IDBillzFan Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 Solidarity!! Just like the Tea Party said... we will remember come the 2012 elections. The only thing you're going to remember come the 2012 elections is no amount of condescending, trash-leaving, Hitler moustache-drawing, fleebagging solidarity is going to help with a country still facing a 9+% unemployment rate. But, y'know, if it makes you feel better, that's good. Maybe you guys can double your ranks by joining forces with the Coffee Party! Oh, wait. Nevermind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 Spilling some of his plans and exposing him for not giving two craps about jobs. Saying that he would be willing to cut 1,200 jobs. But thought about 5,000 maybe higher. Yeah, he really cares about the people of Wisconsin. I take it you've never run a business before. Let me ask you a business question. Which is worse. Laying off 5,000 people or closing up shop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 I'd say that the republicans are at least following the rules. The dems leaving the state are clearly in violation - unfortunately the Wisconsin constitution requires them to be there, but doesn't lay out any penalties for not obeying apparently. Yet, it is still the "rules." That is why tactic is in place. Probably dates back to the 1800's? No? Our founder's weren't stupid. If it was clearly against the "rules"... They would have closed all loop holes. I don't know the history of the tactic... But, to have one minority party memeber present in the Cap... Probably goes way back and FOR a reason. Just saying. It's easy to bus in hookers, drugs and booze from Chicago. Fair enough. Didn't it work in reverse for Capone. There is squeaking all across the country from the gravy trains coming to a stop. The unions can threaten and cry for more grease for the wheels, but the simple fact is they've used it all. I understand... But why the rank and file? I can see this happening to the admin pensions in IL... Cut them... That is the huge 6 figures on down... Say somebody pulling in 350 on pension, now gets cut back to 100... That is where the fat can be cut and much of it. Doing it that way will even have a shrewd voting effect. Why are they declaring war on the working stiff? I take it you've never run a business before. Let me ask you a business question. Which is worse. Laying off 5,000 people or closing up shop? Is the product offered by the business in demand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 (edited) I understand... But why the rank and file? I can see this happening to the admin pensions in IL... Cut them... That is the huge 6 figures on down... Say somebody pulling in 350 on pension, now gets cut back to 100... That is where the fat can be cut and much of it. Doing it that way will even have a shrewd voting effect. Why are they declaring war on the working stiff? Nope get rid of all pensions for anyone hired going forward. Pay them a wage that is competitive to the public sector and give them 401k plans and SS. Problem of these unfunded pension liabilities ($500bil here in CA) goes away in one generation. Is the product offered by the business in demand? Seeing I'm talking the state governments here yeah. Now the states won't "close up shop" but you don't want to see what the bankruptcy of the world's 8th largest economy will do to the rest of the economy. And you know your tax dollars will bail us out. Edited February 26, 2011 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 Yet, it is still the "rules." That is why tactic is in place. Probably dates back to the 1800's? No? Our founder's weren't stupid. If it was clearly against the "rules"... They would have closed all loop holes. I don't know the history of the tactic... But, to have one minority party memeber present in the Cap... Probably goes way back and FOR a reason It seems more like an oversight than a rule. The rule says that when summoned, they must show up... But the law only gives them the rights to go get them if they're within Wisconsin (since WI law can't transcend into other states). That's not a rule, that's a loophole, IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 (edited) Nope get rid of all pensions for anyone hired going forward. Pay them a wage that is competitive to the public sector and give them 401k plans and SS. Problem of these unfunded pension liabilities ($500bil here in CA) goes away in one generation. I am cool with that! I would be making more than I make now! :thumbsup: Yet... WI employees who kick in 7% to fund their pension and say Fed employees like myself... Why is there a problem with pensions? We are funding them too. It seems more like an oversight than a rule. The rule says that when summoned, they must show up... But the law only gives them the rights to go get them if they're within Wisconsin (since WI law can't transcend into other states). That's not a rule, that's a loophole, IMHO. True. Then I expect Gov. Walker to close the loop-hole. The thing is happening in IN too... And as Taro said, happened in TX years ago with the Dems. Why has this oversight continued? Not really oversight if it keeps happening. Why is there even a rule about having one opposing party member in town? What happens if one party has 100% of the gov't? Why is THAT rule in place??? Edited February 26, 2011 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 I am cool with that! I would be making more than I make now! :thumbsup: Yet... WI employees (who kick in 7% to fund their pensions) and say Fed employees like myself... Why is there a problem with pensions? We are funding them too. Any idea what the private sector needs to be kicked in to replace our income at retirement. As a self employed person I kick in more than 15% for SS and then another 15-20% to make sure I have a nest egg to replace my income at retirement. And guess what? I gladly do it. See that's the difference between you and me I love being in charge of my retirement. And a question for you. What is the pension coming back from that 7% contribution? I bet it is nowhere near what it would generate should a private sector employee invest 7% of their income. Most of the pension I've seen pay out 10-15% of the pension amount in retirement. That's why we usually tell our clients to leave the pension there. There is no way we can return anything like that. Do you see the problem with that?? Oh and BTW your income would not go up. I mentioned it would be for only new government employees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted February 26, 2011 Author Share Posted February 26, 2011 The only thing you're going to remember come the 2012 elections is no amount of condescending, trash-leaving, Hitler moustache-drawing, fleebagging solidarity is going to help with a country still facing a 9+% unemployment rate. But, y'know, if it makes you feel better, that's good. Maybe you guys can double your ranks by joining forces with the Coffee Party! Oh, wait. Nevermind. Oh that's right.. The Republicans are all about job creation. That's why people like Walker just toss out numbers like 1,200, 5,000, maybe more when it comes to him "balancing a budget". In other words, they DON'T CARE ABOUT JOBS!!!! Keep buying their trash though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 One industry they need to take away CBing is in sports... Especially the NFL... Make it against the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted February 26, 2011 Author Share Posted February 26, 2011 Nope get rid of all pensions for anyone hired going forward. Pay them a wage that is competitive to the public sector and give them 401k plans and SS. Problem of these unfunded pension liabilities ($500bil here in CA) goes away in one generation. Seeing I'm talking the state governments here yeah. Now the states won't "close up shop" but you don't want to see what the bankruptcy of the world's 8th largest economy will do to the rest of the economy. And you know your tax dollars will bail us out. Pay them a wage that is better or equal to private sector who normally make more. I agree with that. Then union workers could kick in more towards their benefits and pension. Oh wait, they already offered that and Gov. Walker refused to listen to it. Funny thing is that Wisconsin has one of the healthiest pension systems in the country. Oh wait, the Gov. won't say that either. So if we are going to attack unions like this. I say screw the wealthiest Americans.. Let's take away their tax breaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 Oh that's right.. The Republicans are all about job creation. That's why people like Walker just toss out numbers like 1,200, 5,000, maybe more when it comes to him "balancing a budget". In other words, they DON'T CARE ABOUT JOBS!!!! Keep buying their trash though. Do you have any idea why jobs are the last thing to come back during a recovery? Pay them a wage that is better or equal to private sector who normally make more. I agree with that. Then union workers could kick in more towards their benefits and pension. Oh wait, they already offered that and Gov. Walker refused to listen to it. Funny thing is that Wisconsin has one of the healthiest pension systems in the country. Oh wait, the Gov. won't say that either. So if we are going to attack unions like this. I say screw the wealthiest Americans.. Let's take away their tax breaks. Pay them more than the private sector and give them a pension too? ?? Pensions don't work because they pay out more than the pension fund is returning. That's why most of them have massive unfunded liabilities. You get that right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 (edited) I think governments should put a tax on people's free time. The more of it you have - the more you're taxed. All 40+ hours per week workers not covered by a collective bargaining agreement would have a tax rate of zero. Those workers that are covered by CBAs should have to pay a tax because - hey - somebody's got to pay and they've got rich pensions due them and they can afford to retire earlier than the non CBA covered workers. All unemployed people would incur the greatest tax rate - because they can afford it more than the poor people who have to spend time at their jobs. The tax would be imposed by the coercive power of the government in the form of mandatory hours of public service. Edited February 26, 2011 by Nanker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 (edited) Any idea what the private sector needs to be kicked in to replace our income at retirement. As a self employed person I kick in more than 15% for SS and then another 15-20% to make sure I have a nest egg to replace my income at retirement. And guess what? I gladly do it. See that's the difference between you and me I love being in charge of my retirement. And a question for you. What is the pension coming back from that 7% contribution? I bet it is nowhere near what it would generate should a private sector employee invest 7% of their income. Most of the pension I've seen pay out 10-15% of the pension amount in retirement. That's why we usually tell our clients to leave the pension there. There is no way we can return anything like that. Do you see the problem with that?? Oh and BTW your income would not go up. I mentioned it would be for only new government employees. I kick in to SS and 20% to my nest egg. I also kick in to my pension... As I do health and other insurance. I am also in charge. My fed pension annuity will be nothing you think. It is way lower than you think. My nest egg is the number one important thing. The pension I get is a benny for being paid such low wages... Especially, during all the boom years. Of course people are clamoring for these wages now during the the low years... But as soon as the times get better they won't be. I think governments should put a tax on people's free time. The more of it you have - the more you're taxed. All 40+ hours per week workers would have a tax rate of zero. All unemployed people would incur the greatest tax rate - because they can afford it more than the poor people who have to spend time at their jobs. The tax would be imposed by the coercive power of the government in the form of mandatory hours of public service. You have a point... People have way too much time on their hands! Places like Disney world and Vegas may getg mad though. What about people who work weekends, holidays like Christmas, and all hours of the night? What about people who have give up being close to any family so they can serve their community or nation? Should they get a premium/credit? Edited February 26, 2011 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 I kick in to SS and 20% to my nest egg. I also kick in to my pension... As I do health and other insurance. I am also in charge. My fed pension annuity will be nothing you think. It is way lower than you think. My nest egg is the number one important thing. The pension I get is a benny for being paid such low wages... Especially, during all the boom years. Of course people are clamoring for these wages now during the the low years... But as soon as the times get better they won't be. We've been this route before. Great for you but most government employees do not contribute any more than what they're required to. Teachers don't contribute to SS and many do not contribute to their 403b plans. They're relying 100% on their pension. Bad idea. Now address my other point with regard to pensions paying out a return that can't be sustained. That's why pensions are so underfunded. THAT'S the problem. So to solve it? Do away with the pensions and let people create their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 Why is there even a rule about having one opposing party member in town? What happens if one party has 100% of the gov't? Why is THAT rule in place??? That's not the rule - the rule is that you have to have 20 senators for money-related bills -- and WI only has 19 showing up right now. If there were one more republican that was elected, this would be a non-issue. Of course the repubs COULD say, "Unions aren't directly related to finance, so we can pass this without 20 senators available," but then the dems would have a field day saying, "See, it isn't about money afterall!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted February 26, 2011 Author Share Posted February 26, 2011 I take it you've never run a business before. Let me ask you a business question. Which is worse. Laying off 5,000 people or closing up shop? Let me ask this. Is just laying off people to make a point justifiable? And yes, I run a design business right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 Let me ask this. Is just laying off people to make a point justifiable? And yes, I run a design business right now. No, but laying people off to reduce the $130+M deficit is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 Let me ask this. Is just laying off people to make a point justifiable? And yes, I run a design business right now. Balancing a budget is not just making a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 (edited) That's not the rule - the rule is that you have to have 20 senators for money-related bills -- and WI only has 19 showing up right now. If there were one more republican that was elected, this would be a non-issue. Of course the repubs COULD say, "Unions aren't directly related to finance, so we can pass this without 20 senators available," but then the dems would have a field day saying, "See, it isn't about money afterall!" THX for the clarification. It is an "end run" no matter how you slice it. To say the Repubs wouldn't do is being naive. You seen how both sides attempt to block things. Not saying it is right... Just a viable tactic. Strange how WI was one of the first to pass CB and now they are trying to wipe it out. The gov. didn't run on what he is doing... Same in Indiana... Yet, Daniels is aware of it and called the Repubs off. We will see what happens at the next election time for what amounts to going after the rank and file. This is America... NOBODY wants to take one for the team. Balancing a budget is not just making a point. There are many roads to balancing that budget. If it means going out of business... So be it. If people clamor for the product... Somebody else will give the business a whirl. Edited February 26, 2011 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted February 26, 2011 Author Share Posted February 26, 2011 (edited) Do you have any idea why jobs are the last thing to come back during a recovery? Pay them more than the private sector and give them a pension too? ?? Pensions don't work because they pay out more than the pension fund is returning. That's why most of them have massive unfunded liabilities. You get that right? People complain about how union workers make sooooo much money. Fact is that they don't. Most live paycheck to paycheck. I personally do not know one wealthy union worker. Hell, coming from WNY (mainly UAW members) I don't remember any of them living in mansions. So the governor wants them to pay more for their benefits and towards the pension plan that is not funded by the taxpayer. They agreed. So let me ask you, shouldn't that be good enough? Why attack their right to organize and collective bargain? Is it good that Gov. will just lay off any amount of people just to make a point? If it good that the governnor wanted to plant trouble makers into the crowd just to make a peaceful demonstration look bad? Is it good that the Governor answers to billionaires instead of the people? Is it good that the Governor is only going after the unions who didn't vote for him... knowing that the firefighters and police unions are there in solidarity against him? Keep saying that unions and democrats aren't about balancing the budget, that they aren't about job creation. Fact of the matter is that WE ARE ALL for that, we just don't want to do it on the backs of the Middle-Class. Funny how Republicans attack something dear the middle-class yet protected the wealthiest. How about Republicans vote people that kind be creative in balancing the budget instead of wanting to use an hatchet. Agree to disagree. Peace out. Edited February 26, 2011 by pBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts