|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Feb 20, 2011 11:23:34 GMT -8
Reply to inocuace: Well, my statement about the need for more logical thinking was, I'm sorry to say, supported by your response to my excellent analysis of the budget crisis facing the U.S. and the several states. Let me elucidate further. - I am in no way advocating the demise of labor unions. Unions were formed in the first half of the 20th Century as a reaction to the precarious position of workers. They can still serve workers in a number of ways today. On the other hand, especially in the area of government workers, unions really do have more power than is desirable. They can, as has been said, chose their own bosses by affecting the outcome of elections. This puts them in a position to win wages and benefits that put their governments in a very precarious situation.
- It's not just the great economic downturn that is hurting government budgets. If my income goes down 10%, I will surely cut back on my spending. I may go out to dinner less often, stop taking vacations, make do with the clothes I already have, etc. The same should apply to governments, but there are many interest groups who will put enormous pressure on the politicians not to cut "their" parts of the budget. The more political pressure these groups can bring to bear, the less rational will be government budgets. I define a rational budget (among other things) as one that does not bankrupt the organization for which it is created. For that to happen, the budget must be flexible enough to deal with changing economic situations.
As for the state of California, our budget grew year after year at a rate higher than that of inflation. You just can't sustain that forever. Need I remind you of Greece?
- I can't imagine where you get the idea that I, or anyone else who has beliefs similar to mine, think that taxes should be eliminated. That's just nonsense. But taxes should be as low as possible consistent with achieving the legitimate goals of movement.
You may have mentioned a point or two that also require comment, but this will do for now. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 20, 2011 11:32:53 GMT -8
On reflection, I should not have used the sailor boy reference, Win. I apologize. Don't worry about me, I am fine. What is wrong here? A nice guy with a different opinion? I hope you see that most of us have fun on here and just a few take things too far. I guess you think I am one of the few. It is true I am not here to have fun. I am here to discuss the problems our country faces with those that agree with me politically and those that do not. I have hope that ultimately we can come to some mutual agreement on solutions to our problems. I know that this is a very small sample and we would not save our country just among ourselves. But, if we can come to some common ground for the good of our country, we could then talk to our friends and neighbors and see if that common ground could spread. Mighty trees grow from tiny seeds. |
|
|
|
Post by inocuace on Feb 20, 2011 12:20:18 GMT -8
Reply to inocuace: Well, my statement about the need for more logical thinking was, I'm sorry to say, supported by your response to my excellent analysis of the budget crisis facing the U.S. and the several states. Let me elucidate further. - I am in no way advocating the demise of labor unions. Unions were formed in the first half of the 20th Century as a reaction to the precarious position of workers. They can still serve workers in a number of ways today. On the other hand, especially in the area of government workers, unions really do have more power than is desirable. They can, as has been said, chose their own bosses by affecting the outcome of elections. This puts them in a position to win wages and benefits that put their governments in a very precarious satiation.
- It's not just the great economic downturn that is hurting government budgets. If my income goes down 10%, I will surely cut back on my spending. I may go out to dinner less often, stop taking vacations, make do with the clothes I already have, etc. The same should apply to governments, but there are many interest groups who will put enormous pressure on the politicians not to cut "their" parts of the budget. The more political pressure these groups can bring to bear, the less rational will be government budgets. I define a rational budget (among other things) as one that does not bankrupt the organization for which it is created. For that to happen, the budget must be flexible enough to deal with changing economic situations.
As for the state of California, our budget grew year after year at a rate higher than that of inflation. You just can't sustain that forever. Need I remind you of Greece?
- I can't imagine where you get the idea that I, or anyone else who has beliefs similar to mine, think that taxes should be eliminated. That's just nonsense. But taxes should be as low as possible consistent with achieving the legitimate goals of movement.
