Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
DWCAP
Participant[quote=briansd1]At least I provided facts that conservatism and evangelical religiosity are joined at the hip.[/quote]
Sigh, no you didnt. You disproved your own stance.
1) The issues you seem to hinge your argument on, are from a quote from the poll director, “a self identified progressive.”
[quote]”The way the data looks, if this is a marriage of convenience, it’s one that would be against the law. The relatives are too close,” said Jones, a self-described progressive[/quote]Lets poll the *Republican* (edit, democratic) party, and see how they feel about MoveOn.org . And lets put a Republican incharge of it. See what they find and how they spin it.
2) Half of evengelical people are NOT identified with the Tea Party. Your own quote calls the groups contradictory. Half of evengelicals are not supporters of the tea party, and half are. The Tea Party also pulls half its members from non-evangelicals.
Your gonna have to explain to me how that is joined at the hip when 1 out of 2 of both groups dont self identify with each other.3) your own article talks about the fact these people are united in their opposition to the, currently controlling left wing of the Democratic party, not some kind of unifing ideology. IF and when they are replaced, this group will likley turn on itself. This is what they are united in, oppisition to a liberal government.
And “the road to hell is paved in good intentions” is a quote that needs to be given to every public servant on day 1.
Participant[quote=jficquette][quote=EconProf]Funny video!
Too bad its true for some firefighters.[/quote]Friends next door neighbor is about to retire at 52. Makes well over $100k. Has worked the last 20 years at the airport. The airport firehouse is for one purpose only, and that is to put out fires when planes crash. They do not have responsibility off the airport property.
How many planes have crashed in SD in the last 25 years???
It’s likely the guy will draw basically full pay longer after retirement then he worked to “earn” it. So instead of making “just” $125k or so you have to double it. $250k for 20 something years of service?[/quote]
Id like to see a full pay scale with defered compensation for the public unions. So often people get pissed off (rightly so) about some CEO making an ass load of money (say 100million or something). Cept, that isn’t (usually) yearly, that is in stock and only if he lasts the contract, and only if the stock price doesnt tank. How are all those citi/GM/Chrysler/CIT/AIG/…. share options from 2005 doing????? But, the full level of compensation, includiding stock options and such is usually accounted for.
I would like to see this for our public workers. Just as an example, lets say that they start at 25, retire at 50, and die at 75. So, for 25 years of service they will recieve 50 years of pay (26 of it at highest pay+inflation) plus medical dental vision, +whatever else they get (100% covered contributions (I gotta pay to get a match), DROP, tax benifits, loopholes around IRS law…..), with a guarentee of it being paid. What is that worth, and what is it compared to the private sector counterparts?
It just doenst seem right to say “these guys only make $XXXX”, without accounting for their benifits which no one else gets. It is frankly like looking at C level executives pay, without stock.
Participant[quote=jficquette][quote=EconProf]Funny video!
Too bad its true for some firefighters.[/quote]Friends next door neighbor is about to retire at 52. Makes well over $100k. Has worked the last 20 years at the airport. The airport firehouse is for one purpose only, and that is to put out fires when planes crash. They do not have responsibility off the airport property.
How many planes have crashed in SD in the last 25 years???
It’s likely the guy will draw basically full pay longer after retirement then he worked to “earn” it. So instead of making “just” $125k or so you have to double it. $250k for 20 something years of service?[/quote]
Id like to see a full pay scale with defered compensation for the public unions. So often people get pissed off (rightly so) about some CEO making an ass load of money (say 100million or something). Cept, that isn’t (usually) yearly, that is in stock and only if he lasts the contract, and only if the stock price doesnt tank. How are all those citi/GM/Chrysler/CIT/AIG/…. share options from 2005 doing????? But, the full level of compensation, includiding stock options and such is usually accounted for.
I would like to see this for our public workers. Just as an example, lets say that they start at 25, retire at 50, and die at 75. So, for 25 years of service they will recieve 50 years of pay (26 of it at highest pay+inflation) plus medical dental vision, +whatever else they get (100% covered contributions (I gotta pay to get a match), DROP, tax benifits, loopholes around IRS law…..), with a guarentee of it being paid. What is that worth, and what is it compared to the private sector counterparts?
It just doenst seem right to say “these guys only make $XXXX”, without accounting for their benifits which no one else gets. It is frankly like looking at C level executives pay, without stock.
Participant[quote=jficquette][quote=EconProf]Funny video!
Too bad its true for some firefighters.[/quote]Friends next door neighbor is about to retire at 52. Makes well over $100k. Has worked the last 20 years at the airport. The airport firehouse is for one purpose only, and that is to put out fires when planes crash. They do not have responsibility off the airport property.
How many planes have crashed in SD in the last 25 years???
It’s likely the guy will draw basically full pay longer after retirement then he worked to “earn” it. So instead of making “just” $125k or so you have to double it. $250k for 20 something years of service?[/quote]
Id like to see a full pay scale with defered compensation for the public unions. So often people get pissed off (rightly so) about some CEO making an ass load of money (say 100million or something). Cept, that isn’t (usually) yearly, that is in stock and only if he lasts the contract, and only if the stock price doesnt tank. How are all those citi/GM/Chrysler/CIT/AIG/…. share options from 2005 doing????? But, the full level of compensation, includiding stock options and such is usually accounted for.
I would like to see this for our public workers. Just as an example, lets say that they start at 25, retire at 50, and die at 75. So, for 25 years of service they will recieve 50 years of pay (26 of it at highest pay+inflation) plus medical dental vision, +whatever else they get (100% covered contributions (I gotta pay to get a match), DROP, tax benifits, loopholes around IRS law…..), with a guarentee of it being paid. What is that worth, and what is it compared to the private sector counterparts?
It just doenst seem right to say “these guys only make $XXXX”, without accounting for their benifits which no one else gets. It is frankly like looking at C level executives pay, without stock.
Participant[quote=jficquette][quote=EconProf]Funny video!
Too bad its true for some firefighters.[/quote]Friends next door neighbor is about to retire at 52. Makes well over $100k. Has worked the last 20 years at the airport. The airport firehouse is for one purpose only, and that is to put out fires when planes crash. They do not have responsibility off the airport property.
How many planes have crashed in SD in the last 25 years???
It’s likely the guy will draw basically full pay longer after retirement then he worked to “earn” it. So instead of making “just” $125k or so you have to double it. $250k for 20 something years of service?[/quote]
Id like to see a full pay scale with defered compensation for the public unions. So often people get pissed off (rightly so) about some CEO making an ass load of money (say 100million or something). Cept, that isn’t (usually) yearly, that is in stock and only if he lasts the contract, and only if the stock price doesnt tank. How are all those citi/GM/Chrysler/CIT/AIG/…. share options from 2005 doing????? But, the full level of compensation, includiding stock options and such is usually accounted for.
I would like to see this for our public workers. Just as an example, lets say that they start at 25, retire at 50, and die at 75. So, for 25 years of service they will recieve 50 years of pay (26 of it at highest pay+inflation) plus medical dental vision, +whatever else they get (100% covered contributions (I gotta pay to get a match), DROP, tax benifits, loopholes around IRS law…..), with a guarentee of it being paid. What is that worth, and what is it compared to the private sector counterparts?
It just doenst seem right to say “these guys only make $XXXX”, without accounting for their benifits which no one else gets. It is frankly like looking at C level executives pay, without stock.
Participant[quote=jficquette][quote=EconProf]Funny video!
Too bad its true for some firefighters.[/quote]Friends next door neighbor is about to retire at 52. Makes well over $100k. Has worked the last 20 years at the airport. The airport firehouse is for one purpose only, and that is to put out fires when planes crash. They do not have responsibility off the airport property.
How many planes have crashed in SD in the last 25 years???
It’s likely the guy will draw basically full pay longer after retirement then he worked to “earn” it. So instead of making “just” $125k or so you have to double it. $250k for 20 something years of service?[/quote]
Id like to see a full pay scale with defered compensation for the public unions. So often people get pissed off (rightly so) about some CEO making an ass load of money (say 100million or something). Cept, that isn’t (usually) yearly, that is in stock and only if he lasts the contract, and only if the stock price doesnt tank. How are all those citi/GM/Chrysler/CIT/AIG/…. share options from 2005 doing????? But, the full level of compensation, includiding stock options and such is usually accounted for.
I would like to see this for our public workers. Just as an example, lets say that they start at 25, retire at 50, and die at 75. So, for 25 years of service they will recieve 50 years of pay (26 of it at highest pay+inflation) plus medical dental vision, +whatever else they get (100% covered contributions (I gotta pay to get a match), DROP, tax benifits, loopholes around IRS law…..), with a guarentee of it being paid. What is that worth, and what is it compared to the private sector counterparts?
It just doenst seem right to say “these guys only make $XXXX”, without accounting for their benifits which no one else gets. It is frankly like looking at C level executives pay, without stock.
Participant[quote=pri_dk] The problem with many of these points are that they are based upon abstract notions and not a practical course of action. It’s too late to fret about moral hazard. We have to act. Moral hazard won’t be a problem moving forward anyway, because lenders are now going to be very careful with their funds for very long time.
[/quote]What history I know does not support your point here. Moral hazard will resurface with a vengence, but it will take a few years. The United States is rife with examples of poor lending and land booms/busts. Southern Ca has been doing that pretty steadly for the past 30 years or so. We have not learned our lesson, and will not learn our lessons because we have almost no respect for history or ability to learn from it.
Participant[quote=pri_dk] The problem with many of these points are that they are based upon abstract notions and not a practical course of action. It’s too late to fret about moral hazard. We have to act. Moral hazard won’t be a problem moving forward anyway, because lenders are now going to be very careful with their funds for very long time.
[/quote]What history I know does not support your point here. Moral hazard will resurface with a vengence, but it will take a few years. The United States is rife with examples of poor lending and land booms/busts. Southern Ca has been doing that pretty steadly for the past 30 years or so. We have not learned our lesson, and will not learn our lessons because we have almost no respect for history or ability to learn from it.
Participant[quote=pri_dk] The problem with many of these points are that they are based upon abstract notions and not a practical course of action. It’s too late to fret about moral hazard. We have to act. Moral hazard won’t be a problem moving forward anyway, because lenders are now going to be very careful with their funds for very long time.
[/quote]What history I know does not support your point here. Moral hazard will resurface with a vengence, but it will take a few years. The United States is rife with examples of poor lending and land booms/busts. Southern Ca has been doing that pretty steadly for the past 30 years or so. We have not learned our lesson, and will not learn our lessons because we have almost no respect for history or ability to learn from it.
Participant[quote=pri_dk] The problem with many of these points are that they are based upon abstract notions and not a practical course of action. It’s too late to fret about moral hazard. We have to act. Moral hazard won’t be a problem moving forward anyway, because lenders are now going to be very careful with their funds for very long time.
[/quote]What history I know does not support your point here. Moral hazard will resurface with a vengence, but it will take a few years. The United States is rife with examples of poor lending and land booms/busts. Southern Ca has been doing that pretty steadly for the past 30 years or so. We have not learned our lesson, and will not learn our lessons because we have almost no respect for history or ability to learn from it.
Participant[quote=pri_dk] The problem with many of these points are that they are based upon abstract notions and not a practical course of action. It’s too late to fret about moral hazard. We have to act. Moral hazard won’t be a problem moving forward anyway, because lenders are now going to be very careful with their funds for very long time.
[/quote]What history I know does not support your point here. Moral hazard will resurface with a vengence, but it will take a few years. The United States is rife with examples of poor lending and land booms/busts. Southern Ca has been doing that pretty steadly for the past 30 years or so. We have not learned our lesson, and will not learn our lessons because we have almost no respect for history or ability to learn from it.
Participant[quote=justme][quote=sdduuuude]Our mutual rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness don’t, however, give the government the right to borrow money, spend it on stupid crap, then come after us and our grandchildren to pay it back.
In fact those very rights should prevent them from doing just that. Sadly, the constitution seems to no longer hold them back.
It is neither my borrowing, nor yours that will saddle future generations with massive debt. It is the government’s.[/quote]
So we have established the double standard that you have:
Monetary deficits are bad, energy deficits are not a problem.
In the end, your grandchildrens lives will be me much worse off from the energy deficit. All hail your special brand of personal freedom.[/quote]
I disagree that you have estabolished a double standard. Your argument can be run in reverse as well.
If the use of finite resources will leave our children worse off, then we should stop all use of them immediatly. But if we shut down our transportation industries, wont future generations be worse off as our economy implodes?
Wise spending, even deficit spending, will return future rewards in excess of costs. This improves the lives of future generations, making any remaining debts easily taken care of with extra to spare. The problem is when we go out and blow it all and have nothing to show for it. But who is to decide what ‘wise’ is? Is building a house out in BFE a wise decision, even if that person now needs to commute long distinces and use alot of gas? Well, it improved the value of the land in BFE, so maybe it is. At one time, Carmel valley was considered BFE, now it is prime RE, generating value for future generations.
What is wise and not wise if often far harder to figure out than you are making it out to be. (Carbon) Energy deficits are structural due to their limited amount of resource, Monitary deficits are not necessarly structural and as such not limited to the same constraints.
Participant[quote=justme][quote=sdduuuude]Our mutual rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness don’t, however, give the government the right to borrow money, spend it on stupid crap, then come after us and our grandchildren to pay it back.
In fact those very rights should prevent them from doing just that. Sadly, the constitution seems to no longer hold them back.
It is neither my borrowing, nor yours that will saddle future generations with massive debt. It is the government’s.[/quote]
So we have established the double standard that you have:
Monetary deficits are bad, energy deficits are not a problem.
In the end, your grandchildrens lives will be me much worse off from the energy deficit. All hail your special brand of personal freedom.[/quote]
I disagree that you have estabolished a double standard. Your argument can be run in reverse as well.
If the use of finite resources will leave our children worse off, then we should stop all use of them immediatly. But if we shut down our transportation industries, wont future generations be worse off as our economy implodes?
Wise spending, even deficit spending, will return future rewards in excess of costs. This improves the lives of future generations, making any remaining debts easily taken care of with extra to spare. The problem is when we go out and blow it all and have nothing to show for it. But who is to decide what ‘wise’ is? Is building a house out in BFE a wise decision, even if that person now needs to commute long distinces and use alot of gas? Well, it improved the value of the land in BFE, so maybe it is. At one time, Carmel valley was considered BFE, now it is prime RE, generating value for future generations.
What is wise and not wise if often far harder to figure out than you are making it out to be. (Carbon) Energy deficits are structural due to their limited amount of resource, Monitary deficits are not necessarly structural and as such not limited to the same constraints.
Participant[quote=justme][quote=sdduuuude]Our mutual rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness don’t, however, give the government the right to borrow money, spend it on stupid crap, then come after us and our grandchildren to pay it back.
In fact those very rights should prevent them from doing just that. Sadly, the constitution seems to no longer hold them back.
It is neither my borrowing, nor yours that will saddle future generations with massive debt. It is the government’s.[/quote]
So we have established the double standard that you have:
Monetary deficits are bad, energy deficits are not a problem.
In the end, your grandchildrens lives will be me much worse off from the energy deficit. All hail your special brand of personal freedom.[/quote]
I disagree that you have estabolished a double standard. Your argument can be run in reverse as well.
If the use of finite resources will leave our children worse off, then we should stop all use of them immediatly. But if we shut down our transportation industries, wont future generations be worse off as our economy implodes?
Wise spending, even deficit spending, will return future rewards in excess of costs. This improves the lives of future generations, making any remaining debts easily taken care of with extra to spare. The problem is when we go out and blow it all and have nothing to show for it. But who is to decide what ‘wise’ is? Is building a house out in BFE a wise decision, even if that person now needs to commute long distinces and use alot of gas? Well, it improved the value of the land in BFE, so maybe it is. At one time, Carmel valley was considered BFE, now it is prime RE, generating value for future generations.
What is wise and not wise if often far harder to figure out than you are making it out to be. (Carbon) Energy deficits are structural due to their limited amount of resource, Monitary deficits are not necessarly structural and as such not limited to the same constraints.
-
AuthorPosts
