The Right to Work for less money

[Koios]

Wow, got back $300 out of the $30,000 I paid that year.
Massive amount of cash there for the moocher class for sure.

Sure; it was a pittance for most high wage earners, me included. But nice to see your memory coming back. So that's worth something. Meanwhile if OMB data (Mental heavy lifting for the Executive, by real live economists and not the pundits ya'll Righy dipshits look to for learnin' on "economics.") is not to your liking, how about CBO, the folks who do the research for the dimwits on Capitol Hill, which Boehner & Co call upon any time a tiny snippet might be used to spin Righty pseudo-economic horseshit?

CBO graph ... enjoy

CBO= NO accounting of intra governmental debt.
Too big a word for you to understand?

Try to stay with me here: revenue is money coming in; outlays is money going out. Intragovernmental debt is moving numbers around in accounting for stuff, which neither recieves nor spends a fucking cent. It merely accounts for things differently. And when revenue exceeds outlays, they have a word for that: surplus. No shit. Check every branch of government accounting, whether CBO, OMB or CRO, the little triumvirate we tax payers fund to the tune of some $400 million a year to keep our policy-makers informed about shit.

But back in politics land, to keep voters well uniformed, business and poltical interests pay think tanks to come up with pseudo-economic horseshit that the fucking retards can grab onto and spread via message boards and such. And whadaya know about that? Seems it's workin' like a fucking charm.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Sure; it was a pittance for most high wage earners, me included. But nice to see your memory coming back. So that's worth something. Meanwhile if OMB data (Mental heavy lifting for the Executive, by real live economists and not the pundits ya'll Righy dipshits look to for learnin' on "economics.") is not to your liking, how about CBO, the folks who do the research for the dimwits on Capitol Hill, which Boehner & Co call upon any time a tiny snippet might be used to spin Righty pseudo-economic horseshit?

CBO graph ... enjoy

CBO= NO accounting of intra governmental debt.
Too big a word for you to understand?

Try to stay with me here: revenue is money coming in; outlays is money going out. Intragovernmental debt is moving numbers around in accounting for stuff, which neither recieves nor spends a fucking cent. It merely accounts for things differently. And when revenue exceeds outlays, they have a word for that: surplus. No shit. Check every branch of government accounting, whether CBO, OMB or CRO, the little triumvirate we tax payers fund to the tune of some $400 million a year to keep our policy-makers informed about shit.

But back in politics land, to keep voters well uniformed, business and poltical interests pay think tanks to come up with pseudo-economic horseshit that the fucking retards can grab onto and spread via message boards and such. And whadaya know about that? Seems it's workin' like a fucking charm.

You should have stopped at "moving stuff around"> Better term is "creative accounting".
Makes the numbers look good.
Your agenda, central planning, is supported by talking points. The latest talking point is "paying their fair share"..Only the takers and parasites are accepting this.
I will ask you again, what does this have to do with state legislatures enacting "right to work" laws?

 

[Koios]

CBO= NO accounting of intra governmental debt.
Too big a word for you to understand?

Try to stay with me here: revenue is money coming in; outlays is money going out. Intragovernmental debt is moving numbers around in accounting for stuff, which neither recieves nor spends a fucking cent. It merely accounts for things differently. And when revenue exceeds outlays, they have a word for that: surplus. No shit. Check every branch of government accounting, whether CBO, OMB or CRO, the little triumvirate we tax payers fund to the tune of some $400 million a year to keep our policy-makers informed about shit.

But back in politics land, to keep voters well uniformed, business and poltical interests pay think tanks to come up with pseudo-economic horseshit that the fucking retards can grab onto and spread via message boards and such. And whadaya know about that? Seems it's workin' like a fucking charm.

You should have stopped at "moving stuff around"> Better term is "creative accounting".
Makes the numbers look good.
Your agenda, central planning, is supported by talking points. The latest talking point is "paying their fair share"..Only the takers and parasites are accepting this.
I will ask you again, what does this have to do with state legislatures enacting "right to work" laws?

Nothing. It's merely where the conversation went, which I'm happy to follow since I'm not a moderator here nor one who gives a fuck about staying on-topic if others wish to follow certain tangents. Okie doke?

Meanwhile, nothing too creative about it: we took revenue from payroll taxes and put it into the general fund, rather than suspending it in the Trust Fund, which Greenspan cooked up at the urging of Ronald Reagan, in an effort to deal with so-called SS "problems" (imagined not real problems, which I tend to think was motivated by a desire of the Reagan Admin to insert a virus into SS, so rather than killing it, it might die of the disease they created.) So, today, essentially, SS is a pay-as-you-go system. No prob. We're a rich country.

So what is, is; and now that we're doing it that way, surplus = more revenue than outlays in a fiscal year, which we had for three years, from 1999 thru 2001.

 

[Gadawg73]

Try to stay with me here: revenue is money coming in; outlays is money going out. Intragovernmental debt is moving numbers around in accounting for stuff, which neither recieves nor spends a fucking cent. It merely accounts for things differently. And when revenue exceeds outlays, they have a word for that: surplus. No shit. Check every branch of government accounting, whether CBO, OMB or CRO, the little triumvirate we tax payers fund to the tune of some $400 million a year to keep our policy-makers informed about shit.

But back in politics land, to keep voters well uniformed, business and poltical interests pay think tanks to come up with pseudo-economic horseshit that the fucking retards can grab onto and spread via message boards and such. And whadaya know about that? Seems it's workin' like a fucking charm.

You should have stopped at "moving stuff around"> Better term is "creative accounting".
Makes the numbers look good.
Your agenda, central planning, is supported by talking points. The latest talking point is "paying their fair share"..Only the takers and parasites are accepting this.
I will ask you again, what does this have to do with state legislatures enacting "right to work" laws?

Nothing. It's merely where the conversation went, which I'm happy to follow since I'm not a moderator here nor one who gives a fuck about staying on-topic if others wish to follow certain tangents. Okie doke?

Meanwhile, nothing too creative about it: we took revenue from payroll taxes and put it into the general fund, rather than suspending it in the Trust Fund, which Greenspan cooked up at the urging of Ronald Reagan, in an effort to deal with so-called SS "problems" (imagined not real problems, which I tend to think was motivated by a desire of the Reagan Admin to insert a virus into SS, so rather than killing it, it might die of the disease they created.) So, today, essentially, SS is a pay-as-you-go system. No prob. We're a rich country.

So what is, is; and now that we're doing it that way, surplus = more revenue than outlays in a fiscal year, which we had for three years, from 1999 thru 2001.

What made us a "rich country"?

 

[Koios]

You should have stopped at "moving stuff around"> Better term is "creative accounting".
Makes the numbers look good.
Your agenda, central planning, is supported by talking points. The latest talking point is "paying their fair share"..Only the takers and parasites are accepting this.
I will ask you again, what does this have to do with state legislatures enacting "right to work" laws?

Nothing. It's merely where the conversation went, which I'm happy to follow since I'm not a moderator here nor one who gives a fuck about staying on-topic if others wish to follow certain tangents. Okie doke?

Meanwhile, nothing too creative about it: we took revenue from payroll taxes and put it into the general fund, rather than suspending it in the Trust Fund, which Greenspan cooked up at the urging of Ronald Reagan, in an effort to deal with so-called SS "problems" (imagined not real problems, which I tend to think was motivated by a desire of the Reagan Admin to insert a virus into SS, so rather than killing it, it might die of the disease they created.) So, today, essentially, SS is a pay-as-you-go system. No prob. We're a rich country.

So what is, is; and now that we're doing it that way, surplus = more revenue than outlays in a fiscal year, which we had for three years, from 1999 thru 2001.

What made us a "rich country"?

All others being poorer.

 

[Gadawg73]

Nothing. It's merely where the conversation went, which I'm happy to follow since I'm not a moderator here nor one who gives a fuck about staying on-topic if others wish to follow certain tangents. Okie doke?

Meanwhile, nothing too creative about it: we took revenue from payroll taxes and put it into the general fund, rather than suspending it in the Trust Fund, which Greenspan cooked up at the urging of Ronald Reagan, in an effort to deal with so-called SS "problems" (imagined not real problems, which I tend to think was motivated by a desire of the Reagan Admin to insert a virus into SS, so rather than killing it, it might die of the disease they created.) So, today, essentially, SS is a pay-as-you-go system. No prob. We're a rich country.

So what is, is; and now that we're doing it that way, surplus = more revenue than outlays in a fiscal year, which we had for three years, from 1999 thru 2001.

What made us a "rich country"?

All others being poorer.

So all others being poor put $$$ in your pocket?

Please tell us that this is not all you have. Please tell us you can do better in defense of your claims.
To date you have offered nothing.

 

[Koios]

What made us a "rich country"?

All others being poorer.

So all others being poor put $$$ in your pocket?

Please tell us that this is not all you have. Please tell us you can do better in defense of your claims.
To date you have offered nothing.

No. Try to stay with me here. "Rich" is merely a comparitive measure. And since every other country on the planet has less riches, we're rich. Hell; RICHEST!!!

 

[Wehrwolfen]

 

[initforme]

It's ok to have a choice not to join a union. But those workers should be prepared to make less doing the same work as employers try to pay the least they can. If you dont join the union, which is fine, then you dont reap any of the benefits they have negotiated. That is fair in all aspects.

 

[thanatos144]

It's ok to have a choice not to join a union. But those workers should be prepared to make less doing the same work as employers try to pay the least they can. If you dont join the union, which is fine, then you dont reap any of the benefits they have negotiated. That is fair in all aspects.

You honestly think union workers make more money???? LMAO

 

[Koios]

It's ok to have a choice not to join a union. But those workers should be prepared to make less doing the same work as employers try to pay the least they can. If you dont join the union, which is fine, then you dont reap any of the benefits they have negotiated. That is fair in all aspects.

You honestly think union workers make more money???? LMAO

Ooh, ooh, ooh; I do!

But only, on average, in 2011 (BLS latest summary) of $209 / week more. So not much, really, since that's merely $10,868 more per year.

But we can thank them for helping out more with deficits and shit, since based on 2011 averages:

Non union = $37,908 with tax on that of around $3032, barring deductions

Union = $48,776 with tax on that of around $5365, barring deductions

But who's counting?

Reference: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

 

[thanatos144]

It's ok to have a choice not to join a union. But those workers should be prepared to make less doing the same work as employers try to pay the least they can. If you dont join the union, which is fine, then you dont reap any of the benefits they have negotiated. That is fair in all aspects.

You honestly think union workers make more money???? LMAO

Ooh, ooh, ooh; I do!

But only, on average, in 2011 (BLS latest summary) of $209 / week more. So not much, really, since that's merely $10,868 more per year.

But we can thank them for helping out more with deficits and shit, since based on 2011 averages:

Non union = $37,908 with tax on that of around $3032, barring deductions

Union = $48,776 with tax on that of around $5365, barring deductions

But who's counting?

Reference: Union Members Summary

LOL now factor in cost of living in union states LOL

 

[Againsheila]

It's ok to have a choice not to join a union. But those workers should be prepared to make less doing the same work as employers try to pay the least they can. If you dont join the union, which is fine, then you dont reap any of the benefits they have negotiated. That is fair in all aspects.

Yeah, but that's not what happens....

 

[initforme]

The nice thing about being non union is you are free to walk out on your employer without notice. I've done it twice. Greatest 2 days in my life. Try it. Its awesome walking out on bad employers and believe me there is a high percentage of terribly bad companies out there to work for. They frankly dont deserve any loyalty by their workers.

 

[initforme]

I do like the fact that nowadays workers are seeing that it is them VERSUS their employer and the two function best when they are at odds for the most part. Does anyone see this differently? If so, explain.

 

[Koios]

You honestly think union workers make more money???? LMAO

Ooh, ooh, ooh; I do!

But only, on average, in 2011 (BLS latest summary) of $209 / week more. So not much, really, since that's merely $10,868 more per year.

But we can thank them for helping out more with deficits and shit, since based on 2011 averages:

Non union = $37,908 with tax on that of around $3032, barring deductions

Union = $48,776 with tax on that of around $5365, barring deductions

But who's counting?

Reference: Union Members Summary

LOL now factor in cost of living in union states LOL

Easy: take the national average, since union workers riside and work in all 50 states, plus DC.

 

[Koios]

The nice thing about being non union is you are free to walk out on your employer without notice. I've done it twice. Greatest 2 days in my life. Try it. Its awesome walking out on bad employers and believe me there is a high percentage of terribly bad companies out there to work for. They frankly dont deserve any loyalty by their workers.

That ia real perq, since union workers are indentured servants and must work against their wills. Quitting a union job is not an option any more than walking away from the mafia is.

Good thinking.

 

[Gadawg73]

You honestly think union workers make more money???? LMAO

Ooh, ooh, ooh; I do!

But only, on average, in 2011 (BLS latest summary) of $209 / week more. So not much, really, since that's merely $10,868 more per year.

But we can thank them for helping out more with deficits and shit, since based on 2011 averages:

Non union = $37,908 with tax on that of around $3032, barring deductions

Union = $48,776 with tax on that of around $5365, barring deductions

But who's counting?

Reference: Union Members Summary

LOL now factor in cost of living in union states LOL

His ideology will not allow him to.

 

[Gadawg73]

Ooh, ooh, ooh; I do!

But only, on average, in 2011 (BLS latest summary) of $209 / week more. So not much, really, since that's merely $10,868 more per year.

But we can thank them for helping out more with deficits and shit, since based on 2011 averages:

Non union = $37,908 with tax on that of around $3032, barring deductions

Union = $48,776 with tax on that of around $5365, barring deductions

But who's counting?

Reference: Union Members Summary

LOL now factor in cost of living in union states LOL

Easy: take the national average, since union workers riside and work in all 50 states, plus DC.

Take the average of right to work states versus union states for cost of living.
You are the one that is using averages.
How come union workers flock to Georgia leaving their union jobs?
How come we have new roads, new malls and new everything here?
Other than coming south for our beautiful and smart women why else?

 

[Koios]

Ooh, ooh, ooh; I do!

But only, on average, in 2011 (BLS latest summary) of $209 / week more. So not much, really, since that's merely $10,868 more per year.

But we can thank them for helping out more with deficits and shit, since based on 2011 averages:

Non union = $37,908 with tax on that of around $3032, barring deductions

Union = $48,776 with tax on that of around $5365, barring deductions

But who's counting?

Reference: Union Members Summary

LOL now factor in cost of living in union states LOL

His ideology will not allow him to.

Why? It's easy; pick a state; all have union workers.

Alaska has high cost of living, and thus higher wages make it easier to live than lower wages.

Rural Mississippi has low cost of living, and still higher wages make it easier to live than lower wages.

Montana has above average union membership and low cost of living, and still higher wages make it easier to live than lower wages.

What's the point of the poster's query? Got his ass handed to him because he pulled shit out of his ass not knowing the facts and is squirming for a retort? (yeah; that)