In response to:

Shed a Tear for those Under-Appreciated Bureaucrats Who Get Lavish Pensions and Live in $700K Homes

FairnessMan Wrote: Mar 02, 2013 3:48 PM
Kinda like retired teachers and cops in New Jersey, especially if two of them are married. Talk about the good, the very, very, very good life, on the taxpayer's dime. Combined pension of AT LEAST $150K per year long before age 65 and free gold plated health care for life. Talk about winning the lottery!
Corbett_ Wrote: Mar 02, 2013 9:33 PM
On the other hand, they WORKED at a job for years to get those retirements. Yet YOU have the effrontery to call them thieves.
alopekos teumesios Wrote: Mar 02, 2013 9:42 PM
So what putz! That doesn't change the fact that public sector unions work in concert with politicians to skin the taxpayers so that the politicians can have a reliable voting block of government employees. The problem is that there is no adversarial relationship between union and management like there is when labor negotiations take place in the private sector.
Corbett_ Wrote: Mar 02, 2013 9:51 PM
I agree that there should be no public sector unions. But a contract is a contract. My point is that so-called "Fairness man" called people thieves when they worked for years to fulfill their end of a contract. You may argue that the contract should never have been written and I will agree. But you cannot call a man a thief for getting the best contract he can get & then doing the work to fulfill his end of it.
alopekos teumesios Wrote: Mar 02, 2013 4:13 PM
No sh!t. Many of the McMansions around my Gloucester County neighborhood are occupied by just such couples.
FairnessMan Wrote: Mar 02, 2013 4:48 PM
There should be a special hotter place in hell for thieves like them that don't even realize or appreciate what they have - living LARGE on the efforts of the poor slobs with real jobs. And ditto on the McMansions in North Jersey.

When I first read this story in the Washington Post about supposedly under-appreciated federal bureaucrats, I was tempted to focus on the sentence referring to “the sledgehammer of budget cuts scheduled to hit today.”

Is the Washington Post so biased and/or clueless that reporters really think that a 1.2 percent reduction in overall spending for the current fiscal year (which means the federal budget would still be larger than...