You speak as if the “Union” is a great and forbidding power.
You had the opportunity to become a union leader when you were a member.
Far easier to complain and accuse.

You’re upset that A teachers union was willing to do something that they viewed as positive for others, but claim they have no soul.

It’s ok for others to be compensated for their labor, but teachers are required to be called.
How Catholic of you.

Should all work in service of others be done for noble purpose with low compensation?

It costs ~$70 to produce a year’s supply of insulin. Yet, the average annual cost of insulin went from $2,864 in 2012 to $5,705 in 2016 to $12,000 in 2022.

That’s a 17,142% markup.😳 That isn’t inflation. It isn’t supply chain issues. It is 100% corporate greed.
It’s required for some to live, surely right up there with education.
Are the pharmaceutical companies also “soulless whores”?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Once again Jim you are trying to say unions and pac committees are the same thing shocking "

No, you said that. Scott mentioned a mailer from the teachers union asking people to vote for democrats, and you said thats what PACs do.

Wayne, what's the downside to firing the worst teachers, as opposed to the white teachers? Do you assume black teachers need this protection? Seems like you assume that if employment was based on actual ability, that black teachers would be the ones fired, and therefore they need this protection.

"because you don’t have their pay or their benefit"

Because if I did have their pay and benefits, my company would go bankrupt in a week, just as the liberal pro union states are drowning in debt. Funny how you never mention that.

Connecticut has debt it can never, ever pay. The biggest drivers of teh states debt, by far, are public union benefits. As more boomers retire, that debt is no longer a future theoretical thing, its becoming a current reality. WHen you make impossible promises, you can only out-run it for so long

When it blows up, the union leaders and democrats who promised them impossible benefits wont care, they'll be retired. Ironically, the ones who will get screwed will be the teachers, who were lied to by both their union and by elected democrats, told the lie that they could deliver benefits that aren't mathematically possible.

No, you said that. Scott mentioned a mailer from the teachers union asking people to vote for democrats, and you said thats what PACs do.

A he stated they told members how to vote And the candidates were recommended from the PAC committee

It’s on their web site under News


More General Assembly Endorsements

(August 12, 2022) - The National Education Association Rhode Island Political Action Committee for Education (NEARI-PACE) today announced more candidate endorsements for General Assembly primaries in 2022, rounding out their full slate for the primary. These candidates have demonstrated an alignment with NEARI ideals and will work toward policies to support public education and protect Rhode Island workers. We look forward to activating our 12,000 members and their families in support of these candidates.
The Rhode Island Primary is September 13. Vote by mail, early in-person at your City or Town Hall, or on Primary Election Day


I should have done better research , Guess what their not even a union …. But an association and They are set up like the NRA https://www.nrapvf.org/grades/. So clearly someone misrepresented the flyer
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wayne, why isn’t it better for children, if we keep the most talented teachers, regardless of skin color?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim every state runs a debt the nation runs a debt. These are not household and can’t be run as such they need legacy investment looking out many years and generations ahead ….

Attached are the states who have retirements work workers . Many Red And the employees pay their % it’s the state who do not moving money around at the risk of those retirees or they get badly invested

And the Republicans only weaken the middle class by their decades of anti union rhetoric Why the Republican Party Wants to Destroy Labor Unions. The GOP sees unions and their supporters as enemies to be politically and economically destroyed. (But most Americans don’t agree see other attachments)


The right sees unions as a mainstay of the left, a crucial source of cash, campaign manpower and votes.

Yep Jim that’s why Republicans hate unions because Because of the way those in unions tend to vote . They don’t care about the worker their family it’s just that simple and sinister and you’ve bought into the same rational

At a campaign event someone had been attacking both the state teachers union and public employee pension funds.. and

This guy stood up and said ‘My father is a cop, my brother is a cop. They have pensions, I don’t, and it really pisses me off,’ ” Rosenthal recounted. “Damn it, this guy was talking about his father and brother. He was pissed that his own father and brother had pensions.”

It’s sounds like something you would think ?

The comment reflects the success of the Republican strategy of pitting those who see themselves as taxpayers against public sector unions, viewed by many as takers.

Sounds very close to your view on things random? Nope

Wayne, can you answer my question on why it's better for students to be taught by non-white teachers, than to be taught by the best teachers regardless of color? You seem to be going to great lengths to avoid answering that.

As to your debt data, yes all states have debt. Not all have the same debt, not even close...

Here is data from September 2021, ranking states by unfunded debt per capita (per citizen). The 6 states with the highest unfunded debt per capita?

NY
CT
Mass
IL
Alaska
CA

Other than Alaska, what do the rest of those states have in common, in terms of politics?



https://www.governing.com/finance/st...ebt-per-capita

The fed. government takes more from those states in taxes and gives back less on a per capital basis than it does from poor conservative states?

Interesting to see the states most dependent on fed aid:

https://commodity.com/blog/federal-aid-states/

What you always leave out, is that the fed (until Trump stopped it), gave residents of high-tax blue states a big federal tax deduction, not available to residents of low-tax red states. I'm referring to what used to be an un-capped deduction for state and local taxes, which is a big federal income tax break for residents of high tax blue states, paid for by people in low tax red states.

Paul, my brother retired after 37 years in education in June. For most of his career, he put 6% of his salary towards his pension, which will pay him 75% of the average of his 3 highest annual salaries, starting at age 59.

That math is a joke.

Compare to social security, where between me and my employer, I contribute 14% of my salary to the plan, and for my age, I'm not eligible until I'm 67, which would be 45 years of service, and I won't get ANYWHERE near 75% of the average of my 3 highest salaries.

I contribute twice as much to SS as he did to his pension, for 8 years longer, to get about one-third of the annual payment that he gets.

The math is stupid. And that's why we are where we are. When you spend more than there is, you get into serious trouble.

I am curious to know your opinion on a teacher contract that mandates that skin color be the determining factor in deciding which teachers get fired.

still beating that tired drum?

you have lost your mind...

Still snarky as ever

So maybe the states that lag behind in almost every health and welfare category need to start taxing their residents more so they have the funds to help the less fortunate in those states. The SALT deduction would have been available to any state that had an income tax. Instead those states choose not to have an income tax and as a result they don't have the funds to provide clean water and sewers for some of their residents. But the rich in those states do ok.

"don't know what that has to do with your posting a link to an article about state debt"

It has to do with YOUR statement that debt is driven by imbalance of federal spending. The fact that people in high-tax blue states have always had (and still do have, it's just capped) a huge federal tax break that people in low-tax red states don't get, that fact offsets some of the imbalance you always point to. Also, CT has way more rich people than MS, so wouldn't you expect the federal government to spend more on MS?

"But the rich in those states do ok"

Paul, If the rich states did OK in a broad sense, people would be moving there, instead of moving away. But they aren't, not in the numbers that they're moving to certain places within certain red states. People aren't moving to $600,000 houses in the Nashville suburbs in insane numbers because they expect to drink contaminated water.

Middle class people can move to certain places within certain red states, and not be without ANYTHING that they get in CT, but they pay a whole lot less. You can't make that wrong.

If you're in the top 5% or someone interested in living off welfare, CT is meaningfully better than the red states. For everyone else, the value proposition is better in the booming suburbs of certain red states.

I asked you what services I get in CT that I wouldn't get in a nice suburb in NH, and I believe you said nothing. That's the correct answer.

And I've replied. It has more to do w/the average/lower income people than you and I. I believe the states that tax their people less don't care about the poor people as much as the states that are willing to tax their people more and take that $ and attempt to make the poor a little better off. That is reflected in the stats which show the higher taxed states have higher rankings in almost all the social services type categories.

ok paul. we were talking about state debt, and then you posted about imbalance of federal spending. Sonic tiny dint being that up in regards to being a caiden of state debt, why did you bring it up?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yet in uber wealthy CT, the state constantly cuts services to the poor, and instead gives more and more to public sector labor unions, who don’t represent poor people. they represent solidly middle class and upper-middle class people for the most part.

Talk to someone who works for DCF, ask them
if their state funding keeps getting cut.

Poor people in Ct should
unionize.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

??

I brought it up bc you posted the link to show the blue states have more debt than the red states. The red states receive far more fed. $ than the blue states. If every state only received a 1 for 1 return, the blue states would have far less debt (bc of increased tax revenue) vs the red states which would have more either more debt, decreased services or have to increase taxes.

Don't know about what services have been cut but even if true, CT still leads almost? all red states in services provided which is reflected in the numerous rankings which have already been provided.

Again, you are completely ignoring the offsetting effect of the huge federal tax deduction that residents of blue states get, which must be paid for by residents of red states.

When you ignore facts that refute your argument, I'll admit it bolsters your argument. But I'm not sure that's the proper way to debate things.

The money the state of CT gets from its state income tax, sales tax, and the casinos, should be way more than enough to run the state. It's a tiny state with a relatively wealthy population that doesn't need much in the way of state services compared to most other states with less wealthy citizens. Yet we are drowning in debt. Because we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

If you gave the state of CT a trillion dollars today, tomorrow they'd borrow 2 trillion to give to the unions. That's our problem.

Paul, can you tell me how much more the feds spend per capita in NH, compared to CT?

Because a couple making 150K a year in CT, will pay approximately $8,000 a year to the state in income tax, and if they spend $60k a year on taxable things that's another $3600 a year in sales tax, for a total of $11,600 to the state, which they wouldn't have to pay in NH. You telling me that discrepancies in federal spending per capita, are that large between CT and NH? If the difference isn't that large, then the federal spending gap doesn't explain the difference in debt.

There is no more salt and yet the blue states lead the red states in almost all good social/welfare categories.

Look it up yourself. Use the google.

Over 1/3 of Kent. GDP is fed spending.

You're ignoring the higher sal. in blue states.

Fed. spending has a mulitplier effect. New sikorsky helicopters means more people working, more taxes, those people go to lunch so more deli workers, more taxes, that extra deli worker pays taxes and buy products, more taxes, those people drive to work so more gas taxes.

We're talking about dif. things (although someone related). You can't just look at 1 aspect and say it's this or it's that based on only 1 thing.

kentucky isn’t a place where people
are flocking. so little point in focusing on it.

you made the claim that federal spending is the cause of the state debt. so why not show me the data?

answer- the data doesn’t show what you want it to show.

you make the claim, the burden of proof is on you. otherwise it’s just a claim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If NH works for you, you should go there. If another state matches your values, you should move there.

bluestatesarebetter.com

KY is not indicative of a thriving red state. but you picked it to distort things to for your narrative.

it’s not as valid as bringing NH into it. NH is booming. KY is a rough place. Are New Canaan and Bridgeport comparable? they’re both blue places.

do you have a brain tumor? yes, you did make that claim. you said they may disparities in federal spending is responsible
for huge debt in blue states.

it doesn’t matter if those states work for me. What matters is where people are fleeing, and where they’re moving to, in massive numbers.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

which is precisely why everyone is moving from red states to blue states.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pretty soon Jim will have driven everyone else out of Connecticut.
Just let him keep thinking taxes are the reason they’re leaving.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

cost is a big big reason. it’s not always the only reason. but it’s a big part of it. you can’t admit that, because it doesn’t serve The Narrative. lol at the places growling the fastest. It’s just a coincidence that most of them have low taxes?

if weather was the only reason, southern CA would
be receiving a share of them. beautiful weather there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device