ny10570

Woah, do not lump EMS in there with you guys (you've seen our uniforms. FDNY EMT/Paramedic couldn't be any more clearly displayed without being in lights). They like us waaaay more than they like you.
In all seriousness; scum bags of all degrees and varieties frequently help us, hold doors, offer to carry equipment etc because we are there to help. We don't judge, arrest, or break things. We just solve problems. People not in their right mind (psychotic break or intoxicated) are a whole different animal and can't be included here as they're irrational and will even attack friends and family. No cop is getting a helping hand from the dealers outside the projects. Hell, they can't even get help solving the crimes they're accused of ignoring.
Every cop in every neighborhood wears body armor because people want to do them harm. Every year there are stories of officers being attacked out of nowhere simply because they're wearing a badge. FDNY EMS is issued ballistic/stab rated vests because one member several years ago was stabbed by a patient and his personally purchased vest was credited with saving his life. We are not required to wear them and in more then 40 years not a single EMT or Medic working for the city has been shot. Firefighters get some flack for "trashing" homes during overhaul, but are generally seen as heros and welcomed when they're responding to a call. Police officers are tasked with enforcing the written laws. By simply performing their job they are going to piss off everyone. The people who call them will never get help fast enough and the people they pursue will too often value their own freedom over the lives of those around them.
Now we all have locations and individuals that no matter who we are will be under attack. Airmail sounds cute and the onion that exploded next to us was kind of funny. The mini fridge that landed as we were fleeing was neither cute nor funny. Guess what, as we were fleeing an army of cops were charging in.
Anyone willing to take a car at gunpoint and then recklessly flee the police putting dozens of innocent civilian lives at risk is a piece of garbage and doesn't deserve to share this earth with the rest of us. There are plenty of cases where normal people wind up in bad situations that get them shot. Diallo and Henry are two cases that come to mind. She was not the victim of tragic circumstances, but a predator willing to put her selfish needs above the safety of those around her. We are better off without her. I only hope the involved officers can be as at peace with this as I am.

That's because firefighters put out fires. Trucks definatly don't Engines help.

FireDude, I love the silhouette of Elmsford Ladder, great photo!!
All the photos are great to see, oh and would somebody tell the chiefs from Irvington that is PD's job to mark the hydrant with a marked car, LOL. (Inside joke as a city cop)

None of the above? I wish we had a better candidate! They all lie, cheat and screw the general public.

A Brooklyn detective shot and killed an unarmed woman in a stolen car after she blew through three red lights, hit a minivan and tried to escape by driving in reverse, police said.



The incident unfolded about 5:40 p.m. in East Flatbush when two plainclothes narcotics cops spotted Shantel Davis, 23, at the wheel of a gray Toyota Camry she allegedly carjacked at gunpoint on June 5.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/woman-clinging-life-shot-cops-brooklyn-article-1.1095976


Great job detectives. Glad they were able to go home at the end of their shift.

A Brooklyn detective shot and killed an unarmed woman in a stolen car after she blew through three red lights, hit a minivan and tried to escape by driving in reverse, police said.



The incident unfolded about 5:40 p.m. in East Flatbush when two plainclothes narcotics cops spotted Shantel Davis, 23, at the wheel of a gray Toyota Camry she allegedly carjacked at gunpoint on June 5.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/woman-clinging-life-shot-cops-brooklyn-article-1.1095976


Great job detectives. Glad they were able to go home at the end of their shift.

A Brooklyn detective shot and killed an unarmed woman in a stolen car after she blew through three red lights, hit a minivan and tried to escape by driving in reverse, police said.



The incident unfolded about 5:40 p.m. in East Flatbush when two plainclothes narcotics cops spotted Shantel Davis, 23, at the wheel of a gray Toyota Camry she allegedly carjacked at gunpoint on June 5.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/woman-clinging-life-shot-cops-brooklyn-article-1.1095976


Great job detectives. Glad they were able to go home at the end of their shift.

Jybehofd if you had read the news reports, during the investigation they were able to make contact with the owner of the boat with the name used. That boat was not sailing. Also there were boats in the area where the caller placed the distressed boat and they found nothing.
Here is the time line from nj.com: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/06/sandy_hook_boat_explosion_hoax.html
This spells out everything from the time the call was received until the end of the operation

It's not bizarre. It's politics as usual in the 21st Century.
The Fire Commissioner is a mayoral appointee so he is limited in what he can say or do publicly. I'm confident that he is working to defend his department and we shouldn't be so quick to call him MIA or accuse him of not caring. That's speculative and disrespectful.
Let's try to remember that as difficult as this is for us to fathom, it is the livelihood of many members of this site so please consider their feelings when posting.
Thank you.

In hindsight there are absolutely holes in this guys story, but in the moment you have to take it at face value. I've been sent out on weirdly specific hoax calls and painfully vague actual emergencies. You take the information and if it sounds credible act on it. Now they can go about tracking him down and hopefully prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law.

The problem with parroting propaganda is that propaganda is often short on facts and long on passion. This combination hinders your ability to participate in intellectual discourse as it takes away from any salient points you might actually make. That being said...
If midterm elections are such an accurate assessment of the public's opinion what does that say about Bush's second term. It was the first time Democrats took the house and senate since 1994. More importantly 1994 was the first time in over 60 years that the Republicans held the House with one exception in 1947. In retrospect Republicans and Democrats generally agree that Clinton was a good president nd our nation prospered under him. So even though Clinton was doing a good job the Republicans were able to maintain control of the House and Senate. With a Democratic Congress, maybe things would have been better or maybe they would have been worse; there's no way to tell. What I can tell you is that since the Depression Democrats have been in charge of both the House and Senate more often than not.
Obama care is largely the healthcare reform proposed by Gingrich and his fellow "Contract with America" conservatives in response to Clinton's attempt at universal healthcare. Funny, in 1994 heath insurance mandates were the sensible choice yet 18 years later they're socialism. Before you get all up in arms about market socialism, the healthcare mandate is absolutely not socialism. Nothing is being taken from anyone and redistributed. People are being forced to purchase a product. The providers of said product are not government entities and free to offer whatever services set at whatever prices the market will bear as long as they fall within certain guidelines. If you live in NY and drive a car you will be familiar with a nearly identical system call auto insurance. You are required to have it, there are mandatory minimums, and there are certain rules regarding the provision of this insurance that the industry must follow. I disagree with the health insurance mandate in that no one is forced to buy auto insurance. If however you wish to drive a car, you then must buy in. Practically speaking however we as a society will never accept casting people into the street to suffer alone because they chose to opt out of purchasing healthcare. Sadly, I don't disagree that the Supreme Court will likely rule against the mandate. They did a poor job arguing their case. Luckily the past has clearly shown that just because you lost in the supreme court it does not mean you were wrong. Many decisions made by the court then would be inconceivable now. Google Dred Scott for a look at one of our not so great supreme court decisions.
The full effects of auto bail out are still yet to be realized. Educated and informed individuals can go back and forth about what might have happened to GM in bankruptcy court. Both sides have salient points and real world examples to demonstrate their arguments. What you are ignoring is Bush started the auto bailouts with his initial injection of cash to stabilize the companies while what eventually became the bailout was crafted. The very same bailout that Bush has since stated he doesn't regret and would in fact repeat if he were to do it all over again today. GM and Chrysler are both doing far better today than they were just before their collapse. Lehman Brothers is the closest in size to GM that has ever gone into Chapter 11 and today is a shell of its former self. Considering that Lehamn benefited from Barclays quickly jumping in and picking off they healthier divisions while no one was interested or able to buy anything that GM had I tend to agree that GM would be in far worse shape.
Obama's win was almost as much the result of everything you mentioned as it was the inability of the Republican's to run an effective campaign. The democratic primary was so bruising that election was the Republican's to lose. Absolutely, the wars and financial disaster were bad but they paled in comparison to the damage done by Palin. Obama's election wasn't so different from Bush's. A little known candidate with no real national experience that escaped a bruising primary on hype and squeaked out general election win more because of the failings of their opponent than the strength of their campaign. P.S. the same could be said for Clinton except that was more Perot's success than Bush's failure that opened the door for Bubba.
Show me where cutting taxes has been a time tested and proven solution for fiscal crisis?? Bush Sr and Reagan both raised taxes overall and Reagan expanded government in response to fiscal crisis. Cuts for the sake of cutting don't work. When corporations find their bottom line failing they spend money.You stem losses by cutting spending in some areas, but those funds are redirected towards investments designed to stimulate new business. You may disagree with where Obama is spending the money and how he is raising it, but outside of ranting tea party candidates republican and democrat economists agree that more money needs to find its way into the economy. Whether it is better to leave it to the "job creators" to spend our way out of this recession or better for the government to stimulate the economy is up for debate.
I can't even go near the Walker stuff. Except for the fact that Walker won, that whole bit is entirely based in fantasy.
Ironically our terrible economy has gone a long way towards improving our position in energy production. The dip in the dollar has hurt our buying power and made importing oil relatively more expensive. The flagging economy also resulted in a dip worldwide in energy demands increasing the price gap between fossil fuels and alternative energy. Coal is still taking a beating, and will be for a while. Even under Bush the EPA was harder on coal than they would have liked.
Feel free to google any of my reply here. All original, largely opinion, and all developed from careful consideration of the world around me. I wouldn't expect you to suddenly change your mind just because you read a few differing opinions, but it would be really nice to hear an intelligent and coherent reply from you just once.
Sorry, one thing I wanted to add...
Why do you and the rest of the incensed right insist on using Obama's full name? Clinton was never William Jefferson Clinton and even with two living presidents named George Bush the middle initial sufficed. Are you that bothered by the name Hussein or what it represents?

You're education on this topic is so one sided its almost comical. Unions absolutely have flaws. No one that has ever taken on the pro labor argument on this board has ever trued to say that unions are a perfect solution. The contention is organized labor provides a better environment for the working class.
The Walker recall did fail. But as others pointed out he spent a massive amount of money and barely won. Its no secret that money equals influence in an election. Obama is hammering California and NYC fundraisers just for that reason. He spent nearly 10x as much (yes that doesn't include all of the campaigners pumped into the state by the unions) and won by a much smaller margin than his original election against a much stronger candidate. This recall sent a powerful message heeded by tea party governors in other states like Indiana.
Yes, higher wages and better compensation has to come from somewhere. Paying workers more drives prices up. I have NEVER heard management suggest a reduction in their compensation or a reduction in dividends for the shareholders to prevent reductions in pay or layoffs. I do however constantly hear about reductions and layoffs to preserve corporate profits.
It has been shown time and time again that increased compensation leads to increased spending which spurrs economic growth. Economies do not grow when people save money. Henry Ford ensured a market for his car by paying his employees enough to buy them. WWII dragged our economy out of the depression because we were forced to dump massive amounts of money into farming and manufacturing. To pay for it the government drove the effective taxrates to levels not seen before or since and the economy chugged along just fine with largest expansion of the middle class and smallest wealth disparity in our nations history.
You say unions are preventing American corporations from being competitive yet Germany has managed to maintain a dominant manufacturing sector and one of the strongest economies in the world despite being saddled with healthcare obligations and national labor organization.
There is no doubt our economy is broken. However any ashole that insists all of the blame rests with any one side is just that, an ashole and should be discounted as such.

You're education on this topic is so one sided its almost comical. Unions absolutely have flaws. No one that has ever taken on the pro labor argument on this board has ever trued to say that unions are a perfect solution. The contention is organized labor provides a better environment for the working class.
The Walker recall did fail. But as others pointed out he spent a massive amount of money and barely won. Its no secret that money equals influence in an election. Obama is hammering California and NYC fundraisers just for that reason. He spent nearly 10x as much (yes that doesn't include all of the campaigners pumped into the state by the unions) and won by a much smaller margin than his original election against a much stronger candidate. This recall sent a powerful message heeded by tea party governors in other states like Indiana.
Yes, higher wages and better compensation has to come from somewhere. Paying workers more drives prices up. I have NEVER heard management suggest a reduction in their compensation or a reduction in dividends for the shareholders to prevent reductions in pay or layoffs. I do however constantly hear about reductions and layoffs to preserve corporate profits.
It has been shown time and time again that increased compensation leads to increased spending which spurrs economic growth. Economies do not grow when people save money. Henry Ford ensured a market for his car by paying his employees enough to buy them. WWII dragged our economy out of the depression because we were forced to dump massive amounts of money into farming and manufacturing. To pay for it the government drove the effective taxrates to levels not seen before or since and the economy chugged along just fine with largest expansion of the middle class and smallest wealth disparity in our nations history.
You say unions are preventing American corporations from being competitive yet Germany has managed to maintain a dominant manufacturing sector and one of the strongest economies in the world despite being saddled with healthcare obligations and national labor organization.
There is no doubt our economy is broken. However any ashole that insists all of the blame rests with any one side is just that, an ashole and should be discounted as such.

The problem with parroting propaganda is that propaganda is often short on facts and long on passion. This combination hinders your ability to participate in intellectual discourse as it takes away from any salient points you might actually make. That being said...
If midterm elections are such an accurate assessment of the public's opinion what does that say about Bush's second term. It was the first time Democrats took the house and senate since 1994. More importantly 1994 was the first time in over 60 years that the Republicans held the House with one exception in 1947. In retrospect Republicans and Democrats generally agree that Clinton was a good president nd our nation prospered under him. So even though Clinton was doing a good job the Republicans were able to maintain control of the House and Senate. With a Democratic Congress, maybe things would have been better or maybe they would have been worse; there's no way to tell. What I can tell you is that since the Depression Democrats have been in charge of both the House and Senate more often than not.
Obama care is largely the healthcare reform proposed by Gingrich and his fellow "Contract with America" conservatives in response to Clinton's attempt at universal healthcare. Funny, in 1994 heath insurance mandates were the sensible choice yet 18 years later they're socialism. Before you get all up in arms about market socialism, the healthcare mandate is absolutely not socialism. Nothing is being taken from anyone and redistributed. People are being forced to purchase a product. The providers of said product are not government entities and free to offer whatever services set at whatever prices the market will bear as long as they fall within certain guidelines. If you live in NY and drive a car you will be familiar with a nearly identical system call auto insurance. You are required to have it, there are mandatory minimums, and there are certain rules regarding the provision of this insurance that the industry must follow. I disagree with the health insurance mandate in that no one is forced to buy auto insurance. If however you wish to drive a car, you then must buy in. Practically speaking however we as a society will never accept casting people into the street to suffer alone because they chose to opt out of purchasing healthcare. Sadly, I don't disagree that the Supreme Court will likely rule against the mandate. They did a poor job arguing their case. Luckily the past has clearly shown that just because you lost in the supreme court it does not mean you were wrong. Many decisions made by the court then would be inconceivable now. Google Dred Scott for a look at one of our not so great supreme court decisions.
The full effects of auto bail out are still yet to be realized. Educated and informed individuals can go back and forth about what might have happened to GM in bankruptcy court. Both sides have salient points and real world examples to demonstrate their arguments. What you are ignoring is Bush started the auto bailouts with his initial injection of cash to stabilize the companies while what eventually became the bailout was crafted. The very same bailout that Bush has since stated he doesn't regret and would in fact repeat if he were to do it all over again today. GM and Chrysler are both doing far better today than they were just before their collapse. Lehman Brothers is the closest in size to GM that has ever gone into Chapter 11 and today is a shell of its former self. Considering that Lehamn benefited from Barclays quickly jumping in and picking off they healthier divisions while no one was interested or able to buy anything that GM had I tend to agree that GM would be in far worse shape.
Obama's win was almost as much the result of everything you mentioned as it was the inability of the Republican's to run an effective campaign. The democratic primary was so bruising that election was the Republican's to lose. Absolutely, the wars and financial disaster were bad but they paled in comparison to the damage done by Palin. Obama's election wasn't so different from Bush's. A little known candidate with no real national experience that escaped a bruising primary on hype and squeaked out general election win more because of the failings of their opponent than the strength of their campaign. P.S. the same could be said for Clinton except that was more Perot's success than Bush's failure that opened the door for Bubba.
Show me where cutting taxes has been a time tested and proven solution for fiscal crisis?? Bush Sr and Reagan both raised taxes overall and Reagan expanded government in response to fiscal crisis. Cuts for the sake of cutting don't work. When corporations find their bottom line failing they spend money.You stem losses by cutting spending in some areas, but those funds are redirected towards investments designed to stimulate new business. You may disagree with where Obama is spending the money and how he is raising it, but outside of ranting tea party candidates republican and democrat economists agree that more money needs to find its way into the economy. Whether it is better to leave it to the "job creators" to spend our way out of this recession or better for the government to stimulate the economy is up for debate.
I can't even go near the Walker stuff. Except for the fact that Walker won, that whole bit is entirely based in fantasy.
Ironically our terrible economy has gone a long way towards improving our position in energy production. The dip in the dollar has hurt our buying power and made importing oil relatively more expensive. The flagging economy also resulted in a dip worldwide in energy demands increasing the price gap between fossil fuels and alternative energy. Coal is still taking a beating, and will be for a while. Even under Bush the EPA was harder on coal than they would have liked.
Feel free to google any of my reply here. All original, largely opinion, and all developed from careful consideration of the world around me. I wouldn't expect you to suddenly change your mind just because you read a few differing opinions, but it would be really nice to hear an intelligent and coherent reply from you just once.
Sorry, one thing I wanted to add...
Why do you and the rest of the incensed right insist on using Obama's full name? Clinton was never William Jefferson Clinton and even with two living presidents named George Bush the middle initial sufficed. Are you that bothered by the name Hussein or what it represents?

The problem with parroting propaganda is that propaganda is often short on facts and long on passion. This combination hinders your ability to participate in intellectual discourse as it takes away from any salient points you might actually make. That being said...
If midterm elections are such an accurate assessment of the public's opinion what does that say about Bush's second term. It was the first time Democrats took the house and senate since 1994. More importantly 1994 was the first time in over 60 years that the Republicans held the House with one exception in 1947. In retrospect Republicans and Democrats generally agree that Clinton was a good president nd our nation prospered under him. So even though Clinton was doing a good job the Republicans were able to maintain control of the House and Senate. With a Democratic Congress, maybe things would have been better or maybe they would have been worse; there's no way to tell. What I can tell you is that since the Depression Democrats have been in charge of both the House and Senate more often than not.
Obama care is largely the healthcare reform proposed by Gingrich and his fellow "Contract with America" conservatives in response to Clinton's attempt at universal healthcare. Funny, in 1994 heath insurance mandates were the sensible choice yet 18 years later they're socialism. Before you get all up in arms about market socialism, the healthcare mandate is absolutely not socialism. Nothing is being taken from anyone and redistributed. People are being forced to purchase a product. The providers of said product are not government entities and free to offer whatever services set at whatever prices the market will bear as long as they fall within certain guidelines. If you live in NY and drive a car you will be familiar with a nearly identical system call auto insurance. You are required to have it, there are mandatory minimums, and there are certain rules regarding the provision of this insurance that the industry must follow. I disagree with the health insurance mandate in that no one is forced to buy auto insurance. If however you wish to drive a car, you then must buy in. Practically speaking however we as a society will never accept casting people into the street to suffer alone because they chose to opt out of purchasing healthcare. Sadly, I don't disagree that the Supreme Court will likely rule against the mandate. They did a poor job arguing their case. Luckily the past has clearly shown that just because you lost in the supreme court it does not mean you were wrong. Many decisions made by the court then would be inconceivable now. Google Dred Scott for a look at one of our not so great supreme court decisions.
The full effects of auto bail out are still yet to be realized. Educated and informed individuals can go back and forth about what might have happened to GM in bankruptcy court. Both sides have salient points and real world examples to demonstrate their arguments. What you are ignoring is Bush started the auto bailouts with his initial injection of cash to stabilize the companies while what eventually became the bailout was crafted. The very same bailout that Bush has since stated he doesn't regret and would in fact repeat if he were to do it all over again today. GM and Chrysler are both doing far better today than they were just before their collapse. Lehman Brothers is the closest in size to GM that has ever gone into Chapter 11 and today is a shell of its former self. Considering that Lehamn benefited from Barclays quickly jumping in and picking off they healthier divisions while no one was interested or able to buy anything that GM had I tend to agree that GM would be in far worse shape.
Obama's win was almost as much the result of everything you mentioned as it was the inability of the Republican's to run an effective campaign. The democratic primary was so bruising that election was the Republican's to lose. Absolutely, the wars and financial disaster were bad but they paled in comparison to the damage done by Palin. Obama's election wasn't so different from Bush's. A little known candidate with no real national experience that escaped a bruising primary on hype and squeaked out general election win more because of the failings of their opponent than the strength of their campaign. P.S. the same could be said for Clinton except that was more Perot's success than Bush's failure that opened the door for Bubba.
Show me where cutting taxes has been a time tested and proven solution for fiscal crisis?? Bush Sr and Reagan both raised taxes overall and Reagan expanded government in response to fiscal crisis. Cuts for the sake of cutting don't work. When corporations find their bottom line failing they spend money.You stem losses by cutting spending in some areas, but those funds are redirected towards investments designed to stimulate new business. You may disagree with where Obama is spending the money and how he is raising it, but outside of ranting tea party candidates republican and democrat economists agree that more money needs to find its way into the economy. Whether it is better to leave it to the "job creators" to spend our way out of this recession or better for the government to stimulate the economy is up for debate.
I can't even go near the Walker stuff. Except for the fact that Walker won, that whole bit is entirely based in fantasy.
Ironically our terrible economy has gone a long way towards improving our position in energy production. The dip in the dollar has hurt our buying power and made importing oil relatively more expensive. The flagging economy also resulted in a dip worldwide in energy demands increasing the price gap between fossil fuels and alternative energy. Coal is still taking a beating, and will be for a while. Even under Bush the EPA was harder on coal than they would have liked.
Feel free to google any of my reply here. All original, largely opinion, and all developed from careful consideration of the world around me. I wouldn't expect you to suddenly change your mind just because you read a few differing opinions, but it would be really nice to hear an intelligent and coherent reply from you just once.
Sorry, one thing I wanted to add...
Why do you and the rest of the incensed right insist on using Obama's full name? Clinton was never William Jefferson Clinton and even with two living presidents named George Bush the middle initial sufficed. Are you that bothered by the name Hussein or what it represents?

Lieu Yonkers didn't choose to start bussing their kids. They were ordered to. That school district has so many problems, they're in far worse shape than PD and Fire.Taking from one to fund the other doesn't work in the long term.

I am probably re-stating things I have said before. I was fully opposed to my job (Empress) going Union, (IAEP Local 20). I worked hard against it. We have been Union for about 12 years now. I am not in love with the Union, but I feel things are better with it. I have been a steward, Chief Steward and VP, though now just a steward.
Yes my folks pay dues, but we work hard to give them value. The Local Union guys get no money or perks, we just get reimbursed for what we spend- mailing, phone, printer ink, mileage etc. We average just ONE arbitration case a year- not contract arbitration, but employee termination appeals. Our work place is very stable- we have EMT's and medics on the job for decades. Our benefits are pretty good, and our company and Union are constantly adding staff and upgrading gear. The starting salary needs work, but guess what? We are about to begin contract negotiations, as ours ends 12/31/12.
If it came for a re-vote, I would vote yes for the Union. When I work with a new guy, they frequently say that they were attracted to this job by the fact it is Union. Anything involving humans will not be perfect. I think this is the better road.
Bill

You're education on this topic is so one sided its almost comical. Unions absolutely have flaws. No one that has ever taken on the pro labor argument on this board has ever trued to say that unions are a perfect solution. The contention is organized labor provides a better environment for the working class.
The Walker recall did fail. But as others pointed out he spent a massive amount of money and barely won. Its no secret that money equals influence in an election. Obama is hammering California and NYC fundraisers just for that reason. He spent nearly 10x as much (yes that doesn't include all of the campaigners pumped into the state by the unions) and won by a much smaller margin than his original election against a much stronger candidate. This recall sent a powerful message heeded by tea party governors in other states like Indiana.
Yes, higher wages and better compensation has to come from somewhere. Paying workers more drives prices up. I have NEVER heard management suggest a reduction in their compensation or a reduction in dividends for the shareholders to prevent reductions in pay or layoffs. I do however constantly hear about reductions and layoffs to preserve corporate profits.
It has been shown time and time again that increased compensation leads to increased spending which spurrs economic growth. Economies do not grow when people save money. Henry Ford ensured a market for his car by paying his employees enough to buy them. WWII dragged our economy out of the depression because we were forced to dump massive amounts of money into farming and manufacturing. To pay for it the government drove the effective taxrates to levels not seen before or since and the economy chugged along just fine with largest expansion of the middle class and smallest wealth disparity in our nations history.
You say unions are preventing American corporations from being competitive yet Germany has managed to maintain a dominant manufacturing sector and one of the strongest economies in the world despite being saddled with healthcare obligations and national labor organization.
There is no doubt our economy is broken. However any ashole that insists all of the blame rests with any one side is just that, an ashole and should be discounted as such.

You're education on this topic is so one sided its almost comical. Unions absolutely have flaws. No one that has ever taken on the pro labor argument on this board has ever trued to say that unions are a perfect solution. The contention is organized labor provides a better environment for the working class.
The Walker recall did fail. But as others pointed out he spent a massive amount of money and barely won. Its no secret that money equals influence in an election. Obama is hammering California and NYC fundraisers just for that reason. He spent nearly 10x as much (yes that doesn't include all of the campaigners pumped into the state by the unions) and won by a much smaller margin than his original election against a much stronger candidate. This recall sent a powerful message heeded by tea party governors in other states like Indiana.
Yes, higher wages and better compensation has to come from somewhere. Paying workers more drives prices up. I have NEVER heard management suggest a reduction in their compensation or a reduction in dividends for the shareholders to prevent reductions in pay or layoffs. I do however constantly hear about reductions and layoffs to preserve corporate profits.
It has been shown time and time again that increased compensation leads to increased spending which spurrs economic growth. Economies do not grow when people save money. Henry Ford ensured a market for his car by paying his employees enough to buy them. WWII dragged our economy out of the depression because we were forced to dump massive amounts of money into farming and manufacturing. To pay for it the government drove the effective taxrates to levels not seen before or since and the economy chugged along just fine with largest expansion of the middle class and smallest wealth disparity in our nations history.
You say unions are preventing American corporations from being competitive yet Germany has managed to maintain a dominant manufacturing sector and one of the strongest economies in the world despite being saddled with healthcare obligations and national labor organization.
There is no doubt our economy is broken. However any ashole that insists all of the blame rests with any one side is just that, an ashole and should be discounted as such.

The truth about unions? They are there to protect their members. After the infamous Diallo shooting, and the Abner Louima torture there were calls by some in the community to disband the PBA because they stood up and provided legal consul and support. My union provides my dental and vision benefits, not the City of New York. I am supposed to believe that my employer will treat me fairly? Out of 14 years on the job, I have only worked under a contract for two and a half of them, because the city constantly cries we have no money. Even when the coffers were full. People are shocked when we go to arbitration. Its not like we just declare impasse and call an arbitrator up, it must be proven to the arbitration board. We once settled a contract 3 years out of date, and asked the city to begin negotiations on the next contract, only to be told by the city "we are not ready." The city was not ready for another 2 years. Just recently Mayor Bloomberg attempted to take away our defined benefit calling it a "Christmas Bonus" . My union protected that right, which had been negotiated by three different Mayors. Even today, I have a captain who insists that he can order people into work on their scheduled days off, for only 4 hours,even though that provision of the contract which guarantees a full days pay has not been discussed in decades. So tell me again why unions are bad? There are two sides to every negotiation, its not a one sided deal. WE have given back items in that past when times were tough and promised "we will get them back when times are good" . Im still waiting for all our give backs to be returned.

The truth about unions were that no one gave a crap about them and the blue collar civil service jobs for the most part because the pay was not great. Paid medical and pensions were the lure and appeal to get people to take these jobs. They were and are for the most part secure ways to make a living. Years later the pay has now risen to a decent level. But now that the White collar workers world has been downsized the last decade are now looking over the fence at their Blue Collar neighbor who, if escapes layoffs, has a pretty secure future. They have to blame someone for this, and the politicians are jumping on the bandwagon looking to blame the unions for all the financial woes of this country.
By the way Unions were created to protect the average worker from the White collar owner who did not give a crap about them but would enjoy the fruit of their labor. Whats the truth Bro please do tell us.

Well, given the amount of money that flowed into Walker's coffers from rich donors, by most accounts, there was a 7:1 disparity.
So, the take away is, the rich will always be able to outspend unions, the middle class, and the average citizenry.
But hey, look at the bright side. With any money saved by Wisconsin, they can invest more in education. Topics like grammar.

I'm so confused right now...

Don't try too hard to follow his logic. First off, it's difficult for anyone who appreciates the rules of grammar and literacy, and second off, it's all plagiarized. So basically, all of his "thoughts" are stolen. That makes him a thief. There no lower creature in academia than he who passes off others work as his own. I just picked three random sentences in that post, and they are all, verbatim, off the internet.
http://www.ehow.com/list_6683091_negative-effects-labor-unions.html
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100921054610AAA0to0
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091019184208AA8AYGx
If anyone wants to have an honest discussion about the pros and cons of organized labor, please step up, but if all you can do is steal others thoughts and pass them off as your own, your making yourself look like a fool.
(Besides, doesn't plagiarism violate forum rules? If not, it should.)

You're education on this topic is so one sided its almost comical. Unions absolutely have flaws. No one that has ever taken on the pro labor argument on this board has ever trued to say that unions are a perfect solution. The contention is organized labor provides a better environment for the working class.
The Walker recall did fail. But as others pointed out he spent a massive amount of money and barely won. Its no secret that money equals influence in an election. Obama is hammering California and NYC fundraisers just for that reason. He spent nearly 10x as much (yes that doesn't include all of the campaigners pumped into the state by the unions) and won by a much smaller margin than his original election against a much stronger candidate. This recall sent a powerful message heeded by tea party governors in other states like Indiana.
Yes, higher wages and better compensation has to come from somewhere. Paying workers more drives prices up. I have NEVER heard management suggest a reduction in their compensation or a reduction in dividends for the shareholders to prevent reductions in pay or layoffs. I do however constantly hear about reductions and layoffs to preserve corporate profits.
It has been shown time and time again that increased compensation leads to increased spending which spurrs economic growth. Economies do not grow when people save money. Henry Ford ensured a market for his car by paying his employees enough to buy them. WWII dragged our economy out of the depression because we were forced to dump massive amounts of money into farming and manufacturing. To pay for it the government drove the effective taxrates to levels not seen before or since and the economy chugged along just fine with largest expansion of the middle class and smallest wealth disparity in our nations history.
You say unions are preventing American corporations from being competitive yet Germany has managed to maintain a dominant manufacturing sector and one of the strongest economies in the world despite being saddled with healthcare obligations and national labor organization.
There is no doubt our economy is broken. However any ashole that insists all of the blame rests with any one side is just that, an ashole and should be discounted as such.