You mean like saving/investing? Sure, I agree, no argument. But all of our governments are operating in the red... which means not only are they not saving/investing the money they take it, they are paying extra money to finance their debts.
Flashback: Reagan on Unions...
- Thread starter CunningStunts
- Start date
You mean like saving/investing? Sure, I agree, no argument. But all of our governments are operating in the red... which means not only are they not saving/investing the money they take it, they are paying extra money to finance their debts.
That's why I said broadly because I wasn't talking about per se, direct saving and investing as it relates to the taxes they pay.
Theoretically the g'ment ought not operate in the red and whatever they (we) pay in taxes ought to be managed for among other things the purposes of funding these pensions.
As citizens in a society who theoretically see a value in educating our citizenry the idea is it's an accepted cost of that benefit. We pay the cost of a teacher's salary and their pension. The pension part of it presumes to serve as one other carrot or incentive to do what some could find an otherwise thankless job.
Teaching for example is generally a personal passion for many..but it's tricky to just rely on that in order to continue to get the 'best' for the job. They could just go do something else for more money and actually get paid for every hour they work.
HM, you and I don't agree often, but I don't disagree with anything you said there. The analogy of the SS system comes to mind... it was originally set up just the way you specify, with "accounts" that were put aside, what you put in you got back out. But you just can't trust politicians to keep their paws out of a large pot of money, so over they years, they bought votes by expanding eligibility, and raided the fund to pay for short term things now, and worry about the disaster later.
And I do value good teachers, they are VERY important. But let's face it, getting paid say 70k for a job that gives you 3 months off a year aint too shabby, and I think in most places, they are paid adequately, and their benefits are above average.
The issue we're going to have here is clarity in communication.
The thread is opened with a video of Ronald Reagan 'breaking' the union of ATCs in the 80s with the colorful language of "his great leadership" (insinuating we could only hope for the current POTUS to step in and strong-arm the situation in Wisconsin).
You have made several unrelated arguments that truly have no bearing on the protest. You have contended that;
a) The education system in America is underwhelming and underperforming.
b) Educators (teachers) are the result of that lack luster performance.
c) Educators are handsomely compensated for their career choice and because of that, we shouldn't be having failing schools.
d) Educators are divorced from "the real world" and aren't grateful for how easy they have it.
Because of all these assertions, you have been backing the Walker legislation as a form of vitriolic "payback" (i.e. "fuck them"! let them eat cake).
It would behoove us to, if we're actually going to have a discussion, is to examine this issue away from personal emotions. I don't advocate for teachers OR unions, especially not automatic pay raises for fire, police, etc.....Hot Mega makes a great point when comparing public sector compensation relative to the corporate world (and much of that has to do with the liberal attitude started during Reagan towards major corporations).
If you want to make an argument for cutting pay, then accept the teacher's union acceptance of pay cuts. Also, if you don't like their compensation, then make a case for renegotiating the contract (rather than this lust for scorched earth).
Is it JUST teachers? Or are there other professions affected? Because of what you presented, it looks like you're turning a blind eye to everything else (again, this goes back to the spiteful thrust against teachers)
The thread is opened with a video of Ronald Reagan 'breaking' the union of ATCs in the 80s with the colorful language of "his great leadership" (insinuating we could only hope for the current POTUS to step in and strong-arm the situation in Wisconsin).
You have made several unrelated arguments that truly have no bearing on the protest. You have contended that;
a) The education system in America is underwhelming and underperforming.
b) Educators (teachers) are the result of that lack luster performance.
c) Educators are handsomely compensated for their career choice and because of that, we shouldn't be having failing schools.
d) Educators are divorced from "the real world" and aren't grateful for how easy they have it.
Because of all these assertions, you have been backing the Walker legislation as a form of vitriolic "payback" (i.e. "fuck them"! let them eat cake).
It would behoove us to, if we're actually going to have a discussion, is to examine this issue away from personal emotions. I don't advocate for teachers OR unions, especially not automatic pay raises for fire, police, etc.....Hot Mega makes a great point when comparing public sector compensation relative to the corporate world (and much of that has to do with the liberal attitude started during Reagan towards major corporations).
