Unions in private EMS

[masterofmetal85 10]

(continuation of previous thread) so to all the pro union supporters.....what happened in wisconsin with walkers election to all the beloved unions out there? I think the masses are starting to wake up and realize the truth about unions

[INIT915 1,119]

Well, given the amount of money that flowed into Walker's coffers from rich donors, by most accounts, there was a 7:1 disparity.

So, the take away is, the rich will always be able to outspend unions, the middle class, and the average citizenry.

But hey, look at the bright side. With any money saved by Wisconsin, they can invest more in education. Topics like grammar.

[gamewell45 258]

Walkers recall election has nothing to do with unions and the private sector, which is the topic of your thread.

[spin_the_wheel 460]

(continuation of previous thread) so to all the pro union supporters.....what happened in wisconsin with walkers election to all the beloved unions out there? I think the masses are starting to wake up and realize the truth about unions

The truth about unions were that no one gave a crap about them and the blue collar civil service jobs for the most part because the pay was not great. Paid medical and pensions were the lure and appeal to get people to take these jobs. They were and are for the most part secure ways to make a living. Years later the pay has now risen to a decent level. But now that the White collar workers world has been downsized the last decade are now looking over the fence at their Blue Collar neighbor who, if escapes layoffs, has a pretty secure future. They have to blame someone for this, and the politicians are jumping on the bandwagon looking to blame the unions for all the financial woes of this country.

By the way Unions were created to protect the average worker from the White collar owner who did not give a crap about them but would enjoy the fruit of their labor. Whats the truth Bro please do tell us.

Edited June 8, 2012 by spin_the_wheel

[masterofmetal85 10]

Well, given the amount of money that flowed into Walker's coffers from rich donors, by most accounts, there was a 7:1 disparity.

So, the take away is, the rich will always be able to outspend unions, the middle class, and the average citizenry.

But hey, look at the bright side. With any money saved by Wisconsin, they can invest more in education. Topics like grammar.

oh please walker had more donations from average everyday folks putting in 10 15 20 dollars keep thinking that the democrat left and union machines are out to help the poor and weak

Walkers recall election has nothing to do with unions and the private sector, which is the topic of your thread.

it had a lot more to do with it then you'd like to admit

[grumpyff 1,159]

The truth about unions? They are there to protect their members. After the infamous Diallo shooting, and the Abner Louima torture there were calls by some in the community to disband the PBA because they stood up and provided legal consul and support. My union provides my dental and vision benefits, not the City of New York. I am supposed to believe that my employer will treat me fairly? Out of 14 years on the job, I have only worked under a contract for two and a half of them, because the city constantly cries we have no money. Even when the coffers were full. People are shocked when we go to arbitration. Its not like we just declare impasse and call an arbitrator up, it must be proven to the arbitration board. We once settled a contract 3 years out of date, and asked the city to begin negotiations on the next contract, only to be told by the city "we are not ready." The city was not ready for another 2 years. Just recently Mayor Bloomberg attempted to take away our defined benefit calling it a "Christmas Bonus" . My union protected that right, which had been negotiated by three different Mayors. Even today, I have a captain who insists that he can order people into work on their scheduled days off, for only 4 hours,even though that provision of the contract which guarantees a full days pay has not been discussed in decades. So tell me again why unions are bad? There are two sides to every negotiation, its not a one sided deal. WE have given back items in that past when times were tough and promised "we will get them back when times are good" . Im still waiting for all our give backs to be returned.

Edited June 8, 2012 by grumpyff

[INIT915 1,119]

oh please walker had more donations from average everyday folks putting in 10 15 20 dollars keep thinking that the democrat left and union machines are out to help the poor and weak

Yes, but do you realize how many $10 donations you need to secure to offset a single donation from someone like the Koch Brothers? (I'll give you a hint, it's a lot.)

By most reputable estimates, Walker took in $31 million in donations to Barrett's $4 million in fundraising. Outside spending from Walker-aligned PAC's also far outpaced Barrett's.

Not too many union members can drop tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in political contributions on a whim. I know I can't.

The irony here is actually fascinating. In your previous posts you argued that unions have too much power and influence. But now, you have a case study which proves the rich can easily swamp union members in terms of donations. Kind of undercut's your entire argument, no?

And gamewell's point is correct. You amalgamating private and public sector unions.

[masterofmetal85 10]

The truth about unions were that no one gave a crap about them and the blue collar civil service jobs for the most part because the pay was not great. Paid medical and pensions were the lure and appeal to get people to take these jobs. They were and are for the most part secure ways to make a living. Years later the pay has now risen to a decent level. But now that the White collar workers world has been downsized the last decade are now looking over the fence at their Blue Collar neighbor who, if escapes layoffs, has a pretty secure future. They have to blame someone for this, and the politicians are jumping on the bandwagon looking to blame the unions for all the financial woes of this country.

