![]() |
Come check out the news feed! DD Front Page
|
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
As a tax person, I'll tell you this. Trump's tax returns won't tell you sh*t that is applicable to the Presidency, especially now that he has a resume of Presidential acts. I mean, his economy is smashing everything Democrats like Obama and his "economists" said couldn't be done. Why? Because Democrats love to give people scraps to ensure they stay in power. They know that if they grow the economy too quickly it will 1) undermine their liberal antagonism of corporations, etc, and 2) it will ultimately stop growing which is a political liability as the economy maximizes all of its potential. Democrats see that as a bad thing... Trump's economy is common sense. Yes, I agree he's unprofessional as sh*t, but he's making progress in a lot of in the areas that truly matter to people trying to take care of their families. All the liberal social ideals will naturally follow in a good economy. In a crap economy, nobody cares about liberal social ideals - they just want to make sure they can feed their families. It's all right in front of them, but Dems seem to get in their own way...hell, look at AOC and Amazon. |
Sponsored Links | |
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[quote=irishwavend;722723]Pretty sure Obama started the "Do whatever you want attitude" when he was picking and choosing what laws he wanted to enforce or how to justify it unconstitutionally...
As a tax person, I'll tell you this. Trump's tax returns won't tell you sh*t that is applicable to the Presidency, especially now that he has a resume of Presidential acts. I mean, his economy is smashing everything Democrats like Obama and his "economists" said couldn't be done. Why? Because Democrats love to give people scraps to ensure they stay in power. They know that if they grow the economy too quickly it will 1) undermine their liberal antagonism of corporations, etc, and 2) it will ultimately stop growing which is a political liability as the economy maximizes all of its potential. Democrats see that as a bad thing... Trump's economy is common sense. Yes, I agree he's unprofessional as sh*t, but he's making progress in a lot of in the areas that truly matter to people trying to take care of their families. All the liberal social ideals will naturally follow in a good economy. In a crap economy, nobody cares about liberal social ideals - they just want to make sure they can feed their families. It's all right in front of them, but Dems seem to get in their own way...hell, look at AOC and I’ll be the first to admit my debatable skills in politics is lacking. On that note....I’ll try to amuse.... what do you think is going to happen with all these tax cuts and no money coming back in and the national debt continuing to escalate to astronomical numbers? Do you assume that big business will be giving back?-surly not by taxes since that rate just got dropped. Which by the way, they hardly paid that 25 percent anyways. Amazon anyone? Do you think big businesses will contribute to with this monetary increase hiring more? Perhaps, but many complain that people aren’t skilled enough in their fields to begin with. Continuing,I do know that the millionaire docs that I work for are just as shady as probably most millionaires that work in their fields. If you only knew the crap I knew about the ways they cheat the system. There’s a reason health care costs are so much. And it doesn’t just start with them. The insurance companies...my lord the insurance companies...Then you have the reps that charge 5,000 dollars for a 3/16th screw!! You could to the local hardware store and pick one up for 15 cents. Now, all these peoples are all wealthy, and all NOT contributing the patient and is escalating health care bill. Anyways, my gripe is that if you think big business is a good thing or it’s savior I wouldn’t get too excited. Look at W’s years and his “cut taxes” approach and letting big businesses thrive. Inflation happened and the bubble burst. Careful what you wish for. As for Trump’s returns, you’re telling me his taxes won’t show how indebted to Russia he really is? How crooked he really is? He’s mention it himself in many ways. He even said in the past he rather work with Russia because he gave him money and fostered his Trump towers golf courses etc. I would think as much as Republicans want safety for our country(stopping immigrants,defense spending) that they would want to make sure that Russia isn’t raping our system with hacks. But I digress...this country is in good shape and after Carter and W years, this country I found can withstand a just about anything. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[quote=coltssb;722726]
Quote:
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[quote=jessemoore97;722737]
Quote:
Last edited by Jim2Dokes; 05-10-2019 at 04:44 AM. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[quote=Jim2Dokes;722795]
Quote:
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[quote=Jim2Dokes;722795]
Quote:
What is it about my pension or health care you are concerned with exactly? |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[quote=jessemoore97;722797]Not when it proportionally targets the poor and working class. The fact you have a pension and healthcare, conservatives have been fighting against that for years, they argue it is an entitlement program. So if you are going to argue that we need to cut those, you can start with that one. How about we start taxing the rich for social security, it seems to me it is a program for poor people, paid by poor people. However, the rich get social security as well, yet only pay up to a very small amount of their income. Anyways, I am just making fun of your first stereotypical go to when talking about the debt. You are so like my uncle, ignoring that giant monopolies pay no taxes. We got off topic here back to the electoral college debate I will bow out now for this one. We could talk about the budget for 5 threads.
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[quote=Jim2Dokes;722799]
Quote:
My pension may not even be there when I retire. You understand that it just like social security goes towards paying beneficiaries who have already retired right? None of it is earmarked in an account specifically with my name on it like a 401k. With a pen stroke it can all go away for me and others. Our pension system for police and fire is very well managed, which is partly the reason its constantly in the crosshairs. So social security is paid for by the poor and is to only benefit the poor? What defines those parameters? Does someone who paid in tbe bare minimum of credits to social security, allowed to draw benefits exceeding their contribution indefinitely? |
#59
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Take the financial benefit out of serving in politics at all levels and you will find the money to finance social security and Medicare. Make our politicians fund their own retirement and healthcare. Problem solved. We won't need term limit reforms. After all, it's public SERVICE..... Just like volunteering at the senior center or the Association for the disabled , the homeless, environmental clean up, etc..... right?
__________________
Tough Times Don't Last, Tough People Do! Last edited by VCDomer; 05-14-2019 at 02:19 AM. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[quote=Jim2Dokes;722799]
Quote:
Are you also aware that most "rich" people pay the maximum amount of FICA taxes? In fact, many of them will pay double if they are self employed and have to pay the employer portion as well. Is your issue that FICA is not collected on salary earnings above the $132,900 cap? I have two questions: 1) Exactly how much should someone who earns $1,000,000 per year pay in social security contributions if he or she is limited to getting $34,000 each year from it in retirement? 2) Exactly how much should someone who earns $5,000,000 per year pay in social security contributions if he or she is limited to getting $34,000 each year from it in retirement? Last edited by jbrown_9999; 05-14-2019 at 01:11 PM. |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[quote=jbrown_9999;722825]
Quote:
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[quote=jessemoore97;722800]
Quote:
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[quote=Jim2Dokes;722829]
Quote:
I don't have a lot to say about privatization of prisons, I believe all the ones here are still state controlled as i understand it. I have no problem discussing reforms to the justice system, that would fall under that I suppose. There is a big difference between privatization of prisons and the police though. Emergency services like fire and police specifically should not be viewed as revenue generators. Thats barely the tip of the iceberg for reasons against privatization. Gangs of New York illustrated a very real example of private fire protection and what could happen. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[quote=jessemoore97;722832]
Quote:
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[quote=Jim2Dokes;722857]Ours are and most probably are too. However they aren't strictly used as emergency responders. Ours routinely transport patients from one medical facility to another for procedures one hospital may not offer among other things. You can also refuse transport by an ambulance or treatment by them. It happens pretty often. Ours get paid on the basis or transports.
|
#66
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Our pension fund here in Indiana has had great governance and that is why we have a surplus. So much so that the Gov't has been trying to get their hands on it for years. This year they finally got our pension leadership to agree that they can dip into it IF there's a State emergency. I AM SO PISSED! You just know this is just the beginning of them getting their greedy hands on my pension. I have NO clue WHAT the damn State pension leadership is thinking! Also, our city and county paramedics are city funded. Very few private ambulance services here.
__________________
"If we were in the wild, I would attack u. Even if u weren’t in my food chain, I would go out of my way to attack u!" ~Manti Teo Moderator |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
From the internet: Police officers started to form unions in the early 1900s in conjunction with the labor movement that was sparked by the industrial revolution. The earliest example of why police officers started to form unions is commonly associated with the Boston Police Department. Boston police officers did not receive pay increases from 1898 through 1913. In addition, they were often required to work 72 hours per week and pay for their own uniforms. In 1919, Boston cops unionized affiliated with the American Federation of Labor (AFL). After unionizing, 17 of the union leaders were suspended, which led to the majority of Boston’s police officers walking off the job. Violence in the city ensued after the walkout and, needless to say, after this occurred police officers were prevented from striking. Despite this incident police officers would continue to unionize and, as a result, most police officers belong to some sort of collective bargaining unit today. Our younger officers simply may not know that if it were not for unionization, they would not enjoy many of the benefits (wages, rights and working conditions) they enjoy today. Last edited by Jim2Dokes; 05-25-2019 at 06:13 AM. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.gov...ent.html%3fAMP 8 out of 10 gop states hold the crown for most govt employees Per Capita. Want to go further? They also spend the most federal dollars, have the worst schools, and the most poverty. Talk about bad management . Maybe you should just read my post which states why police officers joined the union to begin with, working 72 hr shifts etc. Jessie may be able to explain why it is important, or may be we just privtive the whole deal. You pay for your roads, your garbage (mafia style), your city beautification, your schools.... I could go on and on, I assume you get the picture of what I have been saying. You think city workers are going to work 72 hrs, no benefits etc fixing the **** you use everyday? You would have high schoolers throwing your trash in your lawn because they were pissed your garbage bin was to heavy. Try going to Loews in a good ecomony, it’s terrible. Imagine your road service. Last edited by Jim2Dokes; 05-27-2019 at 05:42 AM. |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
The article you linked didn't specifically indicate government employees per capita, but in the same journal this link does list it: https://www.governing.com/gov-data/p...-job-type.html This link, in the journal you provided, disagrees with what I think your comment regarding 8 of 10 meant. I think you meant that of the 10 states with the highest per capita govt employees, 8 are republican. However, this article in the journal you referenced indicates an even split: 5 R, 5 D: Alaska 245, Delaware 190, Wyoming 160, Hawaii 148, Vermont 146, North Dakota 134, New Mexico 128, Montana 125, Mississippi 120, Rhode Island 117. While per capita government employee numbers are interesting, I don't think I'm smart enough to draw meaningful conclusions based on that. Some may require more policing than others, some may provide more government-funded health care than others, etc. I like the link, the journal. Good stuff. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jim2Dokes, I was indeed correct. My statement was: How come it seems that democratically controlled states have the highest percent of unionized government workers? You seemed to completely have missed the main point of my question.
The attached article a-profile-of-union-workers-in-state-and-local-government/ points out that the 10 states with the highest percent of state and local unionized workers are: California (blue state) Connecticut (blue state) Hawaii (blue state) Maine (leans blue) Massachusetts (blue state) New Hampshire (split) New Jersey (blue state) New York (blue state) Rhode Island (blue state) Washington (blue state) * Blue states per Gallup http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/blue-states/ It is no longer the 1870's and I am not sure if the 72 hour shift argument applies to state office workers. If Republicans do not care about the common person and "we" should trust a government controlled by Democrats to better provide for us, why do government workers in blue states feel that they need to unionize at a higher rate than government workers in red states? Last edited by jbrown_9999; 05-27-2019 at 07:26 PM. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Regarding unions I have a lot of opinions about them. We formed our own bargaining unit for the PD some years ago, after we finally and thankfully got away from Teamsters. It's not perfect but we are more engaged than we were, and I don't have to worry about my dues going to political candidates at all. Like jbrown_9999 cheekily mentioned about our "benevolent" employer, the government, and your historical factoid about police unions is one of the reasons I am unionized. No I don't believe you can privatize LE. There have been experiments in that area in the past like the Pinkerton Detective Agency, among others, that didn't work out. There are hundreds of reasons why law enforcement specifically shouldn't privatize. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Last edited by Jim2Dokes; 06-08-2019 at 06:48 AM. |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|