Like Tree29Likes

Thread: Why are you voting for whoever for President?

  1. #1
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    West Point, VA
    Posts
    435

    Default Why are you voting for whoever for President?

    Not appropriate for the General Forum, but I hope people see this. Havent seen this discussion recently and wanted to hear how others think. Would like the discussion to be about issues, but this is such a "hot" topic, I know that will be difficult.

    I am voting for Romney for President because of the reasons below. I do not think that Romney is the next Washington or Lincoln, but he is the person electable who most closely reflects the values that I have.

    1 - I believe America is the greatest country in the history of the world and its values should be furthered.

    2 - I believe the free market system is not only the best economic system based on economic reasons, but moral reasons as well. I am not stupid, however. There does need to be some regulation, but it should be minimal.

    3 - I believe the primary responsibility of the federal government is to protect our nation from foreign threats and our military must be strong.

    4 - I believe everyone should pay their fair share of taxes. There should be a set percentage rate for everyone with no loopholes. The tax system is too unwieldy and needs to be fixed.

    5 - I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman as outlined in the bible. I dont believe this is a federal issue.

    6 - I believe abortion is wrong except in the case of rape, incest or the health of the mother. I dont believe this is a federal issue.

    7 - I believe in a safety net to keep people from devastating poverty, but I dont believe in a system which allows people to receive benefits indefinitely. I believe such a system should be administered by the states, not the federal government.

    There are other issues to be discussed, but it is time for work.
    txgp17 likes this.

  2. #2
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    28

    Default

    I'm voting for President Obama for numerous reasons but here's a recent and important one.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1582045.html


    I will not support a presidential candidate who thinks it's a bad idea to hire more Firefighters, Police Officers, and Teachers. I also cannot support someone who will attack their pensions, benefits, etc.

    Just to add a little more:

    On June 8th in Council Bluffs, Iowa, Romney made comments disparaging Barack Obama for wanting more fireman, policeman and teachers. Romney also opposes both the SAFER Act and the FIRE Act, which provide personnel and equipment for local fire departments across the country. Since 2010, Republicans have cut the federal firefighting budget by more than $200 million, and the Ryan budget would accelerate that process at the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA), the United States Forest Service, and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
    Last edited by Dialed; 07-18-2012 at 06:56 PM.
    scfire86 likes this.

  3. #3
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    West Point, VA
    Posts
    435

    Default

    Definitely a poor way of phrasing it, but he was referring to using the federal government to hire public employees to bring the economy back to life. That is not the role of the federal government and even if it were, it will only help the economy in the short term. The private sector is what must thrive for the economy to be strong. That leads to more tax money coming into local governments and that leads to more hiring of firefighters, police officers and teachers.

    As far as taking away the public employee's pensions, benefits, etc. I agree that pensions that are already in place should not be touched unless the locality is going into bankruptcy, but at some point, new employee benefits have to be cut back. We cant keep spending more money than we take in.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    4

    Default

    This country is on a slippery slope. We are heading towards an economic disaster. It doesnt matter if its Romney (who wasnt that bad of a governor in Mass...he just made dumb choices), or Obama.


    The only thing that Obama has done is deleyed the bubble from popping (It will pop eventually though).

  5. #5
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    28

    Default

    I don't think President Obama is using the hiring of public employees to bring the economy back. Do I think it is part of his plan & do I think it should be? Yes. But that is far from President Obama's solution. As a matter of fact, he's done the opposite. As you suggested, private sector jobs have steadily increased while public sector jobs have decreased. When you think about it, that's basically what republicans want, less gov't and more private sector. Here's a chart to show it http://static7.businessinsider.com/i...0007/image.png

    When it comes down to it, I'd rather have a president that wants to have a more direct role in hiring Firefighters, Cops, & teachers as opposed to one that does not only not want to hire more Firefighters but wants to attack their pensions, collective bargaining rights, etc. The other day, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) said we should abolish unions all together. That would be devastating to all public employees including Firefighters, Police Officers, & teachers. I just can't get on board with the republican attacks on unions & public employees including Firefighters & Cops.

    To sum it up. I don't believe Romney will do anything to help or support Firefighters & Police Officers, and his latest speech is a good sign of that. At least President Obama will. Nothing wrong with getting the private sector going AND helping out the public sector too!
    Last edited by Dialed; 06-10-2012 at 11:34 PM.

  6. #6
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    West Point, VA
    Posts
    435

    Default

    Im confused. In your first sentence you say you dont think the President is using hiring public employees to bring the economy back and then say that is part of his plan in the next sentence. He specifically wants to increase the hiring of public employees in his jobs act.

    Public sector jobs have decreased only in state and local governments, not the federal government. The growth has been minimal, but it has not decreased.
    http://www.opm.gov/feddata/Historica...tSince1962.asp

    We will definitely have to agree to disagree about having a President who is directly involved with hiring firefighters, cops and teachers. They are not federal workers and apart from interstate/international crime, the issues they work for are local or state issues, not federal.

    Local or state government has to look at pensions related to budget cuts. If Romney is going after this, then I missed it and he shouldnt. This is not a federal issue.

    Gov. Daniels did not say we should abolish unions altogether. He said that public sector unions should be abolished. Why would this be devastating to public employees? Are there no firefighters, police officers and teachers in right to work states? The problem with these unions is twofold. They present an opportunity for politicians to "buy" votes if they agree to salary and benefits packages. Additionally the public sector is influenced by competition in the same way as the private sector.

    For example, the guy who works at the factory has a vested interest in seeing that their company is competitive with the other factory down the road. When his union sits down with management, they understand that the increase in salaries and benefits is determined by profit and ensuring they are competitive with the other factory. When public sector unions sit down to negotiate they do not have to be concerned with competition. Increases in salaries or benefits are only a matter of raising revenues, possibly through taxes. Public sector employees do not risk losing their jobs to competition.

    To say that Romney wont do anything to support firefighters and police officers is wrong. Helping the private sector improve (yes, it has improved steadily over the last 27 months, the rate of growth is horrible) at a greater rate will mean an increase in the need for firefighters and police officers. Romney's economic plan will do this. What is President Obama's economic plan?

    I will give you three more reasons I am voting for Romney:
    1) He is for school vouchers which allow parents to choose the best school for their child.
    2) He understands that, despite being difficult, entitlements have to be cut in order to increase the stability of our economy/government.
    3) He is for virtually eliminating the dept. of education which has a horrible record for helping education in this country.

    Your last sentence is something we can definitely agree on, it is just that we disagree on how to get there.
    txgp17 likes this.

  7. #7
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    116

    Default

    Is this what you really believe?

    Spencer says "Gov. Daniels did not say we should abolish unions altogether. He said that public sector unions should be abolished. Why would this be devastating to public employees? Are there no firefighters, police officers and teachers in right to work states? The problem with these unions is twofold. They present an opportunity for politicians to "buy" votes if they agree to salary and benefits packages. Additionally the public sector is influenced by competition in the same way as the private sector.

    For example, the guy who works at the factory has a vested interest in seeing that their company is competitive with the other factory down the road. When his union sits down with management, they understand that the increase in salaries and benefits is determined by profit and ensuring they are competitive with the other factory. When public sector unions sit down to negotiate they do not have to be concerned with competition. Increases in salaries or benefits are only a matter of raising revenues, possibly through taxes. Public sector employees do not risk losing their jobs to competition."

    Well Spencer, I say Your ignorance is bliss if you think firefighters go to elected officials and bribe higher pay and benefits, and their jobs cant be outsourced. Why are you even on this site? To push an imaginary agenda. Wake up.

  8. #8
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    West Point, VA
    Posts
    435

    Default

    I realize "buy" votes probably brought about the image of guys in back rooms with money in an envelope. That is not what I meant. Instead, public sector unions allow "buying" votes because the representative from local government can make concessions in exchange for the bloc of union voters.

    You are right, firefighter positions can be outsourced to the private sector or another locality. This is still relatively recent and therefore not common.

    I'm not on here to just talk about my side, I would be happy to hear the issues as you see them surrounding this argument. Tell me why public sector unions are necessary or better. I work/live in a right to work state. Perhaps I am completely mislead.

    I know I have ****ed off alot of people (many of whom I respect here) simply because I am on this side of things, however that is the way I feel and am not going to shy away from that.

  9. #9
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    I realize "buy" votes probably brought about the image of guys in back rooms with money in an envelope. That is not what I meant. Instead, public sector unions allow "buying" votes because the representative from local government can make concessions in exchange for the bloc of union voters.

    You are right, firefighter positions can be outsourced to the private sector or another locality. This is still relatively recent and therefore not common.

    I'm not on here to just talk about my side, I would be happy to hear the issues as you see them surrounding this argument. Tell me why public sector unions are necessary or better. I work/live in a right to work state. Perhaps I am completely mislead.

    I know I have ****ed off alot of people (many of whom I respect here) simply because I am on this side of things, however that is the way I feel and am not going to shy away from that.
    Spencer, outsourcing is not new. In my 37 year career I have seen it happen several times. If you live in a right to work state, I guarantee lobbying in your state is to a much higher degree (with higher risks associated with it) than a state that has collective bargaining rights, and recognition. If everyone was fair, consistent, and honest, unions would not have to exist. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Negotiations are held in private with your employer (if you have recognition), not with your elected officials. Lobbying elected officials surrounds working conditions, such as better equipment, health and welfare, presumptive laws, staffing, better training, protection against employers who violate labor laws consistently, and terminate without due cause. Since you are back east, I would encourage you to go visit the IAFF, or your state firefighters association. I dont know of too many successful locals that are not engaged in their communities, giving back countless hours and support. Since I do work in a state with recognition and collective bargaining, I can tell you negotiations are done in good faith.

  10. #10
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    West Point, VA
    Posts
    435

    Default

    I really appreciate your insight. It is good to hear the other side of things without the hype or emotion. That seems to prevail in most discussions instead of exchanging facts and ideas. Not that it will completely change my mind, just as I know I will not change yours. It is still good to discuss this stuff. That is one of the great things about our freedom. We have the right to differing opinions and expressing them.

    While Virginia is a right to work state, I know of no municipal fire service, law enforcement or educational institution that is contracted to the private sector and none that are looking to examine that option. I certainly dont know the intricacies of every labor negotiation across the state, so I could be wrong, but I am pretty well informed.

    I dont have a problem with private sector fire service. I firmly believe competition is a good thing as long as performance and quality standards are held high and accountability is maintained. With that said, I know that there are problems with private sector service as well. Recently a company that provided services to a corrections department was found to be bribing judges to keep people incarcerated because they were paid according to number of inmates.

    I understand that negotiations are held in private with the employer, not with the elected official, but the job of Fire Chief is a completely political job. That is not to say they are out in the community campaigning, but that they have to play the game of politics with the elected officials. That is how they get resources. For example if the elected official is influenced by the union, that elected official will influence the Fire Chief.

    I dont think unions are evil and I think most people (especially firefighters) operate from a position of honesty, not one where they are trying to take advantage of the public trust. The issue I have is that the opportunity exists and there are people who will take advantage of that. The ability of a union to influence political leaders, financially or by other means, who will then vote on their salaries and benefits is rife with this same opportunity. And while private sector opportunities do exist there are very few localities nationwide that can "fire" the union if improprieties exist. That cant happen with collective bargaining. It can happen with competition.

