Recent Comments

1. about 13 years ago on Ted Rall

   M Kitt

   Your opinion is TRULY Reading Impaired Induced There is no DEDUCTION from their pay as deferred compensation. It is part of their compensation but it is payed for by the taxpayers, not by the employee. Is there a reason that those words can’t get past your eyes? Just because they bargained for good benefits doesn’t mean the tooth fairy is paying for them. I am and so is every other Wi taxpayer! I don’t care if it is deferred, gift wrapped or shoved up their rear end. It still came from taxpayers! Is English your second language? They get a salary AND they get benefits. They don’t pay for the benefits out of their salary! Understand?

2. about 13 years ago on Ted Rall

   Josefw: Madison, born and raised.

3. about 13 years ago on Ted Rall

   OK, lets see if we can get down to the basics. Is this deferred compensation salary or retirement? Answer: retirement. Is it payed by the employee or the taxpayers? Answer: taxpayers. Is anything deducted from the employees check to pay for it? Answer: No! Unless you count their portion of state taxes. They don’t mail in a check for their retirement. They don’t have anything deducted from their check for it. Therefore their retirement is 100% funded by TAXPAYERS! This bleeep about calling it deferred compensation is just word games!If your whole argument is that it is called deferred compensation, then you don’t have an argument. My wife has deferred compensation for her retirement. Her employer pays that, she doesn’t. Same thing with the unions. Only difference is the taxpayers are the employer!

4. about 13 years ago on Ted Rall

   Night-Gaunt49 first you say “Unlike you, I have not seen their pay stubs” then you assume I haven’t seen one. Make up your mind? I do have first hand knowledge ok. I live in WI. I have family members affected by this. The unions bargained for better pension and got it. It’s still a taxpayer funded pension not ‘deferred compensation.”

   Even the article M Kitt talks about says “The pension plan is the direct result of deferred compensation- money that employees would have been paid as cash salary but choose, instead, to have placed in the state operated pension fund where the money can be professionally invested (at a lower cost of management) for the future.”

   See how even he calls it a PENSION PLAN FOR THE FUTURE! Another way of saying retirement! “A Rose by any other name…”

5. about 13 years ago on Ted Rall

   The courts have already ruled the pension fund is PROPERTY and the state can’t touch it. The reason the unions are against this is because Walker wants to stop the automatic union dues being handled by the government. The employees would have to do it themselves. He also wants the local governments to be able to go outside the union run health plan for health insurance. This would save $65 million dollars. Sounds like the unions are getting a nice kickback by forcing all union employees to get insurance through them.

   If Walker’s plan goes through or not, the amount of money these people get for retirement doesn’t change one cent! The only difference is they would have to contribute something to it!

6. about 13 years ago on Ted Rall

   The article you refer to states “The pension plan is the direct result of deferred compensation- money that employees would have been paid as cash salary but choose, instead, to have placed in the state operated pension fund where the money can be professionally invested (at a lower cost of management) for the future.”

   Everyone’s retirement is DEFERRED. I contribute to a 401k. There is a line item on my pay stub showing how much. The state employee has no such line item. If he was funding his own retirement 100% as this ridiculous article states, then they would be taking home an empty paycheck. But no, it is 100% funded by the taxpayer. You can call retirement deferred compensation all you want. But it is still taxpayer money going to it. If it wasn’t retirement money, then they could claim it anytime they want.

7. about 13 years ago on Ted Rall

   M Kitt, Funding for employee retirement programs in Wisconsin (and elsewhere) came from worker contributions, they’re “Payroll Deductions” directly payed out of member salaries.

   This flat out WRONG! Funding for their retirement comes 100% from the taxpayer. There is no payroll deduction at all. That is what the issue is all about. They get guaranteed retirement benefits. It has nothing to do with the market. The fund can’t be raided. When they retire they get so much money based on their best three years times by years of service multiplied by a percentage. All the budget tricks in the world can’t take that away from them. Only Walker’s plan can change that and he is just asking them to contribute some of their own money to it. Get your facts straight!

8. about 13 years ago on Ted Rall

   The unions in WI would still have better health care and pension than most people in the state. The union would not be gone. Everyone says “the unions agreed to Walker’s demands, why does he want to take away their rights?” First of all they aren’t rights they are benefits. If they were rights then I should have them as well. Second, after saying they agreed to his demands, they went and quickly signed contracts that didn’t give anything. So much for giving in to his demands. If they keep their ability to bargain for benefits then next contract they would push to get back anything they might loose now. So everything would be right back were it started. There is no reason why I should pay more taxes to give a group of people better pay and benefits than I have.

9. about 13 years ago on Ted Rall

   Are these the same scientist that in a Time Magazine article dated Jun. 24, 1974 warned of the approaching ice age? http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914-1,00.html By the way, how did the last Ice Age come about? Who was spewing CO2 into the air to make it go away? The earth was covered in ice! A mile thick! Tell me why it isn’t here any more. I don’t doubt we are in a warming trend. That seems indisputable. But tell me how much green house gases man spews out compared to one volcanic eruption? The notion that man, in a span of 100 years, can change the climate of a planet that has gone from one extreme to another over billions of years is ridiculous. Isn’t the more logical explanation is the Earth and Sun is going through a natural change? The people that would make BILLION$ on carbon credits are the ones pushing this junk science!

10. over 13 years ago on Ted Rall

    I would like to know who makes up this ‘far right conservative’ media? Have never heard of them.