« Beware the RL Crabb | Main | After the reactors are shut down »

16 March 2011

Comments

Todd Juvinall

Well there you have it. Now we need to shake em up and allow the 40% of these union members who are republicans donate to the R's. Thank you Governor Walker!

Dixon Cruickshank

George since your the Rocket Scientist, and those numbers are going to get big - maybe a total figure- you prolly have a calculor that goes to a gazillion, mine does not

George Rebane

Silly me Dixon. Dems got $486,440,870, and Repubs got $27,886,800. That means that out of every dollar the unions contributed, the Dems got 95 cents and the Repubs got a nickel. Hope they didn't spend it all in one place.

Paul Emery

Todd

That's the dumbest thing you've said yet.

Why should the 40% Repubs in unions want to contribute to the Republican Party after they've had their salaries and benefits slashed.

Really Todd

George Rebane

Paul, I don't know Todd's response to your comment, but I bet it's not going to be sweetness and light. The central question is a valid one (easily answered), but the bookends need a little work.

BTW, with this intervention I'm trying something new here in response to beseechings from readers on both sides calling for civility. But hell, feel free to ignore this and go on with business as usual, or let the other guy be the last to fling a pile of mud.

Todd Juvinall

George, I thought I had a valid point.

D. King

Paul said:

“Why should the 40% Repubs in unions want to contribute to the Republican Party after they've had their salaries and benefits slashed.”

Maybe, just maybe, to thank the Republicans for putting them on a secure and sustainable path that the union leadership was unable to do with their buying votes approach.

Maybe they realize that the Democrats would tell them anything to get their vote, even if it meant future failure of their pension system, or, do you think they’re just stupid?

Greg Goodknight

Paul said:

“Why should the 40% Repubs in unions want to contribute to the Republican Party after they've had their salaries and benefits slashed.”

Because they don't agree philosophically or politically with Democrats, believe in what's best for the country as a whole and prefer their political contributions go elsewhere?

George Rebane

Todd, I didn't impune your point; it was valid. It was your possible response to Paul about which I was apprehensive.

BTW, Greg's answer is the 'easy answer' to Paul's question that came to my mind.

Todd Juvinall

Sorry, I guess I have a reputation. LOL. Anyway, I was kind of shocked that Paul would say that and I was looking hard for the Steve E response to name calling against me. Well, I guess I will have to wait till heck freezes over for that one. George, I have had to deal with leftwing pinheads for thirty plus years and I was always nice. I have decided to check them when they do what they do and if I am doing to much checking I will shut up. You are the best.

Todd Juvinall

Greg, you have made my point absolutely correctly. I wish I could say things as good as you and George. The cynisim shown in Paul's statement is vry troubling. If we have all seen one thing lately it is that people are standing firm in their beliefs. I would guess union repulicans are pretty smart and if they weren't shaken down by their management, they would direct the 40% to where they desire it to go, to republican candidates. Paul needs a dose of republican spine , soret of like Walker eh?

Account Deleted

Paul's question is valid to him. He can't see anything beyond immediate personal gain. It's the reason the libs pound the "rich" so much. As a state employee, I happily voted for prop 13 because it was the best thing for the state in the long run. I took a pay hit because of it. Unfortunately, the state govt didn't get the message to stop spending and we still went downhill. Can you imagine Paul's enthusiasm to have money taken out of his pay check to give to the Tea Party? He would become livid, get on line, look up the Constitution and get religion. Paul and his sort have a way to automatically fund by force of law something they like. It's not a problem to them. They do not consider the average union due-payer intelligent enough to make reasonable decisions on their own. And I am afraid I would have to agree on that point. The difference is I would like to see the average union employee educated and the libs like the fearful and complacent sheep to stay that way and hand over the money. As long as the Dems control the education system, there will be generations more of the same.

Barry Pruett

This open secrets site is classic.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

13 of the 20 Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2010 are unions or trade associations that donate almost exclusively to Democrats.

Note to Readers: Koch Bros are 83rd on the list...insignificant in the grand scope of things.

George Rebane

Scott, IMHO you are an optimist about "generations more of the same." I don't think we have even one more generation's worth of time to avoid catastrophe. Whatever solution, if any, that we adopt, it will have to be put into force by the current generation.

Dixon Cruickshank

It is valid point, unless this is riened in there will be no pensions for the PEU's, just no money at all, as it goes to current workers. The old adage that 1/2 a loaf is better than no loaf at all comes to mind Paul. The choice of no current police to fund retired police is just not going to play anywhere, so maybe they contribute 5 fricken %, other peoples money is not not an endless stream - just say'in

Paul Emery

It's interesting how just making an observation about how people may react in a given situation leads to a generalization about overall opinions. I was not at all expressing my view about PEU's only looking at what I thought would be a likely outcome. It's human nature to support what enhances your standing and generally union members elect representatives that negotiate the best deals. I don't think party affiliation is that strong for most people. This will play out in the next few month with the recalls that are in motion so we'll know more then. My guess is that more Republicans who work in the public sector will cross over to the other camp if they find their status threatened.

It's alright to say I made a dumb statement. I don't consider that a personal attack because it's only my opinion being judged.

Here's some recent polling stats to look at from http://www.pollingreport.com/work.htm

ABC News/Washington Post Poll.

"Now thinking specifically about workers employed by state governments, do you think those workers should or should not have a right to form unions to negotiate things like their working conditions, pay, benefits and pensions?"


Should 67% Should not 32% Unsure 1%


D. King

Paul,

That poll was 1000+ adults, not likely voters.

But you're right, we shall see.

Account Deleted

Good point George - although I didn't say what kind of govt. would be ruling those generations. I do notice that the libs always seem to defend the ongoing injustice of folks having to pay for political views they disagree with by claiming that only a minority are being affected.
Paul - could you provide some kind of connection with reality and the question asked in the above poll? No one is trying to stop workers from forming unions.

Dixon Cruickshank

As pointed out today by Scott Walker that WI PEU's still have bargining power than Federal Unions - so not sure the Union Busting theme will hold up.

Greg Goodknight

Paul E, how do you think that poll would have turned out if they were first presented with FDR's missive against public employee unions?

Or asked the question, 'Are politicians elected with the help of public employee union campaign volunteers and contributions more likely to reward those unions with higher wages and benefits?'

Paul Emery

I don't know the answer to that question. I only posted the polling information.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad