On October 09 2012 09:51 sam!zdat wrote: This whole 47% Romney scandal thing is absurd. It is a perfect example of ideological blinders. Romney is caught saying something secretly that is supposed to be scandalous, but in fact EVERYBODY KNOWS ALREADY that both candidates write off their opponents' bases and work on a) mobilizing their bases by vilifying that of their opponent and b) pandering to those swing state voters too stupid to yet have an opinion or too marginal to belong to either base.
There is nothing scandalous about what Romney said. In fact, the very way that our system is constructed DEMANDS that he hold this opinion - it is a strategic necessity. If he did not, he would lose to a candidate who did. It is only when something that everybody already knows is the case, but represses ideologically, is brought to light that the "scandal" appears.
It is not Romney's comments that are scandalous - it is the system itself! Everybody already knows that he thinks this! The "scandal" is only a symptom!
There's actually a statement in the video that he makes that is arguably worse ... He admits in the video that he believes the economy will improve, even without any changes to economic policy.
It's basically a tacit admission that he believes his own candidacy is irrelevant to economy. I'm surprised that that hasn't exploded over the internet.
That makes no sense...
The economy is not a function of government policy. It can change with or without a change in government policy. That does not mean that government policy has no impact.
On October 09 2012 09:42 Velocirapture wrote: Geeze louise Dvorakftw, you come back from a ban and instantly reduce the discourse to random bickering and talking points. I beseech you, please step back from your points and ask if you are contributing new useful information or just engaging in catharsis. Nobody minds you being conservative, they mind your hyperbolic rhetoric. Xdaunt is a decent role model.
I have been told all my life that the world would be a boring place if everyone were the same. xDaunt is xDaunt and I am I.
And my replies have been germane. Just because you and others would rather dismiss my message while bitterly clinging to your talking points (which no doubt are in your own minds not dull talking points that add nothing new or useful but are instead amazing intellectual arguments that go to the very crux of the problems of the modern world) doesn't mean I will reduce myself to a level you all find amicable.
I like how your response to the guy explaining the context and details of Romney's positions is to simply repeat your attack. For example, Romney wants to cut tax rates but limit deductions and exemptions to get a fairer, simpler, more honest, more competitive tax code and everyone on the left just continues chanting "tax cuts for millionaires".
Yeah, except, no. While you can attempt to spin your way out of the tax cut flip-flop, there's no breaking out of the other blatant flip-flops.
Teachers - the difference is between more and better teachers in a better education system (a la Romney) compared to simply spending more money on what we have now (a la Wisconsin and Chicago's failed teacher union gambits)
The health care issue as I understand it and explained earlier, he supports being able to change insurance with pre-existing conditions.
1. Lol at that graph proving anything.
Are you disputing the giant rise in education spending in the United States? Do you believe American students are far and away better at reading, riting, and rithmetic than ever before? Enlighten us!
Irrelevant. Romney said he wouldn't cut teachers when he actually said we did need to cut back on teachers. It's the undeniable truth.
Once again you can try to spin stuff with your strawman arguments and red herrings but I'm not so easily distracted.
Romney never said we need to cut back on teachers. Here is the full quote:
he wants another stimulus, he wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more fireman, more policeman, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people.
he is opposing a stimulus, not the act of hiring more teachers. at the most, you could say that he is not being accurate in this quote. he clearly means that "more teachers" is not a good enough excuse for another stimulus. only a completely biased point of view could perceive this statement as being inconsistent with his debate statement.
I like how your response to the guy explaining the context and details of Romney's positions is to simply repeat your attack. For example, Romney wants to cut tax rates but limit deductions and exemptions to get a fairer, simpler, more honest, more competitive tax code and everyone on the left just continues chanting "tax cuts for millionaires".
Yeah, except, no. While you can attempt to spin your way out of the tax cut flip-flop, there's no breaking out of the other blatant flip-flops.
Teachers - the difference is between more and better teachers in a better education system (a la Romney) compared to simply spending more money on what we have now (a la Wisconsin and Chicago's failed teacher union gambits)
The health care issue as I understand it and explained earlier, he supports being able to change insurance with pre-existing conditions.
1. Lol at that graph proving anything.
Are you disputing the giant rise in education spending in the United States? Do you believe American students are far and away better at reading, riting, and rithmetic than ever before? Enlighten us!
Irrelevant. Romney said he wouldn't cut teachers when he actually said we did need to cut back on teachers. It's the undeniable truth.
Once again you can try to spin stuff with your strawman arguments and red herrings but I'm not so easily distracted.
Romney never said we need to cut back on teachers. Here is the full quote:
he wants another stimulus, he wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more fireman, more policeman, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people.
he is opposing a stimulus, not the act of hiring more teachers. at the most, you could say that he is not being accurate in this quote. he clearly means that "more teachers" is not a good enough excuse for another stimulus. only a completely biased point of view could perceive this statement as being inconsistent with his debate statement.
