$26 Billion to Union Leeches/Gov't Bureaucrats. Thanks dumb taxpayers.

• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Aug 10, 2010 10:14 PM GMT

  ...who make 5 times more on average than the people they supposedly represent..
  
  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100810/ap_on_bi_ge/us_jobs_bill#mwpphu-container
  
  "But it's for the kids' education."
  
  Riiighhhhhttt, more like more in the pocket for these guys
  
  WNY, NJ Superintendent base salary (before benefits/pensions/great vacation package): $241,980
  
  School rank: 282 out of 316
  
  http://njmonthly.com/downloads/1527/download/tophighschools08.pdf
  
  
  "But it's for our safety."
  
  Yes, because a retired cop on $450,000 annual pension can help fight crime, from his vacation home.
  
  "So police chief Adams, who worked just one year in Bell at a salary of $457,000, now qualifies for an annual pension of about $448,000."
  
  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/02/eveningnews/main6737745.shtml
  
  damn i need to pimp idiot taxpayers, brb prepping the resume

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Aug 10, 2010 10:23 PM GMT

  You're a fucking idiot.
  
  I hope that when someone breaks into your house, no cops show up. I'd say something about teachers, too, but it's obvious that yours failed you.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Aug 10, 2010 10:24 PM GMT

  Christian73 saidYou're a fucking idiot.
  

  
  
  That's against Realjock policy, now simmer.
  
  ..this coming from you, who bragged non-stop about making $65k a piece between you and your partner and being in the 2nd highest tax bracket. ignorant much?

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Aug 10, 2010 10:25 PM GMT

  Christian73 said
  I hope that when someone breaks into your house, no cops show up.

  
  
  I hope I can one day afford a house considering I'm paying that cop $448,000 per year in my taxes for being retired.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Aug 10, 2010 10:44 PM GMT

  $23 billion? That's chump change.
  
  Why, during the Bush Administration, this happened:
  
  "...The Department of Defense, already infamous for spending $640 for a toilet seat, once again finds itself under intense scrutiny, only this time because it couldn't account for more than a trillion dollars in financial transactions, not to mention dozens of tanks, missiles and planes.
  
  The Pentagon's unenviable reputation for waste will top the congressional agenda this week, when the House and Senate are expected to begin floor debate on a Bush administration proposal to make sweeping changes in how the Pentagon spends money, manages contracts and treats civilian employees...."
  
  I am sure, once the facts are rooted out, that the OP is misdirecting us from the real problem, which is order of magnitudes greater.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Aug 10, 2010 10:49 PM GMT

  fastprof said
  Why, during the Bush Administration, this happened:
  

  
  
  oy vey, i've made fun of Bush and his zoo-like daughters on these forums.. i like how small-minded one must be to assume that if you question the current Administration you must side with the former..
  
  oh sweet Paradox
  
  http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-15/americans-blame-bush-not-obama-for-deficit-jobs-afghan-war.html
  
  "Most surprising is that 60 percent say Bush is primarily responsible for the current situation in Afghanistan. Just 10 percent point to Obama, who has ordered 51,000 additional troops to that country since taking office, doubling the number deployed by Bush."
  
  "When Obama entered office in January 2009, there had been 568 U.S. casualties associated with the Afghanistan conflict, a number that has grown to 1,086, as of yesterday, according to the Defense Department."

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Aug 10, 2010 11:34 PM GMT

  solak said

  fastprof said
  Why, during the Bush Administration, this happened:
  

  
  
  oy vey, i've made fun of Bush and his zoo-like daughters on these forums.. i like how small-minded one must be to assume that if you question the current Administration you must side with the former..
  
  oh sweet Paradox

  
  
  You don't know my opinion on Afghanistan. As a matter of fact I am unhappy President Obama has not extricated us yet. But at least that war has a legal basis, even if I feel we should be out.
  
  Second, my point was not that your OP didn't underscore a problem. But that far larger issues exist, and have existed, with out much comment or concern,
  
  To me, the trillions of dollars wasted on the military (not legitimately, but on wasteful spending or illegal wars, instead of legitimate defense issues) makes all these other things pale in comparison.
  
  It's a little like yelling at somebody for the fact that a cake fell in the oven, at the same time in some other kitchen, the cook started a fire that burned down the building.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• metta
  
  Posts: 41629
  
  
  Aug 10, 2010 11:49 PM GMT

  This bill is needed. There have been too many cuts in the schools. It is making the quality of education worse. I think that it is well worth the investment for our future.
  
  A Superintendent is the head of the entire school district, which normally includes many schools. The top executive being paid $240k, I don't necessarily think that is out of line, depending on the cost of living in the area and the size of the school district.
  
  Have you looked at private executive salaries in the US and looked at how much more they make than their other workers. It is typically way more than 5 times. Now those salaries are ridiculous.
  
  Look at the executive for HP that just quit after a sexual harassment charge and received $28 million just for leaving.
  
  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100807/ap_on_hi_te/us_hp_ceo_resigns

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Aug 10, 2010 11:57 PM GMT

  southbeach1500 said

  fastprof said
  To me, the trillions of dollars wasted on the military (not legitimately, but on wasteful spending or illegal wars,

  
  Which war currently being fought (or fought in the last 20 years) by the USA is illegal?
  
  What makes it / them illegal?

  
  
  Keep up, will you. This has been discussed on other threads.
  
  A war, the declaration of which was based upon on falsified, or distorted information, is illegal. Or, rather, the perpertrator of the falsified information has done an illegal thing. There were no WMD, there never were WMD, and the entire justification for the incursion into Iraq, whether it had congressional backing, was based upon false information. This country was led into that war on the assurances of the President that WMD were a threat locally, to Europe and perhaps to the US. These WMD supposedly included not only chemical weapons but nuclear weapons.
  
  The incursion should never have happened. And, what makes this so much more reprehensible, is that two of our allies, and the United Nations WMD team tried to reason with the White House about this...there were no WMD. They were villified and ridiculed by Cheney and Ashcroft.
  
  This lie was cynically perpetrated and there is absolutely no excuse for either the lie or the fact that the Bush Administration never apologized for this. (By the way, I actually believe that Bush was duped too, by his own cabinet. I believe Bush really did believe that there were WMD there).
  
  Whatever one feels about Afghanistan, few will debate that we had a legitimate reason to go in there originally. The issue is that that was nearly 10 years ago now. Clearly, something is amiss with the administration of that war too. But it at least was declared on the basis of real, not falsified information.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• metta
  
  Posts: 41629
  
  
  Aug 11, 2010 12:03 AM GMT

  ^
  The cuts have gone too deep. There is a point where cuts do damage the quality of education. I understand about not wanting to waste money but having to make class sizes too large and cut out basic programs tells me that cuts have gone too far. Salaries and benefits for teachers and administrators have been cut several times in the last couple years in California. They have laid off people on a regular basis the last couple years as well.
  
  
  

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Aug 11, 2010 12:05 AM GMT

  metta8 saidA Superintendent is the head of the entire school district, which normally includes many schools.

  
  
  Trust me, if money were going to the kids and their actual education, I'd have no problem..
  
  The fact is money is going to principals' pockets in continually failing schools and superintendents with SMALL student bodies (see one example below), all at the expense of the taxpayer.
  
  Despite paying high school taxes they have to pay for private school because of horrid performance by public employees.
  
  Asbury Park, NJ Superintendent: $187,796
  (over $200k + when you account for benefits/pension/great vacation package at taxpayers' dime)
  
  Senior Class size: 84
  
  School Rank: 281 out of 316
  http://njmonthly.com/downloads/1527/download/tophighschools08.pdf
  
  Imagine if I told my boss, you have to keep paying me despite my crappy work ethic and results because the government has my back.
  
  That said, those salaries don't come close to what Union leaders/Local officials make who ironically are supposed to "serve" said employees and the public's interest.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• metta
  
  Posts: 41629
  
  
  Aug 11, 2010 12:14 AM GMT

  southbeach1500 said

  metta8 said^
  The cuts have gone too deep. There is a point where cuts do damage the quality of education. I understand about not wanting to waste money but having to make class sizes too large and cut out basic programs tells me that cuts have gone too far.

  
  What cuts?
  
  When has the Federal government cut spending on education?
  
  Again, what cuts????

  
  
  Actually what has been happening over the years is the federal government has been giving less to the states in order for them to pay their bills. State budgets keep getting less from the federal government are also dealing with revenue declines have had to cut every place they can. Education being the highest expense for a state budget gets cut every time they work on the budget. We need to be competitive with the other countries and we are not. I agree that major changes need to happen with education but cutting budgets time and time again is not the answer.
  
  I have a friend that works in administration as the head of Human Resources/Assist. Super. In the school district that she works in, which happens to be the top school district in California year after year, they have had to make so many cuts that they were going to have to cut band, art classes, sports programs, foreign languages. Thankfully, the school district is in a very wealthy area and they managed to get more local taxes approved and donations ($4.6 million recently) to prevent it from happening temporarily. Even so, they have still had to make many more cuts. In additional to her regular job responsibilities, she is now also responsible for all admissions, registrations, etc. for the entire school district. I asked her how she is able to do that and she told me that she just gets done what she can and goes to work early in the morning and comes home after 10pm. A lot of stuff just does not get done because there is no one to do it. Class sizes have had to go above what is allowed in order to keep things going. It does not matter if the school district is in a wealthy area, middle class area, or poor area, they are all suffering right now.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Aug 11, 2010 12:19 AM GMT

  metta8 saidState budgets keep getting less from the federal government are also dealing with revenue declines have had to cut every place they can.

  
  
  uhmmmm maybe States are going broke because of the insane salaries/pensions/benefits its local officials and union leaders receive by taxing the hell out of its residents??
  
  like this guy..
  
  http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1048968
  
  $26 Million lifetime pension for a City manager of 38,000 residents..
  
  how dare the residents question where their taxes go!?
  
  let's just keep believing it's for their "services."
  
  the irony of it all - the government's solution = tax more for further revenue, hey they gotta "earn" those $800,000 salaries somehow and claim it's for the "greater good."

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• metta
  
  Posts: 41629
  
  
  Aug 11, 2010 12:38 AM GMT

  ^
  I don't think that Bell is a fair example and the state is currently investigating into that mess. That is not typical. That is extreme mess that should have never been allowed.
  
  Again, I do believe that major changes need to be made in the educational system, including not allowing tenor to make it harder to fire teachers and allowing intensive pay (additional pay based on performance). But cutting budgets time and time again to the point where the teachers are only able to baby sit and not teach because class sizes are too big is not the answer.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Aug 11, 2010 12:48 AM GMT

  Bell doesn't scare me..
  
  what scares me are the hundreds of thousands of jurisdictions where this exploitation of private taxes to fund excessive public pay untied to services performed continues unannounced..
  
  $130 Million Payroll for NJ Teachers union must be nice..
  
  to be fair to some teachers (as there are some who actually give a shit about their kids).. the few good ones are being used in the media to take the heat for these faceless union officials who make more than the workers they represent
  
  per chunky Christie on the Union's highly paid lobbyists:
  
  

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• metta
  
  Posts: 41629
  
  
  Aug 11, 2010 12:57 AM GMT

  One change that I would like to see in the teachers unions is more representation for younger teachers. The union positions are normally help by the teachers that have been there the longest and they don't necessarily consider the position that the younger teachers are in when they make decisions. For example, they may choose laying off people over having salary cuts because they know that they are safe because of tenor so they are not having to loose anything themselves.
  
  The California Teachers Union donated over a million dollars to fight against Prop 8. Thank you CA Teachers Union!

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Aug 11, 2010 1:03 AM GMT

  metta8 said
  The California Teachers Union donated over a million dollars to fight against Prop 8. Thank you CA Teachers Union!

  
  
  Considering they earn their salary by taxing hundreds of millions from the CA gay community alone (who keep teachers' jobs easier due to many gays' DINK lifestyle), I'm surprised how little the union gave..
  
  But then again as examples shown above with Union/Gov't officials - pay first, PR second ("it's for the kids"), service third (assuming there's any money left over)..

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Aug 11, 2010 1:21 AM GMT

  Yeah, Speaking of chump change, entitlement programs have a $46 trillion dollar shortfall, yes I SAID $46 TRILLION. But at least everyone will be healthy...I kind of want a gov. job myself; to qualify for a FULL pension benefit you only have to work ten years.
  
  pp. 212
  
  http://www.gao.gov/financial/fy2009/09frusg.pdf

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Aug 11, 2010 1:39 AM GMT

  seriously it's like a humorous scene from Monty Python..
  
  -- Sir, we have a problem. People have no jobs and can't afford their rising property/payroll/healthcare taxes.
  
  -- Hmm, well maybe we should create a department on how to fix it.
  
  -- Okay, how will we pay them?
  
  -- Hmm, tax the people?
  
  ..like giving a drunk a drink to fix his hangover

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Aug 11, 2010 1:41 AM GMT

  metta8 saidThis bill is needed. There have been too many cuts in the schools. It is making the quality of education worse. I think that it is well worth the investment for our future.
  
  A Superintendent is the head of the entire school district, which normally includes many schools. The top executive being paid $240k, I don't necessarily think that is out of line, depending on the cost of living in the area and the size of the school district.
  
  Have you looked at private executive salaries in the US and looked at how much more they make than their other workers. It is typically way more than 5 times. Now those salaries are ridiculous.
  
  Look at the executive for HP that just quit after a sexual harassment charge and received $28 million just for leaving.
  
  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100807/ap_on_hi_te/us_hp_ceo_resigns

  
  
  If liberals are so concerned about having enough money for education why don't they want to tackle illegal immigration which drains taxpayers to pay for the education of children who shouldn't even be using those resources? Then there's legal immigration which brings in too many people from third world countries who have no resources to contribute and are ready-made welfarees putting even more strain on taxpayers to subsidize the education of their children among many other things.
  
  Your only solution for everything is spend more to "invest" in the future but there is no investment. If there's no money left there's no money left and you have to make draconian cuts.
  
  

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Aug 11, 2010 1:45 AM GMT

  onejock said
  but more to the point: imagine the effect on the economy (aka "the rest of us") if another 140,000 lose their jobs. taxes are already going up.

  
  
  ever think taxes are going up to support these pork positions?
  
  imagine the Billions in taxes people will save by getting rid of these excessively paid jobs that have no tie to performance/results per specific examples noted above...
  
  
  maybe then i can afford next semester's tuition.
  
  http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1048968
  
  $26 Million for a 38,000 town position? And you want more cake??
  
  I just wonder how many Bell cases there are across the country not picked up by the media.
  
  oh wait, i see you work as an Community Director.. must be nice to tax the "needy" to earn your salary and claim to "help" them..
  
  ever think that they're "needy" because they have to keep giving handouts to their local officials by way of a tax which serves public employee pay first, public "service" (or lack there of) lastly?
  

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Aug 11, 2010 2:04 AM GMT

  OK solak and SB, what are you going to do about it?
  
  (other than insult taxpayers and whine about it on RJ)

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Aug 11, 2010 2:05 AM GMT

  mocktwinkie said
  If liberals are so concerned about having enough money for education why don't they want to tackle illegal immigration which drains taxpayers to pay for the education of children who shouldn't even be using those resources? Then there's legal immigration which brings in too many people from third world countries who have no resources to contribute and are ready-made welfarees putting even more strain on taxpayers to subsidize the education of their children among many other things.
  

  
  
  

  Wikipedia again,In a late 1980s study, economists overwhelmingly viewed immigration, including illegal immigration, as a positive for the economy.[66] According to James Smith, a senior economist at Santa Monica-based RAND Corporation and lead author of the United States National Research Council's study "The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration", immigrants contribute as much as $10 billion to the U.S. economy each year.[67] The NRC report found that although immigrants, especially those from Latin America, caused a net loss in terms of taxes paid versus social services received, overall immigration was a net economic gain due to an increase in pay for higher-skilled workers, lower prices for goods and services produced by immigrant labor, and more efficiency and lower wages for some owners of capital. The report also notes that although immigrant workers compete with domestic workers for low-skilled jobs, some immigrants specialize in activities that otherwise would not exist in an area, and thus can be beneficial for all domestic residents.[68] About twenty-one million immigrants, or about fifteen percent of the labor force, hold jobs in the United States; however, the number of unemployed is only seven million, meaning that immigrant workers are not taking jobs from domestic workers, but rather are doing jobs that would not have existed had the immigrant workers not been in the United States.[69] ...
  
  In 2009, a study by the Cato Institute, a free market think tank, found that legalization of low-skilled illegal resident workers in the US would result in a net increase in US GDP of $180 billion over ten years.[73] Jason Riley notes that because of progressive income taxation, in which the top 1% of earners pay 37% of federal income taxes (even though they actually pay a lower tax percentage based on their income), 60% of Americans collect more in government services than they pay in, which also reflects on immigrants.[74] In any event, the typical immigrant and his children will pay a net $80,000 more in their lifetime than they collect in government services according to the NAS.[75]

  
  
  Thank god for low cost Walmart products made by hidden sweatshops in the US and abroad.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Aug 11, 2010 2:12 AM GMT

  southbeach1500 said

  meninlove said OK solak and SB, what are you going to do about it?
  

  
  None of your business. You're Canadians.

  
  
  
  ROFLMAO! In other words; nothing.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Aug 11, 2010 2:14 AM GMT

  meninlove said OK solak and SB, what are you going to do about it?
  

  
  
  Is Canada really that boring?
  
  but to answer your question, I picked up a second job on the weekends (more of necessity than choice at this point)..
  
  i volunteer for a little brother/sister program via my uni twice a week.. the program director "recommends" you pay for your little's expenditures (ie movie tickets, etc)..
  
  i only pay for his lunch meal, and expect him to pay for his own movie tickets, pinkberry, etc.
  
  i introduced my little to our uni's assistant librarian to stock books so he can EARN the right to watch a movie with me should he choose, so he won't pick up the attitude of union/public officials that you can just print money at will or tax your neighbor and claim it as a "public service."

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM