Switch Theme:

PolitiFact Names 'Lie of the Year'...  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 sebster wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Just so that we can truly keep the OP's topic... What do you think of the initial Benghazi response?


Not much, really. Security at a consulate was compromised and people were killed. It's awful when it happens, but simply isn't that rare of a thing. Following the event, the initial comments from the administration weren't correct, but those comments didn't impact the investigation one bit.

But I am pretty disappointed in the Republicans continuing to fish around, trying to make some kind of scandal of this. It reaks of Whitewater, honestly. Lots of suggestion and innuendo that feeds on itself - lots of things phrased like they're suspicious, but at the core there's no actual wrong doing by anyone in government.

Hmmm... then why is Madam Clinton not testifying this week...

Seems to me that she could nip this in the bud now... take any licking (if any). Then, it'd be old news by the time the next Presidential campaigns starts.


Okay, back to your responses...
I'll certainly buy they from a strategic standpoint, the (R)s flubbed royally as they couldn't reach anyone outside of the usual voters. That's where the Obama Campaign truly shined... they found a way to engage the voters who don't usually vote at all. Bascially, their ground work spanked the (R)'s arse.


The Democrats also have a much greater pool of potentially persuadable voters that they can can tap to get out and vote.

The Republicans have a smaller pool, albeit one that typically gets out and votes more reliably. The problem is that their pool of voters is getting to be no longer enough to win, given the demographic trends, and so running political nonsense campaigns like 'He didn't build that' - half truths that the loyal party voters eat up, just aren't enough to win new voters, and therefore aren't enough to win an election.

Yup... and then some.

I'd still say that if Clinton runs, there's nothing the (R)s can do. She'll win.

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine






I just want the republican to give me a good candidate, one who actually pushes for less government control of our lives. Until then if I have to vote for big government politicians then I'm going to vote for the government that helps me the most.

Hear that republicans, give me a Goldwater not a Reagan.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
"Balance, playtesting - a casual gamer craves not these things!" - Yoda, a casual gamer.
Three things matter in marksmanship -
location, location, location
MagickalMemories wrote:How about making another fist?
One can be, "Da Fist uv Mork" and the second can be, "Da Uvver Fist uv Mork."
Make a third, and it can be, "Da Uvver Uvver Fist uv Mork"
Eric
 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 whembly wrote:
Hmmm... then why is Madam Clinton not testifying this week...

Seems to me that she could nip this in the bud now... take any licking (if any). Then, it'd be old news by the time the next Presidential campaigns starts.


Yeah, that's exactly what I mean when I say this is so reminiscent of Whitewater. There's no actual substance about anything anyone actually did wrong, just stories about how they're not testifying so therefore something must be wrong...



I'd still say that if Clinton runs, there's nothing the (R)s can do. She'll win.


Well, it depends where the country is at in four years. And where Clinton is at - she's had a massive boost by serving in a non-partisan role the last four years, but if she runs she has to commit to more partisan positions and that'll hurt her numbers - but exactly how much it'll hurt her numbers is the big question.

And it also depends on how she campaigns. She absolutely should not have lost the primary in 2008, but she played a bad game and got beat by someone who had no right to politically outsmart her. She'll be smarter and will probably have smarter people around her next time, but it is possible something like it might happen again.

I agree she looks a strong candidate right now. But a week is a long time in politics, four years is a lifetime away.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/17 07:03:18


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in gb
Huge Hierodule





The centre of a massive brood chamber, heaving and pulsating.

Ooooohhh dear.

Not sure this is lie of the year though.

Squigsquasher, resident ban magnet, White Knight, and general fethwit.
 buddha wrote:
I've decided that these GW is dead/dying threads that pop up every-week must be followers and cultists of nurgle perpetuating the need for decay. I therefore declare that that such threads are heresy and subject to exterminatus. So says the Inquisition!
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

You don't say eh?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9762510/The-truth-is-that-politicians-are-telling-lies.html
Was 2012 the year when the democratic world lost its grip on reality? Must we assume now that no party that speaks the truth about the economic future has a chance of winning power in a national election? With the results of presidential contests in the United States and France as evidence, this would seem to be the only possible conclusion. Any political leader prepared to deceive the electorate into believing that government spending, and the vast system of services that it provides, can go on as before – or that they will be able to resume as soon as this momentary emergency is over – was propelled into office virtually by acclamation.
So universal has this rule turned out to be that parties and leaders who know better – whose economic literacy is beyond question – are now afraid even to hint at the fact which must eventually be faced. The promises that governments are making to their electorates are not just misleading: they are unforgivably dishonest. It will not be possible to go on as we are, or to return to the expectations that we once had. The immediate emergency created by the crash of 2008 was not some temporary blip in the infinitely expanding growth of the beneficent state. It was, in fact, almost irrelevant to the larger truth which it happened, by coincidence, to bring into view. Government on the scale established in most modern western countries is simply unaffordable. In Britain, the disagreement between Labour and the Conservatives over how to reduce the deficit (cut spending or increase borrowing?) is ridiculously insignificant and out of touch with the actual proportions of the problem. In the UK, the US, and (above all) the countries of the EU, democratic politics is being conducted on false premises.
Of course, once in power all governments must deal with reality – even if they have been elected on a systematic lie. As one ex-minister famously put it when he was released from the burden of office: “There’s no money left.” So that challenge must be met. How do you propose to go on providing the entitlements that you have sworn never to end, without any money? The victorious political parties of the Left have a ready answer to that one. They will raise taxes on the “rich”. In France and the United States, this is the formula that is being presented not only as an economic solution but also as a just social settlement, since the “rich” are inherently wicked and must have acquired their wealth by confiscating it from the poor.
Of course, the moral logic of this principle is absurd. The amount of wealth in an economy is not fixed so that one person having more means that somebody else must have less. But, for the purposes of our problem, it is the fault in the economic logic that is more important. The amount of money that is required to fund government entitlement programmes is now so enormous that it could not be procured by even very large increases in taxation on the “rich”. Assuming that you could get all of the rich members of your population to stand still and be fleeced (rather than leaving the country, as Gérard Depardieu and a vast army of his French brethren are doing), there are simply not enough of them to provide the revenue that a universal, comprehensive benefits system requires. And if all the French rich did stay put, and submit to President Hollande’s quixotic 75 per cent income tax, they would soon be too impoverished to invest in the supply side of the economy, which would undermine any possibility of growth.
Barack Obama knows that a tax rise of those proportions in the US would be politically suicidal, so he proposes a much more modest increase – an income tax rate of around 40 per cent on the highest earners sounds very modest indeed to British ears. But that is precisely the problem. If a tax rise is modest enough to be politically acceptable to much of the electorate, it will not produce anything like enough to finance the universal American entitlement programmes, social security and Medicare, into a future with an ageing population. There is no way that “taxing the rich” – that irresistibly glib Left-wing solution to everything – can make present and projected levels of government spending affordable. That is why Britain and almost all the countries of the EU have redefined the word “rich” to mean those who are earning scarcely twice the average wage, and pulled more and more middle-income people into high tax bands. Not only are there vastly more of them but they are far more likely to stand still and be fleeced, because they do not have the mobility of the truly rich.
Is this the lesson of a year of false economic hopes and cynical political deceptions? That governments will have to accomplish by stealth and betrayed promises what they did not dare to propose when running for office? Here in Britain, the Conservatives make much of their determination to cut welfare, as if out-of-work benefits were the heart of the government spending problem. But in fact, in the medium and long term, it is the state benefits that working people think of as a right that present a far more serious dilemma. The reality is that our ever-rising state pension and entirely free health care system are as unsustainable as social security and Medicare in the US. It is not going to be possible for the NHS, paid for by general taxation, to offer world-class modern medical provision – with its never-ending advances and innovations – into the indefinite future.
At some point, we will have to accept that government-funded health care will consist of subsidised core services to be topped up by the patient’s own insurance or personal funds, just as dentistry and opticians’ services are now. Similarly, pension provision will have to be largely the responsibility of the individual. The greatest contribution that government will be able make to these efforts will be in cutting personal taxes, thus leaving people with more money to pay for provision that they will be free to choose for themselves.
This is not an ideological argument about the moral advantages of a smaller state: it is simple economic necessity. As the man said, there’s no money left. And the only ways that anybody can think of for the state to get more of it are either futile (taxing the “rich”) or destructive of any possibility of recovery (more borrowing). What began as a banking collapse has turned into a crisis of democratic politics. Is this what we have to look forward to? The process of campaigning and voting will be an irrelevance: all parties will tell pretty much the same lies. Whichever one is marginally more credible than the others will gain power (probably in coalition with another bunch of liars), and then have to do what needs to be done in whatever desperate, underhand ways it can devise. Nobody will feel that he got what he voted for, because what he voted for was impossible. Not a happy thought to leave you with at Christmas. Sorry.

We don’t have a revenue problem... we have a spending problem... more specifically, we have a problem with PRIORITES.

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

Necro time!

Instead of a new thread...

This is too funny. <just poking fun here>

The Politifact Lie of the year of 2012 just became the truth in 2013.
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130114/AUTO04/301140373/Chrysler-build-Jeeps-China?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE
Spoiler:
Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne said the automaker plans to build some Jeeps in China for the local market — and later, in Russia.

"As part of our global expansion of the Jeep brand, there are some cars — that because of the price position in the market — can never be made in the U.S. and exported," Marchionne told reporters on the sidelines of the North American International Auto Show. "We're going to be announcing the first step in the globalization of Jeep (in China). There's another one that's going to come in Russia. These things are part of a natural process of expansion."

Marchionne said he will keep "the pillar cars of the Jeep (brand) in the United States. Wrangler is one. The Grand Cherokee is another. These are things that need to be protected because they represent the best and the essence of Jeep. If you tell me I cannot make a Patriot somewhere else, I might as well go out of the market."

Marchionne came under harsh criticism from Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who falsely suggested that Chrysler would shift production from Ohio to China of the Jeep brand. The Romney ad on the issue was branded the "lie of the year" by fact checker "Politifact."

Marchionne rejected Romney's assertion in a letter to employees last fall. "I set the record straight to our people," he said. "We live in a world where we tell each other the truth and I think the stuff that was coming out was improperly phrased — it certainly was not reflective of the position of Chrysler."

Separately, Marchionne said no initial public offering could occur before nine months.

"Even I execute flawlessly… At the earliest, it's the fourth quarter," Marchionne said, noting that Chrysler needs to convert to a Chapter C Corporation first. "We will see what the markets say about an IPO."

He said he understands the United Auto Workers health care trust fund wants to swap more stock for cash.

"They need to see their position monetized," Marchionne said. "We'll try to get them a way there. If they want to do it through an IPO, we'll do it through the IPO."

Marchionne said he believes U.S. vehicle sales will be strong in 2013, totaling at least 15 million.

I find it interesting that they weren't already a "C" corporation...o.O

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

I see that much like Romney, you've glossed over the fact that they're building those Jeeps in China and Russia...for sale in China and Russia.
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 whembly wrote:
We don’t have a revenue problem... we have a spending problem... more specifically, we have a problem with PRIORITES.


That article was non-economic gibberish. Absolute codswallop wrapped up in a heavy dose paternal morality.

If we choose to pay the taxes to have a welfare system then it is just as affordable as the big screen TVs and alloy wheels we'd other wise spend those dollars on. Anyone who claims otherwise simply does not understand how dollars work.

The person who wrote the article understands how dollars work, of course. He's just playing a little make believe game, where he assumes taxes for some nebulous, non-explained reason, absolutely, positively must be no higher, and likely much lower... and therefore it's a real shame but the welfare safety just has to go.

It'd actually be quite a clever little political trick, if it wasn't around 80 years old.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Kanluwen wrote:
I see that much like Romney, you've glossed over the fact that they're building those Jeeps in China and Russia...for sale in China and Russia.

From what I understand, they're losing some models to be made over there... (keeping the Cherokee and Wrangler here?)

Now, what's missing is that, maybe those other models aren't profitable here anymore, and thus being made over there probably makes sense. What's left unsaid is the probably impact to local workers. o.O

Just wait another 6 months... cool?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/15 03:07:40


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 whembly wrote:
The Politifact Lie of the year of 2012 just became the truth in 2013.
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130114/AUTO04/301140373/Chrysler-build-Jeeps-China?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE
Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne said the automaker plans to build some Jeeps in China for the local market — and later, in Russia.


Oh for feth's sake. It's the same half assed lie as last time.

As the original article points out quite clearly - "The entirety of the Bloomberg report made it clear that Chrysler was considering expansion in China, not shuttering American production." Whereas the Romney claim was "I saw a story today, that one of the great manufacturers in this state, Jeep, now owned by the Italians, is thinking of moving all production to China"

Stop believing transparent lies. It makes you look like a fool.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/15 03:09:26


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

 whembly wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
I see that much like Romney, you've glossed over the fact that they're building those Jeeps in China and Russia...for sale in China and Russia.

From what I understand, they're losing some models to be made over there... (keeping the Cherokee and Wrangler here?)

Now, what's missing is that, maybe those other models aren't profitable here anymore, and thus being made over there probably makes sense. What's left unsaid is the probably impact to local workers. o.O

Just wait another 6 months... cool?

No, what you're missing is reading the article you linked.

Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne said the automaker plans to build some Jeeps in China for the local market — and later, in Russia.

"As part of our global expansion of the Jeep brand, there are some cars — that because of the price position in the market — can never be made in the U.S. and exported," Marchionne told reporters on the sidelines of the North American International Auto Show. "We're going to be announcing the first step in the globalization of Jeep (in China). There's another one that's going to come in Russia. These things are part of a natural process of expansion."


Those two bits are key, Whembly. What Sergio Marchionne is saying that they are going to be producing some Jeeps in China for sale in China, and do the same thing in Russia.
The reason that this will be done is because those cars--because of their price position in the market--cannot be made here in the United States for exportation.
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 whembly wrote:
From what I understand, they're losing some models to be made over there... (keeping the Cherokee and Wrangler here?)


It's the first sentence of the article you quoted;
"As part of our global expansion of the Jeep brand, there are some cars — that because of the price position in the market — can never be made in the U.S. and exported"

So there are cars that can't be built and exported... that haven't been getting built and exported. So they're opening new plants in China to build for the local market over there.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

Woah there pard'ner... ya'll miss the little "poking a little fun here"?

See my image man... chill.

I'll buy that Romney was a bit disingenuous... but, we'd expect that from politicians... no?

I saw that detroit article and whammo... thought that was interesting.

Where's your sense of humor? o.O


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 sebster wrote:
 whembly wrote:
From what I understand, they're losing some models to be made over there... (keeping the Cherokee and Wrangler here?)


It's the first sentence of the article you quoted;
"As part of our global expansion of the Jeep brand, there are some cars — that because of the price position in the market — can never be made in the U.S. and exported"

So there are cars that can't be built and exported... that haven't been getting built and exported. So they're opening new plants in China to build for the local market over there.

Right... it's also a statement to placate the local unions... they've always resisted those sort of statements.

Lemme tell ya a story. When I was working for Anheuser Busch as a help desk technician (no seriously, you'd dial 1-800-BEER-TALK... frigg'in awesome!) there was a brewery in Columbus, OH that implemented automated forklift robots to move the pallets from the warehouse to the docks. It was really expensive (not to mention awesome), but at the time, the cost to implement / configure / maintaine was cheaper than hiring the union guys. The unions at the other breweries (11 others) saw that, and for some "unexplained reasons" the workers performed more efficiently AND negotiated contracts that made implementing the OH automations at the other plants impractical.

My point is... from a business stand point, this could be nothing more than the CEO "placating" the unions publically. We'll see what happens to Chrystler in 6 months... I'd suspect there would be some contract work that would be more favorable for the company.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/15 03:21:40


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 whembly wrote:
Woah there pard'ner... ya'll miss the little "poking a little fun here"?

See my image man... chill.

I'll buy that Romney was a bit disingenuous... but, we'd expect that from politicians... no?

I saw that detroit article and whammo... thought that was interesting.

Where's your sense of humor? o.O


It isn't poking a little fun, though. It's just retelling the original story, and pretending this time its true.


Right... it's also a statement to placate the local unions... they've always resisted those sort of statements.


But this is in the wake of Chrysler's expansion of their Toledo plant (per the original article). You don't expand local facilities and then move production overseas.

But if you are looking at growing overall demand, then you do expand local production and look to establish new plants overseas.


Lemme tell ya a story. When I was working for Anheuser Busch as a help desk technician (no seriously, you'd dial 1-800-BEER-TALK... frigg'in awesome!) there was a brewery in Columbus, OH that implemented automated forklift robots to move the pallets from the warehouse to the docks. It was really expensive (not to mention awesome), but at the time, the cost to implement / configure / maintaine was cheaper than hiring the union guys. The unions at the other breweries (11 others) saw that, and for some "unexplained reasons" the workers performed more efficiently AND negotiated contracts that made implementing the OH automations at the other plants impractical.


BEER-TALK... awesome.

And I don't disagree. The thing that really gets me opposed to unions is the 'work only as hard as you'll make me mentality', as if you should spite the person that gave you a job.

I'm just saying that what Chrysler is doing here is fairly clear - they're expanding local production, and also looking to begin production in other countries.

The mystery is how Chrysler sells any cars at all, let alone is increasing the numbers they sell. The rent a car my wife and I drove to the Grand Canyon in was a Jeep, and it was hands down the worst car I've ever driven. I've owned a Mazda 121, and drove my Mum's old Festiva a whole lot. Those were small, cheap cars, but they did what you told them, when you told them. That Jeep had uneven accelerating that was frankly dangerous, and the steering was so spongy that any idea of controlling it on gravel was laughable.

I'd never even look at a Chrysler after that.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 sebster wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Woah there pard'ner... ya'll miss the little "poking a little fun here"?

See my image man... chill.

I'll buy that Romney was a bit disingenuous... but, we'd expect that from politicians... no?

I saw that detroit article and whammo... thought that was interesting.

Where's your sense of humor? o.O


It isn't poking a little fun, though. It's just retelling the original story, and pretending this time its true.

Okay... I see that. My bad...


Right... it's also a statement to placate the local unions... they've always resisted those sort of statements.


But this is in the wake of Chrysler's expansion of their Toledo plant (per the original article). You don't expand local facilities and then move production overseas.

But if you are looking at growing overall demand, then you do expand local production and look to establish new plants overseas.

That's what common sense tells ya... but, if you've ever witness'ed the epic negotiations between the Detroit's big Three vs the Unions... and usually anything but. Hence I said, "wait 6 months".

Lemme tell ya a story. When I was working for Anheuser Busch as a help desk technician (no seriously, you'd dial 1-800-BEER-TALK... frigg'in awesome!) there was a brewery in Columbus, OH that implemented automated forklift robots to move the pallets from the warehouse to the docks. It was really expensive (not to mention awesome), but at the time, the cost to implement / configure / maintaine was cheaper than hiring the union guys. The unions at the other breweries (11 others) saw that, and for some "unexplained reasons" the workers performed more efficiently AND negotiated contracts that made implementing the OH automations at the other plants impractical.


BEER-TALK... awesome.

Yup... now I wonder if that still exists since Imbev bought AB... (might call them later...)

And I don't disagree. The thing that really gets me opposed to unions is the 'work only as hard as you'll make me mentality', as if you should spite the person that gave you a job.

Yup... agreed.

I'm just saying that what Chrysler is doing here is fairly clear - they're expanding local production, and also looking to begin production in other countries.

Like I said... wait 6 months or so...

The mystery is how Chrysler sells any cars at all, let alone is increasing the numbers they sell. The rent a car my wife and I drove to the Grand Canyon in was a Jeep, and it was hands down the worst car I've ever driven. I've owned a Mazda 121, and drove my Mum's old Festiva a whole lot. Those were small, cheap cars, but they did what you told them, when you told them. That Jeep had uneven accelerating that was frankly dangerous, and the steering was so spongy that any idea of controlling it on gravel was laughable.

I'd never even look at a Chrysler after that.

Yup... I would never buy a Chrysler either... they've always been problematic for me.

I had an old Mazda 626... and other than the fact it burnt a little oil (checked it every 1k miles), it was the only car I had that was maintenance free.

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Fate-Controlling Farseer





Fort Campbell

This looks like a good place for this.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/whoops-politifacts-lie-year-turns-out-be-true_696223.html

Full Frontal Nerdity 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




Obamacare isn't a tax is a pretty good one.
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

Relapse wrote:
Obamacare isn't a tax is a pretty good one.


Is it now a lie to state a position, and have a judicial body disagree?

Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.


You're late. That's already been discussed and debunked.

Next time, try reading a news article before posting. The "factories" that are being referred to are for selling in China and Russia.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




 dogma wrote:
Relapse wrote:
Obamacare isn't a tax is a pretty good one.


Is it now a lie to state a position, and have a judicial body disagree?


Here's a couple of articles talking about the taxes happening with Obamacare:

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/15/obamacare-tax-on-medical-devices-hurts-jobs-and-he/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2012/12/25/in-2013-millions-of-americans-face-obamacare-tax-hikes/

At the local home depot, Obamacare is listed as a separate tax on the reciepts.
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

Relapse wrote:

Here's a couple of articles talking about the taxes happening with Obamacare:

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/15/obamacare-tax-on-medical-devices-hurts-jobs-and-he/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2012/12/25/in-2013-millions-of-americans-face-obamacare-tax-hikes/

At the local home depot, Obamacare is listed as a separate tax on the reciepts.


So, right off, you're claiming that Obamacare contains taxes, but is not itself a tax. This means that your decision to consider Obamacare as a tax was almost certainly based in the Supreme Court ruling regarding the individual mandate.

Not to be belligerent, but that level of simplification is why we can't have nice things in America.

Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in ca
Evasive Pleasureseeker



Lost in a blizzard, somewhere near Toronto

I'm sorry, but 'Lie of the Year' award has to go to the Ontario Elementry Teacher's Union... Ever since the start of the school year it's been a giant tirade of;

Union: The Liberals are evil, EVIL!!! They're killing democracy by threatening to legislate a new contract on us!

Now what's really happening:
a) The Unions walked away from the bargaining table, because they outright refuse to take a 2-year wage freeze, drop teacher sick days from 20 to 10 and put an end to banking--->cashing out unused sick days upon retirement
b) The province of Ontario is flat broke and can't afford the teachers unions' constantly wanting MOAR!!! despite them already being among the highest paid teachers in North America!
As an example, the starting base salery for the 'average' elementry teacher is around $42,000/year. Within ten years, they can climb the paygrade scale upto around $70,000/year. The top end is around $90,000/year.
And yes, this is unfair and according to the unions, teachers are hard done by and need a raise...

Union: We're not going to take our anger with the government out on students!

Meanwhile... The Governement passes the 'Putting Students First' act, aka Bill 115 which gives them the power to impose upon the public elementry & high school teachers the exact same contract that was agreed to by the province's french teachers.

Union: OMG! The Goverment has destroyed the democratic process and is going to use Bill 115!!!
That's it! We're protesting and so teachers will withdraw at once from any and all extracirrular activities of any kind! No more after-school clubs! No more extra help!


Then... The Liberals use Bill 115 to impose contracts because the Union won't negotiate in good faith, knowing full well there's no more money and that the taxpayer is beyond tapped out.

Union: That's it! We're going to have rotating, (and by the letter of Bill 115 technically illegal), 1-day strikes!
"We're doing this for all Ontarians!"
"We're fighting for your democratic rights and freedoms!"