You may have mentioned a point or two that also require comment, but this will do for now. AzWm
I believe the term to use in this context is that you are certainly a legend in your own mind. Come off your hobby horse. You are not any smarter than the rest of us and you are just as conservative and diametrically opposed to my ideas as any of the more straight forward posters, your (in this context, you personally) carefully worded contributions notwithstanding. And your comments are more insidious, in my opinion, because you are smart and couch your opposition in seemingly reasonable terms. When I refer to "you" I am referring to the context and tone of all of the threads on this subject as well as the other readers. I were responding only to you, I would use a PM. But, then again, I probably would not waste the time. The nature of board posting implies that you respond not only to the poster but the thread as well. The only conclusion I draw from all of the posts about the demise of unions, their tactics and their usefulness is that conservatives do not like them. I am taking a position opposite to your belief system and you don't like it, so you say I do not understand or cannot cogitate. And that is a farcical contention. I understand what you advocate and I could probably argue your position at least as well as you have. I ought to some time. I can hide the basic message in what you espouse in all kinds of flowery prose. On the issue of taxes, I am drawing a conclusion from the conservative hyperbole on the subject. To illustrate, the reaction I get whenever I say that conservatives do not want to pay taxes is strident and ultimately illuminating. The angry response I invariably get conveys a powerful message. What conclusion am I to draw from that reaction? The conclusion is that I have touched a nerve about a wish that you will not admit explicitly, but believe in your heart. As to your comment about reducing the issue of California's finance to expenditures only, it denies the complexity of the issue and ignores the ultimate effect of the cuts you advocate. I am simply pointing out that the problem will not yield to the simple sound byte solution that conservatives always fling at the rest of us. Now, I could have just told you to "F" off, for your insulting comment about "logical thinking". But, I like using a little style when I am expressing contrariness. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 20, 2011 12:29:36 GMT -8
All the more reason to fund retirement plans out of current revenue. I can speak from experience. Mr. UPL How do you propose the country fund pensions as generous as yours from current revenue. I have already shown what a fixed annuity would have cost that would have paid what your first pension check was, not even counting that it has tripled since. The government would have had to set aside, from current revenue, more than they paid you in salary to fund your pension. Be so kind to run some numbers for us and support your proposition, rather than just run your mouth. The calculations are to long to go into and I won't. You can goggle "present value" tables if you care to. If you are really interested, go look up how annuities are calculated. It would be quite expensive, but it would show the real cost of an employee's total compensation package. The present method provides for our children and grandchildren to pay for years far into the future for what should have been a current expense. I would thank you for paying your full share of my retirement if you were not such an unpleasant ungrateful fellow. As it is, I will continue to "run my mouth" to tell you how it should be and laugh at you for having to personally fund the plan that I was lucky enough to have. You can continue to work to allow me to play golf and drink Margaritas.  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 20, 2011 12:33:48 GMT -8
What is wrong here? A nice guy with a different opinion? I hope you see that most of us have fun on here and just a few take things too far. I guess you think I am one of the few. It is true I am not here to have fun. I am here to discuss the problems our country faces with those that agree with me politically and those that do not. I have hope that ultimately we can come to some mutual agreement on solutions to our problems. I know that this is a very small sample and we would not save our country just among ourselves. But, if we can come to some common ground for the good of our country, we could then talk to our friends and neighbors and see if that common ground could spread. Mighty trees grow from tiny seeds. I had hoped that fun was part of it. I can't imagine any good coming from the greatest idea in the world when it is presented in such a snarky way that people look for reasons to not even consider it. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 20, 2011 17:43:36 GMT -8
How do you propose the country fund pensions as generous as yours from current revenue. I have already shown what a fixed annuity would have cost that would have paid what your first pension check was, not even counting that it has tripled since. The government would have had to set aside, from current revenue, more than they paid you in salary to fund your pension. Be so kind to run some numbers for us and support your proposition, rather than just run your mouth. The calculations are to long to go into and I won't. You can goggle "present value" tables if you care to. If you are really interested, go look up how annuities are calculated. It would be quite expensive, but it would show the real cost of an employee's total compensation package. The present method provides for our children and grandchildren to pay for years far into the future for what should have been a current expense. I would thank you for paying your full share of my retirement if you were not such an unpleasant ungrateful fellow. As it is, I will continue to "run my mouth" to tell you how it should be and laugh at you for having to personally fund the plan that I was lucky enough to have. You can continue to work to allow me to play golf and drink Margaritas. Perhaps if you did not drink so many Margaritas you would be able to run the numbers. I am glad that you recognize that it is not only me, but your children and grandchildren that will be paying for your lifestyle long after you are dead. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 20, 2011 20:06:16 GMT -8
The calculations are to long to go into and I won't. You can goggle "present value" tables if you care to. If you are really interested, go look up how annuities are calculated. It would be quite expensive, but it would show the real cost of an employee's total compensation package. The present method provides for our children and grandchildren to pay for years far into the future for what should have been a current expense. I would thank you for paying your full share of my retirement if you were not such an unpleasant ungrateful fellow. As it is, I will continue to "run my mouth" to tell you how it should be and laugh at you for having to personally fund the plan that I was lucky enough to have. You can continue to work to allow me to play golf and drink Margaritas. Perhaps if you did not drink so many Margaritas you would be able to run the numbers. I am glad that you recognize that it is not only me, but your children and grandchildren that will be paying for your lifestyle long after you are dead. I see you have no clue as to what you are saying. Well at any rate, thanks again for the pitcher of Patron Margaritas. The Dr. says I should only have one a day, so I make it in a wash tub. I better turn in soon, as I have to get up early to play golf. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 20, 2011 20:23:11 GMT -8
Perhaps if you did not drink so many Margaritas you would be able to run the numbers. I am glad that you recognize that it is not only me, but your children and grandchildren that will be paying for your lifestyle long after you are dead. I see you have no clue as to what you are saying. Well at any rate, thanks again for the pitcher of Patron Margaritas. The Dr. says I should only have one a day, so I make it in a wash tub. I better turn in soon, as I have to get up early to play golf. Look to your own post, weak minded man. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 21, 2011 12:20:49 GMT -8
I see you have no clue as to what you are saying. Well at any rate, thanks again for the pitcher of Patron Margaritas. The Dr. says I should only have one a day, so I make it in a wash tub. I better turn in soon, as I have to get up early to play golf. Look to your own post, weak minded man. Just back from a nice round of golf. Have you figured out where to find Present value tables or formulas? |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 21, 2011 12:44:55 GMT -8
Look to your own post, weak minded man. Just back from a nice round of golf. Have you figured out where to find Present value tables or formulas? LOL |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2011 9:25:53 GMT -8
Win "TOU (f**king) CHE!!!!!!! Love it..Win. Public employees are not villians. They do necessary jobs and i appreciate what they do. Unions have led them down the path of entitlements and the free lunch. We are bankrupt, and changes have to be made. The private sector had to make big time adjustments, and I expect government will too. Bankrupt- my a$$. We weren't about ten years ago when Bush cut those taxes and sent us on a hunt for weapons of mass destruction. I remember the newspaper articles talking about the hazards of a GD surplus!! Unions have let no one down. The Conservatives have beaten on them for so long with their rhetoric, you would think so. Tell me someone,anyone, how business is any better than any union. How come we never complain on this board about business excesses, such as the ones that have initiated the last four recessions? Employee unions are destroying the country ::)How about this If Congress also approves the FY2011 war funding request of $171 billion, cumulative war funding would then reach $1.292 trillion total including: • $802 billion for Iraq (62%); • $455 billion for Afghanistan (35%); • $29 billion for enhanced security (2%); and • $6 billion unallocated DOD costs (1/2%) (see Table 1) not including 712 foreign bases and 300 in the UK disguised as RAF bases. NO more OIL Wars,no more Chaney's and Wolfwitzes.Corporations are not people they have to held as business entitys without the rights of citizens.particularily because their shareholders could be all foreign nationals Incarcerate the executives behind the mortgage scams all of them. Strip them of their property and wealth. Social Social security taxes on the wealthy up to 500k a year will make Medicare and social security solvent. National sales tax and no other taxes,except flat rate income tax. End immigration completely except for rare cases,get out of the middle east close the bases in Japan and in Germany and the UK 6000 bases in the US close most of them as well, sell the land. Switch the economy to natural gas,but clean up the drilling process. he work on alternatives,solar wind bio diesel. |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Mar 2, 2011 10:46:37 GMT -8
Bankrupt- my a$$. We weren't about ten years ago when Bush cut those taxes and sent us on a hunt for weapons of mass destruction. I remember the newspaper articles talking about the hazards of a GD surplus!! Unions have let no one down. The Conservatives have beaten on them for so long with their rhetoric, you would think so. Tell me someone,anyone, how business is any better than any union. How come we never complain on this board about business excesses, such as the ones that have initiated the last four recessions? Employee unions are destroying the country ::)How about this If Congress also approves the FY2011 war funding request of $171 billion, cumulative war funding would then reach $1.292 trillion total including: • $802 billion for Iraq (62%); • $455 billion for Afghanistan (35%); • $29 billion for enhanced security (2%); and • $6 billion unallocated DOD costs (1/2%) (see Table 1) not including 712 foreign bases and 300 in the UK disguised as RAF bases. NO more OIL Wars,no more Chaney's and Wolfwitzes.Corporations are not people they have to held as business entitys without the rights of citizens.particularily because their shareholders could be all foreign nationals Incarcerate the executives behind the mortgage scams all of them. Strip them of their property and wealth. Social Social security taxes on the wealthy up to 500k a year will make Medicare and social security solvent. National sales tax and no other taxes,except flat rate income tax. End immigration completely except for rare cases,get out of the middle east close the bases in Japan and in Germany and the UK 6000 bases in the US close most of them as well, sell the land. Switch the economy to natural gas,but clean up the drilling process. he work on alternatives,solar wind bio diesel. A most excellent post, Steve. I might change a few of the numbers a little, but the intent is the most important. I favor tremendous cuts in the military budget. We do not need to be the world's policeman. I do favor extremely strong retaliation for attacks on the United States but that is an ICBM or cruise missile issue, not a manpower on the ground one. Make "Fug with us and we will SLAM you!" our national policy as regards international attacks. Demonstrate that we will effectively carry out that promise and then sit back and see if anybody tries it a second time. If they wise up and do not try anything again, then we will be at peace with the world and have no need for large military expenditures. Shoot, we won't have to give all of these Latin Americans citizenship because they risked their lives in our military. No more immigration in except for highly skilled workers (who can add to the positive gene pool). We could always encourage migration out of the country to retards and mentally defectives. I know China can always use them in their workers paradise labor camps. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Mar 2, 2011 17:56:10 GMT -8
