am i the only one?

What about a fat cat exec of a big corporation who had a record profit year and makes millions in bonuses, yet the middle and lower level employees are limited to a whopping 2% raise and have to fear being laid off ? Do those mid and lower level employees have the right to begrudge the fat cat ?

You should be so lucky. Originally Posted by Doove

Huh??

Why the hell should I care about your wealth envy, or resentment, or whatever it is. I don't give a damn why you seem to begrudge the success achieved by others. It's your problem, not mine.

Your narcissism is showing again. Originally Posted by Doove

Nah, it's just that you're such an insufferable prick that it's a hoot to taunt you. Remember last year when you wrongfully accused me of hypocrisy and dug up about 20 posts in a forlorn, stupid effort to make your case? Maybe you'll go off the deep end again and provide us with a little more entertainment!

You used a pretty broad brush to paint public sector employees. Originally Posted by Doove

I hesitate to do this, since you rarely seem to engage in substantive discussion, preferring instead to simply annoy people with snarkey little insults. But OK, I'll try to play anyway.

It isn't so much public-sector employees I have a problem with, it's public-sector unions and the politicians they feed (and the favors that are returned in a feedback loop).

Take the state of California, for instance. About three-quarters of the legislature is in the pockets of public-sector unions. They've granted far more lavish defined-benefits pension and health care plans for retirees than the great majority of private-sector workers get. Private sector firms began moving to defined-contribution plans many years ago when it started becoming clear that they couldn't afford all the guarantees. California just announced that a previously expected $9 billion deficit has ballooned to $16 billion. And the problem will get much, much worse during the coming years. The simple fact is that union leaders (and the politicians with whom they are in cahoots) made promises they cannot remotely hope to keep.

And the unions won't back off an inch. In fact, they're now pressing for a ballot inititive to increase taxes yet again. Jerry Brown and a number of legislators are pushing for a 13.3% state income tax rate, the highest in the nation. Is it any wonder that so many firms have decamped for other states?

Many other states also have similar problems, although California's situation is the most critical. Many analysts say there's virtually no question that multiple states will need some sort of federal bailout within two or three years. Unfunded state and municipal pension liabilities add up to staggering sums.

Who do you think is going to pay for all that?

FDR was, of course, a champion of private-sector unions. But he recognized as early as the mid-1930s that public-sector unionization would create a massive conflict of interest and could lead to corruption on a very large scale.

What about a fat cat exec of a big corporation who had a record profit year and makes millions in bonuses, yet the middle and lower level employees are limited to a whopping 2% raise and have to fear being laid off ? Do those mid and lower level employees have the right to begrudge the fat cat ? Originally Posted by CarolinaGent

Did they get paid what they agreed to work for? Then why bitch? If they don't like it, work someplace else.

Why the hell should I care about your wealth envy, or resentment, or whatever it is. I don't give a damn why you seem to begrudge the success achieved by others. It's your problem, not mine. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Your delusion is somehow my problem? How's that work, exactly?

Nah, it's just that you're such an insufferable prick that it's a hoot to taunt you.

If calling me a smartass or an insufferable prick is your idea of taunting, then you're strictly an amateur. Your kind is a dime-a-dozen around these parts.

Remember last year when you wrongfully accused me of hypocrisy and dug up about 20 posts in a forlorn, stupid effort to make your case? Maybe you'll go off the deep end again and provide us with a little more entertainment!

Though i have to be honest....your being an idiot does get kind of annoying, so if that's your goal, then two thumbs up!

I hesitate to do this, since you rarely seem to engage in substantive discussion, preferring instead to simply annoy people with snarkey little insults. But OK, I'll try to play anyway.

Sucker.

Just as I thought.

You're totally incapable of making an intelligent, cogent argument -- so you don't even try.

And by the way, when I referred to "taunting" you, I wasn't speaking of calling you a smartass; I was ridiculing your use of the phrase "you fat cats." That manifests resentment and/or envy. Get over it.

Just as I thought.

You're totally incapable of making an intelligent, cogent argument -- so you don't even try. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

This is an escort review board. While occasionally the urge may strike me, for the most part, no.

And by the way, when I referred to "taunting" you, I wasn't speaking of calling you a smartass; I was ridiculing your use of the phrase "you fat cats." Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Oh. Well, you know what they say....when the guy you're "taunting" doesn't even notice....

I personally know probably over a dozen members of Congress, mostly Democrats, but a few Republicans. And I know exactly one of them that didn't take a substantial pay cut when he or she was elected. And the one that did take a pay cut took it because he had already left private law practice and taken a position on a State intermediate Court of appeals. $175,000 is really a very small salary in the occupations that most Congressmen are elected from. In a large law firm, or in a successful Plaintiff's firm, that's the salary of a lawyer who is four of five years out of law school. And, you have to maintain two homes, one in your district and another in D.C. Most I know who have served are quite relieved to quit and move back to their former life.

I personally know probably over a dozen members of Congress, mostly Democrats, but a few Republicans. And I know exactly one of them that didn't take a substantial pay cut when he or she was elected. And the one that did take a pay cut took it because he had already left private law practice and taken a position on a State intermediate Court of appeals. $175,000 is really a very small salary in the occupations that most Congressmen are elected from. In a large law firm, or in a successful Plaintiff's firm, that's the salary of a lawyer who is four of five years out of law school. And, you have to maintain two homes, one in your district and another in D.C. Most I know who have served are quite relieved to quit and move back to their former life. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

becoming a member of congress is a ticket to getting wealthy much more so than some some private sector salary could, generally speaking, allow, even more so for the senate.


of course the insider trading thing was/is rampant. nancy pelosi saw her net worth, which i'm thinking doesnt include her husbands net worth, increase 62% from 2009 to 2010, from 21 million to almost 32 million.

but beyond insider trading, which even staffers got involved in, pelosi and her husband own an office building, which according to the great and specific and detailed financial reporting congress is subject to, had a value between $1 million and $5 million. just so happens that her building is at a prime stop of this light rail project she has gotten over $890 million dollars in earmarks for. in 2006 she got a $20 million dollar waterfront improvement earmark approved which just happens to be near this same building. she got a $12 million dollar beautification project earmark abutting another property she owns.

its not just democrats, dennis hastert, the repub former speaker did much the same thing for real estate he owned.

private sector wealth generation where competition sharpens the benefit to society is a great thing, playing on and preying on the public's good will or ostensibly serving the public while lining ones pockets is disturbing to me.

becoming a member of congress is a ticket to getting wealthy much more so than some some private sector salary could, generally speaking, allow, even more so for the senate.


of course the insider trading thing was/is rampant. nancy pelosi saw her net worth, which im thinking doesnt include her husbands net worth, increased 62% from 2009 to 2010, from 21 million to almost 32 million.

but beyond insider trading, which even staffers got involved in, pelosi and her husband own an office building, which according to the great and specific and detailed financial reporting congress is subject to, had a value between $1 million and $5 million. just so happens that her building is at a prime stop of this light rail project she has gotten over $890 million dollars for in earmarks. in 2006 she got a $20 million dollar waterfront improvement earmark approved which just happens to be near this samebuilding. she got a $12 million dollar beautification project earmark abutting another property she owns.

its not just democrats, dennis hastert, the repub former speaker did much the same thing for real estate he owned.

private sector wealth generation where competition sharpens the benefit to society is great, playing on and preying on the public's good will or ostensibly serving the public while lining ones pockets is disturbing to me. Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Plus, congressmen and senators are eligible to retire with a full pension after just five years of service.

And what other profession affords people who are frighteningly clueless and incompetent the opportunity to move on to a lobbying position paying well into seven figures annually?

I give religiously to the "Waco Kid Foundation" my favorite charity! i'm currently accepting donations.