Middle Class Republicans Getting a Taste of Their Own Medicine -- And Not Liking It One Bit (insurance, companies)

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by Katiana

Not that I don't believe you, but could you give me some examples, other than yourself?

I think the right has been rather consistant in asking for cuts, while the left keeps asking for more and more..

Everytime the right asks for cuts, we keep hearing about how we want to kill and eat little puppies and support the starvation of little children and want old people to go homeless.. Its nonsense like this keeping any real discussion from taking place..

[LetMePost]

Originally Posted by Backspace

I can't count how many right leaning/rep/conservative people on this forum alone have said over and over and over again how cuts ACROSS the BOARD including DEFENSE need to be made. I'm a lot more conservative than most reps and I'd love to see at least a 30% cut in defense spending right away with more later.

You don't hear that point being pushed in the mainstream or in Washington by the Right. I bet if the Right came out with more furor to cut defense spending, then you would probably start seeing Democrats more willing to cut cost in their programs (real compromise). Instead, what the Right is doing right now is trying to cut all the things that effect the Democrats, and hope that the Democrats will push for the defense spending cuts so the Right can still look to be pro-military.

[HappyTexan]

It's called "Austerity measures".

Europe is going through this now..the workers/taxpayers don't like it one bit.
We're going through it now on a state level. No one at the Fed level wants to admit anything but "the recession is over, the GDP is growing and the economy is recovering".

States can't play the illusion game because they don't have printing presses.

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by LetMePost

You don't hear that point being pushed in the mainstream or in Washington by the Right. I bet if the Right came out with more furor to cut defense spending, then you would probably start seeing Democrats more willing to cut cost in their programs (real compromise). Instead, what the Right is doing right now is trying to cut all the things that effect the Democrats, and hope that the Democrats will push for the defense spending cuts so the Right can still look to be pro-military.

Both sides are being scared off of military cuts with the fear mongering of "terrorism". Neither side wants to cut in fear that something might happen.

As much as one says "right", it's been the left and the President that have continued this funding for the past 2 years.

[maja]

Originally Posted by emilybh

It isn't even about benefits. It is about the number of government workers PERIOD. If people looked at it on a smaller scale they'd see how unsustainalbe having a government that is bigger than the private sector like we have now is.

Let's pretend there is a tiny country on an island with 100 residents. 66 of them are government workers and 34 of them in the private sector build and maintain the homes, farm and produce the food and handle the medical care. The 66 in the government decide rules and regulations for everyone and provide the "safety" that everyone supposedly needs... and the 34 who actually produce goods and services support everyone. The 66 are nothing but a drain on the economy of this small country. This alone should make it clear enough to those that don't understand basic economics that we can't support a government the size of ours which is 2/3's the size of the private sector and the answer to out "jobs" problem is NOT to create more government jobs but rather to expand the private sector.

To make matters worse in this little country, suppose 3 of the government workers leave the government and start a central bank known as "The Federal Reserve" where all they do is print money and hand it out to their buddies in the government and other banksters in other country. Then you have an expansion of the money supply which means the beneficiaries of the freshly printed money, (the banksters) will be able to buy up all the goods and services with free $money from the Federal Reserve. Then by doubling the money supply prices of the goods and services will double making it twice as expensive to live in the country for the people who have to work hard and earn the money.

The obvious way to solve this country's problem is to first get RID of the Federal Reserve and have them immediately stop printing money and debasing the currency and B cut the bloated government that is double the size of the private sector down to where perhaps 10% of the residents or 10 people make up the government and the other 90 are in the private sector.
It is as simple as that. It has been what people like Congressman Ron Paul have been advocating all along.

Instead to add insult to injury we've had government leaders who in their inimitible ways find excuses to expand the government. They think a bigger government is the answer which means to spend money. All of a sudden in recent history the Federal government got involved in education and backed student loans. They got involved in health insurance. They got involved in mortgages. What has happened as a result? The prices of those things have all gone up exponentially as compared to what they cost before the government was involved.

They blame "Wall Street" for our economic woes when Wall street pays for their campaigns.Who benefits? The government elites and the CEOS of BIG PUBLICLY HELD CORPORATIONS (Wall Street)...and of course the BANKSTERS. It is all a big fat SCAM!

Great post. Great Objectives. Wish people would wake up and give Ron Paul a chance to get us there!

[Jill61]

Originally Posted by pollyrobin

What is sad - is that public workers think they have no risk.

Guarantee seems to be the public employee's middle name.

But, I guess, that's what happens when you mandatorily pay dues to someone else to negotiate for you "promising the sun and the moon" at tax payers' expense.

And that is the very reason we can't have public unions - you loose all perspective and interest.

Most private sector folks knew this
was coming down in 2004.

Any investor with half a brain saw the crash pre 2004 and got out. Public Workers were had - and, they can blame it on the Unions. That is a FACT. Really, public sector investment - exploitation at it's worst.

I'm so sick of this "at the taxpayer's expense" Moderator cut: language. Government workers are taxpayers, too. And if city services are farmed out to private corporations, the taxpayers are still going to have to pay the price for those services -- for life.

Not to mention the fact that you completely ignore the fact that the state had a fiduciary responsibility that they are failing to meet. How that becomes the worker's fault is beyond my comprehension.

Not to mention that you seem to be operating under the false impression that the average public employee, or their unions, had any choice about "getting out". Just because you put the word 'fact' in ALL CAPS, doesn't make it one.

Originally Posted by pollyrobin

And yes I will use a face, because you know why, you were the same folks bragging about how much you had in your pension, before it
fell - a growth, you neither deserved, or put into.
It's called greed - and they count on you having
it.

I count on not contributing to that. Pay into your own pension and pay attention

It's mind-boggling. After all these months of discussion and debate on this issue, you're still holding onto the notion that public employees didn't pay into their pension plans. They did. They not only paid in a percentage of their salary in many cases, but they also deferred current salary increases to future payments in the form of pensions. That's exactly the same thing as contributing their own money into the pension. "I'll forgo a 5% COL raise now, for a 2% raise in my current salary, in exchange for 3% going into my pension fund." That's a contribution.

Originally Posted by ringwise

I'd love to own my own business, but the out of control regulation and unfair taxes keep me from doing that.

That is one of the biggest piles of horse manure I've ever read here. I've started 2 businesses; one for myself and one for my husband. There was absolutely no regulation, let alone "out of control regulation", nor "unfair taxes" that prevented us not only from doing so, but from profiting. Blaming government for your inability to start a business is a crock of crap.

[maja]

Originally Posted by Backspace

I can't count how many right leaning/rep/conservative people on this forum alone have said over and over and over again how cuts ACROSS the BOARD including DEFENSE need to be made. I'm a lot more conservative than most reps and I'd love to see at least a 30% cut in defense spending right away with more later.

Another vote from a conservative here.

BTW, I'd also like to suggest that more of our defense spending go toward defending and positioning to defend our OWN country and our borders rather than poking our noses in other countries battles.

[ChristineVA]

Originally Posted by Jill61

They did. They not only paid in a percentage of their salary in many cases, but they also deferred current salary increases to future payments in the form of pensions. That's exactly the same thing as contributing their own money into the pension. "I'll forgo a 5% COL raise now, for a 2% raise in my current salary, in exchange for 3% going into my pension fund." That's a contribution.

This is very true. Let's take the federal government employees, for instance, that were hired prior to 1984. They are in a pension plan called CSRS. The deal for them was that they pay in 7.5% of their salary to the pension plan. Additionally, they do not pay into Social Security and they also CANNOT collect it. I would hate to think what would happen if their pensions become unfunded. Feds who were hired after this date, don't get this pension plan and have the more recognizable 401K plan. (Just had to add that in because everyone seems to think that federal workers are pension fat cats.)

My husband works for a trade and is a union member. Part of his salary, with no choice to him, is pulled and contributed toward his pension. It is put into an annuity that we can only hope grows. He also has a mandatory 401K type plan that he must contribute to. The only flexibility he has on that plan is what funds he wants his money in.

[sterpetron]

Originally Posted by LetMePost

You don't hear that point being pushed in the mainstream or in Washington by the Right. I bet if the Right came out with more furor to cut defense spending, then you would probably start seeing Democrats more willing to cut cost in their programs (real compromise). Instead, what the Right is doing right now is trying to cut all the things that effect the Democrats, and hope that the Democrats will push for the defense spending cuts so the Right can still look to be pro-military.

I'm quite conservative, and the military is one of the FIRST things I'd cut...

[sterpetron]

Originally Posted by Jill61

I'm so sick of this "at the taxpayer's expense" Moderator cut: language. Government workers are taxpayers, too.

As you were educated in the other thread, ALL money they receive comes from REAL taxpayers, since the government, outside of printing money, survives by taxation.

And if city services are farmed out to private corporations, the taxpayers are still going to have to pay the price for those services -- for life.

Not if their benefits are managed more intelligently than the public employees' have been.

Not to mention the fact that you completely ignore the fact that the state had a fiduciary responsibility that they are failing to meet.

LOL, such as what, providing a lucrative, comfortable, early retirement for the public union employees?

How that becomes the worker's fault is beyond my comprehension.

How the obscene and unfair practices of politicians seeking to buy votes is supposed to be borne on the shoulders of the un-represented taxpayer is beyond ours.

After all these months of discussion and debate on this issue, you're still holding onto the notion that public employees didn't pay into their pension plans. They did. They not only paid in a percentage of their salary in many cases, but they also deferred current salary increases to future payments in the form of pensions. That's exactly the same thing as contributing their own money into the pension. "I'll forgo a 5% COL raise now, for a 2% raise in my current salary, in exchange for 3% going into my pension fund." That's a contribution.

1) WRONG. It is simply taking the taxpayer's money and investing it to give the public employee more money later.

2) Many public employees do not contribute into their pensions.

3) Why are you ignoring the equally, if not larger, source of the deficits, which is the free-for-life healthcare benefits?

That is one of the biggest piles of horse manure I've ever read here. I've started 2 businesses; one for myself and one for my husband. There was absolutely no regulation, let alone "out of control regulation", nor "unfair taxes" that prevented us not only from doing so, but from profiting. Blaming government for your inability to start a business is a crock of crap.

Do NOT GET ME STARTED on over-regulation by the government.

The NYS insurance and Taxation/Finance departments are obscene, disgraceful organizations whose very existence is a crime. Try and open a restaurant in NYC, good luck with the over 100 permits needed.

You cannot make blanket statements for which you have no clue of what you are talking about.