Employee unions are destroying the country ::)How about this If Congress also approves the FY2011 war funding request of $171 billion, cumulative war funding would then reach $1.292 trillion total including: • $802 billion for Iraq (62%); • $455 billion for Afghanistan (35%); • $29 billion for enhanced security (2%); and • $6 billion unallocated DOD costs (1/2%) (see Table 1) not including 712 foreign bases and 300 in the UK disguised as RAF bases. NO more OIL Wars,no more Chaney's and Wolfwitzes.Corporations are not people they have to held as business entitys without the rights of citizens.particularily because their shareholders could be all foreign nationals Incarcerate the executives behind the mortgage scams all of them. Strip them of their property and wealth. Social Social security taxes on the wealthy up to 500k a year will make Medicare and social security solvent. National sales tax and no other taxes,except flat rate income tax. End immigration completely except for rare cases,get out of the middle east close the bases in Japan and in Germany and the UK 6000 bases in the US close most of them as well, sell the land. Switch the economy to natural gas,but clean up the drilling process. he work on alternatives,solar wind bio diesel. A most excellent post, Steve. I might change a few of the numbers a little, but the intent is the most important. I favor tremendous cuts in the military budget. We do not need to be the world's policeman. I do favor extremely strong retaliation for attacks on the United States but that is an ICBM or cruise missile issue, not a manpower on the ground one. Make "Fug with us and we will SLAM you!" our national policy as regards international attacks. Demonstrate that we will effectively carry out that promise and then sit back and see if anybody tries it a second time. If they wise up and do not try anything again, then we will be at peace with the world and have no need for large military expenditures. Shoot, we won't have to give all of these Latin Americans citizenship because they risked their lives in our military. No more immigration in except for highly skilled workers (who can add to the positive gene pool). We could always encourage migration out of the country to retards and mentally defectives. I know China can always use them in their workers paradise labor camps. We can make some great smart cuts in Defense, but I fail to see how Steve's post or your reply address the issue in this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Mar 4, 2011 16:31:50 GMT -8
As for the state of California, our budget grew year after year at a rate higher than that of inflation. You just can't sustain that forever. Need I remind you of Greece? Well $#!+, Will; since you brought it up, please offer us a decent dissertation on why this country, at this moment in time, equates to Greece. If you'd like, I can offer you the sort of compare and contrast questions I got while you were learning how to teach languages. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Mar 9, 2011 16:05:21 GMT -8
A most excellent post, Steve. I might change a few of the numbers a little, but the intent is the most important. I favor tremendous cuts in the military budget. We do not need to be the world's policeman. I do favor extremely strong retaliation for attacks on the United States but that is an ICBM or cruise missile issue, not a manpower on the ground one. Make "Fug with us and we will SLAM you!" our national policy as regards international attacks. Demonstrate that we will effectively carry out that promise and then sit back and see if anybody tries it a second time. If they wise up and do not try anything again, then we will be at peace with the world and have no need for large military expenditures. Shoot, we won't have to give all of these Latin Americans citizenship because they risked their lives in our military. No more immigration in except for highly skilled workers (who can add to the positive gene pool). We could always encourage migration out of the country to retards and mentally defectives. I know China can always use them in their workers paradise labor camps. We can make some great smart cuts in Defense, but I fail to see how Steve's post or your reply address the issue in this thread. "Smart cuts" means minor cuts to the right. Defense spending needs to be cut a ton but most members of Congress aren't willing to suggest it because so many of them have defense industry businesses in their districts and it's their job to bring home the pork. We need to get rid of virtually all our bases in Europe, maybe leaving Ramstein, one in England and maybe one in Italy. We can also get rid of most of our bases in Asia, leaving maybe one in Japan until North Korea collapses, which may likely happen within 5 years of the current "Dear Leader" dying. And Hell, I'm being, I think, more conservative than Ron Paul on this but it is a position I agree with. And quite frankly, I am in total disagreement with Obama on Iraq and to a lesser extent on Afghanistan. The military and civilians are engaged in nation and infrastructure building and that doesn't need to happen to the extent that it is. As far as I'm concerned, Obama is giving too much credence to our military leaders (and no, Pooh, doesn't mean I'll vote for the Republican nominee in the next election - just means Obama is even more to the center than I thought he was). =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Mar 9, 2011 16:21:36 GMT -8
Back to the subject at hand. As I believe I wrote upstream, if you compare apples to apples by looking at wages based upon education levels, you'll generally find that public employees, and in particular white collar workers, make less than those in the private sector. I'm pretty well aware of this given my career as a planner. The only problem is in bad times people tend to gravitate back to the public sector but in good times they generally make a lot more in the private sector.
