All this outrage over people wanting collective bargaining. Vilifying firefighters, policemen and teachers..is that what it's come down to? And all under the false guise of "balancing the budget"...which Walker has no real interest in, unless it's all the programs he doesn't like that are being cut.
Where's the outrage for the wealth gap of the top 1% at the expense of the other 99%?
Quote: All this outrage over people wanting collective bargaining. Vilifying firefighters, policemen and teachers..is that what it's come down to?
That's quite a twist on things. What's being "villified" is the way unions have hogtied the local governments. Read the following quote:
"Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations ... The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for ... officials ... to bind the employer ... The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives ..."
Do you know who said that? It was the champion of labor himself, Fraklin Delano Roosevelt. Even he recognized that unions have no place in government.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul. - John Muir
That quote is from "Letter on the Resolution of Federation of Federal Employees Against Strikes in Federal Service". Here's the full context:
Quote: My dear Mr. Steward:
As I am unable to accept your kind invitation to be present on the occasion of the Twentieth Jubilee Convention of the National Federation of Federal Employees, I am taking this method of sending greetings and a message.
Reading your letter of July 14, 1937, I was especially interested in the timeliness of your remark that the manner in which the activities of your organization have been carried on during the past two decades "has been in complete consonance with the best traditions of public employee relationships." Organizations of Government employees have a logical place in Government affairs.
The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.
All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.
Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."
I congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees the twentieth anniversary of its founding and trust that the convention will, in every way, be successful.
If you read the letter you will see that FDR is specifically referring to federal employees (especially those essential to the federal government functioning). It is clear that this letter was written in mind with federal employees, not state employees such as teachers.
I beg to differ. This line of his quote applies to all government employees.
Quote: ... The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives ..."
The citizens (who pay the taxes) are in fact the employers of both local and federal government workers. The elected officials are who we select to manage these employees and their compensation.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul. - John Muir
Here's average compensation of Public Workers. You can take USA Today's Analysis any way you want, which people will. But, here are the numbers.
Quote:
Compensation gap by state for public, private workers State and local government workers earn more than private-sector workers in 41 states. Average compensation (including salaries and benefits) in 2009 and difference with private-sector workers: Rank State Compensation Difference
1 District of Columbia $82,607 +$457
2 Connecticut $77,697 +$7,687
3 New Jersey $72,007 +$6,681
4 California $71,385 +$7,977
5 New York $71,282 +$1,699
6 Rhode Island $69,284 +$17,603
7 Nevada $68,785 +$17,815
8 Maryland $65,947 +$6,931
9 Massachusetts $62,562 —$4,688
10 Alaska $60,882 +$2,764
11 Illinois $60,274 +$485
12 Delaware $60,077 +$2,911
13 Hawaii $59,595 +$12,243
14 Washington $59,288 +$532
15 Michigan $58,801 +$6,436
16 Florida $58,749 +$9,099
17 Arizona $56,321 +$4,310
18 Minnesota $55,826 +$1,259
19 Virginia $55,705 —$2,328
20 Oregon $55,682 +$5,607
21 Pennsylvania $55,137 +$1,567
22 Colorado $54,184 —$3,391
23 Wyoming $53,460 +$3,116
24 South Carolina $52,591 +$7,590
25 Ohio $52,473 +$2,392
26 Louisiana $52,412 +$2,473
27 New Hampshire $52,181 —$1,876
28 Vermont $51,503 +$5,811
29 New Mexico $51,428 +$5,715
30 Texas $51,310 —$3,580
31 Alabama $50,999 +$5,001
32 North Carolina $50,902 +$1,857
33 Wisconsin $50,774 +$1,802
34 Iowa $50,394 +$6,178
35 Utah $50,149 +$2,611
36 Maine $49,850 +$4,912
37 Georgia $49,600 —$3,875
38 Indiana $49,157 +$1,183
39 Missouri $49,092 —$1,075
40 Nebraska $48,953 +$3,130
41 Kentucky $48,046 +$2,313
42 Arkansas $48,033 +$4,196
43 West Virginia $47,899 +$3,655
44 Tennessee $47,891 —$756
45 Montana $47,596 +$7,396
46 Oklahoma $47,258 +$1,667
47 Mississippi $46,375 +$4,713
48 Idaho $45,280 +$2,855
49 Kansas $44,803 —$3,229
50 North Dakota $43,619 +$389
51 South Dakota $41,684 +$1,909
Total United States $57,775 +$2,511
Sources: Bureau of Economic Analysis; USA TODAY analysis link
I can live comfortable at any of levels even with a 10% cut in them, heck cut 20% and I could as well. Of course, it won't be a rich lifestyle, but then again if you want a rich lifestyle, you shouldn't become a gov't worker.
And btw, TheJoker, you can rant all you want about the top 1% and how much the make. It's not germane to anything to do with this other than you trying to demonize the rich.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
Quote: I would not expect you to understand the issue or even admit there is an issue.
Yeah mac, how could I possibly understand?? I mean c'mon, I'm currently employed by a county government and prior to that worked for the state of Ohio for 13+ years, and was a union steward for 2 separate unions during that time to include helping to negotiate a contract.........what the hell do I know??????????
You could not possibly know as much as mac does .... after all, he reads the Huffington Post daily ....
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Quote: I would not expect you to understand the issue or even admit there is an issue.
Yeah mac, how could I possibly understand?? I mean c'mon, I'm currently employed by a county government and prior to that worked for the state of Ohio for 13+ years, and was a union steward for 2 separate unions during that time to include helping to negotiate a contract.........what the hell do I know??????????
shep...why would someone with such a rich history of union involvement stand silent on the issue of Scott Walker busting Wisconsin unions..trying to forcing union workers to give up bargaining rights?
Sitting on the fence? Got your finger in the wind?
Do you support the Ohio union workers and their fight against Koch Tea Party that has control of Republican Governors in Ohio and Wisconsin?
Oh wait...you used past tense...you were once a union steward...let me guess, you voted with the Koch Tea Party and have now swapped sides from a union member to a TPer...no longer supporting union workers..now supporting Tea Party union busting Republicans.
The battle over collective bargaining being fought in Wisconsin is far from over, but even as it rages a new fight is gathering steam in Ohio. For more than a week now, union supporters have gathered around the State Capitol in Columbus to protest Gov. John Kasich's (R) plan to limit collective bargaining rights for more than 300,000 state workers.
On Tuesday, protests reached their largest and loudest yet, according to reports from the ground.
As in Wisconsin, Ohio's new Republican governor isn't backing down. And just as protestors remain in the streets of Madison, so too are they in Ohio.
From the Columbus Dispatch:
The Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board is estimating the crowd at 8,500. They don't keep formal records of protest crowds, but anecdotally, spokesman Gregg Dodd said, there is consensus this is largest crowd of its kind in at least 15 years.Union spokespeople from the SEIU and AFL-CIO claimed the crowd to be closer to 20,000.
Ohio's bill is very similar to Wisconsin's -- except that it includes the police officers and firefighters the Wisconsin proposal exempts. One union worker who addressed the crowd today told TPM she's not sure the protests will change many minds, but they've made it clear how Ohio's organized workers feel about Kasich and his plan.
"I hope we can be heard inside the State House," Joy Sunderman, a member of SEIU Local 1099 and a 32-year veteran of Cincinnati State Technical Community College, told TPM in a phone interview from the scene of today's protests. "We've made a lot of noise."
Sunderman calls the battle against Kasich's proposal to limit collective bargaining rights "a fight for the middle class" and said that Kasich (who just took office in January) is trying to break the unions as a way to further his political ambitions.
"It just seems like he doesn't care much about Ohio or reelection," Sunderman said. "I don't like the fact that he's trying to make a name for himself in Washington on the backs of union workers."
Kasich has defended his proposal, saying union negotiating power needs to be curbed to help close a state budget deficit. He told reporters last week that he's "optimistic" about the passage of SB 5.
"There have been a lot of promises made to people that will never be kept. And I'm here to say, 'look, let's deal with reality here,'" Kasich said. "The whole business of collective bargaining reform is really designed to create a platform for job growth and entrepreneurship. Collective bargaining reform is just one tool in an overall process to fix Ohio."
The Ohio Senate could vote on the bill as soon as Thursday.
Quote: I would not expect you to understand the issue or even admit there is an issue.
Yeah mac, how could I possibly understand?? I mean c'mon, I'm currently employed by a county government and prior to that worked for the state of Ohio for 13+ years, and was a union steward for 2 separate unions during that time to include helping to negotiate a contract.........what the hell do I know??????????
shep...why would someone with such a rich history of union involvement stand silent on the issue of Scott Walker busting Wisconsin unions..trying to forcing union workers to give up bargaining rights?
Sitting on the fence? Got your finger in the wind?
Do you support the Ohio union workers and their fight against Koch Tea Party that has control of Republican Governors in Ohio and Wisconsin?
Oh wait...you used past tense...you were once a union steward...let me guess, you voted with the Koch Tea Party and have now swapped sides from a union member to a TPer...no longer supporting union workers..now supporting Tea Party union busting Republicans.
Pew Poll: Only Wealthiest Income Bracket Sides With Gov. Walker Over Unions
March 1, 2011
In the debate over whether Wisconsin state workers should have the right to collectively bargain for better benefits, there is at least one group that sides with Gov. Scott Walker -- people wealthy enough that they probably don't need collective bargaining rights themselves.
That finding comes from a Pew poll released this week showing more Americans siding with the unions over Gov. Walker in the budget showdown that has deadlocked the Wisconsin legislature and sent thousands of protesters streaming into the state capitol. And strikingly, while Americans overall took the unions' side in the poll, the highest income demographic was the only one in which more people said they stood with Walker over the unions.
Overall, 42% of respondents said they side more with the unions, while 31% took Walker's position. Among those with annual household incomes under $30,000, that split was considerably larger, with 46% supporting the unions, and only 20% supporting Walker. People earning $30,000 to $74,999 per year also backed the unions, 49% to 31%.
Yet among those earning over $75,000 per year, 36% said they backed the unions, while slightly more, 40%, said they stood behind Walker.
Last week, a Gallup poll found the same result, with all income groups except the top bracket opposing the idea of collective bargaining rights.
The Pew survey was conducted February 24-27 among 1,009 adults nationwide. It has a margin of error of 4.0%.
web page ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Interesting...poll after poll shows that the Koch Tea Party GOP Governor Walker does not have support for his union busting agenda.
Now Walker is on an island, with few if any other Koch TP GOP Governors openly supporting Walker. Walker continues to move forward without the public support, ready to lay off Wisc. union workers.
I can't wait for lil Scottie to layoff middle class workers, who are simply doing their best to survive in a U.S. economy where the rich get richer and middle class pays for it.
Watch how quickly those poll numbers grow in support for the middle class union workers.
Take notice, you don't hear the national Tea Party GOP running out to support lil Scottie Walker or Johnny Kasich. There are a lot of Tea Party folks in DC who have their finger in wind waiting to see which way the wind blows on this Walker/Kasich Koch scheme to bust unions in the north.
All this outrage over people wanting collective bargaining. Vilifying firefighters, policemen and teachers..is that what it's come down to? And all under the false guise of "balancing the budget"...which Walker has no real interest in, unless it's all the programs he doesn't like that are being cut.
Where's the outrage for the wealth gap of the top 1% at the expense of the other 99%?
All this graph shows is that those that know how to manage money got richer. Those that didn't stayed with inflation. It's common knowledge that we have more millionaires and billionaires in this country than at any other time in history. I'm sure they didn't get there waiting in line for their government check. Most likely they worked their butts off, missed family parties, child birthdays, skipped vacations, worked late, in order to achieve their wealth.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Quote: Here's average compensation of Public Workers. You can take USA Today's Analysis any way you want, which people will. But, here are the numbers.
These numbers are from 2009, the trough of the recession. Private workers' salaries were likely depressed by unemployment and a stagnant business climate. Its not likely that public salaries experienced a monumental increase at this time while the average private worker stayed unchanged.
Also, when you take overall averages, this misses that government employees are underpaid compared to their private equivalents, likely b/c public employees have a higher % of skilled labor. For the study to be meaningful, it would have to control for this.
There is some slant in that article, but she is absolutely correct that this study is improperly done. She also makes a couple more points that are hard to argue with.
I can tell you that my business is academic basic research (whose funding is from NIH), and while I can stay in academia for a certain amount, I can make probably double that or more in private business. Police officers can go to security firms and make a lot more money. Teachers can go to private institutions and generally make more money (at least at the university level, I don't know about other levels). No one understands that public employment is not lucrative better than public employees themselves. That doesn't mean they should being willing to just lay down and accept any cuts thrown their way without negotiation. That's what really makes me uncomfortable here.
It is 100% reasonable to ask public employees to contribute more to pensions and health care. I can also almost guarantee that if governors asked for that, they would get it. They got it in Maryland, they got it in NJ without touching collective bargaining.
Quote: That's quite a twist on things. What's being "villified" is the way unions have hogtied the local governments. Read the following quote:
"Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations ... The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for ... officials ... to bind the employer ... The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives ..."
Do you know who said that? It was the champion of labor himself, Fraklin Delano Roosevelt. Even he recognized that unions have no place in government.
That quote has to be put in its context. Notice that in a later paragraph, FDR makes reference to militancy. Also, he says "as usually understood." Collective bargaining in the 1930's was synonymous with pitched battles throughout the country. Newly emboldened labor organizations pushed out and thousands of strikes occurred over the decade. Companies and corporations pushed back, many times with hired thugs. The results were extremely violent incidents, sometimes with police officers and National Guardsmen firing into crowds.
In the second to last paragraph, he is against striking for public employees.
IMO, taking the whole letter together, he wasn't necessarily against collective bargaining in its entirety in the public sector. He was against the excessive militancy and striking aspects apparent in the 1930's.
And btw, TheJoker, you can rant all you want about the top 1% and how much the make. It's not germane to anything to do with this other than you trying to demonize the rich.
I am not trying to demonize the rich or anyone else for that matter. The only people being demonized in this story are people who make $50-80k for teaching our children and keeping us safe. I pointed out that chart because it's one of those things that makes you go hmmm. Over the last 30 years only the top 1% have seen a marked increase in their wealth, the rest have stayed relatively the same. If the other 99% increased their wealth at even a fraction of the pace, our economy would be booming.
Edit: How come when anyone points out how much the wealth gap has grown they're "demonizing the rich", but whenever someone wants to dismantle unions or get rid of collective bargaining (things used most by the poor/middle class) it's just "Common sense"?
And since you used an FDR quote, here's another right back at you:
But while they prate of economic laws, men and women are starving. We must lay hold of the fact that economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings.
and another...
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
So only 1% of the entire country knows how to manage their money? Or the top 20%? Doesn't that show us that there are underlying issues that need to be fixed if only at most 60 million Americans know how to manage their money?
Quote: So only 1% of the entire country knows how to manage their money? Or the top 20%? Doesn't that show us that there are underlying issues that need to be fixed if only at most 60 million Americans know how to manage their money?
Yeah......absolutely...........and I don't think the government is the one to teach us nor solve it....
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
OK here is the problem....first, people are being taxed too much...second ,you raise taxes and business will start going elsewhere...and then we are going to see even less funds come in.
Also this isn't a solution to everything..... it is just one small piece. Now if the government workers are making more than their private counterparts (who have already been sacrificing...many have lost jobs nad have had pay cuts, etc...unlike their govt. counterparts) and if the big thing about a govt. job is not the pay but the benefits....so they have MUCH better benefits....then maybe that is a place to start and get under control a little.
And the last point trying to be made is concerning Collective Bargaining.....and many feel that there is a conflict of interest as the people who ultimately pay for whatever is decided upon are not truly represented. For the union is negotiating with people who depend upon those very unions to get elected in the first place.
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
Quote: So only 1% of the entire country knows how to manage their money? Or the top 20%? Doesn't that show us that there are underlying issues that need to be fixed if only at most 60 million Americans know how to manage their money?
Given that our society is debt-driven, that sounds pretty darn accurate to me. Get people to stop rolling up charges on their credit cards for "want" items and they can use that money to actually work for them to increase their wealth instead of just spending it on things.
Every hear the phrase "it takes money to make money". It's true. You don't grow your wealth by buying things, especially things you don't need. You do it by reducing your debt and investing, especially if you have limited funds to begin with. That top 1% or whatever can do it simply because they already have the liquid assets to invest outside of their normal spending.
Minus having those levels of extra money to work with, you have to change your strategy and be more frugal. Period.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
Quote: So only 1% of the entire country knows how to manage their money? Or the top 20%? Doesn't that show us that there are underlying issues that need to be fixed if only at most 60 million Americans know how to manage their money?
Yes.. it definitely means we have underlying issues that need to be addressed.. my opinion is that the Dave Ramsey course for high school kids should be MANDATORY in every high school in the country...
However, I will say this.. people are making the faulty assumption that those in the top 1% in 2007 are the same people that were in the top 1% in 1997, only now they have more money... I'm sure this is the case for some but not for all... We live in a society where you can move from the middle to the top, and people do it.. it ain't easy but it can be done.
Quote: That's quite a twist on things. What's being "villified" is the way unions have hogtied the local governments. Read the following quote:
"Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations ... The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for ... officials ... to bind the employer ... The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives ..."
Do you know who said that? It was the champion of labor himself, Fraklin Delano Roosevelt. Even he recognized that unions have no place in government.
That quote has to be put in its context. Notice that in a later paragraph, FDR makes reference to militancy. Also, he says "as usually understood." Collective bargaining in the 1930's was synonymous with pitched battles throughout the country. Newly emboldened labor organizations pushed out and thousands of strikes occurred over the decade. Companies and corporations pushed back, many times with hired thugs. The results were extremely violent incidents, sometimes with police officers and National Guardsmen firing into crowds.
In the second to last paragraph, he is against striking for public employees.
IMO, taking the whole letter together, he wasn't necessarily against collective bargaining in its entirety in the public sector. He was against the excessive militancy and striking aspects apparent in the 1930's.
Lol....you don't mean "taken in context", you mean "taken with the tjs7 spin applied". That wasn't a snippet blown out of proportion, it was a paragraph..... standing on it's own merits and is applicable to the current state of affairs. FDR knew what would happen if unions became involved with government and we're seeing it now.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul. - John Muir
So ...... "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs" pretty much works for you, huh?
Technically, I can "afford" to pay taxes. I must be able to, according to your theory, because mine keep going up. I make less than $50,000 per year, yet wind up paying a large percentage of my income in taxes every stinking year. I should pay more to support others who make more than I do though, right? You know ..... because I "can afford it", somehow?
If it were up to me, I would index public employees' benefit contibution levels to those of the taxpayer who pay their wages. If the average taxpayer in the state of Ohio pays 30% of their benefits,. then that's what public workers would pay. Further, no public employee would make more than their closest private industry counterpart.
There would be no collective bargaining for benefits. Collective bargaining for benefits pits public workers against their bosses .... the taxpayers. Sorry, pay what the restof us pay .... or get out of public service and enter into the private sector. If these people are the best and brightest, they should have no problem whatsoever getting private sector jobs right away.
I am tired of hearing about how it is wrong that those who have taken from the state for decades should have to pay for their benefits, and have wages that are level with those who are actually paying them. I am tired of hearing that we should allow people to be laid off, collecting unemployment while they do nothing, rather than cutting back on wages and benefits costs per employee slightly. I am also tired of hearing about how private industry has to work leaner in order to stay ahead, but public services should somehow be allowed to remain a bloated and ineffective bureacracy, with far more people involved in doing a particular job, and ridicuous job benefits, that could be, and are not supported in the private industries in the state.
It is time to put an end to this false belief that public service workers are entitled to far more than those who pay the bills receive. High tax rates in support of such benefits drive "rich" people from states, drive industries out of states, drive jobs out of states, and in the end, wind up hitting the so called middle class far worse than the supposed benefits they create. Look at states like New York, and others, who raised taxes on the "rich" to pay their bloated payrolls ... only to find that the rich can afford to leave their states ..... leaving behind larger and larger deficits, due to ever declining tax collections, because the rich ... simply .... leave.
Plus, many times, when the rich leave .... they take jobs with them.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
The reason I listed those quotes if that he listed an FDR quote, I just listed those as an example that FDR might hold views he doesn't quite agree with on the economy.
Quote: The reason I listed those quotes if that he listed an FDR quote, I just listed those as an example that FDR might hold views he doesn't quite agree with on the economy.
No kidding. Being a conservative, of course I don't agree with a lot of policies and programs that FDR was responsible for (and/or what they've evolved into). You're stating the obvious as if it were a point of debate. I was pointing out the fact that FDR, a champion of labor, rightly saw that unions had no place in government.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul. - John Muir
Psst.....Fox News - Wisconsin doesn't have Palm trees
Lyuokdea...great catch...
FOX NEWS LIES...and look how many of these dawgs eat that stuff up...disgusting...dawgtalkers eating fox news crap, pretending they are a legit news source...FOX NEWS LIES...
Quote: FOX NEWS LIES...and look how many of these dawgs eat that stuff up...disgusting...dawgtalkers eating fox news crap, pretending they are a legit news source...FOX NEWS LIES...
I've read your "sources" mac and all I can say is...
Quote: FOX NEWS LIES...and look how many of these dawgs eat that stuff up...disgusting...dawgtalkers eating fox news crap, pretending they are a legit news source...FOX NEWS LIES...
I've read your "sources" mac and all I can say is...
DC...that is not true...I NEVER USE FOX NEWS AS A SOURCE... ... ... ... ... ...
How bad is Fox News TV and radio...they are not allowed in Canada because they cannot meet this simple standard...
........."a licenser may not broadcast ... any false or misleading news.".........
Fox News Radio and TV survive in the USA because we have so many uneducated, unethical Americans who believe their lies. Obviously Canadians have a higher standard...
Fox News' Lies Keep Them Out of CanadaBy Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Reader Supported News
01 March 11
s America's middle class battles for its survival on the Wisconsin barricades - against various Koch Oil surrogates and the corporate toadies at Fox News - fans of enlightenment, democracy and justice can take comfort from a significant victory north of the Wisconsin border. Fox News will not be moving into Canada after all! The reason: Canadian regulators announced last week they would reject efforts by Canada's right-wing Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, to repeal a law that forbids lying on broadcast news.
Canada's Radio Act requires that "a licenser may not broadcast ... any false or misleading news." The provision has kept Fox News and right-wing talk radio out of Canada and helped make Canada a model for liberal democracy and freedom. As a result of that law, Canadians enjoy high quality news coverage, including the kind of foreign affairs and investigative journalism that flourished in this country before Ronald Reagan abolished the "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987. Political dialogue in Canada is marked by civility, modesty, honesty, collegiality, and idealism that have pretty much disappeared on the US airwaves. When Stephen Harper moved to abolish the anti-lying provision of the Radio Act, Canadians rose up to oppose him fearing that their tradition of honest non-partisan news would be replaced by the toxic, overtly partisan, biased and dishonest news coverage familiar to American citizens who listen to Fox News and talk radio. Harper's proposal was timed to facilitate the launch of a new right-wing network, "Sun TV News" which Canadians call "Fox News North."
Harper, often referred to as "George W. Bush's Mini Me," is known for having mounted a Bush-like war on government scientists, data collectors, transparency, and enlightenment in general. He is a wizard of all the familiar tools of demagoguery; false patriotism, bigotry, fear, selfishness and belligerent religiosity.
Harper's attempts to make lying legal on Canadian television are a stark admission that right-wing political ideology can only dominate national debate through dishonest propaganda. Since corporate profit-taking is not an attractive vessel for populism, a political party or broadcast network that makes itself the tool of corporate and financial elites must lie to make its agenda popular with the public. In the Unites States, Fox News and talk radio, the sock puppets of billionaires and corporate robber barons, have become the masters of propaganda and distortion on the public airwaves. Fox News' notoriously biased and dishonest coverage of the Wisconsin's protests is a prime example of the brand of news coverage Canada has smartly avoided.
Well, you had just about everything there - Bush, FOX lies, middle class America fights for survival, Canada won't allow lying....
But you forgot the link. I'd like to see the link. Care to share it?
Also, as far as lies, is ABC still allowed to broadcast in Canada? (I think it was ABC - ya know, with the lies about Bush...........whatever station it was - are they still allowed to broadcast their lies there?)
Link please. You chastise people for their links to things you can't grasp - where'd you get this gem?
The Ohio Senate has voted on Senate Bill 5 in general session and the bill PASSED.
Ohio Senate Bill 5 is a very controversial piece of legislation that deals with union control over the political process and requires public employee unions to cover more of their benefits costs.
Essentially, as noted on Ballotpedia, the bill does the following:
# Eliminate tenure as the only consideration in deciding lay-offs # Require employees to pay 20% of their health insurance premiums # Implement merit-based pay for some government workers. # Restrict the ability of teachers, firefighters, and to collectively bargain
The bill passed with a 17 – 16 vote in the Senate.
Posted in Politics | Tagged ohio senate bill 5, ohio unions, politics, SB5, tea party | 2 Comments
This is not good news. I do not disagree with all parts of this bill but some things are plain stupid. First, it doesn't define how to figure out merit pay. With some jobs it shouldn't be an issue. It is no different then the way I was paid in my non union jobs. I actually think it promotes hard work.
The thing is that there is no way to base a teacher on merit. I've heard all the scenarios and I think they are flat out wrong.
Eliminating tenure as the only consideration for layoffs..What is going to be considered, and how will each area be weighted? I'm all for getting rid of some of the useless teachers but how do we decide who they are? How do we know they will be the ones to lose their jobs? Will school districts try and get away with going the cheap route and get rid of teachers that are close to retirement age?
Trying to run schools like a business will not work. They are not in the business to make money. Until you can get rid of all the dead weight kids (and parents) there is no way to make it cut and dry.
When you run a company and a product isn't selling you can remove it to help your bottom line. You can't do this with the products of a school.
![[Linked Image from i190.photobucket.com]](http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z33/booger52/phpGGRdhwAM.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png)
Being a conservative, of course I don't agree with a lot of policies and programs that FDR was responsible for (and/or what they've evolved into). You're stating the obvious as if it were a point of debate. I was pointing out the fact that FDR, a champion of labor, rightly saw that unions had no place in government.