    Remember, we are not just talking about firefighters. We are talking teachers and law enforcement and other workers. A teacher's union had the power to write the contract which stated that a certain insurance company be used. That company had close ties and was influenced (they had a position on the board) by the union. http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/...health-care-c/

    Public unions have negotiated and received "defined benefits" pensions. That was a great victory and was achieved when public employees earned a great deal less than their private counterparts. That is not the case now. Private companies have "defined contribution" pensions because they understand that investing can be a gamble.

    I was a member of the IAFF and they do great work in the community. I am unsure why this cannot be done without the union?

    I also had an issue that the IAFF helped me with, but Virginia's being right to work did not prevent this.

    My disinfatuation with the union started when the people who were supposed to be representing me and who I was giving to were standing behind Obama. This was not in line with my values and expectations. My resignation came when Obama nominated Sotomayor (she was against the New Haven firefighters). Where was the union then? It really bothered me that someone who was indebted to our union for helping get him elected would choose such a person. What a slap in the face to the union.

    Your post helped me realize that my issues are not completely with public sector unions, but instead against collective bargaining, the lack of competition and not being right to work.

  11. #11
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,302

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    I dont have a problem with private sector fire service. I firmly believe competition is a good thing as long as performance and quality standards are held high and accountability is maintained. With that said, I know that there are problems with private sector service as well. Recently a company that provided services to a corrections department was found to be bribing judges to keep people incarcerated because they were paid according to number of inmates.
    Can you point to a locale (with a population larger than 500K) that utilized private fire protection? Why do you think there are none?

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    I understand that negotiations are held in private with the employer, not with the elected official, but the job of Fire Chief is a completely political job. That is not to say they are out in the community campaigning, but that they have to play the game of politics with the elected officials. That is how they get resources. For example if the elected official is influenced by the union, that elected official will influence the Fire Chief.
    Nothing wrong with that when one understands the chief may not have the best interests of his firefighters in mind. My observation of upper management was that they were pretty much out for themselves and could care less about the men and women on the floor.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    I dont think unions are evil and I think most people (especially firefighters) operate from a position of honesty, not one where they are trying to take advantage of the public trust. The issue I have is that the opportunity exists and there are people who will take advantage of that. The ability of a union to influence political leaders, financially or by other means, who will then vote on their salaries and benefits is rife with this same opportunity. And while private sector opportunities do exist there are very few localities nationwide that can "fire" the union if improprieties exist. That cant happen with collective bargaining. It can happen with competition.
    This paragraph makes no sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Remember, we are not just talking about firefighters. We are talking teachers and law enforcement and other workers. A teacher's union had the power to write the contract which stated that a certain insurance company be used. That company had close ties and was influenced (they had a position on the board) by the union. http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/...health-care-c/
    Irrelevant to firefighter issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Public unions have negotiated and received "defined benefits" pensions. That was a great victory and was achieved when public employees earned a great deal less than their private counterparts. That is not the case now. Private companies have "defined contribution" pensions because they understand that investing can be a gamble.
    That has nothing to do with why companies eliminated DB plans. They were eliminated to cut costs. A good number of all those mergers in the 80's were done so the acquiring companies could get their hands on the overfunded pension plans. It was one of the ways Romney's company made a lot of money (for the principal officers). In fact, defined benefit plans are very popular in the private sector amongst the prinicipal executives.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    I was a member of the IAFF and they do great work in the community. I am unsure why this cannot be done without the union?

    I also had an issue that the IAFF helped me with, but Virginia's being right to work did not prevent this.
    Until you are more specific in your issue, this statement is only an opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    My disinfatuation with the union started when the people who were supposed to be representing me and who I was giving to were standing behind Obama. This was not in line with my values and expectations. My resignation came when Obama nominated Sotomayor (she was against the New Haven firefighters). Where was the union then? It really bothered me that someone who was indebted to our union for helping get him elected would choose such a person. What a slap in the face to the union.
    The IAFF is there to support candidates that will be supportive of wages, hours, and working conditions for firefighters. The candidates or elected official's position on a Supreme Court nominee is not part of their purview. Sotomayor upheld the law as she saw fit during the New Haven case, and it was upheld by an appeals court as well. So there was no slap in the face.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Your post helped me realize that my issues are not completely with public sector unions, but instead against collective bargaining, the lack of competition and not being right to work.
    Outstanding. Since you believe that public sector unions are not helpful, why do you take the benefits acquired by a politically active organization? How big a check do you write back to your parent agency every month to assuage your guilt over the compensation that was acquired by the union?

    Have you not been paying attention to conservative rhetoric? Public employees and their benefits are being blamed for every issue plaguing the nation. I have to say I am amazed you would support a group whose desire is to gut you like a tuna.

    To answer your question. I'll be voting for Obama. I believe he has done an excellent job given the disaster he was handed by his predecessor while having to fight an opposition party that won't even vote for it's own economic legislation. Romney has made it clear he wants to return to the policies of the Bush Administration. Once was enough.
    Last edited by scfire86; 06-12-2012 at 09:45 AM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  12. #12
    Forum Member
    HuntPA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Northwest PA
    Posts
    499

    Default

    I will not be voting for Obama. This is because I do not believe that his policies are in line with what I believe to be the best course of action for the nation.

    While I do believe that their needs to be some oversight and regulation in industries (including banks, mortgage equity firms, and even agriculture) it has been proven true throughout the nation's history that when the government feels that it knows more than the industry experts, things go downhill. The nation's agricultural economy is so upside down, that we are paying farmers not to plant crops, encouraging the dumping of milk, and subsidizing the largest crop growing industries and not the farmers who need the susidies is counter productive. This is not President Obama's fault, nor is it the fault of any of the recent presidents. This only serves as an example of when the government tries to "jump start" the economy. Soon the subsidies, regulations, and policies become a growing, living monster that becomes too large to kill.

    Government's role is for protection, not to be the all-wise decision maker and economy regulator. I feel that if we had more natural peaks and valleys in the economic cycle, there would not be the extreme peaks (from propped up values based off policies aimed at getting lower income families into home ownership) and valleys (the innevitable realization that values were inflated). I also think that this would force people to start to live within their means.

    I do not agree with everything Romney says, what he has done, or what he promises, but I do know that the policies and economics that the President adheres to are not what I agree with.

    Sorry if my post is in no way related to the fire service, but I feel that the needs and direction of the nation are more important than just the issue of firefighting. That become a lot larger issue for me when voting for congressional seats, senators, and state officials.

    This also does not delve inot the issue of broken campaign promises no matter how unrealistic they were.
    -8% unemployment could not happen even if President Obama had gotten everything he asked for, it is a function of the economy and free markets which he cannot control.
    -Universal Health Care is not universal if the first thing that is done is creating over 800 exemptions for people like elected federal officials and their immediate families, certain union interests, and others. If it is a truely good system, everyone should be on it. I realize that Romney may not be very (if any) different on health care, but he did not make it a campaign promise.
    -If things are not realized in his first term he would not run again. Amaizing how that one has been forgotten.
    txgp17 and msalf like this.

  13. #13
    the 4-1-4
    Jasper 45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    ...A great place, on a Great Lake
    Posts
    2,784

    Default

    The IAFF is there to support candidates that will be supportive of wages, hours, and working conditions for firefighters.
    Maybe they should be informed of this because that sure is not their past practice, in my experience.

  14. #14
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,302

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HuntPA View Post
    I will not be voting for Obama. This is because I do not believe that his policies are in line with what I believe to be the best course of action for the nation.

    While I do believe that their needs to be some oversight and regulation in industries (including banks, mortgage equity firms, and even agriculture) it has been proven true throughout the nation's history that when the government feels that it knows more than the industry experts, things go downhill. The nation's agricultural economy is so upside down, that we are paying farmers not to plant crops, encouraging the dumping of milk, and subsidizing the largest crop growing industries and not the farmers who need the susidies is counter productive. This is not President Obama's fault, nor is it the fault of any of the recent presidents. This only serves as an example of when the government tries to "jump start" the economy. Soon the subsidies, regulations, and policies become a growing, living monster that becomes too large to kill.

    Government's role is for protection, not to be the all-wise decision maker and economy regulator. I feel that if we had more natural peaks and valleys in the economic cycle, there would not be the extreme peaks (from propped up values based off policies aimed at getting lower income families into home ownership) and valleys (the innevitable realization that values were inflated). I also think that this would force people to start to live within their means.

    I do not agree with everything Romney says, what he has done, or what he promises, but I do know that the policies and economics that the President adheres to are not what I agree with.

    Sorry if my post is in no way related to the fire service, but I feel that the needs and direction of the nation are more important than just the issue of firefighting. That become a lot larger issue for me when voting for congressional seats, senators, and state officials.

    This also does not delve inot the issue of broken campaign promises no matter how unrealistic they were.
    -8% unemployment could not happen even if President Obama had gotten everything he asked for, it is a function of the economy and free markets which he cannot control.
    -Universal Health Care is not universal if the first thing that is done is creating over 800 exemptions for people like elected federal officials and their immediate families, certain union interests, and others. If it is a truely good system, everyone should be on it. I realize that Romney may not be very (if any) different on health care, but he did not make it a campaign promise.
    -If things are not realized in his first term he would not run again. Amaizing how that one has been forgotten.
    So how much of your pay and benefits are you willing to give up? Because the GOP has made it very clear that public servants are vastly overpaid and curtailing or eliminating their compensation is one of the ways to set things right. Meanwhile the private sector executives have no problem enriching themselves while destroying the middle class.

    Many of the policies you complain about were put in place long before Obama was president. More importantly, many of those subsidies are aggressively supported by conservative electeds. Meanwhile your pension is being blamed for all the country's fiscal ills while corporations are paying zero in taxes despite record profitabilty.
    Last edited by scfire86; 06-12-2012 at 09:15 PM.
    Dialed likes this.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  15. #15
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,302

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jasper 45 View Post
    Maybe they should be informed of this because that sure is not their past practice, in my experience.
    Like what for example?
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  16. #16
    the 4-1-4
    Jasper 45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    ...A great place, on a Great Lake
    Posts
    2,784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Like what for example?
    Well, a lack of any kind of support over the past nine budget cycles which resulted in a reduction of close to three hundred members. (and yes, help was requested)
    Or, the actively campaigning for a politician who has dropped millions upon millions of dollars into a failing radio system, which places us (the firefighters) along with the police (they're on the same system) in danger quite routinely, due to lost signals, especially when the radios get wet, dirty, etc... It's a very good thing that doesn't happen at any fires...
    Those are just the top two that come to mind; there are more examples, but these are the most visible.
    Last edited by Jasper 45; 06-12-2012 at 09:45 PM.

  17. #17
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,686

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    ...public servants are vastly overpaid and curtailing or eliminating their compensation is one of the ways to set things right. Meanwhile the private sector executives have no problem enriching themselves while destroying the middle class...
    Just curious, but why are you comparing all public servants to private sector executives? Why are you not mentioning the large number of private sector workers who are part of that middle class? I know of quite a few public servants who are far far better off than private sector workers. And I'm not seeing those public servants complaining about it nor offering to take the cuts in pay/benefits that the private sector middle class has been given.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  18. #18
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,302

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    Just curious, but why are you comparing all public servants to private sector executives? Why are you not mentioning the large number of private sector workers who are part of that middle class? I know of quite a few public servants who are far far better off than private sector workers. And I'm not seeing those public servants complaining about it nor offering to take the cuts in pay/benefits that the private sector middle class has been given.
    As usual you're missing the point. I'm impressed you are defending people who have made it their mission to decimate the compensation of public sector employees.

    I utilized the compensation of executives to point out that not everyone is suffering. In fact while the middle class is being asked to sacrifice, there are many who are doing quite well. And in fact, not paying taxes at all.

    So just out of curiousity, how much are you willing to pay? Because a Romney presidency has made it clear that is one of their goals.
    Last edited by scfire86; 06-13-2012 at 08:48 AM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  19. #19
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,302

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jasper 45 View Post
    Well, a lack of any kind of support over the past nine budget cycles which resulted in a reduction of close to three hundred members. (and yes, help was requested)
    Or, the actively campaigning for a politician who has dropped millions upon millions of dollars into a failing radio system, which places us (the firefighters) along with the police (they're on the same system) in danger quite routinely, due to lost signals, especially when the radios get wet, dirty, etc... It's a very good thing that doesn't happen at any fires...
    Those are just the top two that come to mind; there are more examples, but these are the most visible.
    Were the alternative candidates better who supported firefighter issues?
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  20. #20
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,686

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    As usual you're missing the point. I'm impressed you are defending people who have made it their mission to decimate the compensation of public sector employees.

    I utilized the compensation of executives to point out that not everyone is suffering. In fact while the middle class is being asked to sacrifice, there are many who are doing quite well. And in fact, not paying taxes at all.

    So just out of curiousity, how much are you willing to pay? Because a Romney presidency has made it clear that is one of their goals.
    And I utilized the point of public servants not suffering at all either. And I know you don't want to consider other unions, but many teachers in NJ ain't suffering either thanks to their union.

    How much am I willing to pay? I took a 20% paycut to work where I am now. Why? Pay was only 1 factor. Other things outweighed that 1 factor.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  21. #21
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,302

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    And I utilized the point of public servants not suffering at all either. And I know you don't want to consider other unions, but many teachers in NJ ain't suffering either thanks to their union.
    I'm betting the 600K public servants who have lost their jobs since the beginning of the Great Recession would disagree with you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    How much am I willing to pay? I took a 20% paycut to work where I am now. Why? Pay was only 1 factor. Other things outweighed that 1 factor.
    A paycut from where? Regardless, the current conservative mindset is that you're overpaid. They don't care about your sob story.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  22. #22
    the 4-1-4
    Jasper 45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    ...A great place, on a Great Lake
    Posts
    2,784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Were the alternative candidates better who supported firefighter issues?

    Well, I guess that comes down to perspective. My opinion, and that of many others in my local are yes, there was.
    Politician "A" is a known "enemy" of fire service staffing, having their actions speak much louder than words. Any of the other four candidates in a recent race would have been better. In fact, the IAFF endorsed the only candidate that stated firefighters should lose the ability to collectively bargain and, actively lobbied for it.

    The politician we chose to endorse, as a local, has an actual known history of standing up for firefighters and police officers.

    Go ahead and spin it, I know you're just dying to. That won't change the fact the IAFF does not live up to what we pay them to do. I stand with my local 100%, no question about it. However, the current IAFF and other state level associations...here...leave a lot to be desired. The "brotherhood" exhibited here over the past eighteen months is in that same category, as well. Had the international offered up even 1/10th of what they threw out in Madison, in record setting times, I have no doubt that many of our cuts would have been prevented.
    How many times did both Obama and Biden ride thru this state over the past five years? All those trips thru and our general president didn't make one effort to whisper in the ear of our mayor or, have either Biden or Obama make a phone call to help. All that was given was a cursory appearance by the fifth district VP, several years ago...once...

    Actions speak louder than words. One candidate cuts firefighters; makes firefighters' jobs more difficult by wasting money and providing ineffective communication devices. The other stands up and actually takes action to support firefighters and police officers...

    I know this topic is off track as the thread seems to deal with presidential politics, but it's a good topic.
    Last edited by Jasper 45; 06-13-2012 at 12:18 PM.

  23. #23
    Forum Member
    HuntPA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Northwest PA
    Posts
    499

    Default

    I guess I should have clarified. I am not a paid firefighter. I am a civil engineer working in the private sector.

    I understand that there are the underlying tones of kill the unions, but I do not see that as a presidential issue. Nor do I believe that either candidate would undertake a large scale attack or defense of unioins whether they be private or public sector. Again, this is more of a congressional if not state issue.

    I do understand that under the Affordable Healthcare Act, my family must get our insurance through my job rather than my wife's because the religious organization she works for would rather pay the penalties than offer services counter to their beliefs to employees as mandated by the legislation. I also see where many of Bush's policies and programs that were protested in the past have not been repealed or have even been extended.

    I have 2 boys under the age of 3. President Obama promised a recovery and gains economically that have been missed so badly, that I cannot take the risk of more of his failed policies and spending putting my kids more in debt. I would rather have that burden than trying to spend our way out of things so that future generations are left with the bill. I would rather suffer through a recession / depression than have my children or grandchildren go through one.
    txgp17 and msalf like this.

  24. #24
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,302

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HuntPA View Post
    I guess I should have clarified. I am not a paid firefighter. I am a civil engineer working in the private sector.
    And your point?

    Quote Originally Posted by HuntPA View Post
    I understand that there are the underlying tones of kill the unions, but I do not see that as a presidential issue. Nor do I believe that either candidate would undertake a large scale attack or defense of unioins whether they be private or public sector. Again, this is more of a congressional if not state issue.
    You may not see it as a presidential issue. But conservatives have made breaking up unions a priority.

    Quote Originally Posted by HuntPA View Post
    I do understand that under the Affordable Healthcare Act, my family must get our insurance through my job rather than my wife's because the religious organization she works for would rather pay the penalties than offer services counter to their beliefs to employees as mandated by the legislation. I also see where many of Bush's policies and programs that were protested in the past have not been repealed or have even been extended.
    There are things my taxes pay for that I don't support but I pay them anyway. It's how our system of government operates. I'll trade you the amount of money you might have to pay for healthcare insurance for the amount of money I pay for government subsidies to private companies or to the mulit-million annual salaries enjoyed by executives whose companies have government contracts as their sole source of revenue.

    Quote Originally Posted by HuntPA View Post
    I have 2 boys under the age of 3. President Obama promised a recovery and gains economically that have been missed so badly, that I cannot take the risk of more of his failed policies and spending putting my kids more in debt. I would rather have that burden than trying to spend our way out of things so that future generations are left with the bill. I would rather suffer through a recession / depression than have my children or grandchildren go through one.
    Funny stuff. The only times conservatives care about debt and deficits is when a Dem is in the White House. You must have been asleep the eight years between Jan. 2001 and Jan. 2009 when the so called "fiscal conservative" doubled the national debt. Were you concerned about putting your kids in debt when Bush ran up about $5.5T worth of debt? As much as all of his predecessors combined. You claim Obama has missed the mark on recovery. Where is the GOP jobs plan they promised would be their priority on Day One when they took control of the House. Over a year later and no jobs legislation has emerged from that group. In fact, conservatives have become so dysfunctional they vote against their own legislation.
    Last edited by scfire86; 06-13-2012 at 02:53 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  25. #25
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,686

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    ...executives whose companies have government contracts as their sole source of revenue...
    Again, just curious, but is there something wrong with a company focusing on government contracts? or is there something wrong with that company making profit from it?
    txgp17 likes this.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. membership voting
    By FF7679 in forum Volunteer Forum
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-31-2010, 03:00 PM
  2. Voting compromise
    By fyrmed in forum Career/Paid Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-15-2009, 04:00 PM
  3. Even though Im voting for....
    By BCmdepas3280 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-28-2004, 09:19 AM
  4. Voting for Officers
    By thoskin in forum Volunteer Forum
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 08-05-2002, 10:29 AM
  5. Juniors Voting
    By HF&R_H28 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-21-2002, 10:47 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register