2012 Presidential Election Thread! Let's kick it off early!

[Brian]

^^^^^^^^^^
RACE ISSUEEEEEEEEEEE
Sound the alarms!



anyways, I'm amazed at how much MORE segregated this country becomes as time goes on.

pretty sad, actually.

[ineedone]

Originally Posted by Brian

^^^^^^^^^^
RACE ISSUEEEEEEEEEEE
Sound the alarms!



anyways, I'm amazed at how much MORE segregated this country becomes as time goes on.

pretty sad, actually.

It's more segregated? As opposed to when? Please do enlighten me...

If you meant more polarized, as in politically, then I would still remind you of this -->5 Famous Duels From American History | The Art of Manliness

The problem is that we have 24/7 access to media. Which means the loudest most incendiary voices are amplified. Whereas, the normal, boring, friendly voices get lost in the discussion.

I still think the presidential election should be decided by a 5 round title fight in the Octagon. At least then we could actually make a determination as to who would be better at something than the other.

[Brian]

Yes, There are TONS of programs of all sorts and kinds that are limited and focused on including only certain races, groups, etc.

It's an off topic idea anyways, doesn't have to do with the election.

[1 88 U]

Originally Posted by ineedone

It's more segregated? As opposed to when? Please do enlighten me...

If you meant more polarized, as in politically, then I would still remind you of this -->5 Famous Duels From American History | The Art of Manliness

The problem is that we have 24/7 access to media. Which means the loudest most incendiary voices are amplified. Whereas, the normal, boring, friendly voices get lost in the discussion.

I still think the presidential election should be decided by a 5 round title fight in the Octagon. At least then we could actually make a determination as to who would be better at something than the other.

President Bones Jones. Or President Velasquez.

[revat619]

Disclaimer: The following story is COMPLETLY unrelated to politcal policy/stance/etc....

Met Obama, Biden, and Michelle on Friday...political BS aside, they were pretty damn cool. Obama totally pissed off secret service by basically saying i'm the president, F your schedule, i'll do what i want. All 3 of them stuck around and shook our hands, gave a hug and personally thanked us for representing the country so well...and there was a CRAP LOAD of us there so i know it was a total pain in the ass. Policy wise, it doesn't mean anything and i still don't know who i'm voting for, but when the President, First Lady, and VP look you in the face, say your name back to you after you've introduced yourself and give you personal words of thanks and encouragement, it definitely leaves an impression. They didn't have to do that and as an athlete that meant A LOT.

/endofftopicstory

Continue interwebz argument. lol

[MadScientist]

I am a strong supporter of Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul.
If wesurvive long enough to see Rand Paul run and win for Pres. it would be the greatest day ever, and the fear of what we currently face would feel lifted.

I did vote for Obama, only because Clinton bowed out. I still feel he has done way better than Bush, or McCain would have. But Now... I don't think eather Obama or Romney are worth a shit, but given the threat of war that we are currently facing again. I would rather have someone who has had experince in a global manner, than a newbee getting his ego inflated. I would rather keep Hillary Clinton as part of the administration, then have her replaced by anyone else.

So, my hand is forced by the all mighty re-elect barganing tool, known as, war!
Its going to happen so start saving toilet paper to wipe your asses.

[TheWolf]

100% of americans can honestly say jimmy carter was the worst president ever in the history of america. Surprise jimmy carter's grandson is out there trying to sink romney with shakey cam.

the moochers and looters are going to win. They'll vote themselves more and more of the treasury until there's nothing left.

[ineedone]

Originally Posted by MadScientist

I am a strong supporter of Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul.
If wesurvive long enough to see Rand Paul run and win for Pres. it would be the greatest day ever, and the fear of what we currently face would feel lifted.

Rand is not Ron. Either way, he will never win a general election. Aside from a few decent positions he takes on a very few select social issues, he is a nut. You cannot go around saying the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional (or whatever nonsense he said) and expect to be taken seriously.

Originally Posted by TheWolf

100% of americans can honestly say jimmy carter was the worst president ever in the history of america. Surprise jimmy carter's grandson is out there trying to sink romney with shakey cam.

Well, no. I mean 100% of people who have no clue of what they are talking about will say Carter is the worst president of all time.

10. Zachary Taylor: The 10 Worst Presidents - US News & World Report

Worst Presidents: James Buchanan (1857-1861) - US News and World Report

Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 5 Worst US Presidents in History | Business Pundit

So there is just a few articles, none of which say Carter is the worst... most of which do not even consider him in the top 10 worst.

So yeah, again... only people who have no clue about what they are talking about say stupid things like "Carter is the worst!" without thinking about the real nut jobs we have had (like Buchanan... seriously... learn some history).

But it is poetic justice to have a Carter putting out a video that is making the conservatives get all butt hurt even though nothing Romney said is really that bad. God forbid people actually know what you actually believe!

Originally Posted by TheWolf

the moochers and looters are going to win. They'll vote themselves more and more of the treasury until there's nothing left.

Which moocher and looters are you talking about? Who Doesn't Pay Federal Income Taxes (Legally) - NYTimes.com


"Perhaps the right and left can at least agree that it is unseemly for those in the top 1 percent of income distribution, with incomes at least 10 times the median income, to pay no federal income taxes. It’s not socialism to ask them to pay something." --no way some conservative would ever say anything like that... unless... it was a guy who was in both Regean and Bush whitehouses... damnit.

[ineedone]

Mitt Romney's Mom Says his Dad was on Welfare - YouTube

Moochers and looters...

[TheWolf]

Originally Posted by ineedone

Zachary Taylor: The 10 Worst Presidents - US News & World Report

Almost all your articles hinge on a president is bad due to expansion of slavery. It wasn't a bad idea back then. More social justice hootenanny that the north kept playing which lead to the death of many americans.

Carter was a flippin idiot. Mortage rates peaked at 20%. Inflation was at 10+% for almost his whole presidency. Unemployment was at 11+%. (don't run for the job if you can't fix the problems, excuses are for the weak)

He could barely keep gas in the pumps. His idea to save us was for everyone to get a solar water heater and drive slower then we'd "conserve" and wouldn't need energy. Wear a sweater and lower your thermostat to keep energy use down.

Which moocher and looters are you talking about?

I'm talking about the ones that don't pay or that do, pay little. Everyone's got to pay "sales tax" and "property tax" and all those excuses that the poor make to justify their expense on the nation as a whole. Those taxes do not fund the majority of the social services they utilize.

You can link to effective tax rates till your blue in the face. If you make millions the only way for you to offset those taxes is with losses either domestic or foreign. But 10% rate of 1,000,000 is still $100,000. Which is more than most low income earners will ever contribute in their lifetime. So what if they have a bad year. They still paid more than 95% of the goons out there.

If a poor person pays an effective tax rate of 50% on their yearly income of 20k. It's still only 10k which is chump change compared to the kind of checks the rich are writing. Poor want to compare tax rates because they would be outright stomped if they talked dollar for dollar and to write those checks. The fact is. They don't contribute and what they do couldn't run the gov't for two weeks. When bills have to get paid, and the nation as a whole passes the hat. That 47% talks a mean game but damned if they'll chip in anything more than pocket change.

The rich had to make something, had to do something, had to build something. No one has ever got rich by striking and demanding more pay. That's for the lazy. The only reason so many are not there is because they don't want to. If you can't make it in america, you can't make it anywhere. The odd's to become a millionaire don't get any better anywhere else on the planet.

Romney paid 6.2 million in income taxes in the past two years.

You paid what? maybe .001th of that. For every 10 dollar's he gave, you chipped in maybe a penny. Your right. He's the asshole that doesn't contribute enough to america. he's the problem.

[ineedone]

Originally Posted by TheWolf

Almost all your articles hinge on a president is bad due to expansion of slavery. It wasn't a bad idea back then. More social justice hootenanny that the north kept playing which lead to the death of many americans.

So slavery was good? Right... sounds like you grew up in the David Duke school of hating blacks. Cool story bro... I am sure that will work out great for you.

Originally Posted by TheWolf

Carter was a flippin idiot. Mortage rates peaked at 20%. Inflation was at 10+% for almost his whole presidency. Unemployment was at 11+%. (don't run for the job if you can't fix the problems, excuses are for the weak)

He could barely keep gas in the pumps. His idea to save us was for everyone to get a solar water heater and drive slower then we'd "conserve" and wouldn't need energy. Wear a sweater and lower your thermostat to keep energy use down.

You still need to make him worse than Nixon... I mean if slavery is not going to sway you I doubt you have the mental capacity to deal with how terrible Nixon was.

Originally Posted by TheWolf

I'm talking about the ones that don't pay or that do, pay little. Everyone's got to pay "sales tax" and "property tax" and all those excuses that the poor make to justify their expense on the nation as a whole. Those taxes do not fund the majority of the social services they utilize.

Well sure there is the poor... but you are forgetting the working poor, the elderly, families making less than 60k, families making 100k with kids or a farm etc, the military, oh yeah and the top 1%. All of these groups generally pay no federal income tax. The one thing you do forget to add in your argument is payroll taxes, but hey I guess those are not real.

The whole point of living in a civilized society is that you sort of have to accept some level of a social pact that requires those that make more help continue to improve the situations of those who make less. That is everything from roads, to schools, to basic social services like food stamps so that some people can barely get by without dying of starvation in the streets.

Originally Posted by TheWolf

You can link to effective tax rates till your blue in the face. If you make millions the only way for you to offset those taxes is with losses either domestic or foreign. But 10% rate of 1,000,000 is still $100,000. Which is more than most low income earners will ever contribute in their lifetime. So what if they have a bad year. They still paid more than 95% of the goons out there.

Oh wow, you figured out how to do percentages. I am not sure how saying rich people pay more makes your point at all. You are essentially making the case for progressive taxation. Because as you rightly state, 10% for a millionaire has no where near the same hit as 10% for someone making minimum wage would. I am not sure how taxing people who can barely afford to live into oblivion will help anything... The government could raise $700 billion by either taking half of everything earned by the bottom 50% or by raising the marginal tax rate on the top two percent. What makes more sense?

Originally Posted by TheWolf

If a poor person pays an effective tax rate of 50% on their yearly income of 20k. It's still only 10k which is chump change compared to the kind of checks the rich are writing. Poor want to compare tax rates because they would be outright stomped if they talked dollar for dollar and to write those checks. The fact is. They don't contribute and what they do couldn't run the gov't for two weeks. When bills have to get paid, and the nation as a whole passes the hat. That 47% talks a mean game but damned if they'll chip in anything more than pocket change.

wow... who fights your wars? who are your police? fireman? EMTs? who works for your multi-billion dollar companies? you know what happens when you stomp out the working class, you get no workers. Again... GREAAAAT Idea... lets go back to slavery!

Originally Posted by TheWolf

The rich had to make something, had to do something, had to build something. No one has ever got rich by striking and demanding more pay. That's for the lazy. The only reason so many are not there is because they don't want to. If you can't make it in america, you can't make it anywhere. The odd's to become a millionaire don't get any better anywhere else on the planet.

What are you talking about? So the only reason everyone is not a millionaire is because they are lazy? Hmmm...

Originally Posted by TheWolf

Romney paid 6.2 million in income taxes in the past two years.

You paid what? maybe .001th of that. For every 10 dollar's he gave, you chipped in maybe a penny. Your right. He's the asshole that doesn't contribute enough to america. he's the problem.

Last time I checked you are on zilvia too. I would have to assume that you are not rolling in the dough. So... welcome to the moocher class you lazy racist welfare queen!

I never said Romney did or did not contribute or anything like that. I merely pointed out that his dad was on welfare so he must have never wanted his dad's vote because he was a parasite sucking from the government teet.

[ineedone]

To get back to Presidential stuff, and away from the slavey talk above.... here is ole Mittington talking about how welfare and government assistance helped his dad and how he is grateful for it! Funny how your tone changes when you talk about your shit instead of other peoples shit...

Mitt Romney Totally Loves Welfare Now, You Guys

[Brian]

Wow, somebody in here is being a real asshole ..... ineedone

[ineedone]

Originally Posted by Brian

Wow, somebody in here is being a real asshole ..... ineedone

Is that no longer a requirement to be on Zilvia?

[Corbic]

Originally Posted by Brian

^^^^^^^^^^
RACE ISSUEEEEEEEEEEE
Sound the alarms!



anyways, I'm amazed at how much MORE segregated this country becomes as time goes on.

pretty sad, actually.

Unity will Divide.

[Corbic]

Originally Posted by ineedone

I still think the presidential election should be decided by a 5 round title fight in the Octagon. At least then we could actually make a determination as to who would be better at something than the other.

Putin would love that. It would save him a lot of money and effort.

[Corbic]

Originally Posted by TheWolf

100% of americans can honestly say jimmy carter was the worst president ever in the history of america. Surprise jimmy carter's grandson is out there trying to sink romney with shakey cam.

the moochers and looters are going to win. They'll vote themselves more and more of the treasury until there's nothing left.

I would say it's a tie between Johnson and FDR.

Carter may have been an idiotic, but those other two basically laid the foundation for all the bullshit we are now suffering through - Grotesque abuses of Government Spend/Power and an Entitlement Class.

[Corbic]

Originally Posted by ineedone

So slavery was good? Right... sounds like you grew up in the David Duke school of hating blacks. Cool story bro... I am sure that will work out great for you.

We still utilize Slavery - its called "Out-Sourcing".

[Corbic]

Originally Posted by ineedone

You still need to make him worse than Nixon... I mean if slavery is not going to sway you I doubt you have the mental capacity to deal with how terrible Nixon was.

Accept he did two things - Got us out of Vietnam... and decided that you can't ignore 1 Billion People. (China).

I can only imagine what our relations with them would have been like had we continued on the path of stupidity by not recognizing them.


If Obama wanted to impress me with "OMFG CHANGE" - THEN LIFT THE GOD DAMN SANCTIONS ON CUBA ALREADY.


Why are we death on them but give free passes to Chavez and everyone else out there?

[1 88 U]

Originally Posted by Corbic

I would say it's a tie between Johnson and FDR.

Carter may have been an idiotic, but those other two basically laid the foundation for all the bullshit we are now suffering through - Grotesque abuses of Government Spend/Power and an Entitlement Class.

Yeah because the new deal, great society and civil rights just fucked up our society. Who said woman, blacks, poors/elderly should have the right to life liberty and happiness.

"Fuck You, Got Mine!" Am I right Corbic?

[Corbic]

Originally Posted by 1 88 U

Yeah because the new deal, great society and civil rights just fucked up our society. Who said woman, blacks, poors/elderly should have the right to life liberty and happiness.

"Fuck You, Got Mine!" Am I right Corbic?

You are an idiot.

Pull your head out of your ass and stop listing to the bullshit your government employed, unionized liberal teachers feed you.

The New Deal was the biggest power-grab in american history and was an utter failure. Read a book.

As for your other knee-jeck racist remarks....


Are the elderly really better off in our modern society? Do you have any factual proof their quality of late-term life has improved? Seems to me our society no longer takes care of old Gramps and Grandma but just dumps them in federally subsidized "retirement homes" which are cease pools of waste, fraud and abuse.

Lets not forget that Americans now spend more on Healthcare in 1 week than we did in the entire year of 1960. Despite this... there is not a single indicator that we are living any healthier today than we did back then. In fact, we are less healthy.

Are women really "better off"? Seems to me that Romney's wife took a beating for her decision to raise a family... shame on her. Not to mention the never ending push by our society and media to make sure girls are ok with being over sexed objects of ill-repute. Sad that Kim Kardashian would be held in higher esteem then someone like Sarah Palin...

As for Blacks... your joking right? I mean seriously? Have any of the welfare/equality initiatives actually helped the black community? Prisons in the 1950s where full of white people, now 15% of our population makes up 75% of our prisons. Black youth are more likely to be victims of violent crime today than they where 50 years ago, graduation and literacy rates are through the floor and poverty is still repent. Marriage and the Nuclear family have also completely deteriorated.

It's rather ironic, we have a Black president, yet Blacks are the worst hit by the economic rescission of the last 4 years.


Seems to me like a lot of this shit is just lip service intended to make people think they are empowered and getting a fair shake when it really just keeps them in the same place. You painted the prison walls blue instead of grey!

[1 88 U]

Before I offer a rebuttal lets get a few things straight. You really believe Medicare and Social Security is harming seniors?

You really believe Blacks are disproportionately imprisoned because of social assistance programs?

You really believe quarter billionairess house wife Ann Romney is a victim?

Originally Posted by Corbic

Are the elderly really better off in our modern society? Do you have any factual proof their quality of late-term life has improved?

Lets not forget that Americans now spend more on Healthcare in 1 week than we did in the entire year of 1960. Despite this... there is not a single indicator that we are living any healthier today than we did back then. In fact, we are less healthy.

You'll most likely ignore it because it's from "government employed, unionized liberal teachers"
http://aging.senate.gov/crs/aging1.pdf


lol. "knee-jeck racist remarks", "read a book".
what was predictably racist about my comments? I was aiming for facetious sarcasm. What book/s do you offer?

[ineedone]

Originally Posted by Corbic

We still utilize Slavery - its called "Out-Sourcing".

Good point.

Originally Posted by Corbic

Accept he did two things - Got us out of Vietnam... and decided that you can't ignore 1 Billion People. (China).

I can only imagine what our relations with them would have been like had we continued on the path of stupidity by not recognizing them.


If Obama wanted to impress me with "OMFG CHANGE" - THEN LIFT THE GOD DAMN SANCTIONS ON CUBA ALREADY.


Why are we death on them but give free passes to Chavez and everyone else out there?

Nixon did not get us out of Viet-nam, the pentagon papers forced him to. Then there is that whole watergate thing... and that he is the only president in history to have to resign. Which he did so that we did not find out about all the other crazy shit he did in Cambodia, Turkey, Cyprus, Indonesia, Pakistan, Chile, etc, etc, etc. Nixon is in a complete class by himself when it comes to illegal shit.

As for Cuba, I am with you on that one.

Originally Posted by Corbic

You are an idiot.

Pull your head out of your ass and stop listing to the bullshit your government employed, unionized liberal teachers feed you.

Yeah and screw those government employed unionized police, fireman, military, EMT, etc, etc, etc. I am not sure where you all went to school, but even in the shit hole I went too, I did not have political non-sense rammed down my throat. So this myth that all teachers are some liberal firebrands is complete nonsense. What is scarier to someone like me is that children's text books are being changed by a bunch of wackadoo nut jobs in Texas who still think the world is flat. Texas Cooks the Textbooks - Newsweek and The Daily Beast

Originally Posted by Corbic

The New Deal was the biggest power-grab in american history and was an utter failure. Read a book.

As for your other knee-jeck racist remarks....

I called the guy a racist because he said slavery was good. Calling slavery good then being called a racist is not knee-jerk, that is pretty much the least knee-jerk it can get.

The New Deal was a power grab for many different reasons. Corporations were abusing people, owned the Supreme Court and most politicians (which has... eh... kinda? changed... I guess). People had their entire life savings stolen and destroyed from the crash of the market... I get the argument against it... but it is way to simplistic and you have to completely ignore the millions of terrible things that were going on. Alas, the two candidates today are not debating the new deal. Thank god.

Originally Posted by Corbic

Are the elderly really better off in our modern society? Do you have any factual proof their quality of late-term life has improved? Seems to me our society no longer takes care of old Gramps and Grandma but just dumps them in federally subsidized "retirement homes" which are cease pools of waste, fraud and abuse.

Yes. They have money to pay medical bills and not all or even most retirement homes are cesspools of waste fraud and abuse. Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Changes in the Public Health System

The problem is the same as any time there is lots of government money, some people will abuse it. Does that mean it is a total failure? No, it means that it needs to be policed better. I will agree that throwing more money is not the answer, but neither is stripping it away. The money needs to be tied to value.

Originally Posted by Corbic

Lets not forget that Americans now spend more on Healthcare in 1 week than we did in the entire year of 1960. Despite this... there is not a single indicator that we are living any healthier today than we did back then. In fact, we are less healthy.

Just because we spend a shit ton on healthcare does not mean we spend it wisely. We are healthier in the sense we do not die as frequently and as shortly as we did in 1960. But we also have many more issues then we did back then. We are not less healthy because we have better healthcare, we are less healthy because we have changed as a society. Our diets have changed and our food has changed. We do not have local food we have food that comes from like 3 different corporations who are pretty much poisoning us because we like it. Everyone can agree Monsanto is pretty much the Devil incarnate.. right?

Originally Posted by Corbic

Are women really "better off"? Seems to me that Romney's wife took a beating for her decision to raise a family... shame on her. Not to mention the never ending push by our society and media to make sure girls are ok with being over sexed objects of ill-repute. Sad that Kim Kardashian would be held in higher esteem then someone like Sarah Palin...

Yes. Took a "beating?" well today a "beating" is some political hack saying a mother does not really have to work (we can debate whether Ann Romney really had it hard with all those house maids and car elevators... but she still is a Mom with MS she gets props for having kids who seem to not totally suck) back in the day a beating would have meant being beat to shit and then not being able to do anything about it. You know it was not that long ago we burned women at the stake for being left handed and having freckles... that was pretty bad and I think things are a littler better now.

No one holds a Kardashian in high esteem... Sarah Palin is an idiot when it comes to politics and other things... but smart as shit when it comes to media and making money. Again, that is only possible because of how much better it is for women today. If it was 60 years ago... Palin would be another house maid not allowed to leave the kitchen or have an opinion... albeit a dumb one.

Originally Posted by Corbic

As for Blacks... your joking right? I mean seriously? Have any of the welfare/equality initiatives actually helped the black community? Prisons in the 1950s where full of white people, now 15% of our population makes up 75% of our prisons. Black youth are more likely to be victims of violent crime today than they where 50 years ago, graduation and literacy rates are through the floor and poverty is still repent. Marriage and the Nuclear family have also completely deteriorated.

That is more of a poverty issue. Not a racial issue. I would also have to say that things were much worse for minorities and blacks in the 50s when they were lynched frequently, terrorized by the KKK, and could never get a fair trial. But hey, the good ole days?

Originally Posted by Corbic

It's rather ironic, we have a Black president, yet Blacks are the worst hit by the economic rescission of the last 4 years.

Again, the issue has nothing to do with race. It is a poverty issue. Poor hicks who live in trailers in French Lick, Indiana are having a bit of trouble as well...

If you look at who are the hardest hit, it is the working poor.

Originally Posted by Corbic

Seems to me like a lot of this shit is just lip service intended to make people think they are empowered and getting a fair shake when it really just keeps them in the same place. You painted the prison walls blue instead of grey!

I can buy that to an extent.

[Corbic]

Originally Posted by ineedone

Yeah and screw those government employed unionized police, fireman, military, EMT, etc, etc, etc. I am not sure where you all went to school, but even in the shit hole I went too, I did not have political non-sense rammed down my throat. So this myth that all teachers are some liberal firebrands is complete nonsense. What is scarier to someone like me is that children's text books are being changed by a bunch of wackadoo nut jobs in Texas who still think the world is flat. Texas Cooks the Textbooks - Newsweek and The Daily Beast

Actually - yes, screw them.

Why should a Government employee make 2-3x as much as a Private worker and have a gold plated benefit package that's immune to the Affordable Healthcare Act (Obama Care) while people in the private sector are being stripped of benefits, forced into 401ks and paying more for healthcare?

Also, lets make a correction here - Military is NOT UNIONIZED. Soliders and Marines can not just go "oh shit, $35k a year sucks!!! I want more, I refuse to fight" unlike teachers in Chicago making $76k a year and are pissed off because they want a 14% raise and not be held accountable for their performance.

EMT's are employed by Hospitals, not the Gobberment.

Fireman pay varies greatly. Some cities have issues where they are making $200k a year... in my county they are all volunteers.

[S14DB]

Originally Posted by Corbic

EMT's are employed by Hospitals, not the Gobberment.

You're sure about that?

[Corbic]

Originally Posted by S14DB

You're sure about that?

Yes. Those big ambulances are privately owned. The only ones that are Goberment employees would be firefighters and policemen with EMT training as first responders.

Emergency medical services in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Phlip]

Originally Posted by S14DB

You're sure about that?

I am
And I say that to say that I am sure that they are NOT


After my accident in 2003, I was taken to the hospital in an ambulance... The $476 bill that I got for that was sent and collected completely separately from the $56k hospital bill.
It was not covered by my insurance.
That would lead me to believe that the EMTs that were sent to keep me alive en route to the hospital were employed by a company that was not the hospital or anywhere under their system.

They are USUALLY employed by public and private Emergency Medical Service providers, but not the hospitals that they serve unless that hospital is provided under the same public (city or state) entity.

[ineedone]

Originally Posted by Corbic

Actually - yes, screw them.

Why should a Government employee make 2-3x as much as a Private worker and have a gold plated benefit package that's immune to the Affordable Healthcare Act (Obama Care) while people in the private sector are being stripped of benefits, forced into 401ks and paying more for healthcare?

Prove that... In my field, lawyers make less then 1/3 in the government than what they would make in the private sector. My fiance has been offered jobs tripling her salary to work in the private sector.

We can debate the ACA all you want. I think it is better than what we had but it still not good at all. However, both Romney and Obama are big fans of the ACA and individual mandates so there is real no debate here. Unless you can tell me what his plan is... (that is rhetorical - he has no plan). Health care cost before ACA were to rise twice as much as they will rise under ACA, from my contacts they said it was going to be about 40% a year before ACA.

Originally Posted by Corbic

Also, lets make a correction here - Military is NOT UNIONIZED. Soliders and Marines can not just go "oh shit, $35k a year sucks!!! I want more, I refuse to fight" unlike teachers in Chicago making $76k a year and are pissed off because they want a 14% raise and not be held accountable for their performance.

I think you are misunderstanding the Chicago teacher issue...However, I will never agree with teachers walking off the job. No matter how justified they are in their argument as soon as they walk off, they lose the support.

Originally Posted by Corbic

EMT's are employed by Hospitals, not the Gobberment.

Depends, some are owned by fire stations, other are owned by private companies. I think it depends on the state and/or county. EMTs can be employed by hospitals, cities, etc. So it just depends on where you live and/or where you get hurt.

[Corbic]

Originally Posted by ineedone

Prove that... In my field, lawyers make less then 1/3 in the government than what they would make in the private sector. My fiance has been offered jobs tripling her salary to work in the private sector.

It is well documented.
http://<br /> http://money.cnn.com/2..._pay/index.htm

http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/...rivate-sector/

[ineedone]

Originally Posted by Corbic

It is well documented.
Which federal worker job pays better: Government or private? - Jan. 31, 2012

Government Workers Earn More Than Their Private-Sector Counterparts | Fox Business

"However, federal employees with a master’s degree earned 5% less on average, and those with professional degrees or doctorates earned roughly 23% less than comparable private sector workers."

Hmm... so when the secretary or janitor for the government earns 35k to their private sector counterparts 30k or less... that is an issue... but when a new attorney for the government ears less than 60k and their private sector earns 160k+ that is not an issue?

I guess I see this outrage as kinda... eh... made up.