Medicare - possibly going away

Social security - possibly going away.

Troops in the Middle East - by summer of 2017

Broken campaign promises so far-
Mexico border wall isn't happening. Banning all muslims isn't happening. Ending lobbyists in DC is not happening.

National Parks might be privatized.

Take note of this. While this country spends the next 4 years focused on trumps insane tweets and bizzare comments, he and the powers at the helm will be very busy with what ever the real agenda is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And if you think he's crazy, just imagine what would have happened if Bernie were elected. :wavey::laughs:

he and the powers at the helm will be very busy with what ever the real agenda is.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

must be the Oompaluminati

Will he get rid of the EPA like he said?

Will he get rid of Obamacare? I think he will find the 2 suggestions he has already made unworkable and eventually make some minor changes and start calling it Trumpcare - then it will be great.

Will he sue the women who accused him of sexual assualt like he said?

Will he put Hillary in jail like he said?

Will there be "some sort of punishment" for women who get an illegal abortion like he said?

Will there be conflicts of interest bt him and his business interests?

I think he will get in trouble trying to use the FBI or IRS to examine someone who got him upset. Kelly Ann Conway has already stated that Harry Reid "better watch what he says" and Ommarosa has said something along the lines of they are keeping a list and have a long memory.

Medicare - possibly going away

Social security - possibly going away.

Troops in the Middle East - by summer of 2017

Broken campaign promises so far-
Mexico border wall isn't happening. Banning all muslims isn't happening. Ending lobbyists in DC is not happening.

National Parks might be privatized.

"Medicare - possibly going away" - based on what, exactly? Replaced with what?

"Social security - possibly going away. " has he said that, or hinted at it?

"Troops in the Middle East - by summer of 2017" we have troops there today. An escalation, isn't necessarily a choice on our part. What if they attack us, we shouldn't respond?

"Mexico border wall isn't happening." Has he said that? I haven't heard that.

"Banning all muslims isn't happening" What he said, is that he wants to temporarily ban Muslims from places that are terrorism hotbeds, until we can ensure that we can do it safely. Does that sound kooky to you? Really? And when did he say it's not happening?

"Ending lobbyists in DC is not happening. " - Mike Pence kicked all lobbyists off the transition team.

He won't be sworn in for 2 months, give him a chance, will ya?

I think he will get in trouble trying to use the...IRS to examine someone who got him upset. .

Right, only Democrats can get away with that? Because we know, we know for a fact, that Obama's IRS was targeting conservatives.

Right, only Democrats can get away with that? Because we know, we know for a fact, that Obama's IRS was targeting conservatives.

Can you pls. post any articles pointing to evidence anyone in the WH had anything to do with that.

Can you pls. post any articles pointing to evidence anyone in the WH had anything to do with that.

I got nothing. Lois Lerner apparently thought it was OK, though, right? But I do have evidence, that Obama didn't immediately (or ever?) fire anyone who was responsible for it.

Obama got sued by the Little Sisters Of the Poor, and they won at the Supreme Court, who concluded that he was trampling their rights. When you get sued for trampling the rights of nuns who dedicate their lives to serve the poor, you have problems.

The targeting was started by low level ees in the Cincinnati office to save time. The IRS targeted lots of different kinds of groups, not just conservative ones (more conserv. Groups had applied), the only organ. whose tax-exempt status was actually denied were progressive ones and that the congress. report was limited to only Tea Party groups at congressional Republicans’ request. The White House didn’t even know about it until shortly before the public did.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In fact the acting irs head was forced to resign.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The targeting was started by low level ees in the Cincinnati office to save time. The IRS targeted lots of different kinds of groups, not just conservative ones (more conserv. Groups had applied), the only organ. whose tax-exempt status was actually denied were progressive ones and that the congress. report was limited to only Tea Party groups at congressional Republicans’ request. The White House didn’t even know about it until shortly before the public did.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

First you say that she didn't do anything wrong, that the reason more conservative groups were denied, is because more applied. Then two seconds later, you say she was forced to resign.

So in other words, you are saying "she didn't do anything wrong. But if she did, she got punished."

"The White House didn’t even know about it until shortly before the public did"

And Chris Christie had no knowledge of Bridgegate. Do you believe that? Or are you only naïve with liberals.

I listed several other things, Paul.

Obama's presidency destroyed the Democratic party. Every time Obama is not personally on the ballot, but his policies were, the Dems got creamed. 2010, 2014, 2016.

there is a 22 pg. DC Court ruling that's fairly recent that you can read regarding the IRS targeting....that it occured, continued(s) and was brushed off by the administration tells you all you need to know about the administration....but....Trump and the "alt-right" will control the agency in a few weeks and payback is a bitch...right? :eek5:

regarding Obama's destruction of his party...the numbers nationwide with regard to governorships, legislatures and of course, Washington are historically startling...it's no wonder the left is in a panic....too bad they set some really bad precedents regarding power and positions....

I'm always impressed with the way the pendulum swings.....

Nebestrodamus and Spence and others were guaranteeing a Hillary presidency, implosion of the republican party, disappointment and devastation for the "out of step with the rest of the country" right for the forseeable future.....

keep making predictions guys....:1poke:

I never guaranteed hillarys victory. In fact I was opposed to her from the beginning. Furthermore had the dnc not meddled with the primaries, Bernie would be our next president.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there is a 22 pg. DC Court ruling that's fairly recent that you can read regarding the IRS targeting....that it occured, continued(s) and was brushed off by the administration tells you all you need to know about the administration....but....Trump and the "alt-right" will control the agency in a few weeks and payback is a bitch...right? :eek5:

regarding Obama's destruction of his party...the numbers nationwide with regard to governorships, legislatures and of course, Washington are historically startling...it's no wonder the left is in a panic....too bad they set some really bad precedents regarding power and positions....

I'm always impressed with the way the pendulum swings.....

Nebestrodamus and Spence and others were guaranteeing a Hillary presidency, implosion of the republican party, disappointment and devastation for the "out of step with the rest of the country" right for the forseeable future.....

keep making predictions guys....:1poke:

The party is in tatters. If you look at the % of national and state offices that will be held by Dems after this election, it's the lowest percentage since Reconstruction in the late 1800's (that has been reported many times in the media). The Democrats got absolutely mauled at the state level.

And in 2018, if you look at the Senate seats that are up for re-election, TEN are democrats from states that Trump won. If people like what Trump does in the next 2 years, the GOP will win big again in 2018. That is a very, very big "if" at the moment.

And a leading candidate to head the DNC is Keith Ellison, a crazy-angry-liberal Muslim, a supporter of the Nation of Islam, and a rabid anti-Semite. And to top it off, he's a 9/11 truther.

The fact that the people who run that party would even consider such a nut to head their party, tells you that they have misinterpreted the election results, as badly as humanly possible. The country has had enough of radical liberalism. They tolerated it because (for some Godforesaken reason) they like Obama personally. They don't want radical liberalism from anyone else. That is the lesson of this election.

I never guaranteed hillarys victory.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

huh?????

"All these people know that she is going to be the next president. It would be career suicide to take this further and risk "payback" next year." signed nebe

"Lets face it. Hillary will defeat Trump in the election and we will have to live with 4 years at least of more divisive politics.. More polarization of a divided nation. Probably more war because Hillary is a Hawk... This makes me really pessimistic about our future." signed nebe

:hee:

Ok I guess I said it but take note that I was opposed to her.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They both are steaming turds
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The wall, more likely a barrier made up of different materials, will happen.

Sanctuary cities most likely will lose some of their federal funding.

Federal agencies hiring freeze is more than likely.

Military buildup more than likely.

Military buildup is definite.
Military action is highly probable.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Military action is highly probable.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Yep, would be the case for any president in this environment.

Military buildup is definite.
Military action is highly probable.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What would you do if there was a large-scale terrorist attack on our soil? Of if Syria's president start slaughtering millions of civilians? Nothing?

It depends on the logic and evidence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

90% of the terrorists who hijacked the planes on 9-11 were Saudi but we attack Afghanistan and Iraq.
So much of that era defies logic. I'm getting ready for more of the same.

There's a lot about religion that defies logic as well. Look at pence. A loon who denies evolution and thinks cigarette smoking is not fatal.

Clown car world tour is getting ready to begin.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Clown car world tour is getting ready to begin.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

buckle up....vrooom ... vroommm

:sled:

90% of the terrorists who hijacked the planes on 9-11 were Saudi but we attack Afghanistan.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's because Afghanistan was setting up Sanctuary Cities for Al Qaeda...Afghanistan and the Taliban got what it deserved as they granted Safe Haven for their training camps.

Jim, i could not tell you if she resigned. I remember that some guy was forced to resign. He was the acting head so maybe she did resign. I don't know remember either way. sometimes people who are not guilty are forced to take the fall. There was investigations and there was no evidence at all that the White House knew.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

90% of the terrorists who hijacked the planes on 9-11 were Saudi but we attack Afghanistan and Iraq.
So much of that era defies logic. I'm getting ready for more of the same.

There's a lot about religion that defies logic as well. Look at pence. A loon who denies evolution and thinks cigarette smoking is not fatal.

Clown car world tour is getting ready to begin.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"90% of the terrorists who hijacked the planes on 9-11 were Saudi but we attack Afghanistan and Iraq.
So much of that era defies logic. "

Afghanistan, not Saudi Arabia, sponsored Al Queda, gave them money, safe harbor, and sponsorship. Why do you think we attacked Afghanistan, you think Bush threw a dart at a map?

"thinks cigarette smoking is not fatal. "

Did he say that?

Jim, i could not tell you if she resigned. I remember that some guy was forced to resign. He was the acting head so maybe she did resign. I don't know remember either way. sometimes people who are not guilty are forced to take the fall. There was investigations and there was no evidence at all that the White House knew.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

True, especially in politics, innocent people are often asked to fall on the sword.

90% of the terrorists who hijacked the planes on 9-11 were Saudi but we attack Afghanistan and Iraq.
So much of that era defies logic. I'm getting ready for more of the same.

There's a lot about religion that defies logic as well. Look at pence. A loon who denies evolution and thinks cigarette smoking is not fatal.

Clown car world tour is getting ready to begin.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
According to the CDC tobacco use is not always fatal, 33% of people who are lifelong smokers of a pack or more a day do NOT die of a smoking related illness and live past the average life expectancy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2015-03/31/11/enhanced/webdr12/enhanced-buzz-wide-8743-1427816943-37.jpg?no-auto

i believe he received $100,000 from the tobacco industry..

Thank God pot is legal, I think I'm going to need a good buzz on in order to survive the next 4 years.

Thank God pot is legal, I think I'm going to need a good buzz on in order to survive the next 4 years.


:uhuh::uhuh::uhuh::uhuh:

i wonder if Mittens Romney will be secretary of state? Im cool with that if it happens.

I don't think Trump will have Guiliani in his admin. bc of how much $ he made making speaches after being mayor. I know how the right complained so much about the Clinton's and the $ they made.

