However, when a governor steps up and purposely deceives his constituents, it is a betrayal of leadership.To hear Governor Kasich tell it in his TV ad supporting Issue 2, SB5 just gets teachers, firefighters, police and other government employees to help pay for their health care benefits and retirement funds. That sounds reasonable until one reads SB5. The bill actually covers 52 issues involving public employees. Only two involve health care and retirement contributions. The remaining 50 items coalesce into a frontal assault on nearly every aspect of bargaining rights, dispute resolution, pay and benefits, seniority and other issues American workers depend on to negotiate fair compensation for their efforts and to create a more effective workplace. SB5 also strips many decision-making powers from local governments, public safety departments and school boards.

Glory Days;935201 wrote:this is the last piece i posted
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/10/sb_5_ad_war_heats_up_as_grandm.html

nothing about losing 50,000 jobs i know of.

queencitybuckeye;935216 wrote:If this is indeed the case, the "movement" can be described in a single word - insignificant.

WebFire;935244 wrote:For shits sakes, guess I need to hold your hand. Someone else posted a link. I quoted a section out of it about losing 51,000 jobs. YOU commented on it. And now you are confused about losing jobs. :rolleyes:

Bigdogg;935234 wrote:This sums it up nice.



http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/article/20111013/OPINION03/110130313/Gov-Kasich-fails-mention-full-scope-State-Issue-2?odyssey=mod|mostcom

Glory Days;935340 wrote:i am confused. i was reading this sitting down though on the toilet, that is probably why.:huh:

BRF;935351 wrote:Interesting reading lately.

I'll just say: Vote No on Issue 2.............because............because....................I said so!

Glory Days;935752 wrote:I'll just say:Vote Yes on Issue 2.............because............because....................If i cant have decent pay and benefits, neither can you! :rolleyes:

Glory Days;935752 wrote:I'll just say:Vote Yes on Issue 2.............because............because....................If i cant have decent pay and benefits, neither can you! :rolleyes:

Glory Days;935752 wrote:I'll just say:Vote Yes on Issue 2.............because............because....................If i cant have decent pay and benefits, neither can you! :rolleyes:

queencitybuckeye;935895 wrote:Better said, if nearly everyone in the private sector has taken a hit in this economy, there's no logical reason the public sector should not "pay" their share.

queencitybuckeye;935895 wrote:Better said, if nearly everyone in the private sector has taken a hit in this economy, there's no logical reason the public sector should not "pay" their share.

queencitybuckeye;935895 wrote:Better said, if nearly everyone in the private sector has taken a hit in this economy, there's no logical reason the public sector should not "pay" their share.

Glory Days;936213 wrote:the public sector has taken a hit in this economy.

Between 2000 and 2009, the average private sector pay and benefits in Michigan grew from $43,882 to $52,365. This according to date Don Grimes, a University of Michigan economist, gathered from the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis.

During that same period, state government workers’ pay and benefits jumped from $43,450 to $62,237. That’s 19 percent vs. 43 percent. No one seemed worried about justice for the taxpayers at that point.

queencitybuckeye;935216 wrote:They also seem to be, by the amount of coverage, making this appear to be a bigger movement than it is. I was flipping stations on the radio on the way to lunch and Dave Ramsey was talking about this subject. He gave the factoid that there were more people in the stadium for the Monday night football game than people participating in this protest nationwide. If this is indeed the case, the "movement" can be described in a single word - insignificant.

Writerbuckeye;936670 wrote:Quite a surprise: The Cleveland Plain Dealer -- in the heart of union-friendly Cuyahoga County -- says vote "yes" on Issue 2.

Writerbuckeye;936670 wrote:Quite a surprise: The Cleveland Plain Dealer -- in the heart of union-friendly Cuyahoga County -- says vote "yes" on Issue 2.

Bottom line: we are on an unsustainable path and not changing is scarier than changing. They want to see a "yes" vote and then have the Ohio General Assembly come back and tweak the bill. I'm okay with this, except I don't believe in some of the things the PD wants to keep.

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/10/the_law_will_need_adjustments.html

Glory Days;936905 wrote:they should have taken the time to do it right the first time and maybe they would have more support. this isnt something like the bailout that needed to be done right now.

Writerbuckeye;937006 wrote: Oh and if your argument is that Kasich and the Ohio General Assembly forced it through first just keep in mind that all this began when then Gov. Celeste and his cronies pushed it through the General Assembly with no discussion back in the 1980s.

Writerbuckeye;936670 wrote:Quite a surprise: The Cleveland Plain Dealer -- in the heart of union-friendly Cuyahoga County -- says vote "yes" on Issue 2.

Bottom line: we are on an unsustainable path and not changing is scarier than changing. They want to see a "yes" vote and then have the Ohio General Assembly come back and tweak the bill. I'm okay with this, except I don't believe in some of the things the PD wants to keep.

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/10/the_law_will_need_adjustments.html

Glory Days;937078 wrote:so why didnt the people try to vote on it like now? guess they didnt care too much that it was passed.