If you want to make an argument for cutting pay, then accept the teacher's union acceptance of pay cuts. Also, if you don't like their compensation, then make a case for renegotiating the contract (rather than this lust for scorched earth).
Is it JUST teachers? Or are there other professions affected? Because of what you presented, it looks like you're turning a blind eye to everything else (again, this goes back to the spiteful thrust against teachers)
And more than that, he gave the US back it's balls. Say what you want about his policies, but Reagan was a leader... he was decisive and lead America out of a very dark time.
Reagan took credit for the demise of the Soviet Union....
the real credit belongs to this guy
Without Lech Walesa and Polish solidarity, you wouldn't have the fracturing of the "union"....Afghanistan didn't help, either
Thank god for Reagan and his plan to break the USSR
The Reagan hero of the 80s
This cartoonish, Nicolodean world some of you live in that turns a blind idea to historical context by looking through codified short-term realities is astonishing
the real credit belongs to this guy
Without Lech Walesa and Polish solidarity, you wouldn't have the fracturing of the "union"....Afghanistan didn't help, either
Thank god for Reagan and his plan to break the USSR
The Reagan hero of the 80s
This cartoonish, Nicolodean world some of you live in that turns a blind idea to historical context by looking through codified short-term realities is astonishing
The labor movement and the Catholic Church brought down the soviet union, not bonzo.
No Reagan's defense projects ****** the SU to spend. Giving the Mujas Stingers also helped ***** the SU out of an war it couldn't afford to fight.
Reagan's defense programs simply beat the Soviets at their own game.
As for the Poles they never took to Communism. They had riots up in Gdansk back in 1970. The Catholic Church under Pope John Paul (a Pole himself) helped too.
The Soviets had built up their Armed ****** to such an extent it was "use it or lose it". More than a third of their Gross Domestic Product was spent on Defense. This created the notorious bread lines and bloated bureaucratic system that could not be maintained throughout the 1980s.
Reagan did what Carter was too weak to do..........beat the Soviets.
Reagan's defense programs simply beat the Soviets at their own game.
As for the Poles they never took to Communism. They had riots up in Gdansk back in 1970. The Catholic Church under Pope John Paul (a Pole himself) helped too.
The Soviets had built up their Armed ****** to such an extent it was "use it or lose it". More than a third of their Gross Domestic Product was spent on Defense. This created the notorious bread lines and bloated bureaucratic system that could not be maintained throughout the 1980s.
Reagan did what Carter was too weak to do..........beat the Soviets.
emceeemcee
Banned
History fail.
and
and
but who needs the historical record when you can have convenient sound bites like LOL REAGAN WON THE ENTIRE WAR WITH STINGERS
Uber myth.
Soviet economic stagnation (starting under Brezhnez) combined with strikes and upheavals in their satellite nations were causing the Soviet Union to collapse. The death nail was their war with Afghanistan.
The Soviets were at war in Afghanistan for 9 years coinciding with unprecedented economic stagnation..both of which started before Reagan was in office. Yet we are to believe Reagan ****** them to go broke with his $1000 toilet seat defense budgets.
:1orglaughIf it works for you...:clap:
Uber myth.
Soviet economic stagnation (starting under Brezhnez) combined with strikes and upheavals in their satellite nations were causing the Soviet Union to collapse. The death nail was their war with Afghanistan.
The Soviets were at war in Afghanistan for 9 years coinciding with unprecedented economic stagnation..both of which started before Reagan was in office. Yet we are to believe Reagan ****** them to go broke with his $1000 toilet seat defense budgets.
If it works for you...:clap:
The Soviet economy grew 1970-1980. 1970-1975 it went up 3%. From 1975-1980 it was up 1.5%.
In Reagans first term it was less than 1%. You couple that along with 1/3 of their GNP dedicated to the military establishment, propping up pro Communist regimes throughout the world including it's enormous effort in the WP and trying to keep with our military budget under Reagan and that means collapse.
Gorbachev knew the SU economy could not go on without major disarmament concessions from Reagan and a complete overhaul of their own economy.
The decision to arm the Mujas with the Stinger came after a Soviet escalation in March '85. The Stinger helped by adding another feature that the Soviets war plan would have to deal with, a war plan that was based on heavy use of airpower. It doesn't matter how many Soviet or Afghan Communist aircraft/helicopters were shot down but the psychological impact of said weapons.
The Afghan Air ***** refused to take part in many missions after '86 for fear of the Stinger.
That fact didn't help the Soviets one bit. The fact that Gorby decided to withdraw in '86 doesn't matter either consider it wasn't until 1989 that all units had left. The Soviets continued to lose boots on the ground something the ordinary Soviet back home wasn't willing to sacrifice.
So Reagans hawkish policy overall had an effect in grinding the Soviet machine to it's demise. :clap:
Believe what you need to.:dunno:
Most people could easily reason the cause of their increase in military spending obviously coinciding with their war in Afghanistan which just happened to span into Reagan's presidency.
Combine that with their failing economy and Reagan could have ***** through his 8 years and the Soviets would have collapsed.
As far as the Afghan war....roughly two thirds of all the Russians deployed to Afghanistan were ************* due to disease and illnesses. Their own cooks and poor ******** water did more to beat them than mujas and Stingers combined.:2 cents:
Frankly, aside from status quo 'Cold War' covert activity and broad tactics..it's probably the case the Soviets didn't give much thought to US military spending.
They had all they could handle trying to keep from ******* themselves long enough to salvage a stalemate in Afghanistan.
After all, under the concept of MADD what real threat did all of our spending represent?
But hey...knock yourself out. You clearly want to believe Reagan had more to do with this than is reality. I'd venture to say for practical purposes, George Soros had more to do with the collapse of Soviet Russia than did Reagan.:eek:
Sorry C/S...I know you wanted this to be a unions thread and not a Reagan rehash thread but.....
emceeemcee
Banned
Soon, however, Soviet technical and tactical countermeasures largely nullified the effects. Soviet aircraft were retrofitted with flares, beacons, and exhaust baÛes to disorient the missiles, and Soviet pilots operated at night or employed terrain-hugging tactics to prevent the rebels from getting a clear shot. The best evidence that the Stingers were rendered ineffective is that the mujahideen had all but stopped firing them by 1988, despite continued receipt of hundreds more from the CIA. Instead, the rebels sold the missiles in international arms markets or squirreled them away for future use. (Some have reportedly been fired at U.S. aircraft during the latest hostilities.)
That's some 'psychological impact'.
So Reagan fought against an already retreating army and......won?
Gosh, it's getting a little desperate now.
The Afghans refused to take part in missions because of the Stinger threat so yes that's psychological.
The Soviet pullout had not even occurred in '86 so who was "already retreating"?
Stop grabbing at straws Malay. You weren't even of age in the '80s.
The SOFs Agreement ending our combat operations in Iraq was signed by GWB in Dec 2008 we weren't 'out' until Aug 2010.:dunno:
The Soviets infantry and paras were still fighting in '88 and '89. The withdrawal was accomplished in Feb. '89.
Nobody in 1986 had any crystal ball to see when the Soviets would be out of Afghanistan.
Okay..as were we in '09 and '10. Point is if they were 'out' in Feb. '89, that wouldn't have been decided in Jan. '89.
Certainly not Hot Mega or Trident1. But if the Soviets were out in '89 that decision was made well before.
What makes better copy for Reagan spin doctors? He incompetently ****** billions of dollars on a threat he should have known was dying under his nose... or, he (of all things) spent the Soviets into collapse when they were combined in the throes of war and their economy was in decline before he even took office?
Most people let Reagan history creators spin this story because it was good for the country to believe compared to the alternative. But let's be real, under the circumstances the explanation is laughable.
To deny that Reagan's policies helped speed up the demise of the SU is foolhardy and partisan.
He was a key player. For those like myself who were of age back then nobody stands out like Reagan when it came to winning the Cold War.
Yes the Soviets spent money they could not afford to spend. They were scared of our MX missile program, B-1 bomber, SDI, Stealth, Seawolf sub design, Pershing II, Apache gunship programs for a start. They were falling behind in those fields because of the Afghan war.
Yes Mega Reagan's policies helped **** off the Soviet machine.
Last edited:
