They're merely recruiting followers through duress. The needy are the only vulnerable people at their disposal. Insidiously selfish and deceitful, IMO.
In Sug's case, he may be responsible for inspiring and educating the 60th President or the Doc who cures cancer. BTW, Wisconsin IS part of America. How does a private sector "consultant" serve his country?
The seller did suffer. He or she held his or her house off the market for the escrow period. He or she had to make at least one extra mortgage payment. He or she didn't get the money for their house when they though they would. Who knows what that buyer could have gotten if that buyer didn't plug up the works for 29-59 days? Perhaps he or she made net money off the escrow, perhaps not. It's an unknown. But thank you for finally getting to a point where we can have clarity. You believe that employed teachers shouldn't be affected by the economy; the taxpayers have to bear that burden regarless of economic circumstance. I think there are times when the economic reality has to affect those employed by the government. We'll agree to disagree.
Fair enough, but they are still serving, aren't they? Plus, most of them are paying taxes from private sector income. I guess I don't understand why you're so upset about this Wisconsin thing, anyhow. You're grandfathered in to any public retirement that you scammed from the rest of us. At least, you are until the state runs out of our money, freeloader.
I presented a hypothetical and asked you a direct and specific question--regarding the death of a corporation and their reneging on a promise to employ people nine months out--and you dodged it. It's cool. I understand why you did.
So may be a private school teacher. According to you and Sug, though, that teacher isn't serving his country. This is a state budgetary issue, though. The President really has no business instigating matters in it, yet there he is, doing what he does. By paying the salaries for the public mooches who claim they are special by "serving" their country. As I said, the free ride for you leeches is just about over. I can't wait.
Question: Barack Obama was almost exclusively privately educated (Punahou, Occidental, Columbia, Harvard). Looking back, most of our Presidents were privately educated at some point in their lives. How do you reconcile that fact with your statement about private school teachers not serving while a public school teacher educating someone important has merit?
I never made such a statement, nor do I believe it. Anyone who teaches the truth serves their countrymen.
No I don't. They suffer like we all due. They pay higher taxes and higher food costs and higher health, utility, gas costs... And some lose their jobs.
http://sportstwo.com/threads/178965...-WI-Governor?p=2541217&viewfull=1#post2541217 As an aside, who decides what the "truth" is?
Well, they're not really paying the taxes, since it all comes from taxed money to begin with. Plus, they then just negotiate higher wages to offset the taxes. It's a great scam. Capone would be proud...
I forgot the best part, where the taxpayer-funded wages then get an amount garnished by the public unions for "dues", which then go back to the Democratic Party in the form of donations. It really is a brilliant scam. Too bad people are catching on to it.
They have their jobs and benefits not maintained while others who they ask to pay that compensation are losing both. You can't get blood from a stone, no matter how much people protest.
I was asking PapaG how he serves his country in his business as a consultant. I made no reference to teachers. The truth is. No decision necessary. Oh, I forgot. It's fine and dandy to lie in your real world.
Takes two to negotiate. If they out-negotiated the state's hired guns at the bargaining table, more power to them. I think it's more likely that a lot of people are under-compensated for their efforts due to the dearth of unions since Reagan crushed them and rather than confront THAT issue they'd rather blame who they have been told to hate. It's called shooting one's self in the foot.
They're not asking. They were promised. The taxpayers asked them to teach their children and offered certain benefits, not the other way around.
You can continue to obsfucate and to try to bait me, but I'm not interested in mindless bickering at the edges of this debate. It's simply better to say we have differing opinions about public unions and the burden taxpayers should have to bear. We simply have to agree to disagree.