Stop it. The mere suggestion that a highly edited video off the internet isn't giving me the whole, truthful story is turning my world upside down.
On October 09 2012 09:51 sam!zdat wrote: This whole 47% Romney scandal thing is absurd. It is a perfect example of ideological blinders. Romney is caught saying something secretly that is supposed to be scandalous, but in fact EVERYBODY KNOWS ALREADY that both candidates write off their opponents' bases and work on a) mobilizing their bases by vilifying that of their opponent and b) pandering to those swing state voters too stupid to yet have an opinion or too marginal to belong to either base.
There is nothing scandalous about what Romney said. In fact, the very way that our system is constructed DEMANDS that he hold this opinion - it is a strategic necessity. If he did not, he would lose to a candidate who did. It is only when something that everybody already knows is the case, but represses ideologically, is brought to light that the "scandal" appears.
It is not Romney's comments that are scandalous - it is the system itself! Everybody already knows that he thinks this! The "scandal" is only a symptom!
There's actually a statement in the video that he makes that is arguably worse ... He admits in the video that he believes the economy will improve, even without any changes to economic policy.
It's basically a tacit admission that he believes his own candidacy is irrelevant to economy. I'm surprised that that hasn't exploded over the internet.
That's because serious people know the point isn't the economy "recovering" but how fast and how strong. While Obama is bragging about 4 million jobs in the last few years those of us actually paying attention know we should be at twice that at least.
I like how your response to the guy explaining the context and details of Romney's positions is to simply repeat your attack. For example, Romney wants to cut tax rates but limit deductions and exemptions to get a fairer, simpler, more honest, more competitive tax code and everyone on the left just continues chanting "tax cuts for millionaires".
Yeah, except, no. While you can attempt to spin your way out of the tax cut flip-flop, there's no breaking out of the other blatant flip-flops.
Teachers - the difference is between more and better teachers in a better education system (a la Romney) compared to simply spending more money on what we have now (a la Wisconsin and Chicago's failed teacher union gambits)
The health care issue as I understand it and explained earlier, he supports being able to change insurance with pre-existing conditions.
1. Lol at that graph proving anything.
Are you disputing the giant rise in education spending in the United States? Do you believe American students are far and away better at reading, riting, and rithmetic than ever before? Enlighten us!
Irrelevant. Romney said he wouldn't cut teachers when he actually said we did need to cut back on teachers. It's the undeniable truth.
Once again you can try to spin stuff with your strawman arguments and red herrings but I'm not so easily distracted.
Romney never said we need to cut back on teachers. Here is the full quote:
he wants another stimulus, he wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more fireman, more policeman, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people.
he is opposing a stimulus, not the act of hiring more teachers. at the most, you could say that he is not being accurate in this quote. he clearly means that "more teachers" is not a good enough excuse for another stimulus. only a completely biased point of view could perceive this statement as being inconsistent with his debate statement.
Stop it. The mere suggestion that a highly edited video off the internet isn't giving me the whole, truthful story is turning my world upside down.
Point taken. Still, it is impossible to argue that Romney hasn't flopped 180 degrees on many issues. That isn't bias, that's just reality.
On October 09 2012 09:51 sam!zdat wrote: This whole 47% Romney scandal thing is absurd. It is a perfect example of ideological blinders. Romney is caught saying something secretly that is supposed to be scandalous, but in fact EVERYBODY KNOWS ALREADY that both candidates write off their opponents' bases and work on a) mobilizing their bases by vilifying that of their opponent and b) pandering to those swing state voters too stupid to yet have an opinion or too marginal to belong to either base.
There is nothing scandalous about what Romney said. In fact, the very way that our system is constructed DEMANDS that he hold this opinion - it is a strategic necessity. If he did not, he would lose to a candidate who did. It is only when something that everybody already knows is the case, but represses ideologically, is brought to light that the "scandal" appears.
It is not Romney's comments that are scandalous - it is the system itself! Everybody already knows that he thinks this! The "scandal" is only a symptom!
There's actually a statement in the video that he makes that is arguably worse ... He admits in the video that he believes the economy will improve, even without any changes to economic policy.
It's basically a tacit admission that he believes his own candidacy is irrelevant to economy. I'm surprised that that hasn't exploded over the internet.
That's because serious people know the point isn't the economy "recovering" but how fast and how strong. While Obama is bragging about 4 million jobs in the last few years those of us actually paying attention know we should be at twice that at least.
Recoveries after recessions:
Err... That graph really doesn't suggest that. If anything it looks like we might be above track for how long it would take to recover considering how low that dip is...
On October 09 2012 09:24 Souma wrote: Irrelevant. Romney said he wouldn't cut teachers when he actually said we did need to cut back on teachers. It's the undeniable truth.
Once again you can try to spin stuff with your strawman arguments and red herrings but I'm not so easily distracted.
rogzardo October 09 2012 09:21. Posts 577 PM Profile Blog Quote # You posted that graph as a response to the Romney video which clearly shows him being on both sides of the issues at different times. The graph did nothing to dispute his obvious flip flopping.
Romney is against throwing money at the problem. He is not for firing people randomly but for improving the structure so you end up with more teachers. But again, people like you two are why politics is in such bad shape. You don't care about any actual policy. You simply want to take two sentences from two speeches and attack. It's as enlightening as me getting a soundbyte of Artosis calling MVP "MKP" and saying he clearly knows nothing about the game and can't tell the two players apart.
I just want to reply to the article you linked and point out how absofuckinglutely insane it is for the author to make the claim that 'it's getting better already' as if in 1 year problems will manifest:
Then there are work rules. "In the collective bargaining agreement, high school teachers only had to teach five periods a day, out of seven," says Arnoldussen. "Now, they're going to teach six." In addition, the collective bargaining agreement specified that teachers had to be in the school 37 1/2 hours a week. Now, it will be 40 hours.
Teachers' salaries will stay "relatively the same," Arnoldussen says, except for higher pension and health care payments.
So actually what happened was that their work load increased approximately 20% and they also are paying ~10% of their salary for their benefits. They are doing more work for less pay.
(The top salary is around $80,000 per year, with about $35,000 in additional benefits, for 184 days of work per year -- summers off.) Finally, the money saved will be used to hire a few more teachers and institute merit pay.
The TOP salary is 80k/year; in most school districts it takes 15 YEARS to hit the top of the salary scale. Even if you give full value to their benefits, 100k/year is a fair salary for someone with 15 years experience in most fields. Merit pay, for which there exists no objective metric on which to evaluate teachers and is ultimately a gigantic scam to cut salaries.
tl;dr - I'm all for unions and school districts bargaining on fair footing, but if the school had better funding or was managed better, they'd be better off. I'm glad that they were able to negotiate a fair deal for health insurance, but whose fault was it that they made that deal in the first place? Unions are not to blame when school boards are corrupt and stupid, the school boards and the parents in the community they represent are.
The California Teachers Association spends hundreds of millions of dollars influencing the politics of the state. This election on Prop 32 alone they have spent over $18,000,000. And from wiki, "The CTA alone has spent more money in California politics than Chevron, AT&T, Philip Morris and Western States Petroleum Association combined."
Sorry if I don't have much respect for the unions hardships and their fight for a "fair" salary. If the same exact people were in the private sector they would see a massive across the board cut in pay, despite your claim that they deserve 100k+ a year. They spend millions corrupting the politics and contributing to the bankrupting of the state, and then tell parents they don't have money for supplies due to "budget cuts." They cut sports and music and whatever else they can to manipulate parents into fighting on their behalf.
You call this bargaining on a "fair" footing. lol.
On October 09 2012 09:24 Souma wrote: Irrelevant. Romney said he wouldn't cut teachers when he actually said we did need to cut back on teachers. It's the undeniable truth.
Once again you can try to spin stuff with your strawman arguments and red herrings but I'm not so easily distracted.
rogzardo October 09 2012 09:21. Posts 577 PM Profile Blog Quote # You posted that graph as a response to the Romney video which clearly shows him being on both sides of the issues at different times. The graph did nothing to dispute his obvious flip flopping.
Romney is against throwing money at the problem. He is not for firing people randomly but for improving the structure so you end up with more teachers. But again, people like you two are why politics is in such bad shape. You don't care about any actual policy. You simply want to take two sentences from two speeches and attack. It's as enlightening as me getting a soundbyte of Artosis calling MVP "MKP" and saying he clearly knows nothing about the game and can't tell the two players apart.
Irrelevant. He said he wasn't going to fire teachers, when it actuality he said he was going to fire teachers.
We can keep going.
Sure. Let's have a mock debate where I will be the Lefty and you can be Right.
Me: Because teachers and firefighters and police are essential to society, I propose we raise taxes just a teeny tiny bit on only the very richest wealthiest Americans who let's be honest don't deserve so much money in the first place to hire 100 million new teachers and 100 million new policemen and 100 million new firefighters. My opponent thinks this is a bad idea. He thinks we can't afford it. Why does he hate kids?*
How can one expect to learn anything about the real world by staring at a graph of one little piece of something and trying to divine some trajectory of how things SHOULD be if the line is nice and behaves in some ideal fashion as though the world were the same as it was 30 years ago and economics should behave in the same way? Like, what does that even mean, how many jobs he "should" have created? As if what a "job" was were not in a constant state of flux, that being the entire problem in the first place!
Might as well poke around in entrails, for all the good these graphs do anybody
On October 09 2012 09:51 sam!zdat wrote: This whole 47% Romney scandal thing is absurd. It is a perfect example of ideological blinders. Romney is caught saying something secretly that is supposed to be scandalous, but in fact EVERYBODY KNOWS ALREADY that both candidates write off their opponents' bases and work on a) mobilizing their bases by vilifying that of their opponent and b) pandering to those swing state voters too stupid to yet have an opinion or too marginal to belong to either base.
There is nothing scandalous about what Romney said. In fact, the very way that our system is constructed DEMANDS that he hold this opinion - it is a strategic necessity. If he did not, he would lose to a candidate who did. It is only when something that everybody already knows is the case, but represses ideologically, is brought to light that the "scandal" appears.
It is not Romney's comments that are scandalous - it is the system itself! Everybody already knows that he thinks this! The "scandal" is only a symptom!
There's actually a statement in the video that he makes that is arguably worse ... He admits in the video that he believes the economy will improve, even without any changes to economic policy.
It's basically a tacit admission that he believes his own candidacy is irrelevant to economy. I'm surprised that that hasn't exploded over the internet.
That's because serious people know the point isn't the economy "recovering" but how fast and how strong. While Obama is bragging about 4 million jobs in the last few years those of us actually paying attention know we should be at twice that at least.
Recoveries after recessions:
Those recessions weren't nearly as large/impactful. Nice try with misleading people. This is why most people can't take the right seriously. Can't you see you're not helping fiscal conservatism with this? You make us look bad :/
On October 09 2012 10:44 sam!zdat wrote: How can one expect to learn anything about the real world by staring at a graph of one little piece of something and trying to divine some trajectory of how things SHOULD be if the line is nice and behaves in some ideal fashion as though the world were the same as it was 30 years ago and economics should behave in the same way? Like, what does that even mean, how many jobs he "should" have created? As if what a "job" was was not in a constant state of flux, that being the entire problem in the first place!
Might as well poke around in entrails, for all the good these graphs do anybody
On October 09 2012 09:24 Souma wrote: Irrelevant. Romney said he wouldn't cut teachers when he actually said we did need to cut back on teachers. It's the undeniable truth.
Once again you can try to spin stuff with your strawman arguments and red herrings but I'm not so easily distracted.
rogzardo October 09 2012 09:21. Posts 577 PM Profile Blog Quote # You posted that graph as a response to the Romney video which clearly shows him being on both sides of the issues at different times. The graph did nothing to dispute his obvious flip flopping.
Romney is against throwing money at the problem. He is not for firing people randomly but for improving the structure so you end up with more teachers. But again, people like you two are why politics is in such bad shape. You don't care about any actual policy. You simply want to take two sentences from two speeches and attack. It's as enlightening as me getting a soundbyte of Artosis calling MVP "MKP" and saying he clearly knows nothing about the game and can't tell the two players apart.
I just want to reply to the article you linked and point out how absofuckinglutely insane it is for the author to make the claim that 'it's getting better already' as if in 1 year problems will manifest:
Then there are work rules. "In the collective bargaining agreement, high school teachers only had to teach five periods a day, out of seven," says Arnoldussen. "Now, they're going to teach six." In addition, the collective bargaining agreement specified that teachers had to be in the school 37 1/2 hours a week. Now, it will be 40 hours.
5/7 -> 6/7 is a 20% increase in workload.
Teachers' salaries will stay "relatively the same," Arnoldussen says, except for higher pension and health care payments.
So actually what happened was that their work load increased approximately 20% and they also are paying ~10% of their salary for their benefits. They are doing more work for less pay.
(The top salary is around $80,000 per year, with about $35,000 in additional benefits, for 184 days of work per year -- summers off.) Finally, the money saved will be used to hire a few more teachers and institute merit pay.
The TOP salary is 80k/year; in most school districts it takes 15 YEARS to hit the top of the salary scale. Even if you give full value to their benefits, 100k/year is a fair salary for someone with 15 years experience in most fields. Merit pay, for which there exists no objective metric on which to evaluate teachers and is ultimately a gigantic scam to cut salaries.
tl;dr - I'm all for unions and school districts bargaining on fair footing, but if the school had better funding or was managed better, they'd be better off. I'm glad that they were able to negotiate a fair deal for health insurance, but whose fault was it that they made that deal in the first place? Unions are not to blame when school boards are corrupt and stupid, the school boards and the parents in the community they represent are.
The California Teachers Association spends hundreds of millions of dollars influencing the politics of the state. This election on Prop 32 alone they have spent over $18,000,000. And from wiki, "The CTA alone has spent more money in California politics than Chevron, AT&T, Philip Morris and Western States Petroleum Association combined."
Sorry if I don't have much respect for the unions hardships and their fight for a "fair" salary. If the same exact people were in the private sector they would see a massive across the board cut in pay, despite your claim that they deserve 100k+ a year. They spend millions corrupting the politics and contributing to the bankrupting of the state, and then tell parents they don't have money for supplies due to "budget cuts." They cut sports and music and whatever else they can to manipulate parents into fighting on their behalf.
You call this bargaining on a "fair" footing. lol.
OF COURSE they spend money on politics. Do you expect them to just roll over and die? Labor unions are outmatched by businesses 15:1 in terms of political spending. The sad thing about all of this is the mere fact that teachers are essentially forced to allocate their money to politics. It blows my mind how people can trust corporations more than they do teachers. Prop 32 is a good example of that and a great cause to fight against.
On October 09 2012 09:41 bkrow wrote: He called them victims, who feel entitled and don't take personal responsibility for their lives.
It's hyperbole but generally accurate.
How are you possibly trying to rationalise that as an intelligent thing to say during an election? Or at all, at any time?
Again, an example of why politics is so bad. You turn a genuine political philosophy based on history that shows excessive government spending and welfare can do more harm than good and it is turned into "Romney hates poor people". You change half a dozen words in the full quote and you have absolutely nothing to use against him. But because he was speaking extemporaneously he didn't say it perfectly word for word and now it's the centerpiece of Obama's campaign.
My interpretation is obviously different to yours.
To me, it showed a belief that the "47%" don't actually matter to him. Be they Democrat, Republican, or anything else. It projected that Romney is not capable of thinking about the middle - lower class; if you don't own a business or you aren't rich, you don't matter.
Nobody would argue against excessive welfare causing harm, not even Obama, so I'm not sure about your point.
My point is your interpretation is risible and that it shows you have a complete disinterest in knowing who Romney truly is as a person in favor of the proffered liberal caricature. In addition, I believe that since you think Romney means that and continues to have more than 0% of Americans supporting him, you share ta similar contempt against those of us who will elect him as our next President.
On October 09 2012 09:24 Souma wrote: Irrelevant. Romney said he wouldn't cut teachers when he actually said we did need to cut back on teachers. It's the undeniable truth.
Once again you can try to spin stuff with your strawman arguments and red herrings but I'm not so easily distracted.
rogzardo October 09 2012 09:21. Posts 577 PM Profile Blog Quote # You posted that graph as a response to the Romney video which clearly shows him being on both sides of the issues at different times. The graph did nothing to dispute his obvious flip flopping.
Romney is against throwing money at the problem. He is not for firing people randomly but for improving the structure so you end up with more teachers. But again, people like you two are why politics is in such bad shape. You don't care about any actual policy. You simply want to take two sentences from two speeches and attack. It's as enlightening as me getting a soundbyte of Artosis calling MVP "MKP" and saying he clearly knows nothing about the game and can't tell the two players apart.
I just want to reply to the article you linked and point out how absofuckinglutely insane it is for the author to make the claim that 'it's getting better already' as if in 1 year problems will manifest:
Then there are work rules. "In the collective bargaining agreement, high school teachers only had to teach five periods a day, out of seven," says Arnoldussen. "Now, they're going to teach six." In addition, the collective bargaining agreement specified that teachers had to be in the school 37 1/2 hours a week. Now, it will be 40 hours.
5/7 -> 6/7 is a 20% increase in workload.
Teachers' salaries will stay "relatively the same," Arnoldussen says, except for higher pension and health care payments.
So actually what happened was that their work load increased approximately 20% and they also are paying ~10% of their salary for their benefits. They are doing more work for less pay.
(The top salary is around $80,000 per year, with about $35,000 in additional benefits, for 184 days of work per year -- summers off.) Finally, the money saved will be used to hire a few more teachers and institute merit pay.
The TOP salary is 80k/year; in most school districts it takes 15 YEARS to hit the top of the salary scale. Even if you give full value to their benefits, 100k/year is a fair salary for someone with 15 years experience in most fields. Merit pay, for which there exists no objective metric on which to evaluate teachers and is ultimately a gigantic scam to cut salaries.
tl;dr - I'm all for unions and school districts bargaining on fair footing, but if the school had better funding or was managed better, they'd be better off. I'm glad that they were able to negotiate a fair deal for health insurance, but whose fault was it that they made that deal in the first place? Unions are not to blame when school boards are corrupt and stupid, the school boards and the parents in the community they represent are.
The California Teachers Association spends hundreds of millions of dollars influencing the politics of the state. This election on Prop 32 alone they have spent over $18,000,000. And from wiki, "The CTA alone has spent more money in California politics than Chevron, AT&T, Philip Morris and Western States Petroleum Association combined."
Sorry if I don't have much respect for the unions hardships and their fight for a "fair" salary. If the same exact people were in the private sector they would see a massive across the board cut in pay, despite your claim that they deserve 100k+ a year. They spend millions corrupting the politics and contributing to the bankrupting of the state, and then tell parents they don't have money for supplies due to "budget cuts." They cut sports and music and whatever else they can to manipulate parents into fighting on their behalf.
You call this bargaining on a "fair" footing. lol.
OF COURSE they spend money on politics. Do you expect them to just roll over and die? Labor unions are outmatched by businesses 15:1 in terms of political spending. The sad part is that teachers even have to allocate their money to politics. It blows my mind how people can trust corporations more than they do teachers. Prop 32 is a good example of that and a great cause to fight against.
15:1? That's bullshit. I just told you they are the biggest spender in ALL of California politics.
If they are outnumbered so terribly, then why does Prop 32 have $9 million in support funding and $45.6 million in opposition?
If they are outnumbered how did they manage to defeat 100% of Schwarzenegger's ballot propositions trying to save this state from bankruptcy?
Their spending must REALLY be paying off if people manage to see them as a victim instead of the single largest and most powerful special interest in the state...
On October 09 2012 09:24 Souma wrote: Irrelevant. Romney said he wouldn't cut teachers when he actually said we did need to cut back on teachers. It's the undeniable truth.
Once again you can try to spin stuff with your strawman arguments and red herrings but I'm not so easily distracted.
rogzardo October 09 2012 09:21. Posts 577 PM Profile Blog Quote # You posted that graph as a response to the Romney video which clearly shows him being on both sides of the issues at different times. The graph did nothing to dispute his obvious flip flopping.
Romney is against throwing money at the problem. He is not for firing people randomly but for improving the structure so you end up with more teachers. But again, people like you two are why politics is in such bad shape. You don't care about any actual policy. You simply want to take two sentences from two speeches and attack. It's as enlightening as me getting a soundbyte of Artosis calling MVP "MKP" and saying he clearly knows nothing about the game and can't tell the two players apart.
Irrelevant. He said he wasn't going to fire teachers, when it actuality he said he was going to fire teachers.
We can keep going.
Sure. Let's have a mock debate where I will be the Lefty and you can be Right.
Me: Because teachers and firefighters and police are essential to society, I propose we raise taxes just a teeny tiny bit on only the very richest wealthiest Americans who let's be honest don't deserve so much money in the first place to hire 100 million new teachers and 100 million new policemen and 100 million new firefighters. My opponent thinks this is a bad idea. He thinks we can't afford it. Why does he hate kids?*
*Slight exaggeration for effect.
Let's have a real debate on when we're going to deal with real issues like the runaway train that is social security, medicare, medicaid, and 'defense spending'.
When are our politicians going to address these concerns? Oh sorry, I forgot that they're not popular with anybody, so nobody in our one-party system is going to talk about them.
On October 09 2012 09:24 Souma wrote: Irrelevant. Romney said he wouldn't cut teachers when he actually said we did need to cut back on teachers. It's the undeniable truth.
Once again you can try to spin stuff with your strawman arguments and red herrings but I'm not so easily distracted.
rogzardo October 09 2012 09:21. Posts 577 PM Profile Blog Quote # You posted that graph as a response to the Romney video which clearly shows him being on both sides of the issues at different times. The graph did nothing to dispute his obvious flip flopping.
Romney is against throwing money at the problem. He is not for firing people randomly but for improving the structure so you end up with more teachers. But again, people like you two are why politics is in such bad shape. You don't care about any actual policy. You simply want to take two sentences from two speeches and attack. It's as enlightening as me getting a soundbyte of Artosis calling MVP "MKP" and saying he clearly knows nothing about the game and can't tell the two players apart.
I just want to reply to the article you linked and point out how absofuckinglutely insane it is for the author to make the claim that 'it's getting better already' as if in 1 year problems will manifest:
Then there are work rules. "In the collective bargaining agreement, high school teachers only had to teach five periods a day, out of seven," says Arnoldussen. "Now, they're going to teach six." In addition, the collective bargaining agreement specified that teachers had to be in the school 37 1/2 hours a week. Now, it will be 40 hours.
5/7 -> 6/7 is a 20% increase in workload.
Teachers' salaries will stay "relatively the same," Arnoldussen says, except for higher pension and health care payments.
So actually what happened was that their work load increased approximately 20% and they also are paying ~10% of their salary for their benefits. They are doing more work for less pay.
(The top salary is around $80,000 per year, with about $35,000 in additional benefits, for 184 days of work per year -- summers off.) Finally, the money saved will be used to hire a few more teachers and institute merit pay.
The TOP salary is 80k/year; in most school districts it takes 15 YEARS to hit the top of the salary scale. Even if you give full value to their benefits, 100k/year is a fair salary for someone with 15 years experience in most fields. Merit pay, for which there exists no objective metric on which to evaluate teachers and is ultimately a gigantic scam to cut salaries.
tl;dr - I'm all for unions and school districts bargaining on fair footing, but if the school had better funding or was managed better, they'd be better off. I'm glad that they were able to negotiate a fair deal for health insurance, but whose fault was it that they made that deal in the first place? Unions are not to blame when school boards are corrupt and stupid, the school boards and the parents in the community they represent are.
The California Teachers Association spends hundreds of millions of dollars influencing the politics of the state. This election on Prop 32 alone they have spent over $18,000,000. And from wiki, "The CTA alone has spent more money in California politics than Chevron, AT&T, Philip Morris and Western States Petroleum Association combined."
