Open Thread: Heritage and Reason Team Up to Debunk Union Falsehoods
The two think tanks, leaders in the conservative and libertarian movements, produced a short video recently examining some of the claims made by pro-union demonstrators and other public employee union backers. Among the claims they take on: public sector workers don't make significantly more than their private sector counterparts, collective bargianing is "not about money," and attempts to rein in public employee unions are simply "union busting" measures.
Check out the video below the break.
Thoughts on the video, the claims made in it, or the debate generally?
- NB Staff's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Whenever someone says "It's
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 02/28/2011 - 10:19am.
Whenever someone says "It's not about the money"....you can bet your bottom dollar, it's about the money.
This has nothing to do with money..... It's about taking away our right to negotiate....
Uh, for what, Madam? For more money.
It's also about power
Submitted by MI_Woodworker on Mon, 02/28/2011 - 10:27am.
The money also generates power for those who receive the money. The power the union wields over those in elected office, to further generate more money for themselves. The question also needs to be framed about the individuals rights. Using 'Right to Work" mantra repeatedly, to let others know that their individual right to work is being usurped by the public employee union. If it was about democracy and rights, then the individual right trumps all other rights. The right to make ones own decision in joining/not joining the union and paying the 'dues/bribes' to the union officials to be allowed to work. The union officials then wield power and control over the union members by making decisions for the individual.
Reagan quotes
Submitted by dmntd1 on Mon, 02/28/2011 - 10:43am.
I'm getting tired of the alleged Reagan quote people keep trotting out:
"On May 2nd, 1933, the day after Labor day, Nazi groups occupied union halls and labor leaders were arrested. Trade Unions were outlawed by Adolf Hitler, while collective bargaining and the right to strike was abolished. This was the beginning of a consolidation of power by the fascist regime which systematically wiped out all opposition groups, starting with unions, liberals, socialists..."I finally ended one quote-thread on facebook by posting that entire quote, and it's ACTUAL author.... and my reply got deleted! LOL by the way, it actually was written by Ole Ole Olson, at Newsjunkiepost.com. Here's that paragraph, along with the next one.
On May 2nd, 1933, the day after Labor day, Nazi groups occupied union halls and labor leaders were arrested. Trade Unions were outlawed by Adolf Hitler, while collective bargaining and the right to strike was abolished. This was the beginning of a consolidation of power by the fascist regime which systematically wiped out all opposition groups, starting with unions, liberals, socialists, and communists using Himmler’s state police.
Fast forward to America today, particularly Wisconsin. Governor Walker and the Republican/Tea Party members of the state legislature are attempting to pass a bill that would not only severely punish public unions (with exception for the police, fire, and state trooper unions that supported his campaign), but it would effectively end 50 years to the right of these workers to collectively bargain.
I wish I had thought to keep my reply on it, as they were quite long, and quotes from various NAZI era documents... I figured my aunt would actually debate it, not delete it. I was wrong.
We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.
An idiot lament.
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Mon, 02/28/2011 - 10:53am.
Collective Bargaining got us into much of our debt.
Comparing someone to Hitler is getting old. Don't let Soros hear you or he'll get sentimental.
The Unions suck and have ruined much of this country. Get it through your thug brain.
Your union leaders are willing to cut your wages as long as they maintain their power and your money. Are you that stupid?
LOL! I can't argue that way
Submitted by dmntd1 on Mon, 02/28/2011 - 11:05am.
LOL! I can't argue that way with these people. I have to present the actual facts. Usually, when I do that, they run away crying, but that's another story....
I'm enjoying the opportunity to debate with family/friends on facebook, however. It makes their stances look sillier every time.
We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.
I thought this was interesting
Submitted by Par for the Course on Mon, 02/28/2011 - 10:44am.
I thought this was interesting:
"Gimme!" Activism
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 02/28/2011 - 10:59am.
From that article:
The flacks for the Wisconsin government-employee unions are also claiming that Wisconsin’s budget crisis was manufactured and that it would be running a surplus if it were not for tax cuts backed by the state’s new governor.
That subject was discussed thoroughly in the Rachel Maddow threads, so I won't revisit it.
I will just say this: This is "Gimme!" activism of the worst kind.
What this says is Don't give the taxpayers of Wisconsin a break; keep bleeding them and keep giving the money to us!
I wonder how they would react if the state decided to take some of their pension fund and give it to someone else, without them having any say in it!
You can bet Hands off OUR money!! would be shouted from the rooftops!
But when it comes to confiscating money from others to give to them, well, that's OK.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul is always acceptable...to Paul.
The equally corrupt teachers,
Submitted by Miss_Me_Yet on Mon, 02/28/2011 - 10:53am.
The equally corrupt teachers, unions and democrat lawbreakers act as though this take back of America from the likes of them is something brand new, sprung on them in the past 3 weeks.
In reality, this fight has been raging for more than 50 years, only the democrat party was in the majority. Now We the People, through our Republican elected representatives have a voice and the upper hand.
The unions, all unions must be broken and removed from every aspect of American life.
It's not only the teacher's union, but police, fire, all civil servant,private, etc. that must be eradicated like the cancer on society they are.
The real reason there is no factories, manufacturing in America is the unchecked corruption of the once powerful unions.
They can play the victim now that their numbers are so dismal, but the truth is, the unions / corrupt democrat politicians, not that long ago, were as powerful, ruthless and murderous to the American way of life as La Cosa Nostra once was.
We must go after and destroy the unions, maybe under the same RICO laws used to cut the head off ( that one was for you HuffPo ) of the mafia.
Liberals ... we can't live with them, they couldn't survive without us ...
I disagree
Submitted by dmntd1 on Mon, 02/28/2011 - 11:31am.
I agree that government sector unions should be abolished, but I don't agree that the private sector unions should be abolished. I do believe that unions should be pulled back into their historical roles of training and providing trained labor to businesses that require that sort of labor.
Let's take the IBEW, as a general example. When you get a job as a union electricial, you don't usually apply for the job at an Electrical Contractor. You apply through the union hall. You spend the next five years learning that craft, while being employed by union electrical shops. You may spend your entire five years working for the same company, but you may move companies every year (depends on policies).
In the meantime, if you move, you don't lose your standing, much as you don't lose your training. You can sign some paperwork at the IBEW hall in your new area, and usually be put right back into the apprentice program there, at the same level you were in at your former hall.
Once you pass your apprenticeship, and are a Journeyman Electrician, you can pretty well travel throughout the U.S. and sign up at varying halls for work. You're ability to earn is not restriced to your locality, and if there are no jobs here, but there are jobs 'over there', you can move over there to get one.
THAT'S the main reason I support private sector unions.
Secondly, if you run a union shop, and a new contract goes through that needs a LOT more workers, you don't have to place a bunch of ads in the paper. You can go to the union hall for the type of tradesman you need, and hire off the roster. If you decide they're not a good fit, you tell them not to come back the next day.
Those are the main reasons, in a nutshell, why I support private sector unions.
In a full disclosure, I've worked for two separate unions, one private sector and one government. I've been on a negotiating committee. I've also tried to organize a union in a different job, where I felt the owners weren't operating under the legal guidelines but where I also knew the owners were in very tight with the government overseers. I quit when the other employees told me they wouldn't join.
Now, for a paper-pushing bureaucrat, there's no such thing as a five year apprenticeship.
We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.
Unions are unnecessary
Submitted by ckc1227 on Mon, 02/28/2011 - 6:22pm.
"Those are the main reasons, in a nutshell, why I support private sector unions."
