Do you believe that Wisconsin teachers/state workers should pay a larger % of their health care costs?DFW, why did you choose not to answer this simple question?
Anyone , feel free to answer.
. Originally Posted by WTF
DFW, why did you choose not to answer this simple question?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.
''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.
Originally Posted by WTF
Edit: Lastly, your damned right they should contribute more to their own retirements. They chose to be in that profession. Originally Posted by DFW5TravelerWhat do you think of military families paying more towards their premiums?
What do you think of military families paying more towards their premiums?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).
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. Originally Posted by WTF
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. Originally Posted by DFW5TravelerHow to obliterate everything you've said over the last 3 days in 55 words or less.
How to obliterate everything you've said over the last 3 days in 55 words or less. Originally Posted by DooveHe does not understand that Doove.
He does not understand that 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?
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. Originally Posted by WTF
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?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.
Talk about being hoist on your own petard. 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?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.
Talk about being hoist on your own petard. Originally Posted by Doove
Cats like him are scared of change...sure as hell scared of ''hope and change!''
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. Originally Posted by I B HankeringNo 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.
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.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.
You are hypocrites in this regard. Pure and simple. Originally Posted by WTF
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 I B Hankering
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. Originally Posted by DFW5TravelerYou 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.
http://teacherportal.com/salary/Wisconsin-teacher-salaryGreat rebuttal technique WTF -- use a bad link so no one can check you. (Not that anyone follows WTF's links to lalal land.)
Starting Salary: $25,222 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?OK?
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?
Originally Posted by WTF
Great rebuttal technique WTF -- use a bad link so no one can check you. (Not that anyone follows WTF's links to lalal land.) Originally Posted by pjorourke