Public Employee Unions Must Be Crushed !

[999969999]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/protestors-state-capitol-wisconsin/story?id=12947666

These people are ridiculous! They have job security, decent wages, excellent health and retirement benefits, and when they are asked to contribute a tiny amount of their wages to help pay for their benefits, so the state can balance its budget, they take to the streets and riot.

Their unions need to be crushed!

And the Democrats in their state government are such chickens, they can't stand to face a vote that they know they will lose because they are now outnumbered by Republicans, that they flee to another state to prevent the vote from going forward. Imagine the outrage if Republicans pulled a stunt like that?

[clocker]

The state(s) made promises and signed contracts.
They then proceeded to underpay the funds that were supposed to guarantee their promises.
So, how is this the fault of the unions?

[devilsadvocate]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/protestors-state-capitol-wisconsin/story?id=12947666

These people are ridiculous! They have job security, decent wages, excellent health and retirement benefits, and when they are asked to contribute a tiny amount of their wages to help pay for their benefits, so the state can balance its budget, they take to the streets and riot.

I think it's important to look at the actual reason for the protests and not a "point of view" version. ( it's becoming the anti union version of "they hate us for our freedoms"). As far as I'm aware there was a lot of give on the reduced benefits, the reason for the protests is the arbitrary doing away with collective bargaining. This has nothing to do with budget savings and everything to do with personal vendettas. It's worth noting that it only applied to certain unions. The police and firefighters unions that supported the governor in the elections are exempt.
To be fair the bill asks everyone but the legislator to take cuts. The state workers must take pay and benefit cuts and the wealthy must take a tax cut.

Their unions need to be crushed!

I've never been a union member, but I never understood what it is they are supposed to have done that's so evil. Is it workplace safety? improvement in worker conditions? Why shouldn't workers have the freedom to organize? Was there a major union problem with walkouts?

And the Democrats in their state government are such chickens, they can't stand to face a vote that they know they will lose because they are now outnumbered by Republicans, that they flee to another state to prevent the vote from going forward. Imagine the outrage if Republicans pulled a stunt like that?

This is the state version of the filibuster/cloture we have seen since Obama took power and to be honest I'm amazed the tea party people aren't happy about it as it's their dream of a government, or at least a legislative, shutdown.

I would have more respect for all these ideological cutbacks if the lawmakers led by example and started with their own pay and benefits.

[Snee]

People who aren't rich wanting a decent standard of living? Why I've never heard the like! The nerve.

[clocker]

The problems in Wisconsin are but the latest- and not surprisingly, the most obvious- attempts at breaking down the middle class even further.
Ever since Reagan- remember, one of his most famous moves was busting the air traffic controller union- it has been the desire of corporate America (and therefore a primary goal of the right) to completely disenfranchise the middle class and facilitate even faster transfer of wealth into the upper 1% of Americans.

We're not entering into class warfare, we've already lost the battle.

[megabyteme]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/protestors-state-capitol-wisconsin/story?id=12947666

These people are ridiculous! They have job security, decent wages, excellent health and retirement benefits, and when they are asked to contribute a tiny amount of their wages to help pay for their benefits, so the state can balance its budget, they take to the streets and riot.

Their unions need to be crushed!

And the Democrats in their state government are such chickens, they can't stand to face a vote that they know they will lose because they are now outnumbered by Republicans, that they flee to another state to prevent the vote from going forward. Imagine the outrage if Republicans pulled a stunt like that?

Spoken like someone who has never worked for someone like you.

[999969999]

Am I the only one who sees what's wrong with this?

The only way to bring deficit government spending down is to bust these unions so that the government can adjust the salary and benefits of its employees to get them back down to where spending matches revenue.

Private businesses can't just print more money or ask for more bailouts when revenues fall. They have to adjust their budgets and fire people and reduce the salaries of remaining employees until they can get back to where their income matches or exceeds their expenditures.

Why shouldn't government be expected to do the same thing?

Why should government employees expect to continue making more money than their private business counterparts, and have better health benefits and retirement benefits than their private counterparts?

A lot of the people who are protesting are teachers. I would love to see every state have a voucher system, where parents would be free to send their kids to private schools using the amount of money the state pays per pupil at public schools. It may not completely pay for a Catholic school education, but it would come close, and the parents could make up the difference and get a much better education for their kids than what the public schools currently offer.

Suddenly public schools would have to get off their asses and compete with Catholic schools for students.

That would solve most of our education problems with lousy teachers and lazy administrators.

Back to unions... as we can see with our current trade deficit, even private sector unions get wages and benefits so high that we can't compete with the rest of the world in manufacturing. We need to destroy all the unions-- both public and private-- and get rid of the E.P.A., get rid of the Sierra Club, and we could start bringing back a large amount of manufacturing jobs to this country.

[megabyteme]

Back to unions... as we can see with our current trade deficit, even private sector unions get wages and benefits so high that we can't compete with the rest of the world in manufacturing. We need to destroy all the unions-- both public and private-- and get rid of the E.P.A., get rid of the Sierra Club, and we could start bringing back a large amount of manufacturing jobs to this country.

I remember, not too long ago, you talking about how poor individuals could work hard, get educated, and succeed by getting better jobs. Now, you want to destroy those $30k/year jobs that require $100k in education to get. Without guaranteed (good) benefits, you aren't going to attract any good teachers to your already struggling public education system. Not to mention, vouchering away needed resources to private schools.

You are trying to balance budget by cutting one of the most sensitive, already stripped sectors. Teachers are not sinking the state(s) with their marginal salaries, and moderate benefits. Look elsewhere.

And unions (are supposed to) protect the "little guy" from broken promises, poor working conditions, and abuse. Without the unions, these teachers would have the option of abandoning their students, or eating the shit administrators want to feed them. Contracts are necessary because people/entities lie, cheat, and cut budgets. :ermm:

[clocker]

Am I the only one who sees what's wrong with this?

The only way to bring deficit government spending down is to bust these unions so that the government can adjust the salary and benefits of its employees to get them back down to where spending matches revenue.

You know Spanky that what the bloviators of FoxNews aren't telling you is that Scott Walker created the Wisconsin budget deficit by giving away yet more corporate tax breaks and incentives.
He started with a budget SURPLUS.
Busting unions- which is exactly what this is all about- is NOT the only cure for deficit spending...raising corporate taxes would solve the problem.
Actually, turns out that 60% of all corporations in Wisconsin pay no taxes at all...perhaps just closing those loopholes would help, eh?

Of particular interest is the support shown the protesters by police and firemen, both explicitly and cynically excluded from the Rethug demands in an effort to turn the middle class upon itself and deflect scrutiny from the real actors.

9, you simply have a very feeble and malformed idea of what's going on here.

[999969999]

In an effort to have civil discourse, let's read what the horribly evil bill-- a bill so evil that Democrats don't want to even give the legislature (which was elected by the majority of voters, remember?) a chance to vote on it-- has to say...

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/JR1SB-11.pdf

Hmmm... government workers will now have the freedom to choose whether or not they want to join a union, and rather than the union dues coming out of their paycheck, they have the freedom to choose whether or not they want to pay them. How evil! That is truly worthy of all these protests and shutting down the government and denying the voice of the majority of voters. Hmmm.... isn't that what representative government is all about? The majority of voters get to be represented and have their voices heard? Or is that only true when Democrats are in the majority?

It seems that the only time Democrats like freedom of choice is when it involves killing unborn children. That is somehow a good thing. But giving government workers the right to choose is horribly evil and must be stopped.

[clocker]

Quit talking about the "will of the voters".
Poll after poll have shown that the majority of Wisconsin citizens DO NOT support Walker in this fight.
The Koch brothers DO support Walker because he wants to sell off power plants- in "no-bid" sales- to them at bargain basement prices.

By the way, it's nice you want to be civil, now let's try being informed as well.

[999969999]

Back to unions... as we can see with our current trade deficit, even private sector unions get wages and benefits so high that we can't compete with the rest of the world in manufacturing. We need to destroy all the unions-- both public and private-- and get rid of the E.P.A., get rid of the Sierra Club, and we could start bringing back a large amount of manufacturing jobs to this country.


You are trying to balance budget by cutting one of the most sensitive, already stripped sectors. Teachers are not sinking the state(s) with their marginal salaries, and moderate benefits. Look elsewhere.



I'm not sure about Wisconsin's budget per se, but in Arizona, K-12 education takes up the majority of the state's budget. They are sinking our state. This is what happens when we import hundreds of thousands of extremely poor people, who depress wages, don't pay income taxes, and then take, take, take from government services, including schools.

Something has to give.

Socialism just doesn't work.

[999969999]

Quit talking about the "will of the voters".
Poll after poll have shown that the majority of Wisconsin citizens DO NOT support Walker in this fight.
The Koch brothers DO support Walker because he wants to sell off power plants- in "no-bid" sales- to them at bargain basement prices.

By the way, it's nice you want to be civil, now let's try being informed as well.

Hello? Have you heard of representative government? Elections have consequences.

Or does it only matter when Democrats are in the majority?

When Democrats shoved Obamacare down our throats, the Republicans didn't pull a stunt like this.

[mjmacky]

Hello? Have you heard of representative government? Elections have consequences.

Or does it only matter when Democrats are in the majority?

When Democrats shoved Obamacare down our throats, the Republicans didn't pull a stunt like this.

Didn't a bunch of state politicians flee Texas about 10 years ago to prevent a vote? Were they republicans? This isn't the first time something like this happened.

Also, you don't have socialism. You have social aspects of governing, such as education and emergency response (sans medical). Also, your specific state's budget problem is way oversimplified in your description of it. That slightly greater than 50 % of the budget also includes state post secondary education spending. Your statement implies primary/secondary schools should be mostly privatized.

[clocker]

Hello? Have you heard of representative government? Elections have consequences.

Facts have consequences too, and no matter how many lies you propagate or how loudly you shout them, reality does not change.
Wisconsin's budget problems have absolutely NOTHING to do with union workers pensions.
The state's pension funding was 99.8% in place- fourth best performance in the nation- and was fine for the next 30 years.
In fact, transferring management of the fund from bankers back to state employees would save another $135 mill or so but that would piss off Wall Street and Walker is averse to that also.

BTW
After the lock-step refusal of Republicans to consider ANY of Obama's legislation from 2008 through 2010, you've lost the right to say "elections have consequences" now and forever.

[megabyteme]

You are trying to balance budget by cutting one of the most sensitive, already stripped sectors. Teachers are not sinking the state(s) with their marginal salaries, and moderate benefits. Look elsewhere.



I'm not sure about Wisconsin's budget per se, but in Arizona, K-12 education takes up the majority of the state's budget. They are sinking our state. This is what happens when we import hundreds of thousands of extremely poor people, who depress wages, don't pay income taxes, and then take, take, take from government services, including schools.

Something has to give.

Socialism just doesn't work.

Please clarify- is it the teachers, or the "hundreds of thousands of poor" who are sinking the state? :unsure: You seem to be grinding your anti-Mexican axe again, but want to take it out on the teachers. Is it because teachers are all "socialist"? :o

[clocker]

Socialism just doesn't work.
Again you demonstrate a sad lack of knowledge.
Pensions are not "socialism".
Pensions and health benefits are part of the deal that the state made with teachers...you work for less (compared with comparably educated people in the private sector) and the payoff is a pension and health care.
It's a capitalist contract through and through.

[999969999]

Hello? Have you heard of representative government? Elections have consequences.

Or does it only matter when Democrats are in the majority?

When Democrats shoved Obamacare down our throats, the Republicans didn't pull a stunt like this.

Didn't a bunch of state politicians flee Texas about 10 years ago to prevent a vote? Were they republicans? This isn't the first time something like this happened.

Also, you don't have socialism. You have social aspects of governing, such as education and emergency response (sans medical). Also, your specific state's budget problem is way oversimplified in your description of it. That slightly greater than 50 % of the budget also includes state post secondary education spending. Your statement implies primary/secondary schools should be mostly privatized.

10 years ago? How would I know? I was going here back then... http://www.elks.net/_IS/is.asp

I can tell you that I've never heard of anything like this ever happening before. It's certainly not the way our representative government is supposed to function. They should show up and do their job... vote. That would be respecting the will of the voters, who this time around put a Republican majority in power.

I think Joseph Stalin and Vladimir Lenin would be in favor of unions. I think they are more socialistic than capitalistic.

[clocker]

Someday 9, what you "think" and reality will intersect and boy, will you be embarrassed by these posts.

[999969999]

Hello? Have you heard of representative government? Elections have consequences.

Facts have consequences too, and no matter how many lies you propagate or how loudly you shout them, reality does not change.
Wisconsin's budget problems have absolutely NOTHING to do with union workers pensions.
The state's pension funding was 99.8% in place- fourth best performance in the nation- and was fine for the next 30 years.
In fact, transferring management of the fund from bankers back to state employees would save another $135 mill or so but that would piss off Wall Street and Walker is averse to that also.

BTW
After the lock-step refusal of Republicans to consider ANY of Obama's legislation from 2008 through 2010, you've lost the right to say "elections have consequences" now and forever.

Just as liberals do not like freedom of choice when it comes to unions-- you know, freedom to join a union or to not join a union, freedom to pay union dues or not pay union dues, freedom to make these choices without being bullied by organized crime thugs, er I mean union bosses...--- liberals don't like freedom of speech, either, when it comes to this issue. Yes, elections do have consequences. The Democrats run away from their responisibilities like frightened little girls. The Republicans were outnumber for two years, but they showed up and voted, and then lost the vote, and had things like Obamacare shoved down their throats. Now Republicans are in power in certain areas and rather than respecting our representative government, the Democrats act like a bunch of chickens. I hope the voters remember this in 2012.

[clocker]

See post #19, it still applies.

[megabyteme]

Just as liberals do not like freedom of choice when it comes to unions-- you know, freedom to join a union or to not join a union, freedom to pay union dues or not pay union dues, freedom to make these choices without being bullied by organized crime thugs, er I mean union bosses...--- liberals don't like freedom of speech, either, when it comes to this issue. Yes, elections do have consequences. The Democrats run away from their responisibilities like frightened little girls. The Republicans were outnumber for two years, but they showed up and voted, and then lost the vote, and had things like Obamacare shoved down their throats. Now Republicans are in power in certain areas and rather than respecting our representative government, the Democrats act like a bunch of chickens. I hope the voters remember this in 2012.

You seem awfully young to have suffered a stroke, but I am beginning to believe it more, and more, likely with each post you make.

[999969999]

Someday 9, what you "think" and reality will intersect and boy, will you be embarrassed by these posts.

You sound like my grandparents. They told me that since they are paying for my entire college education, including room and board, and transportation, they expect me to "stop being silly" and to not get involved in anything political for the next four years. The only extra-curricular activities they want me involved in at the University of Oregon are sports, and that's it.

[clocker]

Have you explained to them that parroting Faux is not "getting involved in politics"?
That might work.

[devilsadvocate]

Someday 9, what you "think" and reality will intersect and boy, will you be embarrassed by these posts.

You sound like my grandparents. They told me that since they are paying for my entire college education, including room and board, and transportation,
It seems you think bragging about your freeloading life is going to impress someone.

I know I've said it before, but how about you put your money where your mouth (ideology) is and pay for your own education?

I can't speak for Clocker's exact point, but for myself I feel most of what you "think" shows a lack of basic historic knowledge of the subjects on which you opine.

[j2k4]

The liberal movement and it's unions are living in the pre-climate-change past.

Time to ante-up, ya'all; time to contribute for all the entitlements you wanted, so long as you didn't have to pay for them.

Also, we need some cash for defense.

[bigboab]

The liberal movement and it's unions are living in the pre-climate-change past.

Time to ante-up, ya'all; time to contribute for all the entitlements you wanted, so long as you didn't have to pay for them.

Also, we need some cash for defense.

Why, is de fence falling down?

You should have prepared for the democrats being elected and and made sure you qualified for all the 'freebies'.

[clocker]

The union "entitlements" (a totally fallacious term, BTW) are/were fully funded...they had absolutely nothing to do with Wisconsin's budget crisis.
If you're looking for who is exploiting "entitlements", look no further than the corporations who operate in the state, 60% of whom pay no taxes at all.

All the whining from the right about unions is nothing more than an attempt to destroy the Democratic money base (unions being a large contributor to Democratic candidates) and pave the way for the right to simply take over.

[j2k4]

The liberal movement and it's unions are living in the pre-climate-change past.

Time to ante-up, ya'all; time to contribute for all the entitlements you wanted, so long as you didn't have to pay for them.

Also, we need some cash for defense.

Why, is de fence falling down?

You should have prepared for the democrats being elected and and made sure you qualified for all the 'freebies'.


The union "entitlements" (a totally fallacious term, BTW) are/were fully funded...they had absolutely nothing to do with Wisconsin's budget crisis.
If you're looking for who is exploiting "entitlements", look no further than the corporations who operate in the state, 60% of whom pay no taxes at all.

All the whining from the right about unions is nothing more than an attempt to destroy the Democratic money base (unions being a large contributor to Democratic candidates) and pave the way for the right to simply take over.

Your postage is obsolete.

Dems are still in charge, but their mis-behaviors have done them in.

Color us 'post-Alinsky'.

[clocker]

After all this time you came back to be obtuse?
Can you tell me exactly how the public employee union was hurting Wisconsin?
Can you explain why, after the unions already agreed to Walker's financial demands, that he still insists on gutting them?

I'm betting Walker gets recalled after the one year grace period is over.

[j2k4]

After all this time you came back to be obtuse?
Can you tell me exactly how the public employee union was hurting Wisconsin?
Can you explain why, after the unions already agreed to Walker's financial demands, that he still insists on gutting them?

I'm betting Walker gets recalled after the one year grace period is over.

Don't mean to be obtuse, but then, I suppose neither did you, a while back.

What's this about a "grace period".

You can ask all the questions you want; after all, you have the Senate and the executive.

[clocker]

I'm betting Walker gets recalled after the one year grace period is over.



What's this about a "grace period".


Wisconsin law doesn't allow for a recall vote till the officer has been in office for a year.

[999969999]

This video does a nice job of presenting the conservative argument against public employee unions...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=je3UT7ol1JY&feature=player_embedded

[999969999]

For liberals, freedom of speech and freedom of the press only apply to the liberal media. They don't want any other views expressed. They really should stop using the "liberal" name, because they are anything but open-minded...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JSZ53XUTqc&feature=player_embedded

[devilsadvocate]

For liberals, freedom of speech and freedom of the press only apply to the liberal media. They don't want any other views expressed. They really should stop using the "liberal" name, because they are anything but open-minded...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JSZ53XUTqc&feature=player_embedded

So private citizens yelling "tell the truth" is preventing first amendment rights? (do you even know what the 1st. amendment does?)

Do you want to be told the truth or do you want to be told a viewpoint?

Does the first amendment mean everyone has to shut up so your viewpoint can be told?

Should Sarah Palin be allowed to bar the press from her events? After all it is as you say a "free press"

As for the content of the clip. Has this "doctor" been found, was it a real doctor? was it actually a union supporter or was it one of Mark Williams "plants"?

You see reporters, REAL reporters, look for facts and report facts, not viewpoints.

[j2k4]

You see reporters, REAL reporters, look for facts and report facts, not viewpoints.

Which "real reporters" do you favor?

[devilsadvocate]

For liberals, freedom of speech and freedom of the press only apply to the liberal media. They don't want any other views expressed. They really should stop using the "liberal" name, because they are anything but open-minded...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JSZ53XUTqc&feature=player_embedded

Did you think it's unique? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1Ntu7Aapys) Do you have a problem with these guys?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1Ntu7Aapys

[devilsadvocate]

you[/I] favor? ANY reporter that sticks to facts and not opinion or speculation. Which do you favor?

[mjmacky]

The person (with the numbers) obviously listens to some preferred opinions and takes them as fact, there's obviously no room for intelligent conversation here. Those kinds of people find real information confusing, and have a hard time differentiating between a reporter and a commentator, commentary being the useless trash that everyone gets excited over.

[clocker]

9 simply lacks the experience to view issues through different frameworks.
For instance:
-The right would prefer that a Wisconsin worker look at his union peers and say, "Heath insurance? Benefits and pension? I don't have that, why should they?"
-The left would have them ask, "Heath insurance? Benefits and pension? I want that too, how can I get them?"

The right's obsession with deficits (which is a problem they created...the national debt grew greatest under Republican rule) is presented as a totally black>white, cut-n-dried proposition...we spend more than we take in, therefore we can only respond by cutting services to save money.
Somehow the obvious second option- we spend more than we take in, so let's take in more- is never proposed.

For all the Chicken Little histrionics over taxes, the fact is that we are paying the lowest effective tax rate since the 1950's.
The problem is that the taxes we pay don't result in tangible benefits for the average American (and that Republicans don't believe that corporations should pay taxes at all).
We used to get nice things like the Interstate Highway System and Hoover Dam and libraries and water treatment plants...stuff you could see and that enhanced the quality of your life.

Republicans prefer to spend taxes on projecting our military into the world.
Remove Iraq and Afghanistan from our spending and the "deficit problem" disappears.

Another Republican tactic relies on insulating their core supporters from the effects of their stated beliefs.
Note that every Republican warns of the horrible drain on the budget by "entitlements"- Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid- and how we must "tighten our belts" and "make sacrifices".
Yeah, everybody has to chip in...except those already receiving the largess, mostly older, white folks, the very core of the Republican base.
They get to keep theirs, which makes it a lot easier to say "fuck you" to everyone else.
Be interesting to confront the typical Tea Party rabble and say, "Yup, SS, Medicare and Medicaid are killing us financially so we're all going to lose 15% of our benefits immediately, we're going to restrict access to health providers and we're going to phase the whole system down.
Starting NOW.
For EVERYBODY".

<crickets>

As the truism says, "Republicans believe that government is bad and they get elected so they can prove it".

[devilsadvocate]

9 simply lacks the experience to view issues through different frameworks.


Nearly everything he posts is almost verbatim of any generic talk radio host or blogger on any given day. I don't have an issue with that, but he does often lack the ability or will to explain the thinking behind his statements.
I still haven't made up my mind about him. Is he what we see or is he a parody? :shifty:

[j2k4]

As the truism says, "Republicans believe that government is bad and they get elected so they can prove it".

I always thought that line was downright clever, however stale and - I mean, once everyone's heard it...ten times...in a day...

[clocker]

Kev, it bears repeating because it's true.

[megabyteme]

Is he what we see or is he a parody?

I often think he's a parody. Which works out nicely for the board, since J2 seldom has anyone else to side with him. :D

[clocker]

I often think he's a parody. Which works out nicely for the board, since J2 seldom has anyone else to side with him. :D
It's unclear if j2 is "on his side" or not.
In fact, it's hard to tell what side Kev is on lately...he's been unusually vague of late.

[999969999]

9 simply lacks the experience to view issues through different frameworks.
For instance:
-The right would prefer that a Wisconsin worker look at his union peers and say, "Heath insurance? Benefits and pension? I don't have that, why should they?"

Yes, I admit that I do feel this way.


-The left would have them ask, "Heath insurance? Benefits and pension? I want that too, how can I get them?"

Why can't people be expected to pay for their own health insurance and save for their own retirement? Go back to the 1800s and when people got sick, they either paid for a doctor to see them or did without healthcare alltogether. And that gave them an incentive to take care of their own health-- eat right, stay in shape, or die. Fast forward to today and we got all these fucking lardasses who are too lazy to exercise, and they eat like pigs, and then get fat and then get sick, and then want everyone to pay for their illnesses. I'm sorry, but I'm not responsible for what they did and I refuse to pay for their mistakes. If they knew there was no safety net, maybe they would take better care of themselves. And they used to have to save up for their latter years or face starvation or move in with their kids. That gave them an incentive to save back some money.


The right's obsession with deficits (which is a problem they created...the national debt grew greatest under Republican rule) is presented as a totally black>white, cut-n-dried proposition...we spend more than we take in, therefore we can only respond by cutting services to save money.
Somehow the obvious second option- we spend more than we take in, so let's take in more- is never proposed.

Do you want to pay more taxes? I don't.

For all the Chicken Little histrionics over taxes, the fact is that we are paying the lowest effective tax rate since the 1950's.
The problem is that the taxes we pay don't result in tangible benefits for the average American (and that Republicans don't believe that corporations should pay taxes at all).
We used to get nice things like the Interstate Highway System and Hoover Dam and libraries and water treatment plants...stuff you could see and that enhanced the quality of your life.

Republicans prefer to spend taxes on projecting our military into the world.
Remove Iraq and Afghanistan from our spending and the "deficit problem" disappears.

I agree with you. I would like to cut military spending down to a merely defensive posture. Close all the foreign bases, and just protect the United States.

Another Republican tactic relies on insulating their core supporters from the effects of their stated beliefs.
Note that every Republican warns of the horrible drain on the budget by "entitlements"- Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid- and how we must "tighten our belts" and "make sacrifices".

I would make those cuts and eliminate all of these entitlements-- Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid-- imagine all of them gone! We could balance the budget easily.

Yeah, everybody has to chip in...except those already receiving the largess, mostly older, white folks, the very core of the Republican base.
They get to keep theirs, which makes it a lot easier to say "fuck you" to everyone else.
Be interesting to confront the typical Tea Party rabble and say, "Yup, SS, Medicare and Medicaid are killing us financially so we're all going to lose 15% of our benefits immediately, we're going to restrict access to health providers and we're going to phase the whole system down.
Starting NOW.
For EVERYBODY".

<crickets>

As the truism says, "Republicans believe that government is bad and they get elected so they can prove it".


...

[999969999]

9 simply lacks the experience to view issues through different frameworks.


Nearly everything he posts is almost verbatim of any generic talk radio host or blogger on any given day. I don't have an issue with that, but he does often lack the ability or will to explain the thinking behind his statements.
I still haven't made up my mind about him. Is he what we see or is he a parody? :shifty:

You just can't imagine someone having a different opinion than you, can you?

I would say that some of my opinions are quite different from those of talk radio--

1. I don't like military spending. I hate all wars. I think most of the wars we've been in since the Civil War was a mistake. I wish we had never gotten involved in World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and all of the various Persian Gulf Wars, including Iraq and Afghanistan. Think how much money we have wasted and how many lives we have lost on all of these wars? I should start a new thread about how stupid it was to ever get involved in any of these wars.

2. I no longer support Israel. We should cut them loose, and cut our losses, and maybe it would make the Islamic world a little bit less likely to continue attacking us.

3. I don't support any entitlement programs. They should all come to an end.

4. I don't support free trade. It should come to an end. We should use tariffs to stop China and various other nations from dumping their cheaply made, crappy products onto our markets and destroying our manufacturing base.

5. I am not religious.

And there are other issues, but those are just a few positions that you are unlikely to hear on talk radio.

[clocker]

Why can't people be expected to pay for their own health insurance and save for their own retirement?
They do/did pay for their own health insurance and retirement benefits.
The union members accepted lower pay in exchange for these payoffs.
You want people to pay out of pocket for these things, fine.
Pay enough wages so they can afford to.
Problem solved.

Go back to the 1800s and when people got sick, they either paid for a doctor to see them or did without healthcare alltogether. And that gave them an incentive to take care of their own health-- eat right, stay in shape, or die.
There is no direct "apples to apples" comparison between today and the 1800's.
Even if there were, I guarantee that YOU wouldn't want to live like that.

Fast forward to today and we got all these fucking lardasses who are too lazy to exercise, and they eat like pigs, and then get fat and then get sick, and then want everyone to pay for their illnesses. I'm sorry, but I'm not responsible for what they did and I refuse to pay for their mistakes. If they knew there was no safety net, maybe they would take better care of themselves. And they used to have to save up for their latter years or face starvation or move in with their kids. That gave them an incentive to save back some money.
For someone who does not have to fend for himself, you certainly are a self-righteous little snot.

[999969999]

They do/did pay for their own health insurance and retirement benefits.
The union members accepted lower pay in exchange for these payoffs.
You want people to pay out of pocket for these things, fine.
Pay enough wages so they can afford to.
Problem solved.

Go back to the 1800s and when people got sick, they either paid for a doctor to see them or did without healthcare alltogether. And that gave them an incentive to take care of their own health-- eat right, stay in shape, or die.
There is no direct "apples to apples" comparison between today and the 1800's.
Even if there were, I guarantee that YOU wouldn't want to live like that.

Fast forward to today and we got all these fucking lardasses who are too lazy to exercise, and they eat like pigs, and then get fat and then get sick, and then want everyone to pay for their illnesses. I'm sorry, but I'm not responsible for what they did and I refuse to pay for their mistakes. If they knew there was no safety net, maybe they would take better care of themselves. And they used to have to save up for their latter years or face starvation or move in with their kids. That gave them an incentive to save back some money.
For someone who does not have to fend for himself, you certainly are a self-righteous little snot.

Okay, but you have to admit that what I said is the truth. What else explains how fat America is becoming?

[clocker]

I admit no such thing.
How many Whole Foods stores do you see in poor neighborhoods?
How many bodegas carry fresh vegetables instead of Hostess Twinkies?
How much of our food is larded with HFCS and how much does the government subsidize it's production?

If all these "lardasses" are making such poor choices, how do you educate them to do better?
Nevermind, you don't believe in paying for education and it's much simpler to associate these problems with moral weakness than situation/ignorance.

[devilsadvocate]

Nearly everything he posts is almost verbatim of any generic talk radio host or blogger on any given day. I don't have an issue with that, but he does often lack the ability or will to explain the thinking behind his statements.
I still haven't made up my mind about him. Is he what we see or is he a parody? :shifty:

You just can't imagine someone having a different opinion than you, can you?

I would say that some of my opinions are quite different from those of talk radio--

1. I don't like military spending. I hate all wars. I think most of the wars we've been in since the Civil War was a mistake. I wish we had never gotten involved in World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and all of the various Persian Gulf Wars, including Iraq and Afghanistan. Think how much money we have wasted and how many lives we have lost on all of these wars? I should start a new thread about how stupid it was to ever get involved in any of these wars.

2. I no longer support Israel. We should cut them loose, and cut our losses, and maybe it would make the Islamic world a little bit less likely to continue attacking us.

3. I don't support any entitlement programs. They should all come to an end.

4. I don't support free trade. It should come to an end. We should use tariffs to stop China and various other nations from dumping their cheaply made, crappy products onto our markets and destroying our manufacturing base.

5. I am not religious.

And there are other issues, but those are just a few positions that you are unlikely to hear on talk radio.I have no problem with differing views, you and I share more common views than you realize. I can explain my viewpoints.

BTW. I didn't say you have no different opinions from talk radio.


BTW. 2 I notice your lack of condemnation about the tea party hecklers, I'll help you out


For conservatives, freedom of speech and freedom of the press only apply to the right wing media. They don't want any other views expressed. They really should stop using the "constitutionalists" (yes this is a ridiculous use of the word) label.

[clocker]

1. I don't like military spending. I hate all wars.We're doing well so far... I think most of the wars we've been in since the Civil War was a mistake. I wish we had never gotten involved in World War I, World War II,...and now we go off the rails.How do avoid getting into war after being attacked at Pearl Harbor? We stand by as our allies are overrun by a lunatic? Korea, Vietnam, and all of the various Persian Gulf Wars, including Iraq and Afghanistan. Think how much money we have wasted and how many lives we have lost on all of these wars? I should start a new thread about how stupid it was to ever get involved in any of these wars.
If you'd care to discuss the two World Wars, please do.[/color]

2. I no longer support Israel. Really? When you did support Israel, exactly what did you do for them? Is Israel likely to notice that you've withdrawn your patronage? We should cut them loose, and cut our losses, and maybe it would make the Islamic world a little bit less likely to continue attacking us.Haven't really noticed a whole lot of "continuous attacking" going on. In fact, since 9/11, I'd guess there are more dead of gun violence than any terrorist act within our borders.

3. I don't support any entitlement programs. They should all come to an end.
Any particular reason or are you just trying to Galt-trip us?

4. I don't support free trade. It should come to an end. We should use tariffs to stop China and various other nations from dumping their cheaply made, crappy products onto our markets and destroying our manufacturing base.
Well, now see, you've run into a problem. If you want to reestablish American manufacturing, you're going to need an educated workforce and according to your Third Commandment: "I don't support any entitlement programs", you don't support educating them either. Pretty sure the Constitution doesn't say anything about having to attend school, does it?
Your workforce is going to be pretty unhealthy as well, expect productivity to be a bitch.

5. I am not religious.

You should at least have an altar for the people who bought you a car and are putting you through college.
Both of which are "entitlements", BTW.

[999969999]

1. I don't like military spending. I hate all wars.We're doing well so far... Agreed I think most of the wars we've been in since the Civil War was a mistake. I wish we had never gotten involved in World War I, World War II,...and now we go off the rails.How do avoid getting into war after being attacked at Pearl Harbor?

One of my history teachers had some rather controversial ideas, and he said that if you just stand back and think about it, why would Japan-- a tiny island nation-- attack a huge country like the United States? It just doesn't make sense. There was no way they could win a war against us. They weren't trying to take over Hawaii. They were provoked into that attack to try to get the general public in the U.S. to get angry enough to go to war. If we hadn't provoked them, they probably would have never attacked Pearl Harbor. What do you think about that?

We stand by as our allies are overrun by a lunatic?

I throw this question out to any Europeans who might be reading this thread... Did you really need our help to win the war against Germany? Wouldn't you have won the war on your own eventually?

And now back to Clocker, think of the American lives we could have saved by not getting involved in that war! And think of how much better our country would have been if we had never become involved in world politics, and just kept to ourselves. We wouldn't have military bases all over the world, making people hate us. 9-11 would have never happened.

Korea, Vietnam, and all of the various Persian Gulf Wars, including Iraq and Afghanistan. Think how much money we have wasted and how many lives we have lost on all of these wars? I should start a new thread about how stupid it was to ever get involved in any of these wars.
If you'd care to discuss the two World Wars, please do.[/color]

2. I no longer support Israel. Really? When you did support Israel, exactly what did you do for them? Is Israel likely to notice that you've withdrawn your patronage?

A poor choice of words on my part. I meant that I wish the United States would stop giving financial aid and military aid to Israel, and wash our hands of the situation over there. It was a mistake and it should be reversed. It one of the things that terrorists often use as a reason to attack us. That and our military presence in the middle east, which should also come to an end.

We should cut them loose, and cut our losses, and maybe it would make the Islamic world a little bit less likely to continue attacking us.Haven't really noticed a whole lot of "continuous attacking" going on. In fact, since 9/11, I'd guess there are more dead of gun violence than any terrorist act within our borders.

True, but there have been some, such as the attack at Fort Hood.

3. I don't support any entitlement programs. They should all come to an end.
Any particular reason or are you just trying to Galt-trip us?

I don't know what that means.

4. I don't support free trade. It should come to an end. We should use tariffs to stop China and various other nations from dumping their cheaply made, crappy products onto our markets and destroying our manufacturing base.
Well, now see, you've run into a problem. If you want to reestablish American manufacturing, you're going to need an educated workforce and according to your Third Commandment: "I don't support any entitlement programs", you don't support educating them either. Pretty sure the Constitution doesn't say anything about having to attend school, does it?
Your workforce is going to be pretty unhealthy as well, expect productivity to be a bitch.

I think education should be privatized as much as possible through vouchers, so that public schools would have to compete with private schools. I think that would make us more competitive in the long run.

As for health care, one of the reasons we are not as competitive in the workforce anymore is because of companies having to provide health care for their employees. There are things that could be done to make health insurance more affordable-- such has having a $5000 deductible per year, so people aren't running to the doctor when they get the sniffles, and eventually it might drive the cost of health care back down to reasonable levels.


5. I am not religious.

You should at least have an altar for the people who bought you a car and are putting you through college.
Both of which are "entitlements", BTW.

It's amazing how you think it is so odd for a wealthy family to pay for grandchildren's educations, cars, etc. I am not asking you or taxpayers to pay for it-- such as getting financial aid from the U.S. Dept. of Education. In fact, I didn't even ask them to pay for it. I had no intention of even going to college, but they are insisting on it. They did the same thing for my older brothers and sisters, and now they're doing it for me. And like my Dad said, I would be fool to turn it down.

[devilsadvocate]

It's amazing how you think it is so odd for a wealthy family to pay for grandchildren's educations, cars, etc. I am not asking you or taxpayers to pay for it-- such as getting financial aid from the U.S. Dept. of Education. In fact, I didn't even ask them to pay for it. I had no intention of even going to college, but they are insisting on it. They did the same thing for my older brothers and sisters, and now they're doing it for me. And like my Dad said, I would be fool to turn it down.
Are they holding a gun to your head?

You are missing the point. It's not that anyone objects to your fortunate circumstances, it's that you enjoy them while labeling everyone else basically as welfare queens.
This isn't your only option. You could say thanks, but no thanks and figure out a way to pay for it yourself. At least you'd be putting your money where your mouth is.

[devilsadvocate]

I think education should be privatized as much as possible through vouchers, so that public schools would have to compete with private schools. I think that would make us more competitive in the long run.

Is part of your theory a rule that private schools have to accept pupils by the same rules as public schools? Part of the reason private schools appear to have better results is that they get to pick which students they accept.

As for health care, one of the reasons we are not as competitive in the workforce anymore is because of companies having to provide health care for their employees. There are things that could be done to make health insurance more affordable-- such has having a $5000 deductible per year, so people aren't running to the doctor when they get the sniffles, and eventually it might drive the cost of health care back down to reasonable levels..
What do you think the employer cost in , let's say the UK, that has zero patient co-pay?

BTW How much do you think insurance premiums costs to begin with? How many insurance plans have free doctor visits? Do you think people "with the sniffles" Don't have to pay anything? Would a single payer system Take that burden off employers?

[999969999]

It's amazing how you think it is so odd for a wealthy family to pay for grandchildren's educations, cars, etc. I am not asking you or taxpayers to pay for it-- such as getting financial aid from the U.S. Dept. of Education. In fact, I didn't even ask them to pay for it. I had no intention of even going to college, but they are insisting on it. They did the same thing for my older brothers and sisters, and now they're doing it for me. And like my Dad said, I would be fool to turn it down.
Are they holding a gun to your head?

My point exactly. It is voluntary on their part and on mine. It's not like I am asking taxpayers-- who must pay their taxes involuntarily or face severe consequences-- to pay for my education (such as Pell Grants, etc.) and transportation, etc.

I know you are a big fan of taxes, but if you knew your taxes were going to support me, would you like them as much as you do now? Well, imagine how I feel having to pay taxes for your Social Security and Medicare? Those programs will be long gone by the time I get old enough to benefit from them.


You are missing the point. It's not that anyone objects to your fortunate circumstances, it's that you enjoy them while labeling everyone else basically as welfare queens.

What a family decides to do with its money is up to them to decide. Taxpayers don't get to decide where their tax money goes after they pay it. There is a difference between the two situations. And you should see these people at the D.E.S. office-- pregnant women with 6 stairstep children pushing a baby carriage with an infant! It's unsustainable!

This isn't your only option. You could say thanks, but no thanks and figure out a way to pay for it yourself.

Who would do something like that? Not only would it be insulting to my grandparents, but it would be a stupid thing to do. My family is too wealthy for me to qualify for most financial aid programs from the government. My grades and scores are just a bit too low for me to qualify for private scholarships (what can I say? I didn't take high school as seriously as I should have). And there is no way I would even consider taking out a loan to pay for education. So my only other choice would be to work a full time job just to pay for my classes and then I wouldn't have enough time to study and end up failing all of my classes. So of course I'm going to let them pay for it. It does come with a few strings attached-- I have to attend the University of Oregon because they live in Eugene, Oregon, and they want me to live in the guest house, so they get to see me on a regular basis. Oh and they also want to major in something useful-- Accounting. As for the free car, who would turn down a free car? This will be my second car, one for when I'm in Eagar, and one for when I'm in Oregon. That way they don't have to drive me anywhere.


At least you'd be putting your money where your mouth is.

...

[999969999]

I think education should be privatized as much as possible through vouchers, so that public schools would have to compete with private schools. I think that would make us more competitive in the long run.

Is part of your theory a rule that private schools have to accept pupils by the same rules as public schools? Part of the reason private schools appear to have better results is that they get to pick which students they accept.

As for health care, one of the reasons we are not as competitive in the workforce anymore is because of companies having to provide health care for their employees. There are things that could be done to make health insurance more affordable-- such has having a $5000 deductible per year, so people aren't running to the doctor when they get the sniffles, and eventually it might drive the cost of health care back down to reasonable levels..
What do you think the employer cost in , let's say the UK, that has zero patient co-pay?

I've heard it's not working too well for them.

BTW How much do you think insurance premiums costs to begin with?

It depends on age, health conditions, and location.


How many insurance plans have free doctor visits?

None, except some of the government ones like Medicaid.

Do you think people "with the sniffles" Don't have to pay anything?

They still might have a relatively small co-pay, but if they had to pay the full cost of the doctor's visit, I'll bet they wouldn't run to the doctor every time they caught a cold.


Would a single payer system Take that burden off employers?

It put the burden on everyone, just like Medicare, which is almost bankrupt.

[999969999]

It looks like the artful dodging Democrats may have been outsmarted by the Republicans afterall, and the vote is moving forward to crush the public employee unions in Wisconsin.

If this works, the union control over the public sector will eventually come crashing down.

One I noticed in this thread is that no one wanted to deal with the fact that when it comes down to CHOICE-- the freedom to choose whether to belong to organized crime, er I mean a union, or not to belong to a union, liberals are against CHOICE.

The new law will let people decide whether to belong to a union or not, and whether or not to pay their union dues rather than having the union dues come out of their paychecks. CHOICE! What an evil thing!

[devilsadvocate]

Are you happy with the way the republicans behaved? I don't see the will of the people being carried out here, I see dictatorship.

Your original post was all about this being a fiscal necessity, Seems it had nothing to do with balancing the budget.

[mjmacky]

It never had anything to do with budget balancing. The budget thing was a political face, as is common with all sly deals. Basically republicans will be able to take a big hit against democratic campaigning, while leaving theirs intact. It's a direct party assault to push elections their way in the future since $$ = elected.

The 969 guy has basically admitted he's an idiot, and his entire conversation is based on unsubstantiated talking points. Why's everyone still entertaining the notion that he even has a point to debate?

[bigboab]

It looks like the artful dodging Democrats may have been outsmarted by the Republicans afterall, and the vote is moving forward to crush the public employee unions in Wisconsin.

If this works, the union control over the public sector will eventually come crashing down.

One I noticed in this thread is that no one wanted to deal with the fact that when it comes down to CHOICE-- the freedom to choose whether to belong to organized crime, er I mean a union, or not to belong to a union, liberals are against CHOICE.

The new law will let people decide whether to belong to a union or not, and whether or not to pay their union dues rather than having the union dues come out of their paychecks. CHOICE! What an evil thing!

What would you do if you found out that someone where you worked was getting double the pay for doing the same job a you? You go to the employer and he/she says take it or leave it. If there is a lot of unemployment, then you take it but your heart is not in the job anymore. A good union ensures equality in pay and conditions. When unions create beTter pay and conditions for employees there is no outcry from non union members asking the employer not to apply these better condition to them.

What about employers unions\federations where ground rules for treament of employees are laid down. Not much choice for the employees there either.

[Skiz]

What would you do if you found out that someone where you worked was getting double the pay for doing the same job a you? You go to the employer and he/she says take it or leave it. If there is a lot of unemployment, then you take it but your heart is not in the job anymore. A good union ensures equality in pay and conditions. When unions create beTter pay and conditions for employees there is no outcry from non union members asking the employer not to apply these better condition to them.


How about those employees that work their butts off, only to be paid the same as some slack-ass union "brother"?

I've worked at a company for the past 12 years that has a strong union presence. The Teamsters to be specific. I could sit here and 'talk' for hours about how the union inhibits the progress of the company. One of the largest ways is by making it nearly impossible to terminate an employee as long as they just show up everyday; it's beyond ridiculous.

I was completely indifferent about unions prior to my current place of employ as I'd never dealt with them before, but it didn't take me long to learn that I didn't like them, as I was one of those employees that was enthusiastic and worked his butt off.

Unions enable the lazy guy.

[devilsadvocate]

There are reasonable and unreasonable union operators, just as there are reasonable and unreasonable legislators or employers.

I've never been a union member, I would probably disagree with a lot of their "demands", but in the land of the free I absolutely think that workers should have the freedom to pool together as a bargaining force without the kind government regulation that we would think unreasonable to place on business.

@skizo

What kind of healthcare do you get, would you say it's good or bad? If it's good, do you think it would so great if not for your union? What about pay? Is it better or worse than wages in comparable non union jobs? Is your company struggling to compete against non union companies? Would you say your company would employ more or less people if it weren't for the union (has the union suppressed downsizing?). How much vacation time do you get compared to non union companies? Do you get sick pay? Does your company train you or are you expected to train yourself in order to get a promotion to a different dept?

Overall do you think your employment from your own personal benefit would be better with or without union involvement in your company?

[Skiz]

There are reasonable and unreasonable union operators, just as there are reasonable and unreasonable legislators or employers.

I've never been a union member, I would probably disagree with a lot of their "demands", but in the land of the free I absolutely think that workers should have the freedom to pool together as a bargaining force without the kind government regulation that we would think unreasonable to place on business.

In this case the business was the government and I assure you your opinion of unions would be altered if you were required to base your business decisions around them each and every day. It's beyond frustrating to be handcuffed by unions regulations around every corner when you're trying to operate a successful business. Decisions that are simple and would otherwise be considered no-brainers become conflicted with seniority issues, stewards, and contractual obligations. It's horrible.

[megabyteme]

Are you managing union employees, but not a union member, skiz? If so, that is a VERY common frustration/tension. In such a situation, how does your pay and benefits compare to the union employees'?

[Skiz]

Correct. I am supervisor (management, non-union) who oversees hourly (union) employees.

In short, they don't compare.

Management employees pay for their health/dental/vision benefits much like the rest of the country does, but union employees get them free. 100%, absolutely free. Doesn't cost them even one cent a year, and they have no deductible.

Their pay is a set rate depending on the job and hire date. Those union employees often times get raises that outweigh that of their supervisors. For example, I have one employee that used to make about half of what I made, but his contractual raises over the past decade now has us earning approximately the same amount, meaning the employee will soon out-earn his boss. This isn't to say that I'm a slouch and haven't deserved a raise, it's that my company does not give raises to management which exceed 5%, so union employees are always catching up to or pulling further away in pay.

[devilsadvocate]

it's that my company does not give raises to management which exceed 5%, so union employees are always catching up to or pulling further away in pay.

Do you think that would be the case if you were in a union?

As a supervisor what do you actually generate by way of profit for the company?

[j2k4]

it's that my company does not give raises to management which exceed 5%, so union employees are always catching up to or pulling further away in pay.

