The "Loyal" Opposition

[Boreas]

Twenty-Five percent of registered Republicans want their state to secede from the Union.

Crazy people.

John

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/03/1274231/25-percent-republicans-secede/

[merrylander]

Let them go, good riddance.

[finnbow]

The party of "patriotism" and "exceptionalism" sure doesn't seem very patriotic or exceptional. What a bunch of losers - literally.

[barbara]

And the first time they face a natural disaster, they will come asking for help.

[BlueStreak]

Let them go, good riddance.
Pick a nice land-locked state. Give it to them and tell them they can make it their own sovereign nation. Then cut off their funding, embargo any trade with them and refuse to let them travel on, over or under our soil. Sea ports only. We'll find out just how rugged and self-sufficient they are then.:p

Regards,
Dave

[ebacon]

I think secession is the right message for them to send if they are not willing to burn the flag. Somehow they need to communicate their frustration to Washington.

Hopefully the secessionists don't fly American flags. If they do then Washington can dismiss them as clueless loonies.

[icenine]

Oh once they figure out Social Security and Medicare are not coming with them they will come back....

[finnbow]

And the first time they face a natural disaster, they will come asking for help.

Chris Christie (R-NJ) is indeed asking the Federal government to pay all costs associated with the Sandy clean-up in New Jersey.

[piece-itpete]

He should - Obama owes him ;)

Pete

[ebacon]

What's the story on that? I heard a little blurb that the feds might agree to pay for cleanup provided that the seashore is allowed to return to nature and not redeveloped.

[Boreas]

And the first time they face a natural disaster, they will come asking for foreign aid.

Fixed it for you. ;)

John

[Boreas]

What's the story on that? I heard a little blurb that the feds might agree to pay for cleanup provided that the seashore is allowed to return to nature and not redeveloped.

Sounds like anti-environmentalist right wing bullshit to me. The Jersey Shore will be rebuilt but if the people of New Jersey have anything to say about it, it will be done with more environmental safeguards and building codes.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/us-storm-sandy-newjersey-idUSBRE8AQ0V620121127

John

[piece-itpete]

If the sea level is going to rise why rebuild?

Pete

[ebacon]

If the sea level is going to rise why rebuild?

Pete

Exactly. And if the people of NJ can't afford to lose their ocean front buildings then why expect citizens of the other 49 states to help pay for them?

There is a saying -- don't put anything on the sea that you can't afford to lose.

[whell]

Exactly. And if the people of NJ can't afford to lose their ocean front buildings then why expect citizens of the other 49 states to help pay for them?

There is a saying -- don't put anything on the sea that you can't afford to lose.

Bingo. We have a winner!

They want it fixed and kept from getting whacked hard by mother nature again....as long as someone else pays for it all.

[Boreas]

Exactly. And if the people of NJ can't afford to lose their ocean front buildings then why expect citizens of the other 49 states to help pay for them?

Bingo. We have a winner!

They want it fixed and kept from getting whacked hard by mother nature again....as long as someone else pays for it all.

This is the fundamental divide between people who see us as a loose assemblage of autonomous individuals and those of us who see us as a community. From my perspective, it's simple. My taxes go in part to rebuilding the Jersey Shore (or New Orleans or Galveston) and the taxpayers in New Jersey, Louisiana or Texas help to rebuild my community when the next big quake hits here. I don't like it any better than you do, whell, but you and I have an obligation to one another. We're all in this together.

John

[ebacon]

This is the fundamental divide between people who see us as a loose assemblage of autonomous individuals and those of us who see us as a community. From my perspective, it's simple. My taxes go in part to rebuilding the Jersey Shore (or New Orleans or Galveston) and the taxpayers in New Jersey, Louisiana or Texas help to rebuild my community when the next big quake hits here. I don't like it any better than you do, whell, but you and I have an obligation to one another. We're all in this together.

John

We might be talking past each other.

It is generally best practice to leave flood zones decidated to public uses such as parks. I have no problem with pooling money to insure public resources such as that.

Where I have a problem is paying for losses of private entities.

[whell]

We might be talking past each other.

It is generally best practice to leave flood zones decidated to public uses such as parks. I have no problem with pooling money to insure public resources such as that.

Where I have a problem is paying for losses of private entities.

And don't many of those private entities have the funds / resources / insurance necessary to rebuild on their own? For example, wouldn't the amusement park have carried sufficient insurance coverage for a catastrophic loss? I don't think that the insurance companies can invoke an "act of God clause", since Al Gore said that Sandy was caused by man-made global warming.

[whell]

T I don't like it any better than you do, whell, but you and I have an obligation to one another.

John

Can you please send me a copy of that agreement? I seem to have misplaced my copy.

[d-ray657]

Can you please send me a copy of that agreement? I seem to have misplaced my copy.

It's a moral obligation that we express through sharing our collective resources. One source of such moral tradition might be found in Matthew (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A31-46&version=NIV). Might find another example in Luke (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+10%3A30-37&version=NIV). Granted I am not citing a document that is binding on our government, just an couple of examples of our shared values.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Boreas]

I don't think that the insurance companies can invoke an "act of God clause", since Al Gore said that Sandy was caused by man-made global warming.

And this is precisely the sort of callous and failed attempts at humor in the face of human need we've come to expect from you.

Can you please send me a copy of that agreement? I seem to have misplaced my copy.

I realize it's a concept foreign to your nature but it's called the social contract.

John

[whell]

It's a moral obligation that we express through sharing our collective resources. One source of such moral tradition might be found in Matthew (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A31-46&version=NIV). Might find another example in Luke (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+10%3A30-37&version=NIV). Granted I am not citing a document that is binding on our government, just an couple of examples of our shared values.

Regards,

D-Ray

But I thought that we weren't a "christian nation"? How can citing bible passages create buy-in with those who reject Christianity?

Also, shared values, assuming that all members of society share those values, don't create an "obligation" that John referred to. I can't compel John to do something he might not wish to do, even if that thing might be in line with his values.

[whell]

And this is precisely the sort of callous and failed attempts at humor in the face of human need we've come to expect from you.



I realize it's a concept foreign to your nature but it's called the social contract.

John

Actually, I was asking a serious question, regardless of the Al Gore remark, and in spite of your lack of a sense of humor. Its certainly debatable whether Sandy was truly an "act of God" as that phrase might find expression in an insurance policy.

And can you please send me a signed copy of that contract? Again, I seem to have misplaced it.

[whell]

And this is precisely the sort of callous and failed attempts at humor in the face of human need we've come to expect from you.


By the way, even Mayor Bloomberg and Jenny Granholm suggested a link between Sandy and climate change. I think there might actually be sufficient political leverage around the climate change issue to start forcing some of these insurance companies to pay up.

[Boreas]

We might be talking past each other.

It is generally best practice to leave flood zones decidated to public uses such as parks. I have no problem with pooling money to insure public resources such as that.

Where I have a problem is paying for losses of private entities.

Of course, in much of the New Jersey coast the beach is indeed public so restoration of that would, I assume, be a use of public funds you'd find acceptable. Beaches are undeniable a part of the commons and, as such, it's our responsibility to protect and preserve them.

As for the private property along the coast that has suffered damage, insuring those properties for anything like adequate sums has always been onerous when possible. I think too that, given the unprecedented scale of this disaster, it'll be difficult to avoid the invocation by insurers of force majeure in order to shirk their obligations to the insured. That will, sadly, leave the rest of us holding the bag but I don't see us as having any moral choice in the matter.

Our populating of coastal, riparian and low-lying areas is, after all, a fait accompli. It was initially for economic advantage when rivers and seaports and bottom lands were the essential ingredients of commerce, of agriculture and of the power to drive industrial processes. We're stuck with this situation. We can't just move away from areas that contain the homes and the businesses of more than half our people.

John

[ebacon]

Of course, in much of the New Jersey coast the beach is indeed public so restoration of that would, I assume, be a use of public you'd find acceptable. Beaches are undeniable a part of the commons and, as such, it's our responsibility to protect and preserve them.

As for the private property along the coast that has suffered damage, insuring those properties for anything like adequate sums has always been onerous when possible. I think too that, given the unprecedented scale of this disaster, it'll be difficult to avoid the invocation by insurers of force majeure in order to shirk their obligations to the insured. That will, sadly, leave the rest of us holding the bag but I don't see us as having any moral choice in the matter.

Our populating of coastal, riparian and low-lying areas is, after all, a fait accompli. It was initially for economic advantage when rivers and seaports and bottom lands were the essential ingredients of commerce, of agriculture and of the power to drive industrial processes. We're stuck with this situation. We can't just move away from areas that the homes and the businesses of more than half our people.

John

No one said move away. All I said is that I don't want to pay to have people move back in.

I am fine with paying to rebuild the boardwalk, toilets, etc. that are public facilities.

[Boreas]

No one said move away. All I said is that I don't want to pay to have people move back in.

I am fine with paying to rebuild the boardwalk, toilets, etc. that are public facilities.

We're back to the social contract, it seems.

John

[merrylander]

So then do we clear out most of the tornado alley states? I mean to say is that there is no prdictable path, we have even had a few touch downs here in Maryland. When those two mid=western towns were so devastated last year I relly did not stop to debate, just sent money to the Mayors.

[ebacon]

So then do we clear out most of the tornado alley states? I mean to say is that there is no prdictable path, we have even had a few touch downs here in Maryland. When those two mid=western towns were so devastated last year I relly did not stop to debate, just sent money to the Mayors.

Dangit. We just went through such stupid knee-jerk arguments a few weeks ago.

Tornado risk is low enough to be covered by the insurance industry. Flood risk generally is not.

[d-ray657]

But I thought that we weren't a "christian nation"? How can citing bible passages create buy-in with those who reject Christianity?

Also, shared values, assuming that all members of society share those values, don't create an "obligation" that John referred to. I can't compel John to do something he might not wish to do, even if that thing might be in line with his values.

I also doubt that the nation was completely built on the notion of "what's in it for me?" There are many, however, who order their lives around that question. Do you?

[whell]

I also doubt that the nation was completely built on the notion of "what's in it for me?" There are many, however, who order their lives around that question. Do you?

Kinda ducks my question, dontcha think?

[d-ray657]

Kinda ducks my question, dontcha think?

I dunno, but you sure ducked mine.

[ebacon]

I dunno, but you sure ducked mine.

Ruh-roh, a duck off. :D

[d-ray657]

Ruh-roh, a duck off. :D

Duck you too! :D

Regards,

D-Ray

[bobabode]

:DWhell is a Gov. Granholm fan? What's next?:rolleyes:Cenc? Gov. Spitzer?:p

[d-ray657]

Actually, to more accurately state what has happened in this discussion, Whell's question has not been ducked, it's premise has been rejected. The correct answer to his question is that there is not a written contract that creates societal obligations for disaster relief, but there is a social compact - a principle that Whell rejects. Thus he asserts that his question has not been answered.

Do we have to pay for disaster assistance. The answer is yes. To the extent that such assistance comes from federal funds and we are required to pay taxes, we have to pay for it. We don't have the option not to pay taxes because we oppose a particular expenditure. We can oppose it. We can lobby against it. We can vote against those who apportion such funds. But so long as the social compact that is our form of government recognizes an obligation to relieve suffering and loss by people struck by disaster, we have to pay to such relief.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Boreas]

But I thought that we weren't a "christian nation"? How can citing bible passages create buy-in with those who reject Christianity?