By the way Unions were created to protect the average worker from the White collar owner who did not give a crap about them but would enjoy the fruit of their labor. Whats the truth Bro please do tell us.

well since you asked nicely:

Back in the early 1900's when robber barons ruled labor unions gave the people a living wage . Then the commies moved into control of the unions . They saw the way to control labor and to also control politics . The rights of labor are now a foot note of unions . It is all about money and political control for those who control unions . It always starts out with the rights of the people and ends in greed for the so called Elitists. The existence of a union in an industry can result in limited choices regarding hiring new employees or even limiting the potential for dismissal of a poorly performing worker. Whenever choices are limited, free enterprise suffers. Legislation has been passed throughout the 20th Century to increase labor rights and privileges, such as the Wagner Act of 1935, and to limit them, such as the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947.

Labor unions serve as restrictions on free competition. By limiting the potential pool of employees and dictating wage and salary terms, certain economic factors of employers of unionized workers are fixed, such as eligible employees. Closed shops are situations wherein only union members may be employed. This has several negative effects as those jobs are unavailable to non-union workers and the employer will have a smaller pool of candidates to choose from. This could limit the amount of education and experience that job candidates might possess.

While members traditionally enjoy higher wages, that cost must be accounted for somewhere. Whether passed along to the customer as higher prices on goods or services, made up for by hiring fewer workers or limiting the wages of non-union employees, the increased cost of union workers has an effect on a company’s economics. Prohibitive labor cost could also lead companies to seek alternative options to hiring more workers--automation and off-shoring of jobs are possible solutions to increased pay rates.

Stating that union agreements generally tend to run for three years, the Library of Economics and Liberty points out that union members might miss opportunities present during boom times of which their non-union co-workers could take advantage. An individual worker could negotiate a wage increase during an annual evaluation while union members must wait out the terms of the agreement. A successful effort to unionize a workplace apparently reduces the market value of affected publicly-traded firms, even if there is no immediate change in their operating performance.Calculations of the effects of a union victory suggest that it produces large negative returns of 10 to 14 percent.

The Unions are directly responsible for many of our labor laws, unfortunately, as they succeeded they got too powerful and off track. They now are a parasite on the very companies that give them employment. If the unions don't pull back and try to be an asset to their companies they will surely be the reason that they lose their own support and more importantly their jobs.The labor union will cause a supply curve to shift to the left. The wage rate in that industry will increase while the labor employed will decrease. The labor who lost jobs may be engaged in the industry without union where the supply curve has shifted to the right. The wage rate will be lower, but more labors are employed.The union may call a strike for their own benefits or for political purposes, but it might cause the industry to be palalyzed, like the strike by the train union in France. The effects are very bad for common people. Many say unions have a negative effect as a positive effect on workplace productivity and on the availability of good jobs in America. And more say that unions have a negative than positive impact on the ability of U.S. companies to compete internationally

also refer to the website

http://donpridemore....t-on-education/ for more reading on how unions have a negative effect on education

http://www.ehow.com/...bor-unions.html

http://answers.yahoo...21054610AAA0to0

http://answers.yahoo...19184208AA8AYGx

shall I continue?

Edited June 11, 2012 by masterofmetal85

[masterofmetal85 10]

Yes, but do you realize how many $10 donations you need to secure to offset a single donation from someone like the Koch Brothers? (I'll give you a hint, it's a lot.)

By most reputable estimates, Walker took in $31 million in donations to Barrett's $4 million in fundraising. Outside spending from Walker-aligned PAC's also far outpaced Barrett's.

Not too many union members can drop tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in political contributions on a whim. I know I can't.

The irony here is actually fascinating. In your previous posts you argued that unions have too much power and influence. But now, you have a case study which proves the rich can easily swamp union members in terms of donations. Kind of undercut's your entire argument, no?

And gamewell's point is correct. You amalgamating private and public sector unions.

your assumption is that its the "rich" 1% well show me some proof because there's a lot of people I know that are republican right wing supporters of not just walker but the entire right wing idealogy plus unions support that disgusting OWS movement

[Goose 188]

I'm so confused right now...

[ny10570 745]

You're education on this topic is so one sided its almost comical. Unions absolutely have flaws. No one that has ever taken on the pro labor argument on this board has ever trued to say that unions are a perfect solution. The contention is organized labor provides a better environment for the working class.

The Walker recall did fail. But as others pointed out he spent a massive amount of money and barely won. Its no secret that money equals influence in an election. Obama is hammering California and NYC fundraisers just for that reason. He spent nearly 10x as much (yes that doesn't include all of the campaigners pumped into the state by the unions) and won by a much smaller margin than his original election against a much stronger candidate. This recall sent a powerful message heeded by tea party governors in other states like Indiana.

Yes, higher wages and better compensation has to come from somewhere. Paying workers more drives prices up. I have NEVER heard management suggest a reduction in their compensation or a reduction in dividends for the shareholders to prevent reductions in pay or layoffs. I do however constantly hear about reductions and layoffs to preserve corporate profits.

It has been shown time and time again that increased compensation leads to increased spending which spurrs economic growth. Economies do not grow when people save money. Henry Ford ensured a market for his car by paying his employees enough to buy them. WWII dragged our economy out of the depression because we were forced to dump massive amounts of money into farming and manufacturing. To pay for it the government drove the effective taxrates to levels not seen before or since and the economy chugged along just fine with largest expansion of the middle class and smallest wealth disparity in our nations history.

You say unions are preventing American corporations from being competitive yet Germany has managed to maintain a dominant manufacturing sector and one of the strongest economies in the world despite being saddled with healthcare obligations and national labor organization.

There is no doubt our economy is broken. However any ashole that insists all of the blame rests with any one side is just that, an ashole and should be discounted as such.

[INIT915 1,119]

I'm so confused right now...

Don't try too hard to follow his logic. First off, it's difficult for anyone who appreciates the rules of grammar and literacy, and second off, it's all plagiarized. So basically, all of his "thoughts" are stolen. That makes him a thief. There no lower creature in academia than he who passes off others work as his own. I just picked three random sentences in that post, and they are all, verbatim, off the internet.

http://www.ehow.com/list_6683091_negative-effects-labor-unions.html

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100921054610AAA0to0

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091019184208AA8AYGx

If anyone wants to have an honest discussion about the pros and cons of organized labor, please step up, but if all you can do is steal others thoughts and pass them off as your own, your making yourself look like a fool.

(Besides, doesn't plagiarism violate forum rules? If not, it should.)

[JFLYNN 681]

Thanks! I enjoyed your post very much, lol.

[JFLYNN 681]

Thanks! I enjoyed your post very much, lol.

this was meant for INIT 1915

Don't try too hard to follow his logic. First off, it's difficult for anyone who appreciates the rules of grammar and literacy, and second off, it's all plagiarized. So basically, all of his "thoughts" are stolen. That makes him a thief. There no lower creature in academia than he who passes off others work as his own. I just picked three random sentences in that post, and they are all, verbatim, off the internet.

http://www.ehow.com/list_6683091_negative-effects-labor-unions.html

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100921054610AAA0to0

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091019184208AA8AYGx

If anyone wants to have an honest discussion about the pros and cons of organized labor, please step up, but if all you can do is steal others thoughts and pass them off as your own, your making yourself look like a fool.

(Besides, doesn't plagiarism violate forum rules? If not, it should.)

[efdcapt115 1,511]

Many say unions have a negative effect as a positive effect on workplace productivity and on the availability of good jobs in America. And more say that unions have a negative than positive impact on the ability of U.S. companies to compete internationally

shall I continue?

Probably not. lol

[FFD941 20]

Walkers recall election has nothing to do with unions and the private sector, which is the topic of your thread.

While I totally agree with the above statement, I'll throw in my two cents since I happen to know someone who played a role in Wisconsin's recent recall.

If the union’s actions didn’t make their voices heard, I don’t know what will. First and foremost if you knew what you were talking about, Gov. Walker’s bill excluded fire and police. Seeing the threat like any good union would, they stood tall with all of the other state workers and publicly showed solidarity. I know for a fact that brothers from New York City made the trip to stand with them as well. They gathered the necessary signatures to even think about proceeding forward with a recall, which is a feat in and of itself. They took shifts making sure that there were representatives in the capitol building at all times. Then it went to the voters and unfortunately, like some figured it would from the get go, it failed. The vote failed though not the movement. “They won the battle but not the war” This anonymous quote rings a bell to me here.

Wisconsin’s AFL-CIO President Phil Neuenfeldt is quoted as saying that “ 75% of union voters voted for Tom Barrett, 76% of union voters felt Scott Walker has divided the state, put wealthy and large corporations first, 74% of union voters felt out of state spending influenced the election, and finally 84% of union voters felt that that out of state spending benefited Scott Walker.

Don’t get me wrong, I personally thought from the beginning that this movement just didn’t have enough umph to get the big job done but I did know that it would work in another way. It showed Gov. Walker and all of the other policy makers that we, as a union whole, aren’t the problem. We are the working families paying the same taxes that everyone else is. We are the workers who are entrusted in shaping America, yet we are always to blame. This movement gained national attention and will continue even though its first battle was lost.

So in summation before you make a comment about us “Problem Children” get your facts straight first.

First step to being a good leader is to listen to your people. Remember Unions Do Work!

[sympathomedic 383]

I am probably re-stating things I have said before. I was fully opposed to my job (Empress) going Union, (IAEP Local 20). I worked hard against it. We have been Union for about 12 years now. I am not in love with the Union, but I feel things are better with it. I have been a steward, Chief Steward and VP, though now just a steward.

Yes my folks pay dues, but we work hard to give them value. The Local Union guys get no money or perks, we just get reimbursed for what we spend- mailing, phone, printer ink, mileage etc. We average just ONE arbitration case a year- not contract arbitration, but employee termination appeals. Our work place is very stable- we have EMT's and medics on the job for decades. Our benefits are pretty good, and our company and Union are constantly adding staff and upgrading gear. The starting salary needs work, but guess what? We are about to begin contract negotiations, as ours ends 12/31/12.

If it came for a re-vote, I would vote yes for the Union. When I work with a new guy, they frequently say that they were attracted to this job by the fact it is Union. Anything involving humans will not be perfect. I think this is the better road.

Bill

[masterofmetal85 10]

Don't try too hard to follow his logic. First off, it's difficult for anyone who appreciates the rules of grammar and literacy, and second off, it's all plagiarized. So basically, all of his "thoughts" are stolen. That makes him a thief. There no lower creature in academia than he who passes off others work as his own. I just picked three random sentences in that post, and they are all, verbatim, off the internet.

http://www.ehow.com/...bor-unions.html

http://answers.yahoo...21054610AAA0to0

http://answers.yahoo...19184208AA8AYGx

If anyone wants to have an honest discussion about the pros and cons of organized labor, please step up, but if all you can do is steal others thoughts and pass them off as your own, your making yourself look like a fool.

(Besides, doesn't plagiarism violate forum rules? If not, it should.)

who cares if they're not my words they are the same thoughts as mine and more importantly its TRUTH.... you cant hide or change truth no matter how hard you'd like to

[masterofmetal85 10]

Here's another article for your reading pleasure

Barack Hussein Obama promised to transform America with an ill-defined message of change during his 2008 campaign. As Americans discovered what that change involved, they began to reject it. It was a change to the Left, to liberalism, to socialism.

The first sign of rejection was the 2010 election when voters returned power in the House of Representatives to Republicans. Since the 2006 midterm elections that gave the Democratic Party a sweeping victory and elevated Nancy Pelosi as the first woman to become Speaker of the House, Americans have had an opportunity to experience the liberal agenda and they don't like it.

They didn’t like the way Obama wasted 2009 on pushing his socialization of one sixth of the nation’s economy with Obamacare, a bill then-Speaker Pelosi told voters that the bill would have to be passed so they “could see what was in it.” Soon enough the Supreme Court will render a decision on its constitutionality and the likely outcome is that it will be struck down.

The voters didn’t like Obama’s massive “stimulus” redistribution of their taxes that included a bailout of General Motors and Chrysler that could have been avoided by simply allowing them to go through the normal process of bankruptcy and restructuring. Instead, Obama screwed their creditors, normally the first in line to be compensated for their losses, and gave the auto unions a seat on the auto companies’ boards of directors, erasing the line between management and unions.

Recall, too, that the 2006 elections reflected the dissatisfaction of voters with the long years of wars in Afghanistan and, in particular, in Iraq. When the financial crisis hit in 2008, just before the national elections, combined with the unalloyed worship of a completely unknown Illinois Senator, the outcome was the election of Obama.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Now the shame of the failure to address the financial crisis in time-tested and proven ways is Obama’s. He could have cut taxes. Instead he pushed for an end to the Bush tax cuts and talked endlessly about raising taxes on “millionaires and billionaires.” In point of fact, his tax programs were and are aimed at the middle class. He could have cut government spending. Instead he increased it with all manner of phony schemes such as “cash for clunkers.”

Since 2009 Obama has added four trillion dollars to the nation’s debt and has presided over the first, historic downgrade of America’s triple-A credit rating. The continuing news of taxpayer losses in his administration’s disastrous “investments” in solar and other “clean energy” firms that continue to fail has added to the clear perception of an ideologically driven agenda that is out of touch with reality.

The victory of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, barely five months before the forthcoming November elections is yet another reason to celebrate the rejection of Obama and his policies that have given the nation 42 months of an unemployment rate that is unprecedented since the Great Depression. Gov. Walker’s election signals the decline of the union movement and his reforms resulted in tens of thousands of union members choosing to leave the unions in Wisconsin.

The realization that unions, in particular the public service unions, have raped the public coffers of states, marks a turning point that will result in reforms that will greatly aid recovery. The millions the union movement poured into the defeat of Gov. Walker are millions that have been diverted from Obama’s reelection.

USA Today reported that “The residents of only nine states have returned their economies to the level that existed before the downturn struck at the end of 2007—and most of those states are energy producers.” The nation runs on the energy that the oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear provide. Obama has waged a war on oil and coal in particular and the public has taken notice of how insane this policy has been.

The outcome of the Wisconsin elections has not been lost on the Democratic Party. It will now be in full panic mode and Americans will be subjected to a campaign of lies intended to distract and deceive them.

Obama can no longer blame former President Bush for his failures, cannot blame events in Europe, and cannot blame Mother Nature. He has only himself to blame. Voters from the Left to the Right know this. Except for the hardcore liberal base and the mainstream media, the rest are ready to reject Obama.

http://www.conservativecrusader.com/articles/obama-forced-a-change-nobody-wanted#.T9VIVV_c5WA.facebook

[INIT915 1,119]

who cares if they're not my words they are the same thoughts as mine and more importantly its TRUTH.... you cant hide or change truth no matter how hard you'd like to

Yes, the truth. As we know, it's all black and white. No shades of gray. You should take the advice of the revered efdcapt115. Stop while your ahead, or in your case, not that far behind. Unless you have more "proof" to offer?

I, for the life of me, after reading all of your posts, cannot possibly fathom why you have so much trouble finding a position in this field. Just completely flabbergasted here.

[newsbuff 286]

who cares if they're not my words they are the same thoughts as mine and more importantly its TRUTH.... you cant hide or change truth no matter how hard you'd like to

Im glad ehow and yahoo answers are regarded by you as the pure truth. You really are something special, boy.

And yes, I do work in a union shop too.

[ny10570 745]

Here's another article for your reading pleasure

Barack Hussein Obama promised to transform America with an ill-defined message of change during his 2008 campaign. As Americans discovered what that change involved, they began to reject it. It was a change to the Left, to liberalism, to socialism.

The first sign of rejection was the 2010 election when voters returned power in the House of Representatives to Republicans. Since the 2006 midterm elections that gave the Democratic Party a sweeping victory and elevated Nancy Pelosi as the first woman to become Speaker of the House, Americans have had an opportunity to experience the liberal agenda and they don't like it.

They didn’t like the way Obama wasted 2009 on pushing his socialization of one sixth of the nation’s economy with Obamacare, a bill then-Speaker Pelosi told voters that the bill would have to be passed so they “could see what was in it.” Soon enough the Supreme Court will render a decision on its constitutionality and the likely outcome is that it will be struck down.

The voters didn’t like Obama’s massive “stimulus” redistribution of their taxes that included a bailout of General Motors and Chrysler that could have been avoided by simply allowing them to go through the normal process of bankruptcy and restructuring. Instead, Obama screwed their creditors, normally the first in line to be compensated for their losses, and gave the auto unions a seat on the auto companies’ boards of directors, erasing the line between management and unions.

Recall, too, that the 2006 elections reflected the dissatisfaction of voters with the long years of wars in Afghanistan and, in particular, in Iraq. When the financial crisis hit in 2008, just before the national elections, combined with the unalloyed worship of a completely unknown Illinois Senator, the outcome was the election of Obama.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Now the shame of the failure to address the financial crisis in time-tested and proven ways is Obama’s. He could have cut taxes. Instead he pushed for an end to the Bush tax cuts and talked endlessly about raising taxes on “millionaires and billionaires.” In point of fact, his tax programs were and are aimed at the middle class. He could have cut government spending. Instead he increased it with all manner of phony schemes such as “cash for clunkers.”

Since 2009 Obama has added four trillion dollars to the nation’s debt and has presided over the first, historic downgrade of America’s triple-A credit rating. The continuing news of taxpayer losses in his administration’s disastrous “investments” in solar and other “clean energy” firms that continue to fail has added to the clear perception of an ideologically driven agenda that is out of touch with reality.

The victory of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, barely five months before the forthcoming November elections is yet another reason to celebrate the rejection of Obama and his policies that have given the nation 42 months of an unemployment rate that is unprecedented since the Great Depression. Gov. Walker’s election signals the decline of the union movement and his reforms resulted in tens of thousands of union members choosing to leave the unions in Wisconsin.

The realization that unions, in particular the public service unions, have raped the public coffers of states, marks a turning point that will result in reforms that will greatly aid recovery. The millions the union movement poured into the defeat of Gov. Walker are millions that have been diverted from Obama’s reelection.

USA Today reported that “The residents of only nine states have returned their economies to the level that existed before the downturn struck at the end of 2007—and most of those states are energy producers.” The nation runs on the energy that the oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear provide. Obama has waged a war on oil and coal in particular and the public has taken notice of how insane this policy has been.

The outcome of the Wisconsin elections has not been lost on the Democratic Party. It will now be in full panic mode and Americans will be subjected to a campaign of lies intended to distract and deceive them.

Obama can no longer blame former President Bush for his failures, cannot blame events in Europe, and cannot blame Mother Nature. He has only himself to blame. Voters from the Left to the Right know this. Except for the hardcore liberal base and the mainstream media, the rest are ready to reject Obama.

http://www.conservat...V_c5WA.facebook

The problem with parroting propaganda is that propaganda is often short on facts and long on passion. This combination hinders your ability to participate in intellectual discourse as it takes away from any salient points you might actually make. That being said...

If midterm elections are such an accurate assessment of the public's opinion what does that say about Bush's second term. It was the first time Democrats took the house and senate since 1994. More importantly 1994 was the first time in over 60 years that the Republicans held the House with one exception in 1947. In retrospect Republicans and Democrats generally agree that Clinton was a good president nd our nation prospered under him. So even though Clinton was doing a good job the Republicans were able to maintain control of the House and Senate. With a Democratic Congress, maybe things would have been better or maybe they would have been worse; there's no way to tell. What I can tell you is that since the Depression Democrats have been in charge of both the House and Senate more often than not.

Obama care is largely the healthcare reform proposed by Gingrich and his fellow "Contract with America" conservatives in response to Clinton's attempt at universal healthcare. Funny, in 1994 heath insurance mandates were the sensible choice yet 18 years later they're socialism. Before you get all up in arms about market socialism, the healthcare mandate is absolutely not socialism. Nothing is being taken from anyone and redistributed. People are being forced to purchase a product. The providers of said product are not government entities and free to offer whatever services set at whatever prices the market will bear as long as they fall within certain guidelines. If you live in NY and drive a car you will be familiar with a nearly identical system call auto insurance. You are required to have it, there are mandatory minimums, and there are certain rules regarding the provision of this insurance that the industry must follow. I disagree with the health insurance mandate in that no one is forced to buy auto insurance. If however you wish to drive a car, you then must buy in. Practically speaking however we as a society will never accept casting people into the street to suffer alone because they chose to opt out of purchasing healthcare. Sadly, I don't disagree that the Supreme Court will likely rule against the mandate. They did a poor job arguing their case. Luckily the past has clearly shown that just because you lost in the supreme court it does not mean you were wrong. Many decisions made by the court then would be inconceivable now. Google Dred Scott for a look at one of our not so great supreme court decisions.

