Page 61 of 100 FirstFirst ... 1151596061626371 ... LastLast
Results 601 to 610 of 999

Thread: Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

  1. #601
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,416
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    Yes I do.

    There are currently over 350,000 caregivers being paid by the state to provide in home support services to the elderly and others who need it. The California state legislature passed a law many years ago that classified these caregivers as state employees and immediately the SEIU/UDW was the Union assigned to represent these new "state" workers.

    The state of California withholds dues from the compensation given to these caregivers and sends it directly to the SEIU/UDW.

    Here is an article that appeared in the LA Times in 2009 that brought this issue to light for me. I have met with my state representative to discuss this program. Her name was Bonnie Lowenthal, and she is a nothing but a union bought shill.

    Fraud infects state in-home care program - Los Angeles Times

    Here is a more recent article on the union money generation project.

    When Home Caregivers Kill the Elderly With Neglect - The Atlantic

    California’s $7.3 billion IHSS program is the largest publicly funded caregiver program in the nation. The caseload has more than doubled since 2001 and now serves about 490,000 low-income clients throughout the state.


    At present, the current SEIU dues are based on hours worked. Here is a link to a dues structure as a point of reference.

    Resources

    So, $20/mo X 350,000 X 12 months = $84,000,000/yr. These dues collections have been going on since before 2009. So call it $50 million for 5 years. That's $250 million in dues paid for by taxpayers in California. This is a real number as it wasn't rejected by Ms. Lowenthal.
    Fair enough. Its 223,000 SEIU workers, but 60 million a year, so close enough for your point.

    My union is little, and quite a bit different from the cliches we always hear, so I'm not up on how other unions work.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  2. #602
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,177

    Re: Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoist View Post
    Let me ask you this:

    1. Do you think there should be direct contribution limits for a campaign/candidate?
    2. Do you think SuperPACs have made those limits irrelevant?
    There's a difference between giving money to a candidate's campaign and buying advertising to support a policy position and a candidate who supports that position. I don't know all the campaign finance and third party advertising rules in the US so I can't speak with a lot of knowledge in that regard.

    Here in Canada, there are limits on candidate/campaign spending and on donation levels to candidates and campaigns, but there aren't limits on third party advertising as long as the advertising doesn't support a particular candidate or party. The advertising can support a particular policy position and it can speak against a particular party and its leader, but not a particular candidate in a particular race. This has been a major bone of contention, particularly here in Ontario, where public service unions and other unions have created a third party agency, at arms length, that spends millions advertising against the Conservative party and its leader. Courts have ruled that they are legal even though they basically tip the scales in the elections by spending significantly more than the parties themselves are allowed to spend. While I don't like the results, to be consistent I have to support their right to do so. I just wish Conservative advocates could be equally as organized and funded.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  3. #603
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    38,956

    Re: Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by Unrepresented View Post
    Think big picture.

    The labor that will ultimately perform every task will be organized by two individuals: the CEO, and the union leader. Neither makes anything. Both simply work to ensure that something is made. They are both organizers of those that will.
    The CEO is responsible for the entire company he is tasked with running. He's responsible for every dollar that is spent, every dollar that is earned, every building that is bought, every product that is developed, every supplier and vendor, every toilet that is flushed, every safety violation, every penny of shareholder equity, the customers, application of and adherence to laws, the communities, strategy, long term goals, short term planning, philanthropic endeavors, finance, budget, reporting, etc. Maybe you don't know what a CEO does?

    Unions are hired by someone in need of labor. Union leaders don't have ownership of the above when they are hired by the CEO of AT&T. The union leader is only responsible for the hired labor.
    Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ~W.C. Fields

  4. #604
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,705

    Re: Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by What if...? View Post
    Fair enough. Its 223,000 SEIU workers, but 60 million a year, so close enough for your point.

    My union is little, and quite a bit different from the cliches we always hear, so I'm not up on how other unions work.

    The 223,000 was in 2009, when the program cost only $5.4 billion. Now it's $7.3 billion, and the number of people receiving care his increased by 35%. Do the math.

    Consider this. The SEIU took this business model to Illinois, where it got the Illinois legislature to pass similar laws making care givers state employees subject to union representation. And they took this plan to other states.

    Now consider for a moment the colossal war chest this allowed the SEIU to build up. $100's of millions from California taxpayers, $10's of millions from Illinois taxpayers. Remember, these were programs already in existence before the SEIU got involved.

    Recent court ruling have dealt a blow buy ruling people could opt out of paying union dues in these home health care programs, but there is little evidence people have done so.

  5. #605
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,416
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post


    I mean come on. You post is ridiculous. No CEO sets out to "create jobs"? A bit of a union tainted slice of hyperbole don't you think?
    They set out to make money.

    Sometimes that requires workers, sometimes not.

    They only hire as many as they need and lay off those they don't.

    Labor costs cut into profits.

    So any jobs created are an undesired byproduct of making profit.

    The term "job creator" tested better in focus groups than "the rich". It is a cynical manipulation, nothing more.

    "Consumption facilitator" would be far more accurate, but much less heroic sounding.

    "Job creators". We could also call them "plant food creators" as the CO2 they exhale does in fact feed plants.

    Can you name a CEO who set out to put people to work as opposed to having to hire people to generate profit?
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  6. #606
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,416
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    The 223,000 was in 2009, when the program cost only $5.4 billion. Now it's $7.3 billion, and the number of people receiving care his increased by 35%. Do the math.

    Consider this. The SEIU took this business model to Illinois, where it got the Illinois legislature to pass similar laws making care givers state employees subject to union representation. And they took this plan to other states.

    Now consider for a moment the colossal war chest this allowed the SEIU to build up. $100's of millions from California taxpayers, $10's of millions from Illinois taxpayers. Remember, these were programs already in existence before the SEIU got involved.

    Recent court ruling have dealt a blow buy ruling people could opt out of paying union dues in these home health care programs, but there is little evidence people have done so.
    Your article says that SEIU isn't the only union involved.

    And I think you forget that dues aren't only spent on political activity.

    But I said you made your point, so...
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  7. #607
    Undisclosed
    Unrepresented's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    06-12-16 @ 09:05 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,230

    Re: Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    That's an agenda, not an improvement. Wishing for some to be poorer, based on what? And who gets to decided how much is the right amount? Too much of a moving target left in elitists hands.
    You shouldn't be concerned that billionaires may end up slightly poorer, after all, they'll still be in the top 1% on earth, using your logic.
    "The side that stays within its fortifications is beaten." ~Napoleon

  8. #608
    Undisclosed
    Unrepresented's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    06-12-16 @ 09:05 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,230

    Re: Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    Forgive me for stepping in, but the labor side of things has very little motivation to ensure something is sold. Certainly there is an appreciation it does help sustain the work, but labor is not responsible for the product, just building it, so to speak.

    Labor isn't interested in R&D, market studies, feasibility, viability, or anything else. It's sole interest is extracting the maximum amount of compensation for the smallest amount of work required. That is not what the mission statement of a reasonable company is.
    Both sides wish to extract maximum compensation, the CEO simply has the (dis)advantage of having multiple means of extracting it; from both consumers and labor. Labor has only one direct path to extraction.
    "The side that stays within its fortifications is beaten." ~Napoleon

  9. #609
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,705

    Re: Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by What if...? View Post
    They set out to make money.

    Sometimes that requires workers, sometimes not.

    They only hire as many as they need and lay off those they don't.

    Labor costs cut into profits.

    So any jobs created are an undesired byproduct of making profit.

    The term "job creator" tested better in focus groups than "the rich". It is a cynical manipulation, nothing more.

    "Consumption facilitator" would be far more accurate, but much less heroic sounding.

    "Job creators". We could also call them "plant food creators" as the CO2 they exhale does in fact feed plants.

    Can you name a CEO who set out to put people to work as opposed to having to hire people to generate profit?
    Can I name a CEO who set out to put people to work as opposed to having to hire people to generate profit? What kind of question is that? They are one in the same.

    Unless a CEO is hired to wrap up business of a failing company, every CEO I know of sets out to grow their business. In almost every case that results in more people being hired.

    Your meme about the origin of "job creators" is humorous to read, but I prefer reality over fiction.

  10. #610
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,705

    Re: Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by Unrepresented View Post
    Both sides wish to extract maximum compensation, the CEO simply has the (dis)advantage of having multiple means of extracting it; from both consumers and labor. Labor has only one direct path to extraction.
    The issue was compensation if I recall. A CEO can grow a company, or destroy it. Labor just checks in, and checks out.

Page 61 of 100 FirstFirst ... 1151596061626371 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •