No to Unions? But Yes to Corps?

[DontBeStupid]

The common complaint I hear from "conservatives" is that public union workers are paid with tax payer money, use that money for dues to the union and then the union can run ads during campaigns supporting issues and candidates that the taxpayer may not agree with. Ignoring the fact that the workers earned the money, I see your point here.

But then, could someone explain, why "conservatives" have absolutely no problem allowing a corporation to the very same thing? A corp can get a grant or subsidy (taxpayer money) and then spend unlimited funds to run ads supporting candidates and issues that taxpayers may not agree with.

How is that different from unions? Why is it better?

Thanks in advance for explaining your position.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

IMO its no different and both are wrong.

Bottom line for me is i believe all donations should be restricted to individual donors so as to not corrupt the process. The commercials on the other hand fall under free speech do they not? So I dont see how that could be addressed.

In the end were left with nothing more than our own complaints the way I see it

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Why not just say No to both? The Government shouldn't be propping up either one. They both rape the Taxpayers any chance they get. Now Teacher Union dues are going up. Guess who will end up paying for that? The American Taxpayer will. The Teacher Unions will just rape the American Taxpayers to pay for that. There should be no Unions in Government period. They are just bad for this Nation. The Government just needs to get out of the way and stop propping up Unions & Corps.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

IMO its no different and both are wrong.

Bottom line for me is i believe all donations should be restricted to individual donors so as to not corrupt the process. The commercials on the other hand fall under free speech do they not? So I dont see how that could be addressed.

In the end were left with nothing more than our own complaints the way I see it

And lobbyist should not be allowed within 1,000 feet of politicians.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

IMO its no different and both are wrong.

Bottom line for me is i believe all donations should be restricted to individual donors so as to not corrupt the process. The commercials on the other hand fall under free speech do they not? So I dont see how that could be addressed.

In the end were left with nothing more than our own complaints the way I see it

And lobbyist should not be allowed within 1,000 feet of politicians.

Agreed

 

[mmmjvpssm]

When a public union worker gets a pay check that's his money and he should be able to do with it what he damn well pleases. This "that's taxpayer money" argument is bull

 

[Two Thumbs]

The common complaint I hear from "conservatives" is that public union workers are paid with tax payer money, use that money for dues to the union and then the union can run ads during campaigns supporting issues and candidates that the taxpayer may not agree with. Ignoring the fact that the workers earned the money, I see your point here.

But then, could someone explain, why "conservatives" have absolutely no problem allowing a corporation to the very same thing? A corp can get a grant or subsidy (taxpayer money) and then spend unlimited funds to run ads supporting candidates and issues that taxpayers may not agree with.

How is that different from unions? Why is it better?

Thanks in advance for explaining your position.

there's not much difference.

One is welfare the other is pay through taxation.

Neither group "should" use money gotten through taxes to support any polotician, b/c they are simply going to vote for the person that gives them money.

However, everyone and thing, has the right to free speech.

Funny how no one on the left gave a damn when only unions could do such a thing. But now that evul corps can, it's a bad thing.

 

[mmmjvpssm]

The answer to the OP is that unions tend to give more to Democrats than to Republicans, so their contributions the Republicans want to limit. Corporations on the other hand tend to give more to the Republicans

 

[Steelplate]

The common complaint I hear from "conservatives" is that public union workers are paid with tax payer money, use that money for dues to the union and then the union can run ads during campaigns supporting issues and candidates that the taxpayer may not agree with. Ignoring the fact that the workers earned the money, I see your point here.

But then, could someone explain, why "conservatives" have absolutely no problem allowing a corporation to the very same thing? A corp can get a grant or subsidy (taxpayer money) and then spend unlimited funds to run ads supporting candidates and issues that taxpayers may not agree with.

How is that different from unions? Why is it better?

Thanks in advance for explaining your position.

there's not much difference.

One is welfare the other is pay through taxation.

Neither group "should" use money gotten through taxes to support any polotician, b/c they are simply going to vote for the person that gives them money.

However, everyone and thing, has the right to free speech.

Funny how no one on the left gave a damn when only unions could do such a thing. But now that evul corps can, it's a bad thing.

when was this? When was it that those evil Unions could donate to political candidates but Corporations couldn't?

 

[Two Thumbs]

IMO its no different and both are wrong.

Bottom line for me is i believe all donations should be restricted to individual donors so as to not corrupt the process. The commercials on the other hand fall under free speech do they not? So I dont see how that could be addressed.

In the end were left with nothing more than our own complaints the way I see it

And lobbyist should not be allowed within 1,000 feet of politicians.

Agreed

Yall need to put the pipe dream down and back away slowly.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

The answer to the OP is that unions tend to give more to Democrats than to Republicans, so their contributions the Republicans want to limit. Corporations on the other hand tend to give more to the Republicans

The people in positions of power give money to the Democrats. I have a herd time believing the guy getting robbed of his dues feels the same.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

And lobbyist should not be allowed within 1,000 feet of politicians.

Agreed

Yall need to put the pipe dream down and back away slowly.

But I like it there. I wanna stay.

 

[Avorysuds]

Democrats have zero, none, absolutely no problem with corporate donations to campaigns... Just look at how the liberals on these boards went out of their way to attack Obama for setting new records by Obama in accepting Corporate donations. First time a Democratic president has out beat a Republican for corporate donations.

Obama, the most owned man in the history of the world. D for Democrat.

 

[Two Thumbs]

The common complaint I hear from "conservatives" is that public union workers are paid with tax payer money, use that money for dues to the union and then the union can run ads during campaigns supporting issues and candidates that the taxpayer may not agree with. Ignoring the fact that the workers earned the money, I see your point here.

But then, could someone explain, why "conservatives" have absolutely no problem allowing a corporation to the very same thing? A corp can get a grant or subsidy (taxpayer money) and then spend unlimited funds to run ads supporting candidates and issues that taxpayers may not agree with.

How is that different from unions? Why is it better?

Thanks in advance for explaining your position.

there's not much difference.

One is welfare the other is pay through taxation.

Neither group "should" use money gotten through taxes to support any polotician, b/c they are simply going to vote for the person that gives them money.

However, everyone and thing, has the right to free speech.

Funny how no one on the left gave a damn when only unions could do such a thing. But now that evul corps can, it's a bad thing.

when was this? When was it that those evil Unions could donate to political candidates but Corporations couldn't?

Since always.

Or did you just wake up from a 60 year coma?

 

[Steelplate]

there's not much difference.

One is welfare the other is pay through taxation.

Neither group "should" use money gotten through taxes to support any polotician, b/c they are simply going to vote for the person that gives them money.

However, everyone and thing, has the right to free speech.

Funny how no one on the left gave a damn when only unions could do such a thing. But now that evul corps can, it's a bad thing.

when was this? When was it that those evil Unions could donate to political candidates but Corporations couldn't?

Since always.

Or did you just wake up from a 60 year coma?

prove it.

 

[Robert]

As long as One has the right then both should have the right and that is the bottom line. If you don't like the way it then remove both

 

[Two Thumbs]

when was this? When was it that those evil Unions could donate to political candidates but Corporations couldn't?

Since always.

Or did you just wake up from a 60 year coma?

prove it.

You have got to be joking. Have you or have you not seen big 0 talk in front of an SEIU poster at one of thier meetings?

Have you never heard of a union openly supporting a candidate?

Here's some other well known facts that you may not be aware of;
Humans need "air" to breath. We need to "breath" to live.
Water is wet.
The sky is blue, except at night.
Snow is frozen water and so is ice.
and
created society.

 

[Trajan]

I think that there is another consideration- unions provide HUGE ground sppt. via phone banks, leafleting etc. aside from money.

Anyway, last time I checked there wasn't say, an Intel for so and so or private co's allowing folks to take a day off paid or not to canvas or otherwise provide that sppt.......plus there is the coercion factor, trust me its there.

In the end, having spent 18 years in the private sector, I never felt my pay or status was tied at all to whomever got elected and wasn't even aware of who the co's I worked for supported or not.
I can never ( and I am a pretty politically attuned guy) ever recall looking up who my co. CEO, CFO, chairman of the board etc. etc. gave money to......there is however, a clear presumption and motivation present for unions.

At the end of the day thy should both be allowed, its the only way imho.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

The Democrats are running the ultimate scam on their misguided followers. They're saying Yes to both Unions and Corps. How much Taxes does GE pay? Who's this President's "Jobs Czar?"...None other than GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt. Democrat followers are just dumber than others. They don't even know they're being scammed. Oh well,back to HuffyPoop and more reality TV i guess. These people are no geniuses.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The common complaint I hear from "conservatives" is that public union workers are paid with tax payer money, use that money for dues to the union and then the union can run ads during campaigns supporting issues and candidates that the taxpayer may not agree with. Ignoring the fact that the workers earned the money, I see your point here.

But then, could someone explain, why "conservatives" have absolutely no problem allowing a corporation to the very same thing? A corp can get a grant or subsidy (taxpayer money) and then spend unlimited funds to run ads supporting candidates and issues that taxpayers may not agree with.

How is that different from unions? Why is it better?

Thanks in advance for explaining your position.

If that is the common complaint you here it might be because you don't pay attention to everything else conservatives say.