I don't think Trump will have Guiliani in his admin. bc of how much $ he made making speaches after being mayor. I know how the right complained so much about the Clinton's and the $ they made.

I don't think most conservatives have any quarrel with what she did. If the free market wants to pay her for speaking, that's how a free market is supposed to work.

What we object to, is the hypocrisy involved when Hillary complains about a rigged system that favors insiders (yet takes full advantage of it herself), and when she complains about Wall Street excess (she made a mint speaking to Goldman Sachs). And when she refuses to reveal the transcripts of those speeches, but bashes Trump abut not revealing taxes.

I don't think most conservatives have any quarrel with what she did. If the free market wants to pay her for speaking, that's how a free market is supposed to work.

What we object to, is the hypocrisy involved when Hillary complains about a rigged system that favors insiders (yet takes full advantage of it herself), and when she complains about Wall Street excess (she made a mint speaking to Goldman Sachs). And when she refuses to reveal the transcripts of those speeches, but bashes Trump abut not revealing taxes.

We heard it constantly here that she (a private citizen) should release the transcripts of the Goldman Sach speaches. So anyone in the Trump's WH (since they are public officials) I assume will have to release all the transcipts of the speaches they made prior to become appointed/elected. If not that is hypocrisy. I assume everyone will release their college transcripts also since people on the right where screaming for Obamas - right?

Would you release your companies reserve factors?

We ain't ever seeing his taxes.

We heard it constantly here that she (a private citizen) should release the transcripts of the Goldman Sach speaches. So anyone in the Trump's WH (since they are public officials) I assume will have to release all the transcipts of the speaches they made prior to become appointed/elected. If not that is hypocrisy. I assume everyone will release their college transcripts also since people on the right where screaming for Obamas - right?

Would you release your companies reserve factors?

We ain't ever seeing his taxes.

"We heard it constantly here that she (a private citizen) should release the transcripts of the Goldman Sach speaches. "

So what? Is that an unreasonable thing to request?

"So anyone in the Trump's WH (since they are public officials) I assume will have to release all the transcipts of the speaches they made prior to become appointed/elected. "

Fair enough.

"I assume everyone will release their college transcripts also since people on the right where screaming for Obamas - right?"

Did Trump and Hillary release transcripts? Most candidates do. Obama, as you say, did not. I wonder why?

"Would you release your companies reserve factors?"

Not remotely the same thing. Though you always impress me with how much you know about insurance. But if I gave a speech saying that companies shouldn't have to hold adequate reserves, that would be fair game to make public.

"We ain't ever seeing his taxes."

Maybe not, you may well be right.

I wanted to see the transcript of her speeches, only after she was whining about a rigged system, and whining about how evil business is. Because those stances seem totally at odds with taking 250k for a 30 minute speech from Goldman Sachs.

I do think it is unreasonable for a private citizen to have to release work they were paid to do. Just as you shouldn't be expected to release the work you do for your employer, Hillary (or anyone in any admin) should have to release that same work (unless it was illegal in some way, etc.).

I can't remember past Pres. releasing transcripts and don't believe that was common like releasing your taxes is.

Eh, back to predictions.....
Gas will be $4+ sooner than later at the pump because the incoming administration will likely pee off the Muslim suppliers of oil and they will shut down the supply....
Then the domestic oil fields and coal mines will become open game with no heed to the environment(no EPA!) and the ecological disasters will mount and be dismissed by the administration (Global warming isn't real)
Despite it being a 'national emergency', the gov't will probably privatize the drilling and mining, possibly to foreign interests who submit the lowest bid. The high paid jobs in the industry will go to them, with token Americans doing the labor
But, I don't think we'll hear about any of this because I think that the administration will do what Bushv2 did and seal all presidential records in the interest of National Security.

And the atmosphere will get hotter, the oceans will rise and the ozone will be lost......

Eh, back to predictions.....
Gas will be $4+ sooner than later at the pump because the incoming administration will likely pee off the Muslim suppliers of oil and they will shut down the supply....
Then the domestic oil fields and coal mines will become open game with no heed to the environment(no EPA!) and the ecological disasters will mount and be dismissed by the administration (Global warming isn't real)
Despite it being a 'national emergency', the gov't will probably privatize the drilling and mining, possibly to foreign interests who submit the lowest bid. The high paid jobs in the industry will go to them, with token Americans doing the labor
But, I don't think we'll hear about ant of this because I thing that the administration will do what Bushv2 did and seal all presidential records in the interest of National Security.

And the atmosphere will get hotter, the oceans will rise and the ozone will be lost......

Time will tell but this guy has figured out how to use salt water as a fuel.

https://youtu.be/F0vycQ06a04
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Time will tell but this guy has figured out how to use salt water as a fuel.

https://youtu.be/F0vycQ06a04
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That would be so awesome if it was brought to the mainstream. But... As long as there are millions of barrels of oil under the ground, waiting to be extracted and sold, it will never happen.

How Trump deals with messages he doesn't like

You know, we have a guest in the audience this evening. Vice President-elect Pence, I see you walking out but I hope you hear just a few more moments. There's nothing to boo, ladies and gentlemen. There's nothing to boo. We're all here sharing a story of love. We have a message for you, sir. We hope that you will hear us out.

And I encourage everybody to pull out your phones and tweet and post, because this message needs to be spread far and wide, OK?

Vice President-elect Pence, we welcome you and we truly thank you for joining us here at Hamilton: An American Musical. We really do.

We sir, we, are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us — our planet, our children, our parents — or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights, sir. But we truly hope that this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and to work on behalf of all of us. All of us.

Again, we truly thank you for sharing this show, this wonderful American story told by a diverse group of men and women of different colors, creeds, and orientations.

Trumps comments show his Authoritarian personality is shinning bright

The cast and producers of Hamilton, which I hear is highly overrated, should immediately apologize to Mike Pence for their terrible behavior

Our wonderful future V.P. Mike Pence was harassed last night at the theater by the cast of Hamilton, cameras blazing.This should not happen!

The Theater must always be a safe and special place.The cast of Hamilton was very rude last night to a very good man, Mike Pence. Apologize!

I don't think it's appropriate for the cast to say that at the end of the show to a person visiting the show. That said,as i said earlier I think Trump is going to end up getting in trouble because he can't control his emotions.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

reminds me of when Obama attacked the Cambridge police dept for "acting stupidly"

I don't mind that they addressed him, they saw an opportunity and took advantage at an appropriate time....I hate the idea that elected officials get some special treatment...the should be more approachable and accountable, particularly if "the people" are addressing them in a respectful manner which was the case...would have been great if Pence offered to speak with them all after the show to hear and try to address their concerns

maybe Trump will invite them all to the White House for a beer

Wait till president Trump has some Democratic Governors sticking their finger in his face. He would go ballistic. However I doubt the Democratic Governors would do that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wait till president Trump has some Democratic Governors sticking their finger in his face. .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

getting tougher and tougher to find a democrat governor :rotflmao:

hey one of my predictions is about to come true.. Trump wants Mittens to be secretary of state.

hey one of my predictions is about to come true.. Trump wants Mittens to be secretary of state.

now you sound like trump

believe me scott, if i wanted to sound like trump it would be tremendous. Believe me, it would be huge. We are going to drain that boil and make america sit again !

I predict a predicament.

Now he's considering Sessions for
a post in his administration? :hs:
that's Like resurrecting Asslinger
from the dead.

it'll get real NASTY

i believe he received $100,000 from the tobacco industry..

He was paid $100,000 for saying ". . . news flash: smoking is not good for you. If you are reading this article through the blue haze of cigarette smoke you should quit."?? Really? Sounds like a thoroughly wasted $100,00.

On the other hand, if Pence was paid a hundred grand to make smoking sound good, then tells us that it is not good for us and we should quit, maybe he is not trustworthy.

Did you actually read what you posted?

I read it. the point is that he is saying that smoking is non fatal.

I read it. the point is that he is saying that smoking is non fatal.

If two out of three smokers do not die from smoking related causes, apparently, it is not fatal for most smokers. Who knows why? Maybe genetics, maybe those two out of three were moderate smokers, maybe they smoked the right kind tobacco if there is such a thing.

Is eating hamburgers fatal. If you are genetically prone to die from eating them, or if you eat too many, or if you eat the wrongly prepared hamburgers, they might kill you, eventually, or sooner rather than later. Does that mean that hamburgers are fatal?

Too much of anything can be fatal. So everything must be fatal. Since none of us lives forever, life must be fatal.

None of that, not even if cigarette smoking is fatal or not, was the point of my response and my question. I responded to your afterthought that you believe that the tobacco industry gave him $100,000. Implying, I guess, the industry bribed him. Considering everything Pence said in the bit you posted, it would seem that the $100,000 given to him . . . if it really was . . . was money ill spent and a failed bribe. He said it was bad for you and you should quit. Does that sound like he was earning that hundred grand?

Sometimes I think you are autistic man....

Here we have Trump saying that he is going to drain the swamp of corruption in DC and boot out all of the corrupt money taking influences when he is elected, but here is his tobacco puppet vice president pic. Why did he make this announcement in the first place?? Because the tobacco industry gave him a #^&#^&#^&#^& load of money to say it.

.

Here we have Trump saying that he is going to drain the swamp of corruption in DC and boot out all of the corrupt money taking influences when he is elected, but here is his tobacco puppet vice president pic. Why did he make this announcement in the first place?? Because the tobacco industry gave him a #^&#^&#^&#^& load of money to say it.

this is fake news

this is fake news

Naw, it's for real that the tobacco industry bribed Pence to say that smoking is bad for you and that you should quit smoking.

Sometimes I think you are autistic man....

Here we have Trump saying that he is going to drain the swamp of corruption in DC and boot out all of the corrupt money taking influences when he is elected, but here is his tobacco puppet vice president pic. Why did he make this announcement in the first place?? Because the tobacco industry gave him a #^&#^&#^&#^& load of money to say it.

Right. Because the tobacco industry gave him a #^&#^&#^&#^& load of money to say smoking is bad for you and you should quit smoking. I admit that I don't know what actually prompted him to say those words. You're, apparently, certain of why he did. I did not comment on whether Pence was bribed or not. I tried to point out that your post was not good evidence that he was bribed to say those words. It even contradicted the idea that Pence was pimping for the tobacco industry. It seemed to me that what Pence was getting at was what his last paragraph stated--that a government big enough to go after smokers is big enough to go after you. If he was influenced by $100,000 to say that, I doubt that the $100,000 intended that he also say that smoking is bad for you and that you should quit smoking.

Was accepting donations from tobacco, or pharma, or trial lawyers, or industry, or unions, or banking and finance, or from wealthy individuals, or from little folks wrong and corruptly influential? Probably. Arguments could be made either way. The influence can cut both ways--using government to beat competitors or get financial preferences; or to fend off government control or government favoring the opposing competitors who also "donate."

Government power can also be corrupt. Fighting against that corruption takes money. And it takes a lot of money to get elected in order to fight government corruption. There's no way to get around that. Not in a free society. Pence's announcement was made back when he was running for Congress. How he thinks about the "swamp" now or then, I don't know. Trump doesn't need the huge donations to get elected. Most everyone else, unfortunately, does. Perhaps you're right. Maybe freedom is overrated. It would cost a lot less to eliminate the democratic process and to be run by some kind of dictatorship.

Perhaps I am somehow autistic because I keep pointing out that saying that smoking is bad for you and that you should quit smoking is not advantageous to the tobacco industry. And that paying someone to say that would be a stupid waste of the tobacco industry's money. If saying that a government big enough to go after smokers is big enough to go after you benefits the tobacco industry, it also benefits the rest of society including the marijuana industry.

How big do you want the government to be?

A start on a part of "the swamp":

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-has-a-plan-for-government-workers-they%E2%80%99re-not-going-to-like-it/ar-AAkyF5T?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

I do think it is unreasonable for a private citizen to have to release work they were paid to do. Just as you shouldn't be expected to release the work you do for your employer, Hillary (or anyone in any admin) should have to release that same work (unless it was illegal in some way, etc.).

I can't remember past Pres. releasing transcripts and don't believe that was common like releasing your taxes is.

I don't think it's the same thing. My company owns the work I do for them. I don't think Goldman Sachs was "buying" the speech from Hillary, rather paying her to come and give the speech. Unless her speech had any proprietary details in it, which I can't see how it would.

They could have been asking her view on global trends to use it their investment decision making. Why should a competitor of theirs have access to the info. they paid $ for?

They could have been asking her view on global trends to use it their investment decision making. Why should a competitor of theirs have access to the info. they paid $ for?

Then that's not a speech, that's consulting work. Paul, if what you said were true, all she'd have to do is say "the speech itself is proprietary information to the clients who paid me", and that would be the end of it. She hasn't said that (as far as I know), which tells us, that the picture you painted, isn't even close to what happened.

Late to the party and it may have been posted already, but the one professor somewhere that predicted the Trump win a while back followed up with a prediction that he will be impeached to put Pence in the oval office full time. Now that's a prediction!

Wouldn't surprise me.
Have I mentioned legalization of marijuana ? Kiss that goodbye.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Billionaire US President-elect Donald Trump has said he is not obliged to cut ties to his business empire when he takes office on 20 January.

His son-in-law Jared Kushner - a real estate heir who has no experience of diplomacy - could help forge peace between Israel and Palestinians (really and you all complained about the commuinty orignizer )


The US should not be a "nation-builder" in the world this I agree with.. but not sure his Cabinet are on the same page

And the right took a fit with Bill on a plane with the Attorney General . the Clinton foundation and donations from other Governments quid pro quo

But they remain silent with the suggestion he is unwilling to cutting ties with business with tie's or loans from other government..

And his administration will be going after Unions so much for working class America

Billionaire US President-elect Donald Trump has said he is not obliged to cut ties to his business empire when he takes office on 20 January.

His son-in-law Jared Kushner - a real estate heir who has no experience of diplomacy - could help forge peace between Israel and Palestinians (really and you all complained about the commuinty orignizer )


The US should not be a "nation-builder" in the world this I agree with.. but not sure his Cabinet are on the same page

And the right took a fit with Bill on a plane with the Attorney General . the Clinton foundation and donations from other Governments quid pro quo

But they remain silent with the suggestion he is unwilling to cutting ties with business with tie's or loans from other government..

And his administration will be going after Unions so much for working class America

so you are saying you have a problem with people on the right holding(or not) Trump to the same standards(or lack of) that people have held the Clinton's(and others) to in the past?..........and before any of the things you listed have actually occurred...this is like "fake news"...:huh:

Billionaire US President-elect Donald Trump has said he is not obliged to cut ties to his business empire when he takes office on 20 January.

His son-in-law Jared Kushner - a real estate heir who has no experience of diplomacy - could help forge peace between Israel and Palestinians (really and you all complained about the commuinty orignizer )


The US should not be a "nation-builder" in the world this I agree with.. but not sure his Cabinet are on the same page

And the right took a fit with Bill on a plane with the Attorney General . the Clinton foundation and donations from other Governments quid pro quo

But they remain silent with the suggestion he is unwilling to cutting ties with business with tie's or loans from other government..

And his administration will be going after Unions so much for working class America

You are suggesting that what Trump MIGHT do in the future, is the moral equivalent of what the Clintons actually DID in the past?

I also think they should sell their share in that business, it doesn't look good. But he hasn't even had the chance to do anything improper yet.

Unions, especially public unions, need to go. Why is it, that when workers are given the right to choose whether or not they wish to join a union, they overwhelmingly vote "no"? And why are liberals opposed to letting workers choose whether or not they want to support an organization like a labor union? I thought liberals were pro-choice, I am pretty sure I heard that somewhere???

so you are saying you have a problem with people on the right holding(or not) Trump to the same standards(or lack of) that people have held the Clinton's(and others) to in the past?..........and before any of the things you listed have actually occurred...this is like "fake news"...:huh:


Do you need it to happen 1st for it to be an Issue by then its to late

With the Clinton foundation you knew who donated what and when the rest of the rights narrative was just that fake news

As of today know one knows who he he owes or who own's him

You are suggesting that what Trump MIGHT do in the future, is the moral equivalent of what the Clintons actually DID in the past?

I also think they should sell their share in that business, it doesn't look good. But he hasn't even had the chance to do anything improper yet.

Unions, especially public unions, need to go. Why is it, that when workers are given the right to choose whether or not they wish to join a union, they overwhelmingly vote "no"? And why are liberals opposed to letting workers choose whether or not they want to support an organization like a labor union? I thought liberals were pro-choice, I am pretty sure I heard that somewhere???


As I said to Scott why wait until theres an issue where the push from the right for him to do the right thing their just remaining quite..

Sadly your wrong about people having a choice they vote overwhelmingly no ...

Yet only 11.3% of our total work force is Union in the United States and Republicans want to bring that number to ZERO Why is that?? thats a lot of effort to destroy the livelihood's of 11%

I see because you cant get what they have thru your Work place they (union workers) shouldn't have it in theirs

As I said to Scott why wait until theres an issue where the push from the right for him to do the right thing their just remaining quite..

Sadly your wrong about people having a choice they vote overwhelmingly no ...

Yet only 11.3% of our total work force is Union in the United States and Republicans want to bring that number to ZERO Why is that?? thats a lot of effort to destroy the livelihood's of 11%

I see because you cant get what they have thru your Work place they (union workers) shouldn't have it in theirs

"Sadly your wrong about people having a choice they vote overwhelmingly no "

Umm, no I'm not. That's why unions, and the democrats they own, are so adamantly opposed to 'right to work'.

"why wait until theres an issue "

So you're OK criticizing people in anticipation of them doing something wrong. Should we jail people ahead of time too, before the actually do anything?

"Yet only 11.3% of our total work force is Union in the United States and Republicans want to bring that number to ZERO Why is that?? thats a lot of effort to destroy the livelihood's of 11%"

If you ever bothered to listen to anyone, you'd know the answers. In the public sector, labor unions are bankrupting towns and states.

WTF is your evidence that getting rid of the union, will "destroy the livelihood" of the 11%? How do the other 89% manage to survive? If unions really added value to their members, people wouldn't overwhelmingly opt out when given the choice. But that's what they do in 'right to work' situations.

"Sadly your wrong about people having a choice they vote overwhelmingly no "

Umm, no I'm not. That's why unions, and the democrats they own, are so adamantly opposed to 'right to work'.

"why wait until theres an issue "

So you're OK criticizing people in anticipation of them doing something wrong. Should we jail people ahead of time too, before the actually do anything?

"Yet only 11.3% of our total work force is Union in the United States and Republicans want to bring that number to ZERO Why is that?? thats a lot of effort to destroy the livelihood's of 11%"

If you ever bothered to listen to anyone, you'd know the answers. In the public sector, labor unions are bankrupting towns and states.

WTF is your evidence that getting rid of the union, will "destroy the livelihood" of the 11%? How do the other 89% manage to survive? If unions really added value to their members, people wouldn't overwhelmingly opt out when given the choice. But that's what they do in 'right to work' situations.


work to rule states they want the benefits collective bargaining brings but dont want to pay for it (free stuffers ) public sector, labor unions are bankrupting towns and states. False again but again another example of residents want services yet dont want to pay for them ..

What should a police office make in your town or state ? or firefighter or teacher ?? correctional officer... I bet you would only be happy if it was less than what you make .. Big business just went after overtime over 40 hrs for employees making less than 50k a year I get it make America great again but over time over time 40hrs we dont want America to be that great

Do you need it to happen 1st for it to be an Issue by then its to late ??:huh:

With the Clinton foundation you knew who donated what and when the rest of the rights narrative was just that fake news

As of today know one knows who he he owes or who own's him


I admit that it's quite a change having an incoming president who actually had job and career outside government.... I don't think the Foundation disclosure agreement came about or into affect till she actually became SOS...and was nothing more than something they were excited to undermine and work around in typical Clinton fashion

you should prepare now for the fact that everything Trump says and does for the next 4-8 years is going to make you crazy :exp:

work to rule states they want the benefits collective bargaining brings but dont want to pay for it (free stuffers ) public sector, labor unions are bankrupting towns and states. False again but again another example of residents want services yet dont want to pay for them ..

What should a police office make in your town or state ? or firefighter or teacher ?? correctional officer... I bet you would only be happy if it was less than what you make .. Big business just went after overtime over 40 hrs for employees making less than 50k a year I get it make America great again but over time over time 40hrs we dont want America to be that great

What a police officer SHOULD make, in a perfect world, would be a lot. Enough to be very comfortable. Same with teachers and firefighters. But this is the real world, and in this world, they should make what we can reasonably afford to pay them. But they are currently making more than most places can afford, especially when you include benefits. Cops retiring at age 45 with 60,000 a year pensions? Teachers who make 100k, and can retire at age 59 with 75j a year pensions? That is insane, and it's why CT is going bankrupt. Other states pay their public servants more modestly, yet they get people to fill those jobs.

As to the labor unions. They give big money to democrats, who then are the ones who decide how much money to give to the unisons they are beholden to. It's a ridiculous conflict of interest, no one is representing the taxpayer in those discussions. And the results speak for themselves.

May I ask what state you live in? Do you live somewhere where union benefit debt isn't a major issue?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If a cop,fireman or teacher were a bad job,why is it they are so coveted? Teaching has got to be one of the most stress free jobs imaginable. Fire,police and corrections are for the most part jobs which require zero education and the compensation is generous to say the least.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I predict he will be the next Reagan. The country is going to rise together.

