Redistribution of wealth

[WTF]

Originally Posted by WTF

Do you believe that Wisconsin teachers/state workers should pay a larger % of their health care costs?

Anyone , feel free to answer.
.

DFW, why did you choose not to answer this simple question?


''We have a right to PURSUE happiness''

Really? Do you really believe that crap? We have a right to pursue what the majority say we can pursue.

[DFW5Traveler]

Originally Posted by WTF

DFW, why did you choose not to answer this simple question?


''We have a right to PURSUE happiness''

Really? Do you really believe that crap? We have a right to pursue what the majority say we can pursue.

First of all Hobson, I have a life outside this board. I'm not going to sit around here and wait for your fuc*king posts to rebut. Secondly. your posts are inane and have no purpose other than to show your idiological dogma. Maybe if you weren't indoctronated, you might actually have something to contribute. Stick to your opinions though, it shows people how idiotic liberalism truly is since you elitist seem to think you know best.

Edit: Lastly, your damned right they should contribute more to their own retirements. They chose to be in that profession.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

Edit: Lastly, your damned right they should contribute more to their own retirements. They chose to be in that profession.

What do you think of military families paying more towards their premiums?




http://www.cfozone.com/index.php/Newsflash/Secretary-Gates-calls-for-health-care-cuts.html

To make these cuts, Gates is asking military families at the Department of Defense to contribute more to the premiums of their health insurance, known as TriCare. Gates subtly asked military retirees who work for private employers to go on their health insurance. He anticipates an uproar from Congress and veterans groups.

[DFW5Traveler]

Originally Posted by WTF

What do you think of military families paying more towards their premiums?




http://www.cfozone.com/index.php/Newsflash/Secretary-Gates-calls-for-health-care-cuts.html

To make these cuts, Gates is asking military families at the Department of Defense to contribute more to the premiums of their health insurance, known as TriCare. Gates subtly asked military retirees who work for private employers to go on their health insurance. He anticipates an uproar from Congress and veterans groups.

Seriously, you are way out of bounds now. The military does not have collective bargaining as unions. The majority of the military are enlisted people making a lot less than the starting pay of most teachers depending on COLA in the area. The military is a pyramidic hierarchy and for every one general there are thousands of enlisted non-rates (e3 and below).

If they took that money for "Health care" from the military an e-3 with less than 4 years would be making less than 23k per anum where a teacher in WI is making on avg 55k. Do some fucking research before you attack the people that ensure you have the right to spout your bullshit.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

If they took that money for "Health care" from the military an e-3 with less than 4 years would be making less than 23k per anum where a teacher in WI is making on avg 55k. Do some fucking research before you attack the people that ensure you have the right to spout your bullshit.

How to obliterate everything you've said over the last 3 days in 55 words or less.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Doove

How to obliterate everything you've said over the last 3 days in 55 words or less.

He does not understand that Doove.

The taxpayers pay for the military, they need us just as bad as we need them. DFWS does not understand that concept.

He thinks I made up military personnel may have to start paying for their healthcare. I did not, Gates suggested it.....but like everyone, DFWS only want to cut what he deems wasteful. He thinks teachers are overpaid! And in his case they probably were

[Doove]

Originally Posted by WTF

He does not understand that Doove.

The taxpayers pay for the military, they need us just as bad as we need them. DFWS does not understand that concept.

He thinks I made up military personnel may have to start paying for their healthcare. I did not, Gates suggested it.....but like everyone, DFWS only want to cut what he deems wasteful.

And if an E-3 with less than 4 years is making less than 23K per annum, well, hasn't DFW spent 3 days arguing that that must be what they deserve? And they (meaning he, in this case) shouldn't whine about it because it was their choice?

Talk about being hoist on your own petard.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Doove

And if an E-3 with less than 4 years is making less than 23K per annum, well, hasn't DFW spent 3 days arguing that that must be what they deserve? And they (meaning he, in this case) shouldn't whine about it because it was their choice?

Talk about being hoist on your own petard.

You are purposely twisting DFW’s words. DFW said the E-3 contracted with the government for said wages and benefits. The government entered into this contract under no duress as the E-3 was acting as an individual without support or threat from any other agent, e.g., a union. As long as the E-3 fulfills his/her part of the contract, the government should be obligated to fulfill its part of the contract. The E-3 is contractually entitled to his/her wages and benefits according the terms enumerated when the contract was made.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Doove

And if an E-3 with less than 4 years is making less than 23K per annum, well, hasn't DFW spent 3 days arguing that that must be what they deserve? And they (meaning he, in this case) shouldn't whine about it because it was their choice?

Talk about being hoist on your own petard.

Logic is not at the top of his list of things he wants from Santa Claus....I think he is afraid that if he had a tad more logic it would destroy his belief system. Cats like him are scared of change...sure as hell scared of ''hope and change!''

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You are purposely twisting DFW’s words. DFW said the E-3 contracted with the government for said wages and benefits. The government entered into this contract under no duress as the E-3 was acting as an individual without support or threat from any other agent, e.g., a union. As long as the E-3 fulfills his/her part of the contract, the government should be obligated to fulfill its part of the contract. The E-3 is contractually entitled to his/her wages and benefits according the terms enumerated when the contract was made.

No you are missing the point. We are talking about running out of money to pay for said services. Therefore we are talking about changing said contract. You cats on the right have no trouble doing that to unions.

You are hypocrites in this regard. Pure and simple. If the soldiers do not like what the government proposes they might need to think about starting their own union. Ever thought about it like that IB? Logic. I know that might shatters your belief system....

All you are proving is that without a union or collective bargaining rights the government will fuc you ten times over. You notice that the Gov from Wisc. exempted firefighters and police, two unions that tend to vote Republican.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

No you are missing the point. We are talking about running out of money to pay for said services. Therefore we are talking about changing said contract. You cats on the right have no trouble doing that to unions.

You are hypocrites in this regard. Pure and simple.

I’m not being a hypocrite. As soon as the government doesn’t need the E-3’s service, s/he will be RIFTed when the contract expires (which occurs every 3 to 8 years). There is nothing in the original contract, or ensuing contracts (until the 18th year), that guarantees the E-3 a 20 yr career with accompanying benefits. BTW, an E-3 would have been released long before the 18th year.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I’m not being a hypocrite. As soon as the government doesn’t need the E-3’s service, s/he will be RIFTed when the contract expires (which occurs every 3 to 8 years). There is nothing in the original contract, or ensuing contracts (until the 18th year), that guarantees the E-3 a 20 yr career with accompanying benefits. BTW, an E-3 would have been released long before the 18th year.

Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

If they took that money for "Health care" from the military an e-3 with less than 4 years would be making less than 23k per anum where a teacher in WI is making on avg 55k. Do some fucking research before you attack the people that ensure you have the right to spout your bullshit.

You two are so full of bull .....here is what the starting pay for a teacher in said state is. Their housing is not paid for. They have no choice to live on campus for free or at a discount.

Next time you tell me to do some 'fucking research'' , I suggest you have your own duckies in a better row.


http://teacherportal.com/salary/Wisconsin-teacher-salary

Starting Salary: $25,222

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by WTF

http://teacherportal.com/salary/Wisconsin-teacher-salary

Starting Salary: $25,222

Great rebuttal technique WTF -- use a bad link so no one can check you. (Not that anyone follows WTF's links to lalal land.)

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

No you are missing the point. We are talking about running out of money to pay for said services. Therefore we are talking about changing said contract. Yes, the government (like any business) can offer a new set of conditions and terms when a contract comes up for renewal. The E-3 can choose to stay or separate at that time. In the meantime, the government should meet its end of the bargain. Don't you agree?

You cats on the right have no trouble doing that to unions.I think what the governor in Wisconsin (and governors in other states) is offering is a choice. The choice is that either the teachers renegotiate their contracts so that most of them still have jobs or face the consequences, i.e., a large portion of them will lose their jobs.

The military services also offer contracts - take it or leave it. There is no negotiation. If the service wants you gone, you're gone. There is no tenure until year 18, and even then, under the right set of circumstances, one still might find him/herself prematurely unemployed.

You are hypocrites in this regard. I see no hypocrisy in what I have posted. Perhaps it's just beyond your understanding.Pure and simple. If the soldiers do not like what the government proposes they might need to think about starting their own union. Ever thought about it like that IB? It's against the law dude.

without a union or collective bargaining rights the government will fuc you ten times over. Are you suggesting this is morally or legally appropriate?

OK?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Great rebuttal technique WTF -- use a bad link so no one can check you. (Not that anyone follows WTF's links to lalal land.)

Do your own research Einstein, especially if you do not trust mine. Then talk shit. You got any facts to dispute what I copied? Google is not rocket science PJ.

http://teacherportal.com/salary/Wisc...teacher-salary



No you are missing the point. We are talking about running out of money to pay for said services. Therefore we are talking about changing said contract. Yes, the government (like any business) can offer a new set of conditions and terms when a contract comes up for renewal. The E-3 can choose to stay or separate at that time. In the meantime, the government should meet its end of the bargain. Don't you agree?Except when the government is going broke. Would you not agree that before we disband the military because we are broke, we should renegoiate their contract? All I am using is the same logic you use on the teachers union.




You cats on the right have no trouble doing that to unions.I think what the governor in Wisconsin (and governors in other states) is offering is a choice. The choice is that either the teachers renegotiate their contracts so that most of them still have jobs or face the consequences, i.e., a large portion of them will lose their jobs.
No he is not. He has stated it is a take it or leave it.

The military services also offer contracts - take it or leave it. There is no negotiation. If the service wants you gone, you're gone. There is no tenure until year 18, and even then, under the right set of circumstances, one still might find him/herself prematurely unemployed. The same can be said for teachers , Jesus. The only difference is they have an advocate in their corner

You are hypocrites in this regard. I see no hypocrisy in what I have posted. Perhaps it's just beyond your understanding.Pure and simple. If the soldiers do not like what the government proposes they might need to think about starting their own union. Ever thought about it like that IB? It's against the law dude. Change the law, you have no problem with the Wisc. Gov doing so. Hypocrite.

without a union or collective bargaining rights the government will fuc you ten times over. Are you suggesting this is morally or legally appropriate? I am suggesting you enter reality. That is how things works when you have an imbalance of power. There is no moral judgment in that observable fact.