• 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!

Walker takes broad swipe at public employee unions

Status
Not open for further replies.
randel said:
i will say this SLOOOOOOWLY FOR YOU...no dues are used...any money spent on politics is collected by voluntary contribution....as for the rest of your post, read the thread.
Click to expand...

Ok, just goes to show we have a lot of ignorant union employees that fund PAC's that fund Democrat candidates so that those candidates can help put your company out of business. They destroyed the auto industry and most of the other manufacturing businesses but that isn't enough. Now they are working on bankrupting the states. I couldn't care less if the UAW puts you out of business for you are to blame if that happens. Are your benefits and salary paid by the taxpayers?
 
Conservative said:
Ok, just goes to show we have a lot of ignorant union employees that fund PAC's that fund Democrat candidates so that those candidates can help put your company out of business. They destroyed the auto industry and most of the other manufacturing businesses but that isn't enough. Now they are working on bankrupting the states. I couldn't care less if the UAW puts you out of business for you are to blame if that happens. Are your benefits and salary paid by the taxpayers?
Click to expand...
why do you care who pays my benefits and salary? what is it to you?
 
randel said:
just thinking, boy, would it be nice, if some folks here had an actual clue as to what they were talking about.
Click to expand...

its never stopped them in the past
 
randel said:
why do you care who pays my benefits and salary? what is it to you?
Click to expand...

Read what I posted, I don't care who pays your salary and benefits because it is handled by private industry. If your union puts your company out of business, so be it, although it then becomes the taxpayers' problem. Not so with public unions, our taxdollars fund their pay and benefits and thus are their employer. Seems like a hard concept for those supporting the Wisconsin union protests to understand.
 
Catawba said:
You claimed unions were not constitutional. I've demonstrated that they are by the rule of law.
Click to expand...

where did I say that.
 
TurtleDude said:
actually most legal scholars admit the New deal was a rejection of the original intent as well as the existing precedent

read the various commentaries on schechter poultry etc
Click to expand...

here is my comment that catawba claims says that I believe unions were unconstitutional
 
Amazed said:
The New Deal was ONLY accepted because FDR bullied the Supreme Court...

It's the ONLY reason he got his Ruling on the Commerce Clause.
Click to expand...

yep, they rolled over and played dead and then agreed to reject the founders and 130 years of precedent
 
The radical right wing revisionism on American History is producing complete and total ignorance of the real America and its actual history. This latest waterfall of mistruth is just the most recent example.

Does Turtle have his list of "scholars" with a clear majority indicated to back up his statement that


actually most legal scholars admit the New deal was a rejection of the original intent as well as the existing precedent
Click to expand...

I am sure we all would love to see that authoritative and verifiable survey of all legal scholars and be able to identify the majority opinion as surveyed.

This is just another example of Turtle and other right wingers attempting to take biased personal opinion based on extremist ideology and put it in a Halloween costume disguised as fact. So lets see the data to back this up. Not the opinion of a few conservatives on the far right, but something which really quantifies that boast of MOST legal scholars.
 
haymarket said:
The radical right wing revisionism on American History is producing complete and total ignorance of the real America and its actual history. This latest waterfall of mistruth is just the most recent example.

Does Turtle have his list of "scholars" with a clear majority indicated to back up his statement that




I am sure we all would love to see that authoritative and verifiable survey of all legal scholars and be able to identify the majority opinion as surveyed.

This is just another example of Turtle and other right wingers attempting to take biased personal opinion based on extremist ideology and put it in a Halloween costume disguised as fact. So lets see the data to back this up. Not the opinion of a few conservatives on the far right, but something which really quantifies that boast of MOST legal scholars.
Click to expand...

Since it apparently went right over your head, how about reviewing some of the posts on this thread and tell us what FDR's position was on public unions? Seems that the author of the New Deal that liberals love to champion doesn't have the same position on public unions as those on the left.
 
donc said:
You claim that you were at one time a shop steward (yet you don’t know where, or what your craft was at the time:roll:) and you still make the claim that union dues gets used for political purposes? I suggest you use goggle. Here are the key words …. Union Dues + Political Purposes
Click to expand...

What is your point?

Since 1990, labor unions have contributed over $667 million in election campaigns in the United States, of which $614 million or 92 percent went to support Democratic candidates. In 2008, unions spent $74.5 million in campaign contributions, with $68.3 million going to the Democratic Party. Already, unions have contributed $6.5 million to the 2010 elections, and $6 million has gone to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, D.C.

In the $787 billion stimulus spending bill passed in February, $90 billion has been earmarked to help cover the tax shortfalls in state and local government budgets due to the economic recession. Most of this money will be used to maintain or increase jobs at these levels of government, since those in political office are apparently unwilling to reduce expenditures and cut public payrolls in the face of decreased tax revenues.

This is no doubt related to $38 million dollars that the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Union has contributed to Democratic Party campaigns since 1990, with nearly $2.6 million being given during the 2008 election. Public sector unions as a whole have given around $160 million to Democratic candidates between 1990 and 2008, with donations of $6 million in 2008.

First the Bush and now the Obama administration have spent or promised at least $60-70 billion to support now bankrupt General Motors and Chrysler. The Obama White House has committed the government and the American taxpayer to keeping afloat both companies in the name of saving jobs in what is declared to be an essential sector of the U.S. economy. It is more easily able to do this now that the Federal government owns majority control of GM and 8 percent of Chrysler,

But it is also the case that the United Auto Workers union has donated almost $25 million to Democratic Party candidates since 1990, contributing $2 million of that total in the 2008 election cycle.
Click to expand...

Obama Thanks His Friends: Government Spending and Union Support
 
From Governor Walker:

"You are not going to hear me degrade state and local employees in the public sector," Walker said. "But we can no longer live in a society where the public employees are the haves and taxpayers who foot the bills are the have-nots."

As a short-term measure, Walker wants to require workers to make a 5% contribution to their pensions. State union workers have traditionally not contributed to their plans. He also wants to increase employees' share of health costs to 12% - up from 4% to 6%, depending on the bargaining unit. Those changes would save $154 million from January to June 30 alone.
Click to expand...

A 5% contribution to their own pension funds. How cruel. 12% of their healthcare costs. OMFG!!! The sky is falling!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Conservative said:
Read what I posted, I don't care who pays your salary and benefits because it is handled by private industry. If your union puts your company out of business, so be it, although it then becomes the taxpayers' problem. Not so with public unions, our taxdollars fund their pay and benefits and thus are their employer. Seems like a hard concept for those supporting the Wisconsin union protests to understand.
Click to expand...
you seem to forget, or choose to ignore, that union members pay taxes to, and are 'taxpayers'....
 
MaggieD said:
From Governor Walker:



A 5% contribution to their own pension funds. How cruel. 12% of their healthcare costs. OMFG!!! The sky is falling!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
i support what the governor is asking for when it comes to contributing more to their pensions and insurance..,i'd be ok with him wanting to phase out pensions, and switch over to 401k plans...but wanting to take away their collective bargaining rights is total bs.
 
randel said:
i support what the governor is asking for when it comes to contributing more to their pensions and insurance..,i'd be ok with him wanting to phase out pensions, and switch over to 401k plans...but wanting to take away their collective bargaining rights is total bs.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it'd put 'em in the same position as 89% of the American people. How disgusting.
 
Conservative said:
Since it apparently went right over your head, how about reviewing some of the posts on this thread and tell us what FDR's position was on public unions? Seems that the author of the New Deal that liberals love to champion doesn't have the same position on public unions as those on the left.
Click to expand...

No it did not.

FDR was President seventy years ago. The America of his time is not the America of today. Things change and the attitude about public sector unions is one of those changes.

I am sure that a person of your knowledge and intelligence fully realizes that the positions of liberals have moved a bit in the last seven decades.
 
Last edited:
randel said:
you seem to forget, or choose to ignore, that union members pay taxes to, and are 'taxpayers'....
Click to expand...

I haven't forgotten at all, but you seem to have forgotten who pays their salaries and benefits. As has been reported State workers in Ohio don't contribute to SS and yet the taxpayers fund their pensions. How would you like that extra in your paycheck that you are now paying for SS but they aren't?
 
I think that thsi situaiton is answering a long-asked question that's been around in the last few years:

What is more important - government debt to maintain unmaintainable excessive deficit and spending?
Or balancing the budget.

All of these teachers have decided that balancing their state budget isn't important . . . and prefer an overall economic statewide collapse.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I think that thsi situaiton is answering a long-asked question that's been around in the last few years:

What is more important - government debt to maintain unmaintainable excessive deficit and spending?
Or balancing the budget.

All of these teachers have decided that balancing their state budget isn't important . . . and prefer an overall economic statewide collapse.
Click to expand...

But your statement is a complete denial of what is actually happening in Wisconsin. The unions have publicly stated they will pay more to help balance the budget.
 
haymarket said:
But your statement is a complete denial of what is actually happening in Wisconsin. The unions have publicly stated they will pay more to help balance the budget.
Click to expand...

the unions have agreed to everything except denying them collective bargaining. this is purely about union busting, and people need to know that.
 
liblady said:
the unions have agreed to everything except denying them collective bargaining. this is purely about union busting, and people need to know that.
Click to expand...

LibLady!! You keep singing this tune. Where if your link????? They have agreed to nothing!!

Same to Haymarket: where is your link?? A union press release; copy of a letter to the Governor. What'cha got? Nothin'.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
But your statement is a complete denial of what is actually happening in Wisconsin. The unions have publicly stated they will pay more to help balance the budget.
Click to expand...

Yeah - well If that was all at hand and in question then there'd be no opposition or strike going on.

It's the Collective Bargaining that they're all in heat over - from my understanding.
 
liblady said:
the unions have agreed to everything except denying them collective bargaining. this is purely about union busting, and people need to know that.
Click to expand...

If that is the case, so be it, there is no place in this country for public unions funded by the taxpayers. On this FDR got it right but of course liberals ignore that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom