'Negative' Outlook for U.S. Debt

[supraman]

the problem is government wants to create jobs when that isn't its function, government should always be trying to run as lean and mean as possible

 

[whiteevo]

my wife loves her government job. i love her job.



IRS business auditor, hate me now baby. union on top of that.

 

[supraman]

my wife loves her government job. i love her job.



IRS business auditor, hate me now baby. union on top of that.

I so quit paying taxes. I'm paying for the C.L.I.T. commander's kid...great

 

[cids_revenge]

In other words the debt is okay, the corporations are greedy, everything is an over reaction, we should continue down the same path we are already heading and just keep our head in the sand because those in charge have everything under control and all of our best interests at heart.



Sheeple....

Of course that's how you're going to read it, I wouldn't expect anything less from a teabagger or anyone that uses the word "sheeple". Wages for the average person are at their lowest while profits are up. Uneducated, unhealthy, poor citizens aren't good for any society and the idea is to give more money to people that have it while taking away from people who already don't have shit because that's been working so well.



But please explain to me who firing elected officials and selling government assets with out bids is a necessary step to control debt and not a huge over reach. Explain to me how a Govenor firing a city's elected officials and being able to void any contracts isn't big government stepping on people's rights. Please I'd really love to hear it.

 

[cids_revenge]

the problem is government wants to create jobs when that isn't its function, government should always be trying to run as lean and mean as possible

Government jobs are some of the very few that pay well and won't be outsourced, and they do run on shoe string budgets. This idea that public service employees should be paid nothing is bullshit. Everyone needs to be able to earn a living.

 

[supraman]

Government jobs are some of the very few that pay well and won't be outsourced, and they do run on shoe string budgets. This idea that public service employees should be paid nothing is bullshit. Everyone needs to be able to earn a living.

Never suggested they should be paid poorly but all too often I hear that the government will not cut a program or something because people will lose their jobs. And that is my point it is not the responsibility to keep people employed, that's what the private sector does.

 

[Spunky Porkstacker]

Government jobs are some of the very few that pay well and won't be outsourced, and they do run on shoe string budgets. This idea that public service employees should be paid nothing is bullshit. Everyone needs to be able to earn a living.

I know that you are very pro union, fine. Nobody is saying public employees should be paid nothing, but when their average salary is roughly35 to 40% higher than private sector jobs with cushy pensions that give them more than they put in while the majority of private sector jobs don't have pensions, that is some mighty fine negotiating.



Especially when those public union officials negotiating these deals are major campaign contributors to the politicians who are giving them these wonderful benefits. Can you say "conflict of interest". Look at the state of Illinois , they are on pace to have another budget deficit in 3 more years even with the recent tax increase. Why, the improperly funded public pensions are outpacing the states funding capabilities.



Health insurance, as a small business owner (let me add I was UAW member for 6 years) I pay a crapload of $ per month for a family of 4 with a high deductible. Public employees pay significantly less than I do for better benefits and no deductible.



The gov will be back soon for more tax increases to keep the public employees benefits nice and cozy. Why should the taxpayers be burdeoned more ?

 

[jakobeast]

I know that you are very pro union, fine. Nobody is saying public employees should be paid nothing, but when their average salary is roughly35 to 40% higher than private sector jobs with cushy pensions that give them more than they put in while the majority of private sector jobs don't have pensions, that is some mighty fine negotiating.



Especially when those public union officials negotiating these deals are major campaign contributors to the politicians who are giving them these wonderful benefits. Can you say "conflict of interest". Look at the state of Illinois , they are on pace to have another budget deficit in 3 more years even with the recent tax increase. Why, the improperly funded public pensions are outpacing the states funding capabilities.



Health insurance, as a small business owner (let me add I was UAW member for 6 years) I pay a crapload of $ per month for a family of 4 with a high deductible. Public employees pay significantly less than I do for better benefits and no deductible.



The gov will be back soon for more tax increases to keep the public employees benefits nice and cozy. Why should the taxpayers be burdeoned more ?

Not all public workers are paid huge salaries. 40% on average? Where did those numbers come from? I am not disagreeing that there is something fishy about public employees negotiating with politicians and so on, but why is it suddenly a crime to be unionized? Why is it so villainous to be organized?



Health insurance through your employer was a something the employer in the 50's and 60's offered to lure prospective employees to work for them. Same thing with pension. Pensions used to be offered by many places of business back in the day. It was a reward for staying with the company, giving your time, your life to the company. and in some cases it was in lieu of getting paid a higher wage. A lot of public employees do not make money hand over fist. That is just false.



At least point out what public job gets paid more then it private sector counterpart.

 

[IceHogsFan]

why is it suddenly a crime to be unionized? Why is it so villainous to be organized?

You could ask the same as to why it is a crime for a corporation to make a profit?



Neither is wrong but the extremists on both ends use it to divide us. Both have issues but neither is evil as some who want the sheeple to believe. Somewhere in the middle lies the truth and I believe that the majority of our country resides in the middle on nearly every issue but the misinformed who are too lazy to do their own research and education on subjects allow the media and politicians to formulate their opinions.



With todays social media and instant access to everything it just divides us more in my opinion. Can't we all just get along?

 

[Spunky Porkstacker]

Not all public workers are paid huge salaries. 40% on average? Where did those numbers come from? I am not disagreeing that there is something fishy about public employees negotiating with politicians and so on, but why is it suddenly a crime to be unionized? Why is it so villainous to be organized?



Health insurance through your employer was a something the employer in the 50's and 60's offered to lure prospective employees to work for them. Same thing with pension. Pensions used to be offered by many places of business back in the day. It was a reward for staying with the company, giving your time, your life to the company. and in some cases it was in lieu of getting paid a higher wage. A lot of public employees do not make money hand over fist. That is just false.



At least point out what public job gets paid more then it private sector counterpart.

You're 100% correct, healthcare and pensions at one time were the norm but are practically gone now. Does the money that was used to pay for those things now go in the CEO's pocket? I'm not saying its right or I agree with it.



Not all public employees do get huge salaries. But they are very well compensated with health insurance and pensions. Some receive more money when they retire than they made while working. Plus their retirement fund contributions are much less than what they receive while retired.



I never said anything against unions. But public unions tied to the gov is wrong ! My link



I have to go to work now.

 

[supraman]

You could ask the same as to why it is a crime for a corporation to make a profit?



Neither is wrong but the extremists on both ends use it to divide us. Both have issues but neither is evil as some who want the sheeple to believe. Somewhere in the middle lies the truth and I believe that the majority of our country resides in the middle on nearly every issue but the misinformed who are too lazy to do their own research and education on subjects allow the media and politicians to formulate their opinions.



With todays social media and instant access to everything it just divides us more in my opinion. Can't we all just get along?

My dad worked for the CTA for 38 years so because of him I'm pretty much pro-union (that and seeing my joke of a pay check down here in FL). The problem with unions is some of them get too big for their britches, look at the UAW, that is unions gone wild. However unions also keep the companies from taking advantage of their employees.

 

[IceHogsFan]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ocVj6UWiDI[/media]

 

[cids_revenge]

I know that you are very pro union, fine. Nobody is saying public employees should be paid nothing, but when their average salary is roughly35 to 40% higher than private sector jobs with cushy pensions that give them more than they put in while the majority of private sector jobs don't have pensions, that is some mighty fine negotiating.



Especially when those public union officials negotiating these deals are major campaign contributors to the politicians who are giving them these wonderful benefits. Can you say "conflict of interest". Look at the state of Illinois , they are on pace to have another budget deficit in 3 more years even with the recent tax increase. Why, the improperly funded public pensions are outpacing the states funding capabilities.



Health insurance, as a small business owner (let me add I was UAW member for 6 years) I pay a crapload of $ per month for a family of 4 with a high deductible. Public employees pay significantly less than I do for better benefits and no deductible.



The gov will be back soon for more tax increases to keep the public employees benefits nice and cozy. Why should the taxpayers be burdeoned more ?

I can't speak across the board, but Wisconsin public sector union workers were paid 8% less than their private sector counterparts, union giving to politicians is no different than corporations that give to politicians, they just do it n a much smaller scale, can you honestly say there is no conflict of interest there?



Good for anyone that has good insurance, it was something they negotiated for, just because some people dont have the balls or desire to collectively bargain doesn't mean it should be taken away from those who do. What happened to the "you don't get ahead by bringing other people down" mentality that was all the rage when Obama wanted to end the Bush tax cuts? Public employee unions pay 100% of their insurance costs, just like IBEW members do and I would bet UAW workers do, it's money that instead of going on they check they allocate to insurance.

 

[cids_revenge]

Never suggested they should be paid poorly but all too often I hear that the government will not cut a program or something because people will lose their jobs. And that is my point it is not the responsibility to keep people employed, that's what the private sector does.

What good do more unemployed people do society? I've never heard of something being kept running solely to keep jobs.

 

[cids_revenge]

IHF

Still waiting to hear how firing elected officials and appointing emergency financial managers isn't an over reach, how a country full of uneducated, unhealthy, under employed people is good for the economy, and as a bonus question why someone how doesn't hit the teabagger/conservative talking points is a "sheepson", while someone who follows it to a tee is an independant thinker. Also, as a softball question, is sheepson the singular for of sheeple?

 

[IceHogsFan]

IHF

Still waiting to hear how firing elected officials and appointing emergency financial managers isn't an over reach, how a country full of uneducated, unhealthy, under employed people is good for the economy, and as a bonus question why someone how doesn't hit the teabagger/conservative talking points is a "sheepson", while someone who follows it to a tee is an independant thinker. Also, as a softball question, is sheepson the singular for of sheeple?

Call me your ill used sexual innuendo teabagger all you desire. I would rather you label me that then a Democrat or Republican. We know you love the unions and they can do no ill. Have read it over and over and over..... There is nothing new to debate with you. I actually enjoy the fact that you never post here unless it is something that can involve you attacking me.







Now back to the U.S. debt issue.

 

[Spunky Porkstacker]

I can't speak across the board, but Wisconsin public sector union workers were paid 8% less than their private sector counterparts, union giving to politicians is no different than corporations that give to politicians, they just do it n a much smaller scale, can you honestly say there is no conflict of interest there?



Good for anyone that has good insurance, it was something they negotiated for, just because some people dont have the balls or desire to collectively bargain doesn't mean it should be taken away from those who do. What happened to the "you don't get ahead by bringing other people down" mentality that was all the rage when Obama wanted to end the Bush tax cuts? Public employee unions pay 100% of their insurance costs, just like IBEW members do and I would bet UAW workers do, it's money that instead of going on they check they allocate to insurance.

Its ok if you don't mind paying more in taxes for public union beneifits. I would prefer to not pay anymore. I'll never understand why you or anybody are ok with paying more taxes.

 

[cids_revenge]

Its ok if you don't mind paying more in taxes for public union beneifits. I would prefer to not pay anymore. I'll never understand why you or anybody are ok with paying more taxes.

take all you want away from them, you wont pay any less in taxes. They will find a way to soak you. Really how much of your money goes to them. Of course they pay less then you they are working with a much larger pool of people than a single family. Taxes are a part of life whether you like it or not, things need to be paid for.

 

[cids_revenge]

Call me your ill used sexual innuendo teabagger all you desire. I would rather you label me that then a Democrat or Republican. We know you love the unions and they can do no ill. Have read it over and over and over..... There is nothing new to debate with you. I actually enjoy the fact that you never post here unless it is something that can involve you attacking me.







Now back to the U.S. debt issue.

Hold on, you were the one who proudly claimed to be a tea bagger 2 years ago when peoiple were already making fun of the name, now it's "ill used sexual innuendo"? Come on man, you started with the sheeple bullshit and there not being any kind of over reach. It's a simple question, there is no wrong answer, it's just opinion. Why makes an elected official giving himself the power to throw out the people's votes, fire the people they elected appointed an emergency financial manager and give him/her the right to sell off public owned assets (with no bids, mind you) not an overreach? You wanted to go down this road, don't run away now. What makes that constitutional? The baggers think they are the only ones that believe in the Constitution, so where do Govoners get the power to give them selves the right to fire other elected officals. You can do it, I know you can.



Are unions perfect, no but they beat the alternative by a damn site. We already know big corporations have no problems crating unsafe work environments and treating people like shit whether you want to talk about the women of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory here, of if that's too far in the past then take the Chinese and Indian children they hire now. There are plenty of places to see the effect of no regulation and no government intervention. Somalia, China, Mexico, India, tons of places to see what you want enacted, and this bullshit about cutting debt for the children...... what good does it do if one of the first cuts to make is from education?

 

[IceHogsFan]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtVbUmcQSuk[/media]