Speakeasy forum: Why aren't the liberals bragging

he takes the oath of office? BO hasn't been held accountable for anything he's done since day one four years ago, Josh........instead everything has been blamed on Bush. So, if that's ok, then Clinton should eat the accountability for OBL attacking the WTC a second time, right?

If Bush is accountable and responsible for everything that happened on 9-11 after only nine months in office, then BO is accountable and responsible for everything that has happened to our country and the debt since Jan. 2009 and not Bush. Thank you.

......is a lot easier than reversing an economic crash. Any half-assed economist can explain that it takes years to recover from something like what happened in 2008. So in response, Obama is NOT responsible for what happened to the economy. He IS responsible for the progress or lack thereof in fixing it, within an understanding of the fact that a recovery can't happen overnight. If you're going to blame him for the fact that everything wasn't hunky dory again on January 21, 2009, or if you believe that John McCain would have had things in better shape any more quickly, then you don't understand how these things work.

with the economy? It's all the President's fault.

Diana

that Clinton was accountable and responsible for his entire 8 years and that BO is currently responsible and accountable for the additional mess HE has created since Jan. 2009 plus the next four years of lousy decision making.

as for weeks???????? How about you blaming everything that happened on 9-11 on Bush over a matter of 7-1/2 MONTHS....when Clinton had YEARS to prevent it and didn't do a thing.

Actually, I think I'm the ONLY one here in SE who has publicly admitted when I was wrong about something..........but not in this instance. And isn't it amazing how easily the liberals deflected to Bush arguments again when the original topic didn't get much coverage here OR in the media?

unless liberals are also going to hold Clinton responsible for the housing crash and BO for racking up 6 trillion in new national debt in 4 years while calling Bush unpatriotic for increasing that debt by 5 trillion in 8 years.

What is this?

Strip poker?

IF it is, NO THANKS!!!!

Bush isn't responsible for anything that happened during the eight years he was president. He does get credit from Toni though for capturing bin Laden, even though that happened more than two years after he left office.

As a show of good faith...

YOU admit that Bush IS responsible for 9/11

THEN ask for others to admit Clinton is responsible for whatever you say he's responsible for....

You first...try that and see if it works.

Then everyone can focus on "BO"

You don't get it..........I'm not the one who brought Bush and terrorist attacks into the conversation of this thread.

I started this thread to find out why liberals aren't bragging about the unemployment rate....and the liberals, as expected, veered away from something they DIDN'T want to talk about and have to explain away and make excuses for, onto another topic entirely that they feel more comfortable with, such as blaming Bush for something AGAIN.

I'm not playing the game that liberals are most happy to play......it's called 'sucker the conservative Republican'......get them to agree to something after we 'promise' we'll do whatever, then once the Republican gives the liberal what he wants (in this case, an admission of 'fault') and then the 'promise' to do whatever never turns up. This is what happens with the taxes vs the cuts every time and what the Dems and BO are attempting to pull once again.

but I've known people in the past who took lower current pay government jobs for the benefits and the security.

Even in government jobs security is way down, and not all government jobs have the benefits they use to.

But I was asking more for what you thought they should be cut, 20%, 40%, no retirement?

than what the individual could do in private jobs if they can find one with benefits?

Some government jobs are out of line, some maybe not so much. My father worked maintenance head for a small crew (himself and two others) in a subsidized housing complex for several years.

Had pretty good benefits for the time, each month worked earned him one sick day and one vacation day. He could accumulate up to 30 days of vacation and 60 of sick leave. I don't remember the pay scale, just that it was ok, not extravagant but equal to what else he could have gotten. I also remember he saved them a fortune because before he took the head job they would call a contractor for any electrical work, even replacing parts on an appliance. Under him, they did a lot more of the small jobs themselves.

When he retired, his pension plan was rolled over into an IRA, and for the time period and for the time he had put in it was pretty good.

