Wow! Suzie, maybe we should all just return to living like the Amish. How do you feel about all the roads and highways. Just think of all the foliage and fauna that is now buried under poisonous concrete and asphalt.
As Bob said, why additional regulations? We have used fracking for decades in our country with minimum hazard. We also shouldn't be taxing the industry simply because we can. All that is needed is a watchful eye, and common sense use of our resources.
And as far as spending money on training people to work in the renewable energy field, shouldn't we first have a renewable energy field? The efforts to push so called clean energy jobs would be laughable if it were not so sad. No such industry exists without government subsidies. These efforts make about as much sense as training our youths to become "jet pack" mechanics just because someone saw one fly at a sporting event.
There has never been a successful, so called, clean energy installation that has ever replaced a conventional generating plant. Someday they will exist, but until that day arrives we should stop kidding ourselves about alternative energy.
The only money that should be spent on this should be for basic research, until feasible solutions are found to insure its practicality.
Could this actually be a ruse in order to allow the union to say that the employees pay 10% toward their pensions, simply because language exist saying that the employees share is 10%, but somewhere else in the contract it says that they only have to pay .05% of the 10%? I know that when I served on Girard's City Council there was such a thing that was called the pension pickup. But I don't think anyone was trying to fool the taxpaying public into believing that the involved employees actually paid anything toward their pension. But now I'm wondering
On another point. I really get a chuckle every time is see one of the politicians who stood shoulder to shoulder with the public employee unions in the battle against SB5, anguish over a wage contract.
What a joke. This article flies in the face of evidence that tax cuts spur economic activity, which in turn boost tax revenue. Nothing but a left wing hit piece.
Could anybody explain what this means? "In the final year, however, the rejected agreement would have raised the employees’ contribution from 0.5 percent to 2.5 percent of the 10 percent employee share of the Public Employees Retirement System."
So Mitch MC Connell thinks the single most important thing is seeing that Obama is a one term President. Does anyone think that Obama doesn't think the single most important thing is that he is a two term President? What's the difference? Seems to me that Bertram makes too much of this.
We must face this fact. There is a war between liberals and conservatives in this country, and there is going to be no compromises. Very little will happen until one side or the other is vanquished.
Bertram and others think the Republicans wouldn't go along with any idea proposed by the Democrats, even if it was good for the Country. But the truth is that either side would go along with the other, in any idea they thought good for America, but the ideologies are so far apart that it seldom occurs.
Bertram asks, then answers, "Will there be any substantive legislation passed to spur the economy, thus creating jobs? The answer is no." But how could there be, when the Democrats think more regulation and spending is needed, and the Republicans believe the opposite?
Bertram parrots the liberal mantra of more and higher taxes, citing Romney's 14 percent tax rates on investment income. Surely he knows that taxing something more, means getting less of it. Does he want higher taxes on investment? Doesn't he understand that we will get less of it? Does he have any idea of how important investment incomes are to many retired people? Doesn't he care if they're hurt?
It's sad to see Bertram, who is so often so accurate in his commentary to fall prey, so blatantly, to the propaganda of the left.
It's a shame that Ryan doesn't have enough respect for the law to object to this President dis-regarding the very law that the Democrat Party used to block Bush's appointments. Bush, at least was honorable enough to obey the law even though it was used in an underhanded way. There isn't a shred of honor in Tim Ryan.
Watkin's refusal is saddening. The article says that Jobs and Family Services will conduct a review of the Children's Services Board's visitation policies. What's to review when a court ordered supervised visitation order was disobeyed?
Is JFS' review to recommend needed policy changes or to determine if any wrongdoing occurred? It is not enough to just come back with some recommended visitation policy changes. Someone needs to be punished.
Before We Were Oil Tycoons
Wow! Suzie, maybe we should all just return to living like the Amish. How do you feel about all the roads and highways. Just think of all the foliage and fauna that is now buried under poisonous concrete and asphalt.
March 11, 2012 at 11:29 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Before We Were Oil Tycoons
As Bob said, why additional regulations? We have used fracking for decades in our country with minimum hazard. We also shouldn't be taxing the industry simply because we can. All that is needed is a watchful eye, and common sense use of our resources.
And as far as spending money on training people to work in the renewable energy field, shouldn't we first have a renewable energy field? The efforts to push so called clean energy jobs would be laughable if it were not so sad. No such industry exists without government subsidies. These efforts make about as much sense as training our youths to become "jet pack" mechanics just because someone saw one fly at a sporting event.
There has never been a successful, so called, clean energy installation that has ever replaced a conventional generating plant. Someday they will exist, but until that day arrives we should stop kidding ourselves about alternative energy.
The only money that should be spent on this should be for basic research, until feasible solutions are found to insure its practicality.
March 8, 2012 at 9:39 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Mahoning officials reject proposed pact over raises
Could this actually be a ruse in order to allow the union to say that the employees pay 10% toward their pensions, simply because language exist saying that the employees share is 10%, but somewhere else in the contract it says that they only have to pay .05% of the 10%? I know that when I served on Girard's City Council there was such a thing that was called the pension pickup. But I don't think anyone was trying to fool the taxpaying public into believing that the involved employees actually paid anything toward their pension. But now I'm wondering
On another point. I really get a chuckle every time is see one of the politicians who stood shoulder to shoulder with the public employee unions in the battle against SB5, anguish over a wage contract.
February 24, 2012 at 12:15 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Study: Santorum, Gingrich plans would greatly expand US debt
What a joke. This article flies in the face of evidence that tax cuts spur economic activity, which in turn boost tax revenue. Nothing but a left wing hit piece.
February 24, 2012 at 11:58 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Mahoning officials reject proposed pact over raises
Could anybody explain what this means? "In the final year, however, the rejected agreement would have raised the employees’ contribution from 0.5 percent to 2.5 percent of the 10 percent employee share of the Public Employees Retirement System."
February 24, 2012 at 9:39 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Presidential sweepstakes will undermine economic recovery
So Mitch MC Connell thinks the single most important thing is seeing that Obama is a one term President. Does anyone think that Obama doesn't think the single most important thing is that he is a two term President? What's the difference? Seems to me that Bertram makes too much of this.
We must face this fact. There is a war between liberals and conservatives in this country, and there is going to be no compromises. Very little will happen until one side or the other is vanquished.
Bertram and others think the Republicans wouldn't go along with any idea proposed by the Democrats, even if it was good for the Country. But the truth is that either side would go along with the other, in any idea they thought good for America, but the ideologies are so far apart that it seldom occurs.
Bertram asks, then answers, "Will there be any substantive legislation passed to spur the economy, thus creating jobs? The answer is no."
But how could there be, when the Democrats think more regulation and spending is needed, and the Republicans believe the opposite?
Bertram parrots the liberal mantra of more and higher taxes, citing Romney's 14 percent tax rates on investment income. Surely he knows that taxing something more, means getting less of it. Does he want higher taxes on investment? Doesn't he understand that we will get less of it? Does he have any idea of how important investment incomes are to many retired people? Doesn't he care if they're hurt?
It's sad to see Bertram, who is so often so accurate in his commentary to fall prey, so blatantly, to the propaganda of the left.
January 26, 2012 at 9:38 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Ryan: Cordray is good choice
It is sad that Tim Ryan does not have the moral courage to speak out against Obama trampling on the Constitution as he is doing in these appointments.
January 5, 2012 at 1:35 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Ryan lauds Obama’s bold statement in Cordray appointment
It's a shame that Ryan doesn't have enough respect for the law to object to this President dis-regarding the very law that the Democrat Party used to block Bush's appointments. Bush, at least was honorable enough to obey the law even though it was used in an underhanded way. There isn't a shred of honor in Tim Ryan.
January 5, 2012 at 9:21 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Issue 2 good for us
Great common sense points. I don't see how anyone could read this and oppose Issue 2.
October 31, 2011 at 12:55 p.m. permalink suggest removal
No special prosecutor needed in child rape case at CSB, Prosecutor Watkins says
Watkin's refusal is saddening. The article says that Jobs and Family Services will conduct a review of the Children's Services Board's visitation policies. What's to review when a court ordered supervised visitation order was disobeyed?
Is JFS' review to recommend needed policy changes or to determine if any wrongdoing occurred? It is not enough to just come back with some recommended visitation policy changes. Someone needs to be punished.
October 20, 2011 at 9:46 a.m. permalink suggest removal