Walker Not Anti-Worker

[JakeStarkey]

The fact of the matter is that big business donates much more money than the unions, and bb simply wants to sweep the unions of the playing field. Not going to happen.

Another total lie.

It's bureaucrat unions, like AFSCME, AFT, NEA, etcetera who should have absolutely no place in politics at all What SEIU, Teamsters, AFL-CIO and the rest out in the real world do is their own business and they should be completely free to do it.

I wrote, ". . . big business donates much more money than the unions," and you call that a lie, you liar. Two words: fuck off, with your lies.

OddOne, you and your goons fool no one.

 

[JakeStarkey]

you clearly aren't informed.

all monetary concessions have been made. the only thing holding up the legislation is his unwillingness to budge on the collective bargaining issue.

the budget has absolutely nothing to do with this fight anymore.

Ooops, why would a governor oppose collective bargaining for workers? Sounds like he doesn't like workers to me.

More lies.

Walker all for collective bargaining for wage and salary issues....It's all other issues unrelated to pay that he wants removed from the collective bargaining process.

Let's put this in the right context. Walker opposes all collective bargaining with the single issue of wage/salary. In other words, he wants to break the unions in Dairyland. He has already failed.

 

[Oddball]

Ooops, why would a governor oppose collective bargaining for workers? Sounds like he doesn't like workers to me.

More lies.

Walker all for collective bargaining for wage and salary issues....It's all other issues unrelated to pay that he wants removed from the collective bargaining process.

Let's put this in the right context. Walker opposes all collective bargaining with the single issue of wage/salary. In other words, he wants to break the unions in Dairyland. He has already failed.

Let's put in context: You're lying.

Walker has stated publicly that he has no problem with collective bargaining over issues of pay.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, you are suggesting that is the solution, you liar. Walker wants to strip the union members of all other collective bargaining powers. You listened to Walker getting "pranked" by now, and you continue the lie? You are stupid, and I never thought of that of you before.

 

[Cuyo]

So, you're good with funneling large amounts of taxpayer money to only one political party.

Thanks for the inadvertent honesty.

Well... Yeah, that's the reality of what's going on here, ain't it? The Republic party gets most of its donations from very wealthy businesses and businessmen, and the Democrats get the vastly larger cut, indirectly, from working people.

Didn't say it was a great situation, but it is a main reason Republicans are so anti-union... That and the fact that unionization is bad for the wealthy people for whom they advocate.

Budget? Pshaw. Budget in Wisconsin's got nothing to do with it. The union already offered to make the requested concessions.

Bullshit...Those donations are fairly evenly spread between the two parties, depending upon who is in power or most likely to attain it.

As far as unions like Teamsters, AFL-CIO, UFCW, etcetera are concerned, I couldn't care less about them or to whom they donate their money....But taking taxpayer dollars to get members of one party elected, who will in turn be the "negotiators" of pay and benefits to those unions, without any regard for the taxpayer, is outright graft.

Though I highly doubt such facts are of any real concern to you, as long as it's your team getting the in on the loot.

I doubt your first assertion is true. I'm of course aware it happens, a la Goldman and Obama, but I doubt it's any kind of equivilancy. Let's set that aside for now.

I find your logic about laundering taxpayer money to be flawed. It's not taxpayer money anymore after it's disbursed to the worker. By that logic, it would be laundered taxpayer money if the worker made a private donation. When does it end? If he spends the money at the grocery store, and the grocer makes a donation - Is it still taxpayer money?

What's more important is why entities donate to the parties of their choice. Do you think the unions and DNC are just kissing cousins? Or don't you agree that they at least think it's the party that advocates for their members? Same question for big oil/pharma/defense industry et al, and the Republic party?

As to your last statement - I wish there weren't a battle going on. But there is, and damn right I want the average citizen (my 'Team,' and yours as well though you refuse to see it) to win. The upper echelons have already taken more than enough.

 

[Sallow]

you clearly aren't informed.

all monetary concessions have been made. the only thing holding up the legislation is his unwillingness to budge on the collective bargaining issue.

the budget has absolutely nothing to do with this fight anymore.

The left simply once to postpone this issue, which will arise once again.

I don't think the runaway Dems will be in town to vote on a balanced bill anyway, with or without the collective bargaining piece, will they?

The liberals want to keep unions in power because they get a tremendous amount of financial support from the dues collected by the union members. But thank you for admitting that the reason they are in turmoil is because they need that power base.

Governor Walker wants to implement something that is fundamentally Unconstitutional. Labor has the right to advocate and bargain in their interests.

 

[Oddball]

I find your logic about laundering taxpayer money to be flawed. It's not taxpayer money anymore after it's disbursed to the worker. By that logic, it would be laundered taxpayer money if the worker made a private donation. When does it end? If he spends the money at the grocery store, and the grocer makes a donation - Is it still taxpayer money?

They produced nothing to earn that money...It was taken from me by force.

The grocery store sells things I willingly want to buy....I have a choice as to which store I buy from...Gubmibnt bureaucrats provide no such choice....In fact, in terms of the teachers unions, the actively work to deprive the marketplace of viable choices.

What's more important is why entities donate to the parties of their choice. Do you think the unions and DNC are just kissing cousins? Or don't you agree that they at least think it's the party that advocates for their members? Same question for big oil/pharma/defense industry et al, and the Republic party?

AFSCME/AFT/NEA take union dues as a matter of course and funnel them into political campaigns, regardless of the political persuasion of their members....How 'bout I steal your wallet and donate the proceeds to the Libertarian Party?

As to your last statement - I wish there weren't a battle going on. But there is, and damn right I want the average citizen (my 'Team,' and yours as well though you refuse to see it) to win. The upper echelons have already taken more than enough.

If you truly believe that they've already taken enough, then you should be in favor of breaking the backs of the bureaucrat unions.....Their upper echelons are the ones really making out like bandits.

 

[Sallow]

More lies.

Walker all for collective bargaining for wage and salary issues....It's all other issues unrelated to pay that he wants removed from the collective bargaining process.

Let's put this in the right context. Walker opposes all collective bargaining with the single issue of wage/salary. In other words, he wants to break the unions in Dairyland. He has already failed.

Let's put in context: You're lying.

Walker has stated publicly that he has no problem with collective bargaining over issues of pay.

I saw and heard him say the exact opposite on MSNBC.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OddBall is lying, no ifs ands or doubts about it. He has absolutely nothing of worth to say to anyone until he admits his lies and apologizes.

The stockholders in many companies have no say about the money is used to lobby government. That is no different than labor unions.

Either OddBall is deliberately lying or he is obtusely stupid.

There are no other explanations that fit the facts.

 

[Oddball]

Exempting police, fire, and state troopers, Governor Walker would end collective bargaining over pensions and benefits for the rest. Collective bargaining for wages would still be permitted, but there would be no wage hikes above the CPI. Unions could still represent workers, but they could not force employees to pay dues. In exchange for this, Walker promises no furloughs for layoffs.

News Headlines

Either of you dweebs got linky?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The links have been put out there, OddBall, and you have been blown out of the water, again.

 

[Provocateur]

The Governor wants to alleviate union power because Dems get a tremendous amount of financial support from the dues collected from the union members. Thank you for admitting that the reason they are in turmoil is because he wants to destroy that power base.

So, you're good with funneling large amounts of taxpayer money to only one political party.

Thanks for the inadvertent honesty.

Well... Yeah, that's the reality of what's going on here, ain't it? The Republic party gets most of its donations from very wealthy businesses and businessmen, and the Democrats get the vastly larger cut, indirectly, from working people.

Didn't say it was a great situation, but it is a main reason Republicans are so anti-union... That and the fact that unionization is bad for the wealthy people for whom they advocate.

Budget? Pshaw. Budget in Wisconsin's got nothing to do with it. The union already offered to make the requested concessions.

If private unions want to sink themselves, that is their business. However, don't make it my problem by forcing me to bailout out the sinking ship.

(See car bailout using taxpayer money for reference.)


So, in essence, you are conceding that that Walker isn't "Anti-Worker" right? He is just anti-public-sector union?

 

[Provocateur]

I have heard Walker interviewed several times over the last week. What strikes me is that the bill being touted as anti-worker is actually just the opposite.

He has a certain amount of funds with which to work. He has determined that there will need to be thousands of public sector jobs completely eliminated to balance the budget if concessions by the public employees are not made.

So the question for liberals is which would you prefer? Would you rather see thousands forced into unemployment while the current concessions are rejected?



These answers seem simple. This helps one to see through the turmoil. It simply has to do with power and liberals feeling like they are losing a toehold.

Actually collective bargaining has NO EFFECT on the present budget. Democrats had already agreed to the demands that affect the present budget. Perhaps if you had an objective source of news to draw information from you could actually be an informed individual

They were willing to offer a temporary fix. The unions will continue to bankrupt the state at the drop of the hat in the near future. The unions want to make sure they have the income to buy the next election.



Thus, the liberals are having a tizzy fit (see running and hiding in other states) because their scheme is up.

 

[Victor Lee]

The lefties in this town will NEVER understand economics. They are the same ones who wanted Obamacare so bad, and then they complain when their health insurance premiums go up! This is quite the place to live.
Scott Walker is a compassionate man. He wants to save jobs, but the union leaders with seniority will let the young workers (many with young families) lose their jobs and suffer greater from the lack of private sector jobs in this city.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are talking about Scott Walker of Omaha, Victor Lee, not the Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin who was "pranked" on who he really is and what he is really about.

 

[DiveCon]

The links have been put out there, OddBall, and you have been blown out of the water, again.

oddball just posted a link that shows you dont know what the fuck you are talking about

wow, what a shock there, NOT!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Provocateur]

The fact of the matter is that big business donates much more money than the unions, and bb simply wants to sweep the unions of the playing field. Not going to happen.

BP donated a record amount to Obama's campaign. What about Goldman Sachs?

Facts can be stubborn.

Goldman Sachs: Summary | OpenSecrets


And to contradict your statement completely, tell me who the top contributors were. Unions or businesses? Here's a list.

National Donor Profiles | OpenSecrets

 

[Oddball]

The links have been put out there, OddBall, and you have been blown out of the water, again.

Where?

Put or shut up, dickless.

 

[percysunshine]

you clearly aren't informed.

all monetary concessions have been made. the only thing holding up the legislation is his unwillingness to budge on the collective bargaining issue.

the budget has absolutely nothing to do with this fight anymore.

Ooops, why would a governor oppose collective bargaining for workers? Sounds like he doesn't like workers to me.

I see that Shintoad is up to his usual tricks.

Forgot to mention the issues of 'pay' collective bargaining, and the difference between private and public unions.

 

[Provocateur]

Exempting police, fire, and state troopers, Governor Walker would end collective bargaining over pensions and benefits for the rest. Collective bargaining for wages would still be permitted, but there would be no wage hikes above the CPI. Unions could still represent workers, but they could not force employees to pay dues. In exchange for this, Walker promises no furloughs for layoffs.

News Headlines

Either of you dweebs got linky?

I've heard him discuss exactly what you linked. I don't know why the libs are suggesting otherwise, unless there are new developments.