Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Soonerman

Members
  • Content Count

    3,004
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Soonerman

  1. No, they only learn if they are exposed to some officially sanctioned educator who is capable of producing the above rant. Preferably a union member. Seems logical that the more time a child spends in an enriching learning atmosphere where they are exposed to learning experiences with literature and reading would help...But if you want children sitting at home watching TV while parents are gone at work that's cool... Yes, because that is what parents do. And every moment inside some government preschool is exposure to an enriched learning atmosphere. So you are arguing that 4k provides no benefit? Students who would be sitting at home with a babysitter have the same learning experiences as a student in a head start classroom...You talk like Head Start is a useful thing, not the nearly complete waste of time it has proven to be.
  2. No, they only learn if they are exposed to some officially sanctioned educator who is capable of producing the above rant. Preferably a union member.Seems logical that the more time a child spends in an enriching learning atmosphere where they are exposed to learning experiences with literature and reading would help...But if you want children sitting at home watching TV while parents are gone at work that's cool...If 4 year olds are home alone watching TV while their parents are at work, then we have bigger problems to talk about.
  3. See, before 1959, there were no rainbows and unicorns in Wisconsin schools. Then the unions conjured them up. Now the evil wizard Walker has taken them away again, and darkness has descended on the land once more.
  4. That would be nice, but unions are among the most reactionary institutions we have. I don't see them making much of an effort to truly improve schools. Why should they? Their reason for being is to protect teachers' pay and benefits, not advocate for schoolchildren.
  5. The problem with this is that public unions have been getting both; regular raises through the teeth of this recession plus extremely generous retirement benefits. Again, it's the very unbalanced nature of public union negotiations that is the problem, not just cutting enough to get through the short-term crisis.I don't know about you, but I really resent paying high taxes to support a teacher retiring at age 52 with full benefits.From what I've read, teachers in Wisconsin and around the country have been taking unpaid furloughs, frozen wages, layoffs, and other measures to work through the State budget problems. The Wisconsin benefits hadn't been touched yet, and that certainly seems appropriate. I don't even have a problem with the state changing the rules around what unions can negotiate going forward. I just think it should to be an issue that is publicly debated over at least one election cycle, not dropped as an "oh by the way, no more collective bargaining" a couple of months after an election.But teachers are very disingenuous about this. I have heard lots of whining from teachers about not getting pay increases. What they neglect to mention is the state law mandated step increases that they have been getting all along, even while their cost of living increases may have been cut back.
  6. The problem with this is that public unions have been getting both; regular raises through the teeth of this recession plus extremely generous retirement benefits. Again, it's the very unbalanced nature of public union negotiations that is the problem, not just cutting enough to get through the short-term crisis.I don't know about you, but I really resent paying high taxes to support a teacher retiring at age 52 with full benefits. I don't know any teachers who have retired at age 52 with full benefits.Not a union fan in the least.....and agree that public unions have been getting some....interesting....deals. But I don't see gutting the right to collectively bargain as the right solution. http://www.ehow.com/info_7756354_many-work...can-retire.html
  7. The problem with this is that public unions have been getting both; regular raises through the teeth of this recession plus extremely generous retirement benefits. Again, it's the very unbalanced nature of public union negotiations that is the problem, not just cutting enough to get through the short-term crisis.I don't know about you, but I really resent paying high taxes to support a teacher retiring at age 52 with full benefits.
  8. This is not really true. Corporate money often splits 50-50. Union money usually goes about 97-3 to Democrats.
  9. Really? This for example doesn't exactly seem like sweetness and light:http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com...-35-cities.html
  10. bump?In short, the Teachers union in Wisconsin had been working on an expired contract for some time. They reached an agreement with the previous administration, but not until after the election. The legislature attempted to pass the new agreement in lame-duck session, but a couple of Democrats broke ranks and sided with the Governor-elect who had requested that no agreement be made so he could deal with the agreement as part of the 2011-2013 budget process. As part of the patch for the current year budget, he submitted language that would seriously curtail the collective bargaining rights of public union members. They would have to accept immediate changes to the way benefits are currently handled and would only be able to collectively bargain on base salary going forward. They would also be required to have yearly certification votes on the union. Public safety union workers (Police and Fire) are not included. Governor Walker believes these changes are necessary to deal with the state's budget gap and that he was elected based on a platform of fiscal responsibility to solve it. Democrat lawmakers refused to show up for a vote, preventing the formation of a quorum so the legislation cannot be voted on. People on both sides are protesting.ETA - I tried to be as neutral as possible with this. If anyone feels I have mis-represented something please point it out.Thanks for the summary. Did the Gov mention why he excluded public safety workers or are they next?Because they were the only unions to contribute to his campaign.Wrong. The Wisconsin Professional Police Association and the Professional Fire Fighters of Wisconsin supported his opponent. The Milwaukee branches gave minimal financial support to him. The real reason he excluded them is pure political expediency.
  11. LOL. If anything, the "50 year history" has completely validated his concerns. It's government using taxpayer money to lobby government to increase government. That is wrong.Government, households, and private enterprise are recognized as three separate economic entities. Unions represent households, not the government. Naturally, households paid by the government are going to have specific interests that the union will represent. The same can be said about companies and employees of companies that have government contracts, or benefit from tax cuts. I don't necessarily disagree, but the statement applies to a far broader scope than just public union workers.It is completely different, hence the FDR concerns. FDR was certainly not a person to shrink away from increasing government, but even he recognized that collective bargaining as practiced by private firms and their unions simply does not translate into the public sphere.
  12. LOL. If anything, the "50 year history" has completely validated his concerns. It's government using taxpayer money to lobby government to increase government. That is wrong.
  13. Why should one arm of government be able to take money from taxpayers in order to lobby another arm of government to increase the size and cost of government? I'm with FDR on the unworkability of the whole scheme.
  14. That was pretty awesome.If you like incoherent ranting, I suppose.If the guy was spouting off tea party ramblings you would be all over this.You don't know me very well, huh?
  15. That was pretty awesome.If you like incoherent ranting, I suppose.
  16. I do understand your points. It is different with teachers as opposed to those who work for the state. Teachers bargain with the district they are employed under and unless that teacher is a resident of the district, they don't have a vote for whom is on the school board or school administration. I do think it has been somewhat controversial for longer than you give it credit for. It wasn't long after the Wagner Act that New York opened the door for the unionization of government workers. So that idea has gone back and forth since the 50s.Not exactly. For example, step raises for teachers are embedded in Ohio state law. This is one of the things Kasich is trying to change.But teachers are a good example of the things wrong with public employee unions. I know several teachers who retired in their early fifties with full benefts. This is allowed because of the perverse nature of bargaining with public employee unions. School boards or other political bargainers can buy peace with the unions by giving them unsustainable retirement benefits that won't become an issue until long after the school board members are gone from the scene. And these benefits often have the force of law behind them, ie it would take a state bankruptcy to change those arrangements. Now private companies have done similar things. The agreement in the early 70's with the UAW that allowed people to retire with full benefits to retire after 30 years of service was equally unsustainable. The difference of course is that private companies can theoretically go out of business. The public employee unions are doing terrible damage to government budgets at all levels.
  17. The fundamental problem with government employee unions is, the source of this money is government spending. Essentially, we have taxpayers dollars being used to lobby for more tax payer dollars.The teachers pay union dues. Maybe I don't understand what you are saying, are you saying that teachers shouldn't use their money to pay their dues?The government employee unions get money ultimately from taxpayers. They then use that money to elect politicians that will be sitting across the table from them in future salary/benefit negotiations. This is an abomination, and the main reason FDR, not exactly an enemy of unions, recognized that government employee unions are ultimately unworkable.How is it any different then Big Oil, Agriculture, or any PAC? They use their money to help elect politicians that they can then influence for tax breaks, decreased regulations, etc. If we are going to allow large corporations the right to lobby and impact elections/policy, shouldn't workers be allowed the same opportunity? I suppose you would say the difference is that the public unions get their money from taxpayers. Since public workers by definition get all of their money from taxpayers, if they were not allowed to spend that tax money to organize politically, they would essentially have no means by which to compete politically with private business owners.Public workers can contribute to any PAC or other lobby they want, same as corporations. What they shouldn't be allowed to do is elect their future bargaining partners in negotiations that can bankrupt whole states. That is a fundamentally different thing. Again, even FDR was against public employee unions. This was a pretty non-controversial idea until pretty recently.
  18. The fundamental problem with government employee unions is, the source of this money is government spending. Essentially, we have taxpayers dollars being used to lobby for more tax payer dollars.The teachers pay union dues. Maybe I don't understand what you are saying, are you saying that teachers shouldn't use their money to pay their dues?The government employee unions get money ultimately from taxpayers. They then use that money to elect politicians that will be sitting across the table from them in future salary/benefit negotiations. This is an abomination, and the main reason FDR, not exactly an enemy of unions, recognized that government employee unions are ultimately unworkable.
  19. Why? Many private workers with masters degrees and many years of experience make 100,000. I don;t know any figures in Wisconsin, but in Michigan (which is one the best paying states for teachers) private sector pay and benefits are still higher for private workers than public employees when education is factored in. Smart employers don't pay based on an employee's education and experience. They pay based on the employee's productivity and the ease to replace that employee. If the employee produces positive results and he's difficult to replace he'll demand a high salary. If the employee doesn't produce then his education and experience are for naught.The point is that when you compare overall numbers, public employees make more in money and benefits. However, the public sector tends have have a significantly higher % of college graduates than the private sector. In addition, there are very few part time public positions. Total wages comparison doesn't make sense. Sure education is not the only factor in how much someone gets paid, but in public and private, it weighs heavily.:teachers:
  20. Average unemployment rate under Bush = 5.27%Average unemployment rate under Obama = 9.45% George W Bush Unemployment RateFirst full month of presidency was 4.2% ended at 7.7% 73% increase in unemployment rate Barack Obama Unemployment Rate First full month of presidency was 8.2%, currently 9.8% 19.5% increase (slowing down the damage) This is even dumber than Dodd's analysis that prompted my tongue-in-cheek response.
  21. Average unemployment rate under Bush = 5.27%Average unemployment rate under Obama = 9.45% That is laughable to cite as meaning anything. Those unemployed werent a a result of Obama policies.Bush "created" (I know Presidents dont create jobs) around 1 million jobs in his 8 years in office, had a net loss of half a million jobs in the private sector jobs in 8 years, and only created jobs in government. That was all after his trickle down Laffer tax cuts were in place. He had the worst job creation performance of any president in at least 50 years. Obama has actually "created" about as many jobs in 2010 as Bush did in 8 years. And if you look at the job loss/creation numbers for the last years of Bush versus the first years of Obama you see a definite trend. http://politics.gather.com/viewArticle.act...281474978035096 See, here's the thing. I intentionally answered an insipid, context-free, cherry-picked post with a similar post of my own. Funny that you had no objection to the idiocy of the first post.Now on to the holes in your "logic". The Bush tax cuts actually performed well in bringing the country out of the conditions he either inherited form Clinton or that came very early in his presidency, ie the dotcom bubble, Enron and the accounting scandals, and 9/11. Then the economy went into freefall at the very end of his presidency due to factors that had been building for decades. But if you look at the vast middle part of the Bush presidency, the economic conditions were not bad, certainly superior to anything we have seen from Obama. You also don't do much for your argument when you state that presidents don't create jobs then go on to lambaste Bush and lionize Obama for their performance on that very thing.
  22. Average unemployment rate under Bush = 5.27%Average unemployment rate under Obama = 9.45%
  23. Yeah, he's definitely mailing it in. He basically rewrites the same column every week. If I was in charge of the newspapers running his columns, I'd just keep running the same one over and over to see if anyone noticed.His column about how WW2 spending ended the Depression and how it would work exactly the same way today was at about the level of a dim 8th grader.