Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:But the recession wasn't caused solely by banks, it was caused by a combination of banks and politicians trying to dictate economic decisions.

Stop trying to paint it as if regulation was at fault, when it was lack of it that caused this...

When the government secures a mortgage, it is increasing the value of that mortgage.

Normally, a $100,000 mortgage might have a market value of $120,000. (for example, amount someone is willing to pay TODAY for a 6% return on $100,000 over 30 years)
When the government backs that mortgage, it increases the market value. Banks are willing to pay more because they know the value is guaranteed. So now the value is $150,000 (again, by example). Someone might default in the future, cutting off interest payments, but the principal of the loan is guaranteed.

The effect of government regulation has caused the price of the mortgage to increase, merely by backing the loan.

The government also required banks to make home loans more available to low-income and poor credit families (so-called "subprime" borrowers). The government also guaranteed these loans. So now you have mortgages in the secondary market that have a high risk of default but are Federally Guaranteed, inflating their value.

The problem wasn't regulation or a lack thereof, the problem was the meddling of the government in the market that artificially inflated home values beyond what the market would normally bear.

When home prices started to drop, subprime borrowers stopped paying (people who don't care about their credit). When people stopped paying, banks went to the government for their guarantee and reduced sales. Reducing sales drove up variable rate mortgage interest payments, made refinancing difficult, and it all steamrolled into a foreclosure mess.

Could the government have regulated the industry even more? Sure. But it wouldn't have dealt with the underlying issue of economic meddling that caused the problem in the first place.

sexiest_hero wrote:They fault lays on the heads of the Wisconsin Voters, whom gave union support to the republicans. Same here in Ohio.

I don't blame the 49.7% of people that did vote. I blame the 50.3% that were to lazy to even cast a vote. There was a very active voting group between 35-70 when you compare the voters <35yrs old they put up less than half the % of active voters <25%.

Funny, I recall lots of deregulation in the decade before the economic crash.

Frazzled wrote:Can we argue about the causes of the Great Recession in another thread? Seriously.

I think this is good advice. Although less seriously.

daedalus-templarius wrote:So when a ton of teachers quit out of protest, I can already hear the "news" spinning it as the teachers walking out on all those poor, innocent children who had nothing to do with this debacle.

I doubt it. I have a feeling that the "news" will spin this as Republicans driving teachers out of Wisconsin and the poor, innocent children are the ones being punished for Republican action.

daedalus-templarius wrote:Heh, why would anyone even WANT to be a teacher in this country anymore, I don't even get it.

Do you really think people became teachers in Wisconsin due to collective bargaining rights? I'll bet that before this issue, most teachers didn't even know what collective bargaining rights were. Most still probably couldn't tell you what benefits they get from collective bargaining that Federal workers don't get.

biccat wrote:

I doubt it. I have a feeling that the "news" will spin this as Republicans driving teachers out of Wisconsin and the poor, innocent children are the ones being punished for Republican action.

Do you really think people became teachers in Wisconsin due to collective bargaining rights? I'll bet that before this issue, most teachers didn't even know what collective bargaining rights were. Most still probably couldn't tell you what benefits they get from collective bargaining that Federal workers don't get.

I'm sure the different networks will have completely different spins on the effects on teachers by the bill.

That statement wasn't aimed at simply collective bargaining, more how teachers are being vilified by politicians and network news, to a point where now citizens will vilify them as well. Teachers are pretty important in my opinion, and they should probably be paid better, they are educating the future of this country/future of the world. Vilifying them and paying them gak isn't going to make more talented people want to become teachers.

The vilification and condemnation of public employees is ridiculous, sure some of them could probably be paid less, and it would be better if some of them didn't abuse the system, but that happens everywhere. One bad apple can ruin a bunch, unfortunately.

Frazzled wrote:
DEM-O-CRACY

If you don't want to do your job you should quit.