So why should someone doing such a job be penalized for working for the government? Do we want all government jobs filled by those that can't qualify for better? or at least during better times. I'll grant it's an employer's market right now. So much so the move is to take away everything they can from employees and expect the employee to kiss their feet for being allowed to work.

Acutally my company is trying right now to implement physical fitness rules. Sounds fine, except that it will probably go against 50% of employees as they age into their late 50's and early 60's. Everyone is taking about raising the retirement and welfare age, and it probably will have to be raised. But right now employers are taking steps to force older workers out. I don't know if they're going by statistics that older are higher medical cost or just the fact older normally have more vacation time and in many cases higher wages. It's an employer's market, and many are taking it to Scrooge heights while they can.

You're taking the attitude that because it's taxpayer money paying the wages, it should be a less desirable job because it should pay less and have less benefits.

I'm not disputing that many government jobs have out of line benefits, more so on the benefit side than the salary even in many cases. But that doesn't mean every government employee shouldbe considered a free loader. Many are workers trying to earn a living just like a private job employee, they are not leeches because they work for a government, federal, state, county, or city.

A larger town near me right now is urging a 20 employee cut in the sanitation, trash pickup basically, department. They also want a 5% increase each year for 7 years. So either they have gotten way behind, or maybe its because the feds and the state have cut their aid to such local budgets each year for the last few years. Pretty soon, everyone will be require to haul their own trash to a pickup. Sounds fine, but there are a lot of problems with that, first off those in town that don't drive.

So on and so on.

Cut backs are inevitable I suspect, and not reasonable ones or where they should be. Often the more valuable jobs are eliminated before the supervisory ones.

Just ranting all government jobs should be cut back in pay and benefits as well as numbers ignores a lot of issues. Even granting many slackers are in slots not doing what they should, you cut as much as many are screaming for and you'll see public services decline and be delayed. Everything from trash pickup to medical care processing will slow down and become frustrating and depressing to those trying to get something approved and done.

but being a jerk isn't limited to government employees.

Try talking to a cable company about a problem that they've "checked out" a dozen times.

More to the point and same line as your post is dealing with insurance when there is a problem. My insurance was very good about paying my wife's bills, but everyone at work hasn't had the same experience.

One man had preapproval for wife's surgery and preapproval for using the machine they call a Da Vinci, a robotic surgery assist. After the surgery was done, the insurance changed their mind and said since it could have been done without the robot, they wouldn't pay the $11K bill or any part of it. That's with preapproval.

I'll grant that when the situation where when people feel too "safe" it can encorage slackness and a lack of respect.

Of course, right now the tendancy is for all pension plans to be replace by 401K by raising the match to compensate for the lost of a guareentee pension. Nothing is truly guareenteed of course, many companies that have gone under or reorgainized during this recession had underfunded their pension plans and the goverment is on the hook for those to via pension insurance. And that fed fund is practically broke too, so soon those who lose a pension they worked for 30 years or more to earn are going to lose it completely and find themselves without anything in their old age. The movement to leave everyone to live or die on their own is accelerating. Funny thing is, the ones who have benefited are often the ones crying the loudest about we can't afford to carry this on and wanting the cutoff point at about 55, that is, just below their generation. Of course, the 55 age was a political balloon that floated. It was chosen because politically angering the over 55 is dangerous, they tend to vote more than those younger.

I don't have any real problem with government job benefits being comparable with good private sector jobs of similar natures. But that isn't what people hollering to cut government pa and benefits want, they want it equal to or below the lowest standard normally. The cry it's taxpayer money is justification for no consideration.

I have my doubts any labor, even anyone but the upper crust management, will have pension plans much longer. Everyone will be forced into a 401K type plan. Then about the time they retire, Congress will change the rules about taxes due there I expect. Some are already objecting to the lost tax revenue on IRAs.

Sadly, if things continue for about 3 decades on the present path even after the economy improves, workers are going to be moving back into the position of wage slavery.

To be fair to the company side, there is no more loyality to the company from workers than there is from the company to the worker. Everyone is out to get theirs and screw the other side.