• 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

Conservative said:
CEO's have major job responsibilities and are the job creators, what do Union bosses create? You think union members have any idea what their leadership makes?
Click to expand...
Union leaders have major responsibilities, they're responsible for negotiating and upholding contracts that benefit their workers.
 
Unrepresented said:
Union leaders have major responsibilities, they're responsible for negotiating and upholding contracts that benefit their workers.
Click to expand...

And that warrants 6 digit salaries and benefits paid for out of union dues? Where does the CEO wages and benefits come from? Negotiating must be extremely hard work and I always thought the courts upheld contracts?
 
JasperL said:
I think that's about the 10th time for that straw man in this thread!

Short answer, already answered nine times - Yes. We care about Soros.
Click to expand...



That's not what a strawman is, you could try to claim it's a red herring, but it's not one of those either.


IF you care about him, can you show me one thread by the left attacking him like they did these koke people.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
That's not what a strawman is, you could try to claim it's a red herring, but it's not one of those either.
Click to expand...

I assumed the point was us libs don't like Koch spending, but approve of Soros spending ====>>> hypocrites!! The premise is false and any conclusions drawn on that false premise equally false, hence, straw man.

But the question has been asked and every time the left on this thread have said we're against big money in elections, period. Soros AND Koch brothers, Buffett AND Dimon, and while we're at it, unions AND NRA subject to same rules. Etc.

IF you care about him, can you show me one thread by the left attacking him like they did these koke people.
Click to expand...

Look back in this one.
 
JasperL said:
I assumed the point was us libs don't like Koch spending, but approve of Soros spending ====>>> hypocrites!! The premise is false and any conclusions drawn on that false premise equally false, hence, straw man.

But the question has been asked and every time the left on this thread have said we're against big money in elections, period. Soros AND Koch brothers, Buffett AND Dimon, and while we're at it, unions AND NRA subject to same rules. Etc.



Look back in this one.
Click to expand...



Then why start a thread on only the other guys?
 
CanadaJohn said:
I take it, from your comments, that you strongly oppose the corporate ownership of virtually all US media, print and over the air, creating their "nationwide effort to manipulate policy" in the manner they prefer. Correct?
Click to expand...

That is definitely correct. There used to be laws to prevent these sorts of things. It's not about bigger government - it's about areas in which the removal of government oversight has led to insanity.
 
Conservative said:
CEO's have major job responsibilities and are the job creators, what do Union bosses create? You think union members have any idea what their leadership makes?
Click to expand...

First of all, since no CEO sets out to "create jobs" and hires as few workers as possible, and not all companies "create jobs", "job creator" is just a Luntzism.

And I would expect my union's president to make several times more than me as long as he's doing his job.
 
What if...? said:
Do you have a city for the hundreds of millions in dues to Seiu from a single program? That doesn't sound right as dues generally run a few percent.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Conservative said:
And that warrants 6 digit salaries and benefits paid for out of union dues? Where does the CEO wages and benefits come from? Negotiating must be extremely hard work and I always thought the courts upheld contracts?
Click to expand...
Again, there seems to be selective outage over union leaders earning six figure salaries for organizing workers, while maintaining an apologist stance for CEOs earning seven or eight figures for organizing workers.
 
What if...? said:
First of all, since no CEO sets out to "create jobs" and hires as few workers as possible, and not all companies "create jobs", "job creator" is just a Luntzism.

And I would expect my union's president to make several times more than me as long as he's doing his job.
Click to expand...

: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?
 
JasperL said:
I'll just say lots of informed, intelligent, reasonable people have major disagreements about what is right for the country, and have had similar disagreements for generations at least. Beyond that I'm not sure how to respond. It's like we're having two different conversations.
Click to expand...
I apologize for wandering off topic.
 
Unrepresented said:
Again, there seems to be selective outage over union leaders earning six figure salaries for organizing workers, while maintaining an apologist stance for CEOs earning seven or eight figures for organizing workers.
Click to expand...

CEOs don't organize workers. They manage payroll, marketing, sales, R&D, finance, technology, vendors, customer relations, development, etc. etc. etc.

And unions workers have jobs because someone hires them. Very often, businesses with CEOs.
 
tres borrachos said:
CEOs don't organize workers. They manage payroll, marketing, sales, R&D, finance, technology, vendors, customer relations, development, etc. etc. etc.

And unions workers have jobs because someone hires them. Very often, businesses with CEOs.
Click to expand...
They're both organizing disorganization, they're just doing it for different reasons. They're more common than you're willing to admit.
 
What if...? said:
So you and a hundred thousand people donate $10 each for a million total and a single individual ponies up a hundred million.

In a world where the candidate who spends the most money generally wins, don't you see that as a problem. That a handful of people have the same political "voice" as hundreds of thousands or even millions?
Click to expand...

Nope. The world is not equal. Jay-Z had more money to donate to Barack Obama than I had to donate to Mitt Romney. I didn't cry about it.

Besides, what can I do to stop it even if I did care. Go to everyone nickzillionaire and demand that he not give donations to political candidates? Donate several hundred million dollars myself to offset it?
 
Unrepresented said:
They're both organizing disorganization, they're just doing it for different reasons. They're more common than you're willing to admit.
Click to expand...

No, a CEO doesn't get paid to organize people. He gets paid to run a company. A Union boss doesn't make anything, he doesn't sell anything, he doesn't manufacture anything. He doesn't answer to a Board of Directors, he doesn't have to make payroll, he doesn't have to return shareholder equity.
 
disneydude said:
What do you think the 2016 election is about? let me fill you in.....THE PRESIDENT.
Click to expand...

bwahaha.

and this is why democrats are hopeless in non-presidential elections.

2016 will be about congressional seats, state races, and yes, even the presidential race.

But apparently to the nutjobs, it is just about the presidential race.
 
If they put that money back into the economy instead of spending it on worthless attack ads imagine how much better this country would be off.
 
tres borrachos said:
No, a CEO doesn't get paid to organize people. He gets paid to run a company. A Union boss doesn't make anything, he doesn't sell anything, he doesn't manufacture anything. He doesn't answer to a Board of Directors, he doesn't have to make payroll, he doesn't have to return shareholder equity.
Click to expand...
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.
 
CanadaJohn said:
If verbalized, yes - the government could not legally stop you from publicly pronouncing a bribe. But the act of bribing is also illegal. If someone is going to bribe a government official, the authorities would be delighted if the briber would verbalize his/her bribe and verbally identify the politician or public servant being bribed - it would make their jobs easier.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Unrepresented said:
The concept of "earning" is a subjective social construct. It means only what those who hold authority determine it means. That authority is not absolute or permanent.

Being able to envision improvements is the first step to enacting them.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

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.
 
What if...? said:
First of all, since no CEO sets out to "create jobs" and hires as few workers as possible, and not all companies "create jobs", "job creator" is just a Luntzism.

And I would expect my union's president to make several times more than me as long as he's doing his job.
Click to expand...

CEO's are rewarded for performance of their companies and no company is in business to employ people but rather to make a profit. No question about it you have idea where the funds come from to pay employees and the CEO's. Hope that money tree in your parent's backyard never runs out of leaves.
 
polgara said:
Excellent post! :thumbs: And at voting time, they round them all up, take them to the voting place, tell them who to vote for, and consider the job done. And it is. But as I keep asking, what happens when the freebies can't be paid for any longer? What will they do? It's going to become something we have never seen before in this country, IMO. How in H*** did we ever get started on this path that we are on - where you aren't responsible for yourself? :shock:
Click to expand...

I think the concept of folks looking to government for their needs/wants started in the 30's under FDR with the "chicken in every pot" mentality and has progressively gotten worse. Though some of the measures FDR put into place out of emergency, they should not have remained and during times of prosperity, they should have been eliminated or at the very least scaled back. Instead, they continued to grow and morphed into other huge government bueacracies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom