How long until riots begin in the U.S.?

[J. J.]

Neither riots, nor revolution.  It's a realignment.   Welcome to 1979!

[J. J.]

Neither riots, nor revolution.  It's a realignment.   Welcome to 1979!

lol...

More like 1929.

And considering who the GOP has up for offer... well, Reagan would be a marked improvement.

What could be happening might make RWR look like FDR.

[J. J.]

We'll have to wait until 2013 to see massive protests. What happened in Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan was a nice prelude, imagine that on a larger scale against the federal government except instead of angry public workers leading the way, it will probably be younger university students and somewhat less partisan. Riots will probably happen along the way at some point but will seem on the outside to be non-political when in reality they will be directly linked to the economic implosion we will be experiencing.

If it was tried by public workers, the rest of the public would rise up and lynch all of them.  Okay. that is hyperbole, but they'd support firing them all.

Public workers are not popular.  (I say this as a former public worker.)

I really cannot believe how totally out of touch the people on this board are with the American people.



Yes, I am beginning to agree with Lief, Beet and SamSpade on this.
[/quote]

[J. J.]

We'll have to wait until 2013 to see massive protests. What happened in Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan was a nice prelude, imagine that on a larger scale against the federal government except instead of angry public workers leading the way, it will probably be younger university students and somewhat less partisan. Riots will probably happen along the way at some point but will seem on the outside to be non-political when in reality they will be directly linked to the economic implosion we will be experiencing.

If it was tried by public workers, the rest of the public would rise up and lynch all of them.  Okay. that is hyperbole, but they'd support firing them all.

Public workers are not popular.  (I say this as a former public worker.)

I really cannot believe how totally out of touch the people on this board are with the American people.

I'm talking about peaceful protests, not riots...

That wouldn't make any difference.  I know people that now work for the City of Philadelphia who won't admit to it, simply because they don't want the comments.  I was a state worker in the 1990's, and as soon as I said, "I'm a welfare caseworker," all I'd get was comments about why I didn't through more people off the lists.

[J. J.]

We'll have to wait until 2013 to see massive protests. What happened in Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan was a nice prelude, imagine that on a larger scale against the federal government except instead of angry public workers leading the way, it will probably be younger university students and somewhat less partisan. Riots will probably happen along the way at some point but will seem on the outside to be non-political when in reality they will be directly linked to the economic implosion we will be experiencing.

If it was tried by public workers, the rest of the public would rise up and lynch all of them.  Okay. that is hyperbole, but they'd support firing them all.

Public workers are not popular.  (I say this as a former public worker.)

I really cannot believe how totally out of touch the people on this board are with the American people.

I'm talking about peaceful protests, not riots...

That wouldn't make any difference.  I know people that now work for the City of Philadelphia who won't admit to it, simply because they don't want the comments.  I was a state worker in the 1990's, and as soon as I said, "I'm a welfare caseworker," all I'd get was comments about why I didn't through more people off the lists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XlUsoM4ruQ
Were you in a coma when this was happening?

And, even the recalls don't seem to be working too well.  We government workers are not popular.

[J. J.]

J.J. is wrong again! Are public employees incredibly unpopular? The answer, as polling shows us, is a clear no!

Lief, there is a world of difference between worker having a right to unionize and being popular.

You get some segments being popular, police, fire, the military, and to some extent teachers.  The guys at the Social Security Office, DMV, Welfare Office are not.

[J. J.]

Jumping in at the fourth page without reading the entire thread....

Whenever austerity to comes to America and a large segment of the population moves from being disenchanted to openly hostile because they aren't getting a job, a place to live or a steady supply of essentials (food, water, basic consumables).

If an army marches on its stomach, that's doubly true for a population. People won't riot over their 401Ks, they'll riot went the rule law is widely disrespected from the top to the bottom of a society (it already is in many ways), add to this the magic ingredient of hunger and then we get civil unrest.

If the Teabaggers get into office, they'll be going after food stamps.  How dare people have food on their tables!  If they just had decided not to be poor and to find all those magical jobs that are just a little too elusive... then they'd be able to eat with their own money!

Hopefully.  That is welfare for farmers (and now farming corporations).

[J. J.]

You missed the first line of the poll:

A recent statewide poll, commissioned by the California Federation of Teachers,...




[/quote]

Liberal state, questionable source.

The question isn't, should we allow public employee unions.

Here is one that looked at public employee unions, which I found surprising:

   Do you think government employees should be represented by labor unions that bargain for higher pay, benefits and pensions ... or do you think government employees should not be represented by labor unions?

A full 64% of the respondents said "no."

That includes 42% of Democrats, and an overwhelming majority of Republicans. Only 49% of Democrats think public workers should be in unions at all.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0211/Poll_Public_unions_a_hard_sell.html

I'd vote yes, btw.

[J. J.]

Here is another one from that conservative bastion, the Washington Post:

   In the poll, a whopping 68 percent find it acceptable requiring public employees to contribute more of their pay for retirement benefits; 63 percent are fine with requiring these employees to pay more for their health-care benefits; and 58 percent are OK with freezing public employees' salaries for one year.

    But just 33 percent say it's acceptable -- and 62 percent say it's unacceptable -- to eliminate these employees' collective-bargaining rights as way to deal with state budget deficits.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/03/four_national_polls_show_stron.html

Two thirds are saying, "Bureaucrats, pay for own retirement and healthcare."

Even Quinnapiac got into the act:

Government workers are paid too much, 59 percent of Republicans say, while 6 percent say too little and 28 percent say pay is "about right." Pay is too much, 42 percent of independent voters say, as 13 percent say too little and 37 percent say "about right." While 31 percent of Democrats say pay is too much, 24 percent say too little and 38 percent say "about right." Men say workers are overpaid, not underpaid 44 - 11 percent, with 39 percent saying "about right." Women agree 41 - 19 percent, with 31 percent saying "about right."

Among voters in union households, 37 percent say pay is too much, with 22 percent saying too little and 34 percent saying "about right."

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1562

LOL at bgwah, and Lief, for using such silly sources.

[J. J.]

if blacks start rioting while Obama is president, he can forget about 2012

No, you can forget about electing a black president for the next 50 years.

[J. J.]

if blacks start rioting while Obama is president, he can forget about 2012

No, you can forget about electing a black president for the next 50 years.

i dont think other black pols of the future would suffer because of Obama, but the King riots hurt Bush in 92 and they would destroy Obama's whole mantra of "hope and change"...in fact, large scale riots would certainly give him a primary challenger

I think it would depend how he handled it, though civil unrest by any group would hurt Obama.  I could see a situation where it would depress turnout in the poorer African American community.