Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 51
Thanks Tree22Thanks

Thread: Ohio Issue 2

  1. #41
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    51,003
    Thanks
    29569

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Blueneck View Post
    Any thoughts on this?



    Doesn't sound so bad to me, but the commercials urging voters to reject it make it seem like it was written by Satan himself.

    What is Issue 2?
    Ads in opposition have been running since July, I think. It is endorsed by the Cuyahoga County Progressive Party, as well as various people I find responsible.

    I plan to vote for it, and hope it passes.

  2. #42
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    51,003
    Thanks
    29569

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by the watchman View Post
    why is Bernie Sanders poking his nose into what goes on in California?
    Because California is part of the U.S.

    Jeeze Louise, sir.
    Last edited by Madeline; 9th October 2017 at 05:00 AM.

  3. #43
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    60,256
    Thanks
    32413

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    I think the argument, at least more recently, is why don't we see teachers, firemen, carpenters, engineers running? Most are wealthy, Ivy League people. Which is why we are seeing a more populist movement worldwide. Why isn't a teacher qualified? That really isn't what the founding fathers wanted, they wanted average people to run and represent, average people. The whole idea that our politicians must be highly degreed lawyers and poly sci majors is quite snobby. I get that we want educated and smart people running but to somehow indicate that only wealthy, well off people that can afford a private college education is ludicrous. Is there no happy medium between an Ivy League grad and Kid Rock?
    I think a lot of what you're talking about comes from the need to raise money. One reason a teacher isn't "qualified" is that a teacher already works for the government and therefore has a vested interest in government serving the needs of its employees rather than its citizens--at least that's the first argument her opponents will use against her. Remember that most pols start with local offices--school board, city council...that sort of thing. They also have to have the spare time to involve themselves in local affairs in direct ways. They have to be well-known throughout their communities among the most prominent citizens--teachers don't travel generally belong to groups like the JC's or Rotary or groups of that kind which are often the key to being involved in community affairs, knowing the people who donate to campaigns, and getting their name in the paper associated with good works in the community.

    When was the last time a teacher in your area got elected to the school board or some other local office? There are enough people who will not vote for someone (or more important, not donate to their campaign) specifically ally because they are teachers, firefighters or whatever? Nothing but a filing fee prevents them from getting on the ballot. But even if you want an office that requires 10K votes to get elected, how do you let those 10K people know who you are? That either requires money that teachers don't have or time to go knocking on 10K doors--which teachers don't have.

    As I say so often, the fault is not in our stars but in ourselves.

  4. #44
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    40,902
    Thanks
    24126

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    I think a lot of what you're talking about comes from the need to raise money. One reason a teacher isn't "qualified" is that a teacher already works for the government and therefore has a vested interest in government serving the needs of its employees rather than its citizens--at least that's the first argument her opponents will use against her. Remember that most pols start with local offices--school board, city council...that sort of thing. They also have to have the spare time to involve themselves in local affairs in direct ways. They have to be well-known throughout their communities among the most prominent citizens--teachers don't travel generally belong to groups like the JC's or Rotary or groups of that kind which are often the key to being involved in community affairs, knowing the people who donate to campaigns, and getting their name in the paper associated with good works in the community.

    When was the last time a teacher in your area got elected to the school board or some other local office? There are enough people who will not vote for someone (or more important, not donate to their campaign) specifically ally because they are teachers, firefighters or whatever? Nothing but a filing fee prevents them from getting on the ballot. But even if you want an office that requires 10K votes to get elected, how do you let those 10K people know who you are? That either requires money that teachers don't have or time to go knocking on 10K doors--which teachers don't have.

    As I say so often, the fault is not in our stars but in ourselves.
    I don't disagree but that's part of the problem. If someone cant afford to be a local politician due to the time requirement or money involved, that makes it even more likely a wealthy person has to run. One big issue we face here locally is the only people willing to run for school board is retirees. They have the time to do so and its become contentious as once they get in, they serve AARP and senior centers who want to reduce property and school taxes. So all they do is cut. They just keep proposing cuts so seniors can afford their taxes. Which makes it nasty for younger people and families with children. But each time, who runs? Retirees. So it becomes a never ending loop. Occasionally someone else runs but often they are oddballs (someone who had been fired and has lots of time etc) and they get in and talk crazy stuff (a la Trump). People are always eager to vote in the oddball though as they hope for that magical change, as we saw with Trump.

  5. #45
    New Member
    Joined
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    214
    Thanks
    76

    From
    US
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    If you think that's what I said, you're confused. And I'm not defending a ruling class--the original point was whether members of congress should get fringe benefits, like any other high-value employee in the US. You've done nothing to address what I've said on that score except to claim--strangely--that somehow good people of modest means should give up their incomes and double their expenses in order to serve in government. Who makes that calculus? I don't care how good your character, no one can personally afford such a move. You think people in Congress should be mendicant monks, living off whatever people put in their alms bowls?
    No that's not what I think. I think we should not complete vote for millionaires. I think you're great. That's what you're saying. Being a millionaire does not qualify you for public service. Honestly I'm surprised you're defending that.

    Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

  6. #46
    Member
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,965
    Thanks
    3194

    From
    Ohio
    I'm voting NO.
    The first reason is because any issue that is so confusing should be voted down on principle.
    The second reason is that I've decided the NAYsayers are more credible than those pushing it.

  7. #47
    Veteran Member MaryAnne's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    43,453
    Thanks
    31012

    From
    Englewood,Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by OHjulie View Post
    I'm voting NO.
    The first reason is because any issue that is so confusing should be voted down on principle.
    The second reason is that I've decided the NAYsayers are more credible than those pushing it.
    Also,the man behind the bill has been sued many,many times. His company stands to profit and he has a long history.

    This is something Congress needs to get off their butt and do something about drug prices.
    Thanks from OHjulie

  8. #48
    Veteran Member MaryAnne's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    43,453
    Thanks
    31012

    From
    Englewood,Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    Ads in opposition have been running since July, I think. It is endorsed by the Cuyahoga County Progressive Party, as well as various people I find responsible.

    I plan to vote for it, and hope it passes.
    Yet you know nothing at all about the issue. Some one likes it,so you will vote for it.

  9. #49
    Established Member NeoVsMatrix's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    6,690
    Thanks
    5637

    From
    NY
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    We had the same issue here in California back in November. It failed. It was backed by Bernie Sanders. The prevailing argument said that it would hurt veterans because drug companies would respond by charging the VA more so that the base price would be higher. Others opposed it simply because it involved government interfering with a market.
    Hmmm.. i tried, but i cannot see how charging one person differently for the same item than another person, by the same company, has anything to do with free markets still.
    That "option" is against fair trade to begin with, and only possible through a regulated and manipulated market, is it not ?
    Thanks from MaryAnne

  10. #50
    Veteran Member MaryAnne's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    43,453
    Thanks
    31012

    From
    Englewood,Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by OHjulie View Post
    I'm voting NO.
    The first reason is because any issue that is so confusing should be voted down on principle.
    The second reason is that I've decided the NAYsayers are more credible than those pushing it.
    Issue 2 backers revise drug-savings estimate; foes challenge data - News - The Columbus Dispatch - Columbus, OH

    Election 2017: What is Ohio Issue 2? | WKYC.com

    State report: Issue 2 savings impossible to predict | cleveland.com

    My morning paper says no savings. No link up yet.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 1st June 2017, 11:53 AM
  2. The people of Ohio notch a win over the Ohio GOP...
    By NightSwimmer in forum Current Events
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 25th May 2016, 11:47 AM
  3. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 18th October 2015, 05:38 AM
  4. Ohio Collective Bargaining Law: Fight Over Issue 2 Ends Tuesday
    By jackalope in forum Political Ideologies
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 7th November 2011, 01:29 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed