Comments on: How much are unions really spending on politics?

By: How much are unions really spending on politics? - BizNax

How much are unions really spending on politics? - BizNax — Fri, 13 Jul 2012 09:49:02 +0000

[...] Read this post ? [...]

By: philwynk

philwynk — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:17:23 +0000

Unions are stupidly wasting their memebers dues monies on politics when they should be buying the companies their members work for, thus making them ALL owners!

soapyjeans on July 12, 2012 at 2:27 AM

You presuppose that the union leadership is actually interested in the profit of the members. They’re not. They’re interested in preserving and maximizing their own power, both within the union and in general. Running a company for profit (and for the benefit of the customer base) is absolutely the last thing on the planet they want to do.

By: philwynk

philwynk — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 17:59:48 +0000

This post is dramatically important. It illustrates the way that the Democratic party has been using the unions to launder political money.

In fact, the unions are a giant money-laundering operation for the Democratic party, and have been for about 80 years.

Remember this the next time you hear a Democrat holding forth about money corrupting the political process. If the Democrat in question is one of the ordinary sort, he may just be an ignorant dupe; but if he’s a more knowledgeable sort, he’s lying through his teeth. They know perfectly well that concerns about campaign finance are designed solely to limit Republican spending, and that the unions are going to continue to launder huge sums for them.

By: soapyjeans

soapyjeans — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 06:27:54 +0000

Unions are stupidly wasting their memebers dues monies on politics when they should be buying the companies their members work for, thus making them ALL owners! Just look at the millions they’ve given the dems/libs just to insure they keep their collective bargaining which in essence prices them out of the market. But, if unions instead bought/invested in their members companies, it would be a win win! They could then protest against themselves, rofl!

By: nukemhill

nukemhill — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 04:04:59 +0000

Nice work, Karl. This needs to get a lot more play. You’ve barely scratched the surface.

By: KOOLAID2

KOOLAID2 — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 03:52:04 +0000

I never get first. Slackers.

msupertas on July 11, 2012 at 9:19 PM

When do you plan on starting?

Bishop on July 11, 2012 at 9:24 PM

Crack me up. And it’s a union thread too.

SparkPlug on July 11, 2012 at 9:52 PM

…*monitor*……”thanks for the cold drink bath…but it wasn’t really hot today!”

By: woodNfish

woodNfish — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 03:41:46 +0000

…the Obama administration is declining to enforce laws it does not care for — another shocka.

I’m pretty certain all administrations do this as do state and local governments. And I also realize this may be slightly off topic, but it is one of the very reasons why anyone on a jury should always consider jury nullification. Especially in victim-less “crimes”. (How can there be a crime if there is not victim? And please, the law cannot be a victim by not being adjudicated. Yeah, a jury member tried that nonsense argument on me.)

By: RedCrow

RedCrow — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 02:55:25 +0000

I’d say it’s a lot!

By: RedCrow

RedCrow — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 02:54:52 +0000

Well…How much is it when you completely disagree with their position??

By: Varchild

Varchild — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 02:31:04 +0000

lack of enforcement of the current rules

I pledge servitude, to the Enslaved States of America, for which it stands, one Nation Under Executive Fiat, end of liberty, with no representation for all.

By: slickwillie2001

slickwillie2001 — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 02:18:13 +0000

No employee subject to Civil Service should EVER be allowed collective bargaining power…..EVER!!! That is just plain brain-dead stupid!

Lew on July 11, 2012 at 10:11 PM

Yep, either that or they surrender their vote.

By: Lew

Lew — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 02:11:37 +0000

No employee subject to Civil Service should EVER be allowed collective bargaining power…..EVER!!! That is just plain brain-dead stupid!

By: talkingpoints

talkingpoints — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 02:02:22 +0000

The Obama administration is declining to enforce laws it does not care for

I’m shocked, shocked, I say.
Obviously under Obama we are no longer a nation of laws.

By: SparkPlug

SparkPlug — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 01:52:42 +0000

I never get first. Slackers. msupertas on July 11, 2012 at 9:19 PM
When do you plan on starting? Bishop on July 11, 2012 at 9:24 PM

Crack me up. And it's a union thread too.

By: Uppereastside

Uppereastside — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 01:49:11 +0000

Perfect compromise would be to end all union and upper 1% procurement of our democracy. Easier said than done i guess.

By: minnesoter

minnesoter — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 01:48:38 +0000

How much are unions really spending on politics?

Aside from the Bosses’ take? As much as they can squeeze from the members.

By: msupertas

msupertas — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 01:46:24 +0000

Feelin like the Omega man here. msupertas on July 11, 2012 at 9:20 PM

When do you plan on starting? Bishop on July 11, 2012 at 9:24 PM

msupertas, I was going to ask if you felt like the “Running Man” but Bishop caught you before I could warn you to run. chemman on July 11, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Lalalala, can't hear you. Basking in the glory. LOL

By: rayra

rayra — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 01:37:03 +0000

They’re spending about as much as Emperor Palpatine, er George Soros.

By: GarandFan

GarandFan — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 01:32:54 +0000

OLMS flatly states that it plans to conduct “zero I-CAP audits in FY 2012.”

How…….convenient. You’d think there was an election coming up.

By: chemman

chemman — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 01:28:11 +0000

Feelin like the Omega man here.

msupertas on July 11, 2012 at 9:20 PM

When do you plan on starting?

Bishop on July 11, 2012 at 9:24 PM

msupertas, I was going to ask if you felt like the “Running Man” but Bishop caught you before I could warn you to run.

By: Bishop

Bishop — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 01:24:49 +0000

I never get first. Slackers.

msupertas on July 11, 2012 at 9:19 PM

When do you plan on starting?

By: msupertas

msupertas — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 01:24:29 +0000

Speaking of Rush, he called it. Democrat money laundering scheme. That’s why we need the PACS.

By: BradTank

BradTank — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 01:23:50 +0000

How about this, any Union that doesn’t offer voluntary membership gets a 99% income tax.

Republicans would only need 51 Senators to pass. And the Roberts Court has basically given a green light to any action as long as it’s considered a tax.

Presto! Right to work in all 50 states!

By: anotherJoe

anotherJoe — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 01:22:31 +0000

Public unions are causing city bankruptcies…
If you were a bachelor and you had a nightly budget of $4.11 for dinner, you’d figure out how to make it work. Lets see, bread with a meat & cheese etc, chips, a [cheap] soda, ice cream, eat like a king. But instead lets say you call a couple of friends to go out to dinner at a fine restaurant, and you get drinks, appetizers, a 3 course meal, dessert. A pretty penny, and you are nice and volunteer to pay! That’s $190 with tip, and you decide just to go with an even number of $200, but later you realize… you can’t pay the rent.
Kind of like with the public unions. We didn’t need to volunteer to pay them ultra-high wages and pensions, but that was the good liberal nice thing to do. Now a lot of these cites are finding that they can’t pay the rent, so to speak. And further, you look at the typical city, and I think you could cut back to the virtual bone, like the $4.11 bachelor, you could find expedients to have police & fire work adequately, and a lot of other things just aren’t required. Do we need shiny big 400k fire engines (everyone was feeling groovy about that), and immaculate fancy white-washed fire stations all over the place, and people paid a fortune? No. Think of expedients. Get people to take more responsibility for putting out their own small fires, or saving their own cats. Utilize private industry fire suppression services. Same with police service. Get the job done, but don’t support a bunch of fat, or volunteer to bankroll the highlife for cops. And my libertarian side would say: much of police costs are spent on drug related victimless crimes; stick to keeping violence and crime from impacting our lives, forget about costly drug interdiction, especially when going to all that trouble and expense arguably doesn’t actually cut down the number of addicts (see Portugal example).
SO, a city could get by, if they really needed to, on virtually the $4.11 that the bachelor had for dinner. Let them start doing that.

By: Steve Z

Steve Z — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 01:21:30 +0000

Which is why we need 50 Scott Walkers to govern every State, and turn off the union money spigot!!!