The true face of neo-conservatism!

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
the information provided shows that the unions were already paying a portion of their pension plans.
Click to expand...


PostmodernProphet said:
the lowest contribution of all the states, from what I understand.....but given the truth of that, doesn't it seem even less likely that this is a "desperate situation"?....
Click to expand...


In the previous post, PMP stated, "ah, so having to start paying a portion of their pension plans like everyone else is a "desperate situation"

To which I responded, "...You should learn to read, PMP.....the information provided shows that the unions were already paying a portion of their pension plans. What Walker wants is a market increase WITHOUT any input from the unions. Go back and READ, you Post Modern Fool, so you know WTF you're babbling about."

Evidently, PMP doesn't have the maturity or courage to admit that he was wrong on this point....so instead he tries to propose a comparison to other states to somehow maintain his original error ridden assertions against the Wisconsin unions as valid.

Once again, an insipidly stubborn neocon toadie grasping at straws. Obviously, PMP doesn't realize (or won't acknowledge) that pay rates, pensions, COLA, etc., differ from state to state depending on that states economic set up (i.e., major agriculture base as opposed to industrial based states). By PMP's "logic" Walker can ban collective bargaining, reduce salaries by $600, and increase contributions to pensions and health benefits for unions virtually unchallenged because New York has much higher economic requirements. :palm:

As the chronology of the posts shows (Posts #55, 59 and 60), PMP is just blowing smoke.
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
Evidently, PMP doesn't have the maturity or courage to admit that he was wrong on this point....
Click to expand...

???....where was I wrong?.....

Popping%20bubble%20wrap.jpg
 
PostmodernProphet said:
???....where was I wrong?.....

Popping%20bubble%20wrap.jpg
Click to expand...

:palm: Whenever PMP is proven wrong folks, he just stalls by playing dumb and/or repeating moot points. Post #62 gives a full explanation that any 8th grader can comprehend. Seems the photo provided shows the limitation PMP's mental level, comprehension skills and attention span.
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
:palm: Whenever PMP is proven wrong folks, he just stalls by playing dumb and/or repeating moot points. Post #62 gives a full explanation that any 8th grader can comprehend. Seems the photo provided shows the limitation PMP's mental level, comprehension skills and attention span.
Click to expand...

More proof that TCLiberal is a pinhead with a liberal, Democrat agenda with a narrow minded view of reality.


Cry me a river....:fu:
2007 data....and since its only gotten better for civil servants...

The nation's 6 million retired civil servants — teachers, police, administrators, laborers — received a median benefit of $17,640 in 2005, according to the Congressional Research Service. Eleven million private-sector retirees covered by traditional pensions got $7,692.

A typical full-time state or local government worker made $78,853 in wages and benefits in the third quarter of 2006, $25,771 more than a typical private-sector worker, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports. The difference was $7,604 in 2000. The compensation advantage holds true for all types of public workers, from teachers to laborers and managers. Better benefits for government workers is the biggest reason for the growing compensation gap.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-02-20-pensions-cover_x.htm
-----------------------------

http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume23/Vol23No2/Vol23No2.html

A private sector employee earning $70,000 in the year before his/her retirement will receive somewhat comparable retirement income as his/her WRS counterpart earning $48,000 per year, and contribute less than half as much.

These folks need to realize that taxpayers don't have unlimited money to give to them....
 
Last edited:
SmarterThanYou said:
good fricking god. do you even read these articles or do you just glance the headlines and scream 'tyranny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'?

the child labor law article. is the parent incapable of making the child quit the job? why does the child NEED the job? are the parents incapable of providing enough care for the child? can the parent NOT help the child prioritize his/her life?

the public sector union article. GOOD!!!!!!! government employees shouldn't have collective bargaining rights. they don't work for private corporations, they work for the people.
Click to expand...

But the workers for the people need protections too, people arent that nice sometimes/
 
bravo said:
More proof that TCLiberal is a pinhead with a liberal, Democrat agenda with a narrow minded view of reality.


Cry me a river....:fu:
2007 data....and since its only gotten better for civil servants...

The nation's 6 million retired civil servants — teachers, police, administrators, laborers — received a median benefit of $17,640 in 2005, according to the Congressional Research Service. Eleven million private-sector retirees covered by traditional pensions got $7,692.

A typical full-time state or local government worker made $78,853 in wages and benefits in the third quarter of 2006, $25,771 more than a typical private-sector worker, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports. The difference was $7,604 in 2000. The compensation advantage holds true for all types of public workers, from teachers to laborers and managers. Better benefits for government workers is the biggest reason for the growing compensation gap.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-02-20-pensions-cover_x.htm
-----------------------------

http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume23/Vol23No2/Vol23No2.html

A private sector employee earning $70,000 in the year before his/her retirement will receive somewhat comparable retirement income as his/her WRS counterpart earning $48,000 per year, and contribute less than half as much.

These folks need to realize that taxpayers don't have unlimited money to give to them....
Click to expand...
.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
you said it "seriously" affected the benefit plan.....does a $600 change "seriously" affect a $72,000 position?.....enough so that 40,000 should take to the streets?.....people in Wisconsin should be embarrassed about being equated with the folks in the ME demonstrating for democracy.....
Click to expand...

Joe the plumber thought $750 would affect his decision on whether to buy a business worth $250K so to answer your question, yes, people do take potential financial changes seriously.

Wurzelbacher first came to attention over the weekend, when he engaged Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, in a six-minute discussion of tax policy at a rally in Holland, Ohio. He told Obama that he was a plumber and was hoping to buy his boss’s business, which he said made $250,000 to $280,000 a year. He was concerned, he said, that Obama’s economic proposals would mean he’d be kicked into a higher tax bracket.
 
christiefan915 said:
Joe the plumber thought $750 would affect his decision on whether to buy a business worth $250K so to answer your question, yes, people do take potential financial changes seriously.

Wurzelbacher first came to attention over the weekend, when he engaged Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, in a six-minute discussion of tax policy at a rally in Holland, Ohio. He told Obama that he was a plumber and was hoping to buy his boss’s business, which he said made $250,000 to $280,000 a year. He was concerned, he said, that Obama’s economic proposals would mean he’d be kicked into a higher tax bracket.
Click to expand...

if you think the taxes on $250k are $750 I see why you think the rich should be taxed more.....
 
christiefan915 said:
Joe the plumber thought $750 would affect his decision on whether to buy a business worth $250K so to answer your question, yes, people do take potential financial changes seriously.

Wurzelbacher first came to attention over the weekend, when he engaged Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, in a six-minute discussion of tax policy at a rally in Holland, Ohio. He told Obama that he was a plumber and was hoping to buy his boss’s business, which he said made $250,000 to $280,000 a year. He was concerned, he said, that Obama’s economic proposals would mean he’d be kicked into a higher tax bracket.
Click to expand...
WOW....really.....Joe the Plumber, huh ?
Is Joe the spokesperson for someone besides himself...?

Exactly, who is this "Joe the Plumber" ?

Is he related to "Peter the Rabbit" ? or "Merlin the Magician" ? or "Dennis the Menace"...
or "Popeye the Sailor" ?......or "Christiefan the Pinhead" ?
 
2007 data....and since its only gotten better for civil servants...

The nation's 6 million retired civil servants — teachers, police, administrators, laborers — received a median benefit of $17,640 in 2005, according to the Congressional Research Service. Eleven million private-sector retirees covered by traditional pensions got $7,692.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-02-20-pensions-cover_x.htm
----------------------------
http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume23/Vol23No2/Vol23No2.html

A private sector employee earning $70,000 in the year before his/her retirement will receive somewhat comparable retirement income as his/her WRS counterpart earning $48,000 per year, who will contribute less than half as much.
 
bravo said:
WOW....really.....Joe the Plumber, huh ?
Is Joe the spokesperson for someone besides himself...?

Exactly, who is this "Joe the Plumber" ?

Is he related to "Peter the Rabbit" ? or "Merlin the Magician" ? or "Dennis the Menace"...
or "Popeye the Sailor" ?......or "Christiefan the Pinhead" ?
Click to expand...

This will get her panties in a twist:

JOE THE PLUMBER FOR PRESIDENT CUZ SHITSIE THINKS HIS OPINION MATTERS!​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top