Writerbuckeye;957692 wrote:Actually, no.

You could confiscate every penny the 1 percent has and it still wouldn't get us out of debt. That's how much this country is in the hole. That's why this whole "tax the rich" thing is such a sham. The only way out of debt is to start cutting FIRST.

Oh and I realize your post was sarcasm...just thought I'd contribute a little info to it.

but squeezing the public sector will get the state out of debt? ok. why not debt cutting first at the state level?

Glory Days;958364 wrote:but squeezing the public sector will get the state out of debt? ok. why not debt cutting first at the state level?

Again...

No, it will not get the state out of debt. It is one part of a bigger solution. Debt cutting does still need to happen at the state level.

QuakerOats;958098 wrote:The jig is up.

fify.......from a teacher.

WebFire;958415 wrote:Again...

No, it will not get the state out of debt. It is one part of a bigger solution. Debt cutting does still need to happen at the state level.

just like taxing the rich wont get the country out of debt, it is just part of a bigger solution.......and no, i am not in favor of taxing the rich.

Glory Days;958714 wrote:just like taxing the rich wont get the country out of debt, it is just part of a bigger solution.......and no, i am not in favor of taxing the rich.

I don't see your point.

WebFire;958731 wrote:I don't see your point.

people dont want to tax the rich because it wont get the country out of debt. but we want to squeeze public workers, even though it wont completely get the state out of debt. seems to me like if you were for one of those scenarios, you would be for both.

Glory Days;958740 wrote:people dont want to tax the rich because it wont get the country out of debt. but we want to squeeze public workers, even though it wont completely get the state out of debt. seems to me like if you were for one of those scenarios, you would be for both.

Squeeze the public workers? :rolleyes:

QuakerOats;958098 wrote:Dogg -- I assume you meant 'fairy tales' not "ferry tails".

And the only people believing in fairy tales and living in fantasy land are public sector unions. The jig us up.

No I actually did mean ferry just for you though

QuakerOats;958098 wrote:Dogg -- I assume you meant 'fairy tales' not "ferry tails".

And the only people believing in fairy tales and living in fantasy land are public sector unions. The jig us up.

Well, that excludes me then on both accounts.

Glory Days;958740 wrote:people dont want to tax the rich because it wont get the country out of debt. but we want to squeeze public workers, even though it wont completely get the state out of debt. seems to me like if you were for one of those scenarios, you would be for both.

You don't get it. If SB5 is kept in place, it gives local entities more flexibility in how they can manage their resources, including personnel.

In Wisconsin (which is ahead of Ohio in a similar situation) they've found that by requiring more to be paid by employees toward pensions and healthcare, they've been able to save some significant money.

As a result, where in the past they would have been forced (by union contract) to simply lay off people, they have been able to keep or hire back personnel that were formerly let go. In one school district, they were able to hire back teachers and reduce class size with the money saved.

This is not about getting the state out of debt (they aren't in debt now, anyway, the budget has been passed) and never was about that. It's about having the ability to use resources BETTER at all levels. This is especially important because state cutbacks have put the onus on locals to better manage their resources without as much state money coming in.

It's also about breaking a cycle that simply is not sustainable. If the system is left alone, you are going to see more and more locals either (1) raise taxes or (2) be forced to lay off personnel according to union contracts. That puts the taxpayer in a no-win situation: either pay more money or have less teachers, firemen or police...where with SB5 they very well might not have to do any of those (see Wisconsin example).

Yes all the way

Writerbuckeye;958826 wrote:You don't get it. If SB5 is kept in place, it gives local entities more flexibility in how they can manage their resources, including personnel.

In Wisconsin (which is ahead of Ohio in a similar situation) they've found that by requiring more to be paid by employees toward pensions and healthcare, they've been able to save some significant money.

As a result, where in the past they would have been forced (by union contract) to simply lay off people, they have been able to keep or hire back personnel that were formerly let go. In one school district, they were able to hire back teachers and reduce class size with the money saved.

This is not about getting the state out of debt (they aren't in debt now, anyway, the budget has been passed) and never was about that. It's about having the ability to use resources BETTER at all levels. This is especially important because state cutbacks have put the onus on locals to better manage their resources without as much state money coming in.

It's also about breaking a cycle that simply is not sustainable. If the system is left alone, you are going to see more and more locals either (1) raise taxes or (2) be forced to lay off personnel according to union contracts. That puts the taxpayer in a no-win situation: either pay more money or have less teachers, firemen or police...where with SB5 they very well might not have to do any of those (see Wisconsin example).

So by requiring public workers to do something, it makes things flexible? perfect sense :rolleyes:. why not just vote officials in office to have some balls and not simply approve every union contract? Also, you state SB5 wont fix the budget, but then claim, passing SB5 will cause cities not have to raise taxes and not have lay off workers, again...that makes sense :rolleyes:. You then point to Wisconsin and say how it has saved them....what about North Carolina, no public unions and yet they are more in debt that Ohio is....:rolleyes: and if this isnt about getting the state out of debt, then it must be about breaking unions correct? since "flexibility" wont fix the debt.

Wisconsin is a bit different than Ohio as far as benefits go. Wisconsin teachers used to contribute substantially less than Ohio teachers to both health care (about 5%) and retirement (about 6%, as I recall). Ohio teachers currently contribute 10% of salary to retirement. Plans have been proposed by STRS to increase that percentage up to 13 to 14 percent. The amount of health care contribution varies from district to district. Currently, I contribute 15% toward health care and at my previous district it was around 40% (about 7 years ago). As my previous district indicates, careful bargaining can shift health care costs to the employee. especially in the current climate.

There are some savings to be had in Ohio, but they are not as substantial as in Wisconsin.

Glory Days;959500 wrote:So by requiring public workers to do something, it makes things flexible? perfect sense :rolleyes:. why not just vote officials in office to have some balls and not simply approve every union contract? Also, you state SB5 wont fix the budget, but then claim, passing SB5 will cause cities not have to raise taxes and not have lay off workers, again...that makes sense :rolleyes:. You then point to Wisconsin and say how it has saved them....what about North Carolina, no public unions and yet they are more in debt that Ohio is....:rolleyes: and if this isnt about getting the state out of debt, then it must be about breaking unions correct? since "flexibility" wont fix the debt.

You just don't get it and you can't follow facts.

1. You do realize the conflict of interest right? Saying "well, just vote in public officials that will have some balls and simply not approve every union contract" is retarded. Listen, public unions is one of the biggest conflict of interests in the history of our nation. The union (like most unions) gives large sums of money to whatever candidates they feel will support their wants/needs (regardless if it makes fiscal sense). Then, when said official gets elected the union is (don't miss this part) NEGOTIATING WITH THE OFFICIAL THEY ALREADY GAVE HUGE CONTRIBUTIONS TOO. If you can NOT see how that is collusion and should NOT be allowed then you are 100% biased.

2. This has already worked with pretty decent success in Wisconsin, they actually avoided teacher layoffs (unlike what the union scare tactics have said would happen).

3. This is NOT as much about eliminating the state deficit as it is helping local deficits be balanced, which will then in turn allow the state to not have to fund as much to local governments.

4. You are acting like this will completely demolish public workers wages and benefits, you are, again, drinking the kool aid of We Are Ohio if you believe this.

jmog;959920 wrote:You just don't get it and you can't follow facts.

1. You do realize the conflict of interest right? Saying "well, just vote in public officials that will have some balls and simply not approve every union contract" is retarded. Listen, public unions is one of the biggest conflict of interests in the history of our nation. The union (like most unions) gives large sums of money to whatever candidates they feel will support their wants/needs (regardless if it makes fiscal sense). Then, when said official gets elected the union is (don't miss this part) NEGOTIATING WITH THE OFFICIAL THEY ALREADY GAVE HUGE CONTRIBUTIONS TOO. If you can NOT see how that is collusion and should NOT be allowed then you are 100% biased.

2. This has already worked with pretty decent success in Wisconsin, they actually avoided teacher layoffs (unlike what the union scare tactics have said would happen).

3. This is NOT as much about eliminating the state deficit as it is helping local deficits be balanced, which will then in turn allow the state to not have to fund as much to local governments.

4. You are acting like this will completely demolish public workers wages and benefits, you are, again, drinking the kool aid of We Are Ohio if you believe this.

Those are fact? you obviously didnt read my post.

1. So....what.....the other more than 90% of registered voters that arent public workers cant vote for someone else?
2. Again, if it isnt going to fix the budget, why would anything change from the situation we are in now? oh and again, ohio is not wisconsin. and even if you continue to want to compare ohio to wisconsin, how do you feel about the states without public unions being in more debt than ohio, doesnt seem to be working for them does it?
3. Kasich already cut state funding to cities.
4. Where did you get that from? i dont think i ever stated that this would demolish wages and benefits? thats like you are saying wages will drastically increase for public workers.

It will directly save the state money in retirement and health insurance savings, since the state employees will contribute more. The bigger savings will come from the pension savings.

It will indirectly save the state money by not having to give as much money to schools and cities, as jmog said.

So, it HELPS save the state money, it doesn't wipe out the deficit. No one ever claimed it would.

Glory Days;960045 wrote:1. So....what.....the other more than 90% of registered voters that arent public workers cant vote for someone else?

Obviously the union uses their Jedi mind tricks to make at least another 41% of the population vote their way. :rolleyes:

Glory Days;960045 wrote:Those are fact? you obviously didnt read my post.

1. So....what.....the other more than 90% of registered voters that arent public workers cant vote for someone else?
2. Again, if it isnt going to fix the budget, why would anything change from the situation we are in now? oh and again, ohio is not wisconsin. and even if you continue to want to compare ohio to wisconsin, how do you feel about the states without public unions being in more debt than ohio, doesnt seem to be working for them does it?
3. Kasich already cut state funding to cities.
4. Where did you get that from? i dont think i ever stated that this would demolish wages and benefits? thats like you are saying wages will drastically increase for public workers.

1. You don't understand how campaigns work if you do not believe that huge sums of money/contributions do not help someone get elected.

jmog;961759 wrote:1. You don't understand how campaigns work if you do not believe that huge sums of money/contributions do not help someone get elected.

That's really the point. Any contender that tries to go against the Union backed candidate will find themselves scrambling for campaign finances to compete. The challenger candidate isn't going to want to burn through an ass ton of money just to be on the school board; thus dropping out to the union backed candidate.

sleeper;961804 wrote:That's really the point. Any contender that tries to go against the Union backed candidate will find themselves scrambling for campaign finances to compete. The challenger candidate isn't going to want to burn through an ass ton of money just to be on the school board; thus dropping out to the union backed candidate.

If most people favored the other candidate, why wouldn't he/she have financial support from them. Do the 10% in the union have some magical power that prevents anyone else from contributing to a campaign?

Al Bundy;961904 wrote:If most people favored the other candidate, why wouldn't he/she have financial support from them. Do the 10% in the union have some magical power that prevents anyone else from contributing to a campaign?

Most people don't even follow the yearly school candidate much less donate to them. It's extremely difficult to compete with unlimited union funds; this is why we need a change and SB5.

OHIO citizen
Belly will make this simple for you:

Average income per Ohio Citizen is $32,000 that you mofo
Average Teacher Salary $52,000
Average Public Employee $42, 000
Average Police/ Fire $45,000

By vote NO on Issue II
You will be giving automatic salary increase to those who make more that you but pay less for medical and retirement, increasing your taxes, increase in you propterty taxes, providing the public employee better medical and retiremnet that you have earned...
What part of NO is good ? What part of NO makes you happy?

You YES on ISSUE II and III and help yourself out for once....

I think its unfair to compare the average Ohio citizens salary with that of a teachers. The average Ohio worker doesn't get summers off, every holiday off, spring break, winter break, snow days, personal days, sick days, etc. Do teachers ever actually go to work?

sleeper;962081 wrote:Most people don't even follow the yearly school candidate much less donate to them. It's extremely difficult to compete with unlimited union funds; this is why we need a change and SB5.

what about unliminited private funds? corporations are people, why cant unions be people?

Glory Days;962563 wrote:what about unliminited private funds? corporations are people, why cant unions be people?

Campaign financing is definitely a problem. We need to go beyond SB5 in limiting the influence of monetary donations from corporations and unions.