More than 6,400 Mass employees make over $100K

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Fair enough. How about answering my question?

How about the fact you added the question AFTER I made that post

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

How about the fact you added the question AFTER I made that post

Ok, I concede that I asked you that question after you posted. Whoop-dee-do.

Now, how about the fact that not you, nor anyone else, tried to answer it. If someone directly addressed my question, I missed it, so please show me.

Dad, it gets tiresome when I make the attempt to directly respond to dozens of questions and points, and no one will respond to one of mine.

You say folks "gave their take" on it? Where? Where did someone directly address the question I asked about the fairness of forcing taxpayers to bear these costs?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

How about the fact you added the question AFTER I made that post

Yes, how about that fact? Why is that important?

Dad, you seem, at times, extyremely rational, so I was curious to see your answer to my question.

Do you only feel comfortable answering questions that have been asked before you join the discussion?

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Yes, how about that fact? Why is that important?

Because you asked me why I hadn't answered a question....That I didn't know was asked

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Do you only feel comfortable answering questions that have been asked before you join the discussion?

as opposed to what.....answering questions that haven't been asked yet.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Because you asked me why I hadn't answered a question....That I didn't know was asked



as opposed to what.....answering questions that haven't been asked yet.

Dad, you read my posts thoroughly enough that you were quick to point out several flaws, which is fine. My point was, while you were dissecting every detail of my post looking for flaws, you might have also taken the time to answer the question I asked, which gets to the heart of the issue.

If you want to correct my grammar and punctuation, I have no problem with that. But how about you also take the time to answer the question I'm asking?

Again, I see you dodged my other, pertinent question, which was this...given that you concede that public employees "could" live with 401(k)s, don't you think they SHOULD be asked to live with 401(k)s?

My position is this...

- people in the private sector are surviving with 401(k}s
- pensions are much more expensive than 401(k}s
- public employees are public servents, they are supposed to serve the public
- taxes are pretty high right now

Given all these things, it seems morally obvious to me that public employees should, finally, have to accept benefits that reflect what's available to the public they serve, and benefits that the taxpayers can reasonably afford.

Where am I wrong?

[scottw]

you two should get a room

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Again, I see you dodged my other, pertinent question, which was this...given that you concede that public employees "could" live with 401(k)s, don't you think they SHOULD be asked to live with 401(k)s?

Then go ahead and ask them....I'm not stopping you.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Then go ahead and ask them....I'm not stopping you.

Nice dodge, coward. I asked you if you thought they should make the switch to 401(k)s. I'm sorry if that question points out how obviously flawed your personal agenda is. If your position on this issue is so weak that you cannot begin to answer a question that simple, perhaps you should ask yourself why you believe what you do?

You can keep pointing out all of the hypertechnical flaws in my posts. The logic is unassailable. Your refusal to answer my question makes that crystal clear.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Nice dodge, coward. I asked you if you thought they should make the switch to 401(k)s.

and besides.....thats not what you asked.

This is what you asked

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Again, I see you dodged my other, pertinent question, which was this...given that you concede that public employees "could" live with 401(k)s, don't you think they SHOULD be asked to live with 401(k)s?

and I said Go ahead and ask them.....seems like I answered the question you asked.

[Fly Rod]

Jim, the bottom line is that you had an opprutunity at one time as we all did to apply for work with the city, state or feds, you being a vet would have started out with four weeks paid vacation for time served in the military and on your way to a pension, apparently you chose another path of employment. Get over it, build a houseboat(no property taxes) kiss a mailperson, fireperson, a female that is.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Jim, the bottom line is that you had an opprutunity at one time as we all did to apply for work with the city, state or feds, you being a vet would have started out with four weeks paid vacation for time served in the military and on your way to a pension, apparently you chose another path of employment. Get over it, build a houseboat(no property taxes) kiss a mailperson, fireperson, a female that is.

it's just going to be really ugly when the teats all run dry and the checks bounce and all of these entitlement recievers realize they've been Bernie Maidoff'ed ....maybe we can just get some advanced Obama end of life counseling for a whole bunch of people to help bail out the ship, that may be one way to make Obamacare actually work... instead of offering early retirement we'll offer to RETIRE them early if ya know what I mean "everyone needs to have a little skin in the game"

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Jim, the bottom line is that you had an opprutunity at one time as we all did to apply for work with the city, state or feds, you being a vet would have started out with four weeks paid vacation for time served in the military and on your way to a pension, apparently you chose another path of employment. Get over it, build a houseboat(no property taxes) kiss a mailperson, fireperson, a female that is.

No, Fly Rod, that's not the bottom line. I'm pretty comfortable, never said I wasn't. I went into actuarial science for the $$ and so I'd be home every day at 4:30.

The botom line is this. The cost of those benefits is crippling state and local governments, and taxpayers who aren't as lucky as I am will soon be forced to make enormous sacrifices so that these unionized municipal employees can continue to cling to these insane benefits. There is a reason those benefits don't exist in the private sector anymore. Those union benefits literally destroyed the auto industry in this country. I don't want my town or your town to resemble Flint, Michigan, just so cops can retire at age 45 with a guaranteed pension for life. And that's where we are headed.

If you're OK with that scenario, i would be interested to know why. If you don't think those benefits are resulting in staggering debt, please show me data to support that. But stop trying to distract attention away from the issue at hand by posting that I'm jealous.

I hate everything about muncipal unions (I served time on my town's BOE, I know exactly how they operate, witgh tactics that would have impressed Vito Corleone. Every time I brought up the subject of 401(k)s, the union rep would claim that I hate children). I'm not jeaolous of them...I'm not jealous of anyone who greedily takes what belongs to others. I have nothing but contempt for those parasites, and the politicians who lay down for them.

Fly Rod, I'll "get over it" when my property taxes stop going up 10% a year. I'll get over it when public employees stop forcing taxpayers to choose between paying property taxes and buying food and medicine.

Public service is supposed to be for those who hear a call to serve, not for those looking for the surest path to wealth.