50 years of pension for 20 years of work

[Zeitgeist]

You have a point. However, most semi-skilled laborers do not have to pass a background test of their character, a medical, a lie detector type test and a psychological battery. They are tested more than the president and most politicians would not pass the test.

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]
Check the scoreboard buddy…

In 2002 Chargers, CLEARLY WAS NOT PROFITABLE..
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=san+diego+chargers+not+profitable&cts=1249650012541&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Also, while the team is profitable all the public components going to supporting the team is clearly money losing. I bet you didn’t know that Qualcomm Stadium is a net loser.

http://www.sdcitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/deep_in_our_own_territory/8314/

[/quote]

I know that Qualcomm is a loser. So why are we continuing to subsidize the Chargers? As long as we keep on subsidizing them, they will keep on demanding more.

Some kids never move out of the parents’ house because they get free meals, free rent and free maid service.

Let the Chargers leave so some other city knife-catcher can foot their bill.

We don’t need the pride of an NFL team in San Diego. When it comes to money, there should be no emotions involved. If the fans want them to stay, let them pay higher ticket prices.

The Chargers subsidy is an indirect “football tax”. If the citizens of San Diego want the team, let’s put a line item on the property tax bill and we’ll see how many vote for it.

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]
Check the scoreboard buddy…

In 2002 Chargers, CLEARLY WAS NOT PROFITABLE..
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=san+diego+chargers+not+profitable&cts=1249650012541&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Also, while the team is profitable all the public components going to supporting the team is clearly money losing. I bet you didn’t know that Qualcomm Stadium is a net loser.

http://www.sdcitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/deep_in_our_own_territory/8314/

[/quote]

I know that Qualcomm is a loser. So why are we continuing to subsidize the Chargers? As long as we keep on subsidizing them, they will keep on demanding more.

Some kids never move out of the parents’ house because they get free meals, free rent and free maid service.

Let the Chargers leave so some other city knife-catcher can foot their bill.

We don’t need the pride of an NFL team in San Diego. When it comes to money, there should be no emotions involved. If the fans want them to stay, let them pay higher ticket prices.

The Chargers subsidy is an indirect “football tax”. If the citizens of San Diego want the team, let’s put a line item on the property tax bill and we’ll see how many vote for it.

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]
Check the scoreboard buddy…

In 2002 Chargers, CLEARLY WAS NOT PROFITABLE..
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=san+diego+chargers+not+profitable&cts=1249650012541&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Also, while the team is profitable all the public components going to supporting the team is clearly money losing. I bet you didn’t know that Qualcomm Stadium is a net loser.

http://www.sdcitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/deep_in_our_own_territory/8314/

[/quote]

I know that Qualcomm is a loser. So why are we continuing to subsidize the Chargers? As long as we keep on subsidizing them, they will keep on demanding more.

Some kids never move out of the parents’ house because they get free meals, free rent and free maid service.

Let the Chargers leave so some other city knife-catcher can foot their bill.

We don’t need the pride of an NFL team in San Diego. When it comes to money, there should be no emotions involved. If the fans want them to stay, let them pay higher ticket prices.

The Chargers subsidy is an indirect “football tax”. If the citizens of San Diego want the team, let’s put a line item on the property tax bill and we’ll see how many vote for it.

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]
Check the scoreboard buddy…

In 2002 Chargers, CLEARLY WAS NOT PROFITABLE..
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=san+diego+chargers+not+profitable&cts=1249650012541&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Also, while the team is profitable all the public components going to supporting the team is clearly money losing. I bet you didn’t know that Qualcomm Stadium is a net loser.

http://www.sdcitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/deep_in_our_own_territory/8314/

[/quote]

I know that Qualcomm is a loser. So why are we continuing to subsidize the Chargers? As long as we keep on subsidizing them, they will keep on demanding more.

Some kids never move out of the parents’ house because they get free meals, free rent and free maid service.

Let the Chargers leave so some other city knife-catcher can foot their bill.

We don’t need the pride of an NFL team in San Diego. When it comes to money, there should be no emotions involved. If the fans want them to stay, let them pay higher ticket prices.

The Chargers subsidy is an indirect “football tax”. If the citizens of San Diego want the team, let’s put a line item on the property tax bill and we’ll see how many vote for it.

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]
Check the scoreboard buddy…

In 2002 Chargers, CLEARLY WAS NOT PROFITABLE..
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=san+diego+chargers+not+profitable&cts=1249650012541&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Also, while the team is profitable all the public components going to supporting the team is clearly money losing. I bet you didn’t know that Qualcomm Stadium is a net loser.

http://www.sdcitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/deep_in_our_own_territory/8314/

[/quote]

I know that Qualcomm is a loser. So why are we continuing to subsidize the Chargers? As long as we keep on subsidizing them, they will keep on demanding more.

Some kids never move out of the parents’ house because they get free meals, free rent and free maid service.

Let the Chargers leave so some other city knife-catcher can foot their bill.

We don’t need the pride of an NFL team in San Diego. When it comes to money, there should be no emotions involved. If the fans want them to stay, let them pay higher ticket prices.

The Chargers subsidy is an indirect “football tax”. If the citizens of San Diego want the team, let’s put a line item on the property tax bill and we’ll see how many vote for it.

[equalizer]

TG,

You are so wrong. You are the better man, and you need to deal with it.

See, you are helping me and others be less bitter and nicer to others.

“I am a great man but I am less of a man…”

[equalizer]

TG,

You are so wrong. You are the better man, and you need to deal with it.

See, you are helping me and others be less bitter and nicer to others.

“I am a great man but I am less of a man…”

[equalizer]

TG,

You are so wrong. You are the better man, and you need to deal with it.

See, you are helping me and others be less bitter and nicer to others.

“I am a great man but I am less of a man…”

[equalizer]

TG,

You are so wrong. You are the better man, and you need to deal with it.

See, you are helping me and others be less bitter and nicer to others.

“I am a great man but I am less of a man…”

[equalizer]

TG,

You are so wrong. You are the better man, and you need to deal with it.

See, you are helping me and others be less bitter and nicer to others.

“I am a great man but I am less of a man…”

[pertinazzio]

If we can pay public safety people less and still attract qualified applicants we should do so. However much F & P personnel are worth, it seems we just can’t afford them at current benefit levels. As it is they and public service employees in general have evolved into a privileged section of the working class. I suspect that very few public employees would leave service if given a take it or leave it salary and benefit reduction. And even if they did, that would present an opportunity to test the hypothesis that only cadilliac compensation packages can attract qualified applicants to public service. Speaking of which whatever happened to the idea of public service? My hunch is that qualified applicants can be found at much lower wage levels for many public service jobs. Just as families need to be thrifty to prosper so do municipalities and other levels of government. Being thrifty means not paying more than you have to! As it is I believe we are getting royally screwed blued and tattooed by the public service unions.

One participant wrote:

“While those other jobs are important, they are not a matter of life-and-death, nor do they provide society with the same overall benefits that public safety personnel do.”

While agreeing that manicurists are probably not as important as cops and firemen there are many professions and economic sectors equally important to our way of life. Consider the U.S. with no professional educators or truckdrivers or miners or store employees. Economically things would be such a shambles that we would indeed be forced to revert to voluntary public security. Are cops more important than the workers involved in maintaining telecommunication and electrical systems? More important than folks who work in meat packing plants? By the way thats pretty damn dangerous work too.

Just as we are considering universal health insurance I believe it is time to begin consider having some sort of universal retirement program beyond the peanuts provided by SS. Many countries do that are at our wealth level. Under such a system most participants could make out a little better and the public sector employees would probably make out a little worse.

To conclude, this will continue to grow as a political issue and yes there are resentments brewing among the working stiffs who pay the taxes when they learn how much these folks (Cops and Fire) are getting.

Just one guy’s opinion.

[pertinazzio]

If we can pay public safety people less and still attract qualified applicants we should do so. However much F & P personnel are worth, it seems we just can’t afford them at current benefit levels. As it is they and public service employees in general have evolved into a privileged section of the working class. I suspect that very few public employees would leave service if given a take it or leave it salary and benefit reduction. And even if they did, that would present an opportunity to test the hypothesis that only cadilliac compensation packages can attract qualified applicants to public service. Speaking of which whatever happened to the idea of public service? My hunch is that qualified applicants can be found at much lower wage levels for many public service jobs. Just as families need to be thrifty to prosper so do municipalities and other levels of government. Being thrifty means not paying more than you have to! As it is I believe we are getting royally screwed blued and tattooed by the public service unions.

One participant wrote:

“While those other jobs are important, they are not a matter of life-and-death, nor do they provide society with the same overall benefits that public safety personnel do.”

While agreeing that manicurists are probably not as important as cops and firemen there are many professions and economic sectors equally important to our way of life. Consider the U.S. with no professional educators or truckdrivers or miners or store employees. Economically things would be such a shambles that we would indeed be forced to revert to voluntary public security. Are cops more important than the workers involved in maintaining telecommunication and electrical systems? More important than folks who work in meat packing plants? By the way thats pretty damn dangerous work too.

Just as we are considering universal health insurance I believe it is time to begin consider having some sort of universal retirement program beyond the peanuts provided by SS. Many countries do that are at our wealth level. Under such a system most participants could make out a little better and the public sector employees would probably make out a little worse.

To conclude, this will continue to grow as a political issue and yes there are resentments brewing among the working stiffs who pay the taxes when they learn how much these folks (Cops and Fire) are getting.

Just one guy’s opinion.

[pertinazzio]

If we can pay public safety people less and still attract qualified applicants we should do so. However much F & P personnel are worth, it seems we just can’t afford them at current benefit levels. As it is they and public service employees in general have evolved into a privileged section of the working class. I suspect that very few public employees would leave service if given a take it or leave it salary and benefit reduction. And even if they did, that would present an opportunity to test the hypothesis that only cadilliac compensation packages can attract qualified applicants to public service. Speaking of which whatever happened to the idea of public service? My hunch is that qualified applicants can be found at much lower wage levels for many public service jobs. Just as families need to be thrifty to prosper so do municipalities and other levels of government. Being thrifty means not paying more than you have to! As it is I believe we are getting royally screwed blued and tattooed by the public service unions.

One participant wrote:

“While those other jobs are important, they are not a matter of life-and-death, nor do they provide society with the same overall benefits that public safety personnel do.”

While agreeing that manicurists are probably not as important as cops and firemen there are many professions and economic sectors equally important to our way of life. Consider the U.S. with no professional educators or truckdrivers or miners or store employees. Economically things would be such a shambles that we would indeed be forced to revert to voluntary public security. Are cops more important than the workers involved in maintaining telecommunication and electrical systems? More important than folks who work in meat packing plants? By the way thats pretty damn dangerous work too.

Just as we are considering universal health insurance I believe it is time to begin consider having some sort of universal retirement program beyond the peanuts provided by SS. Many countries do that are at our wealth level. Under such a system most participants could make out a little better and the public sector employees would probably make out a little worse.

To conclude, this will continue to grow as a political issue and yes there are resentments brewing among the working stiffs who pay the taxes when they learn how much these folks (Cops and Fire) are getting.

Just one guy’s opinion.

[pertinazzio]

If we can pay public safety people less and still attract qualified applicants we should do so. However much F & P personnel are worth, it seems we just can’t afford them at current benefit levels. As it is they and public service employees in general have evolved into a privileged section of the working class. I suspect that very few public employees would leave service if given a take it or leave it salary and benefit reduction. And even if they did, that would present an opportunity to test the hypothesis that only cadilliac compensation packages can attract qualified applicants to public service. Speaking of which whatever happened to the idea of public service? My hunch is that qualified applicants can be found at much lower wage levels for many public service jobs. Just as families need to be thrifty to prosper so do municipalities and other levels of government. Being thrifty means not paying more than you have to! As it is I believe we are getting royally screwed blued and tattooed by the public service unions.

One participant wrote:

“While those other jobs are important, they are not a matter of life-and-death, nor do they provide society with the same overall benefits that public safety personnel do.”

While agreeing that manicurists are probably not as important as cops and firemen there are many professions and economic sectors equally important to our way of life. Consider the U.S. with no professional educators or truckdrivers or miners or store employees. Economically things would be such a shambles that we would indeed be forced to revert to voluntary public security. Are cops more important than the workers involved in maintaining telecommunication and electrical systems? More important than folks who work in meat packing plants? By the way thats pretty damn dangerous work too.

Just as we are considering universal health insurance I believe it is time to begin consider having some sort of universal retirement program beyond the peanuts provided by SS. Many countries do that are at our wealth level. Under such a system most participants could make out a little better and the public sector employees would probably make out a little worse.

To conclude, this will continue to grow as a political issue and yes there are resentments brewing among the working stiffs who pay the taxes when they learn how much these folks (Cops and Fire) are getting.

Just one guy’s opinion.

[Author]

Posts