More union bailouts

[Bonestorm]

no no no.... teachers unions AREN'T special interests... they should get all the money they want and not have to sacrifice anything.

I wish the Dem leadership would come out and state the same nonsense that Dung just stated. It might give the Reps a shot at the Senate.

Schools aren't special interests. I understand that you want to pretend that the government just wrote a check to the NEA, but it just isn't so. If you want to make the case that schools should have let go of thousands of teachers across the country and made deeps cuts to their budgets, go right ahead.

Good luck.

 

[Bonestorm]

We had the stimulus which went heavily to public sector unions and now this second stimulus going to public sector unions all while the private sector is floundering. Will people notice? My guess is a lot will.

Somehow I think that the government giving money to the private sector wouldn't quite silence the fucktards that call Obama a socialist. Just guessing, though.

And look, I understand that you and SF want to pretend that the government is writing checks to unions but that's not the case at all. If you want to make the case that lots of public sector employees should be terminated make the case, but this bullshit about stimulus "going to public sector unions" is laughable. It's going to state and local governments.

 

[cawacko]

I know little about polls but I would guess that if there was a poll done on the President and Congress before the second stimulus bailout and one done after the President's and Congresss's approval numbers would go no higher as result of this action.

Whether partisans will admit it publicly or not most know deep down when their party does something that is very politically motivated (everything is politically motivated but some actions stand out above even that). I've done it many times myself and I'm going to assume I'm not alone.

Giving billions of dollars to one of your biggest support groups several months before an election that polls show you are trailing in screams out a move made by politics.

 

[Canceled2]

Schools aren't special interests. I understand that you want to pretend that the government just wrote a check to the NEA, but it just isn't so. If you want to make the case that schools should have let go of thousands of teachers across the country and made deeps cuts to their budgets, go right ahead. Same with fire and police departments.

Good luck.

Here's the case. Cuts in most states usually means no pay raises. Further, Police and Fire budgets are a part of a states "General Fund". States facing deficits can reform the way they manage their other "Funds" in order to safeguard any positions that are "public safety" positions, but they rarely do. What they do instead is threaten the public with cuts in these protective and educational positions in order to raise taxes to avoid tackling true reform. True reform would require renegotiating PEU contracts and for democrats this would constitute commiting political suicide.

 

[cawacko]

Somehow I think that the government giving money to the private sector wouldn't quite silence the fucktards that call Obama a socialist. Just guessing, though.

And look, I understand that you and SF want to pretend that the government is writing checks to unions but that's not the case at all. If you want to make the case that lots of public sector employees should be terminated make the case, but this bullshit about stimulus "going to public sector unions" is laughable. It's going to state and local governments.

And then directed to teachers, police and fire fighters like said. All public union employees. The state may be the middle man but we know where the money is going.

I'm not arguing for a private sector stimulus.

 

[Bonestorm]

I know little about polls but I would guess that if there was a poll done on the President and Congress before the second stimulus bailout and one done after the President's and Congresss's approval numbers would go no higher as result of this action.

Whether partisans will admit it publicly or not most know deep down when their party does something that is very politically motivated (everything is politically motivated but some actions stand out above even that). I've done it many times myself and I'm going to assume I'm not alone.

Giving billions of dollars to one of your biggest support groups several months before an election that polls show you are trailing in screams out a move made by politics.

You're still pretending the government is handing out money to the teachers' union. It isn't. It's giving money to state and local governments.

 

[Bonestorm]

And then directed to teachers, police and fire fighters like said. All public union employees. The state may be the middle man but we know where the money is going.

I'm not arguing for a private sector stimulus.

So the federal government shouldn't do anything to prevent states from firing tens or hundreds of thousands of teachers because teachers are unionized?

Look, maybe the money isn't a good idea, but screaming "union" doesn't make that case. Maybe tens or hundreds of thousands of teachers should lose their jobs, I don't know. Apparently you think so. Why?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Good luck with this line of attack. People who aren't Republican voters don't really view teachers, police and firefighters as "special interests."

they view their unions as special interest...

and if they don't, their are wrong

 

[cawacko]

So the federal government shouldn't do anything to prevent states from firing tens or hundreds of thousands of teachers because teachers are unionized?

Look, maybe the money isn't a good idea, but screaming "union" doesn't make that case. Maybe tens or hundreds of thousands of teachers should lose their jobs, I don't know. Apparently you think so. Why?

I am not an expert on how the whole teachers union work but I know there is a large inefficient beaucracy involved that takes up large amounts of money that never reach the teachers on the front line. Until that can be changed money like this never forces them to change. The same thing happens in corporate America where companies get so heavy with middle managment and become very inefficient and beauracratic.

And I also don't care for the strings that come attached with the money that states have to keep up funding at a certain level the following year or something to that extent. Obviously they are doing it but that's not the federal governments job to do. For example in California through ballot initiatives we voters know how to f up our state budget without the feds joining in.

 

[Minister of Truth]

So the federal government shouldn't do anything to prevent states from firing tens or hundreds of thousands of teachers because teachers are unionized?

Look, maybe the money isn't a good idea, but screaming "union" doesn't make that case. Maybe tens or hundreds of thousands of teachers should lose their jobs, I don't know. Apparently you think so. Why?

You have a right to join a Union, not a right to get what you want. I wouldn't want to employ union workers unless I knew it would benefit me, such as the Union providing the workers with medical and other benefits, and thus saving me more money than I would lose dealing with all of their bullshit.

 

[Bonestorm]

I am not an expert on how the whole teachers union work but I know there is a large inefficient beaucracy involved that takes up large amounts of money that never reach the teachers on the front line. Until that can be changed money like this never forces them to change. The same thing happens in corporate America where companies get so heavy with middle managment and become very inefficient and beauracratic.

Again, your premise is that the federal government is giving money to the teachers' unions. It isn't. So whether the unions have an inefficient bureaucracy is beside the point. Now, if your gripe is that state and local education is bolloxed up with inefficient bureaucracy, you may have a point. But, the funding comes with strings attached mandating that no more than 2% can go towards administrative functions.

And I also don't care for the strings that come attached with the money that states have to keep up funding at a certain level the following year or something to that extent. Obviously they are doing it but that's not the federal governments job to do. For example in California through ballot initiatives we voters know how to f up our state budget without the feds joining in.

I understand that point. But on this, the states are free to reject the money and the strings attached if it is a bad deal.

 

[Bonestorm]

they view their unions as special interest...

and if they don't, their are wrong

I'm not sure that I understand who "they" are.

 

[tinfoil]

did you miss the part that unions have needed BILLIONS in bailouts lately

obviously YOU hate the middle class because you think unions can extort any amount of money from corps and government and its all peachy keen

No kidding. that dude is economically illterate. Just like in statistics.
That's why I simply laugh at their remarks over AGW. They don't understand how they've been mislead so you can't convince them with the evidence. They expect the government to be honest.

Seriously. These fucking morons expect their government to be run by honest people. It's the definition of crazy to expect that in the face of history and the numbers of corrupt officials in our past-- and present also.

Mott is some dweeb who might be smart in some areas, but totally a dumbass when it comes to numbers. It's way too obvious

 

[tinfoil]

LOL they take from the mouths of the hungry childen to pay for the inept teachers to get a hard-on from a blue pill and to line the pockets of the union bosses.

Keynesian economics FTW

 

[apple0154]

and notice that they seem more interested in buying union votes instead of helping the disadvantaged by plundering the food stamp program to pay for this.

how's that feel christie and apple?

We all know what the Conservative response would be if education suffered due to cuts.

"Home school ! Vouchers for private schools! The government can't run anything!" On and on.

Obama is just preempting the nonsense.

 

[apple0154]

LMAO... more of your ignorance.... the COST OF LIVING is also higher in the northern union states than it is in the southern right to work states.

Funny how you attack the source of the information rather than commenting on the information they presented. I wonder why? Could it be because their information is accurate and yet it upsets you that most of this country is getting sick of hearing that union jobs need protection because they are soooo important, yet the rest of the public is fucked AND they get to pay to make sure the union workers aren't in the same boat.

Bottom line, for the unions to continue as they are in this economic environment is pathetic at best.

You can spout off all you want on unions... they have their place... it is time they are put back in it.

You wonder why the job environment sucks so bad in the upper midwest? Take a good look at the unions who continue to drive jobs out of that part of the country.

The problem is when union wages are lowered or unions make other concessions during times of "crisis" they have to scratch and claw their way back after the company/economy bounces back.

If a company requires a union to lower wages, fine. However, stipulate in the contract that wages increase automatically as the company profits increase. Let's see how many companies go for that.

 

[apple0154]

Here's the case. Cuts in most states usually means no pay raises. Further, Police and Fire budgets are a part of a states "General Fund". States facing deficits can reform the way they manage their other "Funds" in order to safeguard any positions that are "public safety" positions, but they rarely do. What they do instead is threaten the public with cuts in these protective and educational positions in order to raise taxes to avoid tackling true reform. True reform would require renegotiating PEU contracts and for democrats this would constitute commiting political suicide.

The problem is when the economy turns around are the States going to resume the wages prior to the cuts? Not likely. The contracts negotiated during a downturn will remain in force after the economy picks up. Then the States will brag about all the money they are saving/collecting and spend it elsewhere instead of giving it to the union members who accepted lower wages.

I saw that happen in Canada. Quebec cut teacher's salaries in the early 80s and it took the teachers over 10 years to catch up even though the economy recovered much sooner.

Maybe if included in every renegotiated contract is the stipulation salaries and benefits increase in direct proportion to the State's increase in revenue. The people who sacrifice should be the first in line to benefit.

And let's not forget increased taxes. The individual working for a private company whose wage decreases will pay less taxes as they will be earning less, however, those who continue to get increases, which obviously some do, will pay more. What could be more fair? And we are talking about being fair, are we not?

 

[cawacko]

We all know what the Conservative response would be if education suffered due to cuts.

"Home school ! Vouchers for private schools! The government can't run anything!" On and on.

Obama is just preempting the nonsense.

Yes because for 30 years we've tried to better our education system by throwing more money at it and that has worked absolute wonders. I mean why change anything right?

 

[cawacko]

The problem is when union wages are lowered or unions make other concessions during times of "crisis" they have to scratch and claw their way back after the company/economy bounces back.

If a company requires a union to lower wages, fine. However, stipulate in the contract that wages increase automatically as the company profits increase. Let's see how many companies go for that.

Geez, poor union workers. You think the private sector is any different? In the private sector they'll lay you off in a hearbeat and cut your pay on a whim if they feel like it.

 

[Bonestorm]

Maybe all you folks bitching about how great union members have it ought to form one.