“I see no problem with RS telling the story of this kid and his actions, especially in the lead up to and immediately after the bombing. Tell us what happened and what led to his "radicalization". I do not see any good reason to put this specific picture on the cover. It definitely seems to me that RS is attempting to create a specific narrative led by this picture. First impressions are the most important.”
Eileenla on Jul 17, 2013 at 21:23:42
“One word: bin Laden. If you complained about his face on the cover of Time, okay. If not, ask yourself why. What's the difference?”
“You really should read the entire U.S. Constitution and not simply the parts that might support your biases and beliefs. The separate states were given the right to craft their own laws . It is a concept known as federalism.”
“The first problem I see is that all of these people seem to think their opinions matter. The FreedomWorks leadership couldn't care less about the local members' opinions. Dick Armey and his group are going to continue to push their "too much government, too many taxes" point of view. What these "grassroots" locals don't seem to understand is that they either pay SOME now to provide an education for the youth, or they will pay MUCH MORE later to support adults, and their families who have to live either in the welfare system or in the prison system.”
“The saddest part of this fight (and the others like it) is the fact that the ultra-rich corporatist, capitalists have figured out how to get the middle class to eat itself. How many of the "average joe" conservatives are in the same basic economic condition as the average union worker? I would say most if not all of us are in the same boat, and yet here we are fighting one another. Instead of focusing on the real issues facing all of us, we are calling one another names and beating each other over the head. WE are all doing THEIR dirty work. Make no mistake that one day all of us will be serfs working for the corporate masters if we don't come to this simple realization.”
“Wow, what to say. Your first paragraph states that unions are "out of hand" and that "while the majority of the work force is suffering, union salaries are rising."
Then you give statistics that show the opposite.
"From 2007 through 2009, according to the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, the average value of hourly compensation (wages plus benefits) rose by 9.8 percent for employees of state and local governments, compared with 6.9 percent in the private sector (http://bit.ly/cwWOzf)."
The stats you provide show an increase for both sectors, and the increase for unions is less than 2% more than that of the private sector. Hardly "out of hand" or "suffering".
The point I was making is that this had NOTHING to do with budgetary concerns and everything to do with union-busting. I'll ask you to read this article from the Weekly Standard. The entire article is interesting, but the last paragraph in particular is the most interesting. I think it proves a point regarding tax cuts in regards to the budgetary shortfall facing Wisconsin.
“I'm not really seeing anything in that article that supports the claim that what's being done has nothing to do with budgetary concerns.
The point I'm trying to make is that to say the bill has "NOTHING" to do with budgetary concerns is disingenuous. The bill is a massive document. Not every single part of it has a direct monetary impact, but certain aspects like curbing collective bargaining rights is meant to preserve the important parts of the bill.
It’s important to remember, that the decreases in unions powers in the bill isn’t as drastic as they are in other states (http://bit.ly/f1qPas). I understand, at the end of the day, it’s a question of what you fundamentally agree is the best way to deal with state budget deficits. However, as previously stated, to say that this had nothing to do with money seems insincere”
“Corporations and the rich have allied themselves with the Republicans to achieve special favors. Reduced tax rates and favorable legislation also at the expense of the taxpayer. Never forget that those public union employees ARE taxpayers.”
“A question for all of the people that agree with what Walker and the Fitzgerald brothers did here. If this was simply a question of budgetary concerns, as Walker claimed it was, then why the need to end collective bargaining? The unions had already agreed to concessions regarding health benefits and pensions. Plus, one follow up question. Again, if this was simply about budgetary concerns, why did the Republicans split this bill seperating the collective bargaining provision from the rest to get a vote that didn't require a quorum? This was simply a move to bust the unions.”
Phil-EA on May 26, 2011 at 15:03:59
“Had the collective bargaining provision not been included in the bill, the unions would have still had a very powerful position to negotiate wages and increase salary and benefits. Part of the reason that unions have gotten out of hand is that in the middle of crushing recession, while the majority of the work force is suffering, union salaries are rising.
From 2007 through 2009, according to the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, the average value of hourly compensation (wages plus benefits) rose by 9.8 percent for employees of state and local governments, compared with 6.9 percent in the private sector (http://bit.ly/cwWOzf).
David Neumark, a researcher at the University of California at Berkeley’s Institute of Business and Economics Research and one of the world’s foremost authorities on wage laws, has found that while living-wage laws do boost the income of a some low-wage workers, they also have “strong negative employment effects” – that is, they vaporize jobs. In one study, Neumark noted that 50 percent boost in the living wage produced a decline in employment for the lowest-skilled workers of between 6 and 8 percent (http://bit.ly/jcYav1).”
irishred on May 26, 2011 at 14:44:45
“Scotty Boy has already admitted the union stripping bill had nothing to do with the budget to the US congress awhile back.”
cavegal on May 26, 2011 at 14:44:37
“I agree that the move was definitely designed to bust the union. Fanned and Faved.”
“Still a long way to go in Fitzwalkerstan. I love the way Walker says that Wisconsin is in a terrible fiscal mess, but only after he gives million in tax breaks that affect the wealthier in the state. Then the Republicans pass a new voter law that is said to cost upwards of $8 million to implement.”
zunklives on May 26, 2011 at 14:23:55
“They have realized that they cannot win fairly, and must insure most dem voters be "banned" by some bs loophole”
Drash on May 26, 2011 at 14:22:50
“"Then the Republicans pass a new voter law that is said to cost upwards of $8 million to implement"...... for a problem that doesn't exist.”
“I do find it curious that the democratic appointees wrote the dissenting opionion on this. I'm wondering what their angle is.”
bejayech on May 26, 2011 at 13:57:10
“Here's their angle:
"The federal Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (Act or IRCA) pre-empts “any state or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ, or recruit,..."
They contend that the Arizona law violates this statute. In my mind, it's an attempt to say that only the federal goverment (who won't do anything about illegal immigration) can do anything about illegal immigration, regardless of the burden carried by the state. Glad this one went down the way it did...seems like the right decision.”
Oforotis on May 26, 2011 at 13:54:57
“Well you could read the opinion and find out.”
pflickner on May 26, 2011 at 13:52:51
“Did you read the dissenting opinions? (and a spell-checker is a wonderful thing).”
“This is a good decision. It affects the employers, like your neighbor, that hire the illegals. I suspect a "true" tea party member would agree with this decision, because it supports enforcement of the laws.”