So you would prefer that the Wisconsin Senators resigned in protest, and so forced special elections that would have made it even harder to build a quorum?

As many have observed in the past, democracy is as much about what legislators can get away with as what they are explicitly permitted to do. Simply saying that X isn't democracy is basically meaningless, especially when votes were tallied, and representatives were elected.

daedalus-templarius wrote:So when a ton of teachers quit out of protest, I can already hear the "news" spinning it as the teachers walking out on all those poor, innocent children who had nothing to do with this debacle.

Clearly, teachers of Wisconsin need to stay and be gakked all over by their local government, and demonized by its members (and some citizens).

The idiocracy will start in Wisconsin, apparently.

Heh, why would anyone even WANT to be a teacher in this country anymore, I don't even get it.

If a bunch of teachers leave, then the government will have to pay more/provide better conditions to acquire new teachers. Thats supply/demand, so it all works out in the end.*

* Actually it never works out in the end, but it helps the little children sleep at night.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
DEM-O-CRACY

If you don't want to do your job you should quit.

So you would prefer that the Wisconsin Senators resigned in protest, and so forced special elections that would have made it even harder to build a quorum?

As many have observed in the past, democracy is as much about what legislators can get away with as what they are explicitly permitted to do. Simply saying that X isn't democracy is basically meaningless, especially when votes were tallied, and representatives were elected.

bs.

If they resigned fine. Then others can be hired. Everything else is not democracy. By following the same line of thinking, if you're not going to win a vote, your side can do anything up to and including bllowing the other legislators up with dynamite.

Or as the immortal bard once said.

Frazzled wrote:DEM-O-CRACY

If you don't want to do your job you should quit.

Your job as an elected representative is to represent the interests of the people who elected you. If you can do that more effectively by not showing up to a vote, then that is, clearly, not against the RAW or RAI of the job description.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Frazzled wrote:DEM-O-CRACY

If you don't want to do your job you should quit.

Your job as an elected representative is to represent the interests of the people who elected you. If you can do that more effectively by not showing up to a vote, then that is, clearly, not against the RAW or RAI of the job description.

The fact that the other side can approve a motion to compel and have the Sergeant at Arms drag your back to the floor of the legislative body is also playing RAW.

Jurisdictional tomfoolery is what made this possible, the Democrats ran beyond the range of Wisconsin authority. Seems like dereliction of duty to me.

The critique of public employees is often misguided, and factually incorrect. One of the dumbest things I have seen argued is that public employees are better paid, without qualifying who they are being compared against. And it is really an apples to oranges comparison.

Most public sector jobs are skilled work, and they require some form of higher degree. When you start making direct skilled level comparisons, studies have proven that public sector employees make about 10% less than private sector. The trade off is job security, benefits, and life-work balance.

I am a public service employee, and I make approximately 10% less than what the average is for people with my education level, age, years worked, etc., have reported as making in my state. Anecdotally, I make about 10-15% less than my last private sector job. However, my benefits are better, I'm not working 60 hour weeks, I have a generous leave schedule, I can work from home, etc. To me, that overode the little bit of extra money I could make.

On the flip side, anecdotally, I have a sister-in-law who is a teacher in a private church based school. She makes less than what she would make in a public school, and has minimal benefits. But she left the public sector because she did not want to have to deal with the extra-large class sizes, unruly students, and extra out-of-pocket expenses required of public school teachers.

All that you get when you start to cut and cut and cut on the backs of people who provide basic services to society, is a crappier society. Ultimately, you either ignore the problems created by the cuts, and things in turn get worse; or you address the problem with outsourcing, or new hiring (which in turn means more training for new employees, plus less experienced and skilled staff), which actually leads to higher costs.

The following article discusses this phenomenon:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2011/1103.gravois.html

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Frazzled wrote:DEM-O-CRACY

If you don't want to do your job you should quit.

Your job as an elected representative is to represent the interests of the people who elected you. If you can do that more effectively by not showing up to a vote, then that is, clearly, not against the RAW or RAI of the job description.

Frazz has pretty well demonstrated he was asleep for that part of the lesson. He was awake for, 'If Democrats do it - BAD! But It's Okay If You Are A Republican.'

Here we go capital police just unloaded a truck of riot gear at the S service entrance. Starting to get reports of people being removed from the assembly chamber areas.

Eldanar wrote:Most public sector jobs are skilled work, and they require some form of higher degree. When you start making direct skilled level comparisons, studies have proven that public sector employees make about 10% less than private sector. The trade off is job security, benefits, and life-work balance.

Shouldn't those benefits, including health insurance, pension, and working hourse, factor in to deciding who is paid better?

If I make $60,000 per year working 60 hours a week and you make $40,000 per year working 40 hours a week, isn't that the same pay? Or would you say that the second person is taking a pay cut of $20,000 per year?

I also found this interesting. It shows that only 30% of education spending goes towards teacher expenditures. Maybe instead of cutting teacher salaries we could find some middle ground and cut some administrator salaries and other expenses.

biccat wrote:

I also found this interesting. It shows that only 30% of education spending goes towards teacher expenditures. Maybe instead of cutting teacher salaries we could find some middle ground and cut some administrator salaries and other expenses.

See, this would require reasonable people to get together and agree on some moderate fixes and solutions.

Totally the opposite of politics in this country.

biccat wrote:I also found this interesting. It shows that only 30% of education spending goes towards teacher expenditures. Maybe instead of cutting teacher salaries we could find some middle ground and cut some administrator salaries and other expenses.

I would imagine because teachers are unionize, and cutting their salary cuts union dues, and support democrats.

Administrators are appointed directly by Boards of Education (political appointees) and so get to negotiate their own salaries. They also tend tend to work to further the elected officials interests.

Gov. worker salaries (and associated overhead) is a relatively small part of any government. It's just the part that hurts the big actors the least to cut.

Bookwrack wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Frazzled wrote:DEM-O-CRACY

If you don't want to do your job you should quit.

Your job as an elected representative is to represent the interests of the people who elected you. If you can do that more effectively by not showing up to a vote, then that is, clearly, not against the RAW or RAI of the job description.

Frazz has pretty well demonstrated he was asleep for that part of the lesson. He was awake for, 'If Democrats do it - BAD! But It's Okay If You Are A Republican.'

I am not the one advocating crossing state lines and doing anything you want to do because you get your panties in a wad. They were hired to represent all the people, and they can only do that by doing their job. What you advocate eventually has its ultimate expression in Somalia (anarchy) or Libya (dictatorship). Would you prefer we settle issues with guns and bombs like much of the world?

To the personal attack, I can respond in but one way:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

daedalus-templarius wrote:

biccat wrote:

I also found this interesting. It shows that only 30% of education spending goes towards teacher expenditures. Maybe instead of cutting teacher salaries we could find some middle ground and cut some administrator salaries and other expenses.

See, this would require reasonable people to get together and agree on some moderate fixes and solutions.

Totally the opposite of politics in this country.

Agreed. I've always been an advocate of wacking at least half of the adminstrators in, well anything.

Frazzled wrote:

Bookwrack wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Frazzled wrote:DEM-O-CRACY

If you don't want to do your job you should quit.

Your job as an elected representative is to represent the interests of the people who elected you. If you can do that more effectively by not showing up to a vote, then that is, clearly, not against the RAW or RAI of the job description.

Frazz has pretty well demonstrated he was asleep for that part of the lesson. He was awake for, 'If Democrats do it - BAD! But It's Okay If You Are A Republican.'

I am not the one advocating crossing state lines and doing anything you want to do because you get your panties in a wad. They were hired to represent all the people, and they can only do that by doing their job. What you advocate eventually has its ultimate expression in Somalia (anarchy) or Libya (dictatorship). Would you prefer we settle issues with guns and bombs like much of the world?

It really, really doesn't. This makes about as much sense as arguing against the legalising of gay marriage because if we do that then people will marry their dogs.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Bookwrack wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Frazzled wrote:DEM-O-CRACY

If you don't want to do your job you should quit.

Your job as an elected representative is to represent the interests of the people who elected you. If you can do that more effectively by not showing up to a vote, then that is, clearly, not against the RAW or RAI of the job description.

Frazz has pretty well demonstrated he was asleep for that part of the lesson. He was awake for, 'If Democrats do it - BAD! But It's Okay If You Are A Republican.'

I am not the one advocating crossing state lines and doing anything you want to do because you get your panties in a wad. They were hired to represent all the people, and they can only do that by doing their job. What you advocate eventually has its ultimate expression in Somalia (anarchy) or Libya (dictatorship). Would you prefer we settle issues with guns and bombs like much of the world?

It really, really doesn't. This makes about as much sense as arguing against the legalising of gay marriage because if we do that then people will marry their dogs.

You propose using extralegal means to stop the democratic process. Whats the ing difference between you and Chavez or Franco? Its just a matter of degree.

I should ask, you do like living in a democracy right?

Frazzled wrote:
If they resigned fine. Then others can be hired.

Not hired, elected. Elections take time, and can often be carried out strategically to extend the process. Then recounts can be demanded, even by the victor, in order to ensure "fair representation" of the district. And, of course, the people that are eventually elected can themselves resign in order to start the process all over again.

Hell, the person that resigned could even run again.

Frazzled wrote:
Everything else is not democracy. By following the same line of thinking, if you're not going to win a vote, your side can do anything up to and including bllowing the other legislators up with dynamite.

Sure, presuming that they can get away with it, and the legislators in question continue to permit free and fair elections. Democracy isn't about fair behavior in the legislature, its about fair elections.

You could have a legislature were bills were settled by ritual combat, and insofar as the potential combatants were elected by the populace it would still be a democracy.

Frazzled wrote:You propose using extralegal means to stop the democratic process. Whats the ing difference between you and Chavez or Franco? Its just a matter of degree.

I should ask, you do like living in a democracy right?

Are you honestly suggesting that it's not a legitimate role of government to make the trains run on time? We're not living in some sort of anarchy here, the trains are a government resource and they are essential to a civil society. If the trains don't run on time, then people won't be able to move about the country reliably and won't be contributing members of society.

There's nothing wrong with keeping an accurate rail schedule.

Yes, snopes.

Frazzled wrote:
They were hired to represent all the people, and they can only do that by doing their job.

No, their job is to represent their district, which basically means to represent the dominant opinion of the people in their district. If the dominant opinion of the people (well, politically active) in the district in question is that the Senator should walk out, then that's what he should so, per your own reasoning.

If you really feel that means some group of people in the district are unrepresented, then any possible action taken by a legislator will necessarily fail to represent at least some part of that legislators district.

Sure, presuming that they can get away with it, and the legislators in question continue to permit free and fair elections. Democracy isn't about fair behavior in the legislature, its about fair elections.
No. Its not. Its the entire process.

You could have a legislature were bills were settled by ritual combat, and insofar as the potential combatants were elected by the populace it would still be a democracy.
No. Its not. Now you're just bordering on ranting.

Keeping a voting body from reaching a quorum is an old political maneuver. Hmm, what were these people again? Oh yeah, professional politicians. Politicians doing political things, what a a crazy world.

If a bunch Republicans had done this to black a lefty platform vote than Fox would be calling them shrewd for cutting the tyrannical Democrats legs out from under them. Politics isn't just introducing bad legislation after all.

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You propose using extralegal means to stop the democratic process. Whats the ing difference between you and Chavez or Franco? Its just a matter of degree.

I should ask, you do like living in a democracy right?

Are you honestly suggesting that it's not a legitimate role of government to make the trains run on time? We're not living in some sort of anarchy here, the trains are a government resource and they are essential to a civil society. If the trains don't run on time, then people won't be able to move about the country reliably and won't be contributing members of society.

There's nothing wrong with keeping an accurate rail schedule.

Yes, snopes.

What, are you replying to me?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:Keeping a voting body from reaching a quorum is an old political maneuver. Hmm, what were these people again? Oh yeah, professional politicians. Politicians doing political things, what a a crazy world.

If a bunch Republicans had done this to black a lefty platform vote than Fox would be calling them shrewd for cutting the tyrannical Democrats legs out from under them. Politics isn't just introducing bad legislation after all.

Fox. They would also have been doing the same thing, running away from their duties.

Frazzled wrote:You propose using extralegal means to stop the democratic process. Whats the ing difference between you and Chavez or Franco? Its just a matter of degree.

I should ask, you do like living in a democracy right?

You might as well say that hugging your mother is incest. After all, you're touching her: after that it's just a matter of degree.

Frazzled wrote:
You propose using extralegal means to stop the democratic process. Whats the ing difference between you and Chavez or Franco? Its just a matter of degree.

Extralegal? I was unaware that parliamentary procedure was now considered a matter of law.

http://i.imgur.com/GLB3o.jpg

Exterior Doors are now locked like this.

biccat wrote:Do you really think people became teachers in Wisconsin due to collective bargaining rights? I'll bet that before this issue, most teachers didn't even know what collective bargaining rights were. Most still probably couldn't tell you what benefits they get from collective bargaining that Federal workers don't get.

As the husband of a teacher let me assume you that all (that I have met here in Maryland at least) teachers are very very familiar with collective bargaining rights and what their Union does and doesn't do for them. Most teachers generally are not huge fans of their Unions because usually they basically just take Union fees for nothing but it's times like these when many teachers actually appreciate their Union.

If society actually appreciated what teachers do and the valuable service they provided society they wouldn't need the Unions. The good teachers would stay and they could fire the bad ones because the teachers wouldn't have to worry about having their pay cut, potentially being fired for failing some child that didn't earn a passing grade, potentially being fired for trying to block a student from spitting on them and accidentally hitting the student, having to deal with a student that literally punched them in the head because the student wasn't expelled for doing so, I could go on and on and on. And those are just events that happened here in Maryland in one of the most affluent counties in the country. (Howard County, 3rd wealthiest in the nation according to Forbes) Imagine what it is like is less affluent places.

Teachers have a very raw deal and sure there are some really bad ones that I would honestly like to fire and then load into a rocket that we fire at the sun but until society gives a damn about the people educating the next generation, actually values education over becoming a star, and truly cares about the future of our country the Unions are an exceedingly necessary evil. Because the sad, sad fact is that those three things are not going to happen any time soon.

Frazzled wrote:
No. Its not. Now you're just bordering on ranting.

You know, its funny, every time you've ever tried to insult my behavior its later become the obvious that you were confusing my demeanor with your own. I don't no about you, but spamming posts in which you swear at others, and chant "no" is something that I would consider to be ranting. But hey, I guess that's what happens when you're determined to hang on to some deeply held belief.

Anyway, representative democracy generally requires only that authority be delegated to representatives, and that the rule of law holds, it does not require that the representatives themselves legislate according to any particular process. In the United States we have institutionalized a process of procedural voting, in other places the voting is significantly less procedural, and often nonpartisan because parties simply don't exist; but hypothetically ritual combat by elected representative is still an example of democratic process where by representative cast their votes by picking sides.

Jeez no wonder democracies don't survive.

Well, now embodied with the Dogma/Warboss Tzoo standard of democracy, I look forward to the mass culling of opposition members. I for one welcome our new "democratic" overlords, and am sure that once the correct purges have been carried out, all will be right in the world. Hail Our New Enlightened Leaders!