Americans resist restrictive big government pushed by GOP.
@thegreatdebater (7316)
United States
November 9, 2011 11:37am CST
Last night one of the largest attacks on workers rights, and modern political fund raising was defeated handily in Ohio. State issue 2 was hammered by the people of Ohio, sending the new governor running back to his mansion with his tail between his legs. In Mississippi a bill restricting abortion was also shot down by voters, in a surprising manor. In Arizona, the author of their immigration bill was recalled, and lost. This has sent the far right reeling after they felt like they had a mandate to push this country in the direction they wanted. In the case of the two state issues they were to extend governments control over what the people could do, and restrict their freedoms. In both state cases people were ready to go as far as republicans wanted them to do. What does this say about the election next year? Are republicans going to be able to please their far right wing supporters who pushed bills like these (knowing they can't win a national election with just them), or are they going to push those ideas to the side in hopes of getting the centrist vote, in hopes that the far right would rather vote for ANY republican than a no vote which would be a vote for Obama?
1 person likes this
5 responses
@crossbones27 (48417)
• Mojave, California
9 Nov 11
It is about time, maybe some of these people are waking up from their coma and are starting to see what is really going on in this country. Can anyone tell me why the right insists on knocking unions into extinction? Is it because most of them support democrats for elections. That is a easy fix get money out of politics. Is it because they think union benefits are the major cause for are 14 trillion dollar deficit. I find that really hard to believe.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
9 Nov 11
I don't think it's simply an anti-union thing. It's that republicans oppose laws that FORCE people to join unions. I live in New Jersey, a forced union state. Since I work for the library I am forced to be in a union, and forced to collect dues. I don't like being forced to do things against my will and that goes double when those things are costing me money. The union has not negotiated a new contract since 2004. They are functionally useless. The only time they do ANYTHING is when someone complains that their boss is making them do more work than they want to. I actually got in trouble because someone complained that I was doing too much work and they were afraid I was setting a bad precedent since I was doing more than the union contract requires me to do.
I think anyone who wants to join a union should be free to do so. I think anyone who does NOT want to join a union should be free to do so as well.
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
9 Nov 11
Cross, the main reason is money. The only thing standing in the way of republicans ruling the airwaves are the unions. The other thing that bothers republicans is Americans working in factories making six figures a year, while many make less. It is a form of class warfare that you don't hear republicans talk about, but it is out there.
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
9 Nov 11
Taskr, who forces you to work at the library? Last time I checked you had the right to find another job, and I am sure you would make much less money, and spend A LOT more for your benefits. If you don't like unions than find a job that doesn't have a union, this isn't rocket science here.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
9 Nov 11
Well each state can do what they like. In Ohio they did end the law limiting public employee unions, but they also voted in an amendment to block Obamacare in Ohio so each side won something.
The Mississippi law was a long shot anyway. Even if it passed I don't see how it would go anywhere since the Supreme court invented a "right to abortion" that's not in the constitution.
I don't see enforcing immigration laws, that have been federal law for nearly 100 years, big government. Of course Democrats love illegal aliens because they see them as undocumented democrats and want those votes. Either way, the guy was replaced by another republican, not a democrat, and he had an ethics scandal that hurt him, so I don't see it as any big win for Democrats.
I don't really see any of this as a big deal. Unions have a lot of sheep so in a public vote, it's no surprise that they were able to push their agenda. They still failed in numerous other states so I don't see Ohio as a big victory when it's their only one in the last few years. Voters still support Arizona's immigration law and they still oppose Obamacare.
1 person likes this
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
9 Nov 11
Taskr, The amendment in Ohio to block Obamacare will not do anything to actually block it, it doesn't anything really but make people feel good. The Mississippi law was a big deal because of it happening in the bible belt, if it was anywhere else it wouldn't really matter. When it comes to Arizona, the man that was elected ran on using the federal government's law on immigration and working with the federal government on these law as a partner, and NOT supporting the Arizona law.
The win in Ohio is a big deal because Ohio is, for the most part, a republican state, and we all know that no republican has EVER won the white house without Ohio!!! If they can't push their party line here, then how are they going to do it throughout the nation?
1 person likes this
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
10 Nov 11
This bill had NOTHING to do with money, it was all about power. The people of the state told the governor that they didn't want to take away the right to collectively bargain. The unions have already said that they are willing to freeze pay (even though the governor, and all of his crones have said they will NOT do the same), and they are will to pay more for benefits. What would be nice to see if a across the board pay freeze for ALL public employees including bonuses. But, I will bet you any amount of money that this will NEVER happen. King Kasich would NEVER take a pay cut, even if it meant saving the state. He didn't do it when he was on Wall Street, why would he start now?
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
11 Nov 11
One problem that I know some people have with pay freezes and cuts is that they're for-the-moment measures with an understanding that once more money is freed up, unions will then begin their sweetheart deals with politicians again.
And to taskr's point up top - it's true that it's not the average public employee whose pay is so enormous and whose benefits are so vast. But I think some people have a problem with the way unions operate today, like being the public version of Wall Street with politicians in their pocket, and pushing tenure which traps bad teachers in the system and throws good ones out, and laying off and paying people based on time put in and not skill, and, of course, the whole being forced to join thing.
Should nothing happen to the unions to reign them in a little bit? Even these highly-paid federal employees don't have the "rights" that other public unions have. So where is the logic in any of this? Honestly.
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
12 Nov 11
Mater, would you rather see employees freeze their pay, or just tell everyone ELSE that they should sacrifice for the greater good, and force others to freeze their wages, while they have increased their own, and REFUSED to freeze their pay and bonuses? This is what is happening in Ohio, and that is part of the reason why this issue went down in flames.
I hate to tell you this but the very same thing happens with defense contracters who take government contracts, paid for with American tax payer dollars, then turn around and donate millions to the same congressmen that pushed them to get the contracts. This happens all the time in our government, and it is a problem across the board. If you want to highlight what the unions are doing then you should also looking what republicans are doing, and you might not be to happy about it.
If you want to reign in the unions than you should look at the US Chamber of Commerce, the defense industry, AARP, the NRA, and all of the lobbyist who are doing the same things that unions are doing.
@Fortunata (1135)
• United States
17 Nov 11
Are you a communist, bro? What the hell is restrictive big government? That doesn't even make sense. And the Republicans are not 'reeling'. The Democrats are gonna be reeling, kneeling, and puking on election night 2012, when their pink clouds and unicorn pooping hope and change icon is evicted from the White House.
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
10 Nov 11
There's that "rights" word again.
I know what type of person this must make me to some folks, but I strongly believe that no one has the right to negotiate for more of the public's money. It creates far too much corruption.
When you talk about "rights," you think of being free to practice your religion, being free to speak your mind, being free to live your life without government having its foot on your throat. Maybe it's just me, but I don't include bartering for more taxpayer money as an inherent right of people.
In real business, you can either do that or you can't. We don't need an NBA season. But with public service, you're pushing extortion if people decide that they deserve more money for collecting trash. You're messing with the fabric of society if people decide they want to do a half-a$$ job because they're not happy with their healthcare package.
And public unions always win because they are outside of the supply-and-demand laws of business. Governments run up debt and kick the can down the road just to appease the beast.
How is it anyone's "right" to operate within a system like that?
If Wall Street needs reforms, so too do unions.
I'm personally sick of hearing how tamping down union power hurts the middle class, hard-working public service employees. I don't believe that for a second.
It hurts the union bosses and the political figures they back. That's all.
As to Arizona, the federal government doing what it's supposed to do wouldn't have the states trying to do it. Simple as that.
As to Alabama, people's beliefs on where life begins is really no business of mine. I do have my opinions on the matter, but they're pointless.
