Thursday, February 17, 2011

Senate Bill 5 is about to become big news in Ohio

Here is the Legislative Summary of S.B. 5, 129th General Assembly (As Introduced), Sen. Jones:

BILL SUMMARY: States the General Assembly╩╣s intent to prohibit the state and state employees and state institutions of higher education and their employees from collectively bargaining, to abolish salary schedules for public employees and instead require merit pay, and to make various other changes to the Collective Bargaining Law.

CONTENT AND OPERATION: The bill states the General Assembly╩╣s intent to prohibit the state and state
employees and state institutions of higher education and their employees from collectively bargaining, to abolish salary schedules for public employees and instead require merit pay, and to make various other changes to the Collective Bargaining Law.

The full text is here.

56 comments:

  1. This is rediculous. To save money why dont they send all of the illegal aliens back where they came from and stop paying for there healthcare, that will save some moeny. Obama care, get rid of that too!

    ReplyDelete
  2. This (SB 5) is bad legislation. The gov wants to right all he thinks is wrong in his first few months on the job.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am not for unions but this is stupid. If passed a federal judge will put an injunction on this and it will go to the courts for years. Waste of time and money. Do something that will make a difference now. Like it or not you cannot tell people they cannot bargain collectively. This just won't fly. Work on something else. This will organize and likely strengthen the unions and will spread. Look at Wisconsin. Nice idea but will never happen.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This serves every member of a collective bargaining union that voted republican right. Ronald Reagan done a similar act to the airline controllers and took the wind out of the big three automakers unions. Since that happened the jobs started leaving US borders and the CEO's and upper management reaped huge salaries.

    Unions with power kept the playing field more even.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Unions have outlived their original intention and have brought the country down. While this may not be perfect legislation, it is a start. Unions need to be dismantled.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Unions do more harm than good, the UAW is a fine example. Even when GM was on life support they fought to keep their bloated benefits and wages.

    State employees should not be allowed to unionize, not when they are working for the tax payers. If they want a union, go to the private sector.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I will come to Ohio to fight against this bill and I will do the same in Wisconsin. Unions are the heartbeat of democracy. Democracy itself is based upon union principles. There has been an onslaught for years against them by the fat cats who want to rule you, pay you chump wages, fire you when you are no longer as strong as a younger man and thereby destroy the middle class. When I was young there were plenty of middle class folks. They are disappearing at an alarming rate. 10% unemployed? Think again folks. That is only the people drawing benefits. Many more millions do not get benefits and countless millions live hand to mouth from paycheck to paycheck. We will take out country back to democracy and rational sense. It is all about to blow.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Unions also drive up the cost of goods, and force manufacturing jobs out of the country (UAW once again). Thanks to unions, every auto manufacturer who has unionized labor has to add roughly an additional $2,000 on to the price of every automobile they sell to cover the union costs. Not too mention the tens of billions of debt and unfunded union golden parachute retirement benefits that helped sink GM and Chrysler. The 100 and some billion dollar bailout was nothing but a gift to the unions, they have had enough help already.

    The last thing Ohio needs is more union thugs showing up to protest. Just because we have a president who beholden to the unions, doesn't mean the rest of the country is. In Wisconsin the union is massively outnumbered by those wanting to see them defeated. Yet, the left wing propaganda arm, oops the media, only show the protesters.

    Unions only benefit those in them, at the cost of the rest of us.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Arianana HuffingtontonFebruary 18, 2011 at 7:27 AM

    Apparently a call has gone out from Obama and his cronies to "go out in force" on these bills since union blindness is the backbone of the democratic electorate.

    At least that is what Miss Huffington has found...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Unions have lost sight of their original purpose. The pendulum has swung to far in their favor, and the current legislation is a response to to that.

    For those of you defending unions, you are out there by yourselves. A lot of candidates won this last cycle on platforms that they would take on the unions. And every major poll shows that the general (non-union) public holds unions in very low regard.

    What is going on right now is the will of the electorate -- and the demonstrations are the protests of the minority.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I agree with DJ. I am not against unions in the way they began...as a protection for workers.
    That being said, over time every union has lost sight of their original purpose/ideas, it has ended up costing this country dearly, and most union members put the blame on "the man". All unions need to take a really good, hard look in the mirror and starting working WITH the non-union world and yes, even the politicians. My .02

    ReplyDelete
  12. The bill allows the government to limit/fix/change pension plans. It is not taking away the right of unions to negotiate salary. The fact is, public union members need to grasp the situation. For example in Wisconsin they pay 0, yes 0 into their pension plans and a small percentage into their medical plans, Walker wants to make it 12% medical and 50/50 on pension plans, most of us private sectors worker would crawl to work for that.. Tell this to the worker who has no pension plan or is unemployed, that a taxpayer funded position is sitting with a large pension, that the taxpayer provided while the union member contributed nothing! Folks, we are in a dire situation in this country, it is GM times a 1000, if something is not done and public employees are unwilling to join the rest of the work force in scaling back on benefits, then there will be no pension plan for anyone...

    ReplyDelete
  13. I have never been in a union. I pay 20% of my health care and all but a 3% company match to my retirement. I have no sypathy for them. There are people making 60-70 G's cleaning the capitol building every night.

    ReplyDelete
  14. So, prohibiting collective bargaining is a proportionate response? This is taking a valid criticism of unions and twisting it to advance your political goals. Public unions still serve a role and they are not the primary cause of state/national debt problems. They're being scapegoated.

    I've asked this before, what are YOU willing to sacrifice to deal with deficits and debt? Don't give me some generic bs about how you want to shrink the size of government. Tell me what you, personally, will give up. Reduce your social security/wait longer to receive it? Give up medicare coverage? If everyone less than 50 would agree not to take social security until they're 70, we'd be fine. Or, we can demonize all those evil firefighter/police officer/teacher unions. And, if we defeat them, still have our problem.

    On a political note, the effects of this union bashing is going to be interesting to watch in 2012. I look forward to the tea party meeting the police/firefighter unions during the campaign.

    ReplyDelete
  15. DQ, those "protests" are a political event. This is all about democrats using unions to promote and advance their agendas. The white house is promoting and encouraging those protests and they want more of them. That ought ot sicken any american to think we have a supposed president who places unions and their power over everything else.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The protesters might a well be on the DNC payroll.

    Spare me the SS and medicare argument, I am 34, and I have ZERO belief that it will be around when I am of retirement age. In ten years, every two workers will be paying to support one worker. It's a system that cannot continue in it's current form, and the baby boomer generation is unwilling to make the changes needed to ensure their kids and grandkids will receive the same benefits they enjoy.

    The Republicans wanted to raise the retirement age TWO YEARS and the old blue hairs were screaming, even though the changes made would not effect anyone over the age of TWO currently.

    In 20 years SS and madicare will devour the entire US budget. You want to make changes that will help save this economy, and this country, cutting SS and medicare is the place it should be started, followed by cutting the tax payer teet for these unions. We are dealing with two parties (the Unions and the Seniors in this country) who are simply unwilling to deal, and continue to bleed this country.

    To those pushing for the unions, you're in the small minority, and the previous historical elections proved it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I find it funny that the republicans who scream about government taking away citizen's rights now want to take away the right to join together to bargain collectively. Oh, that's right, it's only a big deal when it's not what they want.

    And for those saying the electorate has spoken, then you will be ok with ObamaCare since he was elected overwhelmingly right before it was passed.

    Once again, people talking out of both sides of their mouths.

    I am anti-union as the next guy but I am even more anti-government intervention. Check out the state website for jobs in Ohio. You will find that the wages posted are less than for those in the public sector, if you truly have knowledge of private sector pay (outside of Darke County). Not everyone is getting rich. Just the people organizing these efforts to do away with all unions.

    Social Security is broke because politicians on both sides of the aisle have made a habit of taking money from SS and spending it elsewhere. You want a constitutional amendment? How about not being able to touch these funds except for the reason they were meant for.....Social Security. Now that would be a good first step!

    ReplyDelete
  18. As a former teacher (not retired and not from the Greenville District) I can tell you that I personally hated belonging to the OEA/NEA/Local union. It cost almost $700 in dues, and it seemed like all they did was stir the pot. Why did I belong? Only to have privledge to certain services if I would ever be in need of them (for example: administrator harassment). I never needed any of the services during my 20 years, but it was nice to have that net just in case.
    Anyway, most of the time, I was a disheartened member and if I did question anything, I was treated like the plague. I can remember one time in particular when the new contract was being negociated. The union wanted a pay raise to reflect the cost of living, wanted to change the pay steps, and have the board pay 100% of medical coverage. This almost came down to a strike vote, and all I could sit there an think was, "our community pays for my teaching job, and here we are threatening to not work because the union wants more. Way to pass a future levy". To make a long story short, the union ended up getting a better deal, and the next year, when state funds were cut, the system had to put up a levy. The community voted it down, and several teachers lost their jobs and programs were cut to make the ends meet. I could not help but wonder if the union had been less greedy, would this have happened.

    Now, please don't blame teachers for this outcome in ANY district. There were many of us (and still many teachers) that were willing to make concessions, and I know this is true in schools today. In my opinion, it is the die-hard union folks that make things more difficult than they have to be for everyone.