Do you think that would be the case if you were in a union?

As a supervisor what do you actually generate by way of profit for the company?

Yeah, Skiz-

If you don't drive the truck, you're a drain on cash.

A Teamster's efficiency typically rises when working unsupervised.

[megabyteme]

Correct. I am supervisor (management, non-union) who oversees hourly (union) employees.

In short, they don't compare.

Management employees pay for their health/dental/vision benefits much like the rest of the country does, but union employees get them free. 100%, absolutely free. Doesn't cost them even one cent a year, and they have no deductible.

Their pay is a set rate depending on the job and hire date. Those union employees often times get raises that outweigh that of their supervisors. For example, I have one employee that used to make about half of what I made, but his contractual raises over the past decade now has us earning approximately the same amount, meaning the employee will soon out-earn his boss. This isn't to say that I'm a slouch and haven't deserved a raise, it's that my company does not give raises to management which exceed 5%, so union employees are always catching up to or pulling further away in pay.

I'm of the view that your pay should have increased at the same rate as your employees. The fact that it did not, and you are paying for your own health care is actually an argument why unions should exist. It isn't that they are getting such a good deal that the company cannot afford to offer better pay and benefits- you are not protected, so the company takes advantage of you.

[bigboab]

I am torn between both sides of this argument. I would say 80% of people want something done about public service pay and pensions. The other 20% are public servants. It now seems to be the practise in this country for public servants who do something wrong to be 'sacked'. their severance to include a massive 'payoff' plus a pension that the normal working person does not get for a wage. Something has to be done. It is our taxes that are paying for this. Refuse to pay those taxes and you go to jail(unlike big business).

[999969999]

It never had anything to do with budget balancing. The budget thing was a political face, as is common with all sly deals. Basically republicans will be able to take a big hit against democratic campaigning, while leaving theirs intact. It's a direct party assault to push elections their way in the future since $$ = elected.

Ah, perfect. Public employee unions use taxpayer money to pay their union dues to the union who then turns around and bargains for higher wages, higher salaries, more expensive benefits from government officials who then just turn around and ask for more money from the taxpayers to meet the organized crime, er I mean union demands. It's not that government official's money, it's not his company's profits that he's bargaining with, it's the taxpayers' money, so what does he care. He can just raise taxes or other fees to raise the money. It is NOT coming directly out of his pocket. So, the unions have figured out that voting for Democrats is the same thing as voting for a raise for themselves.


The 969 guy has basically admitted he's an idiot, and his entire conversation is based on unsubstantiated talking points. Why's everyone still entertaining the notion that he even has a point to debate?

That's right. Shut down any dissent. You wouldn't want to hear any other opinions out there, because you're an open minded liberal.

[999969999]

Are you happy with the way the republicans behaved?

Are you serious?! The yellow dog Democrats run away like chickens to avoid a vote that they will most certainly lose, and you see no problem with that. But when the Republicans, after waiting 3 weeks for the frightened Democrats to come back, decide to move forward without them, you cry foul?! The whole purpose of the quorum rule was to keep one side from having a sneaky vote without any warning to the other side. It wasn't like the Democrats didn't know about the vote. They had plenty of notice to show up for it and do their duty to vote, but because they didn't like the obvious outcome of the vote, they ran away to another state.




I don't see the will of the people being carried out here, I see dictatorship.


It was the will of the people. They voted in a Republican majority. It's called representative government. Elections do have consequences, even if you don't like the results of the election. I'm sorry your side lost the election. No wait. I'm not sorry. I'm glad your side lost the election. You need to accept it and stop whining about it.

And really, is it any worse than what your side did to us with Obamacare? The way they rammed that down our throats through the seldom used "reconciliation" method? Talk about dictatorship. Now, we're going to have to wait until Trump gets elected in 2012 to undo that horrible law.


Your original post was all about this being a fiscal necessity, Seems it had nothing to do with balancing the budget.

Yes, it does. Now that the public employee union is in the process of being crushed, and their collective bargaining power will be destroyed, their salaries and benefits can be reduced to sustainable levels, so the budget can be balanced.

[999969999]

I am torn between both sides of this argument. I would say 80% of people want something done about public service pay and pensions. The other 20% are public servants.

Exactly!


It now seems to be the practise in this country for public servants who do something wrong to be 'sacked'. their severance to include a massive 'payoff' plus a pension that the normal working person does not get for a wage. Something has to be done. It is our taxes that are paying for this. Refuse to pay those taxes and you go to jail(unlike big business).

I agree!


...

[devilsadvocate]

Are you serious?! The yellow dog Democrats run away like chickens to avoid a vote that they will most certainly lose, and you see no problem with that. But when the Republicans, after waiting 3 weeks for the frightened Democrats to come back, decide to move forward without them, you cry foul?! The whole purpose of the quorum rule was to keep one side from having a sneaky vote without any warning to the other side. It wasn't like the Democrats didn't know about the vote. They had plenty of notice to show up for it and do their duty to vote, but because they didn't like the obvious outcome of the vote, they ran away to another state. This was sold as a fiscal need. If it wasn't fiscal why was it put in the budget and why wasn't it removed and placed in a separate bill before the democrats left? The budget would have been voted on and passed. If it is a fiscal need then it shouldn't have been voted on without the needed quorum




It was the will of the people. They voted in a Republican majority. It's called representative government. Elections do have consequences, even if you don't like the results of the election. I'm sorry your side lost the election. No wait. I'm not sorry. I'm glad your side lost the election. You need to accept it and stop whining about it.
Show me where any republican campaigned to remove collective bargaining. Show me any WI poll where more than 50% said they wanted to remove collective bargaining.


And really, is it any worse than what your side did to us with Obamacare? The way they rammed that down our throats through the seldom used "reconciliation" method? Talk about dictatorship. Now, we're going to have to wait until Trump gets elected in 2012 to undo that horrible law.
"My side"?

You really need to be consistent, If electing Republicans means everything they do, even if they didn't mention it when they ran, is "the will of the people", then the affordable care act must be "the will of the people". Democrats did run on health reform, I mean that was one of the biggies.


Yes, it does. Now that the public employee union is in the process of being crushed, and their collective bargaining power will be destroyed, their salaries and benefits can be reduced to sustainable levels, so the budget can be balanced. The only reason they want to reduce public worker pay (which is actually on average 4.8% LESS than comparable private sector jobs with comparable educational achievement) is to cover the cost of the corporate tax cuts they are giving. If they hadn't given the tax breaks they wouldn't have had to make extra cuts elsewhere.
The only fiscal reason is to try to limit the only substantial donors of the democratic party election funds. This is using government to suppress their competition.

It's not just financial undercutting of their opponents they are using government positions to achieve. Across the country they are trying to make it harder for typical democratic voters to vote.

[Skiz]

Yes, it does. Now that the public employee union is in the process of being crushed, and their collective bargaining power will be destroyed, their salaries and benefits can be reduced to sustainable levels, so the budget can be balanced.

That is not entirely correct. The WI workers have not been entirely stripped of their collective bargaining rights, just some of them. They still have the right to bargain for things like salary, just not pension, dues, and benefits that are unpredictable costs for the future and difficult to budget.

[Skiz]

it's that my company does not give raises to management which exceed 5%, so union employees are always catching up to or pulling further away in pay.

Do you think that would be the case if you were in a union?


I'm of the view that your pay should have increased at the same rate as your employees. The fact that it did not, and you are paying for your own health care is actually an argument why unions should exist. It isn't that they are getting such a good deal that the company cannot afford to offer better pay and benefits- you are not protected, so the company takes advantage of you.

More union is not the answer. :wacko:

We wouldn't be in this pickle if it were not for the union in the first place. Call me crazy but having ALL employees paying a relatively equal percentage of their health benefits in order for ALL employees to receive raises based on a balanced scorecard consisting of performance, effectiveness, etc. seems mighty fair to me.


As a supervisor what do you actually generate by way of profit for the company?

Everyone pulls their own weight. A company does not successfully operate with mere rank and file.

But more directly, I generate a lot of money. I supervise (depending on current staffing) +/- 40 employees in a function known as Revenue Recovery. Our sole job is to capture lost revenue, and my district alone recovers millions of dollars every year, so yes, I'd say I generate quite a lot of profit.

[devilsadvocate]

We wouldn't be in this pickle if it were not for the union in the first place.
What pickle and how was it the unions fault, are you talking about the company you work for or the topic subject?


Everyone pulls their own weight. A company does not successfully operate with mere rank and file.
That's not what I'm talking about. A mechanic fixes the car. The customer is paying to have his car fixed, not the person watching over the mechanic. The mechanic is the one generating money for the company. The other staff may be a needed part of a team, but they are not generating money.


But more directly, I generate a lot of money. I supervise (depending on current staffing) +/- 40 employees in a function known as Revenue Recovery. Our sole job is to capture lost revenue, and my district alone recovers millions of dollars every year, so yes, I'd say I generate quite a lot of profit. You are going to have to clear this up. Are you in a debt recovery dept. or do you bring old customers back?

If it's the latter then you can claim your dept. (if not you specifically in your role as supervisor) generates revenue. If it's the first then that loss prevention not revenue generating.

[mjmacky]

That's right. Shut down any dissent. You wouldn't want to hear any other opinions out there, because you're an open minded liberal.
Wasn't my intention to shut down dissent, just putting perspective into play. "Open-minded liberal", I'm stuck between whether you think it's an insult or are being sarcastic, either way you're wrong. I'm an objective anarchist.

[Skiz]

What pickle and how was it the unions fault, are you talking about the company you work for or the topic subject?

Take your pick; it applies to both. :whistling:


That's not what I'm talking about. A mechanic fixes the car. The customer is paying to have his car fixed, not the person watching over the mechanic. The mechanic is the one generating money for the company. The other staff may be a needed part of a team, but they are not generating money.

That's just silly. I won't even entertain that logic.


You are going to have to clear this up. Are you in a debt recovery dept. or do you bring old customers back?

If it's the latter then you can claim your dept. (if not you specifically in your role as supervisor) generates revenue. If it's the first then that loss prevention not revenue generating.

Are you actually trying to tell me what my job is? You're incorrect on both assumptions.

My job is very intricate and not really something I want to get into in this thread or any other.

[megabyteme]

I'm of the view that your pay should have increased at the same rate as your employees. The fact that it did not, and you are paying for your own health care is actually an argument why unions should exist. It isn't that they are getting such a good deal that the company cannot afford to offer better pay and benefits- you are not protected, so the company takes advantage of you.

More union is not the answer. :wacko:

We wouldn't be in this pickle if it were not for the union in the first place. Call me crazy but having ALL employees paying a relatively equal percentage of their health benefits in order for ALL employees to receive raises based on a balanced scorecard consisting of performance, effectiveness, etc. seems mighty fair to me.

Your company is not paying you, or the union employees, based on profits. Without the unions, your company would be abusing you AND them. Union membership does not guarantee poor performance from employees, but non-union employees almost universally equates to abuses by companies. The fact that union members are working for the same company as you, and have received better treatment than you, indicates that your company will never be any more fair than it is forced to be.

If union members were required to pay for their benefits, it would not mean a reduction in your dues, nor an increase in your pay- simply an increase in company profits. Would this make you any happier? You may think you are on the same side as the company, but when it comes to profits, you are NOT on their side- you are simply a salary to pay (a cost who would be replaced if a cheaper/more efficient alternative became available). If you think you are on their side, ask for a bigger cut of those profits, then tell me which side you are on...

[devilsadvocate]

Take your pick; it applies to both. :whistling:


How? just saying it's so doesn't make it so. Explain exactly what the pickle is and how it's the Unions fault. :whistling


That's not what I'm talking about. A mechanic fixes the car. The customer is paying to have his car fixed, not the person watching over the mechanic. The mechanic is the one generating money for the company. The other staff may be a needed part of a team, but they are not generating money.

That's just silly. I won't even entertain that logic.

Ah, the sidestep.:whistling


You are going to have to clear this up. Are you in a debt recovery dept. or do you bring old customers back?

If it's the latter then you can claim your dept. (if not you specifically in your role as supervisor) generates revenue. If it's the first then that loss prevention not revenue generating.

Are you actually trying to tell me what my job is? You're incorrect on both assumptions.

My job is very intricate and not really something I want to get into in this thread or any other.You raised the subject. I have no doubt you are a cog in the machine. I just doubt your job actually generates revenue. :whistling

If every supervisor in your dept. was off work sick, but the people under you continued to do their job ( because you have quality staff ) would your dept. lose money, make more or be pretty much the same? :whistling

[Snee]

Take your pick; it applies to both. :whistling:


How? just saying it's so doesn't make it so. Explain exactly what the pickle is and how it's the Unions fault. :whistling



That's just silly. I won't even entertain that logic.

Ah, the sidestep.:whistling


You are going to have to clear this up. Are you in a debt recovery dept. or do you bring old customers back?

If it's the latter then you can claim your dept. (if not you specifically in your role as supervisor) generates revenue. If it's the first then that loss prevention not revenue generating.

Are you actually trying to tell me what my job is? You're incorrect on both assumptions.

My job is very intricate and not really something I want to get into in this thread or any other.You raised the subject. I have no doubt you are a cog in the machine. I just doubt your job actually generates revenue. :whistling

If every supervisor in your dept. was off work sick, but the people under you continued to do their job ( because you have quality staff ) would your dept. lose money, make more or be pretty much the same? :whistling

Since they're all in a union, I think it's implied they'd all show up and then sit there picking their noses or something if no one is watching. Quality staff or not.

[clocker]

Certainly, anyone who has ever dealt with a union (as I did when doing trade show graphics) can supply endless stories about sloth and convoluted rules ("No, you can't plug in that light, you need a union electrician to come do it for you").

What I find interesting is that the right now wants to "crush" unions because of the obvious flaws in the process (and the illusory "drag on the economy" they supposedly engender) but other players in the system (like banks!) get a free pass and are even shielded from criticism.

Are unions really the biggest problem we face, or are they simply the fattest, lowest hanging fruit on a tree that is corrupt to the apex?
Is it any surprise that unions are among the biggest Democratic supporters and are the focus on supposedly sincere deficit hawks ire?
No, it isn't.

The war against unions is simply a naked political attack on the left, disguised as responsible economic policy.
It's a sham, we're getting screwed.

[999969999]

Since they're all in a union, I think it's implied they'd all show up and then sit there picking their noses or something if no one is watching. Quality staff or not.

Ha ha ha! :)

[999969999]

Certainly, anyone who has ever dealt with a union (as I did when doing trade show graphics) can supply endless stories about sloth and convoluted rules ("No, you can't plug in that light, you need a union electrician to come do it for you").

What I find interesting is that the right now wants to "crush" unions because of the obvious flaws in the process (and the illusory "drag on the economy" they supposedly engender)

It's not an illusion. Unions have been so successul-- perhaps too successful-- at getting higher salaries, better working conditions, job security, and some might say ridiculously lavish benefits, that we cannot compete with hardly anyone else in the world, even when you figure in the high cost of shipping the products to us over the ocean.

We already have federal labor laws that would prevent most of the abuses from the 1800s and early 1900s which gave rise to the unions. They are no longer needed, and they are dragging us down.


but other players in the system (like banks!) get a free pass and are even shielded from criticism.

True conservatives, such as the Tea Party are critical of them.


Are unions really the biggest problem we face, or are they simply the fattest, lowest hanging fruit on a tree that is corrupt to the apex?

If we could completely get rid of all unions, not just public employee unions, get rid of the E.P.A., change the law to make lawsuits from groups such as the Sierra Club much more difficult for them, and bring back tariffs, we might be able to turn around the manufacturing base of our economy and ultimately solve our budget problems through having a robust economy.

As a nation of consumers, we are spending more money on foreign goods than we take in from exports. This trade deficit is ultimately why we are in this mess. We cannot continue to spend more than we take in. The federal government and state governments are doing the same thing, but they are just symptoms of the underlying problem.

Is it any surprise that unions are among the biggest Democratic supporters and are the focus on supposedly sincere deficit hawks ire?
No, it isn't.

The war against unions is simply a naked political attack on the left, disguised as responsible economic policy.

Is it right for the taxpayers to pay for the unions to turn around and bargain against the taxpayers for higher and higher salaries and benefits? I don't think so. Is it right for a leftist organization to use taxpayer money to fund the Democrat party? I don't think so. Is it right to have a system where the union members know that voting for Democrats is the same thing as voting themselves a raise? I don't think so.

It's a sham, we're getting screwed.

Yes, by the unions.


...

[devilsadvocate]

Is it right for the taxpayers to pay for the unions to turn around and bargain against the taxpayers for higher and higher salaries and benefits? I don't think so. Is it right for a leftist organization to use taxpayer money to fund the Democrat party? I don't think so. Is it right to have a system where the union members know that voting for Democrats is the same thing as voting themselves a raise? I don't think so.
Not even 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon
The workers pay for the union, not the taxpayer.

The taxpayer pays for a service (work). Once that work is received the money has nothing to do with the taxpayer. If you want to tie every expense that the worker pays out of their own wages to the employer then perhaps we should go after churches, because I'm sure many government workers tithe.

How about this. John has a government job. He is payed by money raised from tax. He goes to the store and buys some beef. The store restocks with beef from your family ranch. The money from the sale goes to pay for your car.

Why the fuck is the taxpayer paying for your car?

[devilsadvocate]

I tell you what is taking the taxpayer for a ride and need to be stopped. Public employees that pay $5355 per year for 4 years then receive a pension of $26,600 annually for life. This is right away after 4 years employment, not wait until retirement age.

[j2k4]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kxc6kzH-uI&feature=player_embedded

[bigboab]

Kev! If you are going to watch cartoons, watch funny ones. Wait a minute....:lol:

It is a very hard job to evaluate teachers unless all their pupils are the same age and have the same IQ level and the schools have the same facilities. Roughly speaking(I come from a rough area).:whistling

[999969999]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kxc6kzH-uI&feature=player_embedded

At 2:20 minutes into it, it gets to the issue of CHOICE. Perfect.

I hope Republicans will now start pushing for a voucher system which would finally make the public schools have to compete and permanently crush the teacher unions into oblivion.

[999969999]

Another good reason to hate unions...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgOEraouhxU&feature=player_embedded

[999969999]

Privatizing and outsourcing of government jobs is another great way to kill off the unions...

http://www.kpho.com/local-video/index.html?grabnetworks_video_id=4602199

[clocker]

9, the fact is, you don't have enough information to either "hate" or approve of unions.
90% of your posts are unfiltered Fox newspap and the remaining 10% are clueless in the extreme.

You wanna outsource government jobs, eh?
Say, turn the fire department over to the same folks who perform Comcast home service?
Good luck with that.

[mjmacky]

Privatizing and outsourcing of government jobs is another great way to kill off the unions...
Rentacops can become the actual police force (your new well below average mercenary protector and server)
FedUPS becomes your new postal carrier, $7.50 to mail in your payment for the electric bill
Child Services can now be managed by a mega corporation, that would naturally turn it into a child sex slave trade

Sounds ridiculous, but without government jobs, all of those services would be for profit, the real alternatives could be far worse

[Skiz]

More union is not the answer. :wacko:

We wouldn't be in this pickle if it were not for the union in the first place. Call me crazy but having ALL employees paying a relatively equal percentage of their health benefits in order for ALL employees to receive raises based on a balanced scorecard consisting of performance, effectiveness, etc. seems mighty fair to me.

Your company is not paying you, or the union employees, based on profits. Without the unions, your company would be abusing you AND them. Union membership does not guarantee poor performance from employees, but non-union employees almost universally equates to abuses by companies. The fact that union members are working for the same company as you, and have received better treatment than you, indicates that your company will never be any more fair than it is forced to be.

If union members were required to pay for their benefits, it would not mean a reduction in your dues, nor an increase in your pay- simply an increase in company profits. Would this make you any happier? You may think you are on the same side as the company, but when it comes to profits, you are NOT on their side- you are simply a salary to pay (a cost who would be replaced if a cheaper/more efficient alternative became available). If you think you are on their side, ask for a bigger cut of those profits, then tell me which side you are on...

To think that corporations pay employees based on profit is absurd. Salaries and pay rates are almost solely a demand-driven market, like most things in this world, as they should be. A good example is what's going on with the police in Austin. They're all puffed up about wanting a pay raise, but there's a 2-3 year waiting list just to get in the cadet school due to the overwhelming amount of applicants trying to get in. Should the policemans union win out by muscling the taxpayers into settling, or should the fair market dictate an appropriate salary by saying, 'wait a minute, we must be paying these guys fairly since there are thousands of people lined up ready to do this job at the current starting salary rate'.

The quote is also quite a blanket statement considering you know absolutely zip about my corporation, our policies, or our pay scale. To show you how wrong you are, the average length of employment (last years statistic) is 22 years. I've found by shopping around a bit, that I've not been able to find anything that can top what I'm currently offered. "Taken advantage of"? "Abused"? You have no idea what you're talking about. I have great benefits that are the envy of anyone I know. It's great to hear at a doctors office, "Oh... wow... you have wonderful coverage." We have stock options year 'round, profit sharing, management incentive plans, tuition reimbursement up to $4,000/year, an actual pension plan (which is extremely rare these days). Nearly all of these are programs are offered exclusively to non-union employees of the company.

I also don't pay dues, so when you keep saying that I do, you're again, incorrect. Even when I was an hourly employee I still never paid dues as I never wanted to be a member of the union.

[clocker]

Skiz, the only reason your company offers benefits to the non-union employees is they're afraid you'll unionize if they don't.
Lose the union and you all lose the benefits.

[Skiz]

By that methodology, all non-union corps, business, shops, warehouses, etc would have no benefits/perks, but that's far from reality.

Of all my friends and acquaintances, I'm the only person who works for a company that has any union of any kind in any capacity, yet they all have good perks, vacations, and benefits.

[clocker]

Really?
They have six weeks of vacation, fully paid health care and education, maternity/caregiver leave, etc.?
Good for you and them then.

[999969999]

9, the fact is, you don't have enough information to either "hate" or approve of unions.
90% of your posts are unfiltered Fox newspap and the remaining 10% are clueless in the extreme.

You wanna outsource government jobs, eh?
Say, turn the fire department over to the same folks who perform Comcast home service?
Good luck with that.

You don't know much about Arizona, do you?

http://www.rmfire.com/aboutus.html

[mjmacky]

You don't know much about Arizona, do you?

http://www.rmfire.com/aboutus.html
You make it sound like volunteer fire departments and the like are unique to Arizona. They occur around the country in more rural areas where local budgets can't afford more fire departments/staff/trucks. However, they do need funds to operate. Since you're so fond of overly politicized stories, here you go:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/04/firefighters-watch-as-hom_n_750272.html

[999969999]

9, the fact is, you don't have enough information to either "hate" or approve of unions.
90% of your posts are unfiltered Fox newspap and the remaining 10% are clueless in the extreme.

You wanna outsource government jobs, eh?
Say, turn the fire department over to the same folks who perform Comcast home service?
Good luck with that.


"Rural/Metro Fire Department's history goes back more than 50 years, when founder Lou Witzeman became concerned that his neighborhood lacked fire protection. He pulled together some money, bought a fire truck, and asked his neighbors to support this fledgling company.

With the company was also born a new way of thinking about fire protection and safety services. As a private sector company that partners with communities, Rural/Metro is dedicated to finding the most cost-effective ways to deliver the highest quality ambulance transportation and fire protection services."