Here's a stat for you: 93% of private sector employees aren't in a union. Unions are unnecessary, your reasons for supporting them notwithstanding.
union training
Submitted by rich7292 on Mon, 02/28/2011 - 8:30pm.
We don't need unions training workers. I have a small business. When I hire people I do not go out and should be forced to go out and hire supposed fully trained union workers. Everything I learned I either learned on my own or working for a private company that was not unionized. Unions cause way more problems than they are worth.
If I
Submitted by HockeyKid on Mon, 02/28/2011 - 10:54am.
lived in WI, I'd be glad to see that Mr. Orange 'Fro wasn't teaching in schools today. He looks like a real great influence for my kids.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Obama and the unions are done and they know it.
Submitted by johnsonl on Mon, 02/28/2011 - 11:03am.
They are pulling out all the stops. If they lose this battle, the war is over. The dems will lose their money base and sink into the abyss. That warbling you heard after the mid term elections was the Fat Lady, serenading us into a new era of Hope and Change. I bet the liberals, socialists, unions and entitlement junkies never believed in this kind of change. They have awakened the sleeping tiger by poking him with a sharp stick. It's a whole new world, kids.
Everybody works, everybody pays their fair share. No more free rides.
Illegal aliens will be deported by every means possible. America for Americans.
We will protect our borders by every means we have at our disposal. The world has become too dangerous not to.
Those who would harm us, from without and within, will be caught and punished. If you are not our friend, stand back. If you are our enemy, get ready to fight.
Never forget: the same media
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 02/28/2011 - 11:07am.
Never forget: the same media that glorify these thugs demanding more of the taxpayers' money demonized taxpayers who rallied to say "Enough!!" to endlessly increasing taxation.
Hitler "outlawed unions"
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Mon, 02/28/2011 - 11:18am.
Saying that Hitler "outlawed unions" is half-true, but it ignores a lot of what makes Hitler or the Nazis what we know them to be. Hitler arrested the union leaders and confiscated the property of the unions. It wasn't just limiting collective bargaining rights, but going after any non-state structure that did not owe allegiance to the state.
After the smoke cleared there was one legal union left; it was a total puppet of the state. But the people could as much pick their union as people in closed and union shops can today.
rsbarc011
Submitted by rsbarc011 on Mon, 02/28/2011 - 11:35am.
There is something else that I have noticed that is not being mentioned here. I grew up in a very pro-union home. My dad and I would get into heated discussions about this.
When ever the union got the workers a raise they would raise the union dues. That cut into the raise pretty deep. The increase in union dues also came if the increase was in a benefit and not a raise. By the time everything was figured there was not much left to the raise. My dad could not wrap his arms around this and would still claim his precious unions were looking out for his best interests.
Here's the real Test
Submitted by dirtydan64 on Mon, 02/28/2011 - 11:40am.
Cut the Teachers pay by 10% every year and see where the threshold is of what a Teachers is willing to keep his/her job, that will undoubtably determine what a teacher is worth !!! And then ask the SEIU Union Muscle Heads how much is too much for Tax Payers to pay in Property Tax to divert to School's, and you'll be hardpressed to find a teacher that can provide you a difinitive number on what's the top end of "Too Much"
Watts Up With That- Voted Best Science Blog
Submitted by upcountrywater on Mon, 02/28/2011 - 2:36pm.
WUWT Wooo Hooo
Well Huff po won in another category, ug.. If you want to read about it here..
You Didn't Build That.
A couple comments
Submitted by Garlock on Mon, 02/28/2011 - 4:24pm.
1) At 1:00, the video mentions how much various governors are proposing public sector employees contribute to their health care coverage and retirement/pensions. All of the proposals are for the employees to contribute to these things, as the video says, "for the first time", as if they were getting these things for free. This is false, as the workers have already been contributing 100% of them. This is because the health coverage and pensions are part of the total compensation package that the workers negotiated. Thus, the benefits that everybody thinks the government is giving them "for free" are actually deferred wages to the worker. The employee is actually taking smaller immediate compensation in favor of some compensation to be paid out at a later date. Here is a more detailed account of how that works. Moreover, the workers have already agreed to these pay-cut concessions, to which Gov. Walker responded with, "That's not enough, no deal."
2) The chart at 2:27 is a bit misleading. Sure, state expenditures have gone up over the past decade; so have state revenues, population, and GDP.
3) At 2:45 appears the chart showing higher average salary for public school teachers vs lower for private school teachers. I don't think this is false, as a much higher % of public teachers are unionized and can negotiate a higher salary. However, some studies that are used to show much higher salary for public than for private teachers also factor in public school administrators into the statistics, which skews the data since admins make much more money than actual teachers do. Should we be putting more pressure on the admins rather than the teachers? Yes.
The public/private teacher salary fight is also often used as a proxy for showing public sector workers make more than private sector workers. There have been several studies done that show the public sector does not, in fact, make more than private sector counterparts (the only demographic that does make more in the public sector are those with only a high-school diploma, go figure). Public workers receive more in nominal compensation due to educational, experience, and occupational advantages over the average private worker. However, the EPI (I know I know, a "liberal" think tank) and Rutgers professor Jeffrey Keefe published a study showing that, when controlling for those and other factors, comparable workers are undercompensated by 4.8%. At best, public and private sector comparable compensation is about even, so all the talk about wildly overpaid public sector unions and employees is bunk.
4) This "wildly overpaid" public sector sentiment is also one of the driving factors behind Conservatives' belief that the unions and their extravegant pensions and benefits are what is causing the states' budget deficits, and that if only unions could be controlled and their members forced to contribute more, then the budget problems would be fine. Yet, this is demonstrably false. Expenditures for public sector union pensions did not cause the states' fiscal crises, it was the financial crisis and recession! Moreover, what about all those other right-to-work states with little to no collective bargaining that have budget deficits and are in fiscal crisis (cough Texas cough)?
My point is, I agree that if we truly want to be serious about solving fiscal problems and budget deficits, then everyone must share some sacrifice (also, get more people back to work). The key words, though, are "shared" and "everyone." This doesn't really mean "let's blame public sector workers and unions and get them to ante up, but continue giving the rich and corporations even more breaks."
Demonstrably False, Garlock
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 02/28/2011 - 4:41pm.
Good grief! Could you possibly shill any more?
The public sector unions have locked up the "benefits". Period. Paragraph. End of Story.
Locked up...to the point of requiring states and municiplities to buy their "benefits" directly from the unions!
Go shill elsewhere, we know the truth.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde
Submitted by Garlock on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 2:39am.
First off, I'm not a shill, I have never been part of a union nor has any of my family. My father is a teacher but has declined NEA membership.
Anyway, I'm not sure what you mean by public sector unions as having locked up their benefits, and how that's the "End of Story." I am not aware of any states or municipalities required to buy benefits directly from the unions. Could you illuminate more on that, maybe with a source?
Certainly, Garlock
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 10:41am.
We've been discussing this topic for a bit now, and have started a Forum Discussion.
Apologies if I mistakenly called you a shill, but you appear not to have the facts.
Check it out, numerous cites are included there....what I was referring to is mostly in links included in my comments, including a video of the Governor as well as other outside sources.
Now what do you think?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
That really was you playing
Submitted by Miss_Me_Yet on Mon, 02/28/2011 - 4:50pm.
That really was you playing the white five gallon pail with your drum stick in the Wisconsin video, wasn't it?
Liberals ... we can't live with them, they couldn't survive without us ...
Union shill Garlock
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 02/28/2011 - 5:10pm.
I did some research on salaries in my state. Teachers, on average, make more than other workers with a bachelors degree by over $10,000. By virtue of having over 10 weeks off per year (at least) they have the opportunity to make even more money. Graduate work is paid for by the school district, unlike many private companies, who, if they do pay for grad work, contract you to remain within their employ for a set number of years. Also, teachers aren't subject to job loss, layoff, and/or transfers across the country or even world like the private sector.
Those perks used to be the trade off for lower salaries. Now they want the perks and the high salaries.
Teachers
Submitted by Garlock on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 3:02am.
I agree that teachers aren't really subjected to cross-country or global transfer, but that's probably because public schools operate on a smaller district level, so I think admins would only have jurisdiction to transfer them somewhere within the district. But more importantly, you think teachers aren't subject to job loss/layoffs? How is that? You don't think any of the jobs lost over the past few years have been teachers? I hope that's not true, because then you'd really be struggling to explain stuff like this:
"Schools across the US are so short of funds that they have been slashing budgets and are now axing staff. From a crippling 27,000 redundancies announced in California on the west coast to 8,000 job losses in New York on the east, every state is suffering to a greater or lesser extent.
A report by the University of Washington forecast that without federal emergency funding, 600,000 education workers would lose their jobs between now and the academic year 2010-11 - at least 300,000 of them teachers.
Around 44% of school districts across the US have cut teaching jobs and others have been pulled back from the brink only by teachers agreeing to pay cuts."
Or, stuff like this:
"California’s unemployment rate more than doubled between March 2008 (6.1 percent) and March 2010 (12.6 percent). The dramatic increase in the number of jobless no doubt includes some of the 16,000 teachers who lost their jobs in May 2009 and the 4,500 teachers who were terminated in May 2008, according to Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) estimates presented at an Assembly Budget subcommittee hearing. Schools are continuing to issue pink slips to teachers. More than 25,000 teachers recently received layoff notices for the 2010-11 school year, according to the LAO."
I'm interested in the research you did on your state's salaries. Do teachers make $10,000 more than all other private sector workers with bachelors degrees? Even if that's true, it might be (in addition to collective bargaining power) because teachers provide a valuable and highly-demanded service. There aren't too many jobs/occupations more important than a teacher.
Excuse me?
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 9:56am.
Libtards always need more money for the kids, what a croc. When ever public funds need trimming, you will find the libtards running for the kids, Firefighters, and Cops to hide behind.
How sad
Boudin
Submitted by Garlock on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 1:53pm.
I agree that $578 million for a school complex is pretty ridiculous, but you're saying liberals are retarded because they see the value of "kids"/teachers, firefighters and cops? Are you seriously against them? I'd like to see you survive in the world without any of those.
Value? Really
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 10:29am.
Fact is, this is the only place you libtards want to make cuts. Value? you work against the law enforcement, giving every benefit of the doubt to the criminals and illegals. We have boarder agents being killed, because they are shooting beanbags, while the illegals are shooting to kill. He shoots beanbags for fear his own Country may prosecute and jail him for protecting and American citizens and her boarder
As far as the kids are concerned, libtards care more about employing union thugs and providing union "protection" for bad teachers, then they have ever cared about the kids. Damn disgusting if you ask me.
Why for once cant libtards be honest, and forthright, and cut bureaucracies from budgets, why must they run and hide behind the Kids, Cop, and Firefighters?
Garlic, then explain the success of homeschooling,
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 10:33am.
if teachers are "all that" as you say.
Given the proper tools (AKA books and study plan), many parents can educate their own children, and often with better results. How can this be? Why, they're not even "professional educators."
But perhaps we should cut you some slack - if your bio is true, you are a young sprout still in the process of being edumacated and likely are in awe of your exalted professors. Most of whom likely have never had an actual competitive job in the real world the rest of us live in.
Sorry, but they are not God's gift to humanity.
Homeschooling
Submitted by Garlock on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 2:09pm.
Homeschooling can be successful, sure, but it only works better for some people and not others. Not every parent has the ability to spend several hours a day with their kids, on top of their work schedule, teaching them things. They can spend a little time, as my parents did with me, but not as much time as an actual school can provide. Tools like books and a study plan certainly can help, but teaching and an education is more than that, it's about the face-to-face interaction and the conversation. Moreover, the face-to-face interaction with other children is half the benefit of a school environment.
I'm "in awe" of many of the professors I've had, not all of them. I'm currently in business school though, so your claim that most of my professors "likely have never had an actual competitive job in the real world the rest of us live in" is 100% false, as all of them have led successful business careers before they came to teach graduate students. Indeed, one of my most favorite professors is our executive-in-residence, who was (and still is) a successful entrepreneur.
God's gift to humanity? Not really. But extremely valuable? Yes. I'd like to see you live in a society without teachers.
Your "half the benefit" can
Submitted by Free Stinker on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 2:47pm.
Your "half the benefit" can be easily achived without school. At least for those who send their kids to Sunday School, Boy Scouts, 4-H clubs, Karate classes, etc etc etc etc. I want half my property taxes refunded now./// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Another great one for the Vet's Garlock archive
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 02/28/2011 - 8:35pm.
Please just title your posts honestly.
For example on this one, in the subject line, I would have put "Lengthy Lie."
The workers have NOT NOT NOT "been contributing 100% towards their healthcare". Your use of union-lingo is astoundingly feckless. The cat is outta the bag.
The bottom line is that they pay NOWHERE NEAR what the rest of us contribute towards our healthcare. Not even effing close.
And on a local level, I am done subsidizing them through my real estate taxes. Enough is enough.
Contributions
Submitted by Garlock on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 3:24am.
Yeah, I'm surprised the Vet hasn't picked up on this yet, it's been several hours already!
Anyway, in reference to contributions, I never said the workers have been contributing 100% towards their healthcare. I said they contribute 100% towards their health care coverage. To clarify this, as I suppose it's a bit muddy, I'm talking about their health insurance and their plans' premiums, not the overall cost of the health care they receive. The insurance they receive and the corresponding premiums that must be paid for those plans are part of the worker's total compensation package. However, they don't get all the benefits of that coverage up front or on a regular basis with their paychecks, it's deferred to a later date when (if) they actually need it.
If you don't want the state or school districts making the health care premium contributions on behalf of the worker, then you can simply front-load that compensation or reallocate the funds to a different part of the package; odds are this route will end up with the worker receiving a higher wage, which I imagine isn't what you wanted in the first place. This is why, instead of paying teachers $80-90K in straight-up wages, they back-end some of the compensation by putting it in a different form that acts as a deferred wage.
Oh, now I see
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 9:35am.
What you mean is the taxpayers pay 95% of their premiums and they pay 5%. So when they pay that 5% (still screaming about it), they are contributing 100% of their share.
That's the problem.
No
Submitted by Garlock on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 2:41pm.
What I'm saying is that the workers pay 100% of their premiums because it's part of their compensation that is owed to them. It acts as a deferred wage. In the accounting part of it, it appears the government/taxpayers are contributing 95-100%, but that's because it's part of the compensation package that the government is contributing on behalf of the employee. As I said, if you don't want taxpayers to be making that contribution in the accounting, then simply allocate more money to the employee in the form of wages so the employee can take care of it himself.
Deferred wage
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 3:07pm.
Please explain to me how someone can say that they are deferring wages, making higher pay than your private sector counterparts and having benefit packages that are generally only available at executive levels in the private sector all at the same time. Plus they are whining at the same time. Either deferred doesn't mean what I learned in accounting or this is either a slight-of-hand to mask the gross inequity in private/public sector jobs or their compensation is much, much larger than we ever expected.
BS. Employer contributions are NOT Deferred Wages
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 4:41pm.
God, go back to Accounting 101 you dimwit.
Insurance Premiums are AN EXPENSE, booked in the current or accrued month. It hits the freakin' Income Statement (or whatever that is called for a public entity these days...they change the name all the time).
Pension benefits are an ACCRUED LIABILITY, which hit the Balance Sheet. You know, you are always hearing "unfunded liabilities". VOILA genius. There's your deferred compensation, which may or may not include retirement health care plans. (Hint for you....all of this state and municipal debt crisis is predicated on unfunded liabilites....governments not insuring their future pension/benefits expenditures and presuming they can rob Peter tomorrow to pay Paul today, how's that working out for ya, eh?).
Worker's don't receive benefits as "Part of their compensation" like it's some sort of deferred salary....currently health insurance benefits are NOT TAXABLE TO THE EMPLOYEE, but are TAX DEDUCTIBLE FOR THE EMPLOYER. Look it up. There's absolutely ZIP, ZILCH, ZERO deferred about a current employees' current benefits.
The problem with the public sector union members in Wisconsin is that they have absolutely ZERO skin in the game. And if you bothered to read the links to which I pointed you the other day......you would understand that in Wisconsin the UNION currently controls the purchase of the health care benefits! In other words, Sparky, the state, and local school boards must buy their insurance directly from the UNION.
Try graduating and actually practicing accounting in the real world before you shoot your mouth off here, Garlock.
I have a business degree, and have worked in accounting for a Fortune 500....I have made bigger accounting entry errors than you're likely to earn in a lifetime. So don't go trying to lecture us here. We have alot more education and real world experience than you do.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Yoohoo, Garlock!
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 4:53pm.
Please try again. You've yet to respond to either of my posts which corrected all of your errors.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Fine
Submitted by Garlock on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 12:23pm.
I'm tired of playing this game, so from now on I'll just submit to your purported authority (no one believes my experience/schooling/background, so I think its only fair to be skeptical of yours as well) and your forum discussion regarding all information relating to accounting.
Garlock translation
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 12:26pm.
Blonde has proven me wrong and I'm stuck in a hole I dug myself.
I'm taking my toys and going home. So there.
Hee hee, rad
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 1:50pm.
Good grief, that was one stupid troll.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
No. Really. We believe you when you tap tap tap on that diploma.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 1:44pm.
Really. Honext. We do trollie.
You lie about EVERYTHING else. But miraculously, you are really honext about your personal details. Sure, we bel.... Hah. Hah. Hah. Hah. Oh, I just could not do it with a straight face boys and girls.
Hey butt hurt diaper troll. How many times are you gonna fake disgust with everything and everyone here and then come right back with LIE after LIE in a matter of days?
Also, lying stupid butt hurt troll that says Fine in post after post and then continues to argue --- Why can't you wait until the next post to contradict yourself. You are now doing it in ONE post.
First you submit -
I'll just submit to your purported authority...
Then you whine -
no one believes my experience/schooling/background
Then you reverse your submission -
I ...to be skeptical of yours...
What a little whiny crybaby with a full itchy diaper.
Folding your tent, huh?
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 1:48pm.
Well, that was easy.
BTW...the Forum isn't "all information related to accounting", it's about the situation in Wisconsin, regarding the union benefits. It includes neat stuff like cites, interviews, etc.
If you want to check the veracity of my statements....try googling GAAP.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
What the heck are you talking about?
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 02/28/2011 - 4:56pm.
Who pays all of the compensation the public sector union members get? Keyword here is ALL! Public sector salaries have skyrocketed compared to the privet sector, in all area's including education.
Also, do you think the educating of our kids is satisfactory, what we need to do is fire the lot of em, and hire based on qualifications, not seniority?
Fact is, it is the unions constant whining is what makes folks think it's only their Ox being gored, it's not. BTW, who do you think is paying for the organizing and mobilizing of these protest, if you say the unions, you would be wrong,, again.
Edit: supposed to be a reply to Garlock?
Hiring strategy
Submitted by Garlock on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 3:53am.
In some areas I think the education of our kids is satisfactory; in others, such as math, science, and spelling/grammar (an area for which you could use a refresher course), I do not consider it satisfactory, and I agree that we need some sort of reform. I'm not so sure about your strategy, though. Sure, we should hire based on qualifications, and for the large part I'm pretty sure we do that already. I don't think we currently hire based on seniority, partly because I don't think it's possible. Seniority is something you gain once you are with the school and benefits you within that school, it's not something you can really transfer from one school to the next. Moreover, you can't really use seniority to move up the schoolyard ladder. There are some exceptions, but once you become a 1st grade teacher, you don't really work hard and stay with the school for a few years so that you can become a 5th grade teacher, or vice versa, or even move beyond to become a 10th grade teacher. Nor do you stick it out for several years so that instead of teaching biology or music you could move up to teaching US history or Spanish.
Even if for some situations seniority was able to be transferred between schools, there are incentives to hiring the fresh college graduate for a low starting salary over the middle-aged teacher who would have to be paid more.
It is painfully obvious you haven't a clue
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 9:49am.
As to what you speak. Maybe you should stick to stuff you know a little about, if such a subject exist?
Boudin
Submitted by Garlock on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 2:33pm.
If it's "obvious" that I don't have a clue, then could you maybe elucidate the reason as to why? That would be helpful, rather than simply saying basically "you're dumb" and leave it at that. What about what I said above is wrong?
I am not here to educate you
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 10:13am.
Just to ridicule and point to your absurdities.
And here is Boudin*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 2:16pm.
Boudin is the guy who truely knows his job...rofl
Bon jour mes amies
Submitted by cocodrie on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 2:27pm.
Y'all sure are hard on this surviving brain transplant donor.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Brain transplant
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 2:52pm.
I'm guessing the brain came from a bird.
Garlock---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 02/28/2011 - 8:10pm.
Huh?
(That is a three letter reply meaning you are full of it)
MD
MD
Submitted by Garlock on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 3:55am.
I wouldn't expect anything more from you than confusion. But, in which way am I "full of it"? At least the others tried to put forth a semi-argument with what could be considered logic or data.
Garlock---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 7:20am.
A B.A. in Economics leads you to believe, apparently, that all should bow to your superior knowledge and experience in the field. You are a 24-25 year old liberal putz. Your history here has been one of outlandish comments; and why anyone would waste time arguing anything with you is beyond me. To clarify: you are full of crap. Kiss my arse. Is that clear enough?MD
Submitted by Garlock on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 2:37pm.
That's what I figured, still nothing of substance to say to challenge what you think is wrong. That seems to be the main theme around here: "You're wrong and stupid and I don't need to put forth an argument as to why that is so, because you're a liberal putz. Q.E.D." You must have been amazing on the debate team.
Garlock, It's all about oratory ea?
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 3:44pm.
Is this you?
You ain't got squat...other than a BOGUS rationale for total teacher union Monopoly.
You Didn't Build That.
Garlock---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 12:11am.
as has been pointed out too many times to even try and recount, your liberal talking points have appeared on these threads, time after time, put forth by you, and other liberals, ad nauseum. The "main theme around here" is that this is a conservative site and your liberal bullshit just doesn't fly. You may hide behind your trite "nothing of substance to say to challenge what you think is wrong", all you want, but it changes nothing - you are full of crappy platitudes that have been talked to death; but you are either too young, too stupid, or too liberal to realize and acknowledge that. That is why people see you as a shill - you continue on with balderdash that has been probed, dismantled, dissected, and then put back together and booted down the road of liberal dreams, only to be resurrected by a new group of fresh faced liberal idiots such as yourself. I am not impressed.Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 3:59am.
Garlock the SLGT: "...the health coverage and pensions are part of the total compensation package...the benefits that everybody thinks the government is giving them "for free" are actually deferred wages to the worker."
The public unionized workers in Wisconsin pay into a Defined Benefit pension plan. 3 things clearly show this to be something entirely different from deferred wages.
1. The workers are guaranteed a certain benefit (the defined part) when the worker retires regardless of the amount a worker paid in. If the worker gets lucky and lives to be 100, he would easily get back much more than his supposed deferred wages.
2. The pension is backstopped by the taxpayers of Wisconsin. If the pension plan runs short of money, Wisconsin must put more money in the pot to make up for it. Not the worker adding even more deferred wages.
3. Suppose the worker were to die the day after he retires. Further suppose he never married and had no children. Who gets those deferred wages? No one would inherit the worker's deferred wages. Why? Because they are not deferred wages, but money paid into a defined benefit plan. It is not an IRA or 401k where the wages paid in are passed on to an inheritance. The pension plan in the case of this worker lucks out. It got to keep all the money he put in.
Same goes for the health care coverage. A worker could never be sick a day in his life. Will he get those deferred wages back? No. Another worker could be accidentally crushed under a falling pile of Stupid in Garlock's front yard and be on a ventilator in a hospital for the rest of his life thus gaining more in health care expenses than he ever paid in with deferred wages.
The Stupid Lying Garlock troll LIES again.
Deferred
Submitted by Garlock on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 4:50pm.
The "guaranteed benefit" is part of the negotiated compensation package, so it doesn't really matter what % a worker's "contribution" is or what he "pays in" because the defined benefit is something both sides have agreed upon as to the worker's compensation.
I don't know of all the intracies of what happens in certain situations where the worker dies and has no living relatives. I suppose, though, from what you're saying, that the deferred compensation for public workers is narrowly defined so that it applies only to that individual, that it can't be inherited. Wouldn't this then be a restriction to which private workers with IRA's or 401k's are not subjected?
I agree that if a worker is never sick, the he won't see any of his deferred wages that went towards insurance premiums back. This is the same result that would happen to a private worker who bought individual insurance in the market if he never got sick. Moreover, both private and public worker never only receive the same amount in benefits as they put in premiums, a policy of which you're apparently in favor.
Employer paid premiums ARE NOT deferred wages!
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 4:55pm.
Once you lose that mistaken notion, you might begin to get a glimmer of a clue.
See above.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
You don't speak English now Stupid Lying Garlock Troll?
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 5:14pm.
The SLGT: ...what you're saying, that the deferred compensation for public workers is narrowly defined so that it applies only to that individual, that it can't be inherited.
No Retard. Did you have problems with English again? I did not say that. Not inferred. Not implied. I will say it now. A PENSION CANNOT BE INHERITED. The surviving spouse and children under 18 or college age or whatever will receive a PORTION of the Pension upon the death of the pensioneer. Depends on the plan and the laws. RETARD. Still not inherited.
Seriously, you argue like a lying child. So you are saying.... What is this the 4th grade? YOU GOT A POINT MAKE IT. KNOCK IT OFF WITH THE SISSY LANGUAGE. So you are saying....
Garlock the Stupid Lying Troll LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 5:21pm.
The SLGT with the Fake Economics Degree: ...it can't be inherited. Wouldn't this then be a restriction to which private workers with IRA's or 401k's are not subjected?
Sorry RETARD. IRA's and 401k's are inherited.
Inheriting an Employer-PlanInheritance rules inside of plans such as 401ks, 403b, and 457 plans can be very complex. Some plans actually require that assets get paid to the beneficiary as soon as possible.
Inheriting the IRA A spouse can elect to treat the IRA as being their own.I'm not sure what the problem is here
Submitted by Garlock on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 6:39pm.
I clearly said, in regard to pensions not being able to be inherited (though apparently when a family receives a portion of a pension upon the worker's death, that doesn't count as an inheritance), that people with IRA's or 401k's aren't subjected to this no-inheritance restriction. Why all the anger and the "Sorry RETARD"?
Keep dodging Garlock
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 6:47pm.
I've totally debunked your deferred salary nonsense, as well as the union collective bargaining smoking mirrors (Gator joke).
Yet you continue to duck each one of my posts.
We know you have no arguments....why don't you just admit you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Did you debunk what I said to Vet there?
Submitted by Garlock on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 7:32pm.
I don't think you did. And I'm not trying to "dodge" you. I'm busy, you know, "living my life" and can only get to so many responses at one time. I've answered Vet first because his were the easier comments to answer. I apologize for having a life that doesn't allow me the time to sit on here all day so I can know the exact second you post something so that I can reply within 10 minutes so that you don't get all anxious.
I debunked two of your mistaken notions thus far, Garlock
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 7:36pm.
Deferred "salary" as you wrongly tried to explain it....and "collective bargaining" regarding benefits.
You can continue to dodge.....that post up there with the links regarding the Collective Bargaining lies has been there for, by my count now, SIX DAYS!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
And therein, Garlock, lies the problem---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 6:48pm.
"I'm not sure what the problem is here.' You funny faux economist, indeed.Don't fret Garlock
Submitted by cocodrie on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 6:55pm.
Your posts are just as clear as speeches from your mentors "muddy" Waters. Present Obama, Major Owens and Jesse Jackson.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Whatever Retard.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 6:57pm.
Can't make heads or tails of your constant use of double negatives.
Wouldn't (would NOT) this then be a restriction to which private workers with IRA's or 401k's are not (NOT) subjected?
You talk like an idiot. The Idiot to English translator is still somewhere in transit. Prolly somewhere over Tonga right about now.
Idiot to English translator requested. Immediate shipment please
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 6:11pm.
...both private and public worker never only receive the...
Never only receive?
Never only?
Problems with English there perfesser's behind kisser?
You never only kiss that perfesser behind do you?
Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 8:21am.
The SLGT: ...continue giving the rich and corporations even more breaks.
What does the socialist SLGT want? Blood? U.S corporate taxes are the 2nd highest among countries with free markets. Only a quarter point behind Japan.
U.S. Corporate Taxes Now 50 Percent Higher than OECD Average
Why does an idiot that claims to have an economics degree not know this?
Tax rates
Submitted by Garlock on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 4:53pm.
The US might have one of the highest nominal tax rates in the world, but the effective tax rate is perhaps a better indicator, and that's much lower because of stuff like this: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-shows-how-60-bi...
Another Stupid LIAR that links to an entire story.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 5:05pm.
Yeah, Idiot, I got all day to read your 6 page article that prove what? Huh?
Act like you have interacted with others on the internet. BRING FORWARD the pertinent quotes that PROVE your point. Then LINK back in case someone wants to read further.
I. WILL. NOT. READ. YOUR. BOOK. REPORTS. EVER. YOU GOT THAT YOU LYING SNIT.
PACK SAND FOR TRYING TO GET ME TO READ A SIX PAGE ARTICLE AND SEARCH OUT THE ONE SENTENCE THAT PROVES WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO SAY. FRELL YOU TROLL.
Whoa there buddy, let's calm down
Submitted by Garlock on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 6:50pm.
Here's some pertinent quotes for you:
"Google Inc. cut its taxes by $3.1 billion in the last three years using a technique that moves most of its foreign profits through Ireland and the Netherlands to Bermuda.
Google’s income shifting -- involving strategies known to lawyers as the “Double Irish” and the “Dutch Sandwich” -- helped reduce its overseas tax rate to 2.4 percent, the lowest of the top five U.S. technology companies by market capitalization, according to regulatory filings in six countries."
Google, the owner of the world’s most popular search engine, uses a strategy that has gained favor among such companies as Facebook Inc. and Microsoft Corp. The method takes advantage of Irish tax law to legally shuttle profits into and out of subsidiaries there, largely escaping the country’s 12.5 percent income tax. (See an interactive graphic on Google’s tax strategy here.)
The earnings wind up in island havens that levy no corporate income taxes at all. Companies that use the Double Irish arrangement avoid taxes at home and abroad as the U.S. government struggles to close a projected $1.4 trillion budget gap and European Union countries face a collective projected deficit of 868 billion euros."
Does that help explain it at all? If does, you could have found those quotes...within the first 6 paragraphs of the article. If it doesn't help, then I guess I'm sorry that you don't have time to "read" things before you decide you know all about them and render an unfallible opinion.
One company does not PROVE your rule.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 7:02pm.
...the effective tax rate is perhaps a better indicator, and that's much lower...
How does ONE COMPANY shows us what that EFFECTIVE rate is?
BACK IT UP LYING TROLL.
WHAT IS THE EFFECTIVE RATE YOU YOURSELF MENTIONED?
I AM FRELLING SICK TO DEATH OF DOING YOUR RESEARCH FOR YOU JUST TO HAVE YOU COME BACK LIKE YOU HAVE NOT LIED AND LIED AND LIED AND LIED AND LIED AND LIED TO US TIME AND TIME AGAIN.
It's not "my" rule
Submitted by Garlock on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 12:03pm.
Here's the WSJ which you so love to read:
"You may have heard: U.S. corporations face one of the highest income tax rates in the world, though the mention of "rate" is often enough excised, so that what comes through is the assertion that corporations pay too much in taxes. This is simply untrue if your basis for comparison is the developed world. The truth is that while the 35% corporate income tax rate is high indeed, the creativity and global reach of U.S. corporations make them among the most lightly levied.
Between 2000 and 2005, U.S. corporate taxes amounted to 2.2% of the GDP. The average for the 30 mostly rich member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development was 3.4%.
The income not squired away overseas or channeled to the personal returns still enjoys protection in the form of various tax breaks that depress the effective rate to 27%, according to the Treasury Department. Such breaks are expected to cost the Treasury $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years, reducing the corporate tax revenue by 25%."
And here's the CBBP which you probably never read at all:
"The U.S. corporate tax burden is smaller than average for developed countries. Corporations in 19 of the member states of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development paid 16.1 percent of their profits in taxes between 2000 and 2005, on average, while corporations in the United States paid 13.4 percent.
Effective tax rate much lower than top statutory rate. Government and independent researchers have long pointed out that the top statutory corporate tax rate is an incomplete measure at best of the burden of corporate taxes. It does not take into account the generous depreciation rules, exemptions, deductions, and credits (some of which are sometimes termed “loopholes”) that corporations may be eligible for. Those special provisions lower corporations’ effective tax rate, or the share of their profits they actually pay in taxes, and do so in a way that creates different tax rates for different industries. These differential tax rates across industries are generally regarded as more harmful to economic efficiency than any burden due to the current top statutory rate."
Garlock the Stupid Lying Troll LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 1:24pm.
Why is it the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES in every single post?
The SLGT: Here's the WSJ which you so love to read:
LIE. His link was from Smartmoney.com. LIE. LIE. LIE. LIE. And his link says the effective rate is 21%. And his link says corporations keep money overseas. Why? Because ALL MONEY coming back is subject to the MAXIMUM 35% rate on top in the foreign taxes they already paid.
His second link is a LIE as well.
Corporations that have entities overseas are taxed on the income in that country AS WELL as the United States. YOU LIE AGAIN SOCIALIST GARLOCK TROLL.
Are U.S. Corporate Taxes 2.3 Percent of Income?A recent White House press release stated that U.S. companies operating worldwide faced only a 2.3 percent tax rate in 2004.3 This calculation has been widely mistaken as evidence that U.S. companies face very low taxes on their foreign income and are improperly avoiding U.S. and foreign tax liability. To the contrary, worldwide American companies pay substantial current taxes on their foreign earnings.
The total U.S. and foreign current cash taxes differ from the 35 percent statutory rate because, as noted above, U.S. income tax is not owed on foreign earnings that are not currently repatriated to the United States. This has been a fundamental principle of international taxation incorporated into U.S. tax law for nearly 100 years. Most OECD countries (25 of 30) employ territorial tax systems that exempt the foreign earnings of their companies from taxation at home. The four other countries that tax the worldwide income of their companies (Ireland, Mexico, Poland, and South Korea) also do not tax the foreign earnings of their companies until they are repatriated. U.S. tax of 35 percent, less the credit for foreign taxes, is assessed on foreign earnings at the time they are repatriated to the United States.
THE SAME ARTICLE COMPLETELY BLOWS AWAY HIS OECD BULL
THE SAME ARTICLE COMPLETELY BLOWS AWAY HIS OECD BULL
THE SAME ARTICLE COMPLETELY BLOWS AWAY HIS OECD BULL
THE SAME ARTICLE COMPLETELY BLOWS AWAY HIS OECD BULL
THE SAME ARTICLE COMPLETELY BLOWS AWAY HIS OECD BULL
Other Measures of Corporate Tax BurdenSome claim U.S. corporations face low rates of tax by comparing corporate income tax payments to GDP in the United States and other OECD countries. However, to make an apples-to-apples comparison, several adjustments are necessary to account for the different ways in which businesses operate across countries. Properly measured, there is no evidence that U.S. corporations face low rates of tax relative to other OECD countries.
Simple cross-country comparisons of corporate income tax revenue relative to GDP are premised on the assumption that both business income to GDP and the corporate share of business income are similar across countries. But, in fact, the United States has a substantially larger share of unincorporated businesses, especially larger businesses, than other OECD countries.5
In total, more than half of all business income in the United States is earned by business entities not subject to corporate tax (typically partnerships and sole proprietorships) and therefore is taxed under the individual income tax system.6 If the corporate share of business income in the United States were more similar to the OECD average, U.S. corporate tax payments as a percentage of GDP would have been among the OECD's highest.7
As a result, while some adjustments must be made to properly compare tax collections as a share of GDP, this evidence again supports the finding that U.S. companies face relatively high rates of tax compared to companies based in other OECD countries.
Why don't you try arguing HONESTLY just once instead of getting articles that CHEAT by omitting crucial details.
LIAR,
Whoops. Do a google search on his first article. Guess where the second link points boys and girls. Awww. How did you know? Yes. MEDIA FRIGGIN MATTERS. Troll can't even come up with is own original lying links. He gets them from Media Matters.
(No subject)
Submitted by Garlock on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 3:10pm.
(no brain)
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 3:27pm.
(no honesty)
(no integrity)
(no courage)
(no truth)
Garlock the Stupid Lying Troll's attributes.
Is that what you meant to post LIAR?
Are you kidding me?
Submitted by Garlock on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 3:25pm.
I didn't get my link from Media Matters. I did a google search of "corporate effective tax rate" and the SmartMoney article was one of the first results. Just because a Media Matters link appears in the results alongside everything else doesn't mean I got the information from that site. Moreover, SmartMoney is part of the Wall Street Journal Digital Network, so while it may not be WSJ itself it is strongly affiliated.
You also continue to do your form of argument where you trash my links/sources because they "lie" or because you simply don't like them, and then throw up your own links/sources as proof that I'm wrong. Why should I listen to your sources if you totally disregard mine? I'm supposed to take what a business lobbying group, which is made up of CEOs of large corporations and whose purpose is to influence public policy, says as "honest" argument and the truth? Of course they're going to want to keep every little break they get and work to push the tax rates as low as possible!
Stupid the Socialist still don't know how corporations work.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 3:37pm.
And still LYING right out his ass. YOUR SOURCES ONLY TELL HALF THE STORY. It is why you love them so much.
Knock it off with the butt hurt sissy whining. You see me whining Sissy? If my sources are so wrong, PROVE IT. After all, I PROVE where your sources only tell half the story.
Friggin' sissy whiney butt hurt trolls. Sickening.
The SLGT: Why should I listen to your sources if you totally disregard mine?
I PROVED YOUR SOURCES WRONG TIME AND TIME AGAIN. I PROVED YOU LIE TIME AND TIME AGAIN. LEARN THE DIFFERENCE SISSY.
KNOCK. IT. OFF. WITH. THE. CONSTANT. NONSTOP. WHINING. ABOUT. SOURCE. VERSUS. SOURCE. AND. START. TELLING. THE. TRUTH.
Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 3:44pm.
Why don't you TELL THE TRUTH the first time and then we won't have to waste our time.
The SLGT: SmartMoney is part of the Wall Street Journal Digital Network
That is NOT what you said the first time LIAR. It is why I called you a LIAR.
The SLGT: Here's the WSJ which you so love to read:
You claimed SmartMoney WAS the Wall Street Journal.
KNOCK. IT. OFF. WITH. THE. NONSTOP. CONSTANT. LIES. AND. THEN. ACTING. LIKE. YOU. WERE. SAYING. SOMETHING. DIFFERENT. WHEN. BUSTED. IN. A. LIE.
YOU LIE.
IT IS ALL YOU DO.
OVER AND OVER.
The word is "infallible", not---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 7:04pm.
"un" fallible. Stick with using verbigeration about Economics 101, rather than looking dim on proper verbiage usage and spelling.Garlock the Stupid Lying Troll LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 7:16pm.
What are you on about now RETARD? ...helped reduce its overseas tax rate to 2.4 percent... What overseas tax rate RETARD? Overseas income is subject to the tax in the country it is earned. It is only subject to our income taxes when IT COMES BACK TO THE U.S as far as I know. And I say as far as I know because I AM TIRED OF DOING YOUR RESEARCH. Retard.
What does this have to do with YOUR LIES about the Wisconsin unions workers?
Google paid 2.9 Billion in taxes last year. Their effective rate here was 21%. How much did your LYING sissy ass pay in taxes last year?
Income Before Tax 10,796.0 Income Tax - Total 2,291.0 Income After Tax 8,505.0KNOCK IT OFF WITH TRYING TO BROADEN THE ARGUMENT TO COVER YOUR LIES.
No one cares Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 8:35am.
The SLGT: I'm "in awe" of many of the professors I've had, not all of them. I'm currently in behind kissing mode though... Indeed, one of my most favorite professors is our executive-in-residence, who did (and still does) enjoy many rounds of my supplanting rear end kisses.
I see what you did there
Submitted by Garlock on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 4:36pm.
Good one. It's apparent you missed my point that I'm not taking courses from stuffy, elderly, ivory-tower academic types, I'm taking courses from middle-aged business people and actual entrepreneurs. Business plans I work on and present are judged by actual venture capitalists and established entrepreneurs. Etc. It's not some liberal, public school I go to that's overrun with union teachers trying to brainwash me.
Stupid talks.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 4:47pm.
No one cares. How sad. How very very sad. Try NOT lying next time. More people might end up caring about your mewling and whines.
Fine
Submitted by Garlock on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 6:59pm.
You're right. I go to a public business graduate school with 100% unionization, where all the teachers are egregiously liberal with no business experience whatsover. One of my professors is even Hugo Chavez! Karl Marx and George Soros are both esteemed alumni and former presidents. All we do all day is sit around smoking pot and plot how to assassinate every single self-identified conservative, and even some who aren't but who we think are hiding some hidden conservative beliefs because...well, because they look the part and we just know.
Why, Garlock---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 7:06pm.
I do believe you are finally telling the truth.Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 8:44am.
The SLGT: The insurance they receive and the corresponding premiums that must be paid for those plans ... it's deferred to a later date when (if) they actually need it.
Looks like the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll fails to understand what insurance is.
Insurance: A promise of compensation for specific potential future losses in exchange for a periodic payment. Insurance is designed to protect the financial well-being of an individual, company or other entity in the case of unexpected loss. Some forms of insurance are required by law, while others are optional. Agreeing to the terms of an insurance policy creates a contract between the insured and the insurer. In exchange for payments from the insured (called premiums), the insurer agrees to pay the policy holder a sum of money upon the occurrence of a specific event. In most cases, the policy holder pays part of the loss (called the deductible), and the insurer pays the rest. Examples include car insurance, health insurance, disability insurance, life insurance, and business insurance.
Anyone see anything there about benefits or pay being deferred? Why is it anyone that owns a home, drives a car, or has a health policy can understand how insurance works. But the idiot that claims to have an economics degree and loves to kiss perfesser butt utterly fails to understand the concept.
The point is
Submitted by Garlock on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 4:22pm.
My point is that with pensions and insurance, they're taking less money up-front that could be paid through wages in order to receive something later on and in a different form. That's how a deferral works, and thus this is a deferral in compensation.
Also, you do know that insurance is basically socialism...right? People can pay premiums and whatnot, but the benefits they receive when there's actually in injury or a procedure to do are often much higher than what they put in.
Garlock the Stupid Lying Troll Garlock LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 4:34pm.
The SLGT with the fake economics degree sez : ...insurance is basically socialism...
socialism: : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
No Retard. We did not know that. Please oh GAWD please tell us more.
Fine
Submitted by Garlock on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 7:04pm.
It may not be "socialism" in the sense of a governmental ownership political/economic theory. What I mean to say is that it's a redistributionist system that takes from those who don't need it and gives to those who do. Usually this type of system is branded as "socialism", at least by Republicans
Fine.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 7:22pm.
trolliz admitz liez agin. solly.
Garlock the Stupid Lying Troll LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 4:37pm.
The SLGT with the fake economics degree: My point is...receive something later on and in a different form...
Not what the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll said --- ...are actually deferred wages....
Stupid contradicts himself. But what do we expect from Stupid?
Where did you go Stupid Lying Troll?
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 5:45pm.
The SLGT with the fake economics degree: My point is...receive something later on and in a different form...
Not what the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll said --- ...are actually deferred wages....
You said actually Stupid Lying Troll. ACK-CHU-ALL-LEE
in act or in fact DEFERRED wages.
in act or in fact withheld for or until a stated time WAGES.
What stated time will those wages IN FACT be paid you little lying j. frank wilson style troll?
Clarification
Submitted by Garlock on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 7:06pm.
I suppose I should have said "deferred compensation" instead of "deferred wages". The whole wages thing is really twisting you up in knots.
Awwwwwww.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 7:21pm.
That is just the best admittance that you were lying ever. Thanks for wasting our time by making some sissy-ass excuse for your lying again. Just like EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU COME HERE.
You admit you lied. You admit to wasting our time with your lies. But then, yeah, it suddenly becomes MY PROBLEM with the knot twisting. Frell off LIAR.
YOU LIED. AGAIN.
oh sollies. trolliiez lize agin. you got serius prollem if you belived trollie wuz seriux.
Garlock the Stupid Lying Troll LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 6:07pm.
The SLGT with the Fake Economics Degree: ...the benefits...are often much higher than what they put in.
No Retard. The benefits of the vast majority of people in an insurance pool are NOT higher than what they put in. It is why the insurance company can cover the few people that get more in benefits than what they put in. THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU SAID.
But whatever, you is wicked smart. Tap Tap Tap. Look at that degree on the wall. Tap Tap Tap.
Insurance pools
Submitted by Garlock on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 7:27pm.
How do you know that the "benefits of the vast majority of people in an insurance pool are not higher than what they put in"? If it's because some people are healthy, don't get sick, and don't end up needing the benefits, those people are only one portion of all who have insurance; most people who get insurance use it at some point to pay for health care. Yes, some people end up paying for insurance that they don't need because they have stayed healthy and have not had an accident happen. For them, I guess the system kind of sucks since they're really paying for other people who get sick or injured, though they do receive a sense of security that at least if they do get sick or injured then they'll have help paying for some, if not all, of the health care. But for those who do receive health care due to some sickness or condition, the benefits will almost always be more than the accrued premiums contributed by the person. And, if you have an accident or need surgery, the hospital fees can easily be in the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars. Have you paid hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth in your premiums?
Garlock the Stupid Lying Troll LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 7:43pm.
Not what you said LIAR.
People can pay premiums and whatnot, but the benefits they receive when there's actually in injury or a procedure to do are often much higher than what they put in.
People as in EVERYONE.
LIAR.
1plural : human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest
2plural : human beings, persons —often used in compounds instead of persons <salespeople> —often used attributively <people skills>
3plural : the members of a family or kinship
4plural : the mass of a community as distinguished from a special class <disputes between the people and the nobles> —often used by Communists to distinguish Communists from other people
Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 9:49am.
The SLGT: However, the EPI (I know I know, a "liberal" think tank) and Rutgers professor Jeffrey Keefe published a study showing that, when controlling for those and other factors, comparable workers are undercompensated by 4.8%. At best, public and private sector comparable compensation is about even, so all the talk about wildly overpaid public sector unions and employees is bunk.
Here is how unlucky and stupid this troll is boys and girls. I did not even have to research this lie. IT FELL IN MY LAP. Notice he got it from EPI. Via the Wall Street Journal --
The Public Worker Gravy Train
Many government employees are paid up to 30% more than those in the private sector.
~
Consider a study released last October by the Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics at the University of California, Berkeley, which concluded that Golden State public employees "are neither overpaid nor overcompensated." The Economic Policy Institute has generated reports arguing that government workers are underpaid.
These studies are misleading. Public-private pay comparisons vary from state to state, but a full accounting shows clearly that large, union-dominated states tend to overpay their workers.
~
But our research shows that the study underestimates what public workers receive from pensions and retiree health programs. It also doesn't account for the value of job security in government employment. Once these are noted, the balance tilts clearly in favor of public workers.
~
Overall, our research suggests that government workers in California are compensated up to 30% more generously than are similar employees in large private firms. And the California experience is similar to that of other large states with powerful public unions. Elected officials are right to reassess public worker compensation as they try to close their budget deficits.
Trolls continue to lie here. I continue to read the WSJ and keep the boys and girls up to date. Go read the WSJ article to get the whole story.
So basically
Submitted by Garlock on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 4:18pm.
Your entire argument rests on your belief that nobody should believe the EPI at all for anything, but everyone should believe right-wing think tanks writing for the WSJ.
Garlock the Stupid Lying Troll LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 4:45pm.
The SLGT with the fake economics degree: Your entire argument ...
Why don't you try and PROVE that was my argument little lying snit troll. Good luck. We will wait. We are patient. Anytime you feel like manning up and proving that was my argument, I will be right here waiting.
Idiot lying trolls argue like they just woke up on the tracks and the Stupid train is a bearin' down.
PROVE THAT WAS MY ARGUMENT LIAR.
It's not hard to do
Submitted by Garlock on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 11:42am.
Here's the three-step process:
1) You ridicule my citation of an EPI study
2) You point to a WSJ article that says the EPI study is misleading/wrong, and cites evidence to the contrary of what EPI says
3) You say, "I continue to read the WSJ and keep the boys and girls up to date. Go read the WSJ article to get the whole story."
How is that not saying you think the EPI is wrong and the WSJ piece's authors are right, and that everyone should read the WSJ and believe them?
Listening to your rediculous
Submitted by Miss_Me_Yet on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 12:01pm.
Listening to your rediculous arguements over the past few days, it has become abundantly clear that you are not an American. You also obviously have a huge, apparently insurmountable, translation gap between what your foreign ( socialist / communist upbringing ) taught you and the American free enterprise ( system ) way of life in this country.
Whomever attempted to educate you to the ways of government, typical way of life, realities of America, no matter their day job qualifications, have failed you miserably.
Don't feel to bad about it though, your in great company actually. We have a guy pretending to be our president as we type, that's even more clueless to the ways of America than yourself.
Liberals ... we can't live with them, they couldn't survive without us ...
Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 2:42pm.
The SLGT: ...your belief that nobody should believe the EPI at all for anything...
LIE. I SAID PROVE I BELIEVE THAT. LIAR. Prove i BELIEVE nobody should believe the EPI at all for anything.
The SLGT: 1) You ridicule my citation of an EPI study
LIE. LIE. LIE. LIE. Here is EXACTLY what I said. Notice he got it from EPI. ... Trolls continue to lie here. HOW IS THAT RIDICULING YOUR CITATION. I SAID YOU LIE. The WSJ article said EPI got it wrong.
The SLGT: How is that not saying you think the EPI is wrong and the WSJ piece's authors are right...
Not what you were to prove LIAR.
...your belief that nobody should believe the EPI at all for anything...
NOW PROVE IT.
The Amazing Kreskin now teaches ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 5:14pm.
Mind Reading 101 as an adjunct to Economics 101 at the college where Garlock matriculates.
Now that's amazing.
MD
Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 1:34pm.
The SLGT: And here's the CBBP which you probably never read at all:
Now why don't we read a bunch of LIES boys and girls?
In fact, the CBPP is a lobbying juggernaut—one of the most powerful liberal organizations in Washington.
According to New York Times reporter Matt Bai, CBPP is funded by the Democracy Alliance. According to Bai's account, representatives of CBPP attended a May 2006 meeting of the Democracy Alliance to "talk about the agendas they were busy crafting that would catapult Democratic politics into the economic future."[4] - wikipedia
The liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a liberal organization which blames Bush for the budget deficits foreseen by Obama for the next 10 fiscal years and the FY2009-FY2010 budget deficits
The liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) has launched an attack against Senator Thune’s GOP tax extender alternative amendment that is plainly untrue.
Google: cbpp liberal
If we want LIES, we already have the 50 time LIAR Garlock, why go somewhere outside for more.
Oh Butt Hurt Diaper Troll Garlock. Answer me some questions.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 1:55pm.
There are at least a dozen posters here. What is the education of all of them? What is my education? Blonde? matthewdean? Radical1979? cocodrie? Miss_Me_Yet? upcountrywater? Boudin? Agnostic? SickofLibs? Free Stinker?
Come on. What is the educational experience of every one of those posters?
WE DON'T KNOW. And why? Because they let their posts speak to their ability and experience not whine and whine and whine how their education is supposed to be proof of their intelligence.
Whiny lying butt hurt stupid diaper troll.
Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 2:50pm.
The SLGT: I don't know of all the intracies of what happens... I suppose, though, from what you're saying...
The SLGT: I clearly said, in regard to....
How is I don't know and I suppose even in the same ballpark as I clearly said ?
A Liar and Stupid. A compoundingly bad combination.
The Stupid and Lies of Garlock updated.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 6:44pm.
Added Stupid and Lies numbers 41 through 54. The Stupid Lying Garlock Troll is doing his best to catch up to j. frank wilson.
The Collected Stupid and Lies of the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll