Originally Posted By ecdc >>We seem to have crossed a very scary line where country boundaries matter very little to large corporations - all they care about is making the most money possible, where ever they can get it.<< And ironically, those who enable and defend them accuse their political enemies of being "un-American." Rand Paul said Obama's criticism of BP was un-American. The world is upside-down.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<Rand Paul said Obama's criticism of BP was un-American. The world is upside-down.>> I know, right? How is Obama's criticizing a British company that pollutes the Gulf "un-American"? How exactly is the oil spill HELPING American workers again??
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<For some unexplained reason, conservatives consider american workers the new 'boogeymen' - public sector jobs, unions, nurses, teachers - all of them are just feeding at the public trough. And all have been villainized and demogogued by republicans.>> And you have to wonder where these idiots think that these people will get jobs once laid off? If they think they're a burden on the country now by taking government money, just wait until they're unemployed!!
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<For some unexplained reason, conservatives consider american workers the new 'boogeymen' - public sector jobs, unions, nurses, teachers - all of them are just feeding at the public trough. And all have been villainized and demogogued by republicans.>> The contempt the right feels for the middle class was one of the reasons i dropped out of the GOP.
Originally Posted By DAR Last time I looked I didn't notice the Democrats exactly coming to bat for the little guy. They're not one's to turn down campaign donations from Big whatever. And shut up I don't want read some long diatribe how that statement is wrong.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox While most Dems are just as much corporatists as Republicans, they do not actively work against the working poor and middle class by trying to eliminate their civil rights. Dems are pro-business like the Republicans, yes. But... not at the same level of intensity. Most Dems and some Independents still want regulations and a fair playing field for labor. The my-way-or-the-highway attitude that corporations have regarding how they conduct their businesses and maximize their bottom lines is what the Republicans refuse to oppose. That's the main difference between the two parties, which makes Republican politicians the worst representatives for average citizens in any democracy.
Originally Posted By ecdc Maybe you didn't read the part about shutting up. DAR, you sound like a four-year old. If you don't want to read what someone writes, don't. It's not hard.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "And shut up I don't want read some long diatribe how that statement is wrong." Doesn't need to be long. Just two words. You're wrong.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Today's news: dems in the CA state legislature are seeking equal benefits for farm workers - read: latinos. Currently, most every job requires overtime pay for more than eight hours a day or 40 hours per week. Most people agree that's reasonable. Farm workers don't enjoy the same rules - for them it's 10 hours a day or 60 hours a week. Seems unfair, no? Why have special "lesser" rules for this one class of worker? No surprise - republicans are opposed. One of the millions of examples where democrats will sponsor legislation that ensures fairness and equality, only to be opposed by republicans, who favor money and power. So tell me again about how democrats aren't looking out for the little guy, and how it's so unfair to categorize republicans as obstructionist corporatists. Or just open your eyes and see it for yourself - it's all around us every day.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Last time I looked I didn't notice the Democrats exactly coming to bat for the little guy. << There's a lot that you don't notice - even when you bother to look. There are none so blind . . . So here's an easy one for you - who's obstructing (again) the extension of unemployment benefits? That's easy - republicans. Why is there such a thing as unemployment insurance anyway? Democrats - looking out for the "little guy". Along with medicare, social security, civil rights, a forty hour work week, and protection against discrimination in employment and housing. What a buncha commies, huh. The reason republicans give for holding up unemployment payments is that they feel it's fiscally irresponsible to authorize the funding without finding an offset within the budget. Laudable, except they haven't lifted a finger to find such an offset, instead just voting 'no' (again). It's so much easier that way. So real people go hungry, real bills go unpaid, and congress prepares to go on vacation - for a MONTH. And don't be fooled - these are the same republicans that funded not just one but two wars over seven years - all 'off the books'. Tens of billions of taxpayer dollars never hitting a budget sheet. These politicians will spend the next month kowtowing to voters and telling them what good christians they are, and no one will question their priorities - like how they can be so quick with a buck when it comes to waging war in the middle east, but when it comes to feeding the hungry and providing for the poor they can't be bothered. Those people are just lazy anyway - that's what they'll say during their month long vacation.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<These politicians will spend the next month kowtowing to voters and telling them what good christians they are, and no one will question their priorities - like how they can be so quick with a buck when it comes to waging war in the middle east, but when it comes to feeding the hungry and providing for the poor they can't be bothered. Those people are just lazy anyway - that's what they'll say during their month long vacation.>> I've stated it before, and I'll state it again. It's all about Social Darwinism. The Republican leaders do not want the unwashed masses to have any wealth or power WHATSOEVER. The Republican leaders represent the elite rich. The elite rich believe down to their bone marrow that God has made them rich to rule over others. Divine Providence and all that crap. The unwashed masses deserve their fate, even if that's famine, disease, poverty, and death. It's what God has destined for them. Social Darwinism is what they truly worship. But of course, they can't begin to tell their constituents this, or they'd never get elected or re-elected, over and over again.
Originally Posted By pecos bill I swear, I find my feelings toward Republicans going from simple loathing to sheer hatred. Never have I seen such blatant and arrogant disregard to the plight of the common American. I simply refuse to talk politics with a rabid Republican anymore. Total waste of time.
Originally Posted By velo >>The Republican leaders do not want the unwashed masses to have any wealth or power WHATSOEVER.<< let's add education/higher education to that list! here in CA there is constant bemoaning of the "test scores" - all while cutting the last bit of $$ from the education budget. It will always help the republicans to make sure that the populace (and future voters) is as uninformed/uneducated as possible.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By DAR <<here in CA there is constant bemoaning of the "test scores" - all while cutting the last bit of $$ from the education budget>> Budget cuts in education aren't nearly as big a problem in Wisconsin as the teachers union. Now I have plenty of friends and family in education and they all tell me that overall mentality of the union is they only look out for themselves. They don't look out for other teachers and they certainly don't care about kids.
Originally Posted By DAR Another example of how the teachers union in Milwaukee screwed over their fellow teachers. They don't pay for health insurance through their benefits package. But MPS(Milwaukee Public Schools) said they have to cut about 400 teachers or the teachers get a lower package and would have to pay a $10 co-pay for a doctor visit. The union said screw that and let 400 teachers, mostly new teachers. But one's that probably weren't jaded lose their jobs.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox From what I read in this Journal-Sentinel online article, the problem is more complicated than that, DAR: <a href="http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/97953709.html" target="_blank">http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/...709.html</a> Seems that the WSJ editorial failed to do the "real" math in calculating just how much money the switch to the cheaper health plan would actually save. One of the comments to the article explains it in more detail: <> " ... numbers on the costs of switching to the cheaper health-care plan are accurate, according to figures posted recently by the MacIver Institute." Except the MacIver Institute has engaged in a kind of blunt, rudimentary math that doesn't reflect the reality of MPS's health insurance system. MacIver (and MPS Board President Michael Bonds is guilty of doing the same thing) simply took the difference in cost between the two plans and multiplied that difference by the number of teachers who are on the more expensive plan. MacIver does not bother to consider why the difference in cost exists. There is a difference primarily because MPS calculates its costs on ACTUAL UTILIZATION. Because MPS health insurance is fully self-funded, the costs of MPS's plans reflect the total spending by MPS employees on those plans. Employees who have more serious conditions, or family members with serious conditions, usually choose the PPO plan, because it does allow much more freedom of choice in terms of providers and higher coverage caps, though some out-of-pocket costs will be higher. (This is true, though the MJS, including the reporter posting this blog, usually prints the false statement that there is no financial incentive against the PPO plan). If the high-utilization employees are moved to the EPO/HMO plan, their utilization is unlikely to change (particularly given that out-of-pocket costs will be lower in many cases). That will jack the cost of the EPO/HMO right up, nearer to the PPO cost level. The simplistic calculations by MacIver do not anticipate this increase. The union has done the more complicated math, and pegs expected savings, based on actual utilization rates, at closer to $10 million, rather than the $48 million that MacIver and Bonds have put out there. So, no, the WSJ numbers are NOT "accurate." <> The union did not say, "screw the 400 teachers" but rejected the change in health care because the HMO plan offered less for hardly any savings. Also, this switcheroo on health care was not presented at the bargaining table. The union resented that, and rightfully so. They referred to it as "bargaining in public," and I don't blame them for being upset at the sneaky tactic used by the district. It's all about intent, DAR. The intent of the union was NOT to throw less senior teachers to the wolves, but to find a decent compromise for saving money that didn't eliminate a sizable chunk of good benefits for teachers and their families who needed them. But your anti-union sentiments run so deep, you won't allow yourself to dig a little deeper like I did, and get to the actual truth of the matter. Every issue has two sides, and you're only focused on one side regarding this.
Originally Posted By DAR My anti-union sentiments run deep. Because my father was an administrator and could get of bad teachers in his building because they were protected by the union. I've seen other friends who are part of the union only because they have to be. You know what the mentality of teachers who are lock step with union in MIlwaukee is: -School starts at 8, arrive at 7:55 -School ends at 3 leave at 3:05 No bus duty, no recess duty, no lunch duty. Vacation time they might leave a few days early. Might come back a few days late. Nowhere in there is there one iota of concern for anybody but themselves.
Originally Posted By Labuda RE: 77: So what? they're there to teach. They teach while they're supposed to. Teachers are teachers and shouldn't be expected to do menial jobs like bus duty and lunch duty when they're trained to teach children. As for taking extra vacation days near holidays, so what? I do it all the time - you arrange coverage, take your paid time off, and go. That's just the way the world works.