Yes, I want to outsource and privatize as many government jobs as possible. Hopefully it will help destroy what is left of the unions in this country. And as Rural Metro has shown, a private company can provide excellent fire protection and ambulance service at a reasonable cost. Consumers then have the right and freedom to choose whether or not they want to pay for that service and protection or just roll the dice and take their chances that they won't need to ever use it, and then deal with the consequences themselves.

[mjmacky]

Yes, I want to outsource and privatize as many government jobs as possible. Hopefully it will help destroy what is left of the unions in this country. And as Rural Metro has shown, a private company can provide excellent fire protection and ambulance service at a reasonable cost. Consumers then have the right and freedom to choose whether or not they want to pay for that service and protection or just roll the dice and take their chances that they won't need to ever use it, and then deal with the consequences themselves.
The point that you missed here is that it can really only work in a sparsely populated rural environment. This wouldn't succeed in urban areas, especially in situations where many residential units are in very close proximity of each other. Whether it be a separate cost or built into the rent, the "private" costs would be extremely high. There would also be no margin of "opting" out as you propose. If you are at the point where you'd have the government managing pretty much nothing... it would seem that you are with me in idealizing a complete anarchist society. You can't just leave your foot halfway through the door.

[clocker]

I wonder...
After demonizing their work ethic, "crushing" their union and drastically cutting pay...who is going to want to be a civil servant in the future?

[mjmacky]

I wonder...
After demonizing their work ethic, "crushing" their union and drastically cutting pay...who is going to want to be a civil servant in the future?
Oh nooos, that's sounds like foresight, don't be silly... this is a politics thread

[j2k4]

I wonder...
After demonizing their work ethic, "crushing" their union and drastically cutting pay...who is going to want to be a civil servant in the future?

Hopefully far fewer than do currently.

I will remind you I was civil service for years, union as well as non-rep.

It was a pretty sweet deal.

I concluded that no one should ever feel that comfy; it's just not healthy.

[megabyteme]

I concluded that no one should ever feel that comfy; it's just not healthy.

How about the heirs of successful business owners? :unsure:

[j2k4]

I concluded that no one should ever feel that comfy; it's just not healthy.

How about the heirs of successful business owners? :unsure:

I don't know that many of them are overly sated because they are civil servants - do you?

[clocker]

So, let's clarify...
It's OK for the head of a bank to make millions but a civil servant should never aspire to income over subsistence level, eh?
In fact, the people who weave the fabric of your life shall be stripped of the benefits that anyone in the private sector would barter for (and commonly, receive).

Why not just impress prisoners into government work?

[mjmacky]

Don't most of the high level politicians live pretty comfy, much more than civil servants. You're bragging about the lower rung aren't you?

[bigboab]

So, let's clarify...
It's OK for the head of a bank to make millions but a civil servant should never aspire to income over subsistence level, eh?
In fact, the people who weave the fabric of your life shall be stripped of the benefits that anyone in the private sector would barter for (and commonly, receive).

Why not just impress prisoners into government work?

That works the other way over here.:)

[Busyman]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/protestors-state-capitol-wisconsin/story?id=12947666

These people are ridiculous! They have job security, decent wages, excellent health and retirement benefits, and when they are asked to contribute a tiny amount of their wages to help pay for their benefits, so the state can balance its budget, they take to the streets and riot.

Their unions need to be crushed!

And the Democrats in their state government are such chickens, they can't stand to face a vote that they know they will lose because they are now outnumbered by Republicans, that they flee to another state to prevent the vote from going forward. Imagine the outrage if Republicans pulled a stunt like that?

This isn't just Repubs. Martin O' Malley is doing similar.

[999969999]

I wonder...
After demonizing their work ethic, "crushing" their union and drastically cutting pay...who is going to want to be a civil servant in the future?

Hopefully far fewer than do currently.


Exactly! The size of government at all levels needs to be reduced.

I will remind you I was civil service for years, union as well as non-rep.

It was a pretty sweet deal.

And it is not sustainable.

I concluded that no one should ever feel that comfy; it's just not healthy.

...

[999969999]

I concluded that no one should ever feel that comfy; it's just not healthy.

How about the heirs of successful business owners? :unsure:

This socialist mindset is becoming so obvious among the liberals.

Where do you think the money to fund government spending ultimately comes from?

Yes, let's punish business owners and give them less incentive to make money and build up their businesses. This mindset didn't work well for the Soviets and it won't work well here, either.

[999969999]

Yes, I want to outsource and privatize as many government jobs as possible. Hopefully it will help destroy what is left of the unions in this country. And as Rural Metro has shown, a private company can provide excellent fire protection and ambulance service at a reasonable cost. Consumers then have the right and freedom to choose whether or not they want to pay for that service and protection or just roll the dice and take their chances that they won't need to ever use it, and then deal with the consequences themselves.
The point that you missed here is that it can really only work in a sparsely populated rural environment.




http://www.ruralmetro.com/about_communitiesserved.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottsdale,_Arizona

http://maps.google.com/maps?rlz=1T4GWYE_enUS274US274&q=aerial+view+of+scottsdale,+az&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=Scottsdale,+AZ&gl=us&t=h&ei=DRGmTZL_NYaSgQfv0ZXFCg&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ8gEwAA



Scottsdale, Arizona is sparsely populated? Have you ever been to metro Phoenix? You don't know what you're talking about.

This wouldn't succeed in urban areas, especially in situations where many residential units are in very close proximity of each other.

Such as in Scottsdale, or many of the other cities listed on that Rural/Metro website?


Whether it be a separate cost or built into the rent, the "private" costs would be extremely high. There would also be no margin of "opting" out as you propose.

Wrong again. It is voluntary. Which is something that the left hates.


If you are at the point where you'd have the government managing pretty much nothing... it would seem that you are with me in idealizing a complete anarchist society. You can't just leave your foot halfway through the door.

You can tell a lot about a company by looking at its roots.


Rural/Metro's history goes back more than 50 years, when founder Lou Witzeman became concerned that his neighborhood didn't have fire protection. So he pooled together some money, bought a fire truck, and asked his neighbors to subscribe to his fledgling company.

Oh how evil! An entrepreneur! The enemy of the socialist left wingers! This must be stopped! Only government can solve all of our problems!
With the company was also born a new way of thinking about health and safety services. As a private sector company, Rural/Metro is dedicated to finding the most cost-effective ways to deliver the highest quality ambulance transportation and private fire protection services.

In 1969, Rural/Metro began operating ambulance services independently of its fire operations. Today, Rural/Metro has become one of the largest ambulance companies in North America, providing "911" emergency and non-emergency medical transportation services, as well as a variety of private fire protection services.

Today the company offers a wide range of medical transportation and safety services, not only to communities, but also to the private sector. Among the services we provide are:

Emergency medical transportation
Non-emergency medical transportation
Private fire protection services, including community, airport, and industrial
What began with one man's vision has grown today into a company with more than $500 million in annual revenues and 8,000 employees who provide health and safety services throughout the United States. Annually, Rural/Metro's employees respond to more than 1.1 million calls for assistance.

[rdtphd]

me thinks it be a troll trollin and you all got trolled

[999969999]

me thinks it be a troll trollin and you all got trolled

Yeah, let's not have any different opinions expressed.

Just the liberal opinions.

We don't want to hear from anyone who might be a conservative.

Only liberals get to express their opinions.

For all other opinions, just shut them down.

[mjmacky]

There are so many flaws in every statement that you make, that when addressed, you make more points that have many more inherent flaws. Essentially you provide an endless cycle of idiocy that can only be construed as trolling.

[999969999]

I will continue to present the conservative point of view whether you like it or not.

There are hardly any conservative voices on here anymore.

I was born too late for the Reagan Presidency, but from what I have read about him, and have been told about him, our current president wouldn't make a pimple on his ass...

Reagan: "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden."

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."

"Back in 1927, an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said that the American people would never vote for socialism but he said under the name of liberalism the American people would adopt every fragment of the socialist program."

"One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. . . . Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We have an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this."

[999969999]

There are so many flaws in every statement that you make, that when addressed, you make more points that have many more inherent flaws. Essentially you provide an endless cycle of idiocy that can only be construed as trolling.

I noticed you were unable to refute this...

"The point that you missed here is that it can really only work in a sparsely populated rural environment.




http://www.ruralmetro.com/about_communitiesserved.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottsdale,_Arizona


AERIAL VIEW OF THIS SO-CALLED "SPARSELY POPULATED RURAL AREA" (try zooming in for a closer look):

http://maps.google.com/maps?rlz=1T4GWYE_enUS274US274&q=aerial+view+of+scottsdale,+az&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=Scottsdale,+AZ&gl=us&t=h&ei=DRGmTZL_NYaSgQfv0ZXFCg&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ8gEwAA



Scottsdale, Arizona is sparsely populated? Have you ever been to metro Phoenix? You don't know what you're talking about.



This wouldn't succeed in urban areas, especially in situations where many residential units are in very close proximity of each other.



Such as in Scottsdale, or many of the other cities listed on that Rural/Metro website?"





So you just attacked me personally, rather than deal with the flaws in your own argument.

Typical of the left wing.

Shut down dissent by personal attacks rather than trying to win the argument.



My point is this... YES GOVERNMENT JOBS CAN AND SHOULD BE PRIVATIZED AND OUTSOURCED.

[clocker]

Shut down dissent by personal attacks rather than trying to win the argument.
It's a bit difficult to tell what your "argument" is.

As I see it, you posit that privately owned, user subscribed (formerly) "public" services are superior to those supplied by the government.
Kind of hard to grasp the dichotomy here, so help me out...
After 9/11, the Right lionized as HEROES the first (and later) responders- the majority of whom were the very same unionized, blood sucking vampires that you currently demonize.
I guess they were only heroes as long as they were politically expedient (see: Rudy Guiliani) and didn't need health care (which Republicans fought tooth and nail).
You have also previously been a consistent advocate for removing regulation from business.

So, once you remove government from the equation we have FireFighters, Inc.- a private, for profit entity with no competition- as the sole source of protection.

And their incentive to provide comprehensive service at low cost is what, exactly?

BTW, 9...
Your new persona as the poor, abused , lone voice of conservatism is adorable.
It's a shame that the right wing agenda is so poorly covered in the media and your bravery, standing as the lone beacon of sanity in this rabidly liberal world , is edifying.

Well actually, it would be if you weren't wrong about pretty much everything.

[999969999]

Shut down dissent by personal attacks rather than trying to win the argument.
It's a bit difficult to tell what your "argument" is.

As I see it, you posit that privately owned, user subscribed (formerly) "public" services are superior to those supplied by the government.
You have also previously been a consistent advocate for removing regulation from business.

So, once you remove government from the equation we have FireFighters, Inc.- a private, for profit entity with no competition- as the sole source of protection.

And their incentive to provide comprehensive service at low cost is what, exactly?

BTW, 9...
Your new persona as the poor, abused , lone voice of conservatism is adorable.
It's a shame that the right wing agenda is so poorly covered in the media and your bravery, standing as the lone beacon of sanity in this rabidly liberal world , is edifying.

Well actually, it would be if you weren't wrong about pretty much everything.

So, Scottsdale is a rural area? Did you even look at the map? Have you ever been there?


Here it is again for you, in case you missed it.

http://maps.google.com/maps?rlz=1T4GWYE_enUS274US274&q=aerial+view+of+scottsdale,+az&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=Scottsdale,+AZ&gl=us&t=h&ei=DRGmTZL_NYaSgQfv0ZXFCg&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ8gEwAA
...

[clocker]

OK, I know where Scottsdale is.
Still not sure what the point is.

[999969999]

OK, I know where Scottsdale is.
Still not sure what the point is.

Remember, you brought it up originally...


9, the fact is, you don't have enough information to either "hate" or approve of unions.
90% of your posts are unfiltered Fox newspap and the remaining 10% are clueless in the extreme.

You wanna outsource government jobs, eh?
Say, turn the fire department over to the same folks who perform Comcast home service?
Good luck with that.

To which I replied that there is a private company which provides fire department service, to which the liberal anarchist replied



Yes, I want to outsource and privatize as many government jobs as possible. Hopefully it will help destroy what is left of the unions in this country. And as Rural Metro has shown, a private company can provide excellent fire protection and ambulance service at a reasonable cost. Consumers then have the right and freedom to choose whether or not they want to pay for that service and protection or just roll the dice and take their chances that they won't need to ever use it, and then deal with the consequences themselves.
The point that you missed here is that it can really only work in a sparsely populated rural environment. This wouldn't succeed in urban areas, especially in situations where many residential units are in very close proximity of each other. Whether it be a separate cost or built into the rent, the "private" costs would be extremely high. There would also be no margin of "opting" out as you propose. If you are at the point where you'd have the government managing pretty much nothing... it would seem that you are with me in idealizing a complete anarchist society. You can't just leave your foot halfway through the door.

And then I pointed out that, Scottsdale is not rural.

So, yes, government jobs can be done by the private sector, and it doesn't matter whether these are rural areas or urban areas like Scottsdale.

My point has been made and proven.

[megabyteme]

9's, are there any jobs you deem worthy of middle-class pay, benefits, and retirement? Some of us have to pay back the thousands of dollars (not to mention hard work) involved in earning our degrees... It would be nice to reep some kind of reward from your capitalist system. :ermm:

[devilsadvocate]

So, yes, government jobs can be done by the private sector, and it doesn't matter whether these are rural areas or urban areas like Scottsdale.

My point has been made and proven. Reading back I can't see anyone say that government jobs can't be done by the private sector. It does appear that the theory raised is that the private sector may not be as cheap or efficient and they are more likely to cut corners to keep profit margins up.

I have to ask some of our older British members if their gas/electricity/water bills went down up or remained pretty much the same when they were sold off to the private sector.

My personal experience when dealing with government to be honest has been very positive. Whenever I've had the occasion to converse with officialdom I've found the representative to be polite and responsive and my issues have been dealt with in good time.

With the private sector it's been a total crap shoot once they have my money.

[bigboab]

Private firms are the ruination of the British system. Trains dont run on time and cost a fortune despite being subsidised by the govenrment. The power companies are a laugh. Prices dont go up by a few percent they go up by 20 to 30%. The next one is muted at 25%.

My own experience of British Gas(private). could not produce a bill online for six months owing to 'computer problems'. Because I was online they could not give me a detailed bill on paper either. Their next hike is to be 25%.

My own experience of Scottish Power(private). I told them that their meter reader was only reading one instead of two meters(One for night time). They informed me that they knew what they were doing. One year later I received a masive bill for the unread meter. Do you want more?

Bus company(private). Takes off all the 'non profitable' routes, leaving people stranded in the rural community. If someone else starts a bus on these routes the company ensures that it has a bus in front of the new bus and reduces its fare on that route. When the new company 'gives up' they take their buses off again. The bus owner is one of the richest men in Scotland.


p.s. Britain is up to its ears in debt because of private firms. I understand most western countries are in the same boat. It was not nationalised companies that caused that predicament.

I have said this before, all utility services should be nationally owned. I have lived through private(pre 1948), public (1948 to 1980's), private since then. The post office is next to go private.

Summing up. Unless you have lived through both, you are only guessing which is best.

[clocker]

9's fondness for privatization might be sorely tested by results from his home state of Arizona. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/19/us/19prisons.html?_r=2)

In a nutshell, since outsourcing prisons the state has paid more per prisoner than when under government aegis.
Allowing the private contractors to cherry pick the prisoners- i.e., no longterm/high cost medical care prisoners- the private corps can show an easy profit and foist the "problem" prisoners off on the state.
In essence, they are adapting Castro's Mariel boatlift strategy as a profit enhancer.

Very clever of the private sector to try it, very stupid of Arizonans to buy it.

[megabyteme]

I don't particularly like the thought of prison being an enjoyable place, but I do suspect private companies, interested in turning as much profit as possible, would provide lower quality of food, medical, and educational services to the prisoners. Not all of these inmates are rapist pedophiles, and should receive a minimal level of care while serving their sentences.

I believe public utilities, education (k-12), prisons, postal, and others should remain in the hands of the government. Not everything needs to be reduced to the lowest possible cost. There is always a price to pay when you do so. Too many business owners are total scumbags. I don't want them operating everything. Government has its place- serving the public good.

[clocker]

The Post Office is already "private".

My biggest problem with private prisons is that they need an ever increasing population to remain profitable.
Where the "people" (in theory represented by the government) are better served by reducing criminality, private businesses in the prison industry
need more people to house...a clear conflict of interest.

Unsurprisingly, Arizona's insane immigration laws were heavily backed by private prison corporations who see a very profitable outcome
from the "reform".
If that doesn't pan out, expect littering to become a capital offense.

[999969999]

Oh, this is rich!

You guys are worried about the private sector being more expensive than public employees?

You really think the government will do a better job of being financially responsible than the private sector?

Here's how well the government does with our money...

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[devilsadvocate]

Oh, this is rich!

You guys are worried about the private sector being more expensive than public employees?

You really think the government will do a better job of being financially responsible than the private sector?

Here's how well the government does with our money...

http://www.usdebtclock.org/
What has US debt got to do with operating costs?

[megabyteme]

Oh, this is rich!

You guys are worried about the private sector being more expensive than public employees?

You really think the government will do a better job of being financially responsible than the private sector?

Here's how well the government does with our money...

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

I'm trying to imagine what our infrastructure, and social services would look like if we refused to have this debt. Are you suggesting that roads, and public services should be abandoned if there is no funding for them?

[clocker]

Oh, this is rich!

You guys are worried about the private sector being more expensive than public employees?
Apparently 9 missed my previous link, so I'll highlight it again-RIGHT GODDAMN HERE! (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/19/us/19prisons.html?_r=3).
There's no need to "worry" about comparisons between public and private sector efficiency because results from his own home state prove that "savings"
through private outsourcing are as illusory as the rest of conservative dogma.

The conflation of "good business" and "good government" is the new conservative Holy Grail.
Convincing America that corporations will somehow elevate their concern for public welfare above the cutthroat pursuit of profit is the full time job of the Koch brothers/Fox news and leads to such travesties as the Trump "campaign" (still awaiting those "amazing" results from your private investigators in Hawaii, Donald!).

Spend a few hours with Comcast customer support and tell me you think they could do a better job running the DMV.

[999969999]

Yay! My side won!...




"Wisconsin’s controversial new law limiting the collective bargaining rights of public employees had been blocked for months in the wake of a lawsuit that claims Republican legislators passed the bill without giving adequate public notice.

But the law has been revived from its deathbed, after the Wisconsin Supreme Court yesterday ruled that a lower-court judge who had enjoined the law improperly interfered with the legislature, WSJ reports.

The union law will now take effect; it not only limits employees’ right to bargain over their wages, but it also requires public employees to contribute 5.8% of their salaries to their pensions and pay at least 12.6% of their health-care premiums, according to WSJ.

Republican Gov. Scott Walker said the union measure was needed to help tackle the state’s budget deficit and give local governments needed flexibility.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the law in a 4-3 ruling, with the court’s conservative justices in the majority. The narrow ruling was not surprising out of a court that long has been beset by a sharp divide between its conservative and liberal blocs.

Tuesday’s opinion said Wisconsin circuit-court judge Maryann Sumi exceeded her authority when she issued a permanent injunction in May barring the law from taking effect. The justices wrote, “One of the courts that we are charged with supervising has usurped the legislative power which the Wisconsin Constitution grants exclusively to the legislature.”

The opinion included a fierce dissent, AP reports. Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, who is considered the leader of the court’s liberal wing, wrote that the majority “set forth their own version of facts without evidence. They should not engage in this disinformation.”

Abrahamson also said that a concurring opinion by newly reelected Justice David Prosser was “long on rhetoric and long on story-telling that appears to have a partisan slant.”




Take that Clocky and Lucifer!

[clocker]

I am so happy for you.

Your joy however is probably destined to be short lived, as legal challenges couldn't be filed till the law actually took effect.
I expect the law will be overturned just about the same time as the recall elections get going...

[mjmacky]

Yay! My side won!...

In reality, everyone except a virtually 0 % minority win in this. As far as that short winner's list, you're not on it.

I'm more cynical than clocker, and if this doesn't get repealed and the governor isn't recalled, I would only consider it a failure of mass intelligence and Wisconsin deserves the regression and demotion of the quality of life they didn't fight for.

[j2k4]

Yay! My side won!...

In reality, everyone except a virtually 0 % minority win in this. As far as that short winner's list, you're not on it.

I'm more cynical than clocker, and if this doesn't get repealed and the governor isn't recalled, I would only consider it a failure of mass intelligence and Wisconsin deserves the regression and demotion of the quality of life they didn't fight for.

Ah, but they did fight....
















...and they lost.











Moving on, then.

[mjmacky]

In reality, everyone except a virtually 0 % minority win in this. As far as that short winner's list, you're not on it.

I'm more cynical than clocker, and if this doesn't get repealed and the governor isn't recalled, I would only consider it a failure of mass intelligence and Wisconsin deserves the regression and demotion of the quality of life they didn't fight for.

Ah, but they did fight....
...and they lost.
Moving on, then.

They protested, but that mostly achieves nothing. As the voters really only have power once every year or 2 or 4 or 6. They get to decide what's important at that time.

[j2k4]

Ah, but they did fight....
...and they lost.
Moving on, then.

They protested, but that mostly achieves nothing. As the voters really only have power once every year or 2 or 4 or 6. They get to decide what's important at that time.

Oh, you're right, of course, except that the current lull in activity was intended to be final, back when laws had meaning.

The lawyers never want any legal action to end, really.

[mjmacky]

That's an entirely separate system

I want to recall what I said moments ago, as I think I might be overplaying voter significance at elections. Campaign managers decide who wins at each election.

[j2k4]

That's an entirely separate system

I want to recall what I said moments ago, as I think I might be overplaying voter significance at elections. Campaign managers decide who wins at each election.

Winning strategies are always better than losing ones, but underplaying the voter's role is a huge mistake; just ask me.

Ask the libs who watched Bush stumble through two terms.

As to your correct supposition about "The Fight", the court having ruled is meant to allow operational status - it likely will not, however, owing to the machination of the lawyers, who always see light at the end of every hole-in-the-ground.

[mjmacky]

That's an entirely separate system

I want to recall what I said moments ago, as I think I might be overplaying voter significance at elections. Campaign managers decide who wins at each election.

Winning strategies are always better than losing ones, but underplaying the voter's role is a huge mistake; just ask me.

Ask the libs who watched Bush stumble through two terms.

That is my point, you think the voters were really voting in their best interest putting Bush in office both terms? Propaganda wins every election, the voters are just pawns in that.

[j2k4]

Winning strategies are always better than losing ones, but underplaying the voter's role is a huge mistake; just ask me.

Ask the libs who watched Bush stumble through two terms.

That is my point, you think the voters were really voting in their best interest putting Bush in office both terms? Propaganda wins every election, the voters are just pawns in that.

Let's leave ideology aside for a moment so you can tell us how eight years of Al Gore would have gone?

While you are doing that, this American will try to forget for a moment that a non-American is (once again) presuming to pronounce definitively on matters American.

[mjmacky]

That is my point, you think the voters were really voting in their best interest putting Bush in office both terms? Propaganda wins every election, the voters are just pawns in that.

Let's leave ideology aside for a moment so you can tell us how eight years of Al Gore would have gone?

While you are doing that, this American will try to forget for a moment that a non-American is (once again) presuming to pronounce definitively on matters American.

How about leaving speculation aside as well. Though I'm reluctant to admit it while traveling, I suffer from American citizenship by birthright. I have, with the exception of 12 months (accumulated), resided in America my entire life. What made you think I'm not from here? I have been making arrangements to leave (permanently), but for now my current plan has me stuck here for a little while longer. Forgetting that, being an American doesn't automatically grant one wisdom about what should be done in their country, it usually just implies they have more of a vested interest in the results.

[j2k4]

Let's leave ideology aside for a moment so you can tell us how eight years of Al Gore would have gone?

While you are doing that, this American will try to forget for a moment that a non-American is (once again) presuming to pronounce definitively on matters American.

How about leaving speculation aside as well. Though I'm reluctant to admit it while traveling, I suffer from American citizenship by birthright. I have, with the exception of 12 months (accumulated), resided in America my entire life. What made you think I'm not from here? I have been making arrangements to leave (permanently), but for now my current plan has me stuck here for a little while longer. Forgetting that, being an American doesn't automatically grant one wisdom about what should be done in their country, it usually just implies they have more of a vested interest in the results.

Then I must offer you my sincerest apology for taking the liberty of mis-attributing your animus.

Please tell us about Mr. Gore, my American friend.

[mjmacky]

Then I must offer you my sincerest apology for taking the liberty of mis-attributing your animus.

Please tell us about Mr. Gore, my American friend.

It can be attributed to spiteful cynicism. I don't really like Gore that much either. I think in 2000 if I had my pick at all the major candidates (if forced) I would have gone for McCain. I liked him much more back then, I did not like him in 08 whatsoever. In 2004 the only candidate that had my interest was Kucinich. He had no chance at victory, and after a rather dismal state election process 2 years earlier, I didn't even bother voting in 2004. It feels like much of a fool's errand as I've grown quite apathetic to the entire process.

[megabyteme]

Winning strategies are always better than losing ones, but underplaying the voter's role is a huge mistake; just ask me.

Ask the libs who watched Bush stumble through two terms.

That is my point, you think the voters were really voting in their best interest putting Bush in office both terms? Propaganda wins every election, the voters are just pawns in that.

I am finding myself more, and more, disillusioned with our system (and everyone else's, as well), but think your statement here is a bit off, macky. Saying that propaganda is the winner of elections is akin to saying that advertising is the only reason people buy bread. There is still a demand side to politics. The masses still have to want/need to hear the messages being fed to them. However, I don't believe modern politics are driven by the masses.

What bothers me the most is that I don't see it changing- regardless of who runs/"wins" office.

[mjmacky]

Saying that propaganda is the winner of elections is akin to saying that advertising is the only reason people buy bread. There is still a demand side to politics. The masses still have to want/need to hear the messages being fed to them. However, I don't believe modern politics are driven by the masses.

What bothers me the most is that I don't see it changing- regardless of who runs/"wins" office.

But I find that analogy highly disproportionate. When's the last time you saw a bread commercial? Now a McD/BK/Wendy analogy would fit right in. In fact, I put political ads on the same level as fast food ads. I often see them and think, I don't like you're shitty food or I don't buy your shitty message. That's just me, but it apparently has major effects on the population en masse.

I would agree that it doesn't really change. I really like Obama as a man, he's intelligent with clear perspective and sound logic. As a politician though, I don't rank him that much higher than your standard politician (my definition of standard here isn't an average, as there's many that are way below standard IMO). There was a speech he gave after the Reverend Wright story where he addressed race relations that at the time surprised me that someone in public spoke that candidly about it. For sake of being thorough I dug up a youtube link for it, so that anyone can watch it if they wish. It contained both political pandering and candid honesty, which can clearly be discerned at stark contrast. It was what he revealed about himself as a man that I was given the chance to find a great deal of respect for him. I just didn't, and still don't share the same "hope" that he spoke of in the pandering.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_9al4IQOhk

[j2k4]

Then I must offer you my sincerest apology for taking the liberty of mis-attributing your animus.

Please tell us about Mr. Gore, my American friend.

It can be attributed to spiteful cynicism. I don't really like Gore that much either. I think in 2000 if I had my pick at all the major candidates (if forced) I would have gone for McCain. I liked him much more back then, I did not like him in 08 whatsoever. In 2004 the only candidate that had my interest was Kucinich. He had no chance at victory, and after a rather dismal state election process 2 years earlier, I didn't even bother voting in 2004. It feels like much of a fool's errand as I've grown quite apathetic to the entire process.

You couldn't be more wrong about my "spiteful cynicism", but never mind that.

I find it ironic that your self-admitted apathy only extends to the voting booth, which is the only way for your opinion to count.

I trust any lurkers here to publish their opinion of yours (or mine, for the matter), if you are the type to care about the score, but I must tell you how impressed I am that you cared enough to favor us with any of your posts, the least of which took more time than it would to pull the voting lever.

Apropos of nothing at all, can I ask if you are leaving to study colonialism for a few years before you come back here for a presidential run?

[mjmacky]

You couldn't be more wrong about my "spiteful cynicism", but never mind that.

I find it ironic that your self-admitted apathy only extends to the voting booth, which is the only way for your opinion to count.

I trust any lurkers here to publish their opinion of yours (or mine, for the matter), if you are the type to care about the score, but I must tell you how impressed I am that you cared enough to favor us with any of your posts, the least of which took more time than it would to pull the voting lever.

Apropos of nothing at all, can I ask if you are leaving to study colonialism for a few years before you come back here for a presidential run?

No no no, the spiteful cynicism is mine, not yours. It was in response to the wording you used about how you misinterpreted me... nevermind.

If voting were an online activity, that'd be different. Instead we're talking about driving over, finding parking, getting voter identification ready, waiting, waiting, waiting, vote. That's not including the prerequisite of making sure you have your voting information up to date, finding out you've lost your card, etc. All that for what? To vote between one clown or another, when advertisement has already determined the outcome? To vote on a slew of issues that pretty much get a 60-75 % favor of passing regardless of what they are. The symbolism of pointlessness makes the entire experience very agitating. Purging my opinions in digital form on some server accessible to the world, that's a lot more personally satisfying.

To answer your last questions, I am leaving to escape. To escape from:
-a majority of religious nuts
-saturated superficiality and stupidity
-commercialized politics
-unpredictable taxation (fines, fees, permit costs, etc.)
-living under and hearing about the tyranny of home owner's associations
-shitty food choices in the middle of the night
-monolinguists
-muffin tops
-american football
-etc. etc. etc.

I'm just ready to start being bothered by another culture's problems. I'm fed up with this one.

[j2k4]

You couldn't be more wrong about my "spiteful cynicism", but never mind that.

I find it ironic that your self-admitted apathy only extends to the voting booth, which is the only way for your opinion to count.

I trust any lurkers here to publish their opinion of yours (or mine, for the matter), if you are the type to care about the score, but I must tell you how impressed I am that you cared enough to favor us with any of your posts, the least of which took more time than it would to pull the voting lever.

Apropos of nothing at all, can I ask if you are leaving to study colonialism for a few years before you come back here for a presidential run?

No no no, the spiteful cynicism is mine, not yours. It was in response to the wording you used about how you misinterpreted me... nevermind.

If voting were an online activity, that'd be different. Instead we're talking about driving over, finding parking, getting voter identification ready, waiting, waiting, waiting, vote. That's not including the prerequisite of making sure you have your voting information up to date, finding out you've lost your card, etc. All that for what? To vote between one clown or another, when advertisement has already determined the outcome? To vote on a slew of issues that pretty much get a 60-75 % favor of passing regardless of what they are. The symbolism of pointlessness makes the entire experience very agitating. Purging my opinions in digital form on some server accessible to the world, that's a lot more personally satisfying.

To answer your last questions, I am leaving to escape. To escape from:
-a majority of religious nuts
-saturated superficiality and stupidity
-commercialized politics
-unpredictable taxation (fines, fees, permit costs, etc.)
-living under and hearing about the tyranny of home owner's associations
-shitty food choices in the middle of the night
-monolinguists
-muffin tops
-american football
-etc. etc. etc.

I'm just ready to start being bothered by another culture's problems. I'm fed up with this one.

Oh, ffs.

You could have just said so. :)

I trust you will keep us apprised of events going forward - there is a tremendous opportunity here for enlightened and entertaining postage, wouldn't you say?

This place could use a good salvaging.

[mjmacky]

This is probably the longest I've been active on any particular forum, with the exception of networkedmediatank. It still brings me back every day, I don't know what it is exactly but I love this board.

Edit: So unfortunately, yes, I'll probably be spittin around for quite awhile longer, give or take a few sporadic breaks. Comma, comma, comma.

[j2k4]

This is probably the longest I've been active on any particular forum, with the exception of networkedmediatank. It still brings me back every day, I don't know what it is exactly but I love this board.

Edit: So unfortunately, yes, I'll probably be spittin around for quite awhile longer, give or take a few sporadic breaks. Comma, comma, comma.

That's excellent, then.:)

[megabyteme]

Saying that propaganda is the winner of elections is akin to saying that advertising is the only reason people buy bread. There is still a demand side to politics. The masses still have to want/need to hear the messages being fed to them. However, I don't believe modern politics are driven by the masses.

What bothers me the most is that I don't see it changing- regardless of who runs/"wins" office.

But I find that analogy highly disproportionate. When's the last time you saw a bread commercial? Now a McD/BK/Wendy analogy would fit right in. In fact, I put political ads on the same level as fast food ads. I often see them and think, I don't like you're shitty food or I don't buy your shitty message. That's just me, but it apparently has major effects on the population en masse.

I believe I will accept your "fast food" analogy over mine of "bread". I am still at a point of seeking heartiness (as a good, real bread should bring), but I do realize that any messages being sold are the Wonder Bread variety- and not anything more than something to appease the hunger.

I remember arguing once with the majority of a Business 101 class that advertisements were successful at swaying "people's" opinions on which goods they purchased. No one in the room wanted to admit/believe that they were convinced to buy anything based on image, celebrity, etc. Everyone believed they were "too smart" to fall for such obvious tricks...

[999969999]

This is probably the longest I've been active on any particular forum, with the exception of networkedmediatank. It still brings me back every day, I don't know what it is exactly but I love this board.

Edit: So unfortunately, yes, I'll probably be spittin around for quite awhile longer, give or take a few sporadic breaks. Comma, comma, comma.

I agree. This has been a fun forum with lots of people to argue with and I have enjoyed that. But it has been a huge time waster for me.

After Father's Day, I am leaving for Oregon, and my life is going to become extremely busy with getting my Grandparents' guest house ready for me to live in-- it hasn't been used in years! And then when college classes start I will need all the time I can get to study and pass them. Accounting is not the most difficult subject in the world, but I want to get through in 4 years, so I will be taking a full load of credits each semester, and that will take up most of my time.

So, I won't be on here very much anymore.

But, I will pop back in from time to time and rattle your cages some more, mainly when I come back to Eagar to visit my folks for Thanksgiving or Christmas break, and whenever I get really bored.

So, have fun everyone!

Sincerely,

Hans

[mjmacky]

Everyone believed they were "too smart" to fall for such obvious tricks...

Everyone also thinks they're special and unique and that everyone else are sheep. It really does underplay the sentiment, but I live that narrative by action. I've dismissed the insincere claims as people wear their badges of hypocrisy. As far as a commercial's success goes, I think I'd only ever be swayed if Natalie Portman told me to buy something, and only if she addressed me by name, and if she told me she wants me but in order to be with her I have to buy that thing.

[mjmacky]

But, I will pop back in from time to time and rattle your cages some more

Thanks for being that voice of someone lacking a voice. Sometimes we just need to take a few swings at the speedbag after hearing some of the dumb shit we're unfortunately exposed to on the outside. You personified those types pretty accurately. However, I should correct you about rattling the cage. That assumes the individuals are tame, and you introduce a catalyst to get them riled up. How many of these people are tame otherwise?

Unfortunately, with the style of trolling you used, you'll be easily forgotten. For I've never really seen you make a statement for which I can attach a personality to. So if you ever plan on coming back, perhaps reinvent the troll style you will use, and perhaps we'll all forget about the current persona.

[megabyteme]

Unfortunately, with the style of trolling you used, you'll be easily forgotten. For I've never really seen you make a statement for which I can attach a personality to. So if you ever plan on coming back, perhaps reinvent the troll style you will use, and perhaps we'll all forget about the current persona.

Yeah, we've already replaced him with Oleg. How "memorable" can anyone be if they can be replaced by Oleg? :D

[mjmacky]

Yeah, we've already replaced him with Oleg. How "memorable" can anyone be if they can be replaced by Oleg? :D

I remember thinking he was Oleg at one point, and that the introduction of both of them into one thread would end up a chalice-cunt situation just on an entirely lower level

[999969999]

Another domino falls in the struggle to destroy organized crime, errrrm....wait, I mean, organized labor...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/us/indiana-right-to-work-measure-expected-to-pass.html

INDIANAPOLIS — House Democrats brought state lawmaking to a halt in Indiana for much of this week, refusing for a third straight day on Friday to come out to their chamber floor in a procedural effort to stop “right to work” legislation at the center of a mounting battle over unions here.

But by Friday afternoon Republicans in the Senate succeeded in moving the measure out of a committee to the full Senate, where passage is likely next week. And by the end of the day, even Democrats in the House — who could face steep fines for not attending the session in the coming days — seemed to hint that there was only so much they could do to stop the provision from eventual adoption.

“We know we can’t stay out forever,” Representative B. Patrick Bauer, the Democrats’ leader, said after emerging Friday afternoon from a room in the Statehouse where the Democrats had been meeting privately and using the Internet to watch the floor proceedings they were missing.

Republicans have solid majorities in both the State House and Senate. But only in the Senate do they have such a big advantage that Democrats cannot avoid a quorum or stop votes on issues — an option House Democrats have enough seats for.

If approved, Indiana would become the first state in a decade to prohibit union contracts at private-sector businesses from requiring workers who choose not to be union members to pay dues or fees to the union. Twenty-two other states already have such laws, but Indiana would be the first in the Great Lakes manufacturing region, and passage here seems likely to encourage similar efforts already under consideration elsewhere.

While fights last year over union power and collective bargaining rights in places like Wisconsin and Ohio were relatively straightforward, one of the complications of the debate here is that “right to work” laws are somewhat more complicated to explain to the public. Even along the streets here, several passers-by acknowledged that they were not exactly sure — in spite of a fierce advertising war on the airwaves in Indiana — what such a law would mean.

Supporters say that Indiana’s measure is simply a matter of giving workers choices, and that it would help the state attract more businesses. Opponents say it would allow workers to benefit from the work of unions without paying for them and, more broadly, weaken collective bargaining, ultimately lowering wages and benefits.

In a city that is excitedly preparing to host the Super Bowl next month, the N.F.L. Players Association on Friday issued a sharp critique of the proposal, which the association deemed “a political ploy designed to destroy basic workers’ rights.”

As scores of union members gathered in the Statehouse halls, their cheers (and groans) sometimes echoing into a five-hour committee hearing on the question, Representative Jerry Torr, a Republican and a sponsor of the bill, said, “It’s not union-busting; it strengthens the union.” He added, “This is tremendous for Indiana.”

A year ago, the same issue arose here. At that time, the “right to work” proposal by Republicans, along with a series of other proposals the Democrats deemed anti-union, led to a standoff in which House Democrats fled Indianapolis for weeks, staying at a motel in Illinois to block a quorum.

Gov. Mitch Daniels, a Republican, said last year that the measure was not his top priority, but more recently he has voiced strong support for its passage.

This time a disappearance by the Democrats to some other state was not under consideration, though no one was sure what would occur on Monday, when lawmakers are called back to work. Signs of tension had emerged within the Democratic caucus (including the resignation of one member in the leadership).

And by Friday afternoon, 5 of the state’s 40 House Democrats appeared to have parted ways with their colleagues and come to the floor.

To meet the House rules that 67 members be present to call for a vote, only 7 Democrats are needed.

[999969999]

Ha ha! Walker won against the recall attempt by organized crime, er... I mean by the communists, er.... I mean by the labor unions and Democrats!

One small step by Walker, one HUGE step toward crushing the public employee unions all over this country.

This is a great day and a great victory.

Now if we could just get that communist out of the White House.

[999969999]

Oh, I forgot to mention... all those protests that shut down the Wisconsin capitol building... hmmm.... I see that didn't help their cause at all, now did it? In fact, I think they probably shot themselves in the foot by doing that because it showed the public what they were all about, and obviously the public didn't like what they saw.

They are waking up the sleeping giant known as the American taxpayer, and we are not amused.

[mjmacky]

I had assumed you died in a fire. I pictured a very blackened silver spoon due to the severe oxidation that took place in said fire while your friends gathered outside of your residence saying no to big government when the fire department showed up.

[999969999]

I had assumed you died in a fire. I pictured a very blackened silver spoon due to the severe oxidation that took place in said fire while your friends gathered outside of your residence saying no to big government when the fire department showed up.


Nah, just busy with accounting classes.


Silver?! My grandparents actually have gold plated spoons. Mmmm... gold!

[j2k4]

Union greed is taking it in the ass and the unions have no clothes.

One may or may not argue over the 'entitlement' of a taxpayer-funded retirement, but it's difficult to defend the idea of feeling entitled to two of them.

I know a shit-ton of people who are embarrassed at how little they make, doing what they do.

Refreshing to see people embarrassed at how much they make, doing what they do...:)

[mjmacky]

I had assumed you died in a fire. I pictured a very blackened silver spoon due to the severe oxidation that took place in said fire while your friends gathered outside of your residence saying no to big government when the fire department showed up.


Nah, just busy with accounting classes.


Silver?! My grandparents actually have gold plated spoons. Mmmm... gold!

Good, then I'll be sure to rob your house and give them away to fuel cell developmental research projects.

[mjmacky]

I know a shit-ton of people who are embarrassed at how little they make, doing what they do.

Refreshing to see people embarrassed at how much they make, doing what they do...:)

Florida has long had a stripped down teacher's union, teachers making salaries apropos to the cost of living 20 years ago. They basically only pay enough here to equip our schools with teachers who are married to earning spouses, ones who desperately want to be in Florida, and finally those who are sexually aroused by the students.

[IdolEyes787]

You should move to Canada.Our teachers are grossly overpaid,have ridiculous benefits and barely work at all.

[j2k4]

I know a shit-ton of people who are embarrassed at how little they make, doing what they do.

Refreshing to see people embarrassed at how much they make, doing what they do...:)

Florida has long had a stripped down teacher's union, teachers making salaries apropos to the cost of living 20 years ago. They basically only pay enough here to equip our schools with teachers who are married to earning spouses, ones who desperately want to be in Florida, and finally those who are sexually aroused by the students.

That last accounts for the news reports.

Doesn't sound like Florida unions will need much crushing, then. :wink:

[mjmacky]

You should move to Canada.Our teachers are grossly overpaid,have ridiculous benefits and barely work at all.

What kind of students are they churning out?

[mjmacky]

Florida has long had a stripped down teacher's union, teachers making salaries apropos to the cost of living 20 years ago. They basically only pay enough here to equip our schools with teachers who are married to earning spouses, ones who desperately want to be in Florida, and finally those who are sexually aroused by the students.

That last accounts for the news reports.

Doesn't sound like Florida unions will need much crushing, then. :wink:

I colleague of my wife got caught recently with a student, it was the second occurrence and he was finally fired and prosecuted. The incidents that baffle me are the hot-ish 20 somethings sleeping with middle school boys (11-13 years old) :huh:
I guess size does matter, just not the way we thought.

[j2k4]

That last accounts for the news reports.

Doesn't sound like Florida unions will need much crushing, then. :wink:

I colleague of my wife got caught recently with a student, it was the second occurrence and he was finally fired and prosecuted. The incidents that baffle me are the hot-ish 20 somethings sleeping with middle school boys (11-13 years old) :huh:
I guess size does matter, just not the way we thought.

A quandary, to be sure.

It's not something that requires skill, or even practice.

[IdolEyes787]

You should move to Canada.Our teachers are grossly overpaid,have ridiculous benefits and barely work at all.

What kind of students are they churning out?

Check my grammar and you tell me.
Anyway you should care if you can afford a vacation home?

[mjmacky]

What kind of students are they churning out?

Check my grammar and you tell me.
Anyway you should care if you can afford a vacation home?

Those are both trick questions. I don't see you as a product of a school system, and that second line wasn't even a question.

[j2k4]

Banter, banter.

Banter.

Banter, banter, banter.

How's tricks, guys? :)

[manker]

Banter, banter.

Banter.

Banter, banter, banter.

How's are tricks, guys? :)Not bad, Kevster.
Didn't you make me a solemn promise to post more when I recently returned from my enforced absence back in, oh, October I think.

You cad.

[mjmacky]

How's are tricks, guys? :)Not bad, Kevster.
/edit

I have to draw a line here, you don't correct proper colloquialisms in a forum, sexist.

[manker]

Not bad, Kevster.
/edit

I have to draw a line here, one doesn't correct proper colloquialisms in a forum, sexist.Quite clearly, I did.
Do you see your error, there.

[j2k4]

Banter, banter.

Banter.

Banter, banter, banter.

How's are tricks, guys? :)Not bad, Kevster.
Didn't you make me a solemn promise to post more when I recently returned from my enforced absence back in, oh, October I think.

You cad.



Not bad, Kevster.
/edit

I have to draw a line here, you don't correct proper colloquialisms in a forum, sexist.


Quite clearly, I did.
Do you see your error, there.

I believe manker was having a poke at one of my favorite habits - if allowances are to be granted, I grant them, and gladly. :)

Yes, I think you're right, manker, I've an assortment of broken promises, by now.

Has the chrome bin tarnished at all (at all).

I responded to JP a few minutes ago, I wonder if he's around?

Have you been regular, hereabout?

[manker]

Not bad, Kevster.
Didn't you make me a solemn promise to post more when I recently returned from my enforced absence back in, oh, October I think.

You cad.



Not bad, Kevster.
/edit

I have to draw a line here, you don't correct proper colloquialisms in a forum, sexist.


Quite clearly, I did.
Do you see your error, there.

I believe manker was having a poke at one of my favorite habits - if allowances are to be granted, I grant them, and gladly. :)

Yes, I think you're right, manker, I've an assortment of broken promises, by now.

Has the chrome bin tarnished at all (at all).

I responded to JP a few minutes ago, I wonder if he's around?

Have you been regular, hereabout?Welcome back again!

I get to see the chrome bin once in a while. Not as often as I'd like but, you see, myself and the bin's owner parted ways shortly after the bin impinged upon our intertwined lives.
This is an actual true story and I'm not quite sure whether the bin had anything to do with it.

:eyebrows:

I have been particularly regular here for the best part of a year, now. JP came back just last week, I'd not seen him at all until then.
It seems a few of the longer standing members have returned recently, which is fantastic because it's coinciding with the 10th anniversary of the board's inception (this Sunday, I believe).
So stick around :D

[j2k4]

Welcome back again!

I get to see the chrome bin once in a while. Not as often as I'd like but, you see, myself and the bin's owner parted ways shortly after the bin impinged upon our intertwined lives.
This is an actual true story and I'm not quite sure whether the bin had anything to do with it.

:eyebrows:

I have been particularly regular here for the best part of a year, now. JP came back just last week, I'd not seen him at all until then.
It seems a few of the longer standing members have returned recently, which is fantastic because it's coinciding with the 10th anniversary of the board's inception (this Sunday, I believe).
So stick around :D

Sorry to hear about you and the bin recipient.

That's a tough go all around; hope you're doing well and are whole in body, spirit, mind, and wallet.

I may just stick my head in here, now, if the older crew has re-appeared.

I believe Clocker still posts?