If a cop,fireman or teacher were a bad job,why is it they are so coveted? Teaching has got to be one of the most stress free jobs imaginable. Fire,police and corrections are for the most part jobs which require zero education and the compensation is generous to say the least.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Agree with everything except I think teaching is stressful and exhausting. But as you say, the competition for those jobs is fierce, because people want the financial security and especially the benefits, which in most left leaning states, are insane. CT will declare insolvency within ten years, it's not mathematically possible to pay for the benefits the unions got from the democrats they bought
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If a cop,fireman or teacher were a bad job,why is it they are so coveted? Teaching has got to be one of the most stress free jobs imaginable. Fire,police and corrections are for the most part jobs which require zero education and the compensation is generous to say the least.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not sure what education has to do with pay but clearly you have not done your research on those professions and the degree many officer carry ..

Cops retiring at age 45 with 60,000 a year pensions? Teachers who make 100k, and can retire at age 59 with 75j a year pensions?

not sure were you got this from but thats not the case in MA sure you and do 20 \50% but less then 1% of people take that and Teachers have to work until like 65 to get close to 50%

you guys need real sources not just what you heard ..

I have 29 years at 50 if i left today i would get around 55% if i leave a 35 years at 55 I get 80% .. degree or no degree want my benefits my pay then do my job ... that goes for every profession...

funny when people complains about the money big business CEO make
Their envious and dont value success... but when a regular guy is doing better Via collective bargaining or the strength of their Union it becomes Vile and unfair ... thats my issue with union haters uniformed and disgruntle

I am not too sure why I was quoted before that statement. I do know there is a lot of incentive for police to get higher education.$$$$

As far as real sources....I spent years as a public employee in my home town which qualifies me as knowledgable enough to stand by my comments. There are few risks and many rewards for public employees. How much education is required at your job,or do you just have to show up?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

funny when people complains about the money big business CEO make
Their envious and dont value success... but when a regular guy is doing better Via collective bargaining or the strength of their Union it becomes Vile and unfair ... thats my issue with union haters uniformed and disgruntle

There are several problems in discussing labor unions and wages in the total market. An obvious one is comparing big business salaries with union wages. Both are extreme minorities in the marketplace. CEOs especially so. That is also the proverbial apples and oranges.

Probably more relevant to compare big business CEOs with small business managers or owners. And to compare union wages to their actual counterpart non-union wages of the so-called "working class."

And what's most material, at this time, is the comparison between public sector and private sector workers and unions.

As far as private sector unions go, in my opinion, they are perfectly fine if they are in-house. That is if a union exists solely within a given company rather than being a national or international organization.

Public sector unions are essentially different than private sector unions. First, and most glaring, the public sector is dependent on the private sector and is meant to be its servant not its master. But when public sector unions "bargain" they are doing so against the private sector without the private sector actually being at the table. The private sector pays the wages but doesn't have a bargaining say. Bargaining in-house in public sector is incestuous. It is public workers bargaining with themselves against the private sector.

I know you like the "big picture." In that picture, on the whole, the "working class" of the public sector does much better in total wage and benefit packages than their counterpart in the private sector. It seems to me that the picture is out of whack. At best, shouldn't there be equity rather than disparity? And if there is a disparity, shouldn't private sector wages, which pay for the public sector's, be higher?

And the perniciousness of in-house public "collective bargaining" with itself leads, even more than in the private sector, to the predictable unsustainable situations in which government at all levels cannot be afforded. The most glaring problem, similar to big business compensation predicaments, are the lifelong pension and benefits which become larger than what is being paid to those who are still working.

When the Progressive founder of forced "collective bargaining," FDR, along with the major union leaders at that time, said that government employees must not be unionized, that should tell you something. They knew what would happen. And it has.

I am not too sure why I was quoted before that statement. I do know there is a lot of incentive for police to get higher education.$$$$

As far as real sources....I spent years as a public employee in my home town which qualifies me as knowledgable enough to stand by my comments. There are few risks and many rewards for public employees. How much education is required at your job,or do you just have to show up?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess my point is education alone is not indicator of success in any field or Job. nor should it produce a certain wage I know a lot of 4 year degree educated people who are horrible correctional officers and highshcool grad's who are the best .. Granted we aren't building Rockets. But in todays Job market even in corrections a GED wont get you in and a High school diploma with out Military service isn't much help. There are a lot of risks for public safety employee i am sure i dont need to list them .. and many rewards as well

Again I dont understand the endless assault on union working Americans who are 11% of the work force from Conservatives

you want America great again Trump supporters want the good times of the 50's and 60's places need to be unionized

The percentage of workers belonging to a union (or "density") in the United States peaked in 1954 at almost 35%

now we are at 11% and the middle class is weak

I don't blame you for supporting unions as they support you and the other 11%. I also am sure you understand it can create a bit of a fiscal issue for some of the municipalities that are burdened with the generosity the employees have earned. Six weeks vacation with 14 paid holidays plus a sick day per month and a couple personal days,throw in a clothing allowance,a three hour minimum callback for OT,maternity leave and around 75k per year and you have the guys who fill pot holes in my town.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't blame you for supporting unions as they support you and the other 11%. I also am sure you understand it can create a bit of a fiscal issue for some of the municipalities that are burdened with the generosity the employees have earned. Six weeks vacation with 14 paid holidays plus a sick day per month and a couple personal days,throw in a clothing allowance,a three hour minimum callback for OT,maternity leave and around 75k per year and you have the guys who fill pot holes in my town.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


I agree.. But sadly those benefits were once only afforded to the private sector.. public unions fought to bring their members in line with the private sector who were giving it to their employees at that time.. but private companys decided to change or just went belly up leaving employees with nothing or just stopped providing good benefits once that happened we (union ) benefits started getting undo scrutiny from businesses conservatives

With U.S. private sector union membership sharply reduced, the right is training fire on public sector unions, seen as critical rivals.

http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/brief/new-conservative-strategies-weaken-americas-public-sector-unions

Is your example of 7 weeks and 75 k a new hire ? if so thats crazy.. or is that the guy who's been there 25 or 30 years? then not so crazy

not sure what education has to do with pay but clearly you have not done your research on those professions and the degree many officer carry ..

Cops retiring at age 45 with 60,000 a year pensions? Teachers who make 100k, and can retire at age 59 with 75j a year pensions?

not sure were you got this from but thats not the case in MA sure you and do 20 \50% but less then 1% of people take that and Teachers have to work until like 65 to get close to 50%

you guys need real sources not just what you heard ..

I have 29 years at 50 if i left today i would get around 55% if i leave a 35 years at 55 I get 80% .. degree or no degree want my benefits my pay then do my job ... that goes for every profession...

funny when people complains about the money big business CEO make
Their envious and dont value success... but when a regular guy is doing better Via collective bargaining or the strength of their Union it becomes Vile and unfair ... thats my issue with union haters uniformed and disgruntle

"Cops retiring at age 45 with 60,000 a year pensions? Teachers who make 100k, and can retire at age 59 with 75j a year pensions?

not sure were you got this from but thats not the case in MA "

It is very much the case here in CT.

"that goes for every profession... "

Not even close. In most professions which are in the private sector, we must convince customers to voluntarily give us money. In the case of public labor unions, you can take my money by force. HUGE difference. I cannot choose to not pay my taxes.

"funny when people complains about the money big business CEO make '

Read my previous comment. In the private sector, CEOs do not take one cent from any customer, unless that customer freely chooses to give it to them.

"thats my issue with union haters uniformed and disgruntle"

I am very informed. But yes I am disgruntled, because here in CT the public unions are killing the state. Here in CT, the unfunded liability to public labor unions for pensions and healthcare, is $19,000 for each of the 3 million people living in my state. That is insane, and can never be funded, not in a million years.

In the private sector, I put almost 13% of my salary into social security (my contribution + employer contribution) and if I am lucky, I will start collecting 35k a year at age 67. Teachers in this state put 5% of their salary towards their pension, which pays them 75% of the average of their highest 3 years salary (can easily be 75k a year) starting at age 59.

You tell me that makes sense and is fair.

How is this for a real source...

http://articles.courant.com/2014-03-28/news/hc-op-mcneal-connecticut-debt-an-unfunded-peril-03-20140328_1_retiree-state-employees-connecticut

[QUOTE=detbuch;1112790
Public sector unions are essentially different than private sector unions. First, and most glaring, the public sector is dependent on the private sector and is meant to be its servant not its master. But when public sector unions "bargain" they are doing so against the private sector without the private sector actually being at the table. The private sector pays the wages but doesn't have a bargaining say. Bargaining in-house in public sector is incestuous. It is public workers bargaining with themselves against the private sector. .[/QUOTE]

Ding ding ding, we have a winner!

Great post, and that's the problem. Too many ticks gorging on the private sector dog, and when the parasite kills the host, that's all folks. Here in CT, we fill file for insolvency in 7-10 years, because those benefits can never, ever be paid for.

I agree.. But sadly those benefits were once only afforded to the private sector..

That's not true. Public employees had pensions and health insurance, etc. before they became unionized. Even better, they had far more job security than private sector employees. And many, if not most, of the private sector employees at the time did not have company paid benefit packages.

public unions fought to bring their members in line with the private sector who were giving it to their employees at that time..

No, they fought to bring their members in line with the unionized private sector, not with the average of private sector compensation. And because of their support of and affiliation with the leftist political class, they not only maintained their far superior job security than even private sector union employees, but were then able over time to get even better benefit and wage packages. This was even more so in Democrat municipalities which had a symbiotic relationship with public workers and their unions. Their so-called collective bargaining was, essentially and politically, with themselves. So, because political power was more important than fiscal reality, they were able to get compensation which their communities were not able realistically to sustain. Franklin D. Roosevelt, the great Democrat hero who was responsible for "collective bargaining" in the first place, realized the danger of public sector unions and insisted that public employees must not be unionized.

but private companys decided to change or just went belly up leaving employees with nothing or just stopped providing good benefits

Exactly . . . the private sector is not secure. And because of the necessity for the private sector to maintain at least the semblance of fiscal responsibility, it has to adjust its workforce either in number or in compensation.

Government doesn't just go "belly up." It persists and its employees stay on and it takes a massive crisis to cut back on their compensation.

once that happened we (union ) benefits started getting undo scrutiny from businesses conservatives

No, the scrutiny is not undo. The public sector depends on the private sector. The public sector, for the most part, does not produce wealth or goods. It is basically a service sector which is supposed to serve the private sector (the public at large). The private sector pays the public sector to do so. When public employees demand compensation which is unreasonable compared to average private sector compensation, and when they get compensation packages which are unsustainable without draining the resources of the public at large, it is not undo to scrutinize that compensation.

With U.S. private sector union membership sharply reduced, the right is training fire on public sector unions, seen as critical rivals.

http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/brief/new-conservative-strategies-weaken-americas-public-sector-unions


There should not be a rivalry between public unions and the public at large. If the private sector wealth waxes and wanes, so should that of the public sector that serves it. When it reaches the stage of rivalry, something other than compensation squabbles is going on. In my opinion, that something is politics.

The battle (rivalry) is not between Public unions and the "right," it is between socialistic form of government and free market form. Your article demonstrates that. That is the proper argument we should be having.

There should not be a rivalry between public unions and the public at large. If the private sector wealth waxes and wanes, so should that of the public sector that serves it. When it reaches the stage of rivalry, something other than compensation squabbles is going on. In my opinion, that something is politics.

The battle (rivalry) is not between Public unions and the "right," it is between socialistic form of government and free market form. Your article demonstrates that. That is the proper argument we should be having.

the story clearly outlines how the right has disrupted private unions and now are after public one because they vote Dem

there is no grand plan because between socialistic form of government and free market form. as you suggest


no the battle is between the haves and the have nots .. no one cared about public sector unions until private companys put the screws to the private sector ... yes there is little risk for a public worker when it comes to job security.. but the right thinks you can privatize all area of Government and thats their Goal.. there is no private police or fire compete with there never has ..

Many city and town legacy cost have become un funded mostly do to lack of Tax revenue for who else but big business in my town alone where taking a hit from 2 shut down coal electric plants who where taxed on output other places give generous tax breaks to companys who promise jobs then bail after the tax incentive expires..

But is much easier to attack the teacher or Cop or fireman then the real cause ... But lets make America Great again Counting on the company's to come back to the states, give the a big tax break and be thankful for more min wage jobs .. all this from the companys who screwed us in the 1st place :kewl:

the story clearly outlines how the right has disrupted private unions

Economics has "disrupted" private unions. Private unions "disrupted" the economic conditions of private companies.

and now are after public one because they vote Dem
there is no grand plan because between socialistic form of government and free market form. as you suggest

Your article talks about "new battle grounds and initiatives", and about "A high stakes battle." It says "Prominent in many states since the 1970s, public sector unions have delivered a one-two political punch – helping to elect liberal Democrats to state and local offices and then pushing those officeholders to expand public services like health care and education. Even at their heyday, most private sector unions struggled to have much impact in state politics, so by undercutting unionized public employees conservatives can weaken their most powerful adversary, clearing the way for legislatures and governors to achieve right-wing priorities such as tax cuts, sharp reductions in social spending, and the elimination of regulations."

It ends with "So far, however, progressives have not had much success at defending public sector unions – in large part because, since 2010 and 2014, Democrats find themselves holding historically low numbers of seats in state legislatures where rights for public unions are decided. Liberals tend to focus on national politics and campaigns for the presidency, but clearly state governments are equally important arenas – above all for fights over public employee unions that are likely to influence the future balance of power between liberals and conservatives in American politics overall."

Your article is clearly pushing for a new plan, "grand" or not, of having public unions be more active in turning state legislatures from "conservative" to "progressive." "Conservative" is code for free market capitalism and "progressive" or "liberal" are now clearly labels for progressive style government which is a form of socialism which ultimately trends toward total fascism if not total socialism.

Your article is clearly about the nexus between politics and unions. And it explicitly says that unions support, and require, progressive government. It clearly lays out the battle between conservative government and progressive government. That's the battle that must be won if public unions are to thrive.

So your article does propose a battle plan which elevates the struggle between two forms of government--a free market form and a socialistic form. And public unions are a byproduct of that struggle. And they depend on the socialist form to survive.

no the battle is between the haves and the have nots .. no one cared about public sector unions until private companys put the screws to the private sector ...

The battle between the haves and the have nots is one of those union mantras that is not quite accurate. Modern battles between unions in the private sector is between the wealthy "haves" usually big companies, and their employees who are usually not wealthy but are well-off "haves." Public sector unions, the not wealthy but still well-off haves, battle against their public-at-large tax cash cow private citizens who overall on average are often not as well-off.

Oh . . . and yes, some, including FDR, your Democrat (Progressive) hero and creator of forced "collective bargaining" did care about public unions right at the beginning of it all and well before private companies supposedly, as you put it, "put the screws to the private sector." FDR and prominent labor leaders at the time such as Samuel Gompers said that there must not be public unions--for the same reasons that I have mentioned. They knew the pernicious problems public unions would create.

yes there is little risk for a public worker when it comes to job security..

Absolutely correct. A big plus over what many private workers (you know--the ones who pay for the public workers security) face.

but the right thinks you can privatize all area of Government and thats their Goal.. there is no private police or fire compete with there never has ..

I haven't heard about privatizing ALL areas of government, but some areas could actually better serve the public at less cost. Detroit (the administration is not "conservative" but very "progressive") has contracted with a private trash and garbage pickup company in order to divest itself of some of the legacy costs that helped bankrupt it. And the service is actually better and more reliable. And the company took on most of the drivers that had worked for the city.

Many city and town legacy cost have become un funded mostly do to lack of Tax revenue for who else but big business in my town alone where taking a hit from 2 shut down coal electric plants who where taxed on output other places give generous tax breaks to companys who promise jobs then bail after the tax incentive expires..

I may be wrong, but don't the employees who work for those companies pay taxes on their wages. And don't they spend money and buy homes and pay property taxes and gas taxes and fuel the economy of other local retail businesses all of which boosts the overall tax revenue of the community? Why on earth would you expire tax incentives when they help infuse economic blood into your system. And, basically, the dirty little secret is that companies don't pay as much in taxes as it appears. They mostly pass the tax burden back on to consumers. So another bonus of tax incentives is that it saves the public some money when they buy the products.

But is much easier to attack the teacher or Cop or fireman then the real cause ... But lets make America Great again Counting on the company's to come back to the states, give the a big tax break and be thankful for more min wage jobs .. all this from the companys who screwed us in the 1st place :kewl:

Actually, the companies brought you an economic base from which you could better yourself--in the first place. What happens in the second, third, or whatever place after that is not as simplistic as you and Michael Moore make it out to be.

It sounds as if you're not in favor of having the companies coming back to the states unless the unions and the government can impose on them the things that chased them out--in the first place (or was that the second, or third, place?). And if you don't have the companies that brought enough wealth to your community, in the first place, to pay for those teachers and police and fire fighters, who is "attacking" those folks by not providing a tax break which keeps the companies in town?

Right now, without those treacherous companies, some places are left only with those minimum wage jobs that you complain about. Many blame a great deal of that on our benevolent illegal alien population. But Trump is a "racist" for trying to remove that element. Of course, those treacherous companies are said to want the illegals because they can pay them less. Can you blame them for wanting to reduce their costs? I hear a lot of big businesses, and Wall Street, you know, those dastardly money grubbers who devastate the country, are afraid of trump. Hmmph. Probably because they don't like racists.

You do realize that the so-called "middle class" is a by-product of capitalism? Unions did not create the middle class. They benefited from working for wealthy companies which paid them well--much more than they would have gotten otherwise--even before they were unionized.

That in socialism there is no middle class--just the ruling elite over all the rest? In equalitarian societies everybody is equal, there is no class, except for the head honchos, they are always more equal than the rest. :btu:

the story clearly outlines how the right has disrupted private unions and now are after public one because they vote Dem

there is no grand plan because between socialistic form of government and free market form. as you suggest


no the battle is between the haves and the have nots .. no one cared about public sector unions until private companys put the screws to the private sector ... yes there is little risk for a public worker when it comes to job security.. but the right thinks you can privatize all area of Government and thats their Goal.. there is no private police or fire compete with there never has ..

Many city and town legacy cost have become un funded mostly do to lack of Tax revenue for who else but big business in my town alone where taking a hit from 2 shut down coal electric plants who where taxed on output other places give generous tax breaks to companys who promise jobs then bail after the tax incentive expires..

But is much easier to attack the teacher or Cop or fireman then the real cause ... But lets make America Great again Counting on the company's to come back to the states, give the a big tax break and be thankful for more min wage jobs .. all this from the companys who screwed us in the 1st place :kewl:

"the right has disrupted private unions and now are after public one because they vote Dem"

I am critical of public labor unions NOT because they vote democrat, but because they are putting immense financial strain on public resources, and because they demand insane, INSANE benefits that were done away with, for good reason, in the private sector long ago.

"the battle is between the haves and the have nots "

I want my state to avoid bankruptcy. That means paying our public servants what we can reasonably afford to pay them. You can twist that into saying I only care about the rich, but my brother and sister-in-law are public schoolteachers here in CT, and they pull in over 100 large EACH, and they have immense pensions waiting for them. They are now "the haves". We can't afford it, we just can't.

"Many city and town legacy cost have become un funded mostly do to lack of Tax revenue"

CT is not suffering from a lack of tax revenue. It suffers from stupid spending. The #1 item on the list of stupid spending, is union benefits. Ct tax revenue is sky high. But we spend more. It doesn't matter what your revenue levels are, you need to spend less than hat you have. Right? If your state has less tax revenue, it needs to cut spending. Is that controversial? When a household has less income, it needs to cut spending. Same with a town or state.

"But is much easier to attack the teacher or Cop or fireman then the real cause ..."

Remind me again, what's the "real cause"? I can say to you, it's much easier to ignore the real issue, and attack republicans as hating teachers and cops. I love teachers and cops. But we can no longer afford to overpay them. We need to reign in those benefits before too many Baby Boomers are retired.

You do realize that the so-called "middle class" is a by-product of capitalism? Unions did not create the middle class. They benefited from working for wealthy companies which paid them well--much more than they would have gotten otherwise--even before they were unionized.

Sadly you assume history would have been the same if unions were not involved..
if these wealthy compaines which you say paid them so we'll
why the need for unions Without unions, we would still be working 12 hour days, seven days a week, with no paid holidays, no paid vacations, no pay raises. Can unions price themselves out of a Job yes and many have accepted that reality


The #1 item on the list of stupid spending, is union benefits.
Thats not the whole story is it ... The new revenue erosion and higher pension costs together would swell the projected deficits to $1.5 billion next fiscal The chief culprits behind the latest declining forecast were the state income tax.. no money no spending bring back more min wage jobs and the 60 hr work week thats the answer

you act as if Union members dont pay taxes or contribute into their own retirement or provide a valuable service to the state or town in which they work

INSANE benefits that were done away with, for good reason, in the private sector long ago.

what benefits are those that were done away with good reason ?? I love to hear them ... and why they were or should be stopped

Sadly you assume history would have been the same if unions were not involved.. could be better...who knows...we'd have fewer unfunded pension funds strangling municipalities...you are assuming it would be worse...the question is...for who?


if these wealthy compaines which you say paid them so we'll
why the need for unions there are lots of wealthy companies paying their employees well without the interference from unions..you act as though they don't exist

Without unions, we would still be working 12 hour days, seven days a week, with no paid holidays, no paid vacations, no pay raises. this is debatable and some of us refer to this a "self-employment"..been doing it most of my working life

Can unions price themselves out of a Job yes and many have accepted that reality


you act as if Union members dont pay taxes or contribute into their own retirement or provide a valuable service to the state or town in which they work no one said any of this but the compensation and benefits are often way out of line with the private sector that was pointed out is paying the $ for that compensation..also..the retirement contributions don't appear to be sufficient to pay the benefit in most cases...



what benefits are those that were done away with good reason ?? I love to hear them ... and why they were or should be stopped

I love you Wayne but you dismiss and then launch right into a predictable rant...Detbuch took the time to make some really valid points but you seem to completely ignore them

I don't have a problem with unions generally but broadly they engage in much of the bad behavior that they criticize businesses and the private sector for through political activity, patronage, mismanagement of funds and corruption... and act as an entitled mob when the don't get their way...this accounts more for their loss of membership and prominence more than any vast right wing conspiracy

Hey. Melanoma Trump is having her shoes made in Ethiopia now. Screw China! Oh wait. Labor is cheaper in Ethiopia.