    I am not completely anti-union, there is some very good things that do come out of it. But, I can tell you from own experience that unions - all unions - can do better if they would eliminate one thing...........greed.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Joe Morgan,

    I think you didn't take it far enough. Greed not only affects those in the union, it also afects those pulling the strings in this matter. Too much greed to go around. And so many people have no idea who is pulling the strings on both sides. If they truly knew and believed, they would likely feel disheartened by the whole process.

    Hate to tell you this folks, but you can do much better fixing the budget with a paring knife than with an axe. Don't use fixing the budget as a means to another political end.

    ReplyDelete
  20. How does Obama being elected by the welfare moocher class have anything to do with the majority of the country not wanting Obamacare? Your comparison is flawed.

    Also, please show me in the constitution where it says you have the right to collectively bargain. The states grant workers the right to collectively bargain, and they can take it away. It's not an inherent right. Just as health care is NOT a right but a luxury.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Okay BE...so health care is a luxury? So a thirty year old without health insurance who has a heart attack should die young instead of having the opportunity to live a full life. Health care should be universal and should be a right. It's the insurance companies that cause the problem, not always the government.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Are you for real? Please show me where ANYONE who has a heart attack is refused treatment in this country. You can't because it doesn't exist. This arguing point is hilarious since it's so blatantly absurd.

    Money, a house, a great job should all be a right too, but they aren't. Some of us live in reality, and in reality health care is not a right. What next, everyone should be allowed to have a house because being homeless is unfair? Life isn't fair, this country was founded so people had an equal CHANCE of having such things, not that it was ensured. Maybe if schools actually taught history and not leftist revisionism most would know that.

    So it is the insurance companies fault that Obamacare has already raised insurance premiums for many and caused many to have their policies canceled? I don't think so.

    ReplyDelete
  23. but it's ok for the state to spend 14 million to put a retired space shutall at Wright paterson.

    If this bill passes, just wait till this spring to see all the people take retirement hoping to grab all they can save, before it gets even werse.


    Politics change hand but their ways don't seem to ever change.

    ReplyDelete
  24. BE

    Once again you only see things in one light and when it doesn't fit your view of the world, it is wrong and must be bad.

    My former point was that many people's argument for stopping collective bargaining is that the voters mandated it with their vote last November. So with that theory, healthcare would be the same. The people put Obama into office when he ran on that position. You, like others, only want to see it one way.

    You don't want government interference except for when you agree with the interference. Then it's fine.

    As to what is in the Constitution, many things are not listed, thus we have a system of government that determines what is to be law. So years of having the right of collective bargaining should not be done away with because you don't like it. You use the Constitution as though it is the only law of the land. Yet when babies are born in the US and are deemed citizens, per your beloved Constitution, some want to change it or redefine what it says to match their beliefs.

    You, like so many others, want to fix the budget but only by getting rid of things you don't like. You ignore the problems created by both sides. You believe only your own viewpoints even if the facts don't substantiate them. Contgrats....you don't know what you don't know. You are being used and unfortunately you are not alone.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "your beloved constitution..."

    You've said all you need to say to show which side you are on.

    Fortunately, the majority of this country is on my side. They are sick of unions, the cronyism, the bailouts for THEIR benefits at the cost of the rest of us, and the constant whining from the minority that is supported by the majority.

    Boo hoo, they will have to take a better deal than 90% of private workers. Sorry, but you're not going to get any sympathy for unions in this day and age except from fellow union members.

    I'd say I am not being used anymore than the AFL CIA/UAW, Barry Obama and the rest of the thug unions are using these protesters to further their cause. So you can drop your superiority attitude.

    ReplyDelete
  26. The fact the Tea Party people are going to be bussed in tomorrow from out-of-state to Wisconsin to incite the demonstrators shows us that this is a national strategy of the Republican party to advance their agenda, bust unions, and bleed Democrats of financial support from unions and labor.

    ReplyDelete
  27. @BE
    You are not a majority at all. Wait until the next election. You will see. The truth is that we pay for indigent care anyway, in hospitals and in help for the unlucky and deprived and yes, sometimes the unworthy. We do it because we are human beings with compassion and understanding. We do it because is the right thing to do.

    No one mandated anything in the last election. Most people were just sick of it all and stayed home, especially Democrats. Obama's young folk base did not vote. The big money spent by the conservative financial giants did much to influence and brainwash the remaining population. People all over the country were out-of-work and angry.

    I hope these reactionary Republicans do shut down the government as they threaten. They are not conservatives. They are reactionaries. They give conservatives a bad name. It will awaken everyone to how much we really need the government to operate and serve out needs.

    ReplyDelete
  28. You don't know what you don't know.

