1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Our tax dollars buying more vacations for executives, this time in the gov.

Discussion in 'The OT' started by Zellio, Jul 15, 2009.

  1. Zellio

    Zellio Icon

    643
    0
    Mar 8, 2009
    http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=8084663&page=1

    Cost for the social security executives getaway: over $700,000 to the taxpayers.

    Same bull**** as corporations. It's no wonder the government lets corporations like Goldman Sachs do whatever they want with our money, esp. when corporations are bribing our government to do it.

    How much more bull**** are we gonna let the government do before we wake and realize both sides of the coin are screwing us to make money, and neither side are for us anymore?

    All republican and democrats do now is play ping pong with each other, pretending like their side is patriotic, while taking all they can from the taxpayer. If you look on the decleration of independance, the problems our forefather had mirror our issues with today's government.
     
  2. Lee L

    Lee L Hall Of Fame

    3,134
    0
    Aug 15, 2002
    The government is not much different than any other corporation, with the main difference being that they can make you give them your money.
     
  3. Zellio

    Zellio Icon

    643
    0
    Mar 8, 2009
    Except a government is supposed to be for the people, and not corrupt and taking money FROM the people, so that the politicians can be rich.
     
  4. jclewter79

    jclewter79 Hall Of Fame

    1,833
    0
    Jan 8, 2008
    It makes me smile when people say that the goverment is doing something wrong with "my" tax dollars. The moment that that money leaves my pocket it ceases to be "mine" or "ours". I agree that that money gets used in the wrong ways all the time but the moment I hand it over I can't really gripe about what is not mine anymore.
     
  5. richiephx

    richiephx Godfather

    335
    1
    Jan 18, 2006
    Your comment is so naive. The government works for the taxpayer who supports them through tax dollars. Your vote is important. I urge everyone who votes to contact people in Congress from their state and let them know how you feel.
     
  6. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    It's a good thing they didn't hold the conference in Las Vegas or they could be called hypocrites. :nono:
     
  7. jclewter79

    jclewter79 Hall Of Fame

    1,833
    0
    Jan 8, 2008
    Naive? If the government is not working for the taxpayer, does the taxpayer have the option of not supporting the government with his tax dollars? The answer is no. If that were the taxpayers money they would have the option to spend it in the manner they choosed. Since we don't have that option with our tax dollars I argue that it is truly not "our" money.
     
  8. phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,104
    330
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    The irony here is that much of the money used for optional choices is borrowed, not current tax collections. It isn't my tax money, but it might be my 6-year-old granddaughter's 30 years from now.
     
  9. coldsteel

    coldsteel Hall Of Fame

    1,984
    0
    Mar 29, 2007
    :righton:
     
  10. Zellio

    Zellio Icon

    643
    0
    Mar 8, 2009
    Give it a year or two. At the current rate our government is spending borrowed money, and since we basically control the earth's money, by spending 25% of it, we will have hyper inflation and the worst worldwide depression ever.
     
  11. Zellio

    Zellio Icon

    643
    0
    Mar 8, 2009
    Anyone who thinks China owes us, or thinks other countries would survive this, are living a life of ignorance. We import TONS of Chinese products. China would never want us to stop, they get their main money from exporting.

    The idiots who think other countries have more technology will find what happens when a major depression hits the most technological country in the planet: the US.

    The US Govt isn't ****ing over the US, it's ****ing over the world.

    Your talking countries that export like China no longer getting cash from corporations. Your talking large corporations in America going under. Your talking the world losing the biggest makers of semiconductors, medical research, biotech, etc.

    All of this would have profound implications, and most certainly end up in world war 3 in a matter of years.

    All so some politicians can have money and power. And some people in this topic go so far as defend this.
     
  12. Zellio

    Zellio Icon

    643
    0
    Mar 8, 2009
    Even after our recession caused a worldwide recession, people are still oblivious to what these politicians will do to the world.

    They'd rather blame us then look at the facts.

    It's sad.
     
  13. durl

    durl Hall Of Fame

    1,743
    0
    Mar 27, 2003
    Exactly right. The problem is that there are too many people that don't care where the money comes from as long as they believe somebody "richer" than them is losing money.
     
  14. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    Bingo!! Too many people are perfectly happy if they can find a way to stick their hand in their neighbor's pockets. It happened in Florida with property taxes years ago, now it's going national. I'm a beneficiary of their actions in Florida and I don't like it.
     
  15. Zellio

    Zellio Icon

    643
    0
    Mar 8, 2009
    The problem that they never see is that politicians like this will hurt us all.

    These guys are actively taking are money, hurting the world, letting people live on the street, so they can have money and power. This will come back to hurt everyone in the planet, no matter what they think.

    If we woke up and took pitchforks to this government, we'd save ourselves. But the government has us all busy bitching at each other to realize that the true enemy is the government, and while we bitch about which party is better, both parties are busy screwing us over like snake oil salesmen.
     
  16. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    If I were the ever fearless leader of this country and had blanket powers to do as I pleased the first thing that I would do is do away with government pension plans. Let the government employees fund their own pensions and retire when others in the private sector retire, not after a fixed 20 or 25 years. This would include members of congress and the president (well, maybe not the fearless leader with blanket powers, afterall, that's me ;)). If they want national health care make it a part of their proposal that THEY would be REQUIRED to be under the same plan as they are imposing on the population with absolutely NO OPT OUT possibilities for THEM.
     
  17. Phil T

    Phil T Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    2,357
    29
    Mar 25, 2002
    Littleton,...
    I have worked in local government for over 30 years. I took my first government job as a parts clerk for a police department at a large salary decrease from what I was making in the private sector, because they had good health and retirement benefits, not because they paid well.

    Now after 14 years in a school district on a year to year contract (not a teacher) I pay over $500.00 a month for health insurance with large co-pays. I am being forced to retire as a budget cut in January so I can then pay over $1,000.00 and month and now the state wants to screw up my retirement benefits I have paid into for 30 years.

    Where I work they have seen this crash coming for at least 5 years and did nothing. I know it was the same at the state level, and if you think things are bad now, just give it a couple more years, and we will all be on welfare. For years I worked to keep the politics away from the daily operations. Now politics control everything and all decisions made are political.
     
  18. phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,104
    330
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    Richard, I have to disagree with your perspective. Defined benefit pensions are not inherently bad.

    If the goal is "retirement security" the goal can't be to get rich through risky investments nor can it be a place to defer and reduce employer or employee cash flow out. We've effectively killed both defined benefit pensions and defined contribution plans by playing games.

    The defined benefit pension plan was common in both the public and private sectors up to the 1970's. The private sector began to back off when the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) began to look at the fact that corporations were essentially not adequately funding pension plans. It was no coincidence that Congress approved the 401(k) in 1978.

    Pre-1980's public pension plans, for the most part, were funded adequately. Then politicians started playing with actuarial assumptions and looking at monies accumulating from investment earnings.

    At one point, I got into a fight with CalPERS actuaries and the State Controllers Office over an absurdly low number for employer contribution given an agency I was responsible for. Three years later, they finally did an "ooops" and jumped the contribution rates on everyone. The Legislature, of course, had shifted the expenditures from pension expense to something else. A big fight ensued.

    Also, during a big "earnings" uptick, the Legislature at the behest of the unions created a pension option that in effect increased the pension for many police and fire personnel by 50% which I opposed. Now we are bearing that burden.

    Defined benefit pensions can provide a measure of security. If funded and managed properly they work fine. But politics, even in the private sector, by the 1970's seemed to prevail over honest management.

    The 401(k) type defined contribution plan also wasn't inherently bad. But it too requires honest, very conservative management to be effective in providing for retirement security.

    Americans need to figure out that having a large population of people over 70 without a decent retirement is a recipe for disaster. But that requires "saving" in one form or another - you know, deferring spending on the new iPhone to replace the one purchased 8 months ago.
     

Share This Page