Make America great again :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You do realize that the so-called "middle class" is a by-product of capitalism? Unions did not create the middle class. They benefited from working for wealthy companies which paid them well--much more than they would have gotten otherwise--even before they were unionized.

Sadly you assume history would have been the same if unions were not involved..
if these wealthy compaines which you say paid them so we'll
why the need for unions Without unions, we would still be working 12 hour days, seven days a week, with no paid holidays, no paid vacations, no pay raises. Can unions price themselves out of a Job yes and many have accepted that reality


The #1 item on the list of stupid spending, is union benefits.
Thats not the whole story is it ... The new revenue erosion and higher pension costs together would swell the projected deficits to $1.5 billion next fiscal The chief culprits behind the latest declining forecast were the state income tax.. no money no spending bring back more min wage jobs and the 60 hr work week thats the answer

you act as if Union members dont pay taxes or contribute into their own retirement or provide a valuable service to the state or town in which they work

INSANE benefits that were done away with, for good reason, in the private sector long ago.

what benefits are those that were done away with good reason ?? I love to hear them ... and why they were or should be stopped

"The new revenue erosion and higher pension costs together would swell the projected deficits to $1.5 billion next fiscal The chief culprits behind the latest declining forecast were the state income tax."

I don't know what that means.

But I know this...when CT tax revenues were at an all-time high, it still wasn't nearly enough to fund those benefits. WDMSO, you can't have public servants getting pensions worth several hundred thousand dollars. You just can't. The math worked in the 1950s, because people only lived a few years in retirement. Now, people live for decades. Again, that's why the private sector did away with these pensions.

Here's an idea...you save whatever you can for your retirement, just like I have to do. However much you choose to set aside, that's how much you have. That's the way it works for everyone else, there is no earthly reason why it can't work for public servants. Your financial security is no more important to society than anyone else's.

"you act as if Union members dont pay taxes or contribute into their own retirement"

Who the hell said that?

Yes, most union workers pay a small % of their pay into their pension. But that's a tiny fraction of the overall cost of the pension, and you expect everyone else to make up the difference. Why is that? Why are unionized employees so special? if I don't save enough to fund my own retirement, are you going to chip into my 401(k)? No. I have to pay for my own retirement. So should you.

"what benefits are those that were done away with good reason ?? I love to hear them ... and why they were or should be stopped"

Pensions and cheap healthcare in retirement. Those were done away with in the early 1990s. They should be stopped (for the tenth time) because they are impossible to pay for. That's why states have those deficits. Those benefits can never, ever be paid for. Never..

Hey. Melanoma Trump is having her shoes made in Ethiopia now. Screw China! Oh wait. Labor is cheaper in Ethiopia.

Make America great again :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that's where you get the best elephant leather

that's where you get the best elephant leather

Elephant scrotum makes the best bowing ball bags you will ever see.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But I know this...when CT tax revenues were at an all-time high, it still wasn't nearly enough to fund those benefits.

That's why states have those deficits. Those benefits can never, ever be paid for. Never..

current retirement benefits should not have to be paid with current tax revenues...where are the years of "contributions" plus interest made by the public employees to their retirement???....sounds like a Ponzi scheme

You can twist that into saying I only care about the rich, but my brother and sister-in-law are public schoolteachers here in CT, and they pull in over 100 large EACH, and they have immense pensions waiting for them. They are now "the haves". We can't afford it, we just can't.



pretty sweet deal for 180 days a year

a part time worker putting in 3.5 days a week would be working 182 :huh:

pretty sweet deal for 180 days a year

a part time worker putting in 3.5 days a week would be working 182 :huh:

And their contribution to their pension, is 5% of each paycheck. For a 5% contribution, they will get an annual pension of more than 75k a year, starting at age 59 (compared to social security, where we contribute almost 13%, and at best will get 35k a year starting at age 67!!). That is INSANE. They could contribute 25% of their paycheck, it wouldn't fund that pension. And they expect the taxpayers to make up the difference.

I tell my brother and sister-in-law all the time to make other plans. They will not be getting that full pension, no way, no how - and they need to prepare for that. The state will declare insolvency long before they are dead, probably before they retire. Then we will re-negotiate those contracts.

And that's the irony. In the end, the people who get hurt the worst, are the union members who believed the unions and the politicians, who made ridiculous pension promises, in return for union dues and campaign contributions. It's beyond bad policy, it's evil. But when I warn people about what's coming (and it's coming, make no mistake), they say I hate teachers and cops.

current retirement benefits should not have to be paid with current tax revenues...where are the years of "contributions" plus interest made by the public employees to their retirement???....sounds like a Ponzi scheme

Of course it's a Ponzi scheme.

These people make tiny contributions to their pensions, and in most states, the taxpayers are expected to make up the difference. states have mostly been able to kick the can down the road using accounting gimmicks (liabilities that aren't due in this year, aren't considered in the annual budget), but as more and more Baby Boomers are retiring, the reserves are dwindling FAST. Here in CT, we will start bouncing checks in 5-10 years (depending on interest rates and some other variables). At that point, the state will concede that they can't double th income tax, so they will have zero choice but to declare insolvency and re-negotiate those contracts.

These people should have switched to 401(k)s (or whatever you call the public sector equivalent) 25 years ago. But here in CT, the legislature has been controlled by Democrats for 30 years, and Democrats are beholden to labor unions, so that wasn't going to happen. You can only plug holes in the dike with your fingers for so long, we only have so many fingers. The Baby Boomers will be the wrecking ball that destroys the dike once and for all.

This isn't advanced calculus, this is elementary school arithmetic. You cannot have more than there is. Public labor unions are the lsst entity on the planet that refuses to accept that notion.

As you said, it is absolutely a Ponzi scheme. Like all Ponzi schemes, it will implode when sufficiently more money is going out than coming in. We have been treading water, barely, for many years. But we cannot dodge the economic impact of the Baby Boomers. It's coming.

Roland was governer when the current contract(s) where negotiated. For some of his early term the Repub. controlled the Senate (Conn. wasn't always as blue as now). Many state employees were getting like a 9-11% raise each year for like 5 years bc the state went from a 35 hour week to a 40 hour week over that 5 year period. Current state ees have like 2 or 3 different pension/benefit plans based on when they where hired. Roland signed a deal in like 1997 that made it very hard to limit pension and other benefits for state ees. Conn. had budget surpluses in the years those contracts where neg. When the economy tanked he illegally layed off state union members and Conn's liablity for that is now like $100M.

Malloy has made some strides in funding the unfunded pension benefits.

Fault lies with both parties.

Roland was governer when the current contract(s) where negotiated. For some of his early term the Repub. controlled the Senate (Conn. wasn't always as blue as now). Many state employees were getting like a 9-11% raise each year for like 5 years bc the state went from a 35 hour week to a 40 hour week over that 5 year period. Current state ees have like 2 or 3 different pension/benefit plans based on when they where hired. Roland signed a deal in like 1997 that made it very hard to limit pension and other benefits for state ees. Conn. had budget surpluses in the years those contracts where neg. When the economy tanked he illegally layed off state union members and Conn's liablity for that is now like $100M.

Malloy has made some strides in funding the unfunded pension benefits.

Fault lies with both parties.

"Roland was governer when the current contract(s) where negotiated"

(1) John Roland is not anyone's idea of a conservative
(2) the governor doesn't write the contract language. That is done by the legislature.

Forget about party, let's use the terms liberal and conservative. It is a liberal notion (regardless of party affiliation) to give unions a blank check and to think that's good policy. It's a conservative notion (regardless of party affiliation) to believe in fiscal responsibility.

"Fault lies with both parties"

The fault does not lie with conservatives, who have never had even a whisper of a voice in Hartford.

"Roland signed a deal in like 1997 that made it very hard to limit pension and other benefits for state ees"

Is that true? The contracts are in place for that long? Wow...well, if the government doesn't want to limit those pensions, then the laws of arithmetic will be happy to oblige. because regardless of which party is in control, you still cannot have more than there is. A check with insufficient funds to back it up, will bounce regardless of the party membership of the idiot who signed said check.

"Conn. had budget surpluses in the years those contracts where neg"

But a budget surplus only consider expenses that need to be paid in that year. Even when there were budget surpluses, the actuaries were warning that the pensions could not be funded. Same thing with Social Security, which always generated massive surpluses - the actuaries knew that regardless of any current year surpluses, the plan could not bear the weight of the Baby Boomer effect. A one-year surplus doesn't matter, this is long term debt.

"Malloy has made some strides in funding the unfunded pension benefits"

Sure, he spent a ton of my money to delay bankruptcy by a month.

Paul, why do I need to pay anything for their pensions? If I have to find a way to retire on whatever I manage to save in my 401(k) (as does everyone in the private sector), why can't public servants do the same thing? If a teacher wants an annuity paying 75k a year starting at age 59, LET HIM PAY FOR THAT HIMSELF. if I have to fund my own retirement, why is it also my responsibility to fund theirs?

Sadly you assume history would have been the same if unions were not involved..

Obviously, I did not say that history would have been the same. If I assumed that, then why would I care one way or the other if unions existed or not?

And, perhaps, you did not notice that I said in-house unions in the private sector were perfectly fine with me. What I object to is international or national unions which bring outside influence, money, and power to muster against a company which by federal law is prevented from so called "colluding" with other companies to fight back. More reasonable wages and compensation packages which fit a particular company's financial structure can be arrived at when outside power is not involved.

An example which I was personally involved with is what the UAW used to do with every new contract negotiation. Back then the US auto industry mainly comprised of "The Big Three"--Ford, GM, and Chrysler. The same union, UAW, represented the workers for all three. The union tactic was to pick only one of the companies to bargain with. The company would put up as much of a fight as the union was willing to accept, but in the end, it knew that if the union did not get what it wanted, they would strike, leaving the company without production while their two competitors were cranking out cars to sell. The company could only hold out briefly during a strike, while the striking workers were subsidized by the collective union funds. When both sides came to the inevitable agreement, the result became the blue print for contracts with the other companies. Actual competition between the companies for labor, and the need to offer better wages and conditions, was eliminated.

The union would claim the victory of achieving a great contract, making them hero's to the workers, but two years later it would claim that the contract was not so great, that the workers were still oppressed. So the phony dance of workers who were so happy to get a job in the first place that paid them way more than their skills could have gotten them elsewhere, switched every three years and decided it was no good and the fight against a fictitious oppression would be repeated.

Naturally, the price of cars would go up a few hundred dollars, which would add to the inflation of the rest of the economy, so prices in general would rise, so when the new contract was due the gains from the old one were to some extent lost--a loss aided by their own demands.

Would a strictly in-house union even need to automatically have a new contract every three years? Could it not, without outside influence and agitation, recognize when some adjustments were needed and reasonably discuss the problems with the company? Wouldn't in-house negotiations which reflected a company's financial status be more reasonable?

if these wealthy compaines which you say paid them so we'll
why the need for unions Without unions, we would still be working 12 hour days, seven days a week, with no paid holidays, no paid vacations, no pay raises. Can unions price themselves out of a Job yes and many have accepted that reality

They DID pay them well in relation to general pay scales especially for unskilled labor. Factory jobs were coveted even before unions. It was kind of humorous to me after the 8 hour day was instituted how many workers were glad to get overtime so they could get a larger paycheck. Sort of like self-employed people who work way more than 40 hours a week to pay for a better life, or even to break even. Ford Motor Co. actually instituted the 5 day 40 hour work week in 1926 before it was unionized. And not long after that most manufactures in the US followed suit. They found that giving the time off actually added to productivity.

Maybe you're assuming that evil manufacturers are just out to squeeze the last ounce of life out of their workers in order to generate the last penny of profit. Maybe you're assuming that employers simply cannot be enlightened, or are slave masters, and that they must be FORCED to act like normal human beings.

The manufacturing segment actually lifted people out of the poverty of the pre-industrial age. Even with the initial long working hours, the workers had more time to themselves than they did when they had to eke out a life from the land. As technology advances, work becomes easier, production increases, the demand for human labor in time and effort decreases. Even without workers of the world uniting, technological advances along with increased understanding of human motivation and the importance of workplace satisfaction brings about better working conditions. And actual competition, an actually free market rather than an over-regulated one, creates the competition for labor which includes competitive wages and working conditions.

you act as if Union members dont pay taxes or contribute into their own retirement or provide a valuable service to the state or town in which they work

No I don't act that way. The taxes that public sector workers pay are taken from the money they get from the private sector taxes that pay their salaries. And their contribution into their own retirement also is derived from the private sector taxes which gives them the money to contribute. And all pension money they get is either from the taxes that paid for it or from their pension bureau investing in private sector sources. So all the money, in one form or another, is derived from private sector either through taxation or investment.

And the service provided to the state or town should be valuable, or if it is not, why should the citizens pay for it.


Public sector unions are the big issue now. That was the thrust of your article. That is the remaining "big" problem with unions now. As I've said several times now, the creators of enforced collective bargaining stipulated that the public sector must not be unionized. The very problems they, FDR and labor leaders of the time, foresaw have happened.

Your article didn't address any of that. It was all about public sector unions being tied to the fortune of progressive politics and those unions being the tip of the spear in the battle to transform predominantly Republican state legislative bodies into Democrat ones.
How that was supposed to solve the problems that FDR warned against and which have occurred was not addressed. Apparently, per the article, there is no problem.

When I first encountered public sector unionization, I worked for the Detroit Public library system. At the time it was one of the best in the nation. Before the librarians were unionized we had an in-house employee organization which elected library employees to negotiate compensation. Most of the management negotiators had worked their way up through the system. Bargaining was amicable and reasonable. The financial books were open, and everybody knew what was feasible without crippling our ability to serve the public.

The library, as well as the city as a whole, had a history of protecting its employees and paying enough to live comfortably somewhere in the scale of middle class America. Even in hard times, including the Great Depression, layoffs were unheard of. And, before unionization, we all had pension and benefit packages. Civil service jobs were sought after.

The city's non-management employees had recently become unionized, represented by A.F.S.M.E. or other skilled labor orgs. The younger librarians were not satisfied with the status quo, especially the wages which they thought were too low for their status as degreed professionals. So they wanted to be represented by a more powerful outside union. The UAW was chosen, a vote was taken, and the UAW was chosen over the old in-house professional organization.

I had been a UAW member before when I worked for GM. I thought, oh crap, the stupid three year dance with the antagonistic labor management relationship and the importation of fiscal problems that the auto companies had. And, yeah, all that happened. When I retired the library had shrunk from a staff of about 1,100 employees to a bit over 300. Many branch libraries were closed. Book collections were downsized. Service quality deteriorated. None of that happened before, even in bad times such, as I said, during the depression.

And the rest of the city began its precipitous fall from greatness to bankruptcy.

Was that all the fault of unionization? Obviously, it was more complex than one single issue. But unionization was a piece of the big picture. Unionization, in terms of big national and international organizations, has become a branch of political power. The politics which strives for collective power and identity finds its home in big centralized government, collectivism versus individualism, big corporations rather than scattered small or little businesses. And big unions thrive in that climate if they support it. And they do support it, financially and ideologically. They propagandize for it. I still get the UAW "Solidarity" magazine. The propaganda disinformation it publishes is astounding. One issue proudly proclaimed that the Constitution protected the "right" of collective bargaining. No, the Constitution doesn't, but big progressive government with its crony judges does.

So, yeah, the big unions played their role in destroying Detroit. They are part and parcel of the politics which created business flight out of the city and even out of the country. And without that tax base, the intransigent employee demands became too onerous to sustain.

As an aside the inflation graph of the US by date shows a peculiar rise when compared to the advent of expanded unionization, especially public sector unionization. Right about the time when manufacturers were more generally becoming unionized, inflation begins to show a bit of a rise. And just about the time public sector unions began to take hold, the graph shoots up dramatically. Are correlation and cause connected? I don't know. I think there is some correlation/cause connection.

"The new revenue erosion and higher pension costs together would swell the projected deficits to $1.5 billion next fiscal The chief culprits behind the latest declining forecast were the state income tax."

I don't know what that means.

http://ctmirror.org/2016/11/15/debt-costs-shrinking-revenues-taking-a-big-toll-on-next-ct-budget/

Paul, why do I need to pay anything for their pensions? If I have to find a way to retire on whatever I manage to save in my 401(k) (as does everyone in the private sector), why can't public servants do the same thing? If a teacher wants an annuity paying 75k a year starting at age 59, LET HIM PAY FOR THAT HIMSELF. if I have to fund my own retirement, why is it also my responsibility to fund theirs?

not to answer for paul.. however if you want their benefits do their job.. for 30 -35 years.. seems don't know many private sector guys that have been with the same company for that long in todays world 30years ago most of the NE did work in the same job same company 20 plus years who screwed who?

"The new revenue erosion and higher pension costs together would swell the projected deficits to $1.5 billion next fiscal The chief culprits behind the latest declining forecast were the state income tax."

I don't know what that means.

http://ctmirror.org/2016/11/15/debt-costs-shrinking-revenues-taking-a-big-toll-on-next-ct-budget/

Paul, why do I need to pay anything for their pensions? If I have to find a way to retire on whatever I manage to save in my 401(k) (as does everyone in the private sector), why can't public servants do the same thing? If a teacher wants an annuity paying 75k a year starting at age 59, LET HIM PAY FOR THAT HIMSELF. if I have to fund my own retirement, why is it also my responsibility to fund theirs?

not to answer for paul.. however if you want their benefits do their job.. for 30 -35 years.. seems don't know many private sector guys that have been with the same company for that long in todays world 30years ago most of the NE did work in the same job same company 20 plus years who screwed who?

"you want their benefits do their job.. for 30 -35 years"

No, thanks, I don't want to do their job. I want to do my job, and spend what I earn on my kids. That is a very tired, thoughtless argument. Why don't you look at the numbers, see what it will take to actually fund those pensions, and ask yourself if it's fair to do that to your neighbors. We all want a fat pension that's mostly paid for by others. But few of us actually feel so entitled to other people's hard-earned wages. Also, we can't all work in the public unions. You need people in the private sector paying taxes, right?

If I have to make some sacrifices so that public servants don't have to live in trailer parks and eat cat food, I am happy to do that. However, if I have to make sacrifices so that public servants can cling to antiquated benefits that dwarf what's available to the public they claim to serve, that's something else. And the latter is what is happening.

WDMSO, I posted a link from the Hartford Courant showing that the unfunded liabilities here in CT are $19k per person. That means, in order to pay for those benefits, my family of 5 owes another $95,000 to the state of CT, on top of current tax rates, which are already absurdly high.

When tax rates that are among the highest in the nation, fall short of paying for those pensions by $19,000 per person, then those benefits are insane. If there is another explanation, go ahead and provide it. if you can tell me how the state can get another $95k from my family without destroying us, I'm all ears.

we all get that you want this pension. What you haven't done, is offered a way to pay for it. because there isn't a way to pay for it. You are reacting to what you want. I am reacting to the math. All you can see is what's best for you. I am looking at what's best for all of us, collectively.

"seems don't know many private sector guys that have been with the same company for that long in todays world 30years ago most of the NE did work in the same job same company 20 plus years who screwed who"

What difference does it make to you, if I stay at one company for 40 years, or if I switch every 10 years. It's my choice, and I have switched companies when it benefitted my family. That's called freedom.

"you want their benefits do their job.. for 30 -35 years"

No, thanks, I don't want to do their job. I want to do my job, and spend what I earn on my kids. That is a very tired, thoughtless argument. Why don't you look at the numbers, see what it will take to actually fund those pensions, and ask yourself if it's fair to do that to your neighbors. We all want a fat pension that's mostly paid for by others. But few of us actually feel so entitled to other people's hard-earned wages. Also, we can't all work in the public unions. You need people in the private sector paying taxes, right?

If I have to make some sacrifices so that public servants don't have to live in trailer parks and eat cat food, I am happy to do that. However, if I have to make sacrifices so that public servants can cling to antiquated benefits that dwarf what's available to the public they claim to serve, that's something else. And the latter is what is happening.

WDMSO, I posted a link from the Hartford Courant showing that the unfunded liabilities here in CT are $19k per person. That means, in order to pay for those benefits, my family of 5 owes another $95,000 to the state of CT, on top of current tax rates, which are already absurdly high.

When tax rates that are among the highest in the nation, fall short of paying for those pensions by $19,000 per person, then those benefits are insane. If there is another explanation, go ahead and provide it. if you can tell me how the state can get another $95k from my family without destroying us, I'm all ears.

we all get that you want this pension. What you haven't done, is offered a way to pay for it. because there isn't a way to pay for it. You are reacting to what you want. I am reacting to the math. All you can see is what's best for you. I am looking at what's best for all of us, collectively.

"seems don't know many private sector guys that have been with the same company for that long in todays world 30years ago most of the NE did work in the same job same company 20 plus years who screwed who"

What difference does it make to you, if I stay at one company for 40 years, or if I switch every 10 years. It's my choice, and I have switched companies when it benefitted my family. That's called freedom.

I love how you hide behind Freedom your not looking for freedom.. your looking for fairness .. your looking to remove freedoms (colective bargining ) because you dont have it .. some one looking for freedom does not reach in to others pockets .. you have freedom you made your choices now try accepting them.. do I think you shouldn't get Social security because I am not eligible to collect because I paying to my own pension and dont have the quarters .. of course not ,

again who screwed the American worker companies ..

The History of the Pension
For generations, pensions were the retirement plan standard for just about every employer. This may be hard to believe, but it wasn’t until the early 1980’s that 401(k)’s even existed. Ironically, 401(k)’s were originally added to the IRS code as a way for companies to offer additional retirement benefits to high ranking executives, above and beyond their defined pensions. This didn’t last long.

Over time, most employers have made the shift from defined benefit pensions to 401(k)’s. 401(k)’s were sold as the fresh new thing, giving employees all of the power to choose their own investments. In reality, they were often times a low to modest cost savings over their defined benefit counterparts. The combination of the appeal to the American individualistic ambition and cost cutting possibilities were the perfect storm to sell 401(k)’s over their elder relative.

I love how you hide behind Freedom your not looking for freedom.. your looking for fairness .. your looking to remove freedoms (colective bargining ) because you dont have it .. some one looking for freedom does not reach in to others pockets .. you have freedom you made your choices now try accepting them.. do I think you shouldn't get Social security because I am not eligible to collect because I paying to my own pension and dont have the quarters .. of course not ,

again who screwed the American worker companies ..

The History of the Pension
For generations, pensions were the retirement plan standard for just about every employer. This may be hard to believe, but it wasn’t until the early 1980’s that 401(k)’s even existed. Ironically, 401(k)’s were originally added to the IRS code as a way for companies to offer additional retirement benefits to high ranking executives, above and beyond their defined pensions. This didn’t last long.

Over time, most employers have made the shift from defined benefit pensions to 401(k)’s. 401(k)’s were sold as the fresh new thing, giving employees all of the power to choose their own investments. In reality, they were often times a low to modest cost savings over their defined benefit counterparts. The combination of the appeal to the American individualistic ambition and cost cutting possibilities were the perfect storm to sell 401(k)’s over their elder relative.

"your not looking for freedom.. your looking for fairness "

Freedom and fairness are not mutually exclusive. And if I am looking for fairness (which I agree I am), what are you looking for?

"your looking to remove freedoms (colective bargining ) because you dont have it "

Wrong. I would remove collective bargaining not because I don't have it, but because it leads to crushing debt. I have provided hard data to back that up, at least in my home state of CT.

"do I think you shouldn't get Social security because I am not eligible to collect because I paying to my own pension and dont have the quarters .. of course not "

Here's the difference...if you are not eligible for SS, that means you don't pay into SS. So my SS benefits do not impact you one cent, so you have no reason to care.

"they (401ks) were often times a low to modest cost savings over their defined benefit counterparts"

That might be the stupidest thing ever posted on the Internet. With 401ks, companies typically contribute 3% of a person's salary each year. You're going to say with a straight face, that my company could give me a pension with that same 3% contribution?

Here's an annuity calculator. I figured out that to pay for an annuity of 50k a year for 27 years,. assuming growth of 6% per year, you'd need to start with $700,000. You think you can accumulate that much, by putting 3% of your salary into an account each year?

http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/investing/annuity-calculator.aspx

I love how you hide behind Freedom your not looking for freedom.. your looking for fairness .. your looking to remove freedoms (colective bargining ) because you dont have it ..

Saying that "collective bargaining" as it is practiced here is "freedom" is like saying that a group of your associates who are less well off than you and who depend on you to foot the bill for any group activity among all of you is "free," has a "right," to demand that you negotiate with them how much of your money must be spent on said funding and under what conditions they will participate in the activity with you. You also would not have the right to collude with other well off people, who enjoy the same activity and also subsidize their group of less well off friends, in order to have a combined agreement not to cave in to any demands. And you have no "right" or freedom to not practice the activity with them nor the freedom to stop paying for it, other than to stop doing that activity all-together. And if you did stop doing it all-together, your group of friends who depended on you to fund their activity could go over to the other well off people who fund the same activities for their associated group which could grow to take up the slack produced by the departure of you, their former benefactor.

The form of "collective bargaining" you're speaking of is forced by federal law on employers. They cannot refuse to bargain with their "collective" (union) workers other than to quit the business. Nor can the employers associate with a group of other employers to oppose an industry wide demand of employees even though the latter are free to associate collectively against a single employer, even with employees of other companies which are not even in the same industry as their employer if they belong to the same collective (union).

The "freedom" of association in collective bargaining applies only to the employees and their union. The companies are not free to associate with other companies. How can it be called freedom if it is dependent on government coercion? That would be an Orwellian freedom at best.

some one looking for freedom does not reach in to others pockets ..

Whose pockets are being reached into by collective bargaining?

again who screwed the American worker companies ..

I don't know what an American worker company is. Whatever it is, and however it was screwed . . . maybe "freedeom" screwed them?

The History of the Pension
For generations, pensions were the retirement plan standard for just about every employer. This may be hard to believe, but it wasn’t until the early 1980’s that 401(k)’s even existed. Ironically, 401(k)’s were originally added to the IRS code as a way for companies to offer additional retirement benefits to high ranking executives, above and beyond their defined pensions. This didn’t last long.

Over time, most employers have made the shift from defined benefit pensions to 401(k)’s. 401(k)’s were sold as the fresh new thing, giving employees all of the power to choose their own investments. In reality, they were often times a low to modest cost savings over their defined benefit counterparts. The combination of the appeal to the American individualistic ambition and cost cutting possibilities were the perfect storm to sell 401(k)’s over their elder relative.

My limited understanding of the difference between 401k's and the "standard" pensions you mentioned is that the latter is a defined benefit guarantee. A defined monthly benefit is guaranteed on retirement and the provider (company, municipality) is at risk for providing the benefit. On the other hand, the 401k is a defined contribution plan in which a given amount of pay can be invested by the employees as he wishes, and the employee is at risk in terms of what benefits she gets at retirement. The company is relieved of the cost of providing pension payments. So the cost savings to the employer are substantial.

So the cost savings to the employer are substantial.

The difference is massive. Which is exactly why almost the entire private sector made the switch.

Trump just filed suit to block the PA recount despite saying earlier this week there was "massive fraud" and that "millions of people illegally voted for Clinton".

It is going to be a fun 4 years watching him.

Trump just filed suit to block the PA recount despite saying earlier this week there was "massive fraud" and that "millions of people illegally voted for Clinton".

It is going to be a fun 4 years watching him.

once again the difference between something being said...and something actually being done :deadhorse:

wasn't the left and many on the right up in arms over the suggestion that he might not accept the outcome....where is the outrage over those who apparently have not accepted the outcome...??

trust me...it will far more fun watching the left and media reacting to Trump over the next 4 years....

So what Trump says doesn't matter?

So what Trump says doesn't matter?

not generally

have to agree with you there.

H0W TRUMP COULD RUIN HIS PRESIDENCY

Ann Coulter | Thursday Dec 1, 2016 9:47 AM

Soon after Trump’s announcement speech, I said he would win the nomination and likely the election. It wasn’t that hard to predict. For anyone familiar with the Republican Party’s repeated betrayals of the American people, it was a 2-foot putt.

I issue this warning with the same certitude — in fact, for the exact same reason I knew anyone running on Trump’s platform would have unbreakable support from millions of voters.

What coalesced Trump’s base, what made his support tempered steel, was the fact that voters had been lied to, over and over again — on many things, but most smugly and repeatedly on immigration.

How many times did we have to see the GOP choke? There’s 30 seconds left in the game, Republicans are down by two, they move the ball up the court, have a man in position — and, every time, the GOP would do anything to avoid taking the 3-point shot.

That is the beating heart of the anger that voters felt toward the party. No one trusted Republicans to ever score when they had the ball.

It’s why Trump’s supporters stuck with him through thick and thin — his attack on war hero John McCain (he deserved it), his mocking a disabled reporter (a lie), his lazy first debate performance (totally true) and the “Access Hollywood” tape (oh well).

After he gave that Mexican rapists speech, and never backed down, Trump’s base would have brushed off six more “Access Hollywood” tapes. All because they think Trump will take the shot.

He’d better! As the popular vote proves, we don’t have 30 seconds on the clock. It’s only three.

But if he breaks a major campaign promise, his supporters will turn on him with a blind ferocity, dwarfing their rage toward Jeb! because Trump’s is the more exquisite con. He will have duped them. And he will never, ever, ever get them back.

Most of his promises can be kept with little trouble: He will appoint good judges, cut regulations, replace Obamacare and renegotiate trade deals. In other words, he’ll do all the things any Republican president would do — plus the trade deals.

But the moment Trump attempts to make good on his central promise — to remove troublesome immigrants and give us our country back — every major institution in America will declare war on him.

Trump knows that. In his Phoenix immigration speech, he said: “To all the politicians, donors and special interests, hear these words from me and all of you today. There is only one core issue in the immigration debate, and that issue is the well-being of the American people.”

If powerful interests were not furiously opposed to Trump’s idea that immigration should benefit Americans, rather than foreigners, our immigration policies would already do so.

It will surprise consumers of American media to learn this, but every promise Trump made on immigration is already the law. Why? Because politicians know that’s what the public wants. So they pass the laws — and then refuse to enforce them.

But if Trump doesn’t appoint the sort of people capable of fulfilling his campaign promises on immigration, he will fail. He’ll be just another lying politician, and his supporters will watch in horror as rapists, terrorists and drug dealers continue living in our country.

There will be no one person to blame. No one is ever to blame in Washington. They just won’t get it done.

Then, well into the Trump presidency, some Muslim will commit a machete attack, shoot up a community center, stage a mass slaughter at a gay nightclub or bomb a marathon. There’s no question but that the terrorist attacks won’t stop — unless Trump nominates people who know what needs to be done and aren’t intimidated by testy New York Times editorials.

There will be more Americans like Kate Steinle, Grant Ronnebeck and Joshua Wilkerson killed by illegal aliens. There will be more children addicted to heroin brought in by Mexican drug cartels. There will be more parents joining the Remembrance Project.

But this time, they’ll blame Trump.

And then it will be Trump’s opponents saying, “What is wrong with our politicians, our leaders — if we can call them that. What the hell are we doing?”

If Trump betrays voters on immigration, he can have as many rallies as he wants, but Americans will say, Been there, done that — you screwed us. He will never escape the stink of broken campaign promises.

So unless Trump has another 60 million voters hiding someplace, the appointments he makes today — to State, Defense, Homeland Security, Labor, even the IRS — will determine whether he is remembered as America’s greatest president, or if the Trump name becomes a cautionary tale in American politics.

At this precise moment — not after his inauguration, not in year two of his administration, but today, as he fills his Cabinet — Trump has to decide if he’s going to be like every other Republican and throw a brick or grab the ball and score.

Whether he’s listening or not, his supporters are screaming: TRUMP! NOW! TAKE THE SHOT!!!