    I said "your beloved constitution" because you preach well but only follow the parts of the sermon you like. You, like others, are so sure that you have the whole story you can't bring yourself to see any other side, or even consider the possibilities.

    I am as anti-union as it gets. My beef is people who make large assumptions with no facts (other than they hear on the radio and TV to justify their beliefs) and are sure that their position in life is someone else's fault. Kinda like you. They want to cut out all that they don't agree with and have no idea that both sides are at fault. They want to go to war over things that will have little affect on the actual budget but will score them political points to get reelected. When you believe either side unconditionally you become a tool.

    No compromise is not how things are done, no matter what political hacks on radio and TV spout. Many want to pray at the alter of Reagan but he got things done because he compromised and worked things out. He was smart enough to realize the truth. You can sit and pout all you want and things will get no better. Of course if they did it would ruin your pipe dream.

    ReplyDelete
  29. BE...you're post at 5:57 said that "health care is NOT a right but a luxury." My point is that if someone without insurance has a medical emergency, are we supposed to let that person suffer and/or die because it is a "luxury" to have health care? HEALTH CARE is a right...not health insurance. HEALTH CARE should be universal. Quit being so hateful. Dang...haven't we already had this conversation!?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Hermie, and my point was if ANYONE walks into an emergency room, they are not turned down for not having insurance. ANYONE can receive medical care in this country. It is against the law to deny anyone medical attention in an emergency due to lack of insurance.

    Once again, your argument makes no sense since that never happens.

    ReplyDelete
  31. 8:42 PM - Is it sunny in the fantasy land you live in? Losing the largest number of seats in history in this country is the clearest sign the majority of this country is sick of the Left's agenda.

    The Democrats didn't stay home, they lost the independents and they still haven't gotten them back. It was the independents, and the wellfare class that came out to vote that got him elected.

    lol it takes guts to bash the republicans for spending money when Barry Hussein Obama has spent more than any president in this countries history, and we have 10% unemployment to show for it, crushing national debt, backroom secret trillion dollar bailouts to wall street and foreign banks. All done under Obama's watch, yet you bash the republicans. lol amusing.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Holy ###t BE...Where are your sources? You claim a lot of scandal on here, but never show anything to back it up. Obama has spent more because he is the most recent President... it's called inflation and trying to save the damn economy. Sometimes I wonder if you just get on here to cause problems. I've been on this site since the beginning (using various names) and never had trouble with anyone until you came along. What's the deal? Most people on here are looking for a civil discussion/debate. You seem to always rely on name-calling and condescending remarks.

    ReplyDelete
  33. George Bush added a total of $4,899,100,310,608.46 ( $4.9 trillion) in his 8 year term,

    an annual average of $612,387,538,826.06 ($612.4 billion)

    Obama has added a total of $2,583,677,092,649.90 ($2.58 trillion ) in 1 1/2 years

    an annual average of $1,722,451,395,099.93. ($1.72 trillion)

    This total for Obama is $698,238,218,626.17 ($698 billion) more than Bush added in his first 4 year term as President

    In 5 1/2 years that the democrats controlled congress, this was the first 2 years of the Clinton administration, the final 2 years of the Bush administration up to the first 1 1/2 years of the Obama administration. During that time frame the democrats while controlling congress have added

    $5,144,200,382,251.96 ($5.14 trillion) to the national debt, an annual average of $935,309,160,409.45
    ($935 billion)
    In the 12 years that the republicans controlled congress, which was the last 6 years of the Clinton administration and the first 6 years of the Bush administration, they added

    $3,878,547,148,941.88 ($3.88 trillion) to the national debt, an annual average of $348,983,884,197.43
    ($349 billion)

    In terms of pure dollars, F.D.R. added an equivalent of $15 trillion to the national debt and his annual average was $1,258,333,333,333 ($1.26 trillion) , Obama is already exceeding this average so it is apparent that Obama has outspent every previous administration of the last 110 years and is on average nearly $500 billion a year ahead of F.D.R.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

    BTW, inflation does not make up for his massive spending increases, but I wouldn't expect you to look that up either.

    Barrak Hussein Obama has increased the nations GDP to Debt ratio 20% in the short time he has been in office, he has spent more than any president for his time in office.

    Scandal? The only scandal is how someone as inept as Obama could be elected. The scandal is how he is spending and spending, then ignoring his own blue ribbon debt commissions recommendations when it comes to budget cuts and is now playing politics with this nations future.

    To get back on topic, the Unions do not pay a dime towards their retirement savings, they pay a tiny fraction of their health care costs. Wisconsin is broke, and yet they are unwilling to take concessions that still give them a benefits and pay package that is still vastly superior to just about any private sector job in the state. That is pure greed, a hallmark of any union.

    The majority of the voters in Wisconsin voted for the republicans who ran on a platform of cutting the unions wings so to speak, so yes, the majority of people in the state no longer believe it is right that union members get a free ride on the backs of an already overtaxed and broke state.

    ReplyDelete
  34. too continue..

    As for my so called 'deal', dealing with people like you tends to wear on ones nerves, constantly spouting nonsense that flies in the face of fact, and constantly defending the idiot we have in office who is hellbent on bankrupting this country. In case you have not noticed, this country is BROKE, we are still in the midst of a recession, jobless claims just spiked again last week, unemployment is rising up over 9% again, actual unemployment figures are probably closer to 19%, and what is his grand solution? High speed trains and more spending! This is a point in this nations history that if we don't stand up and demand a change in this country, there will be no country left to defend. We can simply not continue down the path we are now.

    As for the backroom trillion dollar bailouts, have you been living under a rock? The Federal Reserve spent TWO TRILLION dollars to give companies such as GE and Harley Davidson, as well as several large banks in this country, and several large foreign banking institutions large multi-billion dollar bailouts. All the while, keeping it from the American public, so keep in mind those figures above do NOT include the 2 trillion dollars. So yes, this president has spent more than any president prior.

    Has any of it helped? The economy is worse now than any time during the Bush administration, and that includes directly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. His Keynesian spending theories have all been proven to be false, and ineffective, so instead of accepting it and going with proven methods for bolstering the economy, he is doubling down on stupid.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aatlky_cH.tY

    Goldman Sachs, which received nearly $600 billion
    Morgan Stanley, which received nearly $2 trillion
    Citigroup, which received $1.8 trillion
    Bear Stearns, which received nearly $1 trillion
    Merrill Lynch, which received some $1.5 trillion in short term loans from the Fed

    http://loanmodificationhomeownerresources.org/2011/01/22/federal-reserve-gave-billions-in-secret-loans-to-same-big-banks-that-deny-and-cancel-loan-modifications/

    So yes, I have a right to be upset when I see this country being spent down the drain by a clueless community leader who has never had a job much as less have any experience running anything, including this country.

    If that doesn't upset you, then you're part of the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  35. As this Wisconsin scene escalates, it becomes more and more interesting. I guess we'll see whether the governor prevails and whether the politics favor the GOP (whose base is already motivated) or the Dems (whose base just had a bonfire lit under them).

    Regardless, I again can't help but think about what a sideshow it all is. We always fall for this. The budgets are busted. We spend all of our time talking about earmarks, public unions and discretionary spending. Yet, if we address entitlements--medicare, medicaid, and social security--we could ignore all the rest. And, stated the other way, if we address all these other issues but don't address entitlements, we've accomplished nothing.

    I still have not seen one post on here which says I'm 66 years old and I'm willing to take less in social security. Or, I'm 35 years old and I'm willing to postpone receiving benefits until I'm 70. That's how people need to start thinking about this issue. If 100,000 of his constituents signed a letter to John Boehner saying I'll still vote for you if you cut/delay my social security benefits, maybe these guys would have the courage to do the obvious, right thing.

    PS. Just in case you're wondering whether I expect everyone to jump at this suggestion, I realize that I'm preachin' to a bunch of people who weren't willing to pay $2 a week for the future of our community's schools. We're experts at noticing the dust in others eyes but noticing the planks in our own? Not so much.

    ReplyDelete
  36. DQ, that is one way to help… and I can’t say I disagree with your opinion with the exception… I get “fired-up” when people, especially politicians refer to Social Security as an ENTITALMENT Program… Social Security is or was a TRUST FUND… What the Government has done with the workers Trust Fund is no different than Bernie Madoff and his ponzi scheme w/ one exception… he’s in prison.

    Although today our Trust Fund (Social Security) has to be funded, it is actually being paid back, the problem is we taxpayers are paying for it again.

    ReplyDelete
  37. BE: That was impressive research. I'm being totally serious. I honestly cannot argue with your opinion after reading your comments. I don't necessarily agree with it all, but I now respect your opinion because you have obviously educated yourself on the issue. Also, thanks for not calling me ignorant, uneducated, or a troll this time. You win this round!

    ReplyDelete
  38. Hermie: Don't concede so quickly. BE is spinning--when he isn't flat out misstating facts, ie his repeated assertion that the President never had a job. No one who isn't blinded by their politics doesn't see the connection between BHO's spending and the economic disaster that occurred on W's watch.

    Maybe we need to be reminded that the CBO concluded that Obamacare is budget neutral. Maybe we need to be reminded that the stock market hit 6200 in early 2009 and is now up 100% in 2 years. Maybe we need to be reminded that GDP has been growing for five straight quarters after it cratered between 2007 and early 2009. Maybe we need to be reminded that we were shedding more than 500,000 jobs a MONTH when Barack Hussein Obama came into office. And, while we'd all like to see more jobs, we have actually been adding jobs every month for the last year and half.

    Also, let's not forget that the last administration was handed a budget surplus, NOT an historical economic crisis and what did W and Mr. "deficits don't matter" Cheney do? They blew the budget wide open with the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and the new medicare D entitlement (to say nothing of the fiscal and foreign policy masterpiece we call the Iraq war). In fact, if you want a mind bomb go look at the figures regarding deficits as a percentage of GDP under the presidents since Kennedy. Which is the party of fiscal discipline?

    Please just recognize that BE listens to too much Hannity. I don't care that you waste your time arguing with BE but please don't let him/her influence you so easily.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Please show me figures that prove mine are incorrect?

    Please show me something that proves that the governments own numbers (which I quoted) are wrong? You are saying you know something the government doesn't?

    B.H.O has not held a job in the private sector, he has been an academic and nothing more, he barely held his political office voting present for most of his votes.

    What does it matter what the GDP is when the debt to GDP ratio is climbing? So what if we are producing more when more and more of it is spent? It's shoveling water on a sinking ship.

    The same CBO that recently noted that according to new figures Obamacare could cost billions more than previously estimated?

    We haven't added enough jobs to even cover the growing population. This country must ad 250,000 jobs a month just to break even due to population growth, so please explain how we are gaining jobs? I think what you mean is we are losing jobs at a slower rate? Still not acceptable when we were promised no more than 8% unemployment if we spent a trillion dollars in his porkulus bill.

    The budget surplus was for one fiscal quarter and was ONLY due to creative playing with the figures. It isn't as if the country was swimming in money. Either way, bringing up Bush doesn't change the fact Obama is spending more than Bush and by the end of the year will have spent more than any president before Bush COMBINED.

    Lol DQ, you sound about the level of intelligence that thinks if you are broke, spending more money will solve the issue. It is people like you that have lead us 14.6 trillion in debt.

    The fact remains, It's Obama's economy and it is still tanking, national debt is still soaring, and spending is still rising.

    It's funny you don't let things like hard facts and figures get in the way of your liberal koolaid drinking. Keep up the work, your side is making it easy for the grown ups to get back in to power. :)

    ReplyDelete
  40. BE,

    Don't get too impressed with yourself. After all, anyone can cut and paste or find such slanted facts on their favorite lunitic website if need be.

    At the end of the day, your insistance that everything is Obama's fault only proves you don't know what you don't know.

    When Reagan was president he spent more than any before him. Same with Bush. Where were you when they were spending us into further debt? And actually Obama has increased spending at a smaller percentage of increase (see stats work both ways!) But neither were handed the piece of crap economy that Obama was handed. Dubya started much of the bailout money spending that you blamed on Obama. You don't know what you don't know.

    Had it not been for some of the spending that was done on certain industries, we would all be broke due to a complete failure of the entire economic system. Yeah, yeah, I know. Rush doesn't agree. Neither does Shawn.

    We both agree that the budget is bad and we need to fix it. If this were your budget at home you would do many things to fix it. You wouldn't sell your car and then wonder how to get to work. You would use your head. Reduce spending AND increase income. Like it or not you cannot claim to want to fix the budget but at the same time continue to say tax breaks are needed and won't hurt. Simple economics prove otherwise. Again, you don't know what you don't know.

    But of course we cannot get you to consider other positions. This problem didn't just start and it isn't the fault of only one political party, despite your narrow thinking. Both sides are so guilty of mismanagement they should leave in shame. But with blind defenders like you, the real solutions will never get implemented.

    That is why I am for sensible cuts, not hack jobs to win political points.

    You don't know what you don't know.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Reagan had 90+ months of positive growth, pulled us out of the Democrat caused recession thanks due to the idiot peanut farmer. Obama has had what, one or two months of single digit growth, even after spending more than Reagan did in his entire eight years. Bang up job this community organizer is doing.

    If GM had been allowed to go bankrupt, they wouldn;t have shut their doors, they would have continued producing cars, they would have been able to get the leech that is the UAW off of their back and get a grip on the tens of billions of unfunded liabilities in the form of union pensions and benefits. No, instead he bailed out his union cronies, and now we have a company who still has yet to pay the tax payers back, is still buried under tens of billions of union baggage and is still not turning a legitimate profit. Money well spent obviously.

    Lol no one mentioned Rush nor Sean, please try to control your liberal hatred.

    No one said it started with Obama, it's just the case of him making it tens time worse with his ineptitude and inexperience at anything related to business. Lets face it, he spent his life prior to office going after big business, and now he is trying to run them, with no experience and a crystal clear loathing for big business.

    You do know that every single time taxes have been raised on the federal level, income to the treasury has actually gone down. That is not opinion, it is fact. When taxes are cut, revenues to the treasury go up. It is a proven fact and yet this current administration continues pushing punishing the successful despite the fact they already pay the massive majority of all taxes currently, and we have 45% of the country not even paying taxes.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Ding Dong, Union greed is dead!!! (WE HOPE!!!)February 20, 2011 at 12:59 PM

    Ironically, the person who cannot come to the forum to see any common sense is the one going by the name "SensibleCuts."

    This is an open and shut case, but the greedy are diluting it. Good to see that more persons who can point to "sensible cuts" are showing themselves as opposed to the oxymoron that is "SensibleCuts."

    ReplyDelete
  43. Lothar of the hill peopleFebruary 20, 2011 at 1:04 PM

    BE
    I agree with you that government spending must be cut, significantly. You apparently refuse to believe the obvious, that it has never occurred before by either political party or any president. Also that it is unlikely that it will occur as long as either party, or a combination of both, is in control. As to the myth of Ronald Reagan: he did raise taxes, he did triple the national debt, he grew the size of the federal government, and unemployment greatly increased after his famous tax cuts. His greatest achievement was that he was able to do these things and millions like you still contend that he didn't.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I am aware of both sides distaste for spending cuts. The bigger issue is we have a president who simply can not stop spending! Even in the face of crushing national debt, a tanking economy, he still continues to spend, high speed rail that no one but his side wants? That sounds like a good idea when w can't afford the programs we have now?

    Even putting an end to this presidents ghetto rich spending spree would be a good start!

    Reagan did spend, and did raise taxes, but he also listened to business, and the economy exploded under his watch. Unemployment rose thanks to the effects of Carter's recession.

    Lest we forget Reagan also did a little thing like breaking the Russians back and ending the cold war. Where as our president is content to apologize for everything this country has ever done, and is busy bowing to any third rate world leader he can find. To even compare this clown in office to Reagan is laughable, despite how hard the left are trying to paint comparisons.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Time For The Changes!February 20, 2011 at 2:52 PM

    Here's the problem - no party wants to be the party that finally takes full control of what is being spent. Why? Because so many people have become part of the problem with "gimme gimme gimme" and have completely forgotten "ask not what your country can do for you." Instead, we have generations being brought up and taught that they can simply do nothing with their life and continue to live as they please because the government will subsize them. Then, when it comes time to vote, who do these lowlifes vote for? The people who are going to ensure they live "the good life" from their couch and never have to lift a finger. And which party is the party which has given the most handouts? The Democrats, of course, as they support handout after handout, not because it is good for the country, but because it is good for getting them reelected. Democratic districts are generally some of the most terrible areas of the country for a reason! But finally the Republicans have decided "Hey, look - if we don't take care of our country, nobody will because the Democrats have proved again and again that they are not to be trusted." Someone has to make the cuts or this country is done. THANK GOD for the Republicans finally taking control of things and working to right the ship. Let's hope it continues. Ditching unions is a start. Let's keep it going and take back the country. It may not be popular with the greedy lowlifes who elected Obama and the incompetent Democrats, and it may not be popular with some people who voted Republican this time around hoping to see changes made. But, in the end, we need to make these changes and if you disagree with that, you probably are a large part of the problem anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Funny stuff. Yep, the Repubs finally decided to take care of the country. Why? Because the Tea Party scared the crap out of them and they realized they needed to jump on board or be voted out. Yes they are concerned alright, not for us. Rather for their own jobs. And by the way, the dems would do the same.

    I love how BE uses the term "ghetto rich". Pretty much sums up why he doesn't like Obama.

    And by the way, the President doesn't set the budget. Congress does. He can only offer his budget. He doesn't have the power to spend without the approval of Congress.

    I am definitely for "fixing the budget" but for the budget sake alone, not someone's political views. Yes, Reagan raised taxes, he ran our debt up to unprecedented levels, and he never, ever once proposed a balance budget. IF Obama did the same, the right would have a heart attack. The thing Reagan did was to work WITH the dems to get compromises in place that would help. But never forget the debt he instituted.

    Not all Repubs are bad and greedy. Not all dems are socialist giveaways. Many of you people have listened to too much talk radio and TV. My call for sensible cuts is just that....a call to work out the budget problems together. What can we do without. What should be priorities. Too many want cuts as long as it doesn't affect them. If you think only one party is at fault, think again. Too many lobbiest have a death grib on members of Congress.

    I have been accused of not coming to this board with any common sense. All because I am advocating working together to fix the budget and realizing that neither party is working for the common citizen. Then people come on here and claim to have the black and white answers that have never existed and never will.

    As I have heard said... you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

    You don't know what you don't know.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Lothar of the hill peopleFebruary 20, 2011 at 4:41 PM

    To SensibleCuts
    You are right. Mr. Boehner will be trying to herd cats for the near future. The real test will be when the national debt ceiling is raised (which Boehner supports) and then we'll see if the Teaparty Congressmen call for his ouster. I actually believe at this time that they are tremendously more genuine than their Speaker. Their actions after this happens will speak volumes about them and their movement's sincerety.

    ReplyDelete
  48. lol accusing me of being racist because I used a generic term. Hilarious. There are tens of reasons to dislike Barry Obama, his race isn't one of them.

    The fact he is turning the entire country into the welfare slums that got him elected is one of the best though.

    I agree with what was said, there is a reason the most bankrupt states in this country are Democrat strongholds, Michigan, California etc.

    The left better hope they can trick the uneducated welfare leeches like they did last election to vote for their boy because those with the least bit intelligence have lost faith in him and their party.

    ReplyDelete
  49. BE's rhetoric continues on and on. Of course he's completely right you know. Let's see:

    Only one political party is to blame.

    Only poor dumb slobs from the slums are to blame.

    Everyone that doesn't agree with him is an uneducated, welfare leech that is too stupid to vote correctly.

    The President of the United States spends all the money himself (during a ghetto-rich spending spree), unless Dems are in control of the Congress and then it's their fault too.

    Reagan single-handedly destroyed Communism and Russia but let's just gloss over his debt spending. (tripling the national debt, I might add. Hopefully Obama never hits that mark)

    Whatever Bush did means nothing because we are talking about Obama but calling Carter an idiot peanut farmer is ok when talking about Reagan.

    Anyone that doesn't agree is "drinking the Liberal Kool-aid". Actually it helps wash down the slice of Fox pie!

    The CBO stats are accurate and ok to use unless talking pro about a dem. program, then they are wrong.

    Ah if only the rest of the world could see how smart he is.

    Unfortunately we veered off the main point of what started this conversation. The article was about taking away the right to collectively bargain in the name of budget fixing. My questions is still, why can't we have both?

    But alas, he doesn't know what he doesn't know.

    Don't worry BE, I'll let it go at that as we both know we'll never convince the other. Sad we can't sit down like Reagan and Tipp O'Neal and compromise to work out a viable solution. Sadly those days seem over. It takes less time to simply villify and make up information than it does to realize the true numbers and that all are at fault and it is in the interest of most politicians not to fix it to help the average citizen.

    The best thing we can do is to keep politics out of finding the solution. Unfortunately there is a huge industry now in place to make sure that will never happen. But in the mean time, let's both keep an open mind!

    ReplyDelete
  50. The Toxic Smug Cloud Has Enveloped Darke County!!!February 20, 2011 at 9:35 PM

    Anybody else notice that SensibleCuts is anything BUT sensible, and the cuts proposed are...well...what? I mean, let's hear some of 'em! Thus far it is just name calling and rhetoric and a brutal case of "smug."

    ReplyDelete
  51. "the Unions do not pay a dime towards their retirement savings,"

    Really BE? why do I have a deduction for retirement on every check?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Nomad, try getting some reading comprehension...

    The WISCONSIN TEACHERS UNIONS pay ZERO in to their retirement fund. Boohoo, they will have to help pay a small portion of their own retirement.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Who cares about Wisconsin?
    This article was about Ohio SB 5, I have argued with you several times here about Unions, the remarks you made above reinforces my view that you have zero experience or first hand knowledge about unions.
    Anyone with a tad of knowledge knows why the Auto companies went belly up, blaming it on the unions exclusively is pretty myopic and dumb.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I don't fell it's any of your busness BE in my remarks here but I pay well over 100 dollors per pay check twards my insurance, and over that twards my punnie retirment each pay check.
    I don't know where some of you got the idea it was all free. Also I don't belong to any union but I am a state employee.
    So remember this, we state employees are not all in the same bag.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Um, I was speaking of the Wisconsin teachers unions who pay nothing for their retirement and currently only 5% of their health care.

    State/Federal employees should have no unions, it is against the tax payers best interests.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Like everything else....this topic conversation got out of hand, and generally "off" the article topic.
    While some of you make good points, most of you have ended up looking like narrow-minded fools.

    ReplyDelete

Featured Posts

/* Track outbound links in Google Analytics */