Politics/Unions.. Corruption Cycle

You support this?

1)Politicians.. Vote to approve Public Unions and give them whatever they can .. they sell out the taxpayer for votes. They also mandate that all public union employees must join the union and pay union dues.

2)The public union collect union dues and support the political party or candidates that support the continuation of the corruption cycle.. ie screwing the taxpayer ..Individual union member are forced to pay union dues no matter who they personally support.

3)The Unions payoff and throw their support behind the political party or candidates that are willing to screw the taxpayer for excessive benefits...

4) cycle back to (1)

Yes! I support it!!!


1) What does this mean? "and give them whatever they can ". Give them what?

2) If you are a Union member you pay dues for various union activities, and have a voice in which politicians are elected. Your individual vote is your own.

3) What do the unions "payoff" ? Pay who? Indeed, they back union interests. Taxpayers are not screwed out of anything. What is "excessive benefits" ?
 
Last edited:
If Unions want their money it looks like they will be donating a shit ton of cash to the Republicans... Then We'll see Dems freaking the fuck out about how fucked everything is...

Of course Obama beat McCain in corporate donation in 2008, and we still hear about Republicans being the evil corporate party... I guess some corporations went from being bad to good overnight when they game money to Democrats...

Donating to Reatards is not unheard of. Depends if they pro-union. So don't count on a scare anytime lately. LMAO!!:lol::lol:
 
If Unions want their money it looks like they will be donating a shit ton of cash to the Republicans... Then We'll see Dems freaking the fuck out about how fucked everything is...

Of course Obama beat McCain in corporate donation in 2008, and we still hear about Republicans being the evil corporate party... I guess some corporations went from being bad to good overnight when they game money to Democrats...

Donating to Retards is not unheard of. Depends if they pro-union. So don't count on a scare anytime lately. LMAO!!:lol::lol:
 
It's threads like this that sink to the bottom... There are just no talking points to attack it.

Wait, RW might jump in to ask "why do you hate the middle class?" As if that somehow gets around the question of why does he support such massive corruption based on destroying the middle class.


You really need to say stuff like. Fuck you you fuking fuck ass (liberal/conservative) fucks! To get any real play on these forums.

Ahh, you guys are just jealous because you are weak unorganized scabs who quickly found out what it feels like not to be a union member. You want shit wages and benefits, think corporations are your best buddy, so STFU!!! Your whole problem is you hate seeing union members have it better than you, and it was your choice,,,,,,,,,,,:lol::lol:
 
Hey hows it going guys I found this website so I could do a class project I just need to know what yall think about these questions?

1. WIll our generation develop a greater intrest in democracy and government because of the push for democracy in the mid-east, especially by young people?

2. Does all the "drama" in our U.S. politics, especially the hypocrisy and name calling, tend to turn off young Americans?

3. Have you ever studied how the American founders created "no drama democracy" in an effort to reduce drama in American politics?

Thanks!
 
Hey hows it going guys I found this website so I could do a class project I just need to know what yall think about these questions?

1. WIll our generation develop a greater intrest in democracy and government because of the push for democracy in the mid-east, especially by young people?

2. Does all the "drama" in our U.S. politics, especially the hypocrisy and name calling, tend to turn off young Americans?

3. Have you ever studied how the American founders created "no drama democracy" in an effort to reduce drama in American politics?

Thanks!

1: Probably not
2: No, “Young Americans” or the “youth vote” mostly thrives on one liners and name calling. It’s when you try and talk about an issue deeper that the youth seems to lose near all focus.
Example in this thread would be…
Talking points.
:Teachers = good
:Unions = Good
:Republicans = bad
:Republicans = hate children and people
Slogans rule the simple minded, hence Obama’s campaign being directed at the politically inferior as they knew…
:Bush = Bad
:Republicans = Bad
:Obama is black = Good
:Obama is not Bush or Republican = Good
Issues and how Obama planned on fixing or doing anything had no play whatsoever on the Obama supporting youth, or most of his support as a whole.

3: No
 
This debate has a foregone conclusion. I don't think anyone can refute the actual facts:
1. The Federal Employees cannot unionize because of conflicts of interest. Everyone from FDR forward has agreed with this.

There is no longer such a thing as conflict of interest. If there were VPs would not be accepting no-big contracts from Haliburtion.

2. State employees have civil-service protections, they don't need unions
Illogical conclusion based outside freedom of choice. That is like saying citizens have a military, they no longer need guns.

