1. #76
    FIREMAN 1st GRADE
    E40FDNYL35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1999
    Location
    Malingering
    Posts
    3,643

    Default

    swrr88 you made it clear your out of FirePac and that's OK and Your decision. But please remember FirePac supports all candidates that support us.
    Now if or when Mr. Kerry wins or loses our message got out. I said it earlier, I don't agree with the IAFF all the time. But early on in my career I got involved with my Union. I have been a Delegate for over 11 year now. I also said earlier I NEVER voted for a Democrat. But our message about helping Firefighters is on the table on a National platform. New York closed Firehouses down because we HAD to spend money on the WAR on TERROR. Mr. Kerry bought that point out. Mr. Bush forgot us.
    Last edited by E40FDNYL35; 02-26-2004 at 11:22 AM.
    ALL GAVE SOME BUT SOME GAVE ALL
    NEVER FORGET 9-11-01
    343
    CAPT. Frank Callahan Ladder 35 *
    LT. John Ginley Engine 40
    FF. Bruce Gary Engine 40
    FF. Jimmy Giberson Ladder 35
    FF. Michael Otten Ladder 35 *
    FF. Steve Mercado Engine 40 *
    FF. Kevin Bracken Engine 40 *
    FF. Vincent Morello Ladder 35
    FF. Michael Roberts Ladder 35 *
    FF. Michael Lynch Engine 40
    FF. Michael Dauria Engine 40

    Charleston 9
    "If my job was easy a cop would be doing it."
    *******************CLICK HERE*****************

  2. #77
    MembersZone Subscriber
    swrr88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Nashville, Tennessee
    Posts
    79

    Default

    From Firefightersforkerry.org..."John Kerry has supported the IAFF's FIRE Act, which provides grants directly from the federal governments to local fire departments... John Kerry's initiative for homeland security would supplement law enforcement officers with the National Guard, involving them in homeland security in case of a terrorist event. Americorps funding would be doubled so that its' mission will include assisting with medical response and community planning..."

    Fire ACT is functioning under President Bush and gives millions out every year. The National Guard is always considered a supplement to the police in times of emergency and are actually directed from the States anyway. Americorps has absolutely nothing to do with emergency response but is a public works program that the democrats love. Doubling the money of a group that will make very little real impact isn't ground breaking.

    "...John Kerry's plan will immediately clear out the backlog of requests from local fire departments for training and equipment they so desperately need to do their job as homeland defenders. Further, the Department of Homeland Defense would be required to work with metropolitan areas to formulate basic standards of response for chemical, biological and other catastrophic attacks...."

    HE personally will clear out the backlog? The department he takes over will be the same organization that is backlogged now. Its like a governor saying he is going to make the DMV less congested. How exactly do you do that? Same amount of people dealing with the same amount of work...just say you will and it counts. Also, the Homeland Defense is already working with metro governments. You may not think they have done enough but they are. Remember that every city thinks they deserve more time and money. So what's new about that?

    "...John Kerry believes that technology needs to play a major role in homeland defense. His plan would provide fire fighters radios with the interoperability functionality that they need to better coordinate their emergency response, and that investment needs to be made so that critical communication is made easier..."

    Good one. An easy target because of some high profile failures especially on 9/11. But is he saying the federal gov't is going to buy every city radios? They are going to design, select, and pay for all fire fighters' radios in America? Anyone believe that one? All the mayors, councils, and states are going to let Washington tell them what and how much they have to spend on radios? Oh, maybe they will make a recommendation and some grants...sort of like...now.

    A real ground breaking, earth shaking Homeland defense plan he has there. A whole lot of...of...of what? Sounds good though.

    "...(proposes)a program to put 100,000 new fire fighters on the job. This plan is similar to the successful "COPS" program for police officers... The funds will come directly from the federal government, so they will be less likely to become tangled in government bureaucracy..."

    How do you afford such a cost without raising taxes since you also promised everyone radios, health insurance to the majority of americans, reimbusement of health care costs to companies, tax credit for college tuition, tax credits to keep employees, more homeland defense, and oh yea...the war. "roll back the Bush tax cut only on the wealthest 1%"....hope we have a lot of wealthy people.