The full effects of auto bail out are still yet to be realized. Educated and informed individuals can go back and forth about what might have happened to GM in bankruptcy court. Both sides have salient points and real world examples to demonstrate their arguments. What you are ignoring is Bush started the auto bailouts with his initial injection of cash to stabilize the companies while what eventually became the bailout was crafted. The very same bailout that Bush has since stated he doesn't regret and would in fact repeat if he were to do it all over again today. GM and Chrysler are both doing far better today than they were just before their collapse. Lehman Brothers is the closest in size to GM that has ever gone into Chapter 11 and today is a shell of its former self. Considering that Lehamn benefited from Barclays quickly jumping in and picking off they healthier divisions while no one was interested or able to buy anything that GM had I tend to agree that GM would be in far worse shape.

Obama's win was almost as much the result of everything you mentioned as it was the inability of the Republican's to run an effective campaign. The democratic primary was so bruising that election was the Republican's to lose. Absolutely, the wars and financial disaster were bad but they paled in comparison to the damage done by Palin. Obama's election wasn't so different from Bush's. A little known candidate with no real national experience that escaped a bruising primary on hype and squeaked out general election win more because of the failings of their opponent than the strength of their campaign. P.S. the same could be said for Clinton except that was more Perot's success than Bush's failure that opened the door for Bubba.

Show me where cutting taxes has been a time tested and proven solution for fiscal crisis?? Bush Sr and Reagan both raised taxes overall and Reagan expanded government in response to fiscal crisis. Cuts for the sake of cutting don't work. When corporations find their bottom line failing they spend money.You stem losses by cutting spending in some areas, but those funds are redirected towards investments designed to stimulate new business. You may disagree with where Obama is spending the money and how he is raising it, but outside of ranting tea party candidates republican and democrat economists agree that more money needs to find its way into the economy. Whether it is better to leave it to the "job creators" to spend our way out of this recession or better for the government to stimulate the economy is up for debate.

I can't even go near the Walker stuff. Except for the fact that Walker won, that whole bit is entirely based in fantasy.

Ironically our terrible economy has gone a long way towards improving our position in energy production. The dip in the dollar has hurt our buying power and made importing oil relatively more expensive. The flagging economy also resulted in a dip worldwide in energy demands increasing the price gap between fossil fuels and alternative energy. Coal is still taking a beating, and will be for a while. Even under Bush the EPA was harder on coal than they would have liked.

Feel free to google any of my reply here. All original, largely opinion, and all developed from careful consideration of the world around me. I wouldn't expect you to suddenly change your mind just because you read a few differing opinions, but it would be really nice to hear an intelligent and coherent reply from you just once.

Sorry, one thing I wanted to add...

Why do you and the rest of the incensed right insist on using Obama's full name? Clinton was never William Jefferson Clinton and even with two living presidents named George Bush the middle initial sufficed. Are you that bothered by the name Hussein or what it represents?

Edited June 11, 2012 by ny10570

[grumpyff 1,159]

who cares if they're not my words they are the same thoughts as mine and more importantly its TRUTH.... you cant hide or change truth no matter how hard you'd like to

PLease Dont Feed the Troll

[201/65 94]

Mitt Romney Mocks Obama For Wanting More Firemen, Policemen, Teachers

The Huffington Post | By Elise Foley Posted: 06/08/2012 4:21 pm Updated: 06/08/2012 5:49 pm

[x129K 1,393]

e-Vomit brought to you by M.O.M.

[masterofmetal85 10]

Im glad ehow and yahoo answers are regarded by you as the pure truth. You really are something special, boy.

And yes, I do work in a union shop too.

who are you ? you work citywide because I used to work for them as well

[masterofmetal85 10]

The problem with parroting propaganda is that propaganda is often short on facts and long on passion. This combination hinders your ability to participate in intellectual discourse as it takes away from any salient points you might actually make. That being said...

If midterm elections are such an accurate assessment of the public's opinion what does that say about Bush's second term. It was the first time Democrats took the house and senate since 1994. More importantly 1994 was the first time in over 60 years that the Republicans held the House with one exception in 1947. In retrospect Republicans and Democrats generally agree that Clinton was a good president nd our nation prospered under him. So even though Clinton was doing a good job the Republicans were able to maintain control of the House and Senate. With a Democratic Congress, maybe things would have been better or maybe they would have been worse; there's no way to tell. What I can tell you is that since the Depression Democrats have been in charge of both the House and Senate more often than not.

Obama care is largely the healthcare reform proposed by Gingrich and his fellow "Contract with America" conservatives in response to Clinton's attempt at universal healthcare. Funny, in 1994 heath insurance mandates were the sensible choice yet 18 years later they're socialism. Before you get all up in arms about market socialism, the healthcare mandate is absolutely not socialism. Nothing is being taken from anyone and redistributed. People are being forced to purchase a product. The providers of said product are not government entities and free to offer whatever services set at whatever prices the market will bear as long as they fall within certain guidelines. If you live in NY and drive a car you will be familiar with a nearly identical system call auto insurance. You are required to have it, there are mandatory minimums, and there are certain rules regarding the provision of this insurance that the industry must follow. I disagree with the health insurance mandate in that no one is forced to buy auto insurance. If however you wish to drive a car, you then must buy in. Practically speaking however we as a society will never accept casting people into the street to suffer alone because they chose to opt out of purchasing healthcare. Sadly, I don't disagree that the Supreme Court will likely rule against the mandate. They did a poor job arguing their case. Luckily the past has clearly shown that just because you lost in the supreme court it does not mean you were wrong. Many decisions made by the court then would be inconceivable now. Google Dred Scott for a look at one of our not so great supreme court decisions.

The full effects of auto bail out are still yet to be realized. Educated and informed individuals can go back and forth about what might have happened to GM in bankruptcy court. Both sides have salient points and real world examples to demonstrate their arguments. What you are ignoring is Bush started the auto bailouts with his initial injection of cash to stabilize the companies while what eventually became the bailout was crafted. The very same bailout that Bush has since stated he doesn't regret and would in fact repeat if he were to do it all over again today. GM and Chrysler are both doing far better today than they were just before their collapse. Lehman Brothers is the closest in size to GM that has ever gone into Chapter 11 and today is a shell of its former self. Considering that Lehamn benefited from Barclays quickly jumping in and picking off they healthier divisions while no one was interested or able to buy anything that GM had I tend to agree that GM would be in far worse shape.

Obama's win was almost as much the result of everything you mentioned as it was the inability of the Republican's to run an effective campaign. The democratic primary was so bruising that election was the Republican's to lose. Absolutely, the wars and financial disaster were bad but they paled in comparison to the damage done by Palin. Obama's election wasn't so different from Bush's. A little known candidate with no real national experience that escaped a bruising primary on hype and squeaked out general election win more because of the failings of their opponent than the strength of their campaign. P.S. the same could be said for Clinton except that was more Perot's success than Bush's failure that opened the door for Bubba.

Show me where cutting taxes has been a time tested and proven solution for fiscal crisis?? Bush Sr and Reagan both raised taxes overall and Reagan expanded government in response to fiscal crisis. Cuts for the sake of cutting don't work. When corporations find their bottom line failing they spend money.You stem losses by cutting spending in some areas, but those funds are redirected towards investments designed to stimulate new business. You may disagree with where Obama is spending the money and how he is raising it, but outside of ranting tea party candidates republican and democrat economists agree that more money needs to find its way into the economy. Whether it is better to leave it to the "job creators" to spend our way out of this recession or better for the government to stimulate the economy is up for debate.

I can't even go near the Walker stuff. Except for the fact that Walker won, that whole bit is entirely based in fantasy.

Ironically our terrible economy has gone a long way towards improving our position in energy production. The dip in the dollar has hurt our buying power and made importing oil relatively more expensive. The flagging economy also resulted in a dip worldwide in energy demands increasing the price gap between fossil fuels and alternative energy. Coal is still taking a beating, and will be for a while. Even under Bush the EPA was harder on coal than they would have liked.

Feel free to google any of my reply here. All original, largely opinion, and all developed from careful consideration of the world around me. I wouldn't expect you to suddenly change your mind just because you read a few differing opinions, but it would be really nice to hear an intelligent and coherent reply from you just once.

Sorry, one thing I wanted to add...

Why do you and the rest of the incensed right insist on using Obama's full name? Clinton was never William Jefferson Clinton and even with two living presidents named George Bush the middle initial sufficed. Are you that bothered by the name Hussein or what it represents?

points are all good and well, just a few things you mentioned I'll be brief about

-the government forcing the population of this country to buy a product really constitutional?

- I'd like for you to show in detail how the economy has improved because I certainly don't see it and neither do millions of unemployed Americans

- Bush wasn't the greatest president but he wasn't the worst....funny how liberals always like to blame him though

-Where's the "amazing" things Barack Hussein Obama promised us ?

-Yea I mention his name because it bothers me that there is a man in the white house as our president named Barack Hussein Obama and what bothers me even more is that it doesn't bother a majority of other people

- Do you really think Obamantioncare, if passed (hopefully not) will improve the quality of our current healthcare that we have today?

[masterofmetal85 10]

Mitt Romney Mocks Obama For Wanting More Firemen, Policemen, Teachers

The Huffington Post | By Elise Foley Posted: 06/08/2012 4:21 pm Updated: 06/08/2012 5:49 pm

oh yes the mainstream media is so accurate with reporting everything....just like in the treyvon martin case when they altered the 911 conversation of George Zimmerman , ain't that something

[FireMedic049 597]

points are all good and well, just a few things you mentioned I'll be brief about

-the government forcing the population of this country to buy a product really constitutional?

I think we already have the answer to that question and it must be "yes" since the taxes I pay already help purchase healthcare coverage for part of the population via Medicaid and the like.

- I'd like for you to show in detail how the economy has improved because I certainly don't see it and neither do millions of unemployed Americans

Obviously, if a person is still unemployed, they'll have a hard time believing the economy has improved. It should be noted that although it really hasn't rebounded as much as we'd like, even minimal gains ARE an improvement. Maybe you should ask all the "job creators" where the jobs are?

- Bush wasn't the greatest president but he wasn't the worst....funny how liberals always like to blame him though

Well, various policies enacted, decisions made, actions taken, etc. on his watch greatly contributed to the situation we have been in. Kind of hard to escape blame from that.

-Where's the "amazing" things Barack Hussein Obama promised us ?

Ask the GOP and the TEA Party? The president can only do so much on his own.

-Yea I mention his name because it bothers me that there is a man in the white house as our president named Barack Hussein Obama and what bothers me even more is that it doesn't bother a majority of other people

Glad I could play a small part in bothering your intolerant self.

- Do you really think Obamantioncare, if passed (hopefully not) will improve the quality of our current healthcare that we have today?

I'm pretty sure the "Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act" (aka "Obamacare") has already been passed since the GOP are hellbent on repealing it. I can't say for sure what impact it will have on the "quality of our current healthcare", but I do know it's improved the quality of healthcare for many of the uninsured/underinsured in the Country. But, by all means let's throw out all these people like the weekly trash. I mean after all it has to be their fault that their job doesn't pay enough to afford coverage. Edited June 26, 2012 by FireMedic049

[ny10570 745]

points are all good and well, just a few things you mentioned I'll be brief about

-the government forcing the population of this country to buy a product really constitutional?

- I'd like for you to show in detail how the economy has improved because I certainly don't see it and neither do millions of unemployed Americans

- Bush wasn't the greatest president but he wasn't the worst....funny how liberals always like to blame him though

-Where's the "amazing" things Barack Hussein Obama promised us ?

-Yea I mention his name because it bothers me that there is a man in the white house as our president named Barack Hussein Obama and what bothers me even more is that it doesn't bother a majority of other people

- Do you really think Obamantioncare, if passed (hopefully not) will improve the quality of our current healthcare that we have today?

Firemedic beat me to the punch, but I gotta spout off.

I was initially very uncomfortable with the mandate that people buy product. Ignoring the FACTS that this mandate was initially a republican alternative to the single payer universal healthcare system championed by Clinton and was successfully implemented in Mass by Romney is just silly, but somehow the right and its blowhards have pulled it off. I say successfully in reference to Mass because it has lowered the per capita cost of healthcare for the entire state and has begun to shift spending from treatment to prevention. By all estimates the program is going to save the state money. The left and right just can't agree on how much.

I am no longer uncomfortable with the mandate because there are enough precedents of congress having the power to regulate our lives. If you want to go old school George Washington along with several original framers of the constitution passed legislation mandating health insurance for mariners and another bill requiring all able bodied men purchase and maintain a rifle and other necessary equipment in case they were to be called upon to serve in the militia. More recently congress can even tell you how much wheat you can grow on your property for personal use.

You're absolutely right, there has been little improvement in the home of the average american. That is going to be Obama's biggest hurdle to re-election. What numbers do you want? How about GDP?? From the first quarter 2008 through till the end of 2009 our economy shrunk in every quarter except 1 where we posted 1.3% growth. Since then, we've been positive every quarter and managed an average growth of 2.4%. Not the historical average of 3.25% but on par with the rest of the world. More specific to the average joe, lets see unemployment rates. Here, we hit a high of 10% back in 2009 and have slowly cranked that down to 8.2%. Almost every indicator of economic health took a massive dump in 2008 and they have all improved since then.

Some like to argue that any idiot could have managed the same gains because things were so bad they could only go up. No one can honestly say Obama's policies and theories have been given a fair and unhindered shot at righting the economy. He has been hindered at every turn by an obstinate congress that picks arbitrary fights (ie: debt ceiling) just to fight them. Things absolutely could have been worse. Who we can thank for that we won't really know until long after this election when all these moves have fully played out.

Hopefully through reading my posts you've recognized I'm more than willing to give credit to Republicans and criticize Democrats. In this case, Bush is very much responsible for much of the conditions that enabled the collapse. Clinton had his hand in there too, but Bush compounded problems and failed to act on earlier signs of trouble. Bush also set the tone for solution with his bank bailouts. I believe he had the right idea, but a very poor implementation that turned a lifeline into a windfall. Liberals are still blaming him because we are still crawling out of the hole generated by an economic meltdown and two unfunded wars.

Obama absolutely promised a lot more than he delivered. But as I and firemedic have pointed to before, Obama cannot do it on his own. Congress has to help. At the same time Obama burned a lot of opportunities to get other things done by sticking to healthcare reform. He also was forced to bail on some promises when the realities of the job met his hopes and dreams. A perfect example being Guantanamo. Rather than force through a campaign promise because he promised it, he took the hit and left the base in operation.

Its always depressing finding more people ignorant enough to hate someone because of a name or religion. I've seen first hand death in the name of many religions perpetrated by people from every variety of nation. Look at human history and none can escape a vile and murderous past. Yet you're so superior that you can pass judgement upon a person simply based upon their name? It is truly disgusting.

I have no doubt that obamacare if upheld by the supreme court will have a positive impact. I have seen what happens to people with no or insufficient insurance. I see the way the system waits until someone is completely crippled and removed from productive society before stepping in. Preventing health problems and treating them early is far more cost effective than managing all of the complications that lie down the road. It is not only cheaper but it maintains their ability to contribute to society. To continue to earn money and pay into the system. Health insurance only hurts when you don't need it.