NationStates

Revolutopia wrote:Where are you getting the idea that Healthcare reform bypassed the Senate? Only, thing I have read about it was that it was passed through budget reconciliation, meaning it only need 51 votes and the Republicans could not continue to filibuster the passage. You know the same tactics Republicans used to pass the Bush Tax Cuts back in 2001.

Kari-Kazzir wrote:Government workers don't deserve collective bargaining, they already get enough pay, plenty of sick days, vacation time, and a great retirement plan. The private sector actually needs to collectivley bargain because they aren't getting paid by the government to begin with. These men and women need to stop being so selfish, they work for the government- they get more than their share.

Kari-Kazzir wrote:Government workers don't deserve collective bargaining, they already get enough pay, plenty of sick days, vacation time, and a great retirement plan. The private sector actually needs to collectivley bargain because they aren't getting paid by the government to begin with. These men and women need to stop being so selfish, they work for the government- they get more than their share.

Buurdland wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:
Your logic... isn't.

The representatives are democratically elected, but that doesn't mean any given bill is going to be voted on democratically, since party politics is obviously going to figure into it.

For example - 60% of Americans favour a public option. If the bill creation/amendment process were truly democratic (apart from it being a horrible confusion, all the time), then politicians would not be voting along partisan lines, or trading favours - they'd be giving majority support to a public option.

But that's not the way it works, and most Americans understand that when they vote. They accept that they democratically elect (fairly democratically, at least) representatives who may or may not act democratically themselves.

Actually when the bill passed the support for it was polled as below 40% according to MSNBC, who tend to have a liberal bias. The fact that it skipped the Senate makes it almost exactly like the incident in Wisconsin, only this time an entire section of the Legislator has no say on if it passed or not. The Democrats had no say on if the bill passed or not, well the same went for the Senate with Obamacare. Which is worse, denying an opposing party a chance to vote on a bill or denying both your own party and the opposing party a chance to vote?

Grave_n_idle wrote:

Buurdland wrote:
Actually when the bill passed the support for it was polled as below 40% according to MSNBC, who tend to have a liberal bias. The fact that it skipped the Senate makes it almost exactly like the incident in Wisconsin, only this time an entire section of the Legislator has no say on if it passed or not. The Democrats had no say on if the bill passed or not, well the same went for the Senate with Obamacare. Which is worse, denying an opposing party a chance to vote on a bill or denying both your own party and the opposing party a chance to vote?

60% of Americans favour a public option. That's present tense, I'm not talking about ancient history. That's why I also mentioned 'amendment' in the context, after I mentioned the bill's creation. If the process were democratic, Republicans wouldn't be acting obstructive over what they are calling Obamacare, along party lines - they would be pushing for the public option that almost a supermajority want.

I feel like I've basically said that all before. How odd.

Regarding the Wisconsin situation, and how it compares to the healthcare option - politicians playing politics. Not sure what your complaint is. Unless you complained when Republicans were stringing Democrats along with filibuster games, you should have no real complaints about Democrats using whatever tricks are currently at their disposal.

Me - I wanted up-or-down votes both times... but I can see why politicians would play with whatever tools are at their disposal to get or block certain results.

Kari-Kazzir wrote:Government workers don't deserve collective bargaining, they already get enough pay, plenty of sick days, vacation time, and a great retirement plan. The private sector actually needs to collectivley bargain because they aren't getting paid by the government to begin with. These men and women need to stop being so selfish, they work for the government- they get more than their share.

Gun Manufacturers wrote:

Kari-Kazzir wrote:Government workers don't deserve collective bargaining, they already get enough pay, plenty of sick days, vacation time, and a great retirement plan. The private sector actually needs to collectivley bargain because they aren't getting paid by the government to begin with. These men and women need to stop being so selfish, they work for the government- they get more than their share.

I'm a federal employee (postal worker), and I get no sick days, vacation time, retirement, or health insurance. This is all because my job (Rural Carrier Associate) is not considered a career position.

Genivar wrote:

Kari-Kazzir wrote:Government workers don't deserve collective bargaining, they already get enough pay, plenty of sick days, vacation time, and a great retirement plan. The private sector actually needs to collectivley bargain because they aren't getting paid by the government to begin with. These men and women need to stop being so selfish, they work for the government- they get more than their share.

They got all those things BECAUSE they had collective bargaining.

Buurdland wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:
60% of Americans favour a public option. That's present tense, I'm not talking about ancient history. That's why I also mentioned 'amendment' in the context, after I mentioned the bill's creation. If the process were democratic, Republicans wouldn't be acting obstructive over what they are calling Obamacare, along party lines - they would be pushing for the public option that almost a supermajority want.

I feel like I've basically said that all before. How odd.

Regarding the Wisconsin situation, and how it compares to the healthcare option - politicians playing politics. Not sure what your complaint is. Unless you complained when Republicans were stringing Democrats along with filibuster games, you should have no real complaints about Democrats using whatever tricks are currently at their disposal.

Me - I wanted up-or-down votes both times... but I can see why politicians would play with whatever tools are at their disposal to get or block certain results.

My complaint is that Liberals are trying to act like what the Republicans was so horrible when they do the same. As you said politicians play politics, scapegoating one side to gain publicity only makes your side a bunch of hypocritic masks.

Kari-Kazzir wrote:Government workers don't deserve collective bargaining, they already get enough pay, plenty of sick days, vacation time, and a great retirement plan. The private sector actually needs to collectivley bargain because they aren't getting paid by the government to begin with. These men and women need to stop being so selfish, they work for the government- they get more than their share.

Kari-Kazzir wrote:Government workers don't deserve collective bargaining, they already get enough pay, plenty of sick days, vacation time, and a great retirement plan. The private sector actually needs to collectivley bargain because they aren't getting paid by the government to begin with. These men and women need to stop being so selfish, they work for the government- they get more than their share.

Grave_n_idle wrote:

Buurdland wrote:
My complaint is that Liberals are trying to act like what the Republicans was so horrible when they do the same. As you said politicians play politics, scapegoating one side to gain publicity only makes your side a bunch of hypocritic masks.

America needs healthcare reform. The massive majority supports some form of healthcare reform. The democratic thing, then - is to reform healthcare,

Republicans blocked healthcare reform rather than participate. They had the chance to give input, they demanded concessions (like the loss of the public option), and got their way... and STILL acted undemocratically, by voting along party lines to oppose.

I don't have a problem with them using 'tricks'. I have problems with them placing partisanship before need, and opposing the democratic will of the people.

In the case of Wisconsin, Walker is acting autocratically and unilaterally - not democratically. There is no consensus, nor has it been shown to be the will of the people. Opposing autocratic draconian powerplay with the same sort of tricks is not hypocritical. Because the situations are not the same.

You might as well argue that a girl who screams when she's being raped, but doesn't scream when she consents, is being hypocritical.

Buurdland wrote:As for Walker being autocratic, where is the proof that the MAJORITY of Wisconsin did not support at least weakening the unions? They have dealt with strikes during the recession, which started a lot earlier in the midwest, and many are fed up with unions I would assume.

Tokyoni wrote:

Revolutopia wrote:
Just a quick look over your page I can tell that you are a supporter of North Korea, so how can you really condem the U.S for civil rights violations when the the DPRK is a thousand times worse. But, I digress on topic calling for death on anyone is stupid.

No, I'd argue the US is far worse. Undeniably, objectively so.

It has the largest prison industry both in total numbers and per capita of any nation on the planet, disproportionately targeting racial minorities therein.

How many wars has the United States started in the past 60 years? How many has the DPRK?

How many CIA actions abroad has the US undertaken to undercut a democratic regime or support a dictator?

How many civilians has the US slaughtered and tortured in its imperialist ambitions?

Any rational, thinking person who supports the policy of such a nation against one struggling for liberation against imperialism is, in a word, evil.

Buurdland wrote:As for Walker being autocratic, where is the proof that the MAJORITY of Wisconsin did not support at least weakening the unions?

Rasmussen Reports wrote:Most Wisconsin voters oppose efforts to weaken collective bargaining rights for union workers but a plurality are supportive of significant pay cuts for state workers. Governor Scott Walker is struggling in the court of public opinion, but how badly he is struggling depends upon how the issue is presented. There is also an interesting gap between the views of private and public sector union families.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Wisconsin voters shows that just 39% favor weakening collective bargaining rights and 52% are opposed. At the same time, 44% support a 10% pay cut for all state workers. Thirty-eight percent (38%) are opposed. That’s partly because 27% of Wisconsin voters believe state workers are paid too much and 16% believe they are paid too little. Forty-nine percent (49%) believe the pay of state workers is about right. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Kari-Kazzir wrote:

Genivar wrote:
They got all those things BECAUSE they had collective bargaining.

No, they work for the government and they all vote to the left. That's their collective bargaining. Whenever a politician talks about reducing funding for education, people flip out and play the victim to ensure educators are paid more, this has nothing to do with their ability to work. When you work for the state itself you have nothing to answer to, the private sector answers to the state. This is why they have the right to collectively bargain, so they can make a decent wage. Workers that are covered by the government always make a decent wage, they're idiots to ask for even more.

Buurdland wrote:If I recall right the Republicans agreed with reform but not the way Obama and his cronies wanted it.

Buurdland wrote:Dems also played partisan. Again double fault.

Buurdland wrote:As for Walker being autocratic, where is the proof that the MAJORITY of Wisconsin did not support at least weakening the unions?

Buurdland wrote:They have dealt with strikes during the recession, which started a lot earlier in the midwest, and many are fed up with unions I would assume.

Grave_n_idle wrote:You remember the healthcare reform option the Republicans offered? You remember they kept bitching about how they weren't being given time for alternatives? You remember that their bluff was called, and they were asked to present their alternative, and Boehner and company waved a couple-of-dozen page folder around? You remember that it later came out the pages were blank?

Republicans weren't interested in reform - they were interested in being SEEN to be interested in reform.

Revolutopia wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:You remember the healthcare reform option the Republicans offered? You remember they kept bitching about how they weren't being given time for alternatives? You remember that their bluff was called, and they were asked to present their alternative, and Boehner and company waved a couple-of-dozen page folder around? You remember that it later came out the pages were blank?

Republicans weren't interested in reform - they were interested in being SEEN to be interested in reform.

I really think next year Obama needs to pull a Truman and call on the Republicans to present their complete proposal to enact Healthcare reform to country. Specifically one that addresses all the issues that people support in his proposed reforms, i.e no dropping for preexisting conditions, but still respecting patient and states rights. As honestly I doubt the Republicans having any such plan thus leading to fumble on their point as hey hastily a bill together or have to admit to the public they have no ideas.

Grave_n_idle wrote:

Revolutopia wrote:
I really think next year Obama needs to pull a Truman and call on the Republicans to present their complete proposal to enact Healthcare reform to country. Specifically one that addresses all the issues that people support in his proposed reforms, i.e no dropping for preexisting conditions, but still respecting patient and states rights. As honestly I doubt the Republicans having any such plan thus leading to fumble on their point as hey hastily a bill together or have to admit to the public they have no ideas.

I still think that - while it was bad politics - Alan Grayson had it right when he said that the Republican healthcare reform plan was 'don't get sick' and if you do get sick, 'die quickly'.

Luciratus wrote:...The Republicans preffered a less centralized style of reform...

Luciratus wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:
I still think that - while it was bad politics - Alan Grayson had it right when he said that the Republican healthcare reform plan was 'don't get sick' and if you do get sick, 'die quickly'.

Bullshit and Alan Grayson is an ass. The Republicans preffered a less centralized style of reform- such as making the existing systems more accessible and putting more funds into those programs (at least that is what they asserted). To suggest that they wanted to do nothing (especially when they made suggestions that merely differed from the Democratic plan) is asinine.

Tsa-la-gi Nation wrote:Absolulety not. Walker & his Nazis went way too far & extreme action breeds extreme action. They went for the juggular & they got their bloody victory & now they will get nothing done that will require any democrats support in their state. As a national side effect, they may have awaken what is left of the US labor movement. Government service workers are almost all AFL-CIO. This includes teachers, police, firefighters, postal workers, & so on. Imagine all those workers on a national strike. Sure it's illegal for government service workers to strike, but these people see attacks on collective bargining as an attack on their civil rights.

These people believe that right to work states are backwards throwback economic systems that go back to the days of near feudalism. What's next? Let's take away child labor laws, or overtime pay for over 40 hours of work. It doesn't matter if you agree with this point of view, as long as you understand that american workers fought & in some cases died for these rights. The Wisconsin Nazis should have known that union workers still remember this & hold these rights dear.

When Ronald Reagan died I believe that the air traffic controllers that supported him & then got fired by him, had every right to pick up a glass & toast to his death, cheering the worms to get fat on his rotting flesh. By god, every union worker in this country has the same right the day Walker dies as soon as he signs his USSRish bill into law. May his life be short & full of torment & upon his death, may the homeless use his gravesite as a latrine.

I am ashamed to see this country become a country that seeks to take away the standard of living of middle class workers. I thought we were the county that looked to the workers not doing as well & tried to figure out how to get them into the middle class, not the county that looks to the workers doing well & knock them out of middle class wages. Growing up, I was taught that's the sort of thing the USSR would do & that's why we needed to stand up to them.

Walker & his Nazis has done nothing but inspired me to make my union meetings for the 1st time in years & reminded me that rights are never given, they must be fought for. The fight maybe with words, protest, civil disobedience, arms or any combination of the listed. It's Walkers governing without any desire of concensus that is completey uncivil to say the least. More than likely the death threats are just an outlet for anger not felt of the like in years, but these Nazis will reap what they sow.

Grave_n_idle wrote:

Luciratus wrote:...The Republicans preffered a less centralized style of reform...

Less centralised is one way of putting it. "Partisanly blocking ANY reform, whilst offering nothing" would be a more accurate way to phrase it, I think.