Unbelieveable

[cutter]

Why do leftys have such a hard time understanding that the medical coverage that government workers (except politicians)receive are part of the wage package they EARN. It comes as part of the JOB. They rave a real problem understanding you have to WORK for the benefits you receive.

Yep same as medicare and SS for non govt workers.

As part of the deductions made from my check while WORKING were the social security deduction. I think I payed for that in 45yrs of WORKING. IT'S THE PEOPLE THAT NEVER HAD A JOB THAT THINK WE DIDN'T EARN IT

 

[Care4all]

The latest disgrace, you ask? Attacking a candidate because their husband EARNED a retirement package for working for the Government.

The claim? That some how this EARNED retirement package is exactly like supporting Obamacare. What next? Going to claim that every Government retiree and every military retiree are using Obamacare? And thus should support it?

The hypocricy is with a candidate who openly attacks the Governments ability to provide these services while she herself, benefits from them. The Government Healthcare plan she benefits from is the exact same plan that was offered as a public option.
What she wants for other Americans is completely opposite from what she benefits from. I got mine.....the hell with you

Once again for the slow and stupid, her Husband EARNED his retirement, it was not GIVEN to him. He worked for and EARNED it. Something you leftoids seem to have a problem grasping, as usual.

why, does the gvt give full medical as a retirement benefit for working 20 years in the gvt out of the 45 years one works, when no private employer offers such to their employees putting in 20 years and retiring at 40 years old? most in the private sector would NEVER EVER get their health care paid, for the rest of their and their wife's life, by a company they left at 40 years old....

my father retired USAF at 39, he's going to be 79 soon enough....that's 60 years of his and my mom's health care PAID by the gvt for 22 years of him working?

not that i want it taken from my parents...

but...
something's amiss....

 

[cutter]

The hypocricy is with a candidate who openly attacks the Governments ability to provide these services while she herself, benefits from them. The Government Healthcare plan she benefits from is the exact same plan that was offered as a public option.
What she wants for other Americans is completely opposite from what she benefits from. I got mine.....the hell with you

Once again for the slow and stupid, her Husband EARNED his retirement, it was not GIVEN to him. He worked for and EARNED it. Something you leftoids seem to have a problem grasping, as usual.

why, does the gvt give full medical as a retirement benefit for working 20 years in the gvt out of the 45 years one works, when no private employer offers such to their employees putting in 20 years and retiring at 40 years old? most in the private sector would NEVER EVER get their health care paid, for the rest of their and their wife's life, by a company they left at 40 years old....

my father retired USAF at 39, he's going to be 79 soon enough....that's 60 years of his and my mom's health care PAID by the gvt for 22 years of him working?

not that i want it taken from my parents...

but...
something's amiss....

Most civilian employers don't require you to die on the job if necessary.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The hypocricy is with a candidate who openly attacks the Governments ability to provide these services while she herself, benefits from them. The Government Healthcare plan she benefits from is the exact same plan that was offered as a public option.
What she wants for other Americans is completely opposite from what she benefits from. I got mine.....the hell with you

Once again for the slow and stupid, her Husband EARNED his retirement, it was not GIVEN to him. He worked for and EARNED it. Something you leftoids seem to have a problem grasping, as usual.

why, does the gvt give full medical as a retirement benefit for working 20 years in the gvt out of the 45 years one works, when no private employer offers such to their employees putting in 20 years and retiring at 40 years old? most in the private sector would NEVER EVER get their health care paid, for the rest of their and their wife's life, by a company they left at 40 years old....

my father retired USAF at 39, he's going to be 79 soon enough....that's 60 years of his and my mom's health care PAID by the gvt for 22 years of him working?

not that i want it taken from my parents...

but...
something's amiss....

Because for 20 years your father AGREED to risk his very life for his Country. He agreed to spend as many days apart from his family as the Military told him too. He agreed to deploy anywhere in the world the Military ordered him too,. He agreed to risk is life in training exercises as often as a long as the military told him too. He agreed to give up some basic rights and Privileges of being a citizen of the USA. All this for 20 YEARS. Not only did he risk his life he daily risk his very health. Training, practicing, doing daily jobs in the military can damage ones health, health coverage is a means to tell the member, the government will take care of you if you agree to stay for 20 years.

Further it is considered a valuable tool in recruitment and retention of quality people for our ALL VOLUNTEER military. Other Companies make their benefits packages based on the same requirement, getting people to work full time and for years for them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The lengths that the desperate Liberals will go to to try and tarnish their opponents. The latest disgrace, you ask? Attacking a candidate because their husband EARNED a retirement package for working for the Government.

The claim? That some how this EARNED retirement package is exactly like supporting Obamacare. What next? Going to claim that every Government retiree and every military retiree are using Obamacare? And thus should support it?

The further implication is that somehow this man, who EARNED a retirement package by WORKING for the Government long enough to RETIRE, is sucking off the Government tit. And that by being married to him and also being covered by his RETIREMENT package, he EARNED, the candidate is also sucking off the Government tit.

How much lower can they go in their desperate attempts to save themselves from rightfully PISSED off voters?

Who are you talking about?

 

[RadiomanATL]

why, does the gvt give full medical as a retirement benefit for working 20 years in the gvt out of the 45 years one works, when no private employer offers such to their employees putting in 20 years

I'm pretty sure the auto workers do.

 

[Care4all]

why, does the gvt give full medical as a retirement benefit for working 20 years in the gvt out of the 45 years one works, when no private employer offers such to their employees putting in 20 years

I'm pretty sure the auto workers do.

after just 20 years with them?

i accept ret sgt's explanation of military personnel....it is valid and sound.

but what about civil service, the clerk in the unemployment office getting the same benefit as the military guy, after just 20 years.

 

[RadiomanATL]

why, does the gvt give full medical as a retirement benefit for working 20 years in the gvt out of the 45 years one works, when no private employer offers such to their employees putting in 20 years

I'm pretty sure the auto workers do.

after just 20 years with them?

i accept ret sgt's explanation of military personnel....it is valid and sound.

but what about civil service, the clerk in the unemployment office getting the same benefit as the military guy, after just 20 years.

It's 25 or 30 years in the civil service, IIRC. Not withstanding incentives for early retirements that happen from time to time.

 

[JBeukema]

wait.. now the righties are supporting retirement packages and wealth redistribution?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

wait.. now the righties are supporting retirement packages and wealth redistribution?

Retirement packages are NOT wealth redistribution. They are contractual agreements between an employee and their Employer. They are based on a set period of work time, almost always in decades. The employee WORKS for the benefits and usually pays into a program for it. Even Government employees like the military pay, you see, they pay taxes. Further in order for the spouse of the military retiree to get the retirement package on his death the retiree must pay a hefty sum from his retirement package.

 

[JBeukema]

Retirement packages are NOT wealth redistribution

O RLY?

So all the money received came from yourself?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Retirement packages are NOT wealth redistribution

O RLY?

So all the money received came from yourself?

When you work, do you pay yourself? Your opinion on what wealth redistribution means and reality are two entirely different things. Once again since you left it out. Retirement packages are CONTRACTUAL agreements between employee and employer and are based on work done for Employer BY employee.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Retirement packages are NOT wealth redistribution

O RLY?

So all the money received came from yourself?

In the form of work completed for the company, yes.

Part of a benefits package. You agree to do XX amount of labor for XX amount of benefits. Part of which is retirement or insurance.

 

[JBeukema]

Retirement packages are NOT wealth redistribution

O RLY?

So all the money received came from yourself?

When you work, do you pay yourself? Your opinion on what wealth redistribution means and reality are two entirely different things. Once again since you left it out. Retirement packages are CONTRACTUAL agreements between employee and employer and are based on work done for Employer BY employee.

So the total payout is never greater than the amount of surplus value generated by your labour power?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

O RLY?

So all the money received came from yourself?

When you work, do you pay yourself? Your opinion on what wealth redistribution means and reality are two entirely different things. Once again since you left it out. Retirement packages are CONTRACTUAL agreements between employee and employer and are based on work done for Employer BY employee.

So the total payout is never greater than the amount of surplus value generated by your labour power?

It is acceptable to the employer that SETS the terms of the retirement package. That means a CONTRACT for LABOR was met and part of the CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT is to pay a set amount of retirement once the employee meets the contracts terms. Pretty simple concept.

 

[JBeukema]

So the total payout is never greater than the amount of surplus value generated by your labour power?

 

[RadiomanATL]

So the total payout is never greater than the amount of surplus value generated by your labour power?

I dunno if it is or not.

What matters is that the company thought it would be during the full term of your employment.

 

[Toro]

Yeah, Gunny, funny logic liberals use isn't it?

I had a great conversation over coffee with some buddies the other day. One of their friends was a hardcore liberal and said I was a hypocrite. I asked why? Well, I was a cop in Atlanta for 8 years a while back. He said "You lived off the government taxpayer and government healthcare for 8 years, now want to deny that to poor people!"

I had to allow my brain a few moments to unscramble itself from that high frequency of liberal lunacy and responded: "Yes, I was a cop. I wore a bullet proof vest and carried a gun, because I might get shot at. I earned that check. A small check of course, but I earned that and the healthcare it came with."

His comeback? "Well, the poor are oppressed by the system, and don't get a chance to earn it. You got a chance to earn it, they didn't, but you didn't deserve that government check or benefits any more than the poor people you policed."

It blew my mind away. So I asked him if he felt that way about cops, did he feel the same about others, like firemen, or military men, both of whom also risk their safety for the country for modest pay. He said he did. He said he felt any person who collects a government paycheck and benefits MUST support those same benefits being offered to all citizens, else they are hypocrites.

So Gunny there you have it. If you've ever accepted gov't money or benefits, you must support that being handed out to all. Or your a hypocrite. Liberal logic 101.

I would disagree with your friends logic. Working for the government and receiving compensation for doing so is much different than receiving benefits simply because you exist.

I would say, however, that conservatives want less government and less on the government payroll. If we cut spending, should we fire cops, firemen, military personnel, teachers, etc.?

 

[shintao]

The lengths that the desperate Liberals will go to to try and tarnish their opponents. The latest disgrace, you ask? Attacking a candidate because their husband EARNED a retirement package for working for the Government.

The claim? That some how this EARNED retirement package is exactly like supporting Obamacare. What next? Going to claim that every Government retiree and every military retiree are using Obamacare? And thus should support it?

The further implication is that somehow this man, who EARNED a retirement package by WORKING for the Government long enough to RETIRE, is sucking off the Government tit. And that by being married to him and also being covered by his RETIREMENT package, he EARNED, the candidate is also sucking off the Government tit.

How much lower can they go in their desperate attempts to save themselves from rightfully PISSED off voters?

So you don't see this as sucking off the government tit huh? Fascinating. They couldn't make it on their own in the private sector, so they had to work for government, and then they became dependent on the government tit. How despicable!!

 

[Revere]

I would say, however, that conservatives want less government and less on the government payroll. If we cut spending, should we fire cops, firemen, military personnel, teachers, etc.?

That's pretty much where the justification for a government work force ends, doesn't it?

You can't make a case for not kneecapping the IRS, the EPA, the Energy Department and Department of Education, can you?