Romney: Income inequality is just "envy"

[drsmith1072]

How's that any different from those who make the "choice" to start a business and take the necessary risks through personal investment, than work for someone else at $15 an hour? Seems the individuals "choose" the lifestyle they want to attain for themselves. Why ask the government to do something that you have the free "choice" to make for yourself? You don't like how the company you work for does business, quit and make the "choice" to start one the way you feel it ought to be run. Sounds like some would rather blame the rich because they are not happy with the choices they made for themselves.

Are you talking to me? It seems to me that you are talking to skull but you responded to my post. It would help if what you posted actually pertained to content of the post that you are responding to. Thank you.

That was in response to the perception of the word "choice". The discussion was surrounding your response with his choices for seeking employment. You want to simply place blame on someone making the choice to go union, and the rules that apply there, while they are addressing their need for a place to obtain work. I was denoting your use of the word "choice" in discussion to be rather speculative, as it can also pertain to those who simply believes that a company ought to just pay them more (which I have found is usually the general conception of those who strongly believe in unions). Like the left, they often share in the concept that the rich owner can afford it, and they are just entitled to more of what the owner or the rich have. It would appear that those who believe in such ideals, also have the "choice" to start their own business rather than bicker and whine when they feel they are not making enough. Again, it's easy to blame the rich when they aren't happy with their OWN lifestyle choices they have made (as is often the case).

Ok once again, if you are going to address me could you please address what I have actually said instead of trying to put words into my mouth so you can criticize me for arguments and statements that i have NOT made.

My argument had to do with the fact that he claimed he had not "choice," was "forced" to join a union and that this "union" job was the "only" job available to him. He could have "chosen" to work somewhere else but he "chose" to seek employment at a job that he knew was unionized. Therefore he only has himself to blame for making that "choice"

However, throughout his attempts to spin we find out that he had other "choices" but he "chose" to lie to his employer about his age to get this job because it gave him the hours he wanted at the pay he wanted.

In other words your rant had nothing to do with the conversation that was being had. So again, thanks for nothing.

 

[drsmith1072]

What he fails to mention is that unions don't really favor having a little "choice and competition", so they do what is called Salting. This is where a union employee fakes a resume and infiltrates the nonunion company. This is done, so they can "keep tabs" on their rival businesses, while trying to convince enough workers of the benefits a union can bring without giving them the entire picture of how a union is run. If enough of them are convinced, after secretly recieving only one side of the argument and without the owner's chance to divulge other informative facts, they can force the company to assimulate into the union no matter if the owner desires to or not. Unions never favors competition. Which is also why they put SO MUCH funding (through union dues) into lobbying government into promoting policies that are anti-business, and favor more union power influence over private business owners. Owners who believe in allowing the FREE MARKET to dictate and bring competitive pricing, along with the "choice" of quality satisfaction, to fight for the consumer's business.

Do you ever actually respond to the content of the posts that you reply to or do you just post fiction like the above to spread misinformation in the hopes someone stupid enough will buy it and repeat it?

It's not fiction to someone who was once a union member themself. You can run that B.S. to someone else but I have actually worked in a union once before for a few years, know what it was like, and about some of the tactics they use. Should we only address the dream misconception of what a union ought to be (like yourself) without devoting to some of the ugly facts to what it has become? Unions have it's good and dark sides. I elected to drop my membership as I found there to be too much focus surrounding more union power through politics ,and not enough towards providing for the needs of its members.

So you have engaged in "salting?" If you witnesssed such an activity and you believe that it's wrong why didn't you report it or do something about it??
Oh and I just love your "experience" with unions, once for a few years??? LOL

BTW you stating something happened while providing zero substance to support it is not presenting "facts? it is only your opinions and don't you think it's time that you learned the difference between the two??

 

[drsmith1072]

Exactly, he said the same thing you did using different language and it's just a pointless as it was when you tried to say it.

Hence my reaction and derision of you.

Have the the goalposts moved enough times and you too will quit caring about what the other person has to say. I'm just taking amusement where I find it.

Too bad I don't have the 3 Treasures though. That'd make life more interesting for me.

Your "reaction and derision" of me began the moment I dared asked you to explain your positions so please don't pretend it's anything but that.
Even in the post that you responded to i still presented arguments and you delete them and pretend that they do not exist to further your vendetta of personal attacks against me for daring to question you.

Again when, where and how did I "move the goal posts?? I have already asked you to back up this allegation once before and just like the last time my guess is that you will call me another name and fail to substantiate your allegation.

BTW deleting my arguemnts from your reply, showing how you contintue to run away from the debate, does not make them go away.

In winsconsin the republicans pitted the private sector workers against public sector workers and tried to blame all of the states problems on public sector workers. Then based on the argument that their pay and benefits were better than private sector workers as well as the OPINION that public sector workers did not earn or deserve the pay and benefits that they had then they should be taken away from them and make it "fair" or "equal" between public sector and private sector.

Pitting one group against another over economic differences as you blame one for all of the problems is class warfare as defined by the right and as defined by shackles above. You lose and you even agreed with the argument that countered your earlier spin.

How freaking sad is that?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Actually the proper definition of "class warfare" is to throw one group of people against another, by placing blame on one class while showing favoritism towards another. There is no "class warfare" in a system that places equal share in responsibility upon each class of people to pay off a common debt. How exactly is an equal division of the burden of debt "class warfare", care to explain that to me? Your answer only demonstrates your lack of knowledge of what the term denotes, perhaps because you are blindsided by the ideology of placing the major burden of debt squarely on only one class of people?

So it's exactly like when republicans in wisconsin and other states tried to pit private sector workers against public sector workers because the public sector workers had such good pay and benefits and they had to be taken away?? Got it.
So who decides how to define an "equal share?" If I say it's that the wealthy should pay more in taxes then I am accused of class warfare and yet that same standard does not apply to those who blame private sector workers for all of the ills of that "state" as they demand that the public sector should pay more?
Your spin is no better than fitz's seeing as how you did the same thing he did and tried to use different language to describe the same position.

Actually Wisconsin was about public union employees that are paid taxpayer dollars, using part of their paycheck towards Democrat contributions.

Unions, most of whose members are public employees, gave Democrats some $400 million in the 2008 election cycle. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the biggest public employee union, gave Democrats $90 million in the 2010 cycle.

Follow the money, Washington reporters like to say. The money in this case comes from taxpayers, present and future, who are the source of every penny of dues paid to public employee unions, who in turn spend much of that money on politics, almost all of it for Democrats. In effect, public employee unions are a mechanism by which every taxpayer is forced to fund the Democratic Party.

So, just as the president complained in his 2010 State of the Union address about a Supreme Court decision that he feared would increase the flow of money to Republicans, he also found time to complain about a proposed state law that could reduce the flow of money to Democrats.

And, according to the Washington Post, to get the Democratic National Committee to organize protests against the proposed Wisconsin law. Protests that showed contempt for the law, with teachers abandoning classrooms, doctors writing phony medical excuses, Democratic legislators fleeing the state and holing up in a motel. The lawmakers played hooky without losing any salary, which is protected by the state constitution.



Read more at the Washington Examiner: Public unions force taxpayers to fund Democrats | Washington Examiner

BTW you are still wrong about the class warfare argument. When you can actually prove you can "correctly" define what class warfare is, let me know. Obviously you don't have a clue as you have chosen instead to wander off into discussing about what happened in Wisconsin. That has nothing to do with the flat tax issue, but thank you for trying.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

[

There in lies the problem with the republican party. They spend their lives trying to become part of a system they say is "disorganized, wastefull, and mismanaged" and then if they actually get in they spend their careers in a self fulfilling prophecy to make government "disorganized, wastefull, and mismanaged"

One example is the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 which requires the postal service to wholly pre-fund its retirement health package or to cover the health care costs of future retirees, in advance, at 100%. The right loves to use the post office as one of it's prime examples of government inefficiecy but the actions of the right are what put it in it's current predicament.

There lies the problem in a government organization where it has become more "convenient" to throw money at a problem rather than to hold them accountable. If the postal service desired these benefits, then they should have the means already in place to cover it's cost ahead of time. It's called planning. What if this were a private company, how were you expecting these kind of costs to be covered? You think it's okay, simply because it's a Federal Government orgainzation and they can simply hide behind the U.S. Treasury and the american taxpayer? Unions have pensions that are supported by currently "working" members. The money has to come from somewhere, the problem with liberal Democrats are they want all these dream entitlements, yet share no concern to which they are to be paid. The Postal Service was asked to cover the cost for what they are asking in benefits. Accountability and responsibility is a choice in the right direction, over a growing sink hole that left looks for "government" to simply turn the other way and constantly fill rather than solve. Just because it's government, doesn't mean they should have an endless resource of taxpayer dollars to cover for financial incompetence.

WOW! So the post office should be handled differently than other government entitites and private companies?? Really?? THe point is that no other agency has this requirement of FRE-FUNDING 100% of FUTURE retirees healthcare (which is an UNKNOWN) and that this requirement, which was passed by republicans, is what put the post office in it's current predicament.

Take some time, do some research and find out what is going on before you jump in with your baseless assumptions and blanket statements about government as you pretend that the fiction that you are presenting is real.

Oh and please keep your opinions about what you think I believe to yourself and stop trying to put words into my mouth. Thank you.

P.S. you were still wrong to claim that the airlines didn't get bailed out after 9/11. lol

FRE-FUNDING? Really? lol
Actually the union has done pretty well at coming up with the pension costs of those have retired, by using those that are still currently working. As far as Healthcare, most companies provide a Health Care plan and the employees must meet their deductible and then cover a portion of the remainder of the cost thereafter. They have no trouble with maintaining their operating costs. Even the unions' Health Care are run that way, why should the Post Office be any different? I don't see an issue of a government organization being held responsible for covering it's own costs. Seems to me the Postal Workers have a benefit package that any private company, that believes in following a fiscal "budget", would have trouble maintaining. I don't approve of any party that would believe in simply throwing money at a problem without looking for a way to solve it. This includes reducing a benefit package or retirement plan that is too costly. If The Post Office wants to continue on with these expensive employee benefit plans, let them be forced to come up with a way to pay for it themselves! Period!

 

[Gadawg73]

Actually the proper definition of "class warfare" is to throw one group of people against another, by placing blame on one class while showing favoritism towards another. There is no "class warfare" in a system that places equal share in responsibility upon each class of people to pay off a common debt. How exactly is an equal division of the burden of debt "class warfare", care to explain that to me? Your answer only demonstrates your lack of knowledge of what the term denotes, perhaps because you are blindsided by the ideology of placing the major burden of debt squarely on only one class of people?

So it's exactly like when republicans in wisconsin and other states tried to pit private sector workers against public sector workers because the public sector workers had such good pay and benefits and they had to be taken away?? Got it.
So who decides how to define an "equal share?" If I say it's that the wealthy should pay more in taxes then I am accused of class warfare and yet that same standard does not apply to those who blame private sector workers for all of the ills of that "state" as they demand that the public sector should pay more?
Your spin is no better than fitz's seeing as how you did the same thing he did and tried to use different language to describe the same position.

Actually Wisconsin was about public union employees that are paid taxpayer dollars, using part of their paycheck towards Democrat contributions.

Unions, most of whose members are public employees, gave Democrats some $400 million in the 2008 election cycle. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the biggest public employee union, gave Democrats $90 million in the 2010 cycle.

Follow the money, Washington reporters like to say. The money in this case comes from taxpayers, present and future, who are the source of every penny of dues paid to public employee unions, who in turn spend much of that money on politics, almost all of it for Democrats. In effect, public employee unions are a mechanism by which every taxpayer is forced to fund the Democratic Party.

So, just as the president complained in his 2010 State of the Union address about a Supreme Court decision that he feared would increase the flow of money to Republicans, he also found time to complain about a proposed state law that could reduce the flow of money to Democrats.

And, according to the Washington Post, to get the Democratic National Committee to organize protests against the proposed Wisconsin law. Protests that showed contempt for the law, with teachers abandoning classrooms, doctors writing phony medical excuses, Democratic legislators fleeing the state and holing up in a motel. The lawmakers played hooky without losing any salary, which is protected by the state constitution.



Read more at the Washington Examiner: Public unions force taxpayers to fund Democrats | Washington Examiner

BTW you are still wrong about the class warfare argument. When you can actually prove you can "correctly" define what class warfare is, let me know. Obviously you don't have a clue as you have chosen instead to wander off into discussing about what happened in Wisconsin. That has nothing to do with the flat tax issue, but thank you for trying.

If taxpayers had a place at the table in government union employees negotiations with government that would be another matter.
As is we don't so there should be no government unions. How is it equitable IN ANY WAY when we get NO voice in the negotiations?
We the people are the ones FOOTING THE BILL and we get no say.
Accordingly, government unions should be banned outright. As it is now, government jobs should be bid out to the public for the most qualified person for the job. Additionally, most government jobs should be outsourced to the private sector immediately.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Do you ever actually respond to the content of the posts that you reply to or do you just post fiction like the above to spread misinformation in the hopes someone stupid enough will buy it and repeat it?

It's not fiction to someone who was once a union member themself. You can run that B.S. to someone else but I have actually worked in a union once before for a few years, know what it was like, and about some of the tactics they use. Should we only address the dream misconception of what a union ought to be (like yourself) without devoting to some of the ugly facts to what it has become? Unions have it's good and dark sides. I elected to drop my membership as I found there to be too much focus surrounding more union power through politics ,and not enough towards providing for the needs of its members.

So you have engaged in "salting?" If you witnesssed such an activity and you believe that it's wrong why didn't you report it or do something about it??
Oh and I just love your "experience" with unions, once for a few years??? LOL

BTW you stating something happened while providing zero substance to support it is not presenting "facts? it is only your opinions and don't you think it's time that you learned the difference between the two??

I was told about their program and given the choice, but refused to become engaged in their tactics of Salting. I don't believe in falsifying a resume as a means to get hired by a non-union company, as the only chosen means of obtain employment, and spy for the union.

BTW I provided my own personal experience with the union and the facts surrounding the use of Salting to spy on non union contractors. What kind of union do you "claim" to associate with that you never heard of the term Salting? Seems to me you don't know squat about the union, unless you are referring to your vast knowledge and experience with your local "union" supermarket.

 

[drsmith1072]

Actually the proper definition of "class warfare" is to throw one group of people against another, by placing blame on one class while showing favoritism towards another. There is no "class warfare" in a system that places equal share in responsibility upon each class of people to pay off a common debt. How exactly is an equal division of the burden of debt "class warfare", care to explain that to me? Your answer only demonstrates your lack of knowledge of what the term denotes, perhaps because you are blindsided by the ideology of placing the major burden of debt squarely on only one class of people?

So it's exactly like when republicans in wisconsin and other states tried to pit private sector workers against public sector workers because the public sector workers had such good pay and benefits and they had to be taken away?? Got it.
So who decides how to define an "equal share?" If I say it's that the wealthy should pay more in taxes then I am accused of class warfare and yet that same standard does not apply to those who blame private sector workers for all of the ills of that "state" as they demand that the public sector should pay more?
Your spin is no better than fitz's seeing as how you did the same thing he did and tried to use different language to describe the same position.

Actually Wisconsin was about public union employees that are paid taxpayer dollars, using part of their paycheck towards Democrat contributions.

Unions, most of whose members are public employees, gave Democrats some $400 million in the 2008 election cycle. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the biggest public employee union, gave Democrats $90 million in the 2010 cycle.

Follow the money, Washington reporters like to say. The money in this case comes from taxpayers, present and future, who are the source of every penny of dues paid to public employee unions, who in turn spend much of that money on politics, almost all of it for Democrats. In effect, public employee unions are a mechanism by which every taxpayer is forced to fund the Democratic Party.

So, just as the president complained in his 2010 State of the Union address about a Supreme Court decision that he feared would increase the flow of money to Republicans, he also found time to complain about a proposed state law that could reduce the flow of money to Democrats.

And, according to the Washington Post, to get the Democratic National Committee to organize protests against the proposed Wisconsin law. Protests that showed contempt for the law, with teachers abandoning classrooms, doctors writing phony medical excuses, Democratic legislators fleeing the state and holing up in a motel. The lawmakers played hooky without losing any salary, which is protected by the state constitution.



Read more at the Washington Examiner: Public unions force taxpayers to fund Democrats | Washington Examiner

BTW you are still wrong about the class warfare argument. When you can actually prove you can "correctly" define what class warfare is, let me know. Obviously you don't have a clue as you have chosen instead to wander off into discussing about what happened in Wisconsin. That has nothing to do with the flat tax issue, but thank you for trying.

SO I guess you aren't going to address things I actually said as you just reply to my posts and spew your typical nonsense even as you try to proclaim I am wrong even as you fail to provide anything of substance to support your spin.

Thanks for nothing. AGAIN.

Care to explain HOW I am wrong. I made a very compelling argument adnused your own definition and showed how it applied to wisconsin that you didn't even have the integrity or cajones to address. I wonder why? What are you afraid of??

This is YOUR definition of class warfare.

Actually the proper definition of "class warfare" is to throw one group of people against another, by placing blame on one class while showing favoritism towards another.

According to the right in wisconsin who threw private sector workers (one group) against public sector workers (another group) by claimig that they have better benefits and pay than their private sector counterparts do. Then the right tried to blame the public sector workers and their benefits for all of the state's problems.

So care to explain how that does not fit your definition or are you going to pretend that you didn't say that?

 

[drsmith1072]

[

There lies the problem in a government organization where it has become more "convenient" to throw money at a problem rather than to hold them accountable. If the postal service desired these benefits, then they should have the means already in place to cover it's cost ahead of time. It's called planning. What if this were a private company, how were you expecting these kind of costs to be covered? You think it's okay, simply because it's a Federal Government orgainzation and they can simply hide behind the U.S. Treasury and the american taxpayer? Unions have pensions that are supported by currently "working" members. The money has to come from somewhere, the problem with liberal Democrats are they want all these dream entitlements, yet share no concern to which they are to be paid. The Postal Service was asked to cover the cost for what they are asking in benefits. Accountability and responsibility is a choice in the right direction, over a growing sink hole that left looks for "government" to simply turn the other way and constantly fill rather than solve. Just because it's government, doesn't mean they should have an endless resource of taxpayer dollars to cover for financial incompetence.

WOW! So the post office should be handled differently than other government entitites and private companies?? Really?? THe point is that no other agency has this requirement of FRE-FUNDING 100% of FUTURE retirees healthcare (which is an UNKNOWN) and that this requirement, which was passed by republicans, is what put the post office in it's current predicament.

Take some time, do some research and find out what is going on before you jump in with your baseless assumptions and blanket statements about government as you pretend that the fiction that you are presenting is real.

Oh and please keep your opinions about what you think I believe to yourself and stop trying to put words into my mouth. Thank you.

P.S. you were still wrong to claim that the airlines didn't get bailed out after 9/11. lol

FRE-FUNDING? Really? lol
Actually the union has done pretty well at coming up with the pension costs of those have retired, by using those that are still currently working. As far as Healthcare, most companies provide a Health Care plan and the employees must meet their deductible and then cover a portion of the remainder of the cost thereafter. They have no trouble with maintaining their operating costs. Even the unions' Health Care are run that way, why should the Post Office be any different? I don't see an issue of a government organization being held responsible for covering it's own costs. Seems to me the Postal Workers have a benefit package that any private company, that believes in following a fiscal "budget", would have trouble maintaining. I don't approve of any party that would believe in simply throwing money at a problem without looking for a way to solve it. This includes reducing a benefit package or retirement plan that is too costly. If The Post Office wants to continue on with these expensive employee benefit plans, let them be forced to come up with a way to pay for it themselves! Period!

Your avoidance and BS is really getting old and worn out. Do you have anything of substance to offer or are baseless opinions all that you have??

Oh and yeah PRE-FUNDING that is what the bill did. It requires that they prefund 100% of FUTURE retirees health care benefits.

In 2006, Congress passed a law requiring the Postal Service to wholly pre-fund its retirement health package – that is, cover the health care costs of future retirees, in advance, at 100%.
Is benefits law dragging down the Postal Service? – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

The fact is that this law affected to post office's bottom line and now republicans, the group who passed this law, are trying to use the post office as an example of inefficient government agencies when their law contributed to the inefficiency.
I made and supported my point and your inane rantings have done nothing to counter my arguments.

 

[Maple]

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- According to Mitt Romney, the nation's growing focus on income inequality is all about envy.

"You know, I think it's about envy. I think it's about class warfare," the leading Republican presidential candidate said Wednesday on The Today Show.

When asked if there are any fair questions about wealth distribution, Romney replied, "It's fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms and discussions about tax policy and the like."

Romney: Income Inequality Is Just 'Envy' - Politics News Story - WCVB Boston

The constitution guaranteed "equal opportunity" it did not guarantee " equal outcome" because the outcome is determined by your ambition to get off your butt and go to work.

 

[Dr Grump]

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- According to Mitt Romney, the nation's growing focus on income inequality is all about envy.

"You know, I think it's about envy. I think it's about class warfare," the leading Republican presidential candidate said Wednesday on The Today Show.

When asked if there are any fair questions about wealth distribution, Romney replied, "It's fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms and discussions about tax policy and the like."

Romney: Income Inequality Is Just 'Envy' - Politics News Story - WCVB Boston

The constitution guaranteed "equal opportunity" it did not guarantee " equal outcome" because the outcome is determined by your ambition to get off your butt and go to work.

And if that was his point, you might have a point. But it wasn't...go figure..

 

[drsmith1072]

So it's exactly like when republicans in wisconsin and other states tried to pit private sector workers against public sector workers because the public sector workers had such good pay and benefits and they had to be taken away?? Got it.
So who decides how to define an "equal share?" If I say it's that the wealthy should pay more in taxes then I am accused of class warfare and yet that same standard does not apply to those who blame private sector workers for all of the ills of that "state" as they demand that the public sector should pay more?
Your spin is no better than fitz's seeing as how you did the same thing he did and tried to use different language to describe the same position.

Actually Wisconsin was about public union employees that are paid taxpayer dollars, using part of their paycheck towards Democrat contributions.

Unions, most of whose members are public employees, gave Democrats some $400 million in the 2008 election cycle. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the biggest public employee union, gave Democrats $90 million in the 2010 cycle.

Follow the money, Washington reporters like to say. The money in this case comes from taxpayers, present and future, who are the source of every penny of dues paid to public employee unions, who in turn spend much of that money on politics, almost all of it for Democrats. In effect, public employee unions are a mechanism by which every taxpayer is forced to fund the Democratic Party.

So, just as the president complained in his 2010 State of the Union address about a Supreme Court decision that he feared would increase the flow of money to Republicans, he also found time to complain about a proposed state law that could reduce the flow of money to Democrats.

And, according to the Washington Post, to get the Democratic National Committee to organize protests against the proposed Wisconsin law. Protests that showed contempt for the law, with teachers abandoning classrooms, doctors writing phony medical excuses, Democratic legislators fleeing the state and holing up in a motel. The lawmakers played hooky without losing any salary, which is protected by the state constitution.



Read more at the Washington Examiner: Public unions force taxpayers to fund Democrats | Washington Examiner

BTW you are still wrong about the class warfare argument. When you can actually prove you can "correctly" define what class warfare is, let me know. Obviously you don't have a clue as you have chosen instead to wander off into discussing about what happened in Wisconsin. That has nothing to do with the flat tax issue, but thank you for trying.

If taxpayers had a place at the table in government union employees negotiations with government that would be another matter.
As is we don't so there should be no government unions. How is it equitable IN ANY WAY when we get NO voice in the negotiations?
We the people are the ones FOOTING THE BILL and we get no say.
Accordingly, government unions should be banned outright. As it is now, government jobs should be bid out to the public for the most qualified person for the job. Additionally, most government jobs should be outsourced to the private sector immediately.

In a representative republic taxpayers get a seat at the table through their elected representatives. Do you want everything done by referendum?

Furthermore you do realize that public sector workers are taxpayers too don't you??

Unfortunately the lowest bidder usually gets awarded the jobs and allot of outsourcing to the private sector does occur but I am not surprised that you don't know that. Most of the equipment and buildings that the government "owns" is not built by the governemnt. Some private contractor has that job already so what are you talking about?

 

[drsmith1072]

It's not fiction to someone who was once a union member themself. You can run that B.S. to someone else but I have actually worked in a union once before for a few years, know what it was like, and about some of the tactics they use. Should we only address the dream misconception of what a union ought to be (like yourself) without devoting to some of the ugly facts to what it has become? Unions have it's good and dark sides. I elected to drop my membership as I found there to be too much focus surrounding more union power through politics ,and not enough towards providing for the needs of its members.

So you have engaged in "salting?" If you witnesssed such an activity and you believe that it's wrong why didn't you report it or do something about it??
Oh and I just love your "experience" with unions, once for a few years??? LOL

BTW you stating something happened while providing zero substance to support it is not presenting "facts? it is only your opinions and don't you think it's time that you learned the difference between the two??

I was told about their program and given the choice, but refused to become engaged in their tactics of Salting. I don't believe in falsifying a resume as a means to get hired by a non-union company, as the only chosen means of obtain employment, and spy for the union.

BTW I provided my own personal experience with the union and the facts surrounding the use of Salting to spy on non union contractors. What kind of union do you "claim" to associate with that you never heard of the term Salting? Seems to me you don't know squat about the union, unless you are referring to your vast knowledge and experience with your local "union" supermarket.

Personally I don't buy your spin. I don't think you had anything to with a union and even if you did your limited experience for a "few years" once upon a time doesn't add up to shite. Furthermore, if a union was going to engage in illegal activity such as you are describing why would they be so stupid as to try and recruit a union hating noob whom they have no reason to trust?? That is another detail of your "personal experience" that does not make sense.

Furthermore, if you want to share specifics about your so called "personal experience" then go ahead but don't ask me for my personal info when all you have done is make vague generalities based on nothing real and call them "facts."

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

So it's exactly like when republicans in wisconsin and other states tried to pit private sector workers against public sector workers because the public sector workers had such good pay and benefits and they had to be taken away?? Got it.
So who decides how to define an "equal share?" If I say it's that the wealthy should pay more in taxes then I am accused of class warfare and yet that same standard does not apply to those who blame private sector workers for all of the ills of that "state" as they demand that the public sector should pay more?
Your spin is no better than fitz's seeing as how you did the same thing he did and tried to use different language to describe the same position.

Actually Wisconsin was about public union employees that are paid taxpayer dollars, using part of their paycheck towards Democrat contributions.

Unions, most of whose members are public employees, gave Democrats some $400 million in the 2008 election cycle. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the biggest public employee union, gave Democrats $90 million in the 2010 cycle.

Follow the money, Washington reporters like to say. The money in this case comes from taxpayers, present and future, who are the source of every penny of dues paid to public employee unions, who in turn spend much of that money on politics, almost all of it for Democrats. In effect, public employee unions are a mechanism by which every taxpayer is forced to fund the Democratic Party.

So, just as the president complained in his 2010 State of the Union address about a Supreme Court decision that he feared would increase the flow of money to Republicans, he also found time to complain about a proposed state law that could reduce the flow of money to Democrats.

And, according to the Washington Post, to get the Democratic National Committee to organize protests against the proposed Wisconsin law. Protests that showed contempt for the law, with teachers abandoning classrooms, doctors writing phony medical excuses, Democratic legislators fleeing the state and holing up in a motel. The lawmakers played hooky without losing any salary, which is protected by the state constitution.



Read more at the Washington Examiner: Public unions force taxpayers to fund Democrats | Washington Examiner

BTW you are still wrong about the class warfare argument. When you can actually prove you can "correctly" define what class warfare is, let me know. Obviously you don't have a clue as you have chosen instead to wander off into discussing about what happened in Wisconsin. That has nothing to do with the flat tax issue, but thank you for trying.

If taxpayers had a place at the table in government union employees negotiations with government that would be another matter.
As is we don't so there should be no government unions. How is it equitable IN ANY WAY when we get NO voice in the negotiations?
We the people are the ones FOOTING THE BILL and we get no say.
Accordingly, government unions should be banned outright. As it is now, government jobs should be bid out to the public for the most qualified person for the job. Additionally, most government jobs should be outsourced to the private sector immediately.

Actually I favor more allowing unions to compete directly with private contractors. Let the quality of their work ethics be the determinating factor, if they don't measure up then they don't get the job. The time of automatically awarding the task to unions should end. I'm sure if unions showed they are more concerned with the job, producing strong quality where the customer (that being the state) can get more for their money, then they wouldn't be afraid of a little competition to show for it.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

So it's exactly like when republicans in wisconsin and other states tried to pit private sector workers against public sector workers because the public sector workers had such good pay and benefits and they had to be taken away?? Got it.
So who decides how to define an "equal share?" If I say it's that the wealthy should pay more in taxes then I am accused of class warfare and yet that same standard does not apply to those who blame private sector workers for all of the ills of that "state" as they demand that the public sector should pay more?
Your spin is no better than fitz's seeing as how you did the same thing he did and tried to use different language to describe the same position.

Actually Wisconsin was about public union employees that are paid taxpayer dollars, using part of their paycheck towards Democrat contributions.




BTW you are still wrong about the class warfare argument. When you can actually prove you can "correctly" define what class warfare is, let me know. Obviously you don't have a clue as you have chosen instead to wander off into discussing about what happened in Wisconsin. That has nothing to do with the flat tax issue, but thank you for trying.

SO I guess you aren't going to address things I actually said as you just reply to my posts and spew your typical nonsense even as you try to proclaim I am wrong even as you fail to provide anything of substance to support your spin.

Thanks for nothing. AGAIN.

Care to explain HOW I am wrong. I made a very compelling argument adnused your own definition and showed how it applied to wisconsin that you didn't even have the integrity or cajones to address. I wonder why? What are you afraid of??

This is YOUR definition of class warfare.

Actually the proper definition of "class warfare" is to throw one group of people against another, by placing blame on one class while showing favoritism towards another.

According to the right in wisconsin who threw private sector workers (one group) against public sector workers (another group) by claimig that they have better benefits and pay than their private sector counterparts do. Then the right tried to blame the public sector workers and their benefits for all of the state's problems.

So care to explain how that does not fit your definition or are you going to pretend that you didn't say that?

Again the issue surrounding Wisconsin was a "political" one. Where a Republican governor saw taxpayer money that helped pay for union employees, being used towards campaign dollars to specifically support Democrats (if you bothered to read the article instead of spewing a union pep rally speech). In short he didn't like the idea of taxpayer dollars filtering Democrats millions in campaign contributions. He was looking to dry up the Democrats well, all while saying the ONLY reason it was done was to save the state money.

That being said, I believe unions shouldn't be automatically awarded public sector jobs for the state, it shows a conflict of interest since a vast majority of unions support Democrat candidates. So in THAT since I agree partly with Gov Walker. However, I also don't believe unions should be excluded, but rather compete for the task with private sector compnies, by demonstrating quality of work at an affordable cost. Unions aren't afraid of a little competition are they? If they can boast the need for paying their workers a higher wage, then they should take no issue at demonstrating they are ALSO qualified to do the task better at a cheaper cost. Nancy Pelosi herself supported the idea of "choice and competition", why not prove she is right and allow contractors to compete for quality and productivity?

So in short, the state has every right to consider the cost of these benefits considering the economy. If unions have shown itself before that they outproduce any competitor with greater quality, thus saving on cost, Gov. Walker would have a difficult time promoting the "cost" factor. Wouldn't you say? I mean unions have to prove they can save on overall cost because they can produce better quality work and save time. So saving on cost is not class warfare. Hoever, just because you are talking union against the private sector alone, doesn't make it a class warfare issue. Sorry. However I personally believe unions should be allowed to compete for the work in some way. The concern is, you would still indirectly have taxpayer dollars supporting [through unions] vast amounts of campaign contributions to Democrat candidates. If we allow that, than you have zero excuse or say to stop taxpayer dollars from funding strictly "conservative" issues and Republican candidates. You allow for one, then be ready for Republicans to find a way to do the same. It's a complex issue, but not a good example of class warfare in this case.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Actually the union has done pretty well at coming up with the pension costs of those have retired, by using those that are still currently working. As far as Healthcare, most companies provide a Health Care plan and the employees must meet their deductible and then cover a portion of the remainder of the cost thereafter. They have no trouble with maintaining their operating costs. Even the unions' Health Care are run that way, why should the Post Office be any different? I don't see an issue of a government organization being held responsible for covering it's own costs. Seems to me the Postal Workers have a benefit package that any private company, that believes in following a fiscal "budget", would have trouble maintaining. I don't approve of any party that would believe in simply throwing money at a problem without looking for a way to solve it. This includes reducing a benefit package or retirement plan that is too costly. If The Post Office wants to continue on with these expensive employee benefit plans, let them be forced to come up with a way to pay for it themselves! Period!

Your avoidance and BS is really getting old and worn out. Do you have anything of substance to offer or are baseless opinions all that you have??

Oh and yeah PRE-FUNDING that is what the bill did. It requires that they prefund 100% of FUTURE retirees health care benefits.

In 2006, Congress passed a law requiring the Postal Service to wholly pre-fund its retirement health package – that is, cover the health care costs of future retirees, in advance, at 100%.
Is benefits law dragging down the Postal Service? – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

The fact is that this law affected to post office's bottom line and now republicans, the group who passed this law, are trying to use the post office as an example of inefficient government agencies when their law contributed to the inefficiency.
I made and supported my point and your inane rantings have done nothing to counter my arguments.

You still can't except that the Post Office has benefits that just costs too much? Maybe because you favor government just handing out a Blank check? Here is my "proof" that "Postal Workers have a benefit package that any private company, that believes in following a fiscal "budget", would have trouble maintaining."

LEAVE INFORMATION

Covered by the USPS leave program are:
a. Full-time career employees.
b. Part-time regular career employees.
c. Part-time flexible career employees.
d. To the extent provided in the USPS National Rural Letter Carriers' Association ( NRLCA) National Agreement, temporary employees assigned to rural carrier duties


How Much Leave Does Full-time Employees Earn?
Less than 3 years USPS service.
You earn: 13 days per year <4 hours per pay period>

With 3-15 years USPS service.
You earn: 20 days per year. <about 6 hours per pay period>

With 15 or more years service.
You earn: 26 days per year. <8 hours per pay period>

How Much Leave Can I Takeover Each Year?
Bargaining Unit Employees (employees covered under union contract): 440 hours

EAS Employees: 560 hours

SICK LEAVE
Employees earn sick leave to use as paid time off from scheduled work hours. Sick leave may be used for illness, injury, pregnancy, and medical/dental examinations and treatment . Sick leave is accrued and credited at the end of each pay period in which it is earned. There is no limit on the amount of sick leave that an employee can carry over each year. Sick leave is the best insurance you can have.

How Much Sick Leave Do I Earn?

Full-time employees earn 4 hours per pay period or 13 days per year.

Part-time employees earn 1 hour for each unit of 20 hours in a pay status up to 104 hours or 13 days per year.

USPS Employee Benefits from Postal Employee Network

COMPARE
Here is an electrical union for example, noting not all unions have vacation and sick leave packages. There are unions who carry neither. Unions also tend to be the highest in employee benefits cost by the way, compared to other private contractors.

Electrical union
Vacation
Probationary and perminanent full-time employees accure 80 hours of vacation per year during the first two years of employment. Two unscheduled holidays are added to the vacation accurual rates each year. Part-time employees accure vacation on a pro-rated basis. Intermettent, seasonal, and emergency employees do not accrue vacation. Vacation accrue amounts vary with years of service. You can accure no more than twice your annual entitlement plus any sick leave conversion.

Sick Leave
Your sick leave benefits are determined by your sick leave balance and your bargaining status. If you are a part-time employee, you accrue pro-rated amounts of vacation and sick leave based on the number of hours for whhich you are paid.

All Permanent and probationary employees who have accured sick leave will be paid at the regular rate of pay during absences from work, when those absences are caused by physical or mental illness, surgery, treatment, or medically-related disabilities caused by pregnancy or recovery from child birth. Sick leave may also be used for medical examinations, dental or optical examinations that cannot be scheduled outside of regular work hours, and exposure to contagious diseases.

Use of sick leave requires supervisory approval and may require verification. All employees are expected to use this benefit only for its intended purposes.

To be paid for the time you are absent, you are required to immediately notify your supervisor of your absence from work. You may be required to provide a doctor's certificate or other verification for the use of sick leave.

All permanent employees who have accumulated a minimum of 30 days (240 hours) of sick leave and who do not use sick leave during the previous calandar month may convert sick leave to vacation leave. Conversion rates differ between bargaining units.

http://das.hre.iowa.gov/documents/publications/employee_handbook.pdf

If Postal Workers want all these benefits, to include full-time AND part-time, then The Post Office UNION should provide a means to pay for them not the Federal Government! It's the Postal union that wants to continue with benefits that even a electrical union doesn't fully carry, or finds so easy to give away (as in sick time benefits). So please stop it already with your whining whimpering excuses, just because the U.S. treasury is no longer freely giving away TAXPAYER money to cover their debt! This Federal Government taxpayer "bail-out" belly aching is really getting old.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Personally I don't buy your spin. I don't think you had anything to with a union and even if you did your limited experience for a "few years" once upon a time doesn't add up to shite. Furthermore, if a union was going to engage in illegal activity such as you are describing why would they be so stupid as to try and recruit a union hating noob whom they have no reason to trust?? That is another detail of your "personal experience" that does not make sense.

Furthermore, if you want to share specifics about your so called "personal experience" then go ahead but don't ask me for my personal info when all you have done is make vague generalities based on nothing real and call them "facts."

It's really hard to take someone serious who hasn't never heard the term Salting, then try and make the claim they had belonged to a union. Can you even tell me what COPE is for that matter or how it works, or are you going to dodge that one too? You haven't shown me any "FACTS" of your knowledge of the union, only some "political issues" while somehow making it out like you have some personal union experience. I'd also have you know I once fully supported the union, thought maybe they cared for one of their own. That was until after receiving a long term layoff. Then you find out who your union brothers REALLY are. They were more concerned for union dues and politics than offering assistance and support to those struggling to maintain their financial obligations. You can support the union if you like, but when all is said and done I found all they really care about is their precious membership dues. To still have to maintain your full union membership, dispite a long struggling lack of employment is inexcuseable. That's the cold heartless fact, ask a union construction worker sometime if you have enough guts to seek the truth over reciting some bumper sticker slogan. Defend that if you want, but I wont.

 

[drsmith1072]

Actually Wisconsin was about public union employees that are paid taxpayer dollars, using part of their paycheck towards Democrat contributions.




BTW you are still wrong about the class warfare argument. When you can actually prove you can "correctly" define what class warfare is, let me know. Obviously you don't have a clue as you have chosen instead to wander off into discussing about what happened in Wisconsin. That has nothing to do with the flat tax issue, but thank you for trying.

SO I guess you aren't going to address things I actually said as you just reply to my posts and spew your typical nonsense even as you try to proclaim I am wrong even as you fail to provide anything of substance to support your spin.

Thanks for nothing. AGAIN.

Care to explain HOW I am wrong. I made a very compelling argument adnused your own definition and showed how it applied to wisconsin that you didn't even have the integrity or cajones to address. I wonder why? What are you afraid of??

This is YOUR definition of class warfare.

Actually the proper definition of "class warfare" is to throw one group of people against another, by placing blame on one class while showing favoritism towards another.

According to the right in wisconsin who threw private sector workers (one group) against public sector workers (another group) by claimig that they have better benefits and pay than their private sector counterparts do. Then the right tried to blame the public sector workers and their benefits for all of the state's problems.

So care to explain how that does not fit your definition or are you going to pretend that you didn't say that?

Again the issue surrounding Wisconsin was a "political" one. Where a Republican governor saw taxpayer money that helped pay for union employees, being used towards campaign dollars to specifically support Democrats (if you bothered to read the article instead of spewing a union pep rally speech). In short he didn't like the idea of taxpayer dollars filtering Democrats millions in campaign contributions. He was looking to dry up the Democrats well, all while saying the ONLY reason it was done was to save the state money.

That being said, I believe unions shouldn't be automatically awarded public sector jobs for the state, it shows a conflict of interest since a vast majority of unions support Democrat candidates. So in THAT since I agree partly with Gov Walker. However, I also don't believe unions should be excluded, but rather compete for the task with private sector compnies, by demonstrating quality of work at an affordable cost. Unions aren't afraid of a little competition are they? If they can boast the need for paying their workers a higher wage, then they should take no issue at demonstrating they are ALSO qualified to do the task better at a cheaper cost. Nancy Pelosi herself supported the idea of "choice and competition", why not prove she is right and allow contractors to compete for quality and productivity?

So in short, the state has every right to consider the cost of these benefits considering the economy. If unions have shown itself before that they outproduce any competitor with greater quality, thus saving on cost, Gov. Walker would have a difficult time promoting the "cost" factor. Wouldn't you say? I mean unions have to prove they can save on overall cost because they can produce better quality work and save time. So saving on cost is not class warfare. Hoever, just because you are talking union against the private sector alone, doesn't make it a class warfare issue. Sorry. However I personally believe unions should be allowed to compete for the work in some way. The concern is, you would still indirectly have taxpayer dollars supporting [through unions] vast amounts of campaign contributions to Democrat candidates. If we allow that, than you have zero excuse or say to stop taxpayer dollars from funding strictly "conservative" issues and Republican candidates. You allow for one, then be ready for Republicans to find a way to do the same. It's a complex issue, but not a good example of class warfare in this case.

So are you going to actually address how your definition of class warfare applies to and fits the situation in wisconsin or are you just going to continue with your usual nonresponsive BS and you present your walker pep rally speech?? Yo made one statement claim it does not apply but failed to provide anything a substance to support that spin. So do you have anything REAL to offer or not?

Since you have shown a tendency for posting nonresponsive BS I guess I should expect that from now on. Oh well in the end your avoidance admits that walker's union busting was political and not about that budget so thanks for agreeing with the left on that point.

Oh and speaking of nonresponses wheren't you also the one that tried to claim that the airlines didn't take a bailout after 9/11 in another thread?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Again the issue surrounding Wisconsin was a "political" one. Where a Republican governor saw taxpayer money that helped pay for union employees, being used towards campaign dollars to specifically support Democrats (if you bothered to read the article instead of spewing a union pep rally speech). In short he didn't like the idea of taxpayer dollars filtering Democrats millions in campaign contributions. He was looking to dry up the Democrats well, all while saying the ONLY reason it was done was to save the state money.

That being said, I believe unions shouldn't be automatically awarded public sector jobs for the state, it shows a conflict of interest since a vast majority of unions support Democrat candidates. So in THAT since I agree partly with Gov Walker. However, I also don't believe unions should be excluded, but rather compete for the task with private sector compnies, by demonstrating quality of work at an affordable cost. Unions aren't afraid of a little competition are they? If they can boast the need for paying their workers a higher wage, then they should take no issue at demonstrating they are ALSO qualified to do the task better at a cheaper cost. Nancy Pelosi herself supported the idea of "choice and competition", why not prove she is right and allow contractors to compete for quality and productivity?

So in short, the state has every right to consider the cost of these benefits considering the economy. If unions have shown itself before that they outproduce any competitor with greater quality, thus saving on cost, Gov. Walker would have a difficult time promoting the "cost" factor. Wouldn't you say? I mean unions have to prove they can save on overall cost because they can produce better quality work and save time. So saving on cost is not class warfare. Hoever, just because you are talking union against the private sector alone, doesn't make it a class warfare issue. Sorry. However I personally believe unions should be allowed to compete for the work in some way. The concern is, you would still indirectly have taxpayer dollars supporting [through unions] vast amounts of campaign contributions to Democrat candidates. If we allow that, than you have zero excuse or say to stop taxpayer dollars from funding strictly "conservative" issues and Republican candidates. You allow for one, then be ready for Republicans to find a way to do the same. It's a complex issue, but not a good example of class warfare in this case.

So are you going to actually address how your definition of class warfare applies to and fits the situation in wisconsin or are you just going to continue with your usual nonresponsive BS and you present your walker pep rally speech?? Yo made one statement claim it does not apply but failed to provide anything a substance to support that spin. So do you have anything REAL to offer or not?

Since you have shown a tendency for posting nonresponsive BS I guess I should expect that from now on. Oh well in the end your avoidance admits that walker's union busting was political and not about that budget so thanks for agreeing with the left on that point.

Oh and speaking of nonresponses wheren't you also the one that tried to claim that the airlines didn't take a bailout after 9/11 in another thread?

This coming from someone who "claims" to belong to the big union boy? I doubt you have even the slightest a clue. That's why when given union questions you simply avoid responding to them. So much for the big "union" talker what a bunch of crap!! Continue with your spin as I'm sure you can't face up to "facts". At least I have supported my view with links, unlike you who are at a loss of any to respond with that supports your "opinion".

Unions, most of whose members are public employees, gave Democrats some $400 million in the 2008 election cycle. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the biggest public employee union, gave Democrats $90 million in the 2010 cycle.

Follow the money, Washington reporters like to say. The money in this case comes from taxpayers, present and future, who are the source of every penny of dues paid to public employee unions, who in turn spend much of that money on politics, almost all of it for Democrats. In effect, public employee unions are a mechanism by which every taxpayer is forced to fund the Democratic Party.

So, just as the president complained in his 2010 State of the Union address about a Supreme Court decision that he feared would increase the flow of money to Republicans, he also found time to complain about a proposed state law that could reduce the flow of money to Democrats.

And, according to the Washington Post, to get the Democratic National Committee to organize protests against the proposed Wisconsin law. Protests that showed contempt for the law, with teachers abandoning classrooms, doctors writing phony medical excuses, Democratic legislators fleeing the state and holing up in a motel. The lawmakers played hooky without losing any salary, which is protected by the state constitution.



Read more at the Washington Examiner: Public unions force taxpayers to fund Democrats | Washington Examiner

 

[drsmith1072]

Actually the union has done pretty well at coming up with the pension costs of those have retired, by using those that are still currently working. As far as Healthcare, most companies provide a Health Care plan and the employees must meet their deductible and then cover a portion of the remainder of the cost thereafter. They have no trouble with maintaining their operating costs. Even the unions' Health Care are run that way, why should the Post Office be any different? I don't see an issue of a government organization being held responsible for covering it's own costs. Seems to me the Postal Workers have a benefit package that any private company, that believes in following a fiscal "budget", would have trouble maintaining. I don't approve of any party that would believe in simply throwing money at a problem without looking for a way to solve it. This includes reducing a benefit package or retirement plan that is too costly. If The Post Office wants to continue on with these expensive employee benefit plans, let them be forced to come up with a way to pay for it themselves! Period!

Your avoidance and BS is really getting old and worn out. Do you have anything of substance to offer or are baseless opinions all that you have??

Oh and yeah PRE-FUNDING that is what the bill did. It requires that they prefund 100% of FUTURE retirees health care benefits.



The fact is that this law affected to post office's bottom line and now republicans, the group who passed this law, are trying to use the post office as an example of inefficient government agencies when their law contributed to the inefficiency.
I made and supported my point and your inane rantings have done nothing to counter my arguments.

You still can't except that the Post Office has benefits that just costs too much? Maybe because you favor government just handing out a Blank check? Here is my "proof" that "Postal Workers have a benefit package that any private company, that believes in following a fiscal "budget", would have trouble maintaining."


If Postal Workers want all these benefits, to include full-time AND part-time, then The Post Office UNION should provide a means to pay for them not the Federal Government! It's the Postal union that wants to continue with benefits that even a electrical union doesn't fully carry, or finds so easy to give away (as in sick time benefits). So please stop it already with your whining whimpering excuses, just because the U.S. treasury is no longer freely giving away TAXPAYER money to cover their debt! This Federal Government taxpayer "bail-out" belly aching is really getting old.

All of that is nice and all but doesn't really address the actual argument in question. Not that I expected that you would considering your tendency for nonresponsive BS.

It's not the costs that are the problem. The problem is that they are required to PRE-FUND them 100% for FUTURE retirees. Someting no other company or government entitiy does (according to one source I looked at). That pre-funding helped put the post office in it's current predicament, that pre-funding was setup by republicans and now the right is trying to use the post office as an example of government inefficiency.

Do you not understand that?? What is it about it that is so hard for you to grasp or discuss??

The actions of the right are a self fulfilling prophecy. They say government is inefficient, then they engage in actions that make it inefficient and then try to use what their actions caused as proof that government is inefficient.

That is what I am talking about now if you wish to continue then please try addressing something that I actually said. Thank you.

Outside of our discussion: I just love how rightwingers fail to see the hypocricy in defending the rich when anyone on the left says that they don't deserve or didn't earn what they have (a typical rightwing postion) even as the rightwingers argue that this group or that one don't deserve or didn't earn what they have so it should be taken away.