3. The States simply cannot pay for promised benefits, something needs to change, and fast because taxpayers can't pay any more

Of course taxpayers can pay more. You should be paying 90% until you pay of your ME folly.

4. Taxpayers elect pols to fix their States, end of discussion

Oh, you don't want to discuss it.

5. Besides, when unions contribute to pols, they expect favors, that is the ultimate conflict of interest.

LOL! When I donate to a politician, I expect favors as well. When they lower interest rates, write laws to make buying house easier, it is a conflict of interest. Whatever reason you chose to be the Retard has a conflict of interest seed buried in the bottom of it. You expect them to do things for you, whatever it is.

SEE Greenbeard above: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/158102-politics-unions-corruption-cycle-2.html#post3394655
 
Last edited:
You support this?

1)Politicians.. Vote to approve Public Unions and give them whatever they can .. they sell out the taxpayer for votes. They also mandate that all public union employees must join the union and pay union dues.

2)The public union collect union dues and support the political party or candidates that support the continuation of the corruption cycle.. ie screwing the taxpayer ..Individual union member are forced to pay union dues no matter who they personally support.

3)The Unions payoff and throw their support behind the political party or candidates that are willing to screw the taxpayer for excessive benefits...

4) cycle back to (1)

Yes! I support it!!!


1) What does this mean? "and give them whatever they can ". Give them what?

2) If you are a Union member you pay dues for various union activities, and have a voice in which politicians are elected. Your individual vote is your own.

3) What do the unions "payoff" ? Pay who? Indeed, they back union interests. Taxpayers are not screwed out of anything. What is "excessive benefits" ?

Just one question.. why is California in such debt when taxes are so high...?
 
It's threads like this that sink to the bottom... There are just no talking points to attack it.

Wait, RW might jump in to ask "why do you hate the middle class?" As if that somehow gets around the question of why does he support such massive corruption based on destroying the middle class.


You really need to say stuff like. Fuck you you fuking fuck ass (liberal/conservative) fucks! To get any real play on these forums.

Ahh, you guys are just jealous because you are weak unorganized scabs who quickly found out what it feels like not to be a union member. You want shit wages and benefits, think corporations are your best buddy, so STFU!!! Your whole problem is you hate seeing union members have it better than you, and it was your choice,,,,,,,,,,,:lol::lol:

:clap2::clap2::clap2:

Lots of mad ITT.
 
As long as the politicians can buy votes with the taxpayers money and not their own....they are on it like white on rice.

"There are four ways in which you can spend money.


*You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you're doing, and you try to get the most for your money.

*Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I'm not so careful about the content of the present, but I'm very careful about the cost.

*Then, I can spend somebody else's money on myself. And if I spend somebody else's money on myself, then I'm sure going to have a good lunch!

*Finally, I can spend somebody else's money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else's money on somebody else, I'm not concerned about how much it is, and I'm not concerned about what I get. And that's government."

Milton Friedman was the twentieth century’s most prominent advocate of free markets. Born in 1912 to Jewish immigrants in New York City, he attended Rutgers University, where he earned his B.A. at the age of twenty. He went on to earn his M.A. from the University of Chicago in 1933 and his Ph.D. from Columbia University in 1946. In 1951 Friedman received the John Bates Clark Medal honoring economists under age forty for outstanding achievement.

In 1976 he was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics for “his achievements in the field of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory, and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy.” Before that time he had served as an adviser to President Richard Nixon and was president of the American Economic Association in 1967. After retiring from the University of Chicago in 1977, Friedman became a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

Milton Friedman: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty
 
Hey hows it going guys I found this website so I could do a class project I just need to know what yall think about these questions?

1. WIll our generation develop a greater intrest in democracy and government because of the push for democracy in the mid-east, especially by young people?

2. Does all the "drama" in our U.S. politics, especially the hypocrisy and name calling, tend to turn off young Americans?

3. Have you ever studied how the American founders created "no drama democracy" in an effort to reduce drama in American politics?

Thanks!

Okay here is a liberal perspective:

1. Doubt it. Kids just don't care. Its a sad state in our culture but its a "Don't care unless it affects me." It might who knows at this point.

2. It turns off most Americans. Some don't see a difference. I do, thats why I vote Democrat.

3. No. But heated debate isn't "Drama." Calling Obama not an natural born american, marxist, and communists isn't constructive to any debate.
 
