The true face of neo-conservatism!

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
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...


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...


:palm: Okay, so by Bravo's own limited research, the private sector is making an average of $28-30 grand more in base salary than a public worker for the same job, and the the pension difference is about $200-250 dollars in the public workers favor. A small reminder: The public worker has to RETIRE at 65 to get that pension (early retirement means less money), while the private sector gets that $28 grand more YEARLY until retirement.

What Bravo doesn't realize is about 60 percent of state and local government pension funds/assets were invested in corporate stocks that took heavy during the Wall Street crisis total value of these pension funds fell by nearly $900 billion.

So the hue and cry by right wing conservatives, Libertarians, teabaggers, neocons, and the like is very myopic...because they would have to abandon their advocated faith in the privatization of everything a'la' Wall St. in order to solely blame union pensions for a major part of state/nation fiscal woes. You also have to look into the decline of state input into pension over the last few years. Essentially what we're seeing is a failure of Wall St. and local state gov't fiscal policies to carry their share of the pension fund, and subsequently right wing conservatives pretending that it's the rate of input by the State employees that is the cause. Also, when you add the FACT that all these neocon GOP politicos that are gunning for pensions and unions are STILL advocating failed Reaganomics policies in conjunction to save the day. Wisconsin is the test case for examination, and when ALL the facts are in, the false neocon Bravado fails to sway the objective analysis.

http://www.thenation.com/article/158647/betrayal-public-workers?page=0,0

See folks, PMP shut his yap after Post #62, but latched onto Bravo's attempt like a flea to a dog's butt, thinking he was redeemed via association.
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
:palm: Okay, so by Bravo's own limited research, the private sector is making an average of $28-30 grand more in base salary than a public worker for the same job, and the the pension difference is about $200-250 dollars in the public workers favor. A small reminder: The public worker has to RETIRE at 65 to get that pension (BULLSHIT # 1)
 (early retirement means less money), while the private sector gets that $28 grand more YEARLY until retirement. (BULLSHIT # 2)

Thats the point you fool....

http://www.bing.com/search?q=can+teacher+retire+after+20+years&go=&form=QBRE&qs=n&sk=

Take a look at "Your Retirement Benefits"........... 2008
nctreasurer.com ....link at website...

Lets compare apples with apples....

Teachers calculations for retirement income...

35 years of service
70K avg. salary for the last 4 years...(70,000 for example only to compare public vs. private)


Avg. of 4 highest paid years x .0182 x years of service

...........$70,000...x..0182 x 35 years =.....$44590

A teacher in N.C., 55 years old with 35 years of service would get 44,590 dollars a year(minimum) for the rest of their lives
most likely with full healthcare benefits.

This is in 2008 and I'll guarantee those benefits are better now in 2011.....


Where TF will you find that deal in the private sector?

I'll tell you NOWHERE.....




What Bravo doesn't realize is about 60 percent of state and local government pension funds/assets were invested in corporate stocks that took heavy during the Wall Street crisis total value of these pension funds fell by nearly $900 billion.

(While of course, corporate pension funds are kept in a pillow case, under a table in the bosses office and actually grow by magic)

So the hue and cry by right wing conservatives, Libertarians, teabaggers, neocons, and the like is very myopic...because they would have to abandon their advocated faith in the privatization of everything a'la' Wall St. in order to solely blame union pensions for a major part of state/nation fiscal woes. You also have to look into the decline of state input into pension over the last few years. Essentially what we're seeing is a failure of Wall St. and local state gov't fiscal policies to carry their share of the pension fund, and subsequently right wing conservatives pretending that it's the rate of input by the State employees that is the cause. Also, when you add the FACT that all these neocon GOP politicos that are gunning for pensions and unions are STILL advocating failed Reaganomics policies in conjunction to save the day. Wisconsin is the test case for examination, and when ALL the facts are in, the false neocon Bravado fails to sway the objective analysis.

http://www.thenation.com/article/158647/betrayal-public-workers?page=0,0

See folks, PMP shut his yap after Post #62, but latched onto Bravo's attempt like a flea to a dog's butt, thinking he was redeemed via association.
Click to expand...
Now we'll deal with bullshit # 1 in the next post.
 
Last edited:
Retirement as a teacher...???? Just for some states for example....

Alabama: You can retire at age 60 with at least 10 years of service, or at any age after 25 years

Arkansas: A member may retire at age 60 with 5 or more
years of credited service, or after 28 years of
credited service regardless of age.

Louisiana: Your eligibility to retire is based on your age and years of serv*ice. One of the requirements below must be met in order to receive a retirement benefit from TRSL:

5 years of service or more at age 60 or later
25 years of service or more at age 55 or later
30 years of service or more regardless of age
At 20 years of service you may retire at any age but your benefit will be reduced on an actuarial basis which is based on your age, length of service and number of years from your regular retirement age.

Georgia: You are eligible for monthly retirement benefits if you have completed one of the following:

v 30 years of creditable service regardless of age, or

v 10 years of creditable service AND 60 years of age.

2) What about early retirement?

You may retire with 25 years of creditable service. (If you retire under this provision your benefit will be permanently reduced by one-twelfth of 7% for each month you are below 60, OR 7% for each year or fraction of year by which you have less than 30 years, whatever is less.) Also be aware that you will not be eligible for cost of living increases until such time as you reach 60 years of age or at the time you would have obtained 30 years of service.

Texas: Couldn't really find any details, but here's the site: http://www.trs.state.tx.us/

Alaska: You may retire at any age with unreduced benefits if you have:

20 paid-up years of TRS membership service;
20 paid-up years of combined TRS membership and Alaska BIA service, if the last five years are membership service;
20 paid-up years of combined years of part-time and full-time TRS membership service (you must have at least one-half year of membership service as a part-time teacher or one full year of membership service as a full-time teacher in each of 20 school years; or
25 paid-up years of credited service, if the last five years are TRS membership service.

Hawaii: Sorry, but this is all I could find: http://www2.state.hi.us/ers/

Missouri: Under Missouri's "rule of 80," he or she is eligible for full retirement benefits when his or her age and years of experience equal 80; the teacher in our example must work 27.5 years in order to qualify.

Florida: Florida teachers can retire anytime before reaching age 62 or 30 years service, but should they choose to retire and pull their pension early, educators enrolled in the Florida Retirement System Pension Plan are subject to an early retirement reduction. The benefit will be reduced 5% for each year the educator's age at retirement is under normal retirement age.

Tennessee: State employees and teachers are eligible to receive a reduced monthly benefit upon
completion of 25 years of service.

------
Phew, that was a lot of digging, hope that helps you out and good luck in your future as a teacher
Source(s):
http://www.aces.edu/acesadm/admsrv/retir…

http://artrs.gov/Forms/ATRS_brochure.pdf

http://www.lsusystem.lsu.edu/lsusystemhr…

http://www.henry.k12.ga.us/Employee Re…

http://www.state.ak.us/drb/trs/trs-quest…

http://chadaldeman.blogspot.com/2008/01/…

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:MPA…

http://www.treasury.state.tn.us/tcrs/New…

And Bullshit # 2 is so obvious that I don't need to refute it....to imply there is a 28,000 dollar difference for 35 years is absurd on its face.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
???...I haven't left....I'm just waiting for you to say something new....
Click to expand...
The smart thing for TCLiberal to say now is..."I was wrong....You've pwned me again like you always do....you are my Superior"...

But I don't think we're gonna hear him say the smart thing.....more likely just some "smart-ass" thing.....like, "Well folks, if you look at the chronology of the posts, blah, blah, neocon, blah, blah, parrot, blah, blah.......
 
Last edited:
ally Posted by Taichiliberal
Okay, so by Bravo's own limited research, the private sector is making an average of $28-30 grand more in base salary than a public worker for the same job, and the the pension difference is about $200-250 dollars in the public workers favor. A small reminder: The public worker has to RETIRE at 65 to get that pension (BULLSHIT # 1)(early retirement means less money), while the private sector gets that $28 grand more YEARLY until retirement. (BULLSHIT # 2)
Thats the point you fool....

http://www.bing.com/search?q=can+tea...=QBRE&qs=n&sk=

Take a look at "Your Retirement Benefits"........... 2008
nctreasurer.com ....link at website...

Lets compare apples with apples....

Teachers calculations for retirement income...

35 years of service
70K avg. salary for the last 4 years...(70,000 for example only to compare public vs. private)


Avg. of 4 highest paid years x .0182 x years of service

...........$70,000...x..0182 x 35 years =.....$44590

A teacher in N.C., 55 years old with 35 years of service would get 44,590 dollars a year(minimum) for the rest of their lives
most likely with full healthcare benefits.

This is in 2008 and I'll guarantee those benefits are better now in 2011.....


Where TF will you find that deal in the private sector?

I'll tell you NOWHERE.....


What Bravo doesn't realize is about 60 percent of state and local government pension funds/assets were invested in corporate stocks that took heavy during the Wall Street crisis total value of these pension funds fell by nearly $900 billion.
Click to expand...
(While of course, corporate pension funds are kept in a pillow case, under a table in the bosses office and actually grow by magic)

When Bravo makes a stupid-ass statement like that, it means that he can't refute or disprove the point I made....which puts a serious crimp in his case.


So the hue and cry by right wing conservatives, Libertarians, teabaggers, neocons, and the like is very myopic...because they would have to abandon their advocated faith in the privatization of everything a'la' Wall St. in order to solely blame union pensions for a major part of state/nation fiscal woes. You also have to look into the decline of state input into pension over the last few years. Essentially what we're seeing is a failure of Wall St. and local state gov't fiscal policies to carry their share of the pension fund, and subsequently right wing conservatives pretending that it's the rate of input by the State employees that is the cause. Also, when you add the FACT that all these neocon GOP politicos that are gunning for pensions and unions are STILL advocating failed Reaganomics policies in conjunction to save the day. Wisconsin is the test case for examination, and when ALL the facts are in, the false neocon Bravado fails to sway the objective analysis.

http://www.thenation.com/article/158...rkers?page=0,0
Click to expand...

See folks, PMP shut his yap after Post #62, but latched onto Bravo's attempt like a flea to a dog's butt, thinking he was redeemed via association.
Click to expand...



bravo said:
Now we'll deal with bullshit # 1 in the next post.
Click to expand...

:palm: As usual, Bravo neocon myopia leaves out an important factor.


Taxes.

The pension that Bravo feels is so over the top is TAXED as income. So NC if you retire at age 55 and get $44,590 pension, that is taxed. (regularly, that amount would get you an est. $33,162.66 in NC after taxes for a single person). Also, you'll have to take your medical and dental out of that. So when all is said and done, Bravo is bitching and moaning that after 35 years and reaching a max. salary of $70k (it takes 15 years with a Masters degree to get that by NY standards.....even then you're talking about a small portion that exceed $70K, as it would take years of further study), you end up with a yearly salary in the low 30's for the rest of your life.

What's wrong with that?

The only "bullshit" was Bravo trying to pass off PART of story as the WHOLE truth....which, as I just demonstrated, is a half-truth on Bravo's part. A retirement salary in the low 30's to take care of your property, utility, etc., after 35 years of service.

What's truly funny (or pathetic) is Bravo deluding himself that his half-assed research and opinion actually counts for reality. Let's see what his neocon masters fed him in his next post.
 
:palm:
bravo said:
Retirement as a teacher...???? Just for some states for example....

Alabama: You can retire at age 60 with at least 10 years of service, or at any age after 25 years

Arkansas: A member may retire at age 60 with 5 or more
years of credited service, or after 28 years of
credited service regardless of age.

Louisiana: Your eligibility to retire is based on your age and years of serv*ice. One of the requirements below must be met in order to receive a retirement benefit from TRSL:

5 years of service or more at age 60 or later
25 years of service or more at age 55 or later
30 years of service or more regardless of age
At 20 years of service you may retire at any age but your benefit will be reduced on an actuarial basis which is based on your age, length of service and number of years from your regular retirement age.

Georgia: You are eligible for monthly retirement benefits if you have completed one of the following:

v 30 years of creditable service regardless of age, or

v 10 years of creditable service AND 60 years of age.

2) What about early retirement?

You may retire with 25 years of creditable service. (If you retire under this provision your benefit will be permanently reduced by one-twelfth of 7% for each month you are below 60, OR 7% for each year or fraction of year by which you have less than 30 years, whatever is less.) Also be aware that you will not be eligible for cost of living increases until such time as you reach 60 years of age or at the time you would have obtained 30 years of service.

Texas: Couldn't really find any details, but here's the site: http://www.trs.state.tx.us/

Alaska: You may retire at any age with unreduced benefits if you have:

20 paid-up years of TRS membership service;
20 paid-up years of combined TRS membership and Alaska BIA service, if the last five years are membership service;
20 paid-up years of combined years of part-time and full-time TRS membership service (you must have at least one-half year of membership service as a part-time teacher or one full year of membership service as a full-time teacher in each of 20 school years; or
25 paid-up years of credited service, if the last five years are TRS membership service.

Hawaii: Sorry, but this is all I could find: http://www2.state.hi.us/ers/

Missouri: Under Missouri's "rule of 80," he or she is eligible for full retirement benefits when his or her age and years of experience equal 80; the teacher in our example must work 27.5 years in order to qualify.

Florida: Florida teachers can retire anytime before reaching age 62 or 30 years service, but should they choose to retire and pull their pension early, educators enrolled in the Florida Retirement System Pension Plan are subject to an early retirement reduction. The benefit will be reduced 5% for each year the educator's age at retirement is under normal retirement age.

Tennessee: State employees and teachers are eligible to receive a reduced monthly benefit upon
completion of 25 years of service.

------
Phew, that was a lot of digging, hope that helps you out and good luck in your future as a teacher
Source(s):
http://www.aces.edu/acesadm/admsrv/retir…

http://artrs.gov/Forms/ATRS_brochure.pdf

http://www.lsusystem.lsu.edu/lsusystemhr…

http://www.henry.k12.ga.us/Employee Re…

http://www.state.ak.us/drb/trs/trs-quest…

http://chadaldeman.blogspot.com/2008/01/…

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:MPA…

http://www.treasury.state.tn.us/tcrs/New…

And Bullshit # 2 is so obvious that I don't need to refute it....to imply there is a 28,000 dollar difference for 35 years is absurd on its face.
Click to expand...

:palm: Once again, Bravo demonstrates the age old saying, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

Notice throughout the litany above that the ACTUAL salary rate and subsequent pension based on that salary is NOT noted. And the mean age to receive ANY retirement benefits in the states mention is 20 years.

So by the information given, you have to put in 20 years to get a pension based on the salary that you "retire" on......that is NOT the 70K max that Bravo pointed to in a previous post. Note in post #87 I demonstrated what happens when the tax man comes to the pension in NC that Bravo, and applied the remainder to life in general. What Bravo points to above WOULDN'T EVEN MAKE THE AMOUNT CITED IN THE N.C. EXAMPLE. Remember, I referred to early retirement (prior to 65 yrs. old) as making LESS pension. Nothing Bravo has put forth above changes that.

Once again, with a little critical thinking and using ALL the facts for logical analysis, it would seem that the neocon rant and rave about pensions bank rupting a state just doesn't hold water.

Oh, and I'm STILL waiting for Bravo to provide information as to how paultry the pensions are in the private sector as compared to the information he's provided.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal

See folks, PMP shut his yap after Post #62, but latched onto Bravo's attempt like a flea to a dog's butt, thinking he was redeemed via association.
Click to expand...


PostmodernProphet said:
???...I haven't left....I'm just waiting for you to say something new....
Click to expand...

See folks, when PMP can't disprove statements that factually and logically contradict his bilge, he resorts to a schoolyard equivlaent of, "No it's not!" I didn't say PMP left, I merely pointed out the FACT that he has NO response when proven wrong.
 
Taichiliberal said:
See folks, when PMP can't disprove statements that factually and logically contradict his bilge, he resorts to a schoolyard equivlaent of, "No it's not!" I didn't say PMP left, I merely pointed out the FACT that he has NO response when proven wrong.
Click to expand...

well, that or I'm waiting for you to realize that EVERYONE has disproved your statements....
 
Dune said:
That, in a nutshell folks, is the whole problem with conservatards. In spite of being the vast minority, they honestly believe that "EVERYONE" agrees with them.
Click to expand...

I will stipulate that, yes indeed, conservatives who are retarded are indeed rare...
 
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...

If this is supposed to be funny or sarcastic, it failed.
 
christiefan915 said:
Joe wanted to buy a business worth $250K. He believed he could increase the worth to $275K and was worried that if he was successful, he'd take a huge tax hit. Using current tax tables, the actual amount would have been $750/year.
Click to expand...

I repeat, under which of Obama's proposals to increase taxes would the actual amount have only been $750...your post was specific, I assume the number is based on some type of calculation?......or did you just make it up at random?......if it is a calculation you ought to be able to share the formula you used to calculate it, true?.....for starters, I believe he was concerned about taxes on his income....that would not be based on whether a company became "worth" $25k more, but would be based on the income he received......are you saying the tax on the additional $25k income would only be $750 under any proposal Obama was making?....even under the Bush tax cuts it would have cost 35%......at that time Obama was proposing far more than just eliminating the Bush tax cuts....
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
/shrugs....all the intelligent ones DO.....
Click to expand...

Sorry, but "the intelligent ones" are either the 1% at the top who actualy benefit from the policies you support or liberals. Anyone else who supports conservative policies (at this point in time) is not intelligent, since what they support goes directly against their own interests.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top