk their lives for the pay and benefits they get. That is a lot more than I can say for the CEO's and others in the 1%. I am all for stopping corporate welfare in the form of tax breaks to big corporations and the wealthiest individuals. Your comparision is insulting frankly. You're comparing people on welfare to the hero's who protect your community.
Pat

I dunno if you just like spinning your wheels or we're just never clear enough for you. We are really trying to help you understand how you will get blindsided by pushing these ideals, if it isn't already too late given our current state of governance. You are so quick to get riled up, that you immediately took my anecdote as an insult to fire/police/ems, etc and I have done no such thing this whole thread and any other thread on this entire forum.

You seem to have spent more time adhering to easily digestible pablum than you have trying to independently discover the truth of your assumptions.

Do you know how much in taxes GE paid last year? Do you know who appointed the CEO of GE to a commission and what on?

It's all well and good to have informed debate. For instance, my wife worked with the Teamsters every day for years. Her father dealt with unionized CA firefighters and police every day after retiring as a Colonel in the Corps; both examples leading me to research on my own what is going on with the multimillion dollar corporations known as "unions." However, you're just repeating talking points from union propaganda and theDailyKos.

Instead of just being "that guy who thinks contrary to whatever is posted," how about doing some honest research and debate? That is examining and attempting to prove for yourself the veracity of that which is directed at you rather than replying with staid talking points. There is more to the world than small town Alaska and the internet; many of us here have the life experience off which to recount that honestly to you. Most of us admire some one who can admit when they were wrong or at least present an intelligible argument.

Or....you could just talk about guns if you don't want to engage in honest debate and possible learning.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

Yah! What LL said n' s*&t and stuff, yo!

Damn, I gotta get outta this thread ;)