Wisconsin Senate passes resolution calling for Democrats to be taken into police custody

reply to post by Whereweheaded

Your own quote says that unions provide 90% of their funds to the Dems. More to the point, over the last few weeks, several Republicans have admitted this is not to save money for the state, but to starve the Dems of money for 2012.

reply to post by Whereweheaded


Or you could point out my flaw.

Your source doesn't back up your claim...let me try a more dumbed down version of it for you.


A group decides to donate some money to charities...in total they have 100 dollars to donate.

They give 90 dollars to the red cross, and 10 dollars to a different charity.

From this groups donations...90% went to the red cross...but that isn't 90% of all of red cross's donations.


Is that simple enough for you?

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by PresumedInnocent

 

There are many and plenty of lobbyists that support the Democratic party, not having Unions would not make a difference in the contributions they receive.

But you said that the Unions pay over 90% of the Democratic lobbying agenda...here is the quote.

Unions in Fact pay over 90% of the Democratic parties lobbying agenda.

I would think removing 90% of the lobbying funds would make quite a big difference.


Ready to admit you were wrong yet?

Originally posted by Daughter2
Not voting doesn't mean they aren't working. I'm sure they are on the phone and meeting with people. They are way from their homes and families too.

And yes, not voting sends a message and does effect the outcome. It's just as important as a yes or no vote.

In fact, they were. They were attending conference meetings by phone, etc. Course the republicans were denying them the right to vote at those conferences, but that's another thread entirely.

Originally posted by PresumedInnocent
reply to post by Whereweheaded

 

Your own quote says that unions provide 90% of their funds to the Dems. More to the point, over the last few weeks, several Republicans have admitted this is not to save money for the state, but to starve the Dems of money foe 2012.

Good luck getting him to own up to that quote.


He has dismissed my attempts at pointing this out to him by saying I twist his words and by calling me a child.


I don't see how he can continue to deny it.

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by The Sword

 

I think you need to " get it ?

Because government workers get their money not from a free marketplace but from taxes, their unions have a large incentive to advocate on behalf of political leaders who support higher taxes and bigger government, which can, in turn, produce an ever-greater number of public-sector union jobs.

What part of the above Fact don't you understand? Reading comprehension isn't your strongest suit apparently?

So you would be in favor of any entity that receives tax payer funds to not be able to advocate on behalf of political leaders or contribute to election campaigns of said leaders.

Originally posted by MindSpin

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by PresumedInnocent

 

There are many and plenty of lobbyists that support the Democratic party, not having Unions would not make a difference in the contributions they receive.

But you said that the Unions pay over 90% of the Democratic lobbying agenda...here is the quote.

Unions in Fact pay over 90% of the Democratic parties lobbying agenda.

I would think removing 90% of the lobbying funds would make quite a big difference.


Ready to admit you were wrong yet?

Oh...Ok I see what your saying.....my bad! Yes I do stand corrected in the fact that the Unions payout to Democratic parties is 90%. It was my bad for not clarifying. I did not intend to suggest that the Democratic party received 90% + of its contributions from the unions....my mistake. I'll take the hit on that one~

Originally posted by PresumedInnocent
reply to post by Whereweheaded

 

Your own quote says that unions provide 90% of their funds to the Dems. More to the point, over the last few weeks, several Republicans have admitted this is not to save money for the state, but to starve the Dems of money foe 2012.

Could you provide some quotes for that? Would be good stuff to know and remember -- especially the people who are saying it. So far as I can tell that is just as unethical as the Dems and Lobbiests delaying a vote to cram Union contracts through.

Not that ethics ever stopped either side.. such as when the Republicans jerrymandered Texas to ensure the democrats would never get a majority again.

reply to post by Whereweheaded


Good for you, you get a Star

EDIT: Now I get to look back and see that you made another post since I started this one... so I apologize for the vitriol ahead! I made a mistake. BUT IT SHALL REMAIN FOR POSTERITY


reply to post by Whereweheaded


Yes, the Democrats, by your later admission, get much more money from nonunion sources. Your earlier illiteracy is not excused, however, because you refuse to own up to it.

In your post here you say some more nonsense.

1) unions embrace higher taxes, thus the higher taxes increase those Union wages...and add Union employment.
2) Those higher Union wages mean more tax payer burden
3) The wages from unions increase, and the " dues " are still collected
4) Those " dues " that are collected from the Union employees, that is paid by the tax payer are redistributed to the Democratic party.

This does not follow logically. Unions do not 'embrace higher taxes.' Show proof that MOST UNIONS support TAXES IN GENERAL to support your absurd claim.

Higher taxes do not increase union wages. Higher taxes reduce union wages because union workers are taxpayers. I assume that your argument goes like this.

ALL union workers work for the government.
ALL union workers receive raises ONLY by imposing NEW TAXES on the people.
NO union worker belongs to the public or to the taxpayers.
THEREFORE unions are bleeding the taxpayers dry.

I can't really see how else you made this ridiculous claim. I mean, you probably got ahead of yourself and said 'unions' when you should have said 'public unions,' but even then you're assuming that the government cares at all what its employees want. Why would a capitalist corporation like the State (owned by the Koch brothers at present) care about its employees? In your emotional state, you wanted the statement "unions raise taxes" to be true so much that you created a lie and called it a fact.

Higher union wages GENERALLY mean that the EMPLOYER, in most cases A PRIVATE CORPORATION, must provide the workers with A LARGER SHARE OF PROFITS. It does NOT ruin business. Unless you think that the purpose of a business is to make as much money as possible for the owners of the trademarks and stocks.

What is wrong with unions and other CITIZEN INTEREST GROUPS donating money to political campai--oh wait they give money to the
DEMOCRATS!!1!

reply to post by PresumedInnocent


i dont believe in any organizations trying to " sway ' the voters much less the candidate. Where is your argument?

reply to post by Whereweheaded


And star from me as well... Probably could have done all of this from the beginning without all the name calling, btw. (on both sides)

Originally posted by PresumedInnocent
So you would be in favor of any entity that receives tax payer funds to not be able to advocate on behalf of political leaders or contribute to election campaigns of said leaders.

Not a bad idea, really.. If an organization or a majority of its members receive any funding from a tax payer sourced fund, then they would be ineligable to contribute to a capaign, party, OR issue based inititive.

Some would claim that as a violation of 1st ammendment rights.. I say it is a prevention of ethics and conflict of issue violations.

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by Whereweheaded

 

They can punish them all they want.

My issue is them using the state police as their own personal guard to push through the legislation they want.


I seem to remember a lot of people upset about the health care bill because despite all the protests...the government passed the bill anyway.

The capital of Wisconsin is FULL of protestors...for weeks now...and yet people who were hell bent against the health care bill being passed because it "went against the will of the people" are fine with ramming this through.

Absolutely wonderfuly hypocritical.

You are purposefully ignoring a - no "the" - key factor.

The people of Wisconsin voted in the governor, and the members of their assembly and senate.

They did not vote in any of the protesters in the capitol or the streets, including the union thugs (organizers) from out of state.

Seems like you are advocating mob rule over constitutional legislative process - just because it accomplishes what you want this time. You're willing to allow anarchy to get your way? Now that is what sounds "wonderfully hypocritical" to me.

Instead, if a majority of the people in Wisconsin decide this whole thing is a mistake, their remedy is at the next election, not in the streets.

Originally posted by centurion1211
Instead, if a majority of the people in Wisconsin decide this whole thing is a mistake, their remedy is at the next election, not in the streets.

Wish that idealism worked in real life. I have yet to see a politician that truely acted in the best interest of the people... They always seem to act in the best interest of their pocketbooks and/or jobs.

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by PresumedInnocent

 

i dont believe in any organizations trying to " sway ' the voters much less the candidate. Where is your argument?

Good, then corporations by your thinking should not be allowed to "sway" voters with contributions to elections. I can get on that one. No corporate money, no union money.

reply to post by MindSpin
Here is something to put on your 'crybaby' list...
Fourteen Wisconsin Democrats refusing to admit they are on the losing side of a vote. Being the sole cause of the current gridlock in that state and acting like spoiled brats.

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

This does not follow logically. Unions do not 'embrace higher taxes.' Show proof that MOST UNIONS support TAXES IN GENERAL to support your absurd claim.

Are you sure about that? Are you absolutely sure?

Well, though i know you will only denounce my submitted reference, here's some light reading for ya, right up your alley!

Government Unions Campaign for Tax Increases Representing government employees has turned unions into determined supporters of tax increases and more government spending.

Higher taxes mean the government can hire more workers and pay higher wages. As a result, public-sector unions have become a potent force lobbying for higher taxes and against spending reductions across America:

Arizona . The Arizona Education Association (AEA) successfully lobbied against a repeal of a $250 million a year statewide property tax.

[16] The AEA helpfully identified another $2.1 billion in tax increases for the legislature to pass to forestall spending reductions.

[17] California . The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) spent $1 million on a television ad campaign pressing for higher oil, gas, and liquor taxes instead of spending reductions.

[18] Illinois . The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 31 funded the “Fair Budget Illinois” campaign in 2009. The campaign ran television and radio ads pushing for tax increases instead of spending reductions to close the state’s deficit

.[19] Maine . Mainers rejected a ballot initiative in November 2009 that would have prevented government spending from growing faster than the combined rate of inflation and population growth and require the government to return excess revenues as tax rebates. The Maine Municipal Association, the SEIU, the Teamsters, and the Maine Education Association collectively spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to campaign against the initiative, and it ultimately lost by a wide margin.

[20] Minnesota . AFSCME Council 5 unsuccessfully lobbied state legislators to override Governor Tim Pawlenty’s veto of a $1 billion tax increase in the spring of 2009. Two Democrats joined all the Republicans in the state House to uphold the veto. In response AFSCME endorsed a primary challenger to one of the Democrats.

[21] AFSCME is now lobbying state legislators to raise taxes by $3.8 billion.

[22] New Jersey . Democratic State Senator Stephen Sweeney, now the president of the New Jersey Senate, opposed a 1 percent increase in the state sales tax in 2006. In response, the Communication Workers of America sent giant inflatable rats and protestors in hot dog costumes reading “Sweeney the Weenie” outside the former labor leader’s office.

[23] The tax increase ultimately passed. Oregon . Public employee unions in Oregon provided 90 percent of the $4 million spent advocating two ballot initiatives to raise personal income and business taxes by $733 million.

[24] The unions want the tax increases to prevent cuts in the gold-plated medical benefits for state workers.

[25] Washington State. The Washington state legislature has resisted calls from unions to raise taxes. In response, labor unions are threatening to withhold donations and fund primary campaigns against the Democrats who will not vote for tax hikes.

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by Whereweheaded

 

They can punish them all they want.

My issue is them using the state police as their own personal guard to push through the legislation they want.


I seem to remember a lot of people upset about the health care bill because despite all the protests...the government passed the bill anyway.

The capital of Wisconsin is FULL of protestors...for weeks now...and yet people who were hell bent against the health care bill being passed because it "went against the will of the people" are fine with ramming this through.

Absolutely wonderfuly hypocritical.

You are purposefully ignoring a - no "the" - key factor.

The people of Wisconsin voted in the governor, and the members of their assembly and senate.

They did not vote in any of the protesters in the capitol or the streets, including the union thugs (organizers) from out of state.

Seems like you are advocating mob rule over constitutional legislative process - just because it accomplishes what you want this time. You're willing to allow anarchy to get your way? Now that is what sounds "wonderfully hypocritical" to me.

Instead, if a majority of the people in Wisconsin decide this whole thing is a mistake, their remedy is at the next election, not in the streets.

they can be in the streets all they want

It's called the first amendment

Union thugs

How bout the corporate thugs in the chamber???

Y'all are going to tank your 2012 chances

keep calling those people thugs


PLEASE

Originally posted by MindSpin

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by PresumedInnocent

 

There are many and plenty of lobbyists that support the Democratic party, not having Unions would not make a difference in the contributions they receive.

But you said that the Unions pay over 90% of the Democratic lobbying agenda...here is the quote.

Unions in Fact pay over 90% of the Democratic parties lobbying agenda.

I would think removing 90% of the lobbying funds would make quite a big difference.


Ready to admit you were wrong yet?

Ready to admit that IF this is at least partly political, that IF the unions had stuck with taking care of their workers instead of becoming part of the "democrat political machine", this might be a different story altogether?

See, here is more hypocrisy. People on the left like the spinner hate Fox News and talk radio to the point of trying to ban them just because they think they promote a point of view opposite of their own.

Now IF - and I said IF - this Wisconsin business is at least partly political, well, can the left really be complaining if someone has turned the tables on them?

Only if they are hypocrites ...

reply to post by centurion1211


I think you need to revert back to page one, and re-read my posts? I have stated the Constitutionality. I have said nothing about " mobsters " running the show sort of speak.