Tuesday, Aug. 4, 2015    Login | Register           

The coming showdown with public employees

Cal Beverly's picture

Few in the media have drawn the lines between the increasing dots in our national financial meltdown. The raw numbers are being reported; the obvious conclusions have not been drawn. I take no pleasure in what I am concluding; nevertheless, here are the data. Judge whether my conclusions are warranted.

California leads the nation in budget toxicity. The state’s generous public employee pension system is the biggest of the black holes in that state’s descent into bankruptcy.

Elsewhere, a majority of states face unimaginable billions of dollars in unfunded liabilities created mostly by their public employee retirement obligations, which includes healthcare.

Local governments’ pension problems dwarf those of the states, simply because there are nearly three times as many of them.

This from a U.S. Census Bureau report just one week ago:

“The nation’s 89,526 state and local governments employed 16.6 million full-time equivalent employees in 2009, statistically unchanged from 2008, according to government employment data released by the U.S. Census Bureau. Part-time employees numbered 4.7 million, not statistically different from 2008.

“Local governments accounted for 12.2 million full-time equivalent employees, and state governments had 4.4 million. (Local governments include counties, cities, townships, special districts and school districts.)”

Did you follow those numbers? Our country has 16.6 million people employed by nearly 90,000 state and local governments — and EVERY ONE OF THEM HAS A PUBLICLY-FUNDED, TAXPAYER-PAID pension plan. That of course does NOT include federal-level workers.

And we think Social Security is in trouble.

By the way, despite the nation’s effective unemployment and under-employment rate of 18 percent, did you notice that the number of public employees in 2009 was “statistically unchanged” from the previous year, 2008, when the financial tsunami hit us?

What that means is that while the private sector was getting slaughtered in firings and layoffs, the public sector was cruising along with almost no decrease in numbers, mostly complaining about a few furlough days and minor increases in their healthcare contributions.

And just to warm every private-sector heart, USA Today reported recently that federal employees are just about the only people besides investment bankers who are profiting during the Great Recession.

“Federal employees earn higher average salaries than private-sector workers in more than eight out of 10 occupations, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data finds.

“Accountants, nurses, chemists, surveyors, cooks, clerks and janitors are among the wide range of jobs that get paid more on average in the federal government than in the private sector.

“Overall, federal workers earned an average salary of $67,691 in 2008 for occupations that exist both in government and the private sector, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The average pay for the same mix of jobs in the private sector was $60,046 in 2008, the most recent data available.

“These salary figures do not include the value of health, pension and other benefits, which averaged $40,785 per federal employee in 2008 vs. $9,882 per private worker, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

“USA Today reported that average compensation for federal employees has risen 36.9 percent since 2000. Those numbers were adjusted for inflation.”

Let’s do the math. Private sector pay of $60,046, plus benefits of $9,882 equals $69,928. A federal worker gets $67,691 plus $40,785 in benefits: That equals $108,476 per average federal employee.

That is $38,548 MORE for the average federal worker doing the exact equivalent job as the private sector worker. No wonder the federal government is the only growth business these days.

The history is that once in our distant past “public servants” were paid less than private sector workers. To make public jobs more attractive even with lower wages, governments sweetened the pot with cushy benefits, most without the public workers taking a payroll hit — things like medical, dental and eye-care coverage for employees and dependents and defined benefit pension plans.

Additionally, public workers have come to enjoy — indeed, expect — job security far beyond what the private sector possesses. Compare how hard it is to fire an incompetent government employee versus how the private sector handles a sub-par worker. Government work has become the only “jobs for life” that still exist.

Then two things happened, mostly within the past 20 years: a relentless drive for parity with private sector workers and unionization of the public workforce.

First, public sector workers began getting raises every year — they call them “COLA” for cost of living increases. (When’s the last time an employee of a small business got a COLA raise — any raise?) Every couple of years, from deep in the bowels of most local and state government bureaucracies there would arise an agenda item that created a “salary study commission” or group. Every time (imagine that!) the bureaucrats would find a compelling reason to recommend to the governing body that “adjustments” upward needed to be made to public salaries in order to keep the public jobs “competitive.”

First the bureaucrats sought “competitiveness” with private sector “equivalent” jobs. Later, as it became obvious that the public sector was outrunning the private sector, the focus shifted to “competitiveness” with neighboring governments, since only the government sector offered such sweet deals.

In other words, the prevailing argument for more, more, more was based not on worries that a public employee would leave government work for a private sector job, but rather on concerns about that worker being lured to another, even more lucrative taxpayer-funded job with another government entity.

And then came the unions. For 2009, the latest year available, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports the following as of January 2010:

“In 2009, the union membership rate — the percent of wage and salary workers who were members of a union — was 12.3 percent, essentially unchanged from 12.4 percent a year earlier, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported.”

“The number of wage and salary workers belonging to unions declined by 771,000 to 15.3 million, largely reflecting the overall drop in employment due to the recession.

“More public sector employees (7.9 million) belonged to a union than did private sector employees (7.4 million), despite there being five times more wage and salary workers in the private sector.

“Workers in education, training, and library occupations had the highest unionization rate at 38.1 percent.

“In 2009 ... union membership rate for public sector workers (37.4 percent) was substantially higher than the rate for private industry workers (7.2 percent). Within the public sector, local government workers had the highest union membership rate, 43.3 percent. This group includes workers in heavily unionized occupations, such as teachers, police officers, and fire fighters.”

Let’s process that: Four out of every 10 local government workers across this nation have union shop stewards and a built-in adversarial relationship with management and the ones who pay the bills — the taxpayers. And leading the pack of publicly-paid workers who expect and demand never-ending raises, better benefits and lifetime job security are “teachers, police officers and fire fighters.”

Now, who pays for all these government workers? (Yes, government workers pay income taxes, so they are paying back into their own pockets at most 30 percent of their costs. Private sector workers — including the unemployed — pay the rest.)

Do you begin to see the problem?

I’ve given you enough data to chew on for this episode (and please note that this very recent data is quoted verbatim from two federal government agencies, at a time when the executive branch is under the control of Democrats, not exactly sworn enemies of government workers or unions).

Now, four conclusions, one prediction and one possible interim solution.

Conclusion 1: Public workers’ salaries, benefits and pension plans are unsustainable at their current levels as the nation heads into a deficit-burdened future.

Conclusion 2: Government workers — at all levels, but especially at the federal level — are not feeling the pain the rest of us in the private sector feel. They will not feel our pain until reductions in force (RIFs) of public sector workers begin to match the private sector unemployment numbers.

Conclusion 3: Most local, state and federal government elected officials currently in office have neither the vision nor the guts to face the reality of the above conclusions and take the necessary steps to correct the blatant inequities between the public and the private sectors.

Conclusion 4: Something akin to a revolution will be necessary to bring government employment in line with the new financial realities.

Prediction: A growing backlash of taxpayers against public sector workers is beginning and will grow to proportions not now imaginable by many taxpayers nor by ALL government workers. Showdown time is looming, and it ain’t gonna be pretty.

One caveat: Yes, our armed forces members are part of the federal workforce. Of all people on the planet, our warriors most deserve every penny paid to them. I hope the coming revolt against public sector excesses manages to avoid lumping our front-line service men and women in with the rest.

One possible interim solution: A five-year freeze on the salaries, wages and benefits of ALL government employees (except military) at all levels — federal, state and local.

How likely is that? (Most small business employees, I suspect, are going through the fourth consecutive year of small or no raises — the ones who still have jobs — so we already feel the pain of that interim solution.)

Remember that “hopey, changey thing”? Count on it: Change is coming.

Comments

Ok, why don't you check our HR 4646 and tells us what you call that! A 1% assessment every time you move money around in any fashion. Purports to eliminate all personal income tax in 2017.

Cal, I didn’t actually see the ‘data’ represented ANYWHERE just someone’s reference to it or their opinion of what it represented.

Cal, did you actually research the data or did you just take a reporters word as to the accuracy and validity of the data?

Cal, I didn’t see the salary & benefits’ comparisons for those earning above $123,000/year in the USA Today article. Did you happen to look that up or did you just hope no one would?

Just for fun I looked up a job and found something I wasn’t expecting:
As per the “Bureau of Labor Statistics”, “Occupational Employment Statistics”
<a href=”http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_511100.htm#(2)”<”>NAICS 511100 - Newspaper, Periodical, Book, and Directory Publishers</a>
Management Occupations
The wage estimates of “Chief Executives” lists the mean annual wage at $192,610.

Cal, is that an accurate estimate of your annual salary?

If it is, than you chose a very good carrier choice. If it’s not, then could other data, say the data referenced in the USA Today article, be misleading as well?

Just for fun Cal, try reading <a href=http://epi.3cdn.net/8808ae41b085032c0b_8um6bh5ty.pdf>”Debunking the Myth of the Overcompensated Public Employee - The Evidence”</a> and then reply.

Observerofu's picture

http://www.simplyhired.com/a/salary/search/q-Legal+Secretaries/l-Washing...

Remember the average American makes around $40k.

"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt"
-Samuel Adams
Illegitimi non carborundum

Cyclist's picture

Here's one example of why there will be a coming train wreck.

From AJC:

<cite>New ATL police chief Turner wants to retire, then be rehired</cite>

<cite>Just months after being hired Atlanta’s new police chief, George Turner is ready to retire. Sort of.</cite>

<cite>Atlanta’s Chief Operating Officer Peter Aman is floating a proposal to the City Council that would allow Turner, 51, to “retire” on paper, but immediately be rehired as chief in order to start collecting his $100,000 pension.</cite>

<cite>Aman said that because Turner would have retired, he would <strong>collect his pension and the $200,000 salary</strong> that goes with being police chief. Although he commands perhaps the most significant unit in city government, at least four city employees earn more than Turner.</cite>

<cite>Aman’s proposal, which has the backing of Mayor Kasim Reed, has not been approved by the council yet.</cite>

<cite>Turner, who has been with APD for 29 years, was named police chief in July. He had served as interim chief since January, when his predecessor Richard Pennington retired.</cite>

And just think Atlanta's COO and Mayor support this lunacy. You got to love double dipping. ☺

Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

I can tell you why Atlanta wants to do this!
Because it can be done!

In the first place how can a "new hire," be eligible for a pension from Atlanta, anyway?

The city, if they do this, will then not have to pay SS taxes, pension deducts, etc., for this man. He is a contract Chief! Then, the pension part of his new salary would come from a different account which is funded out of budget! They make money doing it----theoretically.

It is not unusual. The military actually hires many retired people who have earned a pension, but if you know the right people you go right to work either for the government Civil Service or other work quite often gaining another pension. Then many municipalities hire them from the second job (usually at a reduced wage) and a third dip can be gained there.

Many Washington lobbyists, law firms, etc., hire top-rankers.
Powell drags in numerous board salaries. McChrystal is already on the speaking circuit (not the one Palin is on).

Then of course there are millions in book writing where the subject didn't write any of it himself---just answered questions.

So, is it lunacy? No. It is politics! It is called dipping.

Cyclist's picture

[quote=Courthouserules]I can tell you why Atlanta wants to do this!
Because it can be done![/quote]

Form the AJC - April 27, 2010

<cite>Atlanta's mounting pension costs have risen since 2001 from $55 million to $125 million, <strong>nearly one-quarter</strong> of city spending.</cite>

Of course, Mayor Reed made a campaign issue to reduce the size of the pension "foot print."

As a certain preacher man once said, <cite>those chickens are coming home to roost.</cite>

Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

Mike King's picture

Those same chickens are coming home to Peachtree City as well.

Cyclist's picture

And don't forget the county. Defined pension programs will go the way of the dodo bird.

Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

PTC Observer's picture

have the current Fayette Board for this one too.

Good-bye Jack and Eric.

Re-reading this column, I caught something that somehow slipped by me before: Cal says that because FEDERAL government employees appear to earn more than their private sector counterparts, we duh people should institute a five year freeze on ALL government employees.

I thought about Cal's call to jihad today when I saw this chart detailing how Wisconsin government employees are underpaid across-the-board with their private sector counterparts. <a href="http://i887.photobucket.com/albums/ac74/JacksonBrown/Economics/wisconsin...

Methinks Mr. Beverly might have generalized a bit too broadly in his elusive quest for painless "one size fits all" solutions ("Painless" for conservative white males over 50, in any event).

Thanks for sharing this. Some teachers in Wisconsin have brought out this point in news interviews. Cutting teachers first seems to be the plan. They usually don't complain, and when they 'strike' - children are the immediate 'victims'. The Union is willing to compromise - and the Governor has been caught with 'pants on fire' regarding some of his statements. Asking for 'near' equal pay with the private sector does not seem irresponsible.

Governor Hitler, errr...Walker up in Wisconsin exempted police unions, firefighter unions and State Patrol unions from his crass union-busting exploits.

Wonder why?

Could it be because the majority of their membership consists of conservative males (i.e. his core constituency)? And the unions he is trying to bust (teachers unions and govt. employee unions) are made up of predominantly women?

Ah love the smell of misogyny in the morning....

NUK_1's picture

I too believe that public safety shouldn't be exempt at all from the cutting in Wisconsin. That means the other govt employees get shafted when their cuts are more because the public safety groups get exempted.

The problem isn't as much the salaries, it's the defined benefit pension plans that are a sea of red ink for Wisconsin and many governments. The average Milwaukee teacher's salary is 50K, but annually, the pension costs are about 51K. Walker is trying to get those in line and more power to him in attempting to get the govt employees to pick up a lot more of the costs of their own pension programs that are way beyond the norm in the private sector. Now he needs to forget about exempting anyone and go right across the board with all.

Hard to believe they contribute nothing to their pension and pay nothing for health insurance--what a Sweetheart deal! When I was a Federal Civil Servant, for many yrs, I contributed 12% of salary monthly (not a choice, deducted automatically) and also paid part of the premium for health insurance

NUK_1's picture

I was never taught that I was entitled to or had some unwritten "right" to have a high paying job with great benefits. No one told me that was the "American way" ever. Some people seemed to have been brought up the opposite way and it's pretty ugly to watch their deeply-held and totally wrong belief system explode all of a sudden.

Wisconsin teachers have a tremendous deal and now that a light is being shone on just HOW GOOD it is, I don't expect they'll get a lot of sympathy for being asked to begin contributing, except from households that have been unionized for decades and who feel entitled to that at minimum.

Majority of enforcement people and firemen are republicans---the Governor is a republican! Votes are to be had.

Cal Beverly's picture

But I wish the honesty-seeking CPB Diogenes would ante up at the honest table himself, specifically answering either yes or no to my column's conclusions, even if not agreeing with my recommended solution.

I task you, honest man, respond directly and specifically to these conclusions:

Conclusion 1: Public workers’ salaries, benefits and pension plans are unsustainable at their current levels as the nation heads into a deficit-burdened future. Come on, Diogenes, yes or no.

Conclusion 2: Government workers — at all levels, but especially at the federal level — are not feeling the pain the rest of us in the private sector feel. They will not feel our pain until reductions in force (RIFs) of public sector workers begin to match the private sector unemployment numbers. Come on, Diogenes, yes or no.

Conclusion 3: Most local, state and federal government elected officials currently in office have neither the vision nor the guts to face the reality of the above conclusions and take the necessary steps to correct the blatant inequities between the public and the private sectors. Come on, Diogenes, yes or no.

Conclusion 4: Something akin to a revolution will be necessary to bring government employment in line with the new financial realities. Come on, Diogenes, yes or no.

Prediction: A growing backlash of taxpayers against public sector workers is beginning and will grow to proportions not now imaginable by many taxpayers nor by ALL government workers. Showdown time is looming, and it ain’t gonna be pretty. Come on, Diogenes, yes or no.

The original Diogenes would suggest that evasion is more than subtle dishonesty. Prevarication is simply a lie wrapped in deflection.

I await your subtle response.

Cal Beverly
Publisher
The Citizen
Fayetteville, Ga. 30214

If Cal really cared about American workers, he would urge private employers to provide salaries and benefits comparable as to those in the public sector.

Public sector workers are TAXPAYERS. Do not try to create a war between "taxpayers" and public workers.

And if public sector jobs have such superior pay and benefits, why don't Cal and his friends apply for some of these jobs? Are they afraid they might not qualify?

lion

Would you like to posit a guess why Delta employees continue to vote "non-union"? Could it just be that they believe they are being treated fairly by their employer? Ever had to manage machines or lead people? I would guess you have not. And yes, there is a distinct difference.

I do not know why Delta employees vote the way they do. Maybe they think at the moment they are being treated fairly by their employer. Or maybe they fear losing their jobs.

The relationship between employees and employers must not be the same as that between serfs and lords. Employees have rights.

And yes I have managed and supervised people. I never presumed that those people were just pawns who must do simply as I dictate when it came to healthcare and other personal benefits.

lion

Observerofu's picture

Unlike most Public sector jobs in the private sector, Market determines value and profits determine wage not taxpayers dollars. It's easy for the Public Sector to pay more and offer better benefits. The Government get's their money from us. Whereas the private sector must actually DO something like produce goods.

"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt"
-Samuel Adams
Illegitimi non carborundum

We as a rule, do not "produce goods" any more! (small percentage do)

We serve each other mostly, just as the government workers serve us.

My thinking is not that all government workers are useless, but that there is simply too many of them. Many do a good job. Many do not.

It is easier for government workers to get pay and benefits such as health care and $ per hour than most private companies or corporations.

The government can simply borrow the money, approval OK, and many private companies can not as they usually can't borrow very much. Many are also mis-managed and have no money.

All of my employees are very happy, they have great pay and benefits with job security based on longevity and not performance. In my business we have no competition and don't have to show a profit, we show a large loss every year but are able to keep going because all we have to do is raise taxes....but wait...I'm confused..that's not me...that is government..like you said, why don't we all just work for the government, 1000 an hour minimum wage..woo-woo. Chant with me now..Obama!..Obama!..we love you! Keep backing the unions O, watch those poll numbers drop like a rock. -GP

Conclusion 3 is the primary problem. I agree with it.

Although taxes may need to be raised temporarily to support the prevention of a Depression, we also must become more efficient.

It is not the American way to allow corporations to do all of the laying off and government workers not to do so.
I hate to see the unemployment rate increase substantially by laying off more people. but increased taxes should be able to pay them unemployment and insurance until they are re-trained and re-hired.

We can't live with success with a 25% unemployment rate either!
We would then have the same kind of violence as the middle-east is having.

We made a mess over the last 10 years! Time to admit that. President Obama certainly didn't do all the destruction, and blaming him will not solve the problem.

Observerofu's picture

Prevarication incorrectly and create a topic to tell you just how wrong you are. He will say he was not dodging but speaking the truth, that is if you could ever discern just what it is he stands for. Especially when all he does is disagree instead of actually arguing a point.

"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt"
-Samuel Adams
Illegitimi non carborundum

PTC Observer's picture

"that is if you could ever discern just what it is he stands for."

Certainly by now you know what Bacon stands for.....

theft by taking

Observerofu's picture

I just like to see him duck and dodge the issues. Just like his last one with me. The issue was Margaret Sanger and instead of arguing his belief in Planned Parenthood he goes all word terminator trying to convince (me?) others I simply don't know what I am talking about because HE disagrees with a word use.

I started to share a letter from a good friend of mine who is a professor emeritus and a double PHD in English Literature and Psychology who thought bacon's response was both incorrect and a little disturbing, but then I thought why bother he would just say he was wrong too.

The real question is why is Bacon trolling topics from Sept of last year? I guess in his bid to be relevant he has to go poop all over anyone who predicted this was going to be an issue.

"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt"
-Samuel Adams
Illegitimi non carborundum

[quote=Observerofu]I just like to see him duck and dodge the issues. [/quote]
Ask your "double PhD" buddy about "psychological projection"...you've been doing that quite a bit of late.

[quote=Observerofu]Just like his last one with me. The issue was Margaret Sanger and instead of arguing his belief in Planned Parenthood he goes all word terminator trying to convince (me?) others I simply don't know what I am talking about because HE disagrees with a word use.[/quote]
Yes, DM and I were laughing at your reliance on a tin-foil hat site called "Black Genocide" to back up your specious "Sanger=racist" rant.

Then you went off on a tangent and said something spectacularly stupid, even for you: You claimed anyone disagreeing with something you supported was guilty of "ad hominem". I showed you the error of your ways, yet you persisted in claiming you were right. I started another thread to discuss your misuse of "ad hominem", at which time you complained about me starting another thread.

You are trying to have it both ways: I'm not allowed to debunk your lies in a particular thread becoz that's "changing the subject", and when I start another thread you complain about that. Make up your mind, little man.

It's also worth noting you refused to address the issues I raised in the "ad hominem" thread, it seems like you're not too keen on defending your own positions.

[quote=Observerofu]I started to share a letter from a good friend of mine who is a professor emeritus and a double PHD in English Literature and Psychology who thought bacon's response was both incorrect and a little disturbing, but then I thought why bother he would just say he was wrong too.[/quote]

Ah the ultimate "appeal to authority" logical fallacy! ooFU knows an expert PhD, you see, and this purported expert disagrees with ole Bacon, you see, but ooFU is not gonna share exactly what Doctor Literature disagrees with, we're supposed to take it on faith that ole Bacon is wrong!

[quote=Observerofu]The real question is why is Bacon trolling topics from Sept of last year? I guess in his bid to be relevant he has to go poop all over anyone who predicted this was going to be an issue.[/quote]

The real answer is right up there in paragraph 2 of the post entitled "the subtle dishonesty of Cal Beverly". I had read a news article yesterday about how Wisconsin state union employees are underpaid relative to the private sector, and it reminded me of this column. Therefore, I posted in this thread.

If you have any children still left at home who don't ride the short bus to school, perhaps they could dumb down my explanation to a level that even you could understand.

Observerofu's picture

and the responses you receive simply bare that out. Oh I am not going to pick your arguments apart sentence by sentence, doing so takes out of context the true and complete meaning of others comments.

I personally am just to busy being a productive member of society while you obviously have LOTS of time on your hands. Your's and DM's avid defense of the indefensible that were Sangers views on the "racial" issue was clear. A simple bing search finds hundreds of papers and sites dedicated to the horror that is your mentor and founder of Planned Parenthood.

You see unlike you I don't have to insert my opinion of her. Her views are well documented in the three books she wrote and many papers she authored.
You had to hide behind your Opinion and in fact that was the gist of your argument of the ad hominem defense. That your attack on the PRC was JUST your opinion so it couldn't be an attack since it was just your opinion after all.

Let me give you a little lesson in debating believe me you need it. You see Bacon it is really too easy to disarm your argument that Sanger didn't hold the views I stated. You see all anyone has to do is bing it. They can read it for themselves.

There are literally hundreds of sites and DOCUMENTS in her own words. Books she wrote stating such. Defending it as you and DM did is like peeing on the floor while trying to convince the rest of us it's only rain.

The better tactic would have been to say yes she had those views and as wrong as they were PPH has progressed from that sad beginning to encompass a more enlightened view and is fighting for the rights of women everywhere.

Right there you would have deflected my argument and forced me to take a different tack. Oh I had one ready mind you just in case you were intelligent enough to actually debate it, but obviously your vaunted secondary education didn't include critical thinking. Spent too much time in Sociology I guess.

btw-If I thought for one minute that you were capable of actually considering another's viewpoint beyond you're own I would share Docs response with you. It was truly entertaining the conclusions he drew from a sampling I sent him of your postings. Suffice it to say you got issues.

Unfortunately you have shown us over and over no matter how much information I and others provide you it simply is never enough.

Actually Doc said you were partly correct in that generally an opinion does not qualify as an ad hominem attack, however taking in toto your "opinions" that you originally stated as fact, until Hutch called you on it, does in fact stand as an ad hominem attack. You see bacon I tend to remember what you say in earlier postings and when I respond to you I take into account those postings, as well as, your current "opinion".

I do find it amusing that you use your "opinion" as a defense while calling everyone else a liar for expressing theirs.

"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt"
-Samuel Adams
Illegitimi non carborundum

So, people are to believe that I'm "wrong" somehow, just because you say so?

People are laughing at you, gOOFUs.

I categorically reject your opinion that Sanger was a racist who focused on black folks, mainly because your opinion is not supported by facts, a common occurrence with you. "Eugenicist" is not a synonym for "racist", no matter how much you really really want it to be.

I'm glad your psychologist is working with you to get through your issues, in any event. I'm also glad he explained to you, as I did, that having an opinion contrary to yours does not constitute an "ad hominem" attack. I realize you are fundamentally incapable of making an apology to me, perhaps your psychologist can work with you on that next.

Now, insofar as this "in toto" business goes, let's move beyond the obvious moving of goalposts fallacy here. I provided documentation to back up my claim. Deal with it. Your little bitch Hutch couldn't deal with it, he had to fall back on his stupid "You weren't there, you can't have an opinion on something!" defense (which you will note I linked him to his buddy Muddle's annihilation of that moronic argument). The simple fact of that debate was that I took a position that you, Hutch and Get Real didn't like, and the three of you tried to drown me out. Again, deal with it.

Your debate skills remain very poor, and you seem to have a fundamental inability to distinguish between fact and fiction....which is a nice way of saying you make stuff up (JeffC called you out again earlier today on another one of your lies....better go lay some ad hominem on him!).

I enjoy exposing your lack of intellectual depth and fundamental dishonesty, and will continue to do so in the future.

Observerofu's picture

Keep on keeping on there bacon we scoff at your supposed intellectual superiority.

btw-the fact that again you had to resort to insults instead of logic proves yet again just how intellectually deficient you really are.

Hutch is my "bitch"?? Seems like Hutch got the best of you and again you resort to the old tried and true bacon style tactic of insults and obfuscation.

Just for kicks and giggles one more time:

[quote=Chris P. Bacon]
Margaret Sanger was a proponent of eugenics in the 1920s. That's beyond a doubt. Nonetheless, you attempt to conflate her with the very worst elements of the eugenics movement, simply because it fits your preconceived political notions.

Margaret Sanger dedicated her life to providing birth control to everyone, but particularly low-income people who heretofore had little to no access to birth control. I realize that bigots like you tend to equate "low income" with "black". Margaret Sanger was not a racist. Unlike you.

People are laughing at you, bigot.

p.s. if your quote was not a quote, why did you use quotation marks? DERP![/quote]

"you attempt to conflate her with the very worst elements of the eugenics movement" uhh what were the good parts of eugenics bacon? You do know what eugenics is right. The NAZI'S were famous for it. So are you saying how she used it was good?

<strong>eu·gen·ics [ yoo jénniks ]
selective breeding as proposed human improvement: the proposed improvement of the human species by encouraging or permitting reproduction of only those people with genetic characteristics <cite>judged desirable.</cite> It has been regarded with disfavor since the Nazi period".</strong>

Oh about her being a racist bacon this from her Autobiography:

"I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the <strong>Ku Klux Klan</strong>...I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses...I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak...In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered." (Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, P.366)"

And yes I am saying if you are invited to speak and accept an invitation to a Klan rally and secure additional invites then you are a racist.

How you libs must hate the internet. Can't just go and say anything and get away with it anymore.

Oh btw-"if your quote was not a quote, why did you use quotation marks? DERP!" I didn't go back and look. DERP back at chaThat was you dummy.

[quote=Observerofu]Let's just control the inferior minorities. The weak and infirmed need not breed but if you do Planned Parenthood will be there for you.[/quote]

[quote=Chris P. Bacon]Hey Oofu, I have some bad news for ya, buddy.

Margaret Sanger never made the "inferior minorities" (aka "inferior races") quote you're alluding to. It appears that anti-birth control interests falsely attributed this fictional quote to her in the 1930s. Nearly 80 years on, bigots such as yourself still foist that lie upon a gullible public. <a href="http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/OppositionClaimsAboutMargare... False statements attributed to Margaret Sanger</a>

People here are laughing at you.[/quote]

Note no quotation marks in my post. So where you wrong or was it just an opinion? Uhh who is laughing at whom?

"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt"
-Samuel Adams
Illegitimi non carborundum

Bacon is an idiot and utter fool. I don't know why you bother with that man-child.

Observerofu's picture

Bacon provides a source of amusement. I admit breaking his arguments is a little too easy but what the heck a little lite mental exercise is good for all of us. 8-)

"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt"
-Samuel Adams
Illegitimi non carborundum

Soooo....Sanger was a racist because she addressed the Klan's ladies auxilliary? Using your patented guilt-by-association DERP logic, then, Ronald Reagan addressed the Soviet Union on multiple occasions, so that means he must be a communist! DERP DERP DERP! Amirite?

All together now: <strong>No, No, That's DIFFERENT!</strong>

Like when Hutch said that people can't criticize the Christian Predator Center volunteers until they'd met one personally. Gee Hutch, do you have to meet a child molester before you can criticize one?

<strong>No No, That's DIFFERENT!</strong>

Just this week, oofu, you were claiming that saying anything negative about a subject was an "ad hominem" attack. Is calling Hitler "evil" an ad hominem attack, oofu?

<strong>No No, That's DIFFERENT!</strong>

Hey....I'm starting to see a pattern here!

The Wedge's picture

would be "do you have to meet a child molester before you can criticize one" then one would say "I have it covered, because I met you!" Seriously though, let's chronicle some of your childishness: Changing people's screen names when quoting them-silly and telling about you. Quoting the cartoon South Park as some sort of excuse for dialogue. Calling people who volunteer at a voluntary clinic for pregnant people predators is also reprehensible. Are those Christians that work at food banks predators too? Have you ever considered that how you interact with others mocks God? just checking?

You seem to have forgotten that little Hutch already accused me of being a child molester for daring to call him out on his goofy "you have to know one to criticize one" schtick...not only that, but you <a href="http://www.thecitizen.com/blogs/cal-thomas/01-18-2011/liberal-empire-str... him for doing so (Remember "Well Said, Hutch")?</a>

So if you don't mind, take your situational sanctimony, shine it up real good, turn it sideways and stick it up your <strong>***EDITED AND WARNED***</strong>

Oh, and for the record, Christians working at food banks are doing the Lord's work. Christian Predators working at these so-called "pregnancy resource centers" are doing someone's work as well, but it's not the Lord's work.

The Wedge's picture

I had to go back and find the comment in question: [quote=Hutch] Well Joe, you've put little jagoff, boy, jammies, and suck all in the same post, I do believe you have some issues here, but I'll make you the same deal I made Bacon, I won't make any decisions about y'alls child molestation fantasies until you get caught and convicted. You and Bacon seem to be more alike then you know, in fact I think the only difference is your politics. You both will say anything on the boards, but not in person,of course I don't know how you are around little boys,but I bet you're real tough then [/quote]

Here is the part that you have to have a bit of intelligence and discernment to follow my train of thoughts you can see what I thought was well said. [quote=Wedge]Well Said: I have placed these commentators and blogists across the political spectrum as not really worth reading anymore: Kawfi, Roundabout/Bonkers, Bacon/Sniffles. They are so much alike and I find that I really do not desire to ever meet them socially. Although they bluster and are less offensive in person--at least Bacon anyway [/quote]

Only the foolish or terminally mentally ill would assume that I thought that suggesting that you may be a "predator" would come from what I wrote. Now how is what Hutch said any different than you calling volunteers at a pregnancy shelter "predators"? You certainly aren't shy about intimating sexual disfunction, hence what you keep classlessly throwing at me. I get such a kick out of how you think that you are the smartest person on these blogs without having any knowledge about the rest of us. You certainly seem to have to compensate for something, there brother.... and no I do not use the term much except for my actual brother.

It gladdens my liberal heart tremendously to see you backpedal so furiously!

The fact remains you were egging little Hutch on with your "Well Said!" commentary.

Your attempt to conflate my calling the center employees "predators" with Hutch referring to me as a "child molester" is a laughable misdirection ploy.

Anyone who read my original commentary would have deduced that I was referring to those volunteers as predators in the sense that carnivorous animals feast on weakened, easy prey. There was absolutely no sexual innuendo there, a fact that you well know.

It's becoming fairly apparent to me that you're not a person who stands behind what they say. As such, why not do us both a favor and follow your own advice about ignoring me? You've made a big deal out of threatening to do so for a couple of weeks now, why not follow the lead of your buddy AtHomeGyno and pretend to ignore me?

You can still lob a cheap shot at me from time to time when you think I'm not looking (just like AHG) and remind everyone that you're ignoring me and pretend that you're still a manly man (again, just like AHG).

The Wedge's picture

you vast assitude sometimes. I am not sure where I backpedaled but I am pretty much done with this chain, I will let the other readers decide fault here. You are something else for a mid fifties white pudgy dude with a lot of time to blog and spew and not much else to recommend to the casual observor. You are not that impressive on any level. I have seen lots of your type as failures in my professional career. cheers to you :)))

I appreciate your latest steamin hot batch of ad hominem, yet I would remind you as I did the other day that hatin' on me won't make you any more successful, you wife any prettier or your children any smarter.

I'm quite comfortable in my own skin here, and thankfully don't need to rely upon the words of other bloggers to validate my own sense of self worth.

I've come to realize that there will always be a subset of beta males such as yourself and little Hutch on these message boards, guys who are loath to go on record with their own opinions on issues of the day but who are nonetheless all too willing to proffer meta-commentary and criticisms of those of us not scared to have an opinion.

I've enjoyed your passive-aggressive non-sequiturs nonetheless, as well as your "situational sanctimony" that holds that I don't measure up to your exacting standards....standards, I would point out, that you don't seem to apply to yourself.

But then, "double standards" seem to be a way of life for many Citizen right wingers here.

gOOFUs and the gang will be along sometime later this morning to succor your butthurt.

Observerofu's picture

I think someone here has lost their mind or heavy into the Jack Daniels.;-)

Spin on Bacon. Like I said your Moniker Bacon fits all fat and no meat.

You know bacon you are becoming sad. Jumping topics while using edited versions of what was said to justify your ego is really sad. The Hitler remark really bacon? Why did you not post the entire remark not just your edited version?
You speak of my need to "get the last word in" well maybe you are correct, or it just may be my compulsion to confront stupidity when I read it.

More food for the fodder:

- Margaret Sanger, October 1926 Birth Control Review .
"[Slavs, Latin, and Hebrew immigrants are] human weeds ... a
deadweight of human waste ... [Blacks, soldiers, and Jews are a] menace to
the race."
"Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need ... We must prevent
Multiplication of this bad stock."

and just for the fun of it. I mean she was such a great person and all:

"Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review.

[Our objective is] unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children ... [Women must have the right] to live ... to love ... to be lazy ... to be an unmarried mother ... to create ... to destroy ... <cite>The marriage bed is the most degenerative influence in the social order</cite> ... <strong>The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."</strong>

Interest read from someone on the inside:

http://www.civilrightsfoundation.org/pdfs/tolbert_plannedparenthood_targ...

"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt"
-Samuel Adams
Illegitimi non carborundum

Both of your "quotes" above show up in this article <a href="http://www.plannedparenthoodnj.org/library/topic/contraception/margaret_... Statements That Distort or Misquote Margaret Sanger</a>

One completely fabricated quote.
One quote taken deliberately out of context.
Par for the course for you, I'd say.

Observerofu's picture

Oh no Planned Parenthood isn't backing away from their founder.
I just <strong>actually used her own words</strong> but then again I can't blame PPH from disavowing their Eugenics past.

Bacon it also appears you are spreading eevvilll rumors about your mentor.

[quote=Chris P. Bacon]
Margaret Sanger was a proponent of eugenics in the 1920s. That's beyond a doubt. Nonetheless, you attempt to conflate her with the very worst elements of the eugenics movement, simply because it fits your preconceived political notions. [/quote]

From your site PPH.
"<cite>Sanger's critics attempt to discredit them by intentionally confusing her views on <strong>"fitness"</strong> with eugenics, racism, and anti-Semitism. <Strong>Margaret Sanger was not a racist, an anti-Semite, or a eugenicist."</strong></cite>

Oh yeah Margaret Sanger was just the Richard Simmons of her time.

Seems like you progressive types need to get your story together. You say she was I say she was but your site said she wasn't?

But don't worry about it. Your site just makes claims without documenting any evidence of it so you're safe with me buddy.

btw- What were those good sides of Eugenics that she practiced? Just wondering.

"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt"
-Samuel Adams
Illegitimi non carborundum

[quote=Observerofu]Oh no Planned Parenthood isn't backing away from their founder.
I just <strong>actually used her own words</strong> but then again I can't blame PPH from disavowing their Eugenics past.[/quote]

You not only used her own words (more often than not out of context), but you've cut-n-pasted entirely fabricated quotes too! Of course, fabrication is a recurring theme in your life.....

[quote=Observerofu]From your site PPH.
"<cite>Sanger's critics attempt to discredit them by intentionally confusing her views on <strong>"fitness"</strong> with eugenics, racism, and anti-Semitism. <Strong>Margaret Sanger was not a racist, an anti-Semite, or a eugenicist."</strong></cite>

Oh yeah Margaret Sanger was just the Richard Simmons of her time. [/quote]

I saw that too! Did a bit of research and golly, it seems Sanger wasn't quite the demon you made her out to be! People like you were whining about Sanger being a racist, anti-Semite, etc...but the reality is a bit more nuanced. When Nazis began burning books, Sanger was one of the first authors put to the torch. Why was that? Because Sanger advocated <strong>maximum choice for the individual woman</strong> with regard to birth control. This, of course, was anathema to the Nazis. Abortion was legalized for Jews and those the Nazis considered "undesirables", yet strictly verboten for nice blonde Aryan women.

Classical eugenicists single out entire races, yet Sanger spent her whole life agitating for the reproductive rights of the individual woman, regardless of race or religion. This makes a mockery of your sophomoric "Sanger=racist" claims.

I'm therefore revising my opinion of Sanger. I now believe Sanger was an "elitist" more than a "eugenicist".

As an aside, the fact that I am willing to revise my opinion when given new information relevant to the subject. That's what sets me apart from you, a person who mislearns basic facts (2+2=5! DERP!) and insists on clinging to them, long after they've been disproven.

[quote=Observerofu]btw- What were those good sides of Eugenics that she practiced? Just wondering.[/quote] Birth control and voluntary sterilization.

Observerofu's picture

Keep digging bacon. Love the tenacity.

"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt"
-Samuel Adams
Illegitimi non carborundum

[quote]Note no quotation marks in my post. So where you wrong or was it just an opinion? Uhh who is laughing at whom?[/quote]

Many are laughing at your incorrect perception of your intellectual superiority when you won't even take time to check your use of words. (were/where). Move on lady/gentleman. This topic has been 'discussed' to death.

Observerofu's picture

if you are tired then move on.

"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt"
-Samuel Adams
Illegitimi non carborundum

hutch866's picture

Yet again, I invite you to say something like that to my face.

I yam what I yam

Ordinarily I would not say anything about comments directed at you, but this one is obviously from someone who is beyond the pale on their conversation.

He of course is talking about small groups here who gang up on him and others, but that is easy to recognize, and doesn't warrant such vile sexuality speaking.

I would think that he would appreciate all of the attention, and maybe he does!

As some here say about me: ignore the moron; liberal crackpot; wanders around; etc., may be good advice here also!

It is not the disagreement with others thoughts that are the problem here, it is gutter insults.

Pages

Ad space area 4 internal

Sponsored Content

Sports

The Starr's Mill High Schools Pantherettes dance team had a great week at UDA Camp at Auburn University earlier this summer.

Lifestyle

Today, low-income Coweta County patients are receiving increased access to healthcare services through the installation of electronic medical records at the Coweta Samaritan Clinic.