Re: Why back-shoring wont cut it
- From: "Smith Rhoade" <smitty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 14:20:10 -0500
"Phil Scott" <philscott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e7rsod$veu$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I think you are reading fiction somewhere, or you are looking at special
However...POLICE, FIRE and PRISON GUARDS... the low end noless, are retiring at 90 to 150k a year in many states, Calif an NY for
instance. thats only since 2000 also... laws passed in that time frame
allowing the bogus retirements.
situations where law enforcement folk draw two pensions; one for a 20 year
career in law enforcement, and a second for another 20 year career in say
teaching.
If what you are saying is generally true (and I seriously doubt it) then it
is for a special situation where something corrupt has happened. Don't
generalize it to the population of teachers, civil servants, and so on as a
whole. Don't blame the nation's economic woes on this isolated issue.
You have already admitted your sister, and teachers, get poverty pensions.
So we know that high pensions are not the cause of government overspending.
My personal choice for why there is government overspending is CORPORATE
WELFARE AND SPECIAL INTERESTS.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why back-shoring wont cut it
- From: Phil Scott
- Re: Why back-shoring wont cut it
- From: Straydog
- Re: Why back-shoring wont cut it
- References:
- Why back-shoring wont cut it
- From: Phil Scott
- Re: Why back-shoring wont cut it
- From: Smith Rhoade
- Re: Why back-shoring wont cut it
- From: Phil Scott
- Why back-shoring wont cut it
- Prev by Date: Re: Why back-shoring wont cut it
- Next by Date: Re: Why back-shoring wont cut it
- Previous by thread: Re: Why back-shoring wont cut it
- Next by thread: Re: Why back-shoring wont cut it
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|