    Funds directly from the Fed to reduce bureaucracy? Is the same Fed you just said is backlogged with request for homeland defense funds? Must be a different Fed...one that's not already full of bureaucracy.


    John Kerry is the working man's man. That's why in December he made a speech saying that out sourcing (that evil term) in some respects is good for America...just like he trashed Bush for...and that anyone who says they can stop it is lying....I guess he's been lying then.

    He now says he will take away tax breaks from companies that leave but even democratic legal people say that's unlikely and their own business people say would do little good plus you can't force them to stay. He even said he would push to force companies to pay people in other countries more, again the democrats own legal people say that's not possible since we don't make their laws for them.

    Now his plan is to make companies going overseas give their employees 3 months notice. WOW! Another great plan to save the economy...90 days notice. Don't be honest and say the truth that is as long as it cost 3-4 times more money to make something here than elsewhere (with or without NAFTA) companies who have to make a profit will leave. Don't be honest and say you can't have your cake and eat it, too. You want high pay? You wany lots of benefits? You want lots of rules and regulations to make our lives better at work? Well, when times are tough then that company is outta here because it can't survive otherwise. Instead tell everyone in the rustbelt that you are going to fix the evils of the Bush administration even though you know you can't. All you can do is hope the economy gets stronger and pushes up demand which will help.
    " The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." - Samuel Johnson

  3. #78
    MembersZone Subscriber
    swrr88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Nashville, Tennessee
    Posts
    79

    Default

    More Kerry the working man's man who can be trusted...Washingtonpost just a day or so ago..."...If he becomes president, Kerry said, "Our government won't provide a single reward for shipping our jobs overseas or exploiting the tax code to go to Bermuda to avoid paying taxes while sticking the American people with the bill."


    Washington Post today..."Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, frequently calls companies and chief executives "Benedict Arnolds" if they move jobs and operations overseas to avoid paying U.S. taxes.

    But Kerry has accepted money and fundraising assistance from top executives at companies that fit the candidate's description of a notorious traitor of the American Revolution.

    Executives and employees at such companies have contributed more than $140,000 to Kerry's presidential campaign, a review of his donor records shows. Additionally, two of Kerry's biggest fundraisers, who together have raised more than $400,000 for the candidate, are top executives at investment firms that helped set up companies in the world's best-known offshore tax havens, federal records show..."


    Washignton Post..."On Monday, Kerry was asked why two of his biggest fundraisers were involved with "Benedict Arnold" companies. "If they have done that, it's not to my knowledge and I would oppose it," Kerry told a New York television station. "I think it's wrong to do [it] solely to avoid taxes."

    Then he sought to clarify his position: "What I've said is not that people don't have the right to go overseas and form a company if they want to avoid the tax. I don't believe the American taxpayer ought to be giving them a benefit. That's what I object to. I don't object to global commerce. I don't object to companies deciding they want to compete somewhere else.''


    "...According to federal election records, Kerry has received $119,285 from donors employed at what Citizen Works describes as the "25 Fortune 500 Corporations With the Most Offshore Tax-Haven Subsidiaries." The list does not include nearly all of the companies that shave their tax bill by moving jobs and operations overseas, so Kerry has actually raised substantially more from firms qualifying as "Benedict Arnolds."


    Kerry is touring the Rust Belt trashing Bush for helping the same companies he, too, is taking money from. Bush has more donations than Kerry but hasn't been screaming how evil these companies are, and Edwards has much, much less money from any of them...even though he isn't yelling all across the nation about the evil corporations either.
    " The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." - Samuel Johnson

  4. #79
    FIREMAN 1st GRADE
    E40FDNYL35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1999
    Location
    Malingering
    Posts
    3,643

    Lightbulb

    swrr88 is President Bush bringing up my SPECIAL INTERESTS on a National platform? Mr. Kerry is...

    I don't care about the other issues...YET. I'm not pulling the handle down today...No, not till November. So in the mean time what about my SPECIAL INTEREST? Where do FireFighters fit in to Mr. Bush's plan's on a National level?
    Last edited by E40FDNYL35; 02-26-2004 at 06:05 PM.
    ALL GAVE SOME BUT SOME GAVE ALL
    NEVER FORGET 9-11-01
    343
    CAPT. Frank Callahan Ladder 35 *
    LT. John Ginley Engine 40
    FF. Bruce Gary Engine 40
    FF. Jimmy Giberson Ladder 35
    FF. Michael Otten Ladder 35 *
    FF. Steve Mercado Engine 40 *
    FF. Kevin Bracken Engine 40 *
    FF. Vincent Morello Ladder 35
    FF. Michael Roberts Ladder 35 *
    FF. Michael Lynch Engine 40
    FF. Michael Dauria Engine 40

    Charleston 9
    "If my job was easy a cop would be doing it."
    *******************CLICK HERE*****************

  5. #80
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Duffman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Chicago area
    Posts
    780

    Default

    swrr88, you have demonstrated your ability to knock Kerry. What I haven't heard about is who you think the IAFF should have endorsed instead, and why. Now, on to your last posts.

    Fire ACT is functioning under President Bush and gives millions out every year.
    President Bush, in his first budget proposal as president, intended to eliminate it all together. The IAFF, NVFC, and IAFC all lobbied for it. Bush's good friend, Joe Albough [sp] then head of FEMA, went to bat and saved it. Bush has never fully funded it however. His 2005 budget calls for reducing it by 250 million.
    Americorps has absolutely nothing to do with emergency response but is a public works program that the democrats love. Doubling the money of a group that will make very little real impact isn't ground breaking.
    Perhaps you didn't read carefully enough. Doubling Americorps will add assisting with medical response to its duties. It could have a huge impact.
    How do you afford such a cost without raising taxes since you also promised everyone radios, health insurance to the majority of americans, reimbusement of health care costs to companies, tax credit for college tuition, tax credits to keep employees, more homeland defense, and oh yea...the war. "roll back the Bush tax cut only on the wealthest 1%"....hope we have a lot of wealthy people.
    It is called the SAFER Act. It has already been signed into Law by Bush. The trick is, it still has to pass appropriations in a republican controlled congress. There is no gaurantee that it will come to fruition.
    You want high pay? You wany lots of benefits? You want lots of rules and regulations to make our lives better at work? Well, when times are tough then that company is outta here because it can't survive otherwise.
    Can't survive what? Can't survive without not paying taxes?
    Can't survive without giving multi million dollar bonuses to CEO's who are already stealing from the company? Give me a break. These companies are not struggling to survive.
    All you can do is hope the economy gets stronger and pushes up demand which will help.
    Do you think that happens in a vacuum? The government doesn't influence it at all?
    Kerry is touring the Rust Belt trashing Bush for helping the same companies he, too, is taking money from. Bush has more donations than Kerry but hasn't been screaming how evil these companies are, and Edwards has much, much less money from any of them...even though he isn't yelling all across the nation about the evil corporations either.
    He took their money. No doubt. The question is will he do what he said he would do. That is yet to be seen. He may even return the money. Wether he does or not, what is important is what he does about the issue if elected. Time will tell.
    "We shouldn't be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them in New York City."

    IACOJ

  6. #81
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Duffman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Chicago area
    Posts
    780

    Default This just in.

    For those slamming Kerry for his "anti-defense" record:
    After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. … The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office.
    - George H.W. Bush, Jan. 28, 1992.

    Overall, since I've been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend. … And now we're adding to that another $50 billion … of so-called peace dividend.

    Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements. … You've directed me to buy more M-1s, F-14s, and F-16s—all great systems … but we have enough of them.
    -Then Defense Secretary Dick Cheney Jan. 31, 1992

    Oh, and Kerry's vote to cut $1.5 billion from the "intelligence budget".

    The Air Force's National Reconnaissance Office had appropriated that much money to operate a spy satellite that, as things turned out, it never launched. So the Senate passed an amendment rescinding the money—not to cancel a program, but to get a refund on a program that the NRO had canceled. Kerry voted for the amendment, as did a majority of his colleagues.
    Context is a bitch isn't it.
    "We shouldn't be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them in New York City."

    IACOJ

  7. #82
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    57

    Default

    I support Firepac due to the greater good. Although some are complaining about these monies going to Mr. Kerry, remember that these donations are used for a number of political candidates who are supporters of IAFF issues. If you are displeased with the way the IAFF is spending these funds, send them a letter and let them know your opinion. But I hope that no one stops supporting Firepac just over the endorsement and support of one candidate when the greater good is accomplished by this fund by supporting many other candidates who are good to the IAFF. Even if you don't like Mr. Kerry, you have to admit that he does have a good record on fire service issues. Thus, it should be no surprise that he received the IAFF endorsement and support.

  8. #83
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    57

    Default

    I was really shocked when I watched the news and saw Mr. Kerry's victory speech after the Iowa primary. The shocking part was seeing Mr. Schaitberger standing directly behind Mr. Kerry during the entire speech. That spot is usually reserved for only the biggest supporters and politicians who are close to the candidate. I guess the early IAFF endorsement and great amount of support really impressed Mr. Kerry. Mr. Schaitberger's position behind Mr. Kerry is a first and very prestigious.

    My only concern is how close is Mr. Schaitberger getting to Mr. Kerry. Is he just being a good supporter, or is he looking to receive something for his own personal benefit? I guess we'll find this out if Mr. Kerry wins in November. If Mr. Schaitberger receives a top political appointment in the Kerry administration, some may question the support, and amount of support, that the IAFF gave Mr. Kerry. If the position which Mr. Schaitberger receives would help IAFF issues that may not be such a bad thing, but if the position only helps Mr. Schaitberger that will really upset many IAFF members. They will feel that the IAFF support was only a front to help Mr. Schaitberger receive a personal gain. Though, I would not be suprised if Mr. Schaitberger doesn't get an appointment if Mr. Kerry wins.

  9. #84
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    57

    Default

    Someone made an earlier post on here that if we elect Mr. Kerry that we will get universal health care coverage. You've got to be kidding me. Remember, Bill Clinton stated the same thing to get elected back in 1992. Where's our health care coverage? I do agree that there needs to be improvements in our health care system which will provide greater access to this health care. But there is no way we would be able to afford this venture and maintain the high level of health care and the amount of medical research from occuring. We would have to bankrupt this country a few times over to afford this.

    For example, the Bush administration just passed a prescription drug benefit for seniors under the medicare program. The estimates are that this will cost in the area of 500 million dollars a year when this is fully implemented in 2005. This is just one benefit for one group in our society, and look at the cost. Now imagine having to provide a comprehensive health care plan with a prescription drug benefit to all 250 million Americans. Does anyone have a calculator big enough to do that math?

    If Mr. Kerry wants to give specifics along with their costs on how he will improve health care in this country that would be nice. To just claim health care for all Americans sounds nice and is a very noble thought, but is very unrealistic. Unless he has some magic formula for doing this. But he has to let us in on this secret before we give him blind trust on this topic as many did for Bill Clinton. Remember, after 8 years of Clinton nothing I can recall was done in the area of health care. He also gave these lofty promises with no specifics. It shouldn't be hard to figure out why. Don't be fooled a second time around.

    As for those who say that other countries have access for all to health care, do your homework. There are also many negatives to socialized medicine. That's one of the reasons we still have the system we have now. I personally believe that although our system does need some serious fixing and improvements, that it is worth more to make these efforts than to go to a socialized medicine system.
    Last edited by DCFDL36; 02-26-2004 at 08:25 PM.

  10. #85
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    57

    Default

    Mr. Kerry talks about making big corporations pay their fair share of taxes by undoing the George Bush tax cuts which favored the wealthy. Well, Mr. Kerry is married to Teresa Heinz. She is a millionare from being related to the Heinz Ketchup empire in Pittsburgh, PA. Does this mean that he is going to go after his wife's company by making them pay more taxes? Thus, is this just talk to get elected by Mr. Kerry or would he really do this. He would probably make sure that his friends in Congress do what they always do when it comes time to make changes to the tax code. On the surface it sounds real tough and that great changes are being made, but the devil is in the details. They write the tax codes so that there are so many loopholes and other ways around the new regulations that the real wealthy and the big corporations still end up paying the same amount of taxes that they always did, sometimes even less!

  11. #86
    MembersZone Subscriber
    swrr88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Nashville, Tennessee
    Posts
    79

    Default

    Bush Policy....


    "...The U.S. Government provided $7.8 billion in grants between 2002 and 2003 to help state and local responders and emergency managers prepare for terrorist attacks.

    HHS, now a critical biodefense entity, distributed $1.1 billion in assistance to state and local governments for improved planning and increased preparedness, including rapid secure communications and laboratory capacity as well as hospital preparedness and infrastructure improvements.

    The National Response Plan is being used to coordinate and integrate all federal incident prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery capabilities.

    The President directed the development of a National Incident Management System (NIMS) to make local, state, and federal agencies interoperable during incidents..."

    "We're providing $5.6 billion over the next decade to fund Project BioShield. Under this program, DHS will work with the Department of Health and Human Services to accelerate the development and procurement of advanced vaccines and treatments to protect Americans against biological, or chemical, or radiological threats.

    We're providing $4 billion in grants for our nation's first responders. We're focusing $725 million on major urban areas where it is most needed. We're also providing $40 million for Citizen Corps Councils through which volunteers work with first responders to prepare their communities for emergencies. We're ensuring that America's firefighters and police officers and emergency medical personnel have the best possible training and equipment and help they need to do their job. "

    President Bush....

    "And so the 2003 budget proposes $3.5 billion in federal aid to state and local first-responders. (Applause.) That is a thousand percent increase over what our government has spent. (Applause.) It's necessary money. It's part of the $38 billion budget I'm going to be asking for for homeland security. It's absolutely necessary that we spend the money, and that we spend it correctly....Part of our task is to recognize there's 36,000 local jurisdictions all around the country. And how do we make sure there are some standards, how do we make sure, you know, that the fire hydrant hookup works in one city and can go across the region and fit another city? How do we make sure information flows properly? How do we make sure there's mutual aid agreements in the neighborhoods? How do we make sure that the communications equipment and the rescue equipment is compatible not only within a state but nationwide?
    Those are the tasks ahead, and that's part of the challenge we face. But I'm confident that if we work with you, we can meet the challenge. There's no question in my mind that, given the right impetus and the right focus, the right communications and the right money, we can make it work. We have no choice. We're all charged."

    We find ourself in a moment of history where we, as leaders, must respond, and we will, and we will respond. It is -- sometimes you get to pick your moments and sometimes you don't. (Laughter.) And we're here now in the middle of a war and I want to thank you all for understanding the call. And we're not going to blink as a nation, and I know you won't blink as mayors. You accept your responsibility and I accept mine."


    Now, there is always a political side to any sort of presidential policy regardless of the party or person. However, how can the IAFF say that supporting Bush would be a serious risk to a fire fighter and his/her profession? Where does anything that Kerry say trump Bush? Because he made a blanket promise to hire a 100,000 fire fighters that he knows he isn't obligated to do once elected, and that it wouldn't be up to him to fund in the end anyway?
    " The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." - Samuel Johnson

  12. #87
    MembersZone Subscriber
    swrr88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Nashville, Tennessee
    Posts
    79

    Default

    Who should they have endorsed? Why didn't they endorse Edwards?

    "...The administration may think domestic defense is about changing the color code from yellow to orange. Let me tell you something: the colors that will make America safer are firefighter red, EMT white, and police officer blue."

    "Edwards introduced legislation to provide $50 billion for cash-strapped states and local governments. Included in the funding was a $10 billion infusion for homeland security to be split between states and major cities. Then funds could be used to hire, retain, and equip police officers, firefighters and EMTs."

    " Edwards introduced legislation to offer college scholarships to students who commit to serving in shortage homeland security professions for at least five years after graduation. "

    "Senator Edwards voted against President Bush’s tax cut, which overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy, while forcing the budget into deficit and leaving working families with too little. During debate on the Bush tax cut, Edwards worked to provide more benefits to middle and lower-income families, by voting to expand the 15 percent tax bracket while decreasing the amount of tax cuts for the top bracket, and voting to make the HOPE tax credit refundable."

    "Edwards will cut taxes by 10 percent for U.S. manufacturers who invest and create jobs within the United States. He will cut taxes the most for companies that keep the highest proportion of jobs in the U.S., so companies that outsource work overseas will lose benefits."

    Kerry voted for NAFTA...something that even CNN couldn't get a clear answer from the AFL/CIO president about. Why support the democrat who voted for the one thing you are so against? Edwards did not support NAFTA. Edwards comes from a working class background and has a positive message and has been constant in supporting working class issues. He isn't taking large amounts of money from the very groups and companies he screams are the evils of politics such as Kerry.

    Kerry is a flip flopper. He has a long hx of saying one thing and doing another later when its more popular. The Boston Globe said its been following him for decades and still has problems keeping his stands on issues straight. Edwards was a better fit but somehow didn't get the endorsement. Why not?

    FIRE PAC is supposed to support issues important to the IAFF's members. Who decided that Kerry was better than edwards? The money goes to FIRE PAC so that money can be donated as if from individuals but the decisions are the ones made by the Union chiefs not the members. That's the exact thing the laws were supposed to prevent. Its made up of individuals in money only.
    " The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." - Samuel Johnson

  13. #88
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Duffman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Chicago area
    Posts
    780

    Default

    FIRE PAC is supposed to support issues important to the IAFF's members. Who decided that Kerry was better than edwards?
    Of course the IAFF people in Washington (the office, not the DC local) chose Kerry. That is how it works. That is what we pay dues and contribute to FIREPAC for. We expect the elected leaders of the IAFF to make these decisions. That is what they are elected to do.

    Who decides what roads get improved in your community?
    Who decides what buildings get built in your community?
    Who decides how your tax dollars are spent?

    ELECTED OFFICIALS

    The IAFF is no different. If you don't like the results of the elections, put your butt where your mouth is and get out there and work for change. Educate your members. Become one of those elected officials.
    "We shouldn't be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them in New York City."

    IACOJ

  14. #89
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,108

    Default

    I have a question on the SAFER program. Isn't it set up the same as the 100,000 more cops plan? The first year is paid 100% and the percent decreases for a few years and then the salary and benefits become the sole responsibility of the local government? If so doesn't it just create a flase boost in staffing initially and then end up dropping staffing again as these people replace people lost through retirement and such?

    As far as FIREPAC goes. I do not donate to it. I quit right about the time our Union supported Al Gore. I don't want my money supporting candidates I don't. They may support one "special interest" that I care about, but if they don't support my beliefs as a whole I will not sell out for that one issue. I wish FIREPAC allowed us the choice to choose which candidates we wanted our money to go to. If they did, then I may donate again.

    FyredUp

  15. #90
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,682

    Default

    If so doesn't it just create a flase boost in staffing initially and then end up dropping staffing again as these people replace people lost through retirement and such?
    It did in my town. But SAFER won't have the same effect, my FD is volunteer.
    "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?

  16. #91
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    57

    Default

    I hope that members don't get turned off to supporting Firepac just because of their disagreement over the support and endorsement of one candidate. If you don't like the endorsement the union made, call them or e-mail them or write them and let them know how you feel. Also, next time we are heading for an election, once again contact them and let them know which candidates you like and the reasons you wish that the IAFF will decide to support those candidates.

    I know that some are turned off by the fact that we have to use our Firepac monies to get the support of candidates. Maybe that does stink, but that's the way the political system works in this country. We all wish it was better, and that the importance and nobility of a cause was grounds to receive a politicians support rather than money. But that is not reality. The true reality is that if we don't get involved as a union in supporting our desired candidates with our votes, in their campaigns, and with our money, then someone else will. And then that someone else will get what they want and we'll be on the sidelines crying about how we can't get what we need. Even though our cause is just, we can't be naive as to how the system works. Either you accept it and get involved and win, or you lose. Why do you think that the cops always got more than we did? This wasn't purely by accident. Their unions and members are very active politically. That is why we always came up short in the past. It's only been approximately in the last 12 years that the fire service got it's act together and started to become a player in national politics. The results should be obvious.

  17. #92
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Duffman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Chicago area
    Posts
    780

    Default

    I have a question on the SAFER program. Isn't it set up the same as the 100,000 more cops plan? The first year is paid 100% and the percent decreases for a few years and then the salary and benefits become the sole responsibility of the local government? If so doesn't it just create a flase boost in staffing initially and then end up dropping staffing again as these people replace people lost through retirement and such?
    Yes, the plan is very similar to the COPS program of the nineties.

    I am not sure what a "flase" boost is, but don't believe the right wing hype that it won't put any new firefighters on the street.

    Those on the right would have you believe that. It was false with COPS and it will be false with SAFER.
    As far as FIREPAC goes. I do not donate to it. I quit right about the time our Union supported Al Gore. I don't want my money supporting candidates I don't. They may support one "special interest" that I care about, but if they don't support my beliefs as a whole I will not sell out for that one issue. I wish FIREPAC allowed us the choice to choose which candidates we wanted our money to go to. If they did, then I may donate again.
    Have you found any candidate for anything that supports your beliefs as a whole? If so you are one of the lucky few. There is no need for FIREPAC to let you choose who to donate to. You can do that already. FIREPAC allows us to pool the resources of the group to make a larger impact. Based on the primary results and all of the yellow signs I see on TV every Tuesday, I would say it is working.
    "We shouldn't be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them in New York City."

    IACOJ

  18. #93
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Duffman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Chicago area
    Posts
    780

    Default

    DCFDL36, your last post sort of ties in with the one about Gen. Pres. Shaitberger and his relationship with Kerry. He may well receive an appointment if Kerry is elected. I for one will not hold that against him. As you said, that is how the system works. What I will hold against him are his actions after the fact if he sells out for political or other gain. I don't think that will happen.
    "We shouldn't be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them in New York City."

    IACOJ

  19. #94
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    57

    Default

    Although in general the democrats are usually more supportive of IAFF issues than republicans, I still feel that not enough efforts are being made to court the republicans to support our causes. Just because the democrats are usually more receptive to our leaders and their concerns, that doesn't mean we should just sterotype all republicans as our enemy and go about making buddies with the democrats and enemies with the republicans. It may take more effort to convince the republicans to support us more, but the efforts will be worth it. One of the reasons the republicans support the groups they do is because of the successful lobbying efforts those entities have made to gain the republicans support, and another is because of the relationships they end up fostering with the republicans. The IAFF has to stop being so partisan and make a better effort to befriend and lobby republicans. They are being foolish not to do this. Even though it won't be easy, they can make great strides in gaining additional political support if they do this. Plus, since the White House is occupied by a republican, the House is republican majority, the Senate is republican majority, and many if not most of the state's governors are republican, etc. Get the picture. Simply ignoring one party because of how they are sterotyped is not only wrong, but can be fatal to us politically.

  20. #95
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    57

    Default

    Duffman

    I tried to state what you spoke of in my post about Mr. Schaitberger possibly, and I think very likely, getting an appointment in the Kerry administration. Will he take the appointment to better the IAFF and all of labor's goals, or will he "forget where he came from" and just use it to advance his career and to "put a feather in his cap". Hopefully that clarifies some of what I was trying to get across in that post.

    Actually, it can be a great thing for the IAFF and labor if he gets a real good post and uses it wisely.

  21. #96
    MembersZone Subscriber
    E229Lt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Posts
    2,987

    Default

    Mr. Schaitberger possibly, and I think very likely, getting an appointment in the Kerry administration.
    I have personally seen a labor leader take a political appointment in the past. That one didn't work out so well for us. But, I'm willing to try again.

  22. #97
    MembersZone Subscriber
    swrr88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Nashville, Tennessee
    Posts
    79

    Default

    The idea that its ok with some here that the IAFF president get a political appointment for his work with the Kerry Camp is exactly what is wrong with FIRE PAC.

    The union heads used to try to directly support people running for office with union money. That was outlawed because the theory is they didn't have the right to give to a person with our money. PACs were a way to allow individual donations from those members who allowed their money to be used in an election.

    However, the problem is the same people still make the selection of the endorsed party. The same back door politics is in play but now those running say they get money from all these individuals in a union when really they are getting an endorsement from the executive board members like before.

    If the president of the IAFF take a position in a Kerry government it is a smack in the face of everyone giving money to Fire Pac. When everything is on the table there are questions as to why they selected him over Edwards especially. Kerry has a long history of taking large donations and then acting to help those that gave...such as the numerous executives who he was lobbying for even though they were under investigation at the same time. If he gives our Union head a job its because of a deal they made with our Money.

    A political appointment is a career advancement for the person not the cause. Once you are in the government structure you answer to the President and his wishes. You can say you remember where you came from but really you do what he says. At that point you owe your job and income totally to the man who put you there.

    The idea that the IAFF heads could advance their own careers in a democratic white house with my money is terrible.
    " The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." - Samuel Johnson

  23. #98
    MembersZone Subscriber
    swrr88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Nashville, Tennessee
    Posts
    79

    Default

    "Although in general the democrats are usually more supportive of IAFF issues than republicans, I still feel that not enough efforts are being made to court the republicans to support our causes. "


    I totally agree. Though Democrats support the IAFF on many issues when you look at the mass of members I think many support more Republican type ideas when it comes to defense, taxes, family, and even gun laws (at least here where there are a lot of hunters).

    To find a republican who supported the IAFF and many of the personal issues of its membership would make that IAFF endorsement even more important. The Gore endorsement did not make the difference even in his own state. If Kerry loses the same will be true. I mentioned it here earlier and its been mentioned on the news channels' talk shows, too. The union endorsements have less pull these days because they are not translating into wins on election day. I believe its because the membership doesn't support those getting the endorsement on the majority of their stands.
    " The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." - Samuel Johnson

  24. #99
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Duffman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Chicago area
    Posts
    780

    Default

    The idea that the IAFF heads could advance their own careers in a democratic white house with my money is terrible.
    1. They can only do it with your money if you send them your money.

    2. Are you implying that it would be OK if it were a republican white house?
    If the president of the IAFF take a position in a Kerry government it is a smack in the face of everyone giving money to Fire Pac.
    Why? We all know the IAFF supports Kerry. We send our money knowing it. You are not qualified to determine if I, or anyone else will feel slapped in the face. That is an individuals decision.

    I will not consider it a slap in the face. If the IAFF backed your candidate, would you consider it a slap in the face?
    However, the problem is the same people still make the selection of the endorsed party. The same back door politics is in play but now those running say they get money from all these individuals in a union when really they are getting an endorsement from the executive board members like before.
    They get the endorsement from the e-board, true. The e-board does not keep the endorsement secret. What is back door. FIREPAC only gets money if individuals send them money. It is the coice of the individual. We can only back a candidate with the money we receive from individuals.

    If the money doesn't come in, then the support will not exist. The fact is the money is coming in. Nobody is being forced to contribute. We contribute because we support the cause, and/or the candidate.
    If he gives our Union head a job its because of a deal they made with our Money.
    If it is your money being used it is because you chose to contribute.

    I would like to hear your ideas on how FIREPAC should be utilized.
    "We shouldn't be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them in New York City."

    IACOJ

  25. #100
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,108

    Default

    Duffman...

    "flase" was a typo it should have been false.

    The point being this, if the feds only pay a percentage of those costs and eventually the costs totally revert to the municipality it is no benefit. There may be a temporary boost in staffing but as the cost of that employee goes up one of 2 things will happen, either they will be used to replace employees lost through retirement or they will be laid off when the community claims they can't support the cost any longer. Maybe some communities will be able to bear the cost. I know where I work they are most likely not even going to attempt to participate because of the eventual sole responsibility for the salaries and benefits of those SAFER hires.

    FyredUp

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

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