I know any number of people who have repeatedly moved from one sector to the other depending on the economy. The difference is in the public sector there are pay steps and once you reach the highest of those you salary doesn't increase except for COLA increases no matter how good you are at your job.
I've spent most, but not all, my life working in the public sector. I did it in great part because I believe in the notions behind being a "public servant" but also because I never cared to work for some dickwad developer who would demand I go against my principles. Other planner's views vary and I don't blame them for their decision, but the notion that workers in the public sector make huge amounts of bucks is nonsense.
=Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Mar 9, 2011 16:43:58 GMT -8
Back to the subject at hand. As I believe I wrote upstream, if you compare apples to apples by looking at wages based upon education levels, you'll generally find that public employees, and in particular white collar workers, make less than those in the private sector. I'm pretty well aware of this given my career as a planner. The only problem is in bad times people tend to gravitate back to the public sector but in good times they generally make a lot more in the private sector. I know any number of people who have repeatedly moved from one sector to the other depending on the economy. The difference is in the public sector there are pay steps and once you reach the highest of those you salary doesn't increase except for COLA increases no matter how good you are at your job. I've spent most, but not all, my life working in the public sector. I did it in great part because I believe in the notions behind being a "public servant" but also because I never cared to work for some dickwad developer who would demand I go against my principles. Other planner's views vary and I don't blame them for their decision, but the notion that workers in the public sector make huge amounts of bucks is nonsense. =Bob Do a search on these terms and you will see where you are wrong. "public vs private sector pay" People have various reason why they choose to work in certain types of environments and in my mind there is no clear right way to go. If pay and security are at or near the top of your priority list, your would be in the public sector and that is fine. If you think that all private developers are "dickwads", you are in the right place in county planning putting up roadblocks to development and job growth at the expense of those tax paying developers. |
|
|
|
Post by JOCAZTEC on Mar 10, 2011 7:16:21 GMT -8
Unions only belong in the private sector.
cHAMps
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Mar 10, 2011 9:07:25 GMT -8
I can only speak to my experience in this issue. I am a software developer and currently work for a public agency though we use no taxpayer money. My current salary is less than I made in the private sector in 1998. I currently earn at least 30% less than I would in the private sector. Look up "ERP Programmer V" on Salary.Com. The median salary for that position is $119,000.00. I worked only in the private sector until 2005 and know that the amount quoted above is competitive in San Diego.
Yes, I will receive a small pension. I also get generous time off but I actually had more time off when I was in the private sector. My benefits have always been excellent as the high-tech industry must remain competitive. So, much of the talk about public employees getting much better pay and benefits than the private sector is just a lot of Bull.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Mar 11, 2011 16:09:21 GMT -8
I can only speak to my experience in this issue. I am a software developer and currently work for a public agency though we use no taxpayer money. My current salary is less than I made in the private sector in 1998. I currently earn at least 30% less than I would in the private sector. Look up "ERP Programmer V" on Salary.Com. The median salary for that position is $119,000.00. I worked only in the private sector until 2005 and know that the amount quoted above is competitive in San Diego. Yes, I will receive a small pension. I also get generous time off but I actually had more time off when I was in the private sector. My benefits have always been excellent as the high-tech industry must remain competitive. So, much of the talk about public employees getting much better pay and benefits than the private sector is just a lot of Bull. I think that everyone who has voiced an opinion is correct to a degree. I think you will find that pay at the "working" level is better in the public sector. when you get to high grade jobs responsible for very large budgets, you get into where the private sector pays much better that the public sector. |
|
