Issues 1, 2, 3 in a nutshell

Tagged:  

Issue 1: Do you want judges to be elected over the age of 70?
Issue 2: Do you want to continue with SB 5 implementation?
Issue 3: Do you want to repeal Obamacare in Ohio?

Your thoughts?

No votes yet

Is it fair to me to continue to pay for health care and pensions of public sector employees while trying to cover my own costs for the very same thing? If you answer yes go ahead and vote No, but if you think it's not fair that you have to pay for your own and other's health care and pensions vote YES.

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

Ill be voting NO...If the issue was just paying towards pensions and healthcare the bill wouldnt be over 300 pages long.

Oh and the the 3000+ page health care bill has nothing else in it but good things for the people right, which your probably for, because it provides health care for everyone, Right?

Issue 2 doesn't restrict collective bargaining, nor does it effect staffing.

So your voting NO on 2 because you don't know whats in the rest of the pages, what about doing your research pertaining to the issue directly and then make a decision.

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

The fact is the bill will probably fail because kasich tried to reach to far. If the issue had just contained pension/healthcare it wouldnt even be on the ballot as over 90% of government employees already pay what they were asking for. Not quite sure how this brought up Obamas healthcare?

The bill will fail but only because the unions have sank so much money into securing it's failure.

It's still a political win for Kasich just as the Wisconsin recalls were a win for Walker because it causes the unions to expend resources to such an extent that when the '12 election rolls around they will have exhausted their capital.

I believe Issue 2 will fail but 3 will pass.

I'm already reading pundits talk that Issue 2 is a referendum on the presidency. I rarely find ANY issue in Ohio is a referendum on anything than the issue at hand and there's been several examples in the past. Yet those same pundits are conveniently ignoring Issue 3 which could be considered more a referendum on the presidency.

In reality the issues are themselves and that's it. The Presidency will be close in Ohio yet again. Regardless of what the pundits say.

MikeyA

To my mind that's the really important one.

I am a "yes" on Issue 2, but not worried. After all the goofball emotionalism has passed, it's certain that Kasich and the repubs will pass a bill of some kind that will still force union members to start paying for some of their benefits. Now that will probably be AFTER the layoffs that will hurt newest union members/teachers/firefighters etc.

It's called the unions "eating their young". It is calloused and selfish. I grew up in a blue-collar family, but worked for a school district at one time. Didn't join the union there, because of how funds went to things of which I disapproved. But I WAS forced to pay $20 dues each month when I was making something like $7.15 per hour. Some teachers at that same district now make in the range of $90,000 per year. Pooooor teachers...

And just for the info of anyone who has never worked in a school district. When the panicked parents of a student call the admin building after school hours, because their little sweetie took a different bus to a friend's house - the people who crisis manage and are on high alert and stay at work until the child is located - are, yes, the superintendents - but also the low-paid support staff. The teachers go home at the last bell. The ridiculous commercials the unions are running making me sick.

But again, the Kasich admin and repubs at the State House will do this piecemeal, and get the necessary changes done that way. Isn't that what BO is trying to do with his fake "jobs" bill??

This thing's gonna get pummeled and it's all because the unions spent so much money??? Wow, guess labor still has mighty super-powers after all.

AP calls it just after 9. Heard it didn't even pass in ultra-conservative Hancock County---Findlay, Flag City, all that. Must be because all the union money spent.

Yep.

Look at Issue 3. Almost complete opposite results. Even though the Unions were highly supportive of Obamacare.

Had SB5 not been in effect Issue 2 would not have been on the ballot and the unions would have spent their money demonizing Issue 3.

MikeyA

or importance on a national scale, but it's amusing you're assigning all this importance now to labor influence, which I thought was dead and buried. You're making Wolfie's night.

Nope, it has to do with special interest influence. You know that stuff that you Dems complain about any other time. You tell me which did you hear about more on your radio and television? Issue 2 or 3? Why do you think that is? Special interest.

How quiet you are on it now.

As for equal weight on a national scale. You're right. I'd say since Obamacare is the only major domestic legislation that the President has accomplished just got rejected by the state by a 65-33 margin has bigger national implications. Now I'm not saying it's an indicator of the coming election but it does not bode well when I can't even think of a state that has passed similar legislation towards Obamacare.

MikeyA

with you guys (conservatives). When you lose, it's always 'Chicago-style' politics, the special-interest good 'ol boys who did you in. When you win, it's 'grass-roots' movements, the 'real Americans'' who made the call.

Problem is, looks like on Issue 2 it's just your special interest pals weren't as effective at the end as the other guy's:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/national-right-wing-g...

Spare me the indignation, why dontcha.

It's a simple comparison with not just a like minded group but an EXACT group.

Unions support No on Issue 2 and 3. Dems support No on Issue 2 and 3.

Tons of money is spent to defeat Issue 2. Issue 3 receives significantly less financial support.

The results are then almost an exact mirror. Now if you're saying the correlation is wrong, very possible, please explain. Yet I'm giving a reason for the correlation and you're attempting to minimize my argument without defending why you think I'm wrong.

I'm giving you a reasoned argument and you're giving me a "that's just what you guys say" arguement.

"it's just your special interest pals weren't as effective at the end as the other guy's:" So the Governor and Legislature are special interests? What are the President and Senate then? Just using your own logic here.

MikeyA

special interest money from representatrives of typically-Democrat Party politics bought the Issue 2 win.

I'm saying that special interest money from representatives of typically -Republican Party politics--including those OUTSIDE the state---attempted to buy an Issue 2 win.

So if Liz Cheney’s 'Alliance for America’s Future' blows into the state with the intention of spending 12-15 million bucks to help ensure passage of Issue 2, this isn't exactly just the 'governor and the state legislature' fighting for it, is it?

Building a Better Ohio sets up a nonprofit 501(c)4 organization that doesn’t have to reveal its donors. Think there might some serious influence-peddling cash spread around from that and other like-minded groups?

Yes, in 2011, it's too bad special interest cash-spending continues to sway election results. And nobody plays this game better than conversatives with their pet causes. So when you lose one you spent really hard to try to win, quit whining about the other sides' 'special interest' money.

and it's gonna get crushed.

When I see something where cutting the Governor's health care and pension, along with the General Assembly's, Judges' and the rest of the bureaucracy's benefits on the ballot I might, just might, think you aren't talking out of your backside ... as usual.

When I take an add out on WSPD for my restaurant, how about I just deduct the portion that represents the station's contribution towards your health care and we'll call it even. I wouldn't want to interfere with your decision to Go Galt. That'd be like enabling a drunk. Think management would go for that?

Better idea. How about EVERYBODY pays for OUR health care. Everybody in, everybody covered, everybody pays. I know, it sounds like socialism, and socialism is bad, but so is letting your neighbors suffer for no good reason -- which doesn't sound ... Christian. And Christianity, no matter how socialistic, is Good.

Mark, the station pays NOTHING for my health care so you won't be deducting anything from your bill should you decide to take out an AD. I agree the Gov. and his staff should face the same costs that would be imposed on public sector employees, along with State Reps, and all congresspersons. But I think even then you wouldn't go along with Issue 2 because you'll come up with another excuse.

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

With all due respect, I pay enough for my healthcare as it is. I don't need to be told by someone that I need to pay for someone else's healthcare because it's the 'neighborly' thing to do when I, and many other families, are having fits making ends meet.

Political Championship Wrestling- putting politics in proper perspective by presenting it as pro wrestling.

Coming in January, a political satire about the sorry state of American Politics- Jesusland vs. Progressiveville.

I should have assumed that from the slant of your initial comment.

So. Pay them enough to buy their own (if they choose to do so), or buy it for them at a cheaper rate like we always have been doing.

By my reckoning,, the labor market for putting out fires, keeping the streets safe and teaching our kids is demanding health care, which when done collectively is cheaper than paying them enough to afford individual policies. Seems to me the public unions have given up some freedom to make things cheaper for everyone ... which is the spirit of sacrifice we'd expect from those that run into burning buildings, dodge bullets, or deal with someone else's teenagers.

Well we can't all be as talented as you to deserve high enough compensation to be able to afford to buy our own health care. Some of us are only qualified to put our lives on the line in the call of duty to our fellow citizens for compensation well below the true value of our service ... as compared to say, talking our our backside a couple of hours a day and congratulating ourselves about how clever we are.

Seriously, you act like firefighters and cops and teachers are being done a favor for the privilege of working for a decent wage and benefit package -- freely negotiated. Our society absolutely requires dedicated public servants to function. I can't say the same about radio personalities such as yourself. But you ABSOLUTELY deserve what you get because the market says you should. That's fine. But don't kid yourself into thinking that you are acting in the public good, at least not always.

But the real point is we NEED cops, etc. Traffic and weather updates between bouts of pithy commentary and news at the top and bottom of the hour are luxuries by comparison. Just like the body politic requires public employees, your body (and mine, and theirs) requires medical attention from time to time. Can your really put a value on a healthy society, or a cash value on your own health? What we CAN do is pay those that provide such services fair compensation for their services.

We agree on something Mark. Pay them enough to pay for their own health care and pensions. You compare dodging bullets, running into burning buildings with dealing with unruly teens and talk about freedoms sacrificed? Which freedoms? You assume my compensation is high enough to be able to afford my health care but know zero about either my compensation or my costs for health care, a typical Dem mistake. And you assume I kid myself, congratulate myself etc etc. Mark, what I do is my job each day. I don't ask for you to contribute to my pay, my insurance costs, or my retirement. Instead of asking me to contribute to yours you should thank me.

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

Fred - you make about $20K more per year than an average cop...so, by you paying ~$4500 for health benifits which I believe you get to deduct off your taxes anyway, that still puts you more than ahead.

This was the easiest ballot yet. Yes on all the issues. Against on all the levy's.

Do you think it gets under wolfman's crawl that from 2000 miles away I have more of a say on SB5 than he does from less than 10 miles away?

MikeyA

I also heard Tom Waniewski's opponent's comical campaign ad on the radio the other day. If all you have for an ad is that the 'other guy' is bad, and you were in a union for umpteen years - that's enough for me to go with 'the other guy'...

If we had Tom and 5 more guys like him, and lost all 6 'at large' council people who do nothing but represent the special interest (ie union) groups, we'd actually be able to get things done around here.

Well I can't vote for Toledo City Council. My family moved out of Toledo several years ago and my precinct is in Maumee. But I agree. If that's all you have to run on then you deserve to lose.

MikeyA

Vote no, yes, and no-----and against all tax increases.

Issue 1: Do you want judges to be elected over the age of 70?
No. Let 'em retire to Florida with the rest of the old people and spend their time complaining about the government.

Issue 2: Do you want to continue with SB 5 implementation?
No. I have three objections to SB 5:
1. I've tried reading through the bill and I do not understand it. If I can't understand it, I won't vote for it.
2. From what little I do understand, police are not allowed to collectively bargain and they are not allowed to go on strike. That's just plain wrong.
3. I'm not convinced that SB 5 will solve any problems. If the problem we have is union labor, pass a right to work law.

Issue 3: Do you want to repeal Obamacare in Ohio?
Oh HELL YES! Obamacare should never have made it this far - we shouldn't even be voting on this; Ohio Legislatures should have gotten rid of Obamacare right at the Ohio State line.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

A: Come on with that wording. Really hard to vote against "Freedom of Choice" in health care decisions.
B: Pro Life folks, take note of the strong support for "Freedom of Choice" in health care decisions ... See "A" above.
C: Supremacy Clause, so ... yeah. ;p

All you yuppie want-a-be's must be crying in your cereal. Issue 2 got destroyed. All you stooges who suckle on the money men balls got screwed. Keep pretending your something your not , saps. :)

LOL, not crying, far from it. Laughing my ass off.

You just had to spend a bundle of your biggest financier to keep the status quo! You won nothing! You get to keep everything that was in place last year and the year before that. And you spent millions to do it.

Again this is a still a win for the GOP because the unions will have less in their coffers for 2012 and I wouldn't be surprised if elements of SB5 still get passed in other future bills because the state is still broke.

So nope, if we can keep you on the defensive we can miss some extra points here and there as long as we keep getting to the red zone.

MikeyA

Big win for the GOP? This pretty much guaranteed Ohio will go to Obama in 2012. Issue 2 will be a litmus test for candidates and since it looks like Romney is going to be the nominee and after a bit of flipping and flopping decided to come out for SB5, he’s going to be pretty much toast in the general election here.

Money well spent...

HA Guarantee

First I said win, not big win. A big win would have been if Issue 2 passed.

So Issue 2 Guarantees a win for Obama in 2012? What does Issue 3 say? Nothing at all?

Issue 3 was a refute of the President's biggest accomplishment.

2012 is going to remain a tossup. The issues in Ohio have never been a good predictor for the results even in that election. Obama is barely leading in Ohio and like nationally polls in the 43-46% area. This is not good for an incumbant.

So I will mark the date. SensorG- This guarantees an Obama Victory!

MikeyA

Good luck to Romney running against ObamaCare since it was modeled off of RomneyCare.

I'm sure he'll just flip again...or is it a flop at this point?

What makes you think Romney is the nominee?

I'm a Repub and while I've heard people talk about a lot of people until someone can get over 40% in a national primary poll I won't believe anyone has locked it up.

MikeyA

Of course it's Romney, which will only prove how little power the Tea Party has. I'm sure they'll be let out after the primaries.

Who do you think is going to get it? The drunk? The frothy guy? The serial marrier? The pizza guy with a trail of settled lawsuits? Or maybe crazy eyes, with the gay husband?

You're killing me here...

In all actuality I don't know who will get the nomination and I won't assume to know.

Romney has yet to get over 30% of any poll as of yet despite the rise and fall of other candidates. Every time a candidate loses support it's supposed to usher in good news for Romney but it never does. (Today's Ohio PPP poll has Cain, Gingrinch, then Romney BTW)

Quite honestly I could easily see at this point a brokered convention. I don't know if it'll happen, and I hope it doesn't but being that no one has broken out it's a distinct possibility.

At this point last time Romney had even more support than he does now and he was unable to win it.

Again I'm not saying he won't be the nominee I'm saying it's a very close race and anything at this point wouldn't surprise me. He does have a strong virtue as looking/acting Presidential which plays to his favor.

I do think a robust primary like we currently have is a good thing as long as the candidates remain civil to one another and don't resort to mudslinging. I think that has been done thus far and especially with people like Gingrich and Paul in the debate it has kept it more focused on the issues than anything else which is a benefit to the voters.

MikeyA

LOL

Let the record state I am NOT predicting Obama takes Ohio in '12....

Issue 2 lost because the whole country was focused on Ohio. If the rest of the States ALL had similar propositions, unions would have been far too thinly spread to stop them. That's what will happen throughout the country in the next election cycle.

I've moved our comments here so we can read them.

"I'm saying that special interest money from representatives of typically -Republican Party politics--including those OUTSIDE the state---attempted to buy an Issue 2 win." The ads on t.v. and radio were over 2 to 1 supporting a No vote. So I don't know how they tried to buy a win when they were clearly outspent by the unions. They couldn't match the union money spent.

"So if Liz Cheney’s 'Alliance for America’s Future' blows into the state with the intention of spending 12-15 million bucks to help ensure passage of Issue 2, this isn't exactly just the 'governor and the state legislature' fighting for it, is it?" Again the "Vote No" ads were twice as many. For all the people you claim from out of state pushing it's passage did FoxNews do a show from Ohio? Did Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity broadcast from Youngstown and Toledo? No, but Ed Schultz sure did. Again the No forces came out in droves with both cash and air time.

"Yes, in 2011, it's too bad special interest cash-spending continues to sway election results. And nobody plays this game better than conversatives with their pet causes. So when you lose one you spent really hard to try to win, quit whining about the other sides' 'special interest' money." LOL I'm not whining. I made a prediction and hours later it turned out to be true. Congratulations on the win. You guys sure needed it and a loss would have been a huge blow.

At what point did you see me whine about special interest money. I laugh that you guys use it and complain about it. Anyone can form a special interest that's the beauty of our system. If you want to get something passed get a bunch of like minded people together, raise the money, get the ground game and get it passed. I don't complain of the OWS, I make fun of them because while they have they people they won't get it passed that to actually be effective. On the flip side there is so much complaining about the Tea Party but they've already been proven to be effective in the 2010 election. Additionally their effectiveness was so much that they really didn't push a Yes on Issue 3 as much as the unions did a No on Issue 2 and they won by about the same margins from the same electorate. So the Tea Party as a special interest is getting more bang for their buck.

MikeyA

special interests---and the people who form them and use them---from either side--along with the whole lobbyist game, are the 'beauty of our system', more's the pity.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57319075/jack-abramoff-the-lobbyis...

Tea Party? Haven't thought about those guys in months. They still around?

SB5 and the personhood amendment in Mississippi are examples of ideological overreach and collective bargaining does not offend most voters. That's the long and the short of it.

Of course you haven't heard from the Tea Party. There isn't a national election until 2012.

Right now they're focused on the primaries.

MikeyA

the votes all across the country were not a win for the GOP. I think the electorate spoke loud and clear.........2012........OBAMA.....2012......

The electorate spoke across the country eh? What did they say exactly? Since it was so loud and clear? For your sake I hope Obama begins polling over 45% before next Nov.

MikeyA

I'm just curious, but what exactly has he done to warrant re-election?

Political Championship Wrestling- putting politics in proper perspective by presenting it as pro wrestling.

Coming in January, a political satire about the sorry state of American Politics- Jesusland vs. Progressiveville.

Well, he's a very ardent and dutiful employee of Wall Street. Just like whomever wins the Republican nomination will be.

We should keep minting coins in the USA, since they are so useful for the purposes of voting for President, to wit:

Heads: Pick Democrat or Republican at random.
Tails: Pick the other guy that you didn't pick for heads.

Ahem.

Issue 1: Do you want judges to be elected over the age of 70? : Unfortunately, the Issue contained three elements, not just that one. I didn't want to revoke those other powers, hence I voted NO on that. Lifting some age requirements sounded nice, since it obeyed the principle of individual liberty, but the other elements took away some fairly nice powers from the state, like the ability to convene certain courts. Obviously the state should have the power to convene courts. Duh!

Issue 2: Do you want to continue with SB 5 implementation? : YES. There was no such thing as "taking away the right to negotiate benefits". All workers have that right regardless of being in a union or not, or what the law says about it or not. If every state police trooper showed up in Columbus at once and demanded a change in their benefits package, there's nothing the state could do to stop them. Negotiations would commence, de facto. Too bad Ohioans are too confused about rights and responsibilities, to even address that. Sometimes I despair.

Issue 3: Do you want to repeal Obamacare in Ohio? : I voted YES, but it seems pointless. Here's how it should go, logically: The federal government doesn't legally have the power to force you to buy a private product or service. Such an enumerated power just doesn't exist in the U.S. Constitution. The Congress DOES have the power to do stuff like lay a tax and then provide that product or service to the citizens from itself. (That means socialized medicine or a public option, in this case.) So the forcing provision of Obamacare should logically not survive a constitutional test.

However, the feds are totally full of themselves, and they think they can get away with it all. Sadly, lots of Americans in 2014 will still be too scared of the federal government to resist, and will end up paying the "fine" (i.e. benefit-less tax), soon afterward scheduled to rise to $700/yr for those not otherwise insured. And the feds will just assume that their tax-and-provide power applies to a force-to-buy power. I'm sure that stuff like Medicare and Social Security will be used by federal officials to claim that they DO have the power to force you into the hands of private insurance.

So even if Ohio's 2011 Issue 3 just stands there like a goofball, the IRS is still going to levy that fine/tax starting in 2014 (assuming that penalty for violating the forcing provision stands after the constitutional test). I suppose that you could play smart guy and with mailing in your 1040, send a copy of Issue 3 and tell them to suck eggs. I can see sending in a more spirited and basic document, outlining what I said above about the nonexistent constitutionality of Obamacare's forcing provision, with a short conclusion using words like "fuck" and "off".

GZ

The Constitution means nothing to Libs, it just gets in the way of their agenda. Oh by the way the IRS bought serveral Remington Model 870 Police RAMAC #24587 12 gauge pump-action shotguns....

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

I like the part where you said, """""""He does have a strong virtue as looking/acting Presidential which plays to his favor."""""" Looking presidential? What exactly does that mean...........lmbo......
For me Herman Cain looks more presidential..........still........lmbo.....

Well, Cain does act more presidential than the current occupant in the White House.

Political Championship Wrestling- putting politics in proper perspective by presenting it as pro wrestling.

Coming in January, a political satire about the sorry state of American Politics- Jesusland vs. Progressiveville.

It means he carries himself in a dignified manner. I wouldn`t expect you to understand.

MikeyA

yall two much........

lawd lawd lawd y'all gots me all confused y'all TOO much

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

I just love that stereotypical colored accent two.......Ignant! ......I like it even better when you use it on the R-A-D-I-O.........so soothing to the ears.......

i was quoting my favite ignant poster missa twilya

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.