Sorry if I don't have much respect for the unions hardships and their fight for a "fair" salary. If the same exact people were in the private sector they would see a massive across the board cut in pay, despite your claim that they deserve 100k+ a year. They spend millions corrupting the politics and contributing to the bankrupting of the state, and then tell parents they don't have money for supplies due to "budget cuts." They cut sports and music and whatever else they can to manipulate parents into fighting on their behalf.
You call this bargaining on a "fair" footing. lol.
OF COURSE they spend money on politics. Do you expect them to just roll over and die? Labor unions are outmatched by businesses 15:1 in terms of political spending. The sad part is that teachers even have to allocate their money to politics. It blows my mind how people can trust corporations more than they do teachers. Prop 32 is a good example of that and a great cause to fight against.
15:1? That's bullshit. I just told you they are the biggest spender in ALL of California politics.
If they are outnumbered so terribly, then why does Prop 32 have $9 million in support funding and $45.6 million in opposition?
If they are outnumbered how did they manage to defeat 100% of Schwarzenegger's ballot propositions trying to save this state from bankruptcy?
Their spending must REALLY be paying off if people manage to see them as a victim instead of the single largest and most powerful special interest in the state...
The broadest classification of political donors separates them into business, labor, or ideological interests. Whatever slice you look at, business interests dominate, with an overall advantage over organized labor of about 15-to-1.
Even among PACs - the favored means of delivering funds by labor unions - business has a more than 3-to-1 fundraising advantage. In soft money, the ratio is nearly 17-to-1.
As for Prop 32, EVERYONE on the left is devoting many of their resources to fighting against it because it's a giant shotgun pointed at unions. If it passes unions pretty much die. How do you not understand that? Corporations are riding this shit and teachers have no choice but to fight back. Do you honestly think teachers just want to throw money at campaigns for the sake of doing so? Hell no. Wake the hell up.
On October 09 2012 09:41 bkrow wrote: He called them victims, who feel entitled and don't take personal responsibility for their lives.
It's hyperbole but generally accurate.
How are you possibly trying to rationalise that as an intelligent thing to say during an election? Or at all, at any time?
Again, an example of why politics is so bad. You turn a genuine political philosophy based on history that shows excessive government spending and welfare can do more harm than good and it is turned into "Romney hates poor people". You change half a dozen words in the full quote and you have absolutely nothing to use against him. But because he was speaking extemporaneously he didn't say it perfectly word for word and now it's the centerpiece of Obama's campaign.
My interpretation is obviously different to yours.
To me, it showed a belief that the "47%" don't actually matter to him. Be they Democrat, Republican, or anything else. It projected that Romney is not capable of thinking about the middle - lower class; if you don't own a business or you aren't rich, you don't matter.
Nobody would argue against excessive welfare causing harm, not even Obama, so I'm not sure about your point.
My point is your interpretation is risible and that it shows you have a complete disinterest in knowing who Romney truly is as a person in favor of the proffered liberal caricature. In addition, I believe that since you think Romney means that and continues to have more than 0% of Americans supporting him, you share ta similar contempt against those of us who will elect him as our next President.
Ok - agree to disagree because i have "no interest in knowing who Romney truly is." Please enlighten me? As a previous poster put it:
I live in Southern NH, and as a Democrat I thought Mitt Romney did an excellent job as Governor. He was pro-choice, pro-gun control, and created the blueprint for the ACA in Massachusetts. He was quite liberal.
But then he sold out his ideals to run for President. He is now pro-life, doesn't support the assault weapons ban he supported as Governor, and now says that the ACA, when even the advisers to Romney when he created his healthcare plan claim what he did in Mass is essentially the same as the ACA, is bad.
So yes, his platform is same at the start of his campaign, but almost completely the opposite of what he did as Governor...
So who are we electing? What are his plans? What is his tax plan?
Please, tell me. Because no one, not even you, knows. Because he won't share them. So feel free to vote for the unknown.
The fact you think you "truly know" a politician; particularly one that has lied like Romney (and Obama) has is pretty hilarious.
It really comes down to this thought process that I've seen others touch on, but it really really scares me, where if you receive help from the government you needed it you earned it, you payed in to it, you worked for it, it's okay. But all the people who aren't you, who you don't know, who aren't in your family, or your friends, or are your community, are lazy entitled victims and moochers who need to be gotten rid of because you can't have your tax dollars going too these lazy people. You don't know the story that each individual has, It was really hard to see Bill O'Reilly criticize disability and that it's "so easy to get." (I have no clue about the arthritis issue it might actually be an issue, but that's not my point)
You don't have to read this wall of text, but it's important to get this off my chest since I've been following this election cycle and this thread, and sometimes people say stuff that get's to me, so I'm hoping I can get to them, that people can maybe understand, when further steps and regulations (which people DON'T WANT on business, yet they are perfectly willing to put more steps on welfare or disability or food stamps beyond what is needed, or even willing to take these things away from people that NEED them, all in the name of economic growth, or balancing the budget, or whatever.
My stepfather had a stroke from a blood clot in his brain at a spot where he tripped and hit his head on the counter in the kitchen a month earlier on a weekend 4-5 years ago. He went to a hospital got treated, it was really fucking scary. He did not have health insurance that day because he had been laid off two weeks earlier from the airport for being fatigued etc, the doctos think he was showing symptoms and was hiding them from us we aren't sure (my mom added him mid-week too her own insurance plan with the school she worked for. they covered him and actually covered him 3 weeks before that day, so they covered his first brain surgery, apparently brain surgery is not a pre-existing condition, I know right, my Mom asked) . The brain surgeon missed something that day, I don't know what caused him to miss it, or if he used something that was used on someone else.. , or what happened, it just did(greatest healthcare ever right, the brain surgeon was like 125,000 dollars for two hours lol) . Fast forward too Friday and he all of a sudden can't talk, and has basically no motor functions out of the blue, his brain is infected with staph infection. The new brain surgeon says that that oozing was a sure sign of infection and that someone fucked up. He nearly died that day. Anyways, he lives but he his basically never the same person again, for the next three and a half years the man was a mess, a shell of who he was, I've seen people in much worse conditions but it hurts because it's personal and too think that he was expected to work by the government(I mean that's why they didn't grant him disability, got to wait for your court date), it's a joke.. a 6 year old would be a more efficient worker during this time, the man didn't go a day for three years without puking his guts out... He has the strongest anti-biotics being flown in to Nevada from Arizona for two months, twice a week, , and brought over directly to our house, and then given to him by my Mom or himself too try to stop any infection. Half of our fridge space was dedicated to these green anti-biotics. (They are really cool actually, if anyone's seen them).
Okay so you would think that a Man who just had this happen, and has been part of the work force for his entire life as a mechanic(first for Gilette, he worked on machines that made pens, then he worked on conveyor belts at sparklets and wonderbread, and last he quit sparklets to take his chance at the airport) would be cleared for disability right away? Nope. You had to see a judge who then looks at your case and clears you for it, the problem is they had so many disability applicants that this took time... So in this time span we ended up losing our house that we had payed a lot off of(we were middle class before, making decent living), we fought really really hard with the bank over this(they actually sold the house without telling us and did some really shady stuff, and of course the loan changed hands between banks several times cause this is the same time the housing crisis blew up) but that's another story.
We hire a lawyer pretty close to the beginning because it was some obvious bullshit and red tape and crap and they eventually get him in front of a judge in order to clear disability, three years later. He is INSTANTLY given disability, and given backpay etc. The judge they saw said he was so sorry, etc. Supposedly it's supposed to take 3-4 months to get cleared after you send in an application, it took about 3.25 years.
Then, my step father died two weeks later after getting that first disability check along with back pay, Nice tear jerker right. Of course we felt like victims, of course we felt entitled, he did after all pay in to SS, of course we felt like the government gave us the middle finger, we were put out of our house, and struggling to make ends meet at our new place between doctors bills(insurance only covers so much) and rent etc all of my mom's salary and for a short time unemployment and then nothing how could you not in this situation. Most of this was out of our control.
Seriously those of you against helping others with taxes.. I want you to think hard. And this is just a story about disability, there are so many other stories out there, most worst than mine, some of those stories are from fellow team liquiders, fellow team mates, fellow class mates, people you work with, people you crush on, people you care about, people you don't like, each individual has a story of some sort, has something out of their control happen. And yet, people stand behind their walls and say that we can't be sure that some are abusing the system? We CAN stop abuse of welfare, food stamps, disability, veteran help, basically any help without hindering those that actually need help. I really doubt that a single one of you will reply to my story with something saying, well you didn't need it or didn't deserve it, and yet your going to then say either in a previous post, or a future post that well.. There is 6, 10,20, 47% whatever number you believe is real , and they are useless, and who cares about them we shouldn't worry about them.
Basically I think it's bullshit that people are willing to write off people just because they receive government aid, who are you to judge who receives it, that is why we put people in place to control that. Do I think the system is perfect, nope and I'd love to see tons of improvements, and make less red tape and make sure people who need help get the fucking help, and people who cheat the system are ruining it for others and should be removed from the system, yet let's be honest, there aren't tons and tons and tons of cheaters, there is a very small percentage and we shouldn't let that keep us from helping our fellow man. And I've probably been rambling too long and none of this makes sense anymore and well.. I just felt like I had to post this, because It really pisses me off when people talk about these percents of peoples as percents, and forget that these are real people, most of them with real hardships, even harder than those that you and I have faced.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.economicnoise.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/education-cato.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2012-03-12-recessionrecovery.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1331565714849)