(but really, they're simply doing it to protect their stupidly over-inflated salleries, bogus amount of sick days and the farcical cashing out unused sick days for upto half their current salery upon retirement... )

So now, despite their promise not to harm students or use them in any way as pawns in their political games, the union has pretty much taken away absolutely everything from the students - sports teams, intermerials, before/after school clubs & study groups, no additional help, hell, even some of the special ed programs have been cancelled!

But this all being done for the benifit of us everyday Ontarians...

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

So the US Politifacts lie of the year should go to a Canadian teachers union?

Time to unsubscribe from this thread...
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




 dogma wrote:
Relapse wrote:

Here's a couple of articles talking about the taxes happening with Obamacare:

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/15/obamacare-tax-on-medical-devices-hurts-jobs-and-he/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2012/12/25/in-2013-millions-of-americans-face-obamacare-tax-hikes/

At the local home depot, Obamacare is listed as a separate tax on the reciepts.


So, right off, you're claiming that Obamacare contains taxes, but is not itself a tax. This means that your decision to consider Obamacare as a tax was almost certainly based in the Supreme Court ruling regarding the individual mandate.

Not to be belligerent, but that level of simplification is why we can't have nice things in America.


The government is pulling money from us to fund it. Along with increased sales taxes to fund it, most people would define it as a tax or at the least a cause of tax increase.
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

Relapse wrote:

The government is pulling money from us to fund it. Along with increased sales taxes to fund it, most people would define it as a tax or at the least a cause of tax increase.


The ACA has caused a series of selective tax increases, that much is true. But calling the ACA a tax increase is just lazy. That approach to legislation is, as I said above, why we cannot have nice things in America.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/20 05:56:12


Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in ca
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord





Experiment 626 wrote:I'm sorry, but 'Lie of the Year' award has to go to the Ontario Elementry Teacher's Union... Ever since the start of the school year it's been a giant tirade of;

Spoiler:
Union: The Liberals are evil, EVIL!!! They're killing democracy by threatening to legislate a new contract on us!

Now what's really happening:
a) The Unions walked away from the bargaining table, because they outright refuse to take a 2-year wage freeze, drop teacher sick days from 20 to 10 and put an end to banking--->cashing out unused sick days upon retirement
b) The province of Ontario is flat broke and can't afford the teachers unions' constantly wanting MOAR!!! despite them already being among the highest paid teachers in North America!
As an example, the starting base salery for the 'average' elementry teacher is around $42,000/year. Within ten years, they can climb the paygrade scale upto around $70,000/year. The top end is around $90,000/year.
And yes, this is unfair and according to the unions, teachers are hard done by and need a raise...

Union: We're not going to take our anger with the government out on students!

Meanwhile... The Governement passes the 'Putting Students First' act, aka Bill 115 which gives them the power to impose upon the public elementry & high school teachers the exact same contract that was agreed to by the province's french teachers.

Union: OMG! The Goverment has destroyed the democratic process and is going to use Bill 115!!!
That's it! We're protesting and so teachers will withdraw at once from any and all extracirrular activities of any kind! No more after-school clubs! No more extra help!


Then... The Liberals use Bill 115 to impose contracts because the Union won't negotiate in good faith, knowing full well there's no more money and that the taxpayer is beyond tapped out.

Union: That's it! We're going to have rotating, (and by the letter of Bill 115 technically illegal), 1-day strikes!
"We're doing this for all Ontarians!"
"We're fighting for your democratic rights and freedoms!"

(but really, they're simply doing it to protect their stupidly over-inflated salleries, bogus amount of sick days and the farcical cashing out unused sick days for upto half their current salery upon retirement... )

So now, despite their promise not to harm students or use them in any way as pawns in their political games, the union has pretty much taken away absolutely everything from the students - sports teams, intermerials, before/after school clubs & study groups, no additional help, hell, even some of the special ed programs have been cancelled!

But this all being done for the benifit of us everyday Ontarians...

Let me make sure I understand your anger:

Teacher's Union is upset that the government passed a bill that allows itself to legislate the teachers back to work with their expired contract, effectively negating the entire collective bargaining process.

In protest, the Teacher's Union says that they will no longer continue to do all the EXTRA WORK that they do FOR FREE.

And the teacher's NOT PUTTING IN OVERTIME FOR FREE is what makes you mad.

Help me understand your position; and then tell me when was the last time you worked two hours of unpaid overtime every day.
   
Made in us
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

If it weren't for those fat-cat teachers with their $28k salaries, Park Avenue manicures, and luxury limousines, I suspect we wouldn't even HAVE a deficit.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.

 Flinty wrote:
The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
 
   
Made in ca
Evasive Pleasureseeker



Lost in a blizzard, somewhere near Toronto

 azazel the cat wrote:

Let me make sure I understand your anger:

Teacher's Union is upset that the government passed a bill that allows itself to legislate the teachers back to work with their expired contract, effectively negating the entire collective bargaining process.

In protest, the Teacher's Union says that they will no longer continue to do all the EXTRA WORK that they do FOR FREE.

And the teacher's NOT PUTTING IN OVERTIME FOR FREE is what makes you mad.

Help me understand your position; and then tell me when was the last time you worked two hours of unpaid overtime every day.


The unions walked away from the bargaining table and refused to bargain in good faith. Ontario is flat broke. A $14 billion deificit means there's litterly no money left. Every other public sector union/group has had to fess up and take pay freezes and the like so that we can continue to ruin the province with things like buying Liberal seats by cancelling contracts and moving power plants and all-day government funded daycare... (sorry, 1.5 billion/year all-day Kindergarden)

The teachers have refused to aknowledge reality, so in order to get then under contract, the Libs created Bill 115 to impose the exact same contract that the French Teachers Union already negotiated and ratified. (and it's only for just 2 years at that, so it's hardly like our already highly overpaid teachers are going to suffer much)
Bill 115 doesn't remove bargaining rights, it simply imposes a viable and desperately needed contract that's fair to taxpayers AND teachers because the Public Teacher Unions want to just bury their heads in the sand and ignore financial reality.

The Unions have made a huge and very public promotion that they would NOT! put students in the middle of their rediculous demands/fight with the one-time BFF's they helped put in power.

Instead, they're simply using the students as pawns in their political games and saying crap like "it's not our fault, blame McFibby and the Fiberals" and "We're doing this for the rights of all Ontarians" and "This isn't about money!" (b-fing-s this isn't about money!)

Students have no sports, no clubs, no additional help, no nothing to look forward to beyond their basic lessons.
And the teachers are also outright denying students their future educations as well, since for numerous high school students, sports are their only way to get noticed for scholarships and/or teachers are refusing to write letters of recomendation to uni/colleges.

And as for "unpaid overtime"
Name me another profession that gets a job-for-life security, 2 months holidays over the summer, 2 weeks as Xmas, 1 week in March, optional 'professional development' days, an insanely good salery, full medical coverage, 20 sick days/year that can be banked and then cashed-in upon retirement for upto half a year's current pay, etc...

Teachers have it far too good, and they're acting like spoiled children because after ten years of getting everything they want, they're told "No" for once.

But they're not hurting the students...

 
   
Made in us
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

Being a teacher perhaps is different in Canada, but here in the Estados Unidos, teachers definitely could not be described as having "insanely good salerys". They make on average 44k a year, and have to pay off school supplies out of their end, spend their evenings grading homework and tests, as well as of course requiring a bachelors at a minimum, generally - some states require a masters. They're on the nearly lowest end of nearly any profession that requires those credentials - any accountant will start the first year out of school making more, on average.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.

 Flinty wrote:
The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Ouze wrote:
Being a teacher perhaps is different in Canada, but here in the Estados Unidos, teachers definitely could not be described as having "insanely good salerys". They make on average 44k a year, and have to pay off school supplies out of their end, spend their evenings grading homework and tests, as well as of course requiring a bachelors at a minimum, generally - some states require a masters. They're on the nearly lowest end of nearly any profession that requires those credentials - any accountant will start the first year out of school making more, on average.

Although... thats true for the most part.

But sometimes some benefits are outrageous... like that school district in the northeast where Plastic Surgery is covered.

Hmmmm... not that I'd complain... I have nothing against bewb jobs.

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: