Joe wrote: Because I am irresponsible, never saved, and poor VL. Gimme half your pension, share and re-distribute.
Why won't you share your pie with me?
Don't worry-I will support you with a program called social security. You won't have to spend your golden years in the poor house or begging for coins on street corners....We take care of our people in this country..We are the richest country on earth and we won't let you starve or die like a dog in the street when you are no longer able to work...
There won't be any SS when I get there in 20 years.
More fear tactics...Thats all you got..
So all leading economists are wrong and you are right? I am impressed.
Vice Lord wrote: Hey, everybody over 65 is a "dependent class of people"- Do you think you're gonna be able to save enough in today's wages to live in tomorrows world? Don't count on it. Nobodies saving, in fact most can't pay their credit cards or keep a roof over their heads right now.
Hey VL, a question for you if not too private. Do you have a pension right now? Are you living off your wealth that you earned? It must be something as you claim to be retired at 47.
If so, how about sharing 50% of your pension with those of us that do not get a pension from our jobs. Or why not have 1/2 of your wealth taxed to pay for the social programs you promote. Sounds like you wouldn't miss it with all your expensive travel habits.
I think all democrats getting a pension should give 1/2 to those who are not fortunate enough to have a pension, its only fair.
I will collect a union pension when I turn 55 and it will be taxed as income and I'm fine with that..A pension is differed income. The union and the company agreed to that, it's called a contract. It's good for the company because they can defer compensation and its good for the worker because he doesn't have to work until the day he dies..It's good for America. Why should pensioners have to give up half of what they've earned while you shelter your money in retirement 401k's and Roth IRA's?
So do you think it's fair for GM union workers to get 95% of their income when they retire?
Thats a lie spread by the corporate media, and you swallowed it hook line and sinker. Every time the United baggage handlers would threaten to go on strike United would tell the Chicago Tribune that they have baggage handlers making 120k a year, and they'd print it, and everybody would repeat it. One guy made 120k, he worked 8 hours overtime after his regular 8 hour shift every day, and he'd do that on every one of his days off for a year. He lived at freakin the airport...Everyone else was makin 35k
And furthermore union contracts are an agreement. The company signed the contract, nobody put a gun to their heads. And didn't GM just repay in full government all those billions? I wonder why? They didn't want anybody lookin at their books because they might see all that money they were hiding...Ya think?
And you call me naive
Did you read the link? And it has been in hundreds of stories and proved that they get that kind of retirement. So what if it is only 80% to not work the rest of your life. Which I know it is at least that. And I don't care if it is a contract. That is a union issue then. Don't promise them more than anyone else who retires anywhere gets and then ask the government and tax payers to bail them out when they can't balance their books. They want to use their strong arm to give everything to their workers, then they better find a way to pay for it, and they better start making products that people want to buy.
Pensions like that were actually quite common......and not just for Union workers. It was how corporations attracted and kept their people. I worked for Kodak " back when", and, if i had stayed, I could have retired at 55, with 30 years and gotten between 75-80% of my salary. There isn't a union job in that whole company. My dad, non-union, retired from his company at 80% of his salary, my mother collects that pension to this day, costly, she is 92. So blaming the high pensions on unions doesn't tell the whole story. It was the climate of the times, when the economy was growing, companies felt secure, unemployment was low so corporations had to provide VERY attractive benefits to keep their workers happy and in place.
archer wrote: Pensions like that were actually quite common......and not just for Union workers. It was how corporations attracted and kept their people. I worked for Kodak " back when", and, if i had stayed, I could have retired at 55, with 30 years and gotten between 75-80% of my salary. There isn't a union job in that whole company. My dad, non-union, retired from his company at 80% of his salary, my mother collects that pension to this day, costly, she is 92. So blaming the high pensions on unions doesn't tell the whole story. It was the climate of the times, when the economy was growing, companies felt secure, unemployment was low so corporations had to provide VERY attractive benefits to keep their workers happy and in place.
So how do they fix it now when they are paying more retired people than are actually working and they are losing money on each car? Lower saleries? Renegotiate pensions? File bankruptcy and start over? Or expect the rest of America to pay for their poorly thought out contracts?
If I had the answer to that viking, I would have been picked to run GM or Chrysler. My post was in response to the constant blame the unions get whenever a company finds itself in over their heads in an economic downturn. We focus on the companies with unions, and conveniently ignore the companies that face the same dilemma and don't have a union to blame. Unions didn't bring down the auto companies, their own mismanagement and refusal to heed the handwriting on the wall did. Arrogance at the top will trump unions every time.
archer wrote: Pensions like that were actually quite common......and not just for Union workers. It was how corporations attracted and kept their people. I worked for Kodak " back when", and, if i had stayed, I could have retired at 55, with 30 years and gotten between 75-80% of my salary. There isn't a union job in that whole company. My dad, non-union, retired from his company at 80% of his salary, my mother collects that pension to this day, costly, she is 92. So blaming the high pensions on unions doesn't tell the whole story. It was the climate of the times, when the economy was growing, companies felt secure, unemployment was low so corporations had to provide VERY attractive benefits to keep their workers happy and in place.
Oh make no mistake- There is a war on the middle class. It's no accident that everyomes lost their pensions and wages have been stagnant since Nixon was president. It's a plan
IQ? Arguing with you VL is like debating a 3rd grader, no offense to 3rd graders. I am glad more of your friends are showing up, I need more of a challenge, you are too easy. Bring it on!
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