[mjmacky]

I have to draw a line here, one doesn't correct proper colloquialisms in a forum, sexist.Quite clearly, I did.
Do you see your error, there.

Only one on this forum does try to correct colloquialisms, do you see your error? In this case, your prior is as correct as my latter.
/x-thread ref

Yield to my colloquial imperative.

[j2k4]

Doesn't the imperative accrue to the author of the...oh, nevermind.

[manker]

Welcome back again!

I get to see the chrome bin once in a while. Not as often as I'd like but, you see, myself and the bin's owner parted ways shortly after the bin impinged upon our intertwined lives.
This is an actual true story and I'm not quite sure whether the bin had anything to do with it.

:eyebrows:

I have been particularly regular here for the best part of a year, now. JP came back just last week, I'd not seen him at all until then.
It seems a few of the longer standing members have returned recently, which is fantastic because it's coinciding with the 10th anniversary of the board's inception (this Sunday, I believe).
So stick around :D

Sorry to hear about you and the bin recipient.

That's a tough go all around; hope you're doing well and are whole in body, spirit, mind, and wallet.

I may just stick my head in here, now, if the older crew has re-appeared.

I believe Clocker still posts?Infrequently, more's the pity.

And don't be worrying about the bin's rightful owner. I didn't contest custody (of the bin) and found myself with a less shouty model (of a female) who is now quite settled within our chrome encrusted dwelling.

[999969999]

Nah, just busy with accounting classes.


Silver?! My grandparents actually have gold plated spoons. Mmmm... gold!

Good, then I'll be sure to rob your house and give them away to fuel cell developmental research projects.

LOL! You'd be in for quite a surprise if you tried something like that. You would have to try to do your fuel cell development research projects in your coffin.

[999969999]

.

I may just stick my head in here, now, if the older crew has re-appeared.

I believe Clocker still posts?

I'm glad to see Kevin is back.


Clocky will probably show up around here soon.


I actually heard from Bob (BigBoab), but he doesn't seem to be posting here anymore.


Whatever happened to Lucifer (devilsadvocate) ?

[mjmacky]

Good, then I'll be sure to rob your house and give them away to fuel cell developmental research projects.

LOL! You'd be in for quite a surprise if you tried something like that. You would have to try to do your fuel cell development research projects in your coffin.

I mean when I pry them from your warm dead hands, before the volunteer fire crew shows up to watch your house burn down while they wait outside for someone to come running out and pay your fees.

[j2k4]

Both cocky and confident.

I like this. :wink:

[999969999]

LOL! You'd be in for quite a surprise if you tried something like that. You would have to try to do your fuel cell development research projects in your coffin.

I mean when I pry them from your warm dead hands, before the volunteer fire crew shows up to watch your house burn down while they wait outside for someone to come running out and pay your fees.

And you assume that we couldn't or wouldn't pay the fees? How hard is it to pay the fees on time? I would much rather pay a non-union, private fire service like Rural Metro than pay taxes for some bloated bureaucracy to do the same thing at much higher wages and legacy costs.

What no one has responded to in these last few pages of posts is the fact that Walker won the recall election by a landslide in a formerly democrat stronghold.

Is doesn't look very good for unions, now does it?

Is doesn't look very good for Obama, either, now does it?

[mjmacky]

And you assume that we couldn't or wouldn't pay the fees? How hard is it to pay the fees on time? I would much rather pay a non-union, private fire service like Rural Metro than pay taxes for some bloated bureaucracy to do the same thing at much higher wages and legacy costs.

You could easily get behind with all the money you're dishing out to fedex handling all of your mail, a private security agency handling your neighborhood crime, a construction firm you contract with directly to handle your potholes and road maintenance, etc. Or maybe you're filthy rich from exploiting others and you could afford it, but had a difficult time keeping track of all the separate bills, so you hired someone else to just pay your bills, and they forgot to pay Rural Metro that month.

[mjmacky]

What no one has responded to in these last few pages of posts is the fact that Walker won the recall election by a landslide in a formerly democrat stronghold.

Because I don't give a shit about that idiot. There are other governors, more idiotic and corrupt, that draw my attention, e.g. Rick Scott.

[999969999]

It seems that the majority of Wisconsin voters agree with me on this issue.

Does that worry you?

[mjmacky]

It seems that the majority of Wisconsin voters agree with me on this issue.

Does that worry you?

I see what you're doing there, but I kind of already feel like most people are idiots. What additional concern is necessary?

[j2k4]

It seems that the majority of Wisconsin voters agree with me on this issue.

Does that worry you?

I see what you're doing there, but I kind of already feel like most people are idiots. What additional concern is necessary?

Most people are idiots.

Non-idiots are loathe to change this, I think you'll find.

[mjmacky]

I see what you're doing there, but I kind of already feel like most people are idiots. What additional concern is necessary?

Most people are idiots.

Non-idiots are loathe to change this, I think you'll find.

I kind of want to stick to stating opinions to 9s, even if they are facts. That's mostly on the account that he's obviously not real and it would seem a bit strange to freely give tangible information.

[999969999]

Comrade Macky is either the member of some sort of union or has some other reason to like them, but what happened in Wisconsin is quite obvious. Governments simply cannot afford to pay their employees such high wages, give them lavish benefits, and enviable pensions anymore. Those days are over. Public employee unions are dinosaurs. All unions, for that matter, are dinosaurs. When given the chance under the new Wisconsin law, union members left their union in droves and stop paying their union dues. When give a choice, people choose not to be in a union. This spells the doom of unions throughout this country.

The socialist governments in Europe are being crushed by their debts, and whether they like it or not, the days of their government employee driven economies are coming to an end.

Our debts will eventually push us over a cliff and we will have to slash our government to the bone as well.

Something the world seems to refuse to accept is this-- you cannot continue to spend more than you take in forever. Eventually it has to come to an end.

For some strange reason, we fooled ourselves into thinking that we could continue to run trade deficits indefinitely, and these trade deficits eventually forced us to borrow money to keep the economy moving forward, and to keep expanding the government. Government deficit spending and debt is really just a symptom of the underlying cause-- our constant year after year, decade after decade trade deficit. And military spending, too, of course. We have been at war almost constantly since World War II. Unlike Rome we didn't demand tribute. We just borrowed more money to pay for it. Well, it must also come to an end.

We tried to build a global economy on debt, and it seems like we are still trying to go right back to doing this. It simply will not work forever.

The big looming question is not whether this collapse will happen (because it will happen) or when (soon), but what will the world be like when the European Union and the United States are in the middle of the worst economic depression ever experienced?

Another dark age?

[999969999]

I see what you're doing there, but I kind of already feel like most people are idiots. What additional concern is necessary?

Most people are idiots.

Non-idiots are loathe to change this, I think you'll find.

Did someone hijack Kevin's account?

[mjmacky]

Comrade Macky is either the member of some sort of union or has some other reason to like them, but what happened in Wisconsin is quite obvious. Governments simply cannot afford to pay their employees such high wages, give them lavish benefits, and enviable pensions anymore.

Rather, I see the purpose unions function to serve, and the exploitation of wage earners without them is just as obvious. They also served as a political balancing force that opposes complete manipulation of government policy by businesses that have enough money to directly influence government. Now that there are no limits to corporate contributions to political campaigns and unions being stamped out, I guess we can now envision how we approach a completely fascist state of the profit oligarchs.

[j2k4]

Most people are idiots.

Non-idiots are loathe to change this, I think you'll find.

Did someone hijack Kevin's account?

Absolutely not.

I'm sure you will find as your years go by that the masses of people, if not totally ignorant and detached from significant events, are either seeking a way to order their information so it makes sense, or waiting until they are 40-ish before they take the brakes off their mental faculties.

The result is that (slight guess here), at any given time, a slight majority of people don't have a clue, and it only takes a half-wit to stay on top of that lot.

Smart people will that call that crowd content and let them be what they are, because the 'quick-think mentality' of these people leads to things like...Obama.

[mjmacky]

Speaking of which, when are we going to get a socialist Obama, I've been waiting 3.5 years.

[999969999]

Comrade Macky will like this...


"Great news. A Maricopa County Superior Court has ruled that spending taxpayer money for union activity must stop.



Judge Katherine Cooper issued a preliminary injunction June 5 halting Phoenix’s practice of paying union leaders to do union work, rather than their city jobs, on the taxpayers’clock.



I’ve believed the “release time” practice by Phoenix is illegal, a violation of the state’s Gift Clause. Giving taxpayer money to unions to do union activity does not benefit taxpayers. In fact, it hurts the taxpayer.



The ruling is the result of a suitby the Goldwater Institute against Phoenix and the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, or PLEA. Phoenix gives the police union about $1 million ayear in release time payments with no description or auditing of what Phoenixgets in return.



All told, Phoenix gives multiple city unions about $3.7 million in release time. The suit only included the police union.



Click here to see the ruling.



http://goldwaterinstitute.org/sites/default/files/m5273505.pdf



Click here for the Goldwater Instituteinvestigation into Phoenix’s release time



http://goldwaterinstitute.org/article/money-nothing-phoenix-taxpayers-foot-bill-union-work



Contact: Phoenix Councilman Sal DiCiccio,District 6"

[mjmacky]

I was always of the mind that union members should pay their own union fees.

[j2k4]

You have a socialist Obama, but he's only as effective as Socialism can make him, y'know? :wink:

[j2k4]

I was always of the mind that union members should pay their own union fees.

Oh, they absolutely should pay dues - they should also have the option of not joining the union.

Ideological freedom demands it. :)

[mjmacky]

I was always of the mind that union members should pay their own union fees.

Oh, they absolutely should pay dues - they should also have the option of not joining the union.

Ideological freedom demands it. :)

Though, that's also a tricky one. Do they get the same benefits as union members? Do they not get hired, or would the be overwhelmingly preferred since it's far easier to exploit their labor? Can an employer discriminate based on union affiliation? It works so differently state-to-state, industry-to-industry, that I can't really address it in a couple of sentences.

Both myself and my wife are in unions, as ineffectual as they can be, just because we believe in the causes they fight sissy slap for and the dues are dirt cheap. Mine is a graduate instructional union, and hers is the aforementioned ineffectual teacher's union. Mine managed to do some things during my time there to give us access to health coverage (while before our access was equivalent to being unemployed). The thing is, joining and paying dues is voluntary, but everyone (membership or not) gets the reward. I don't particularly mind since the cost is low. My wife's union has not achieved anything for as long as she's been a teacher (maybe not enough people pay in?).

[j2k4]

They might rather just have the money than the debatable value of union membership.

What of the "benefits"?

Just another choice.

As to the rest, take 100% of the work force, give me the top 20% and the bottom 20%, you take the middle 40%, put us in the same business, and I will kick your ass all over the joint - not because My 40% is better than your 40%, but because my top 20% is better than your 40%.

Let them find their own "benefits" - I'll pay them more to relieve me of the headache of doing it for them.

[mjmacky]

They might rather just have the money than the debatable value of union membership.

What of the "benefits"?

Just another choice.

As to the rest, take 100% of the work force, give me the top 20% and the bottom 20%, you take the middle 40%, put us in the same business, and I will kick your ass all over the joint - not because My 40% is better than your 40%, but because my top 20% is better than your 40%.

Let them find their own "benefits" - I'll pay them more to relieve me of the headache of doing it for them.

Well with all of their traditional powers long castrated, they still have some things they're fighting for. Florida (as I imagine some other states as well) has become a standardized test state. That is, the entire focus of secondary education revolves around the FCAT (Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test), and not a single teacher has ever had any praise for it that I've heard. It's designed to distribute money to the schools that have better test scores, while lowering funds for schools in which they do poorly. This creates a frantic race to put out test takers instead of students.

Now, there's been a new law put into place that intends to affect teacher's pay based on the the same system. Which means, if you want to earn a decent wage as a Florida teacher, you must teach the test as pretty much your entire curriculum. Teachers want to see this state of testing education ebb, so the Florida teacher's union is fighting this by way of a lawsuit. I actually asked my wife how much the dues were, and she said $600 a year, and I can see how several teachers might not be able to afford it, say if they're the only income earner.

On the second part, why don't I just hire the people that seem most fit for the job? :blink:

[999969999]

Both myself and my wife are in unions


What a surprise!!!

[999969999]

Speaking of which, when are we going to get a socialist Obama, I've been waiting 3.5 years.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/report-new-documents-show-obama-was-a-member-of-the-far-left-new-party/#

[j2k4]

They might rather just have the money than the debatable value of union membership.

What of the "benefits"?

Just another choice.

As to the rest, take 100% of the work force, give me the top 20% and the bottom 20%, you take the middle 40%, put us in the same business, and I will kick your ass all over the joint - not because My 40% is better than your 40%, but because my top 20% is better than your 40%.

Let them find their own "benefits" - I'll pay them more to relieve me of the headache of doing it for them.

Well with all of their traditional powers long castrated, they still have some things they're fighting for. Florida (as I imagine some other states as well) has become a standardized test state. That is, the entire focus of secondary education revolves around the FCAT (Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test), and not a single teacher has ever had any praise for it that I've heard. It's designed to distribute money to the schools that have better test scores, while lowering funds for schools in which they do poorly. This creates a frantic race to put out test takers instead of students.

Now, there's been a new law put into place that intends to affect teacher's pay based on the the same system. Which means, if you want to earn a decent wage as a Florida teacher, you must teach the test as pretty much your entire curriculum. Teachers want to see this state of testing education ebb, so the Florida teacher's union is fighting this by way of a lawsuit. I actually asked my wife how much the dues were, and she said $600 a year, and I can see how several teachers might not be able to afford it, say if they're the only income earner.

On the second part, why don't I just hire the people that seem most fit for the job? :blink:

That last made it too easy - if (and this happens, there is no refuting it), teaching degree in hand, our young pilgrim discovers he or she isn't so suited to the profession as previously thought, and performance is less than absolutely sterling by performance standards...standards arrived at without the assistance of any teacher's union, by the way - they should be Gone, Gone, Gone, just like the song, and the public doesn't owe them a rehabilitative stint in another educational milieu.

Give me three teaching candidates and I'm interested in the best one only, sorry.

[mjmacky]

That last made it too easy - if (and this happens, there is no refuting it), teaching degree in hand, our young pilgrim discovers he or she isn't so suited to the profession as previously thought, and performance is less than absolutely sterling by performance standards...standards arrived at without the assistance of any teacher's union, by the way - they should be Gone, Gone, Gone, just like the song, and the public doesn't owe them a rehabilitative stint in another educational milieu.

All of these teachers find themselves overqualified to teach test prep, and feel it's a great disservice to the students. Who dreams to be a Kaplan employee? The teacher that produces the best FCAT score at a failing school is the one that tries to instill education the least, that's just the way it works. It really depends on where you work. Let's say you're working for a school that usually produces good scores (a function of location), you pretty much have the freedom to teach your curriculum, the students will do well on their tests with minimal test prep. If you don't work at those schools, you have administration and state directives setting aside your curriculum for, as I've said before, test prep. It's really a sad state of affairs.

[j2k4]

That last made it too easy - if (and this happens, there is no refuting it), teaching degree in hand, our young pilgrim discovers he or she isn't so suited to the profession as previously thought, and performance is less than absolutely sterling by performance standards...standards arrived at without the assistance of any teacher's union, by the way - they should be Gone, Gone, Gone, just like the song, and the public doesn't owe them a rehabilitative stint in another educational milieu.

All of these teachers find themselves overqualified to teach test prep, and feel it's a great disservice to the students. Who dreams to be a Kaplan employee? The teacher that produces the best FCAT score at a failing school is the one that tries to instill education the least, that's just the way it works. It really depends on where you work. Let's say you're working for a school that usually produces good scores (a function of location), you pretty much have the freedom to teach your curriculum, the students will do well on their tests with minimal test prep. If you don't work at those schools, you have administration and state directives setting aside your curriculum for, as I've said before, test prep. It's really a sad state of affairs.

"...that's just the way it works. It really depends on where you work..." is an unfortunate wording for an idea whose meaning you intend to be rigid, rather than flaccid.

Anyway, your problem is you keep referring to standards of "learning", "teaching" and "education" that are constructs arising from the teaching profession itself.

Teachers, like our military, should absolutely be subject to private and public review, and especially owing to their utter importance.

How could you object...I mean, it's the salvation of your profession we are talking about, here. :)

Btw-

It sure sounds like you'd be a lot happier at a charter facility, if you want unconditional freedom to educate, but of course we'll have to insist on looking over your shoulder - it's just the way we are.

Still wanna be a teacher? :wink:

[mjmacky]

"...that's just the way it works. It really depends on where you work..." is an unfortunate wording for an idea whose meaning you intend to be rigid, rather than flaccid.

Anyway, your problem is you keep referring to standards of "learning", "teaching" and "education" that are constructs arising from the teaching profession itself.

Teachers, like our military, should absolutely be subject to private and public review, and especially owing to their utter importance.

How could you object...I mean, it's the salvation of your profession we are talking about, here. :)

Btw-

It sure sounds like you'd be a lot happier at a charter facility, if you want unconditional freedom to educate, but of course we'll have to insist on looking over your shoulder - it's just the way we are.

Still wanna be a teacher? :wink:

That's why I said "at a failing school", so no real misfortune there. That next part was my segue to setup the opposing scenario.

Actually, editing will most likely be my primary position in the coming future. Naturally, I would only teach at the college level, and your performance is evaluated there. It's for different reasons of course, schools compete with each other, so it's sort of how a good free market works (public and private compete with each other and amongst themselves). I know what they want to do with evaluating teacher's performance, but teaching tests leads to miseducation. I should bring to the fore the difference when using my choice of words, in test-based school systems, a useless skill set is being taught instead of drawing out fundamental understanding of the different disciplines. The latter is true education since you can build on it. The former is stats friendly.

Charter schools are pretty good, and you'd find very few teachers complaining about having their shoulders looked over, rather having the involvement and interest of parents is reassuring. My wife teaches kids whose parents or grandparents do not give a shit what happens to their kid or if they're even at school (for the majority of them). A student whose parent has an interest in their education is someone we would all like to teach to, but what about everyone else?

[j2k4]

"...that's just the way it works. It really depends on where you work..." is an unfortunate wording for an idea whose meaning you intend to be rigid, rather than flaccid.

Anyway, your problem is you keep referring to standards of "learning", "teaching" and "education" that are constructs arising from the teaching profession itself.

Teachers, like our military, should absolutely be subject to private and public review, and especially owing to their utter importance.

How could you object...I mean, it's the salvation of your profession we are talking about, here. :)

Btw-

It sure sounds like you'd be a lot happier at a charter facility, if you want unconditional freedom to educate, but of course we'll have to insist on looking over your shoulder - it's just the way we are.

Still wanna be a teacher? :wink:

That's why I said "at a failing school", so no real misfortune there. That next part was my segue to setup the opposing scenario.

Actually, editing will most likely be my primary position in the coming future. Naturally, I would only teach at the college level, and your performance is evaluated there. It's for different reasons of course, schools compete with each other, so it's sort of how a good free market works (public and private compete with each other and amongst themselves). I know what they want to do with evaluating teacher's performance, but teaching tests leads to miseducation. I should bring to the fore the difference when using my choice of words, in test-based school systems, a useless skill set is being taught instead of drawing out fundamental understanding of the different disciplines. The latter is true education since you can build on it. The former is stats friendly.

Charter schools are pretty good, and you'd find very few teachers complaining about having their shoulders looked over, rather having the involvement and interest of parents is reassuring. My wife teaches kids whose parents or grandparents do not give a shit what happens to their kid or if they're even at school (for the majority of them). A student whose parent has an interest in their education is someone we would all like to teach to, but what about everyone else?

The rest will flip burgers, I suppose.

That's okay with me, as long as they do it well.

"Teaching to the test" is a concoction brewed-up by the unfortunate interface of the Union(s) and the government's perpetually meddlesome natures.

[999969999]

Take it another step forward.

Vouchers for private schools should be available so parents can choose where to send their children to school, and I would take it up a notch-- every taxpayer should be able to designate where their tax money goes, even if they don't have any children yet like me, or for older people this should be available even if their children have already left the nest. They get to choose which private or public school their tax money goes to and then the public schools would have to get their acts together right away or perish. Teachers unions would quickly disappear. Ineffective teachers would instantly be fired. Public schools could no longer afford to shield them from public scrutiny. They would finally have to earn their money for a change.

[999969999]

From the comments that Comrade Macky has made on this forum-- some of them actually saying he wanted to destroy our system, in essence destroy our country-- and now his admission that he is indeed a union member, I have one word to describe people like him: cancer.

Think about it.

What does cancer do?

It fools the immune system into thinking it is not a threat to the body, so the immune system doesn't initiate apoptosis in the defective cell, and it continues to live and grow out of control, eventually killing its host.

The liberals on this forum have all heard what Comrade Macky has had to say, many of them support him, others remain silent, but not a single one of them challenges him on his outrageous statements.

And the cancer grows.

The liberal media is the same way. Many of the people in the Obama administration and many people associated with the Obama administration have made outrageous statements, but yet the media ignores them. They certainly wouldn't ignore them if conservatives said the polar opposite of what they are saying.

[999969999]

This man has done more than anyone in Arizona to help expose and hopefully eventually destroy public employee unions. I consider him something of a hero:

"Follow me on FACEBOOK: http://www.facebook.com/DiCiccioSal
Follow me on TWITTER: http://twitter.com/PhxDistrict6


Union Demands Exposed: More Money/Power

What you are about to read will create a significant stir at city hall, and I need you to pass this information to others.

Phoenix is about to enter another round of union negotiations, and I am insisting the public see all the demands and be involved in the discussions.



You will be told that these negotiations should be done behind closed doors, away from your eyes. But they forgot an important point: You are the boss, and it is you who needs to approve the direction and final plan.

It was those backroom negotiations that got Phoenix into financial trouble, and it was that cozy relationship with the union heads that now needs to be fixed. I am your representative. My one and only job is to protect you.

In the past six years, you have heard that Phoenix had no money. The city made significant cuts to libraries, after-school programs and senior services — while raising taxes and fees on families and businesses. At the same time, behind closed doors, using that “good relationship with the unions,” Phoenix doled out more than $500 million in increased compensation. Now the unions are demanding more and more from you and your family — more money and more power. And some unions are demanding that the negotiations to spend your money continue to be kept secret.

While we still see our neighbors out of work, losing their homes and struggling to just get by, the government unions believe they are entitled to more. The private sector and private sector unions have seen cuts between 15-25% while government unions have seen an increase payout of 23%.

Today I am releasing the written demands from the unions along with a breakdown of what those demands mean to you in money and more power over your pocketbook. Have no doubt the information below will make quite a few insiders upset because it exposes each demand by each union.

I need your input, and I need your help in what you want done in these negotiations. I will forward all responses to management so that your voice will for the first time be heard in the negotiations.

Here are a few of the union demands we will be negotiating that total more than $100 million in more money for them:



Union demands

Unions demand continuation of pay raises.


Unions demand restoring the 3.2% cut (the cost over $100 millon). This was a onetime cut over a two-year budget. This amounted to about 1.6% and only about .5% per year coming from salary. Yes, a salary cut of less than 1%. At the same time, nearly half the staff received a 4.5% raise each year.


Unions demand veto power over changing job roles, over changing shifts to save overtime and limiting other scheduling options for city workers.


Unions demand Phoenix is prevented from saving money by contracting out any services.


Unions demand that all negotiation be kept secret.



Questions

Is it sustainable for 15,000 employees to average $100,000 per year in total compensation?


Is it fair to taxpayers that a first year employee receives 40.5 days off in the first year of service — which goes up year after year?


Should government staff be allowed to roll over sick leave and vacation days (one employee cashed out more than $144,000 last year)?


Should taxpayers continue to fund union activity, including paying city employed union leaders not to do their city jobs? This amounted to $3.9 million last year alone.


Is it ethical for Phoenix hand out more pay raises while citizens pay for a food tax? Is it really unreasonable to ask that pay raises stop for a two-year period?



Below are the union demands. Please make sure to pass this newsletter to all who want a voice at the table.

There will indeed be pressure to keep you from this information. I have requested a breakdown of each point and will present them to you when staff has completed the analysis.

Click here for a link to all the union demands.

My best to you and your family,



Sal DiCiccio





City of Phoenix

Councilman, District 6

602-262-7491

[email protected]



LiUNA 777 — Laborers International Union of North America

MONEY: Everything in the 3.2 percent “contribution” would be restored, in other words, a 3.2 percent raise in addition to the merit and longevity pay raises–which can amount to about a 7% overall pay raise.

POWER: No bargaining unit employees shall be laid off, demoted or suffer loss of pay or benefits as a result of contracting of unit work.

POWER: If anyone is displaced because of contracting out, the city would be required to give him or her another job represented by this union.

POWER: Meet-and-confer arbitration would have to be informal with no notes or records required to be made public.

MONEY: Cost of living raise for each year with 2 percent minimum and 4.5 percent maximum.

POWER: Holiday overtime would be based on seniority.

MONEY: Shift differential would be increased 25 cents per hour. ($520 per year raise – times the number of employees eligible.)

AFSCME 2384 — American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees

MONEY: Everything in the 3.2 percent “contribution” would be restored, in other words, a 3.2 percent raise in addition to the merit and longevity pay raises — which can amount to about a 7% overall pay raise.

MONEY: Employees would get holiday pay on industrial leave

MONEY: 80 more hours of vacation time carryover could be accumulated in final three years (adds to pension spiking).

POWER: Old language requires city to notify union of significant changes in a worker’s responsibility, except in extraordinary situations. AFSCME 2384 wants to eliminate the “extraordinary situations” language.

MONEY: Helicopter mechanics would get provided uniforms. (How many and at what cost?)

MONEY: Demands another 750 hours to fund city employees doing union activities.

POWER: Standby time would be limited to one week a month.

POWER: Union wants veto power over using any temporary workers replacing permanent workers.

POWER; Seniority is the primary determinant of assignments, layoffs, vacations, etc. (Not only does this mean that merit doesn’t matter, giving seniority rights means more expensive overtime and is a prime tool for pension spiking).

POWER: Union wants veto power over non-consecutive days in work weeks.

MONEY: Workers would get to cash in carryover vacation hours over the maximum allowed.

MONEY: Employees required to have commercial driver’s license would get 50 cent/hour raise. ($1040 raise annually per employee (rolls into OT and pensions) – times the number of employees eligible.)

POWER: No bargaining unit employees could be laid off, demoted or suffer loss of pay or benefits as a result of contracting of unit work.

POWER: If anyone is displaced because of contracting out, the city would be required to give him or her another job represented by this union.

MONEY: Union wants $5 per employee per month ($60 per year) for AFLAC non-occupational accident plan – times the number of affected employees. (So there is no competitive bid; they’ve picked the company for this new benefit?)

POWER: Request would cut in half the time period where disciplinary records are kept in employee’s file (from 10 years to 5)

POWER MONEY: City couldn’t change workers’ schedule to avoid overtime, e.g. when the All-Star Game is in town.

MONEY: “When an employee is deprived out of overtime opportunities 2 times in a 12-month period, the employee shall be paid for the entire last missed overtime opportunity.” This would cost more money for overtime and could make scheduling and servicing more difficult.

AFSCME 2960 — American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees

MONEY: Everything in the 3.2 percent “contribution” would be restored, in other words, a 3.2 percent raise in addition to the merit and longevity pay raises–which can amount to about a 7% overall pay raise.

POWER: Seniority is the primary determinant of assignments, layoffs, vacations, etc. (Not only does this mean that merit doesn’t matter, giving seniority rights means more expensive overtime and is a prime tool for pension spiking).

POWER: Union wants veto power over non-consecutive days in work weeks.

MONEY: Increase the number of union stewards from 5 to 14.

POWER: new full-time release position (paid all year for not working for city but for union); take this out of hours bank.

POWER : “The union will be allowed to use all City communications tools to disseminate information when necessary.” That could include city email, Channel 11, public meetings, newsletters – everything, with no restraint on content, frequency or volume.

POWER: Employees’ division files would be purged at every annual evaluation.

MONEY: If any other union gets a raise, 2960 would get the same raise.

MONEY Lower number of hours required for out-of-class pay.

MONEY: City would contribute 2% in matching deferred compensation contribution by employee, a $1,000/year raise for a $50,000 employee. (To demonstrate how these “little things” add up, if that were given to the entire city work force at the average salary (not including benefits) that would cost Phoenix an estimated $18.3 million.)

POWER: Seniority would be the primary determinant of assignments, layoffs, vacations, etc. (Not only does this mean that merit doesn’t matter, giving seniority expansive first-in-line rights means more expensive overtime and is a prime tool for pension spiking).

MONEY: Employees now get 4 hours off on Christmas Eve if it falls on a work day. This unit wants the four hours paid whether Christmas Even falls on a work day or not.

PLEA — Phoenix Law Enforcement Association

MONEY Everything in the 3.2 percent “contribution” would be restored, in other words, a 3.2 percent raise in addition to the merit and longevity pay raises–which can amount to about a 7% overall pay raise.

MONEY: PLEA also will ask for more raises and benefits not included in the proposals (the amount not revealed). (The unit received 9.1 % and 8.9% in pay raises in 2007-07 and 2009-10, respectively.)

POWER: The union wants to put union bumper stickers on all marked police cars (regardless of whether those inside belong to the union or not).

The department wants to prohibit processing process anonymous complaints unless they allege state statute violations. (This severely limits citizens’ ability to critique professionalism.)

POWER: Request a reduction from 10 years to 3 how long disciplinary actions can be kept in an employee’s file.

POWER: City would be prevented from doing breath, blood or urine test on a union member until an official Notice of Inquiry is drafted and delivered. (Giving more time for alcohol, et al, to dissipate).

POWER: All transfers that are subject to a grievance shall be put on hold until that is resolved. (So if someone doesn’t like a transfer, he/she could file a grievance and hold it up for month, regardless of the effect on personnel planning.)

MONEY: Members will be allowed to bank 50 more hours of comp time, up to 250.

MONEY: Increase in night shift differential of $1.40 per hour. (Raise per year of $2912 for straight time only, much more including overtime. If that’s a fourth of the force, that would be an estimated $2.2 million a year.)

MONEY Increase of $.75 per hour for other shift differential. (Raise per year of $1560 for straight time only, much more including overtime. If that’s a fourth of the force, that would be an estimated $1.17 million a year.)

MONEY: Restore 2% and add 2.82 percent city contribution to deferred compensation. The 2.82 increase by itself would be about a $2100 raise each and would cost the city an estimated $6.35 million spread over 3000 employees.

POWER: If a member’s work week is three 13-hour shifts, those will be consecutive. A 7-day notice will be required before changing shifts.

POWER: Officers not on patrol also get to work four 10-hour shifts. (Regardless of departmental efficiency.)

MONEY: Increases by $46 a month the city’s contribution to each employee’s post employment health benefits. ($552 annual raise per employee, or about $1.6 million for all 3000).

MONEY: More paid time off:

Add one more paid personal day off each (from two to three, but a total of 30 hours).

Add more vacation days: 24 hours a year for officers up to 10 years on the job; 36 more hours for those from 10-20 years, 60 more hours for 20-year veterans. (The equivalent of that for an 8-hour work would be three more vacation days, 4½ more and a week and a half more vacation days.

That’s on top of the 12 days, 15 days, 18 (average) days, and 22½ days they now get, respectively. All of these added days off average more than 50 hours a year each, which spread over the 3000 employees at $35 an hour would cost the city an estimated $5.25 million.)

PFFA — Phoenix Fire Fighters Association

MONEY: Everything in the 3.2 percent “contribution” would be restored, in other words, a 3.2 percent raise in addition to the merit and longevity pay raises–which can amount to about a 7% overall pay raise.

MONEY: More will be requested during negotiations; the amount is not listed.

POWER/MONEY: Demands another 500 hours to fund city employees doing union activities.

POWER/MONEY: More release positions.

MONEY: $100 more each per month for post employment health benefits (the city already contributes $150 a month per employee). That’s $1200 annual raise per employee and an estimated cost to the city of $1.5 million for all 1,500 fire employees.

MONEY: Members who maintain certification and hours in multiple disciplines get full compensation. They also get ladder certification assignment pay. (Isn’t the rationale for “step” increases that an employee becomes more valuable who learns more? If that’s the case, then why also pay them for learning more?)

MONEY: Paramedics who miss city-provided in-house training and have to get it elsewhere will be compensated for the expense of doing so.

MONEY: Lowers threshold for getting out-of-class pay. Also gives a person retroactive out-of-class pay for hours worked previous to satisfying the qualification requirements. (In other words, we’re going to train them to a higher level, and once they reach it, we’ll pay them retroactively for those hours when they were in training and therefore less effective at getting the job done, not to mention increasing the load on the trainers.)

POWER: Require the city to allow Union to have its own Deferred Compensation program funded by taxpayers.

MONEY: Increase dental coverage by $1,500 per year.

POWER: If Union sets up its own health and dental program, city would agree to give the union the current money collected.

POWER: The union wants to the city to commit to increase the opportunities for members to acquire leave time.

POWER: City will let union create a board to pick doctors who will determine the extent of members’ injuries, rehabilitation time, etc. (This could look like doctor shopping.)

MONEY: Union wants the city to match $50 per pay period of an employee’s $50 contribution to a post employment health plan. (That would be a $1200/year raise, or an estimated $1.8 million cost to taxpayers if all 1500 do it.)



Where your Phoenix tax dollars go:

$98,322 Average annual total compensation for Phoenix staff

14,999 Number of city employees

$17,975 Average compensation increase since 2005-06

$270 million Amount taxpayers pay more for same number of workers since 2005

$130 million Increases in Phoenix taxes/fees in past 18 months

15 Total number of city employees laid off because of the recession

40.5 Days off (sick, holiday, personal, vacation) for first-year clerk

$8,000 Education benefits per employee

$0 What staff pay for bus/rail (It?s free to them.)

50s Age at which Phoenix staff can retire with pension "

[manker]

<something about using left wing monikers as an insult in much the same way 'gay' is used as an insult by children> snip

The liberal media is the same way. Many of the people in the Obama administration and many people associated with the Obama administration have made outrageous statements, but yet the media ignores them. They certainly wouldn't ignore them if conservatives said the polar opposite of what they are saying.Hold the front page.
Liberal media tacitly condones liberal statements yet openly condemns conservative viewpoints.


I literally only read that post because I noticed something about Mary but I read a little more and I can't make up my mind whether this is a well thought out political parody or if you're actually the precocious 12 year old son of Geert Wilders.

[mjmacky]

The rest will flip burgers, I suppose.

That's okay with me, as long as they do it well.

"Teaching to the test" is a concoction brewed-up by the unfortunate interface of the Union(s) and the government's perpetually meddlesome natures.

To be specific, it was the No Child Left Behind Act (Law) that placed standardized testing as a dogma for school administrations. It was comprehensive in its nature and well intended in its goal, but poorly designed with some of its major facets, especially standardized tests being the evaluation tool. Florida's teacher union (FEA) started losing their effectiveness due to legislative measures (Rep. majority) made under Gov. Jeb Bush (1999-2007).

I don't know how all of this can be of a meddlesome nature, since primary/secondary education is a government institution. I believe you meant to label it as bureaucratic, which it is.

P.S. The guys who serve your fries, scan and bag your groceries, mow your lawns, construct your buildings, etc., all vote. I'd rather have more educated rather than less educated people making those choices, but there's a debilitating retardation in the learning process, and that's why I have no faith in our current "democracy". You don't have to be intelligent to be political, and therein resides the fuel for successfully financed campaign propaganda.

[mjmacky]

Take it another step forward.

Vouchers for private schools should be available so parents can choose where to send their children to school, and I would take it up a notch-- every taxpayer should be able to designate where their tax money goes, even if they don't have any children yet like me, or for older people this should be available even if their children have already left the nest. They get to choose which private or public school their tax money goes to and then the public schools would have to get their acts together right away or perish. Teachers unions would quickly disappear. Ineffective teachers would instantly be fired. Public schools could no longer afford to shield them from public scrutiny. They would finally have to earn their money for a change.

You are basically proposing the school system they have in China. You might only come across the more intelligent Chinese people that go abroad, but they're mostly morons.

[mjmacky]

What does cancer do?

It fools the immune system into thinking it is not a threat to the body, so the immune system doesn't initiate apoptosis in the defective cell, and it continues to live and grow out of control, eventually killing its host.

I hope this doesn't burst your bubble or anything, but you have quite inaccurately described cancer. Type the following to have me elaborate, "up up down down left right left right B A select start"

[mjmacky]

I literally only read that post because I noticed something about Mary.

And what may that be, pray prey tell?

[manker]

I literally only read that post because I noticed something about Mary.

And what may that be, prey pray tell?The comrade thing, innit.

[mjmacky]

And what may that be, prey pray tell?The comrade thing, innit.

oic

Can't I just be a general socialist?

[999969999]

<something about using left wing monikers as an insult in much the same way 'gay' is used as an insult by children> snip

The liberal media is the same way. Many of the people in the Obama administration and many people associated with the Obama administration have made outrageous statements, but yet the media ignores them. They certainly wouldn't ignore them if conservatives said the polar opposite of what they are saying.Hold the front page.
Liberal media tacitly condones liberal statements yet openly condemns conservative viewpoints.


I literally only read that post because I noticed something about Mary but I read a little more and I can't make up my mind whether this is a well thought out political parody or if you're actually the precocious 12 year old son of Geert Wilders.

Who knows what you're talking about?!?

Here's what I'm talking about:



Why anybody would vote for X over Y is beyond me.

Because money controls politics. It's really easy. It won't get fixed until all of you decide to burn the whole fucking system down and rebuild it.



You wouldn't have ANY money in your pocket (US currency being a Federal thing, ya know) and how exactly did the Federal government impinge upon your "freedom" today?

I can't speak for zot, but it would be chaos, and I would feast upon the flesh of the children of people who deny me their possessions!

OK, but serious now. I hate this society and wouldn't mind seeing it suffer to rebuild something devoid of commercial/financial influence, since it'd be like, a noble cause. I'm not personally as upset with the government as I am over the manipulation and control over the government by groups with plenty a dollar to spend. I only last year was able to get affordable health coverage (< $200/mo.) that didn't put a lifetime indemnity rider on anything that has to do with my heart or cardiovascular system (if they didn't outright reject me).

I am now getting notices about letting my cat roam around outside in our condo, the first time in 6 years, because we pissed off someone who knows members of the board by no longer being friendly with him. Since pets outdoors, not on leashes, is a violation of the rules, they can assess fines; if those go unpaid, they can lead to a legal eviction and forced foreclosure on the unit (by way of lien). This is something that really irks me, if I were tone down my reserved opinion. In reality, these board members have a different modus operandi, they have lawyer friends eager to secure their own payout. I've got about a half dozen other stories but will stop there. I have made several plans in the past to murder two of the board members, but have postponed entertaining the thought any further until I've secured my plans to leave the country.

I think I'm getting at a point here, it's shit like this (http://www.nevadagop.org/icymi-shady-lady-copening-hoa%E2%80%99s-top-lobbyist-senator-snubs-ethics-and-ignores-disclosing-employer-as-conflict-of-interest/) that makes this country fucked.



So, the Federal gubmint is sending you notices about your cat?
If you're going to bitch about Federal intrusion, do you still get to complain about State or local interference?

I was pretty certain I got to a point about lobbying and this style of governing giving license to fuck a fool or twenty at the end.
P.S. I'm not the state > federal guy
I'm the fuck the capitalist government guy.

The cancer is hiding in plain sight.

[mjmacky]

The cancer is hiding in plain sight.

@manker
You know, the cancer, that immunological disorder that's infectious like the AIDS virus.

[j2k4]

[QUOTE=j2k4;3685054]The rest will flip burgers, I suppose.

That's okay with me, as long as they do it well.

"Teaching to the test" is a concoction brewed-up by the unfortunate interface of the Union(s) and the government's perpetually meddlesome natures.


To be specific, it was the No Child Left Behind Act (Law) that placed standardized testing as a dogma for school administrations. It was comprehensive in its nature and well intended in its goal, but poorly designed with some of its major facets, especially standardized tests being the evaluation tool.

Agreed, pretty much, as to NCLB; good intentions can often only be bad when implemented in the wrong arena.


Florida's teacher union (FEA) started losing their effectiveness due to legislative measures (Rep. majority) made under Gov. Jeb Bush (1999-2007).

The union's effectiveness?

Effectiveness in what endeavor, precisely?


I don't know how all of this can be of a meddlesome nature, since primary/secondary education is a government institution. I believe you meant to label it as bureaucratic, which it is.

No, I meant what I said, whatever it was.

Education should not be an instrument of the federal government, frankly - it should be handled at the local and state levels.

If the feds want to do anything at all, let them require the states to provide education - that's all.


P.S. The guys who serve your fries, scan and bag your groceries, mow your lawns, construct your buildings, etc., all vote. I'd rather have more educated rather than less educated people making those choices, but there's a debilitating retardation in the learning process, and that's why I have no faith in our current "democracy". You don't have to be intelligent to be political, and therein resides the fuel for successfully financed campaign propaganda.

Oh, absolutely agreed, but we're (I am, at any rate) talking about literally re-manufacturing the educational process, here.

Needs doing, don't you think? :)

[j2k4]

The comrade thing, innit.

oic

Can't I just be a general socialist?

You want to be General Socialist?

Okay with me. :rolleyes:

[clocker]

...we're (I am, at any rate) talking about literally re-manufacturing the educational process, here.

Needs doing, don't you think? :)
Yes, it does.
How would you do that absent Federal involvement?

What states do you think do a good job now, what states don't?
How involved do religious organizations get to be?
Is there any sort of minimum standard required or does everyone get to be Louisiana and Texas?

[j2k4]

...we're (I am, at any rate) talking about literally re-manufacturing the educational process, here.

Needs doing, don't you think? :)
Yes, it does.
How would you do that absent Federal involvement?

What states do you think do a good job now, what states don't?
How involved do religious organizations get to be?
Is there any sort of minimum standard required or does everyone get to be Louisiana and Texas?

Very literally allow the states to do as they please.

The results should show soon enough.

Religious organizations should (as they always have been) be free to form their own educational institutions.

The states could establish standards of their own.

A beneficial effect of this idea would be a quick winnowing of stupid ideas about how to get the job done - if no one authority holds sway over the situation, "norming" gets a nice (and badly-needed) makeover.

Commonalities will appear soon enough (the best ideas rise like cream, you see), and the re-orientation toward the needs of the job market will be will take place.

[manker]

Hold the front page.
Liberal media tacitly condones liberal statements yet openly condemns conservative viewpoints.


I literally only read that post because I noticed something about Mary but I read a little more and I can't make up my mind whether this is a well thought out political parody or if you're actually the precocious 12 year old son of Geert Wilders.

Who knows what you're talking about?!?

Here's what I'm talking about:

Well.
I don't know who, exactly, knows what I'm talking about but I was rather hoping you would once you'd read my post. Hence my directing it to you.
The part of what you were talking about which I also wanted to talk about was the part I quoted.

Now that forum dynamics 101 is over. Would you bear it in mind when commenting upon my musings.
I honestly don't mind if you ignore them, however, I just posted on a whim trying to get to the bottom of whether you're an actual conservative or a particularly clever liberal.

[manker]

The cancer is hiding in plain sight.

@manker
You know, the cancer, that immunological disorder that's infectious like the AIDS virus.:lol:

[mjmacky]

The union's effectiveness?

Effectiveness in what endeavor, precisely?

I used it generally. Unions and governments have working relationships that develop out of consequence rather than design, once you remove some of the tools that gave them clout not much else is taken very seriously. I'm connecting their stripped abilities of arguing for salaries, tenure, religious stuff, and it leads to them not being able to effectively combat the growth of a testing state. They're still trying though, they have petitioned to ignore the standardized testing aspect of NCLB, and other states have done the same.


No, I meant what I said, whatever it was.

My rendition was closer to what you meant, which you have clarified as federal. But yes, it should be as local as it can get with some state oversight since they have to appropriate the money. Idaho senators affecting education policies in California and New York doesn't maintain much inherent sense. Federal funding of public schools is less than 10 % if I remember and with that they should not be implementing broad stringent policies.

[mjmacky]

oic

Can't I just be a general socialist?

You want to be General Socialist?

Okay with me. :rolleyes:

If you were going to do that, you could have at least definitized the indefinite article. Also, I don't care much for the military.

[mjmacky]

Well.
I don't know who, exactly, knows what I'm talking about but I was rather hoping you would once you'd read my post. Hence my directing it to you.
The part of what you were talking about which I also wanted to talk about was the part I quoted.

That was one of your more difficult instances of prose to follow with my ADD brain. You don't want to take it easy on him, do you?

[j2k4]

You want to be General Socialist?

Okay with me. :rolleyes:

If you were going to do that, you could have at least definitized the indefinite article. Also, I don't care much for the military.

No, no, no, I meant the appellation "General Socialist".

Sheesh. :rolleyes:

[mjmacky]

If you were going to do that, you could have at least definitized the indefinite article. Also, I don't care much for the military.

No, no, no, I meant the appellation "General Socialist".

Sheesh. :rolleyes:

115862

[999969999]

Who knows what you're talking about?!?

Here's what I'm talking about:

Well.
I don't know who, exactly, knows what I'm talking about but I was rather hoping you would once you'd read my post. Hence my directing it to you.
The part of what you were talking about which I also wanted to talk about was the part I quoted.

Now that forum dynamics 101 is over. Would you bear it in mind when commenting upon my musings.
I honestly don't mind if you ignore them, however, I just posted on a whim trying to get to the bottom of whether you're an actual conservative or a particularly clever liberal.

And of course, you ignored most of my post, but that's okay when you do it.

I am a young conservative, born and raised in rural Arizona-- Eagar, Arizona. Perhaps one of the most conservative areas in the U.S.

I know-- how shocking! How dare any young person love America, love Capitalism (which made the United States a great place to live, so much so, that people are dying in the deserts just to cross the border to get here). How dare anyone be patriotic. How dare anyone not want to destroy his own country.

[999969999]

What does cancer do?

It fools the immune system into thinking it is not a threat to the body, so the immune system doesn't initiate apoptosis in the defective cell, and it continues to live and grow out of control, eventually killing its host.

I hope this doesn't burst your bubble or anything, but you have quite inaccurately described cancer. Type the following to have me elaborate, "up up down down left right left right B A select start"



The immune response

Any substance that raises an alarm in the body, causing the immune system to react to and attack it is called an antigen. This immune response can lead to destruction of both the antigens and anything they are attached to, such as germs or cancer cells.

Germs such as viruses, bacteria, and parasites have substances on their outer surfaces, such as certain proteins, that are not normally found in the human body. The immune system sees these foreign substances as antigens. Cancer cells are also different from normal cells in the body. They often have some unusual substances on their outer surfaces that can act as antigens.

But the immune system is much better at recognizing and attacking germs than it is cancer cells. Germs are very different from normal human cells and are seen as truly foreign. But cancer cells and normal cells can be very much alike, and any differences are less clear cut. Because of this the immune system may not always recognize cancer cells as foreign. Cancer cells are less like soldiers of an invading army and more like traitors within the ranks of the human cell population. This may be why cancers are often able to grow despite the presence of a healthy, working immune system.

http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/TreatmentsandSideEffects/TreatmentTypes/Immunotherapy/immunotherapy


I emphasize the word "traitor" here.

He wants to destroy the United States, but he is a U.S. citizen living in the U.S.

[999969999]

The self-described socialist didn't want to deal with this, but I'm not finished with it yet...



This man has done more than anyone in Arizona to help expose and hopefully eventually destroy public employee unions. I consider him something of a hero:

"Follow me on FACEBOOK: http://www.facebook.com/DiCiccioSal
Follow me on TWITTER: http://twitter.com/PhxDistrict6


Union Demands Exposed: More Money/Power

What you are about to read will create a significant stir at city hall, and I need you to pass this information to others.

Phoenix is about to enter another round of union negotiations, and I am insisting the public see all the demands and be involved in the discussions.



You will be told that these negotiations should be done behind closed doors, away from your eyes. But they forgot an important point: You are the boss, and it is you who needs to approve the direction and final plan.

It was those backroom negotiations that got Phoenix into financial trouble, and it was that cozy relationship with the union heads that now needs to be fixed. I am your representative. My one and only job is to protect you.

In the past six years, you have heard that Phoenix had no money. The city made significant cuts to libraries, after-school programs and senior services — while raising taxes and fees on families and businesses. At the same time, behind closed doors, using that “good relationship with the unions,” Phoenix doled out more than $500 million in increased compensation. Now the unions are demanding more and more from you and your family — more money and more power. And some unions are demanding that the negotiations to spend your money continue to be kept secret.

While we still see our neighbors out of work, losing their homes and struggling to just get by, the government unions believe they are entitled to more. The private sector and private sector unions have seen cuts between 15-25% while government unions have seen an increase payout of 23%.

Today I am releasing the written demands from the unions along with a breakdown of what those demands mean to you in money and more power over your pocketbook. Have no doubt the information below will make quite a few insiders upset because it exposes each demand by each union.

I need your input, and I need your help in what you want done in these negotiations. I will forward all responses to management so that your voice will for the first time be heard in the negotiations.

Here are a few of the union demands we will be negotiating that total more than $100 million in more money for them:



Union demands

Unions demand continuation of pay raises.


Unions demand restoring the 3.2% cut (the cost over $100 millon). This was a onetime cut over a two-year budget. This amounted to about 1.6% and only about .5% per year coming from salary. Yes, a salary cut of less than 1%. At the same time, nearly half the staff received a 4.5% raise each year.


Unions demand veto power over changing job roles, over changing shifts to save overtime and limiting other scheduling options for city workers.


Unions demand Phoenix is prevented from saving money by contracting out any services.


Unions demand that all negotiation be kept secret.



Questions

Is it sustainable for 15,000 employees to average $100,000 per year in total compensation?


Is it fair to taxpayers that a first year employee receives 40.5 days off in the first year of service — which goes up year after year?


Should government staff be allowed to roll over sick leave and vacation days (one employee cashed out more than $144,000 last year)?


Should taxpayers continue to fund union activity, including paying city employed union leaders not to do their city jobs? This amounted to $3.9 million last year alone.


Is it ethical for Phoenix hand out more pay raises while citizens pay for a food tax? Is it really unreasonable to ask that pay raises stop for a two-year period?



Below are the union demands. Please make sure to pass this newsletter to all who want a voice at the table.

There will indeed be pressure to keep you from this information. I have requested a breakdown of each point and will present them to you when staff has completed the analysis.

Click here for a link to all the union demands.

My best to you and your family,



Sal DiCiccio





City of Phoenix

Councilman, District 6

602-262-7491

[email protected]



LiUNA 777 — Laborers International Union of North America

MONEY: Everything in the 3.2 percent “contribution” would be restored, in other words, a 3.2 percent raise in addition to the merit and longevity pay raises–which can amount to about a 7% overall pay raise.

POWER: No bargaining unit employees shall be laid off, demoted or suffer loss of pay or benefits as a result of contracting of unit work.

POWER: If anyone is displaced because of contracting out, the city would be required to give him or her another job represented by this union.

POWER: Meet-and-confer arbitration would have to be informal with no notes or records required to be made public.

MONEY: Cost of living raise for each year with 2 percent minimum and 4.5 percent maximum.

POWER: Holiday overtime would be based on seniority.

MONEY: Shift differential would be increased 25 cents per hour. ($520 per year raise – times the number of employees eligible.)

AFSCME 2384 — American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees

MONEY: Everything in the 3.2 percent “contribution” would be restored, in other words, a 3.2 percent raise in addition to the merit and longevity pay raises — which can amount to about a 7% overall pay raise.

MONEY: Employees would get holiday pay on industrial leave

MONEY: 80 more hours of vacation time carryover could be accumulated in final three years (adds to pension spiking).

POWER: Old language requires city to notify union of significant changes in a worker’s responsibility, except in extraordinary situations. AFSCME 2384 wants to eliminate the “extraordinary situations” language.

MONEY: Helicopter mechanics would get provided uniforms. (How many and at what cost?)

MONEY: Demands another 750 hours to fund city employees doing union activities.

POWER: Standby time would be limited to one week a month.

POWER: Union wants veto power over using any temporary workers replacing permanent workers.

POWER; Seniority is the primary determinant of assignments, layoffs, vacations, etc. (Not only does this mean that merit doesn’t matter, giving seniority rights means more expensive overtime and is a prime tool for pension spiking).

POWER: Union wants veto power over non-consecutive days in work weeks.

MONEY: Workers would get to cash in carryover vacation hours over the maximum allowed.

MONEY: Employees required to have commercial driver’s license would get 50 cent/hour raise. ($1040 raise annually per employee (rolls into OT and pensions) – times the number of employees eligible.)

POWER: No bargaining unit employees could be laid off, demoted or suffer loss of pay or benefits as a result of contracting of unit work.

POWER: If anyone is displaced because of contracting out, the city would be required to give him or her another job represented by this union.

MONEY: Union wants $5 per employee per month ($60 per year) for AFLAC non-occupational accident plan – times the number of affected employees. (So there is no competitive bid; they’ve picked the company for this new benefit?)

POWER: Request would cut in half the time period where disciplinary records are kept in employee’s file (from 10 years to 5)

POWER MONEY: City couldn’t change workers’ schedule to avoid overtime, e.g. when the All-Star Game is in town.

MONEY: “When an employee is deprived out of overtime opportunities 2 times in a 12-month period, the employee shall be paid for the entire last missed overtime opportunity.” This would cost more money for overtime and could make scheduling and servicing more difficult.

AFSCME 2960 — American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees

MONEY: Everything in the 3.2 percent “contribution” would be restored, in other words, a 3.2 percent raise in addition to the merit and longevity pay raises–which can amount to about a 7% overall pay raise.

POWER: Seniority is the primary determinant of assignments, layoffs, vacations, etc. (Not only does this mean that merit doesn’t matter, giving seniority rights means more expensive overtime and is a prime tool for pension spiking).

POWER: Union wants veto power over non-consecutive days in work weeks.

MONEY: Increase the number of union stewards from 5 to 14.

POWER: new full-time release position (paid all year for not working for city but for union); take this out of hours bank.

POWER : “The union will be allowed to use all City communications tools to disseminate information when necessary.” That could include city email, Channel 11, public meetings, newsletters – everything, with no restraint on content, frequency or volume.

POWER: Employees’ division files would be purged at every annual evaluation.

MONEY: If any other union gets a raise, 2960 would get the same raise.

MONEY Lower number of hours required for out-of-class pay.

MONEY: City would contribute 2% in matching deferred compensation contribution by employee, a $1,000/year raise for a $50,000 employee. (To demonstrate how these “little things” add up, if that were given to the entire city work force at the average salary (not including benefits) that would cost Phoenix an estimated $18.3 million.)

POWER: Seniority would be the primary determinant of assignments, layoffs, vacations, etc. (Not only does this mean that merit doesn’t matter, giving seniority expansive first-in-line rights means more expensive overtime and is a prime tool for pension spiking).

MONEY: Employees now get 4 hours off on Christmas Eve if it falls on a work day. This unit wants the four hours paid whether Christmas Even falls on a work day or not.

PLEA — Phoenix Law Enforcement Association

MONEY Everything in the 3.2 percent “contribution” would be restored, in other words, a 3.2 percent raise in addition to the merit and longevity pay raises–which can amount to about a 7% overall pay raise.

MONEY: PLEA also will ask for more raises and benefits not included in the proposals (the amount not revealed). (The unit received 9.1 % and 8.9% in pay raises in 2007-07 and 2009-10, respectively.)

POWER: The union wants to put union bumper stickers on all marked police cars (regardless of whether those inside belong to the union or not).

The department wants to prohibit processing process anonymous complaints unless they allege state statute violations. (This severely limits citizens’ ability to critique professionalism.)

POWER: Request a reduction from 10 years to 3 how long disciplinary actions can be kept in an employee’s file.

POWER: City would be prevented from doing breath, blood or urine test on a union member until an official Notice of Inquiry is drafted and delivered. (Giving more time for alcohol, et al, to dissipate).

POWER: All transfers that are subject to a grievance shall be put on hold until that is resolved. (So if someone doesn’t like a transfer, he/she could file a grievance and hold it up for month, regardless of the effect on personnel planning.)

MONEY: Members will be allowed to bank 50 more hours of comp time, up to 250.

MONEY: Increase in night shift differential of $1.40 per hour. (Raise per year of $2912 for straight time only, much more including overtime. If that’s a fourth of the force, that would be an estimated $2.2 million a year.)

MONEY Increase of $.75 per hour for other shift differential. (Raise per year of $1560 for straight time only, much more including overtime. If that’s a fourth of the force, that would be an estimated $1.17 million a year.)

MONEY: Restore 2% and add 2.82 percent city contribution to deferred compensation. The 2.82 increase by itself would be about a $2100 raise each and would cost the city an estimated $6.35 million spread over 3000 employees.

POWER: If a member’s work week is three 13-hour shifts, those will be consecutive. A 7-day notice will be required before changing shifts.

POWER: Officers not on patrol also get to work four 10-hour shifts. (Regardless of departmental efficiency.)

MONEY: Increases by $46 a month the city’s contribution to each employee’s post employment health benefits. ($552 annual raise per employee, or about $1.6 million for all 3000).

MONEY: More paid time off:

Add one more paid personal day off each (from two to three, but a total of 30 hours).

Add more vacation days: 24 hours a year for officers up to 10 years on the job; 36 more hours for those from 10-20 years, 60 more hours for 20-year veterans. (The equivalent of that for an 8-hour work would be three more vacation days, 4½ more and a week and a half more vacation days.

That’s on top of the 12 days, 15 days, 18 (average) days, and 22½ days they now get, respectively. All of these added days off average more than 50 hours a year each, which spread over the 3000 employees at $35 an hour would cost the city an estimated $5.25 million.)

PFFA — Phoenix Fire Fighters Association

MONEY: Everything in the 3.2 percent “contribution” would be restored, in other words, a 3.2 percent raise in addition to the merit and longevity pay raises–which can amount to about a 7% overall pay raise.

MONEY: More will be requested during negotiations; the amount is not listed.

POWER/MONEY: Demands another 500 hours to fund city employees doing union activities.

POWER/MONEY: More release positions.

MONEY: $100 more each per month for post employment health benefits (the city already contributes $150 a month per employee). That’s $1200 annual raise per employee and an estimated cost to the city of $1.5 million for all 1,500 fire employees.

MONEY: Members who maintain certification and hours in multiple disciplines get full compensation. They also get ladder certification assignment pay. (Isn’t the rationale for “step” increases that an employee becomes more valuable who learns more? If that’s the case, then why also pay them for learning more?)

MONEY: Paramedics who miss city-provided in-house training and have to get it elsewhere will be compensated for the expense of doing so.

MONEY: Lowers threshold for getting out-of-class pay. Also gives a person retroactive out-of-class pay for hours worked previous to satisfying the qualification requirements. (In other words, we’re going to train them to a higher level, and once they reach it, we’ll pay them retroactively for those hours when they were in training and therefore less effective at getting the job done, not to mention increasing the load on the trainers.)

POWER: Require the city to allow Union to have its own Deferred Compensation program funded by taxpayers.

MONEY: Increase dental coverage by $1,500 per year.

POWER: If Union sets up its own health and dental program, city would agree to give the union the current money collected.

POWER: The union wants to the city to commit to increase the opportunities for members to acquire leave time.

POWER: City will let union create a board to pick doctors who will determine the extent of members’ injuries, rehabilitation time, etc. (This could look like doctor shopping.)

MONEY: Union wants the city to match $50 per pay period of an employee’s $50 contribution to a post employment health plan. (That would be a $1200/year raise, or an estimated $1.8 million cost to taxpayers if all 1500 do it.)



Where your Phoenix tax dollars go:

$98,322 Average annual total compensation for Phoenix staff

14,999 Number of city employees

$17,975 Average compensation increase since 2005-06

$270 million Amount taxpayers pay more for same number of workers since 2005

$130 million Increases in Phoenix taxes/fees in past 18 months

15 Total number of city employees laid off because of the recession

40.5 Days off (sick, holiday, personal, vacation) for first-year clerk

$8,000 Education benefits per employee

$0 What staff pay for bus/rail (It?s free to them.)

50s Age at which Phoenix staff can retire with pension "


Oh, those poor underpaid, and overworked public employees!!!!

$98,322 per year!

I feel so sorry for them!!!!

[clocker]

As usual, your definition of "patriotic" excludes anyone who disagrees with you.

As to "loving Capitalism", history shows that the economy has done much better under Democratic rule than so-called "conservatives" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/mitt-romney-bain-a-look-a_b_1594319.html), so perhaps you'll want to rethink your affiliation.

BTW, I don't think you actually shock anyone...kids have always been stupid and self-involved.

[999969999]

As usual, your definition of "patriotic" excludes anyone who disagrees with you.

As to "loving Capitalism", history shows that the economy has done much better under Democratic rule than so-called "conservatives" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/mitt-romney-bain-a-look-a_b_1594319.html), so perhaps you'll want to rethink your affiliation.

BTW, I don't think you actually shock anyone...kids have always been stupid and self-involved.

Hey Clocky! I'm glad you're back!

I disagree with you, but you are a very funny, witty poster on here.

I enjoy reading your posts!

[999969999]

By the way, do these Comrade Macky quotes sound patriotic to you?




Hold the front page.
Liberal media tacitly condones liberal statements yet openly condemns conservative viewpoints.


I literally only read that post because I noticed something about Mary but I read a little more and I can't make up my mind whether this is a well thought out political parody or if you're actually the precocious 12 year old son of Geert Wilders.

Who knows what you're talking about?!?

Here's what I'm talking about:



Why anybody would vote for X over Y is beyond me.

Because money controls politics. It's really easy. It won't get fixed until all of you decide to burn the whole fucking system down and rebuild it.



You wouldn't have ANY money in your pocket (US currency being a Federal thing, ya know) and how exactly did the Federal government impinge upon your "freedom" today?

I can't speak for zot, but it would be chaos, and I would feast upon the flesh of the children of people who deny me their possessions!

OK, but serious now. I hate this society and wouldn't mind seeing it suffer to rebuild something devoid of commercial/financial influence, since it'd be like, a noble cause. I'm not personally as upset with the government as I am over the manipulation and control over the government by groups with plenty a dollar to spend. I only last year was able to get affordable health coverage (< $200/mo.) that didn't put a lifetime indemnity rider on anything that has to do with my heart or cardiovascular system (if they didn't outright reject me).

I am now getting notices about letting my cat roam around outside in our condo, the first time in 6 years, because we pissed off someone who knows members of the board by no longer being friendly with him. Since pets outdoors, not on leashes, is a violation of the rules, they can assess fines; if those go unpaid, they can lead to a legal eviction and forced foreclosure on the unit (by way of lien). This is something that really irks me, if I were tone down my reserved opinion. In reality, these board members have a different modus operandi, they have lawyer friends eager to secure their own payout. I've got about a half dozen other stories but will stop there. I have made several plans in the past to murder two of the board members, but have postponed entertaining the thought any further until I've secured my plans to leave the country.

I think I'm getting at a point here, it's shit like this (http://www.nevadagop.org/icymi-shady-lady-copening-hoa%E2%80%99s-top-lobbyist-senator-snubs-ethics-and-ignores-disclosing-employer-as-conflict-of-interest/) that makes this country fucked.



So, the Federal gubmint is sending you notices about your cat?
If you're going to bitch about Federal intrusion, do you still get to complain about State or local interference?

I was pretty certain I got to a point about lobbying and this style of governing giving license to fuck a fool or twenty at the end.
P.S. I'm not the state > federal guy
I'm the fuck the capitalist government guy.

The cancer is hiding in plain sight.

[clocker]

Sorry, "patriotic" is not a filter I employ.

As it happens, I completely agree that money has ruined political discourse and practice in this country and we'd be much better off revising the entire system.
I can think of no earthly reason for campaigns to last as long and cost as much as they do.

[mjmacky]

I hope this doesn't burst your bubble or anything, but you have quite inaccurately described cancer. Type the following to have me elaborate, "up up down down left right left right B A select start"



The immune response...

Cancer is hazardous because the cell continues to undergo mitotic division without responding to negative feedback or programmed cell death. It continues growing, stealing blood supply and nutrients from neighboring cells just to feed its growing mass of cells. The immune system usually won't attack it since they're still mostly normal cells with a mutated flaw in the genetic code (most mutations are either fixed or cause cell death). It will continue to do so until it is either removed, reduced or it kills its host. So in essence, cancer is like unabated capitalism.

[manker]

Well.
I don't know who, exactly, knows what I'm talking about but I was rather hoping you would once you'd read my post. Hence my directing it to you.
The part of what you were talking about which I also wanted to talk about was the part I quoted.

Now that forum dynamics 101 is over. Would you bear it in mind when commenting upon my musings.
I honestly don't mind if you ignore them, however, I just posted on a whim trying to get to the bottom of whether you're an actual conservative or a particularly clever liberal.

And of course, you ignored most of my post, but that's okay when you do it.

I am a young conservative, born and raised in rural Arizona-- Eagar, Arizona. Perhaps one of the most conservative areas in the U.S.

I know-- how shocking! How dare any young person love America, love Capitalism (which made the United States a great place to live, so much so, that people are dying in the deserts just to cross the border to get here). How dare anyone be patriotic. How dare anyone not want to destroy his own country.It was the only facet of what you posted that interested me :idunno:

How old were you when you decided to be a 'young conservative' or is it something that you've always been because of what your parents told you was right and proper.
Nothing wrong with patriotism, btw, so long as it doesn't narrow the plane of vision surveyed by one's mind's eye.

[clocker]

Oh, those poor underpaid, and overworked public employees!!!!

$98,322 per year!

I feel so sorry for them!!!!
Um, I have a question...
Who negotiated/agreed to the union contracts...this was not a unilateral move by the unions, was it?
Did the City of Phoenix not participate?

Seems to me you have a conundrum here given your fondness for local/state control over matters...Phoenix negotiates a crap deal and is now stuck with the consequences.
Is that not how business should be done?
You are the one who claims that government should be run like a business, well, here's what happens when it is...someone gets screwed.
If your family business negotiates a contract that later turns out to be disadvantageous to them, do they get to "crush" the other party to escape the consequences?

[mjmacky]

Oh, those poor underpaid, and overworked public employees!!!!

$98,322 per year!

I feel so sorry for them!!!!
Um, I have a question...
Who negotiated/agreed to the union contracts...this was not a unilateral move by the unions, was it?
Did the City of Phoenix not participate?

Seems to me you have a conundrum here given your fondness for local/state control over matters...Phoenix negotiates a crap deal and is now stuck with the consequences.
Is that not how business should be done?
You are the one who claims that government should be run like a business, well, here's what happens when it is...someone gets screwed.
If your family business negotiates a contract that later turns out to be disadvantageous to them, do they get to "crush" the other party to escape the consequences?

It's a fair point as it relates to the fantasy dystopia of 9's future. The reality is that the government should only be acting as representation of the people, and if the people are not satisfied with the result, they should be able to put new officials in office to take that down a notch. I'm sure with some intelligent people presenting perspective in the background (cost of living, comparable pay elsewhere, etc.), they could find a figure that is fair to both sides (the taxpayers and the workers).

[j2k4]

Oh, those poor underpaid, and overworked public employees!!!!

$98,322 per year!

I feel so sorry for them!!!!
Um, I have a question...
Who negotiated/agreed to the union contracts...this was not a unilateral move by the unions, was it?
Did the City of Phoenix not participate?

Seems to me you have a conundrum here given your fondness for local/state control over matters...Phoenix negotiates a crap deal and is now stuck with the consequences.
Is that not how business should be done?
You are the one who claims that government should be run like a business, well, here's what happens when it is...someone gets screwed.
If your family business negotiates a contract that later turns out to be disadvantageous to them, do they get to "crush" the other party to escape the consequences?

I have a very quick question:

Given that bad (for the taxpayer) contracts, negotiated badly, by bad, stupid, people, people elected by idiots, must be executed in order to avoid unfairness to the beneficiaries of the contracts, and given as well that many of these contracts were basically negotiated to eternally grow in value to the unions and cost to the public, and to do so in perpetuity, how is electing new officials seen as a solution?

We see large corporations, municipalities and even states entertaining bankruptcy, yet the watchword is fairness to the unions?

Okay...how far do we take that?

The taxpayers of whatever municipality, for example, are contractually bound to hold up their end...unto bankruptcy.

Yet, in lieu of bankruptcy, the unions are able to access, through government, the pockets of every taxpayer, not just ones who cast the stupid "vote".

So-

Unless someone can tell me precisely how I am to blame for, say, GM's situation, I'd like a rationale for this "fairness", and also one explaining why, just because I don't have a "contract" with someone/thing, I am not entitled to that selfsame "fairness"?

[mjmacky]

I have a very quick question:

Given that bad (for the taxpayer) contracts, negotiated badly, by bad, stupid, people, people elected by idiots, must be executed in order to avoid unfairness to the beneficiaries of the contracts, and given as well that many of these contracts were basically negotiated to eternally grow in value to the unions and cost to the public, and to do so in perpetuity, how is electing new officials seen as a solution?

We see large corporations, municipalities and even states entertaining bankruptcy, yet the watchword is fairness to the unions?

Okay...how far do we take that?

The taxpayers of whatever municipality, for example, are contractually bound to hold up their end...unto bankruptcy.

Yet, in lieu of bankruptcy, the unions are able to access, through government, the pockets of every taxpayer, not just ones who cast the stupid "vote".

So-

Unless someone can tell me precisely how I am to blame for, say, GM's situation, I'd like a rationale for this "fairness", and also one explaining why, just because I don't have a "contract" with someone/thing, I am not entitled to that selfsame "fairness"?

I believe you meant to quote me. I also believe you could use more sentence breaks, it's OK if the question is longer :smilie4:.

I speak on behalf of the rational man, presenting rational solutions. However, I still get to hide behind the cynical view of it all being fucked.

Because let's face it, it's pretty fucked. :yes: