• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

ocean515 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Geoist said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Unrepresented said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
What if...? said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
ocean515 said:
:shock:

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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
ocean515 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
American said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
ocean515 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
What if...? said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Unrepresented said:
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.
Click to expand...

The issue was compensation if I recall. A CEO can grow a company, or destroy it. Labor just checks in, and checks out.
 
shrubnose said:
But there are a few things that they can't buy - like your vote and my vote.
Click to expand...
Whether our votes are for sale is irrelevant.


shrubnose said:
That's what dooms their plans to failure.
Click to expand...
What they are doing is not aimed at those who vote party line like you do.
So there is no failure in regards to you or anyone like you.


shrubnose said:
The next occupant of the White House will be a Democrat.

Wait and see.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. Unlikely but still irrelevant.
And it wont be Hillary. Wait and see. :lamo
 
tres borrachos said:
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.
Click to expand...
The CEO isn't responsible for everything, except to their board. Labor ultimately does the work. Both sides contribute, but the idea that one side is "responsible" for success while the other rides coattails is unrealistic.
 
Geoist said:
We all have a right to breathe unpolluted air.
Click to expand...
No you don't.
You have a right to petition the Government for redress of your grievance, but as of yet there is nothing enunciated anywhere within the Constitution that says you have a "right" to breathe unpolluted air.

If that were the case, automobiles and chimneys would have been outlawed long ago.
 
Unrepresented said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, you want them at $100K.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but the analogy doesn't follow.
Click to expand...

It doesn't follow to you because you don't care that we're losing our right to democratically elected leaders because of people like the Koch Brothers who are purchasing democracy. You'd rather they have the freedom to own the system than for the system to remain free, just as those who supported slavery believed the freedom to own a human being was more important than for a person to remain free.
 
Mustachio said:
It doesn't follow to you because you don't care that we're losing our right to democratically elected leaders because of people like the Koch Brothers who are purchasing democracy. You'd rather they have the freedom to own the system than for the system to remain free, just as those who supported slavery believed the freedom to own a human being was more important than for a person to remain free.
Click to expand...

A laughably tortured and roundabout argument. I believe in free, unrationed political speech.
 
ocean515 said:
The issue was compensation if I recall. A CEO can grow a company, or destroy it. Labor just checks in, and checks out.
Click to expand...
This is a fairly one sided depiction of management/labor relations. Neither side can perform without the other. Leadership alone doesn't drive nails, provide patches, interact with customers, win accounts, or design new products.

The emphasis on leadership at the expense of the many backs, minds, and hands who executed that vision is disturbing.
 
My apologies for not always replying. On vacation, well no apologies for that.
In the Turks & Caicos - No apologies for that either.
But the internet keeps on dropping and cannot open multi tabs to reply- ah heck - no apologies for that either.
Why am I apologizing- Polite fella I guess.
 
Jack Hays said:
A laughably tortured and roundabout argument. I believe in free, unrationed political speech.
Click to expand...

I never said you didn't. I said that you don't believe in keeping democracy from being purchased by the highest bidder. Unfortunately for your point of view, you can't preserve freedom by allowing free choice to disappear from our system of electing officials. I'm not sure what you mean by "roundabout argument" since my argument was as concise as any could be. If you felt my argument was flawed, you should address it and not dismiss it.
 
Mustachio said:
I never said you didn't. I said that you don't believe in keeping democracy from being purchased by the highest bidder. Unfortunately for your point of view, you can't preserve freedom by allowing free choice to disappear from our system of electing officials. I'm not sure what you mean by "roundabout argument" since my argument was as concise as any could be. If you felt my argument was flawed, you should address it and not dismiss it.
Click to expand...

Free political speech is constitutionally protected by the First Amendment. Slave holders forfeited their property rights in slaves when they attempted to overturn the democratic result of the 1860 election by rebelling against the federal government. Their slaves thereby became contraband of war.

I do not believe our elected officials should be able to ration our political speech.

". . . The war powers act of the Constitution gives the president broad powers for waging war. The president could make certain proclamations and decrees and issue executive orders within the context of fighting a war. The Civil War was fought on American soil. Captured rebel territory under the occupation of union troops was under federal jurisdiction. As long as the war continued, the president could issue decrees concerning the administration of occupied territories — provided that those decrees were necessary to the war effort.

Lincoln's lawyers argued that an Emancipation Proclamation could be constitutionally legal provided that, 1) It was a time of war, 2) the emancipation was limited to slave states under union occupation and administration, and 3) emancipation would be helpful in winning the war. Lincoln pronounced to his cabinet, "...it was a military necessity to the salvation of the Union, that we must free the slaves or be ourselves subdued.". . . "
 
Last edited:
Unrepresented said:
That's still in the top 1% internationally, which according to the thread's namesake is acceptable income.
Click to expand...

In your world you get to decide what's acceptable. Best thing for you is not to live in a capitalist country. Why do you insist on trying to change the US, when there are plenty of countries out there that like to dictate people lives that would satisfy you? I don't understand you people, you always want to fundamentally change this country. And it's never the government's fault either. It's always some big business.....big oil, big whatever....the 1%.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom