B
Bigdogg
Posts: 1,429
Oct 16, 2011 9:39am
This sums it up nice.
http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/article/20111013/OPINION03/110130313/Gov-Kasich-fails-mention-full-scope-State-Issue-2?odyssey=mod|mostcomHowever, 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.
W
WebFire
Posts: 14,779
Oct 16, 2011 9:50am
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: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.
believer
Posts: 8,153
Oct 16, 2011 10:08am
It is insignificant but the liberal media wants to "prove" that there are equal numbers of Americans as unhappy with Wall Street as the Tea Party movement showed frustration with Big Government fiscal insanity.queencitybuckeye;935216 wrote:If this is indeed the case, the "movement" can be described in a single word - insignificant.
The comparisons aren't even close.
Glory Days
Posts: 7,809
Oct 16, 2011 11:49am
i am confused. i was reading this sitting down though on the toilet, that is probably why.:huh: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:
BRF
Posts: 8,748
Oct 16, 2011 12:05pm
Interesting reading lately.
I'll just say: Vote No on Issue 2.............because............because....................I said so!
I'll just say: Vote No on Issue 2.............because............because....................I said so!
Writerbuckeye
Posts: 4,745
Oct 16, 2011 12:51pm
Nobody has a "right" to bargain. You can call it a right all you like; and act like SB 5 is taking away some inalienable right given by God...but that's not the truth.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
The truth is public unions and the ability to bargain was something granted by the legislature -- the same folks who decided it was no longer a fiscally sound policy.
There's not a damn thing wrong with taking away any of it. In fact, given how things have "progressed" in Ohio the past 30 years or so with it as policy, I'd say it's long overdue.
W
WebFire
Posts: 14,779
Oct 16, 2011 1:03pm
Understandable.Glory Days;935340 wrote:i am confused. i was reading this sitting down though on the toilet, that is probably why.:huh:
Glory Days
Posts: 7,809
Oct 16, 2011 6:11pm
BRF;935351 wrote:Interesting reading lately.
I'll just say: Vote No on Issue 2.............because............because....................I said so!
I'll just say:Vote Yes on Issue 2.............because............because....................If i cant have decent pay and benefits, neither can you! :rolleyes:
BRF
Posts: 8,748
Oct 16, 2011 7:17pm
Ah so! Ah so! BTW, I, like you, am not a Liberal. I am a compassionate Conservative!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:
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Oct 16, 2011 7:48pm
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;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:
BRF
Posts: 8,748
Oct 16, 2011 8:18pm
"You say either and I say either, You say neither and I say neither
Either, either Neither, neither, Let's call the whole thing off.
You like potato and I like potahto, You like tomato and I like tomahto
Potato, potahto, Tomato, tomahto, Let's call the whole thing off."
Either, either Neither, neither, Let's call the whole thing off.
You like potato and I like potahto, You like tomato and I like tomahto
Potato, potahto, Tomato, tomahto, Let's call the whole thing off."
W
WebFire
Posts: 14,779
Oct 16, 2011 8:36pm
Wait, I thought teachers and firefighters were underpaid? I've been duped!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:
believer
Posts: 8,153
Oct 16, 2011 9:09pm
+infinityqueencitybuckeye;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.
BGFalcons82
Posts: 2,173
Oct 16, 2011 9:52pm
No No No. When it comes to "fair share", it ONLY applies to the millionaires making over $200,000. Everyone else doesn't count, especially the 47% that pay 0 federal income taxes.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
Posts: 7,809
Oct 16, 2011 11:41pm
the public sector has taken a hit in this economy.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.
believer
Posts: 8,153
Oct 17, 2011 4:37am
Maybe but not nearly to the degree as the private sector. Here's just one of a "boatshoes" of examples: http://www.mlive.com/opinion/bay-city/index.ssf/2011/03/our_voice_public_sector_employ.htmlGlory Days;936213 wrote:the public sector has taken a hit in this economy.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/535714/201005271857/Big-Govt-Takes-Over.aspxBetween 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.
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
Oct 17, 2011 5:07am
Exactly.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.
The thousands of noisy individuals get the media attention, but they are collectively a flea on a wolf's back in comparison to the millions of Americans that are dissatisfied with the government that aren't making #@&%es of themselves and will actually vote.
Writerbuckeye
Posts: 4,745
Oct 17, 2011 2:18pm
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
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
believer
Posts: 8,153
Oct 17, 2011 4:45pm
lol My brother emailed me about this one today. It's a telling story when a typically pro-union, pro-liberal newspaper sees the handwriting on the wall.Writerbuckeye;936670 wrote:Quite a surprise: The Cleveland Plain Dealer -- in the heart of union-friendly Cuyahoga County -- says vote "yes" on Issue 2.
Glory Days
Posts: 7,809
Oct 17, 2011 6:52pm
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;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
Writerbuckeye
Posts: 4,745
Oct 17, 2011 8:15pm
Kasich invited everyone back to the table to try and mediate this before it was put on the ballot, but the unions would rather go to the ballot and hope they win, rather than negotiate on behalf of the people they're supposed to represent.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.
What does that tell you?
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.
Glory Days
Posts: 7,809
Oct 17, 2011 8:47pm
so why didnt the people try to vote on it like now? guess they didnt care too much that it was passed.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.
B
Bigdogg
Posts: 1,429
Oct 17, 2011 9:05pm
Writer, Writer, Writer, you know The Plain Dealer endorsed Kasich. Did you actually read the article?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
http://www.plunderbund.com/2011/10/16/if-cleveland-plain-dealer-really-wants-sb-5-to-be-less-extreme-then-vote-no-on-issue-2/
Writerbuckeye
Posts: 4,745
Oct 17, 2011 11:39pm
So what? And considering Strickland's abysmal record, can you blame them? The PD is dead center in the heart of union country as far as Ohio is concerned.
This is a significant step (in the right direction) for them.
This is a significant step (in the right direction) for them.
Q
QuakerOats
Posts: 8,740
Oct 18, 2011 2:11pm
Because they didn't realize then that it would lead to fiscal destruction over the course of the next 25 years.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.
Now they know.