Govenor Scott Walker (R) WI

[Fear_Itself]

@Shodan

Tough toenails.

This kind of withering economic reasoning will be useful when we let the Bush tax cuts expire in two years.

[Robot_Arm]

@Sam_Stone

Nonetheless, there are some unique aspects to public unions. For one, as they get bigger they have increasing political clout just because of the votes they can raise, which puts them in a position of voting for their own bread and circuses.

What’s unique about that? Boeing was just awarded a contract to build aerial refueling tankers for the Air Force. As that company gets bigger, can’t they raise more votes for those politicians who were seen to support giving the contract to Boeing?

[furt]

@Robot_Arm

That’s an interesting point to raise, considering that it’s Walker who brought partisanship into this in the first place. He is only going after those public-sector unions that contributed to Democrats. Those that contributed to his campaign are being left to go about business as usual.

This is a myth.

Walker was only supported by Milwaukee municipal unions, to the tune of a whopping $1,000. The much larger statewide police and firefighter unions supported his opponent.

Donna Brazile says that unions that supported Scott Walker are exempt from...

http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noquarter/116139104.html

[elucidator]

Wonderful news! He isn’t quite the despicable slime he is made out to be! I am so glad.

[superslug]

Tax is extracted from the taxpayer. Public officials dole out tax money to government departments. Departments pay their employees. BUT FIRST… Public employee unions take their share.

Therefore, public employee unions use tax money to fund political campaigns for the politicians that they negotiate with.

[Fear_Itself]

@superslug

Therefore, public employee unions use tax money to fund political campaigns for the politicians that they negotiate with.

No, they don’t. Unions use dues from the membership.

[asterion]

@Zeriel

Good question. I could see a solution that involved making dues mandatory, but then also mandating that unions operate on a model where the mandatory dues ONLY covered union administrative expenses but workers could make optional voluntary contributions.

Of course, while we’re doing this, we need to also ban any people whose income derives partially from government contracting from donating to politics unless they can prove that none of their donations came out of the contracting income. Since otherwise that would be using the people’s money to negotiate against the people, don’t’cha know. I hear that’s a big problem (for idiots).

Except, as the House GOP constantly reminds us, all money is fungible, which is why (if they have their way) no health insurance that covers abortions will be tax-deductible. So if they get any money from the government at all, they can’t donate to politics.

[superslug]

@Fear_Itself

No, they don’t. Unions use dues from the membership.

Do members have choice in whether or not or how much they pay in dues?

[Shodan]

@Fear_Itself

This kind of withering economic reasoning will be useful when we let the Bush tax cuts expire in two years.

I’m sure you thought the same thing in 2008.

But this is an example of the sort of thing I mentioned originally. Cut out all the substance, and complain about the reasoning.

Fine, you’re one of the nitwits. There was never much doubt.

Regards,
Shodan

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@superslug

Do members have choice in whether or not or how much they pay in dues?

Yes, they do. Any member is free to propose an amount or percentage of dues to be paid. If the motion is seconded, it will be voted on. If the motion carries, that becomes how much is collected.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Yes, they do. Any member is free to propose an amount or percentage of dues to be paid. If the motion is seconded, it will be voted on. If the motion carries, that becomes how much is collected.

Jeez, we can’t have that happening! Sounds like Socialism! Or something else bad!

[elucidator]

What a fine, new world we will have, when Walker has his way! Away with all that stressful political bickering! All that will remain will be mild discussions between moderate Republicans and extreme Republicans.

[AlienVessels]

@Shodan

Nope, never said anything of the sort.

The taxpayer is the customer, and has much less choice to take his “business” elsewhere than with private industry. I can decide whether to buy Ford or GM. I have no choice but to pay my taxes. Therefore, I am entitled to a certain amount of say on how my tax money gets spent - not what you do after you get paid, how much and what form your pay (or your wife’s) takes. Because if a private business tries to take advantage of me, or slack off, or charge too much, I can walk away from it and take my business elsewhere. I can’t do that with the DMV.

With teachers, it is much the same. I want to support education. However, if the teachers unions are charging too much, or wasting my money, or otherwise short-changing me, I still have to pay my taxes. And therefore I have the right to put other kinds of pressure on the teachers unions, because I am forced to subsidize them.

And no, I do not have to sit still and take it. Sure, the teacher’s unions are going to hate it when I limit their raises, or otherwise pull their noses out of the trough before they have had their fill. Tough toenails.

Regards,
Shodan

This justifies any regulation of public employee use of their incomes. “I disagree with abortion, therefore public employees should not be allowed to use their paycheck to pay for one.”

You have a vote and representatives. You have a means for letting them know you don’t like the union’s offer.

You’re not subsidizing unions any more than I am subsidizing Republican agenda if I buy products from organizations that support those agenda.

[superslug]

Why would you buy products from organizations that support agendas that you don’t support?

[elucidator]

Because wild food is too gamey, and clothes made of fur itch.

[superslug]

@elucidator

Because wild food is too gamey, and clothes made of fur itch.

So when the zombie apocalypse comes, you’ll be totally screwed…

[Sam_Stone]

@elucidator

And you posted a blog from the American Enterprise Institute. As proof.

As a counterpoint. I never said anything about the issue being proven by that paper.

This is the context in which I posted that link:

@Sam Stone

Maybe they’re right, maybe they’re not. But they’re just one side of the debate, and they’re biased.

Here’s a conflicting viewpoint if you’d like to read both sides.

Out of that you make the claim that I said the paper in question was proof of something?

What is it with you guys that you have to keep putting words in the mouths of your opponents? Is this what you have to resort to when losing an argument?

[Sam_Stone]

@Robot_Arm

What’s unique about that? Boeing was just awarded a contract to build aerial refueling tankers for the Air Force. As that company gets bigger, can’t they raise more votes for those politicians who were seen to support giving the contract to Boeing?

The difference is a matter of scale. Boeing has 157,000 employees. The SEIU has 2.2 million members. The AFSCME has over 1 million members.

There’s also a difference in that money that goes to Boeing may or may not make it into the pockets of the workers, while money negotiated by the public unions goes directly to all those members, giving them a much bigger financial incentive to become politically active.

But in principle it’s the same, and there are certainly abuses of government carried out by large companies - sometimes in collusion with their own labor unions, btw (See: GM). Boeing has managed to land contracts despite non-competitive bids because of its influence on government. Something I heartily oppose, and I suspect you do to, which makes it weird for you to use them as an example of the kind of behavior the public unions also engage in.

Either you think I support corporate pork and were hoping to catch me in an act of hypocrisy, in which case you haven’t read much of what I’ve said on these boards, or you somehow think that corruption of government by Boeing makes corruption of government by labor unions somehow okay. Either way, it’s a losing argument.

[Robot_Arm]

@Sam_Stone

Either you think I support corporate pork and were hoping to catch me in an act of hypocrisy, in which case you haven’t read much of what I’ve said on these boards, or you somehow think that corruption of government by Boeing makes corruption of government by labor unions somehow okay.

What is it with you that you have to keep putting words in my mouth (or thoughts in my head)? I was attempting to counter your claim that this was an aspect unique to public unions.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Sam_Stone

What is it with you guys that you have to keep putting words in the mouths of your opponents? Is this what you have to resort to when losing an argument?

So what you’re saying is that you get all of your logical arguments from Jennifer Aniston?