It does seem funny that a party with fewer people, and by far fewer people who support it with money can somehow raise more money than a party that is larger and has almost everyone supporting it on their side. Then there is the outside money that comes from right wing org and corp that set attack sites paid for them that LIE, DISTORT and pay for other bogus outside entities to go to whatever place is need and do the same/.


If it wasn't for Unions most of you would be making half what you make with half the rules and laws that are in place to make sure your treated fairly. The republican party is a race to the bottom, an attempt to get the people in a place they can compete with 3 rd world countries for wages and benefits, its just that your too dumb to see that it will get you also.
 
It does seem funny that a party with fewer people, and by far fewer people who support it with money can somehow raise more money than a party that is larger and has almost everyone supporting it on their side. Then there is the outside money that comes from right wing org and corp that set attack sites paid for them that LIE, DISTORT and pay for other bogus outside entities to go to whatever place is need and do the same/.


If it wasn't for Unions most of you would be making half what you make with half the rules and laws that are in place to make sure your treated fairly. The republican party is a race to the bottom, an attempt to get the people in a place they can compete with 3 rd world countries for wages and benefits, its just that your too dumb to see that it will get you also.

The public unions of today can hardly take credit for the unions of the past...

You're talking crazy talk...:eusa_hand:
 
You support this?

1)Politicians.. Vote to approve Public Unions and give them whatever they can .. they sell out the taxpayer for votes. They also mandate that all public union employees must join the union and pay union dues.

2)The public union collect union dues and support the political party or candidates that support the continuation of the corruption cycle.. ie screwing the taxpayer ..Individual union member are forced to pay union dues no matter who they personally support.

3)The Unions payoff and throw their support behind the political party or candidates that are willing to screw the taxpayer for excessive benefits...

4) cycle back to (1)

Yes! I support it!!!


1) What does this mean? "and give them whatever they can ". Give them what?

2) If you are a Union member you pay dues for various union activities, and have a voice in which politicians are elected. Your individual vote is your own.

3) What do the unions "payoff" ? Pay who? Indeed, they back union interests. Taxpayers are not screwed out of anything. What is "excessive benefits" ?

Just one question.. why is California in such debt when taxes are so high...?

You might want to add NY and NJ to that little question as well.

As for the Unions Shitnow. I was a union member. Granted I voted as I saw fit but I had absolutely no control over who my union decided to support in any given political campaign. It wasn't even a question that was asked of any union member.
 
You support this?

1)Politicians.. Vote to approve Public Unions and give them whatever they can .. they sell out the taxpayer for votes. They also mandate that all public union employees must join the union and pay union dues.

2)The public union collect union dues and support the political party or candidates that support the continuation of the corruption cycle.. ie screwing the taxpayer ..Individual union member are forced to pay union dues no matter who they personally support.

3)The Unions payoff and throw their support behind the political party or candidates that are willing to screw the taxpayer for excessive benefits...

4) cycle back to (1)




Lumpy bro............thread FTMFW!!!:rock::rock::rock::rock::rock:


No elaboration necessary.............
 
Union Busting: The Michael Moore Way
Moore called two of his writers into his office. It was, for both of them, their first job in television, and they had been hired with the title of associate producer. They were not members of the Writers’ Guild, the powerful union for writers in movies and TV, and thus were not receiving health benefits, and would not qualify later for a percentage of video and rerun sales. Michael said, "I’m getting a lot of heat from the union to call you guys writers and pay you under the union rules," Eric Zicklin, one of the associate producers, says. "‘I don’t have the budget for that. But if they keep coming down on me that’ll mean I’ll only be able to afford one of you and the other one’s gotta go."
 
Scott Walker: Why I'm Fighting in Wisconsin - WSJ.com
In 2010, Megan Sampson was named an Outstanding First Year Teacher in Wisconsin. A week later, she got a layoff notice from the Milwaukee Public Schools. Why would one of the best new teachers in the state be one of the first let go? Because her collective-bargaining contract requires staffing decisions to be made based on seniority.
Ms. Sampson got a layoff notice because the union leadership would not accept reasonable changes to their contract. Instead, they hid behind a collective-bargaining agreement that costs the taxpayers $101,091 per year for each teacher, protects a 0% contribution for health-insurance premiums, and forces schools to hire and fire based on seniority and union rules.

My state's budget-repair bill, which passed the Assembly on Feb. 25 and awaits a vote in the Senate, reforms this union-controlled hiring and firing process by allowing school districts to assign staff based on merit and performance. That keeps great teachers like Ms. Sampson in the classroom.
 

Forum List

Back
Top