Obama signs emergency bill to halt te...

Obama signs emergency bill to halt teacher layoffs

There are 90 comments on the San Gabriel Valley Tribune story from Aug 10, 2010, titled Obama signs emergency bill to halt teacher layoffs. In it, San Gabriel Valley Tribune reports that:

More than $3 billion in federal aid is expected to head California's way after House Democrats passed, and President Barack Obama signed, an emergency $26 billion bill Tuesday they say will save 320,000 jobs nationally.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at San Gabriel Valley Tribune.

First Prev
of 5
Next Last
Stop the madness

Waterbury, CT

#83 Aug 12, 2010
Responsibility wrote:
<quoted text>
Seems better than saying No to everything - as in no cooperation for a year (McCain's mantra).
The voters will remember ....
Yes, the voters will remember. The stimulus failure only saved govt. jobs...now the millions of unemployed in the private sector must watch while govt. employees are bailed out again. This money, by the way, is going to states that acted irresponsibly to begin with. What makes anyone think that bailing them out again will stop their crazy spending? I am a municipal employee, and I am fed up with the waste, double-dipping, and downright unscrupulous actions in my city. I am fed up watching unions fight for employees who should be fired because they are incompetent, lazy, or thieves. I'm tired of watching union and city leaders fill their pockets on the backs of the citizens. I'm tired of watching politicians bending over for the unions who contribute big bucks (gleaned from the union members) to their causes and campaigns. This bill is just another payback to the public employee unions and an incentive to keep their votes.
Just Dave

Pasadena, CA

#84 Aug 13, 2010
It's kind of funny to hear Obama's apologists explain that he's doing it "for the children". So they'll borrow a few more tens of billions to pay off the political special interests, who will in turn recycle a portion of that money back into re-electing the people that paid them, and the children are going to get stuck with that debt plus interest.
Get A Clue

Camarillo, CA

#85 Aug 13, 2010
Just Dave wrote:
It's kind of funny to hear Obama's apologists explain that he's doing it "for the children". So they'll borrow a few more tens of billions to pay off the political special interests, who will in turn recycle a portion of that money back into re-electing the people that paid them, and the children are going to get stuck with that debt plus interest.
Yeah genius, and trying to raise a child in a household with two un-employed parents doesn't have an impact on that child's well being? And having to move into a car and/or become homeless because parents don't have work is not impacting that child's well-being? Let's deal with the tragedies happening to many children now and worry less about some invisible debt monster down the road (read some of economist Paul Krugman's writings if you want to gain a knowledgeable understanding of the current US debt situation)
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/...
Stop the madness

Waterbury, CT

#86 Aug 13, 2010
Get A Clue wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah genius, and trying to raise a child in a household with two un-employed parents doesn't have an impact on that child's well being? And having to move into a car and/or become homeless because parents don't have work is not impacting that child's well-being? Let's deal with the tragedies happening to many children now and worry less about some invisible debt monster down the road (read some of economist Paul Krugman's writings if you want to gain a knowledgeable understanding of the current US debt situation)
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/...
So, are you saying that the only unemployed parents are govt. employees?'Cause they are the recipients of this bailout. I guess the private sector can make do with unemployment and food stamps.
Corporations are Corrupt

Camarillo, CA

#87 Aug 13, 2010
Stop the madness wrote:
<quoted text> So, are you saying that the only unemployed parents are govt. employees?'Cause they are the recipients of this bailout. I guess the private sector can make do with unemployment and food stamps.
Oh, I get it...we shouldn't help the school-teachers, policemen, firemen and their families because they are "evil public employees"? By that logic, let's layoff most of the soliders in the army and navy because they are also "public employees" whose salaries and benefits are "bankrupting the country". And by the way, the big corporations, who are sitting on over a a trillion dollars in cash reserves, could easily start hiring again in the private sector, but their corrupt "Benedict-Arnold" CEO's would rather have $100 million payout themselives so they can build their second house in the Hamptons.
True Freedom

Tarzana, CA

#88 Aug 13, 2010
chris wrote:
..I don't care if my boss takes home a bigger paycheck than me, but I do expect a fair wage that I can live off of, especially since I contribute to the success of the company AND my boss/CEO has no capital risk attached to the business (we are a publically traded company).
One of the reasons we do not allow company monopolies is because they disrupt natural market forces on pricing, supply, etc. Unions effectively form an employee monopoly, and similarly disrupt market forces.. usually with unnatural and unintended consequences (like jobs moving overseas). Look at GM, who will be creating many new jobs, most of which will not be in the US (they will be where labor, pensions, etc are cheaper: Mexico).

And, I'm sure you are cognizant of the fact that natural pricing for a job is not solely a function of "hard work". There are tons of factors. One very important one is the job's required "skill set" and the availability of that skillset in the labor pool.

One of the ways I paid for my undergraduate tuition was installing lawn sprinkler systems during the Texan summers. This was brutal back breaking work in one of the most miserably hot states in America. Now, I make 10x what I made then (inflation adjusted). Do I work 10x harder? No way! Rather, I work in a field where there is solid demand but very few people have the required expertise... and not everyone has the capacity to even learn the abstract mathematics essential to the technology; whereas, installing lawn sprinklers requires skills that the bulk of able bodied people in America could master quickly.

I know you *expect* a living wage, but the fact of the matter is... it is your choice to stay in your job. If you are truly irreplaceable and there is demand for your skillset, then quit and work for a company that will pay you what you are worth (or, as sgvgirl suggested, go start your own business). Speaking of.. think about if you were running your own business. You set your prices for your product or services to be competitive. What if your workers unionize and demand compensation that you can't afford, or makes you uncompetitive in the marketplace? You're gonna lock them out and get non-union labor.

Anyway, go ahead and try to unionize your profession. If your job can be done overseas, you will unionize and price yourself right out of a job.. just like the GM jobs that are heading to Mexico.
Monopolies Hurt America

Camarillo, CA

#89 Aug 13, 2010
True Freedom wrote:
<quoted text>
One of the reasons we do not allow company monopolies is because they disrupt natural market forces on pricing, supply, etc. Unions effectively form an employee monopoly, and similarly disrupt market forces.. usually with unnatural and unintended consequences (like jobs moving overseas). Look at GM, who will be creating many new jobs, most of which will not be in the US (they will be where labor, pensions, etc are cheaper: Mexico).
And, I'm sure you are cognizant of the fact that natural pricing for a job is not solely a function of "hard work". There are tons of factors. One very important one is the job's required "skill set" and the availability of that skillset in the labor pool.
One of the ways I paid for my undergraduate tuition was installing lawn sprinkler systems during the Texan summers. This was brutal back breaking work in one of the most miserably hot states in America. Now, I make 10x what I made then (inflation adjusted). Do I work 10x harder? No way! Rather, I work in a field where there is solid demand but very few people have the required expertise... and not everyone has the capacity to even learn the abstract mathematics essential to the technology; whereas, installing lawn sprinklers requires skills that the bulk of able bodied people in America could master quickly.
I know you *expect* a living wage, but the fact of the matter is... it is your choice to stay in your job. If you are truly irreplaceable and there is demand for your skillset, then quit and work for a company that will pay you what you are worth (or, as sgvgirl suggested, go start your own business). Speaking of.. think about if you were running your own business. You set your prices for your product or services to be competitive. What if your workers unionize and demand compensation that you can't afford, or makes you uncompetitive in the marketplace? You're gonna lock them out and get non-union labor.
Anyway, go ahead and try to unionize your profession. If your job can be done overseas, you will unionize and price yourself right out of a job.. just like the GM jobs that are heading to Mexico.
We don't allow monopolies in the United States? Maybe in the past but in 21st Century America monopolies are everywhere (thanks Republicans). Look at cable TV, airlines, Network news, semiconductors, PC software, etc, etc. I joke with my friends that in today's America you have all the choice you want...Pepsi or Coke, AT&T or Verizon, Apple or Amazon, etc. Let's be clear Duopolies are just as bad as monopolies and most of our industries are duopolies or worst. My last employer was one of two companies who had 94% market share between the two of them - both made obscence profits (over 65% gross margin) and treated their employees horribly. Was the American public better served by this arrangement? No way. Years from now when they study the economic decline of America many will point to the days when we stopped enforcing anti-trust laws as the day it all started unraveling. Very say.
Stop the madness

Waterbury, CT

#91 Aug 14, 2010
Corporations are Corrupt wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, I get it...we shouldn't help the school-teachers, policemen, firemen and their families because they are "evil public employees"? By that logic, let's layoff most of the soliders in the army and navy because they are also "public employees" whose salaries and benefits are "bankrupting the country". And by the way, the big corporations, who are sitting on over a a trillion dollars in cash reserves, could easily start hiring again in the private sector, but their corrupt "Benedict-Arnold" CEO's would rather have $100 million payout themselives so they can build their second house in the Hamptons.
Please, I am a public employee, my daughter-in-law and niece are teachers. We DO have it easier than the private sector and there is a lot of waste in all tiers of govt.. This money is going to governments who were wasteful and lax in running their cities and states. They already were bailed out once. Why do we have to keep propping them up? Look at the situation in Bell, California. Do you think that is an anomaly? Do you believe that the administrators in govt. positions aren't padding their pockets? Businesses aren't hiring because of the economic situation. They fear what will happen down the road. The health-care bill is another roadblock to new hires at this time.The private sector ALWAYS suffers the most in a downturn. If there was to be another bail-out, why couldn't some of it go to private business? Not talking huge conglomerates, but everyday businesses.
wonderland

Whittier, CA

#92 Aug 15, 2010
chris wrote:
<quoted text>
In my opinion (and I doubt I'm alone in it), the "American Dream" is the idea that you can do well for yourself and achieve stability, if you work hard a follow the rules. My ancestors didn't come to this country because they thought they would become millionaires; they came here because this county has (or rather, had) a stable middle class. Laborers used to be able to be middle class people, but now it is only the ownership/investor class who are able to afford a middle-class lifestyle.
As for your attack on me, I don't feel entitled to someone else's "dream come true." That kind of talk is simply absurd. You talk about laborers as if they are some sort of necessary evil that simply gets in the way of business owners making more money for themselves. I have "gotten off my tail." I work 2 jobs and have a small business that I partner with a friend on. I don't need to be among the top 2% or even classified as "rich." I just think that working/middle class people should be able display a decent showing for their work.
Every business owner that succeeds does so because they have quality employess that help to produce profits (unless the business owner is the sole employee of the company). I don't care if my boss takes home a bigger paycheck than me, but I do expect a fair wage that I can live off of, especially since I contribute to the success of the company AND my boss/CEO has no capital risk attached to the business (we are a publically traded company). A union would help make sure I could get a decent and fair wage, but unfortunately no such thing exists in the industry I work in. I think instead of saying "fire those teachers because their union got them a fair deal," people should say "I want a union to be sure I get a fair deal too." Of course the particulars of union contracts can be debated, but the underlying principal of collective bargaining for fair wages/benefits is something that many Americans have literally died for and should never be given up to satisfy politicians.
Your ancestors must have come much later than mine. Mine definitely came for the opportunity to be what ever they wanted. There was wilderness and with the wild, untamed, land came danger and possibility. Not the possibility to be just a middle class laborer, but the possibility to be anything -including rich.

Since: Aug 10

Karlstad, Sweden

#93 Sep 30, 2010
Obama is fvucked..in shit with truth up to his throat is trying to turn tables, but is way to late for his followers and devil himself !

Parasite = criminal = pedophile = humanist = communist = terrorist

OBAMA = STALIN= BUSH
...SOVIET UNION = UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Video Number 8


Video Number 44
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Video Number 45
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Video Number 46
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Video Number 47
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Video Number 48
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Video Number 49
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Video Number 53
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

spree shootings….gay parades….unemployment...church scandals...mass emigration..911...economy crises…our people dyeing in foreign wars…..

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Adam Schiff Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News OPM says second hack affected more than 21M Ame... Jul 25 Elise 2
News Our View: Return Schiff to the 29th Congressional (Oct '10) Jul 19 Hterryb 169
News Secret CIA effort in Syria faces large funding cut Jun '15 Gary 2
News Shift in strategy to fight ISIS may send more U... Jun '15 Old Pom 2
News After hacking, government workers warned of pot... Jun '15 Go Blue Forever 10
News Anti-710 Freeway tunnel group presents new traf... May '15 Tom 1
News Travel ban ends for Guantanamo inmates swapped ... May '15 Cat74 4
More from around the web