Haven't you run out of straw yet? Rejecting the notion that the US is a Christian nation is not the same as rejecting Christianity. Some VERY devout Christians see the US for what it is, a secular nation which happens to contain a lot of Christians.

Also, shared values, assuming that all members of society share those values, don't create an "obligation" that John referred to. I can't compel John to do something he might not wish to do, even if that thing might be in line with his values.

You... well, not you specifically... can indeed compel me to, for instance, pay taxes so that the government can fulfill the social contract. This is the very reason for the e existence of our government: to promote the general welfare.

John

[whell]

I dunno, but you sure ducked mine.

No, I challenged your premise. There's a big difference, me thinks.

[whell]

Haven't you run out of straw yet? Rejecting the notion that the US is a Christian nation is not the same as rejecting Christianity. Some VERY devout Christians see the US for what it is, a secular nation which happens to contain a lot of Christians.

Maybe so. But if we're talking about a social contract, then all parties to the contract have to have a consistent understanding of its terms. Citing biblical passages as the basis for a contract, social or otherwise, is bound to be rejected by those who choose not to operate within a religious frame of reference.

You... well, not you specifically... can indeed compel me to, for instance, pay taxes so that the government can fulfill the social contract. This is the very reason for the e existence of our government: to promote the general welfare.
John

Yes, the very existence of THIS government - as defined by the constitution - is to promote the general welfare. It also to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. One reason for existence is just as important as the others.

Now, a contract is an agreement with specific terms between two or more persons or entities in which there is a promise to do something in return for a valuable benefit known as consideration. In reference to the social contract, what are the specific terms that I have agreed, and what are the specific terms that you have agreed to, under this social contract? What have we agreed to as consideration?

[ebacon]

My brain kilohurtz.

[barbara]

Good grief....

The bottom line here is that decent people have compassion for those in need.

I've seen people more worried about a stray dog than a down and out person. As much as I love pets, my fellow man comes first.

And... Before anyone Jumps on the 'those who are down and out only need to pull up their boot straps and take some personal responsibility' bandwagon..... I'm not talking about the 10 to 14% that live to scam the system. '
I'm talking about those who simply don't have a boot strap to pull up...

[d-ray657]

I also doubt that the nation was completely built on the notion of "what's in it for me?" There are many, however, who order their lives around that question. Do you?

Kinda ducks my question, dontcha think?

OK. I'll answer my question for you. It is very apparent from your participation here that you completely buy into the philosophy of the GOP that the controlling question in life is "What's in it for me?"

[Rex E.]

Good grief....

The bottom line here is that decent people have compassion for those in need.

I've seen people more worried about a stray dog than a down and out person. As much as I love pets, my fellow man comes first.

And... Before anyone Jumps on the 'those who are down and out only need to pull up their boot straps and take some personal responsibility' bandwagon..... I'm not talking about the 10 to 14% that live to scam the system. '
I'm talking about those who simply don't have a boot strap to pull up...

Excellent post!

[bobabode]

Can you please send me a copy of that agreement? I seem to have misplaced my copy.

If you can quote the preamble to the Constitution? Why do you have to ask? Is it because you are simply an a**hole without anything constructive to add?

[ebacon]

We're back to the social contract, it seems.

John

You lost me. That social contract discussion made my brain kilohurtz. :D

[whell]

OK. I'll answer my question for you. It is very apparent from your participation here that you completely buy into the philosophy of the GOP that the controlling question in life is "What's in it for me?"

And you would, of course, be incorrect.

I just don't believe in the so called social contract. If I chose to participate in philanthropic activities, or give a down and out friend or family member some money, them I'm at my liberty (there's that word again) to do so. Having the government take my earning via a tax and redistribute it based on a perceived societal need or, more likely, political gain is hardly supportive of any "social contract".

[whell]

If you can quote the preamble to the Constitution? Why do you have to ask? Is it because you are simply an a**hole without anything constructive to add?

Yes, I've read it, and I certainly am not able to find a reference to a social contract. If you've seen it there, then maybe you're simply an a**hole in need of glasses.

[d-ray657]

And you would, of course, be incorrect.

I just don't believe in the so called social contract. If I chose to participate in philanthropic activities, or give a down and out friend or family member some money, them I'm at my liberty (there's that word again) to do so. Having the government take my earning via a tax and redistribute it based on a perceived societal need or, more likely, political gain is hardly supportive of any "social contract".

Then again there are those of us who believe that the wealth of society is made possible by the social structure in which it is created, including government. I believe that the distribution of the wealth thereby created should not be solely based on personal whim.

[whell]

Then again there are those of us who believe that the wealth of society is made possible by the social structure in which it is created, including government. I believe that the distribution of the wealth thereby created should not be solely based on personal whim.

And do you also agree that the redistribution of wealth should not be used to support a political agenda?

[ebacon]

And do you also agree that the redistribution of wealth should not be used to support a political agenda?


Whut? :confused:

[d-ray657]

And do you also agree that the redistribution of wealth should not be used to support a political agenda?

Who said anything about redistribution of wealth? There are methods of distributing wealth that are not equitable. Those who control capital who are keeping a disproportionate share of the increased productivity of American workers - or workers world-wide for that matter. The wealth is being distributed according to a system that favors money managers and deal makers above all others. A change in the system that corrects that way money is mis-distributed is not a redistribution of wealth but an correction in the way the fruits of our system are allocated.

[Rex E.]

Pick a nice land-locked state. Give it to them and tell them they can make it their own sovereign nation. Then cut off their funding, embargo any trade with them and refuse to let them travel on, over or under our soil. Sea ports only. We'll find out just how rugged and self-sufficient they are then.:p

Regards,
Dave


Your close on this one Dave but I've got even a better plan. Give them Texas. Drop plenty of flyers and and give plenty of notice then drone every bit of structure in the state that ever received federal money (schools, sewer systems, water treatment plants, roads...) because,... they didn't build that! Next we take a few lessons from them and build a wall along the tx border and let them know anyone crossing without permission will be shot on site (per their own desired way to deal with folks crossing the southern US border)

Next we sit back and watch as the central and south American drug cartels have their way with the new country of tx (which I suspect will be the old country of Mexico in short order)

Do you think they would support this?

Do you think it will dawn on them they have no military and no backing but the folks (south of the present border folks that is) looking at them sure do.......

[icenine]

This is the fundamental divide between people who see us as a loose assemblage of autonomous individuals and those of us who see us as a community. From my perspective, it's simple. My taxes go in part to rebuilding the Jersey Shore (or New Orleans or Galveston) and the taxpayers in New Jersey, Louisiana or Texas help to rebuild my community when the next big quake hits here. I don't like it any better than you do, whell, but you and I have an obligation to one another. We're all in this together.

John

Hey wasn't the auto bailout sort of a life raft to Michigan too? My taxes have helped you Whell. You do not want to help out Jersey? Many of whom will buy new autos since thousands were destroyed by Sandy.... that will further sort of help you out. I guess being a Buckeye myself I know the importance of the auto industry....maybe you live to close to the forest Whell.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-autos-auto-sales-20121204,0,2696209.story

[bobabode]

Your close on this one Dave but I've got even a better plan. Give them Texas. Drop plenty of flyers and and give plenty of notice then drone every bit of structure in the state that ever received federal money (schools, sewer systems, water treatment plants, roads...) because,... they didn't build that! Next we take a few lessons from them and build a wall along the tx border and let them know anyone crossing without permission will be shot on site (per their own desired way to deal with folks crossing the southern US border)

Next we sit back and watch as the central and south American drug cartels have their way with the new country of tx (which I suspect will be the old country of Mexico in short order)

Do you think they would support this?

Do you think it will dawn on them they have no military and no backing but the folks (south of the present border folks that is) looking at them sure do.......

We keep the Free State of Austin! (I heard they want to secede from Texas!):D

[finnbow]

And do you also agree that the redistribution of wealth should not be used to support a political agenda?

Any society that has taxation and a central government redistributes wealth. In fact, that's the entire point.:confused:

[whell]

Who said anything about redistribution of wealth? There are methods of distributing wealth that are not equitable. Those who control capital who are keeping a disproportionate share of the increased productivity of American workers - or workers world-wide for that matter. The wealth is being distributed according to a system that favors money managers and deal makers above all others. A change in the system that corrects that way money is mis-distributed is not a redistribution of wealth but an correction in the way the fruits of our system are allocated.

You just said a whole bunch about redistribution of wealth. Who runs this system that you've described above? Who determines how "the fruits of the system are allocated"? Who makes the rules, and who picks the winners and losers in such a system?

By the way, since a pretty fair number of those "deal makers" that you've cited above are attorneys, let's start there. Can you describe "a change in the system" that would "correct the way the money is mis-distributed" to them?

[BlueStreak]

Any society that has taxation and a central government redistributes wealth. In fact, that's the entire point.:confused:

You got it. Even taking our tax money and using it to; "...provide for the common defense.", is collectivism.

When you go to work for anyone in any setting other than self employment, and your employer takes revenues raised from the fruit of your labor and that of everyone else who works there and uses it to buy new equipment or pay for employeee benefits, etc.----this is collectivism.

Anytime a number of people work together for common benefit and the wealth generated is distributed through wages........What do you call that, Pat?;)

Regards,
Dave

[piece-itpete]

I completely agree with Whell on the social contract. Look at the very phrase. In this country, 'social' was to be OUTSIDE the scope of the federal government, and a 'contract' simply does not exist.

Any society that has taxation and a central government redistributes wealth. In fact, that's the entire point.:confused:

And, I disagree that it is the point :)

Pete

[finnbow]

I completely agree with Whell on the social contract. Look at the very phrase. In this country, 'social' was to be OUTSIDE the scope of the federal government, and a 'contract' simply does not exist.



And, I disagree that it is the point :)

Pete

The "social contract" isn't a contract just as beefsteak tomatoes are neither beef nor steak. Similarly, a turntable isn't a table. Your etymological argument is therefore meaningless.

As for your second point, any system in which you don't receive exactly the same amount of benefit from government as taxes paid is guilty of redistribution. Accordingly, there isn't a single city, state or country that imposes taxes and spends these tax monies that isn't guilty of redistribution.

[piece-itpete]

But it's not the point - it's to theoretically pay for the services we wish the government to provide.

Although in practice I agree with you. I pay for good roads but the money goes to early retirements for the hand picked.

Pete

[Boreas]

But it's not the point - it's to theoretically pay for the services we wish the government to provide.

Although in practice I agree with you. I pay for good roads but the money goes to early retirements for the hand picked.

Pete

What's your point, Pete? Is it that the government isn't supposed to provide services that you don't want it to?

As to your second point, not for the first time, I have no idea WTF you're talking about.

John

[icenine]

But it's not the point - it's to theoretically pay for the services we wish the government to provide.

Although in practice I agree with you. I pay for good roads but the money goes to early retirements for the hand picked.

Pete

You are so angry about unions Pete...what happened did you lose out on a union job somewhere down the line?

[piece-itpete]

I worked in a union shop once, a 3 month gig.

I liked some aspects of it and it wasn't a line (the restrictions would've driven me crazy). It was the Brotherhood of Carpenters.

The steward was a good fair man. Some of the workers though, I was told 'If this was Vegas your fingers would've been broken already' (because I worked hard).

Anyway that don't have anything to do with this :D My taxes (as a percentage of income!) have gone up, the roads are falling apart, and one city worker I spoke to a couple weeks ago complained to me that his spouse will no longer have paid medical when he takes early retirement - 'It's not fair.'

Long and short, I'm not knee jerk anti union, but they are totally out of control in the public sector. I don't hate you personally ice :D

Pete

[icenine]

I worked in a union shop once, a 3 month gig.

I liked some aspects of it and it wasn't a line (the restrictions would've driven me crazy). It was the Brotherhood of Carpenters.

The steward was a good fair man. Some of the workers though, I was told 'If this was Vegas your fingers would've been broken already' (because I worked hard).

Anyway that don't have anything to do with this :D My taxes (as a percentage of income!) have gone up, the roads are falling apart, and one city worker I spoke to a couple weeks ago complained to me that his spouse will no longer have paid medical when he takes early retirement - 'It's not fair.'

Long and short, I'm not knee jerk anti union, but they are totally out of control in the public sector. I don't hate you personally ice :D

Pete

Thanks...I do not hate you either...but unions are not strong anymore, and I do not think they are the reason America has declined. For whatever reasons in the last 30 years Americans have acccepted right to work states, lower wages, and less unions. Maybe because of a variety of factors. People in Ohio make less money than before...that is why your roads are not fixed. Back in the 70s when unions were big they were better right? At least in the Valley View section of Vermilion where I grew up.

[whell]

The "social contract" isn't a contract just as beefsteak tomatoes are neither beef nor steak. Similarly, a turntable isn't a table. Your etymological argument is therefore meaningless.

As for your second point, any system in which you don't receive exactly the same amount of benefit from government as taxes paid is guilty of redistribution. Accordingly, there isn't a single city, state or country that imposes taxes and spends these tax monies that isn't guilty of redistribution.

Two spurious statements meant to paper over the big picture IMHO.

First, the words "social contract" where chosen for a reason: to imply an obligation. The obligation doesn't exist in real terms and therefore the idea can be shaped and molded to whatever the user of the words "social contract" wants them to mean. Its not etymology, its marketing.

Second, the idea that the payment of taxes must be measured against the "benefits" received is and that all such benefits can only be expressed in monetary terms is a straw dog. Can you calculate, for example, the value of the benefit that I receive from living in a country that is - at least for now - governed under the terms of the US Constitution? Can you calculate the value that I receive from the $1.5 billion dollar foreign aid donation that we made to Egypt this year? Can you calculate the value derived from Interstate 75? Weren't you the one that chided me for suggesting that the effectiveness government spending should be determined based on ROI?

[whell]

So, social contract fans, what obligations does the social contract create that the city of Detroit should benefit from? Looks like they're asking us to be responsible for them and / or support them. If we have a responsibility to each other under the social contract, what does it look like in this case? Does Detroit have a right or a claim under the social contract to expect assistance?

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/20264712/detroit-councilwoman-to-obama-we-supported-you-now-support-us

What are the terms of the social contract that allows us to decide whether or not to support Detroit? And if so, how much support?

[icenine]

I do not mind helping out Detroit, even though my least favorite Political Chat blogger lives there;)

[piece-itpete]

LOL! Romney was right? ;)

Pete

[merrylander]

I worked in a union shop once, a 3 month gig.

I liked some aspects of it and it wasn't a line (the restrictions would've driven me crazy). It was the Brotherhood of Carpenters.

The steward was a good fair man. Some of the workers though, I was told 'If this was Vegas your fingers would've been broken already' (because I worked hard).

Anyway that don't have anything to do with this :D My taxes (as a percentage of income!) have gone up, the roads are falling apart, and one city worker I spoke to a couple weeks ago complained to me that his spouse will no longer have paid medical when he takes early retirement - 'It's not fair.'

Long and short, I'm not knee jerk anti union, but they are totally out of control in the public sector. I don't hate you personally ice :D

Pete

Taking early retirement means you do not get as big a pension as you would if you worked until 65. My former company in Canada still has both of us on their medical plan. But it only covers anything not in SinglePayer. I don't know about fair but it is pretty damn cheap IMO.

[piece-itpete]

I know what you're talking about Rob, but this is a government gig, full retirement at 30 years time and 'real' health care.

Pete

[barbara]

But it's not the point - it's to theoretically pay for the services we wish the government to provide.

Although in practice I agree with you. I pay for good roads but the money goes to early retirements for the hand picked.

Pete

Pete, it's hard to argue the fact that there are some gov employees that reap more (undeserved, in my opinion) than others. The same happens in private business and the consumers end up paying for it as well.
however, for the most part, gov employees just want to earn their pay fair and square just like the guy in the private sector.

[piece-itpete]

Barb I'm not targeting certain employees and don't blame them for taking what they can.

But in the private sector the free market keeps things in hand. In the public sector if the government's going broke it cuts services and raises taxes.

I remember when my 2% was enough to cover good roads, garbage pickup, cops, firemen, brush pickup. Now on top of a higher % the roads are <cough> terrible, they charge for garbage pickup, they charge for police calls (in some instances), they charge for an ambulance, they charge for fire service... when do we say uncle?

Pete

[icenine]

Barb I'm not targeting certain employees and don't blame them for taking what they can.

But in the private sector the free market keeps things in hand. In the public sector if the government's going broke it cuts services and raises taxes.

I remember when my 2% was enough to cover good roads, garbage pickup, cops, firemen, brush pickup. Now on top of a higher % the roads are <cough> terrible, they charge for garbage pickup, they charge for police calls (in some instances), they charge for an ambulance, they charge for fire service... when do we say uncle?

Pete

That is the private sector in action....401ks are not as good as pensions.
Lower wages bring about lower revenue.

Cleveland would still be a mess if you eliminated government jobs and pensions.

[Boreas]

Barb I'm not targeting certain employees and don't blame them for taking what they can.

But in the private sector the free market keeps things in hand. In the public sector if the government's going broke it cuts services and raises taxes.

I remember when my 2% was enough to cover good roads, garbage pickup, cops, firemen, brush pickup. Now on top of a higher % the roads are <cough> terrible, they charge for garbage pickup, they charge for police calls (in some instances), they charge for an ambulance, they charge for fire service... when do we say uncle?

Pete

Pete, the public and private sectors are in competition for workers. If market forces (can't believe I'm using that term) are allowed to operate a state of approximate equilibrium will result, resulting in more or less equivalent waged and benefits between the two sectors.

The problem is that the union worker is on the endangered species list where the private sector is concerned but is thriving in the public sector. That gives the public sector employees greater power to negotiate favorable wages and benefits. Private sector employees? Not so much. That's why things are out of kilter.

There are those who will say that the elimination of public sector unions is the answer and others who say a greater access to private sector unions is the remedy. Both would certainly have the effect of leveling the playing field but one solution reduces the standard of living for American workers, and the other improves it for all workers, union and non-union alike. Which is the better course?

John

[piece-itpete]

They only way unionization would work is if we returned to protectionism.

Btw, things were out of kilter before the crash, but the tax receipts were rolling in. Like back when the big 3 went crazy.

Pete

[Boreas]

They only way unionization would work is if we returned to protectionism.

We should return to protectionism. Tariffs and eliminating tax incentives for outsourcing are essential for our recovery.

Btw, things were out of kilter before the crash, but the tax receipts were rolling in. Like back when the big 3 went crazy.

Pete

The tax receipts haven't been "rolling in" since Clinton.... since Reagan, really.

You tend to post in a language only you understand so help a brother out here. What do you mean about the Big 3 going crazy?

John

[BlueStreak]

But it's not the point - it's to theoretically pay for the services we wish the government to provide.



And some of us wish to pay for more services than others. Some don't mind paying for things that others object to. (Certain wars for instance.) However, with government, if one must pay all must pay, so some end up paying for services they niether need nor want-----Collectivism & Redistribution.

Regards
Dave

[piece-itpete]

Protectionism is great, if one thinks a 74 Imperial is the height of reliability and value!

The big three gave the unions a lot when they were profitable.

Dave, how do I get roads that don't resemble something in Somolia?

Pete

[BlueStreak]

Dave, how do I get roads that don't resemble something in Somolia?

Pete

Write your governor. Oh, that's right, he's a Republican. Scratch that.

Dave

[Boreas]

Protectionism is great, if one thinks a 74 Imperial is the height of reliability and value!

The big three gave the unions a lot when they were profitable.

Dave, how do I get roads that don't resemble something in Somolia?

Pete

Why do you hate America, Pete?

John

[piece-itpete]

It just thinks it's sooooo exceptional.

:D

Pete

[bhunter]

They only way unionization would work is if we returned to protectionism.

Btw, things were out of kilter before the crash, but the tax receipts were rolling in. Like back when the big 3 went crazy.

Pete

That is precisely what is most wrong with unions. Protectionism and tariffs do nothing but increase costs to consumers and concomitantly lower productivity of a nation. Comparative advantage is important in a global economy and a single nation's errant pursuits, regardless of its economy stature, will not change that. Sadly, despite the well known historic failures, protectionism smacks of central planning.

[BlueStreak]

So, global free market princples are to be adhered to, regardless of the effect it has on the nations wage earners?

Regards,
Dave

[bhunter]

Twenty-Five percent of registered Republicans want their state to secede from the Union.

Crazy people.

John

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/03/1274231/25-percent-republicans-secede/

Toss in the 25% of crazy democrats and you have the 25% of idiots that comprise this nation.

[icenine]

That is precisely what is most wrong with unions. Protectionism and tariffs do nothing but increase costs to consumers and concomitantly lower productivity of a nation. Comparative advantage is important in a global economy and a single nation's errant pursuits, regardless of its economy stature, will not change that. Sadly, despite the well known historic failures, protectionism smacks of central planning.

So your cool with them importing a guy from another country that will do what you do for $10 bucks an hour? Or having your job outsourced to another country also? Taking your argument to extremes there should be no borders at all.

Once again you forget the huge role the Feds play in San Diego also...

[Boreas]

Toss in the 25% of crazy democrats and you have the 25% of idiots that comprise this nation.

You mean the 25% who wanted to secede from the Union when Bush won re-election?

Oh, wait! That never happened.

Never mind.

John

[barbara]

Barb I'm not targeting certain employees and don't blame them for taking what they can.

But in the private sector the free market keeps things in hand. In the public sector if the government's going broke it cuts services and raises taxes.

I remember when my 2% was enough to cover good roads, garbage pickup, cops, firemen, brush pickup. Now on top of a higher % the roads are <cough> terrible, they charge for garbage pickup, they charge for police calls (in some instances), they charge for an ambulance, they charge for fire service... when do we say uncle?

Pete

Pete, I've been a gov employee in upper management for twenty years. When I retire I will not get health care benefits and my retirement pension will be adequate, but certainly not as much as I could earn in the private sector.
There are gov employes that do get health care during retirement, but that is not the norm as some folks would want you to believe.
Since when does the private sector keep these things in check? There are CEOs making millions and getting big fat bonuses as their companies take bail outs from the gov...
As for how your tax money is spent.... When was the last time you attended a public hearing and voiced your opinion on the expenditures? One of the requirements of spending gov money is getting public input..... It's hard to get the public to participate in that process which makes it frustrating to hear people complain about how the money is spent.
Don't complain.... Participate in the process and help make the changes you want to see happen.

[icenine]

Toss in the 25% of crazy democrats and you have the 25% of idiots that comprise this nation.

I am far from an idiot my friend....:) Nice day today? not as cloudy as yesterday...

[piece-itpete]

Nah, the left just says they're moving to Canada or maybe New Zealand :p

Exporting ADA to help other folks are just fine, but don't for goodness sake let them share our prosperity, which also helps world peace. And helps them pay for the new and improved ADA our international masters would enforce ;)

Also we might be able to afford the premium union & protection demand (and increased car repairs!), but as a percentage of income the poor get nailed.

Interesting that it was the New Dealers that really started us on the globalization path.

Pete

[icenine]

Nah, the left just says they're moving to Canada or maybe New Zealand :p

Exporting ADA to help other folks are just fine, but don't for goodness sake let them share our prosperity, which also helps world peace. And helps them pay for the new and improved ADA our international masters would enforce ;)

Also we might be able to afford the premium union & protection demand (and increased car repairs!), but as a percentage of income the poor get nailed.

Interesting that it was the New Dealers that really started us on the globalization path.

Pete

If someone came to you and offered you a government job with pension and benefits what would you say? Yes or no?

That is what someone did to me out of the blue. As a free agent and at the mercy of market forces I thought for an 1000th of a second and said yes.
Can you blame me?

FDR had nothing to do with globalization...put that on Wilson lol...

[piece-itpete]

Pete, I've been a gov employee in upper management for twenty years. When I retire I will not get health care benefits and my retirement pension will be adequate, but certainly not as much as I could earn in the private sector.
There are gov employes that do get health care during retirement, but that is not the norm as some folks would want you to believe.
Since when does the private sector keep these things in check? There are CEOs making millions and getting big fat bonuses as their companies take bail outs from the gov...
As for how your tax money is spent.... When was the last time you attended a public hearing and voiced your opinion on the expenditures? One of the requirements of spending gov money is getting public input..... It's hard to get the public to participate in that process which makes it frustrating to hear people complain about how the money is spent.
Don't complain.... Participate in the process and help make the changes you want to see happen.

Last councilman that spoke up here got his tires cut. That said I agree, I should do more.

I know a little about 'some' plans. I realise that there are many different unions out there. But the guy mad about his spouse's future health care plan is city maintenence, really a landscaper...

There's a thread here I wrote about the teachers pay and benifits near me. They got at least 10 sick days with half being able to roll over! Apparently teachers do not have enough time off. Minor? By itself perhaps.

I know of nobody who gets time like that. Perhaps if I went to college and worked 80 hour weeks until 50 to become an executive.

I also know of no one that gets or will get a 'real' pension outside of one of my family, who retired under the Ohio public workers umbrella.

And the really bad thing is, I couldn't figure out what teacher pay really was, it was couched in a giant, I mean massive, load of obscuring bs.

Pete

[icenine]

I get 4 sick 6 vacation every two weeks.....it goes to 10 after 5 more years

hours not days

[piece-itpete]

Ice I have often thought about using my vac time to campaign for someone and hopefully get a gov't job, and I should've become a teacher years ago. I think I would've enjoyed teaching too.

Hell yes I'd take the job!

Pete

[icenine]

Ice I have often thought about using my vac time to campaign for someone and hopefully get a gov't job, and I should've become a teacher years ago. I think I would've enjoyed teaching too.

Hell yes I'd take the job!

Pete

you know I do hear you and understand the frustration....I just sort of see it from a different angle....I just wish it was better in the private sector than before. I realize that I am very fortunate...and of course when I go back to Ohio and see how things have changed and how bad some areas are it does make you wonder what happened. At the end of the day it is people with good jobs and money in their pockets that make things run well.

[piece-itpete]

I get 4 sick 6 vacation every two weeks.....it goes to 10 after 5 more years

hours not days

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/11/13/129026455670901616.jpg

:D

I worked many years to get 3 weeks :(

Pete

[piece-itpete]

you know I do hear you and understand the frustration....I just sort of see it from a different angle....I just wish it was better in the private sector than before. I realize that I am very fortunate...and of course when I go back to Ohio and see how things have changed and how bad some areas are it does make you wonder what happened. At the end of the day it is people with good jobs and money in their pockets that make things run well.

I do agree. We just differ on how to get there is all.

Drop me a line the next time you're up, we can get the one thing Ohios pretty good at:

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/Smileys/default/th_beerchug.gif

Pete

[icenine]

Like I said I am very lucky.....

I am not eligible for disability insurance however...
And my health care is Navy so I am not on the Federal insurance (that you do have to pay for btw)

[icenine]

I do agree. We just differ on how to get there is all.

Drop me a line the next time you're up, we can get the one thing Ohios pretty good at:

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/Smileys/default/th_beerchug.gif

Pete

The next time I am there I will drop by.....I will bring the Weidemans;)...joke....

there is a Filipino place in Parma that I would like to try...but what I really would like is a cheesburger at Ray's Place in Kent Ohio...

[piece-itpete]

Boy, nothing shows how the world's changed like 'there is a Filipino place in Parma' :D

Pete

[barbara]

Last councilman that spoke up here got his tires cut. That said I agree, I should do more.

I know a little about 'some' plans. I realise that there are many different unions out there. But the guy mad about his spouse's future health care plan is city maintenence, really a landscaper...

There's a thread here I wrote about the teachers pay and benifits near me. They got at least 10 sick days with half being able to roll over! Apparently teachers do not have enough time off. Minor? By itself perhaps.

I know of nobody who gets time like that. Perhaps if I went to college and worked 80 hour weeks until 50 to become an executive.

I also know of no one that gets or will get a 'real' pension outside of one of my family, who retired under the Ohio public workers umbrella.

And the really bad thing is, I couldn't figure out what teacher pay really was, it was couched in a giant, I mean massive, load of obscuring bs.

Pete

Pete, as far as teachers go.... My feeling is that they are waaaaaay under paid.
Yeah, they get summers off, but I have never met a teacher who didn't have to work in the summer just to make ends meet. And, if they do take time off in the summer it is to go to school to keep their credentials current.
And the holiday breaks they get are often times spent doing work at home such as lesson planning and catching up on paper work.
They have to buy supplies for classroom activities out if their own pocket. My sister purchases basics for her classes such as paper, pencils, staplers, etc. don't most jobs have a supply room for that stuff?
And then there are the extra things.... Things my sis doesn't HAVE to buy, but what decent human being can watch a child come to school in snowy weather wearing slippers and not go out and get a pair of shoes.....

As far as pensions, or the lack of them.... I don't know of a private sector job comparable to mine that doesn't get a retirement pension. Maybe that speaks more to the difference in people you and I know rather than pensions.

Also, I gotta wonder..... If gov jobs are all that great, why aren't people banging down the doors to get one?

Just out of curiosity, and if you don't mind saying, what kind of work do you do?

[piece-itpete]

I talk for a living :D

Sales. Wasted a lot of time younger on. Not doing too badly for a dropout ;)

Pete

[wgrr]

I don't know what numbers you are looking at for teacher salaries.

http://www.teacherportal.com/teacher-salaries-by-state/

I don't know where they get that $40,000 starting salary average for Arkansas. Last year the average teacher starting salary, in Arkansas, was $27,560 according to the UofA Dept. of Education.

Ohio is on the upper end of the scale but, nothing I would call exorbitant. To get to the higher salary usually requires 10 years of experience and a master or doctorate level degree. At that point most go into administration where the real money is made. The Fayettville public school superintendent makes $167,000 + $9,000 vehicle allowance a year.

I can only go by what I know from the many people I know that went out and made a pile of money in the private sector and in the last ten years took up the profession that we trained for in college, Music Ed. They are band directors at high schools. Band directors, fresh out of school, have a burn out rate of about six years. That is true of most teachers so no pension for you! It takes ten years to vest in a teacher pension plan here. Why do teachers quite? The answer is simple, they cannot live on the lire they earn. Career teachers are a thing of the past.

The new trend in this area is for bored housewives, married to wealthy executives, to go to school, get the certificate, and go to work teaching. The faculty parking lots are full of Mercedes, BMW's, with the occasional Bugatti, Austin-Martin, Ferrari, thrown in for good measure. You would think just by looking, at the parking lot, that teachers make at least $1.5 million a year. :D

The Teachers who have been made the scapegoat of all the financial woes of the cities shrinking budgets are the very people who sent a man to the moon, built the space shuttle, put the Hubble telescope into orbit, any technological advancement, in any country, can be traced back to the teacher that inspired a kid in school to become tops in his or her field.

Teachers need to be better compensated for what they do. They work very hard. Thinking that teaching is a cushy job with a lot of time off is delusional.

No one becomes a teacher for the money or a pension. They do it because they have a desire to impart empty minds with knowledge and hopefully become the teacher that is thought of by their past students as being, "the one..."

[BlueStreak]

The next time I am there I will drop by.....I will bring the Weidemans;)...joke....

there is a Filipino place in Parma that I would like to try...but what I really would like is a cheesburger at Ray's Place in Kent Ohio...

One of my brothers lives in Kent. Maybe if we find ourselves in the Buckeye state simultaneously, some day..........................

Dave

[piece-itpete]

That's a great idea! We should post or PM next time Ohio's on the menu.

Btw, I'll be in Ohio for a while. :D

Pete

[icenine]

A cheeseburger, bucket of greasy fries, and an ice cold pitcher of beer just south of South Water Street (not to mention some eye candy) is just the ticket for us old timers.
Of course since Pete is an Adminstrator he has to buy the first round:)

[piece-itpete]

http://muwhahaha.com/images/doh.png

D'oh!

Maybe try Great Lakes' Lake Erie Slime, um I mean Monster :)

Pete

[icenine]

http://muwhahaha.com/images/doh.png

D'oh!

Maybe try Great Lakes' Lake Erie Slime, um I mean Monster :)

Pete

Yuck...no toxic algae for me Pete:p

[piece-itpete]

They just released the next batch of 'Blackout Stout' :D

Pete

[BlueStreak]

I talk for a living :D

Sales. Wasted a lot of time younger on. Not doing too badly for a dropout ;)

Pete

So, you're basically a politician?

Regards,
Dave

[piece-itpete]

Brother, if you knew how close that is...

I think of politicians being salesmen that HAVE to close 51%.

But then, I actually deliver what I say :D

Pete

[icenine]

Brother, if you knew how close that is...

I think of politicians being salesmen that HAVE to close 51%.

But then, I actually deliver what I say :D

Pete

So what do you say when you close the deal? "You will find the Terminal Tower downtown";):D

[piece-itpete]

BAM!

:D

Pete

[BlueStreak]

Brother, if you knew how close that is...

I think of politicians being salesmen that HAVE to close 51%.

But then, I actually deliver what I say :D

Pete

I've dealt with the worst of the worst----used car salesmen. Total bottom feeders they are.:p

[piece-itpete]

Almost as bad as those lawyers :p

Pete