Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Wisconsin (Page 5)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: Wisconsin
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The Democratic party is bought and paid by the unions.
Would you agree that the Republican party is bought and paid for by corporations, then?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes or no it's irrelevant to this thread. There isn't a massive group of corporate ceo's demanding more pay from the government (or anyone) in Wisconsin. So it doesn't matter one iota if anyone agrees that the Repubs are bought and paid by corporations.
Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So it doesn't matter one iota if anyone agrees that the Repubs are bought and paid by corporations.
I would disagree. If you're going to cast this as an attempt to defend the Democratic Party by defending its staunchest donors, it's important to also recognize that the "Open for Business" rhetoric from the Republicans this election season is meant to pander to their bloc.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye
Member
Member # 6554

 - posted      Profile for flydye   Email flydye       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
The Democratic party is bought and paid by the unions.
Would you agree that the Republican party is bought and paid for by corporations, then?
No. Democrats get a huge amount of money from corporations too. I would say that the Republicans are strongly influenced by the gun lobby and the Pro Life faction, but your comment is not only inaccurate but misleading.

What is the break down of union donations to Dems vs Republicans? What is the break down for corporation donations for Dems vs Republicans?

[ February 25, 2011, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: flydye ]

Posts: 702 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye
Member
Member # 6554

 - posted      Profile for flydye   Email flydye       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Five seconds on the net and I got this:

quote:
Top Overall Donors to Republicans:

Elliott Management (a Hedge fund company)
Koch Industries (note: the billioaire who is the main financier of the Teabaggers)
Every Republican is Crucial PAC
Associated Builders & Contractors
(so-called) "Freedom" Project (a Republican PAC)

Top Overall Donors to Democrats:

ActBlue (composite of many, many small, grassroots donations)
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Laborers Union
Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union
EMILY's List (composite of many, many small grassroots donations)
Plumbers/Pipefitters Union
National Assn of Letter Carriers
Ironworkers Union
United Auto Workers
United Transportation Union
American Postal Workers Union
UNITE HERE
AmeriPAC: The Fund for a Greater America

NOTES: Top Democratic supporters are unions and grassroots donors.

Seems to me the contrast is really quite sharp: Billionaires vs. working and middle class.

Now looking only at corporate donors here is a list of the large corporations that donated 60% or more to Republicans vs. 60% or more to Democrats.

Republican Supporters:

Goldman Sachs (60% donations to Republicans)
Blue Cross/Blue Shield (61% donations to Republicans)
Bank of America (63% donations to Republicans)
Wells Fargo (68% donations to Republicans)
Home Depot (67% donations to Republicans)
Altria Group (formerly Philip Morris!) (74% donations to Republicans)

Democraitc Supporters:

Comcast Corp (65% donations to Democrats)
General Electric (60% donations to Democrats)


This from a lefty blogger. Assuming his numbers are correct, the Dems are getting huge money from unions...and 40% of the donation from Goldman Sachs et al. That is not chump change.
Posts: 702 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I would say that the Republicans are strongly influenced by the gun lobby and the Pro Life faction...
I didn't say "strongly influenced by." I said "bought and paid for." Who, in your opinion, buys and pays for the Republican Party? Would you consider it more accurate to say that billionaires do?

[ February 25, 2011, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye
Member
Member # 6554

 - posted      Profile for flydye   Email flydye       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here is a non blogger site for the top 10 corporate contributers

A majority of these donors say it is split evenly for Democrats and Republicans, defense, Altira exceptions. Time Warner and Microsoft are Dem bastions.

So it would be accurate to say that Republicans are bought and paid for by corporate American...but the Democrats have their receipt in their pocket too!

[ February 25, 2011, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: flydye ]

Posts: 702 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye
Member
Member # 6554

 - posted      Profile for flydye   Email flydye       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
I would say that the Republicans are strongly influenced by the gun lobby and the Pro Life faction...
I didn't say "strongly influenced by." I said "bought and paid for." Who, in your opinion, buys and pays for the Republican Party? Would you consider it more accurate to say that billionaires do?
Would you say that? Do you have a link supporting it?
Posts: 702 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by flydye:
Five seconds on the net and I got this:

You and your real world facts, I think I'm going to just have to start a thread about how terrible you are. [LOL]
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Don't know. Since you are all about the data points, why don't you find out? Or ask how many union supporters from other states are being bused in to plump up the crowds. Somehow, that seems to have missed the major news networks.
Um...why don't I find out? Because I myself am not that interested? I'm not trying to convince myself of anything? I have no particular obligation to go out of my way attempting dig up data that probably doesn't even exist, in support of someone else's assertion - an assertion based, as far as I can tell, on nothing more than a feeling that it ought to be so.

If you're asserting that an important proportion of protesters are carpetbagging it, I welcome you to 1)support that assertion and 2)explain why that's a problem, with particular reference to TomD's statements above.

quote:
Also, that EPI report you cited? Bought and paid for by the SEIU among others. By that logic, I assume you also accept the tobacco studies of the 60's, and the Oil corporation studies on the invalidity of global warming. Or are you going to be skeptical about the one and not the other purely according to ideological devotion?
OMG.
I had to search several pages back to find what you were talking about, since I couldn't remember citing a report about protester numbers or public support for the unions and/or Walker. Then I realized that you are mysteriously talking about something else.

You're right, since I posted that link I've seen other reports that do the math differently and find that Wisconsin public employees are compensated varying amounts relative to the private sector; some of those reports indicate that some public employees are paid equally to private employees in comparable job situations. That's fine.
Nothing that I have seen shows that public employees make MORE than private employees in comparable situations, although if you've got something different, I'd be interested in seeing it.

In case it hasn't been made clear enough, my point has been that if the people of Wisconsin want public employees to take a pay cut, they can and should make that happen.

This bill, however, is not actually about cutting public employees' pay. That's why is silly to still be talking about that.

~~~~~~~~

Will someone PLEASE address the other parts of the bill, or the governor's obvious corruption and location in the bed of the Koch brothers?
I know union-bashing is more natural, but it's also less interesting.

Posts: 3791 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye
Member
Member # 6554

 - posted      Profile for flydye   Email flydye       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Will someone PLEASE address the other parts of the bill, or the governor's obvious corruption and location in the bed of the Koch brothers?
I know union-bashing is more natural, but it's also less interesting.

To paraphrase you: because I'm not interested in it.
Posts: 702 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye
Member
Member # 6554

 - posted      Profile for flydye   Email flydye       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
During the campaign last November, leaders of the Milwaukee Professional Firefighters Association and Milwaukee Police Association appeared in an ad supporting Walker and blasting his opponent, Democrat Tom Barrett. Walker also won endorsements from the West Allis Professional Police Association and the Wisconsin Troopers Association

Walker didn’t get the endorsements of two statewide unions, the Wisconsin Professional Police Association and the Professional Fire Fighters of Wisconsin, which both backed Barrett.

For the record, the governor told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that the charge that he was exempting police and firefighters was "ridiculous." He said he didn't recommend changing the rules for police officers and firefighters because he didn’t want public safety work disrupted.

We then contacted the Wisconsin Professional Police Association, the statewide union that endorsed Walker's opponent last year. Executive director Jim Palmer said the statewide organization is much larger than the local Milwaukee police union that endorsed Walker. The state group has approximately 11,000 members versus Milwaukee’s roughly 1,400, he said.

Similarly, the state firefighters association has more than 3,000, compared with the Milwaukee union’s 875.

The state police union is opposed to the changes Walker is proposing for other public sector workers, which include county jailers and police dispatchers, Palmer said. The statewide firefighters' union also opposes the proposal.

Palmer said he believes that Walker exempted police and firefighters not for political payback, but because they are the public workers who are most popular with the public. "And in that way, it’s very political," he said.

Politifact

Teacher Union donations

Teachers unions are the worst, but the chart is instructive.

Public Sector Unions by Party (Hint, it ain't for Republicans)

[ February 25, 2011, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: flydye ]

Posts: 702 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye
Member
Member # 6554

 - posted      Profile for flydye   Email flydye       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

You're right, since I posted that link I've seen other reports that do the math differently and find that Wisconsin public employees are compensated varying amounts relative to the private sector; some of those reports indicate that some public employees are paid equally to private employees in comparable job situations. That's fine.
Nothing that I have seen shows that public employees make MORE than private employees in comparable situations, although if you've got something different, I'd be interested in seeing it.


I would say near immunity from being fired is a huge benefit which is not fiscal in nature. And yet they get paid the same...

But on another forum, some people noted that the 'quit' rates of the public sector (not downsizing, not firings) was 40% of the private sector. This certainly indicates something.

Posts: 702 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by OpsanusTau:


Will someone PLEASE address the other parts of the bill, or the governor's obvious corruption and location in the bed of the Koch brothers?
I know union-bashing is more natural, but it's also less interesting.

I assume you're talking about the spoofed phone call. I listened to it. In that we learn Walker has never met Koch and barely knows who he is, but even when talking privately to his supposed ‘corporate master,’ Walker doesn’t say anything that he hasn’t said in public.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
She may be referring to the Koch-influenced provision of the budget bill that allows a corporation to buy a public power plant from the state via no-bid contract.

quote:
even when talking privately to his supposed ‘corporate master,’ Walker doesn’t say anything that he hasn’t said in public
Not quite. In public, he hadn't previously admitted that he had no interest in actually negotiating with Senate Democrats but was willing to lie to them about that to get them into the building, at which point they'd declare a quorum. That revelation immediately nixed the conversations he was having with Senate Democrats on exactly that point. Nor had he said, in public, that he'd considered having his administration infiltrate the protests.

[ February 25, 2011, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let me repeat my question for you, fly: "Who, in your opinion, buys and pays for the Republican Party?"
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by OpsanusTau:
Nothing that I have seen shows that public employees make MORE than private employees in comparable situations, although if you've got something different, I'd be interested in seeing it.

I've already posted data that indicates Public employees make substantially more than private employees, but here's some more different data. It's very easy to find.

At the Federal level the differences are extremely large:

quote:
Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that federal employees in occupations that exist in both the public and private sectors made an average salary of $67,691 in 2008, USA Today reports. Meanwhile, private sector workers in those occupations made $60,046. Government data also shows federal workers received benefits valued at $40,785, compared with benefits valued at $9,882 for private sector workers.
CBS

quote:

USA TODAY used Bureau of Labor Statistics data to compare salaries in every federal job that had a private-sector equivalent. For example, the federal government's 57,000 registered nurses — working for the Veterans Administration and elsewhere — were paid an average of $74,460 a year, $10,680 more than the average for private-sector nurses.

Key findings:

• Federal. The federal pay premium cut across all job categories — white-collar, blue-collar, management, professional, technical and low-skill. In all, 180 jobs paid better average salaries in the federal government; 36 paid better in the private sector.

•Private. The private sector paid more on average in a select group of high-skill occupations, including lawyers, veterinarians and airline pilots. The government's 5,200 computer research scientists made an average of $95,190, about $10,000 less than the average in the corporate world.

•State and local. State government employees had an average salary of $47,231 in 2008, about 5% less than comparable jobs in the private sector. City and county workers earned an average of $43,589, about 2% more than private workers in similar jobs. State and local workers have higher total compensation than private workers when the value of benefits is included.

USAToday
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
te and local workers have higher total compensation than private workers when the value of benefits is included.
Value, or cost? There's a difference.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye
Member
Member # 6554

 - posted      Profile for flydye   Email flydye       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Let me repeat my question for you, fly: "Who, in your opinion, buys and pays for the Republican Party?"

And you avoid the point yet again. Please show me a billionaire or a corporation which pays Republicans with such numbers and huge percentage of party loyalty.

I've displayed two Democratic 'masters' and discussed two Republican groups.

It is your turn. You have to do more then ask questions, you know...Here you have to ANSWER some.

Posts: 702 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
lease show me a billionaire or a corporation which pays Republicans with such numbers and huge percentage of party loyalty.
Please show me a single union that does the same for the Democrats. Or, y'know, show some actual intellectual honesty and admit the truth about who "owns" the Republican Party. But the latter would of course require that you stop regurgitating talking points.

[ February 25, 2011, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And, SIGH, yes Pyrtolin. It IS a Conservative website
Oh, come off it. I brought that up in the context of a conservative think tank presenting unsourced, out of context quotes, especially when they were caught red handed lying about the meaning of the one of the quotes that actually turned out to be traceable.

And really, I'm not sure how it's a bad thing that you keep showing, over and over, that the Democrats are heavily funded by the most organized representatives of the middle and working classes. If there's anyone that I'd want a politician to be under the thumb of, it's the average worker.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ben
Member
Member # 1153

 - posted      Profile for Ben   Email Ben   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
quote:
I believe I read something about the firefighters and police unions for the most part endorsing Walker's opponent in the previous election, so I do not think that election support of the Governor is why these unions were exempted by the proposed law.
Ben, Walker was endorsed by both the police and the firefighters' unions, in exchange for various promises. Both unions have since apologized for the endorsement.
That'd explain some of the conflicting information I've seen out there. Thanks for the input, and I guess we'll just have to see how it all shakes out regarding the endorsements. Sorry I'm slow on responding.
Posts: 523 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2011/02/analogy_watch_c.html

quote:
Using the March 2010 CPS data, regression analysis controlling demographic characteristics (full-time, education, years of economic experience, gender, race, citizenship, and organizational size) confirms that total hourly compensation for Wisconsin public sector workers is 4.8% lower than for private sector (-5.1% for Wisconsin State workers, and -4.7% for local government). The differentials are bigger for annual compensation. These estimated differentials are statistically significant, as shown in Table 4.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
At the Federal level the differences are extremely large:
That is definitely true.

quote:
I've already posted data that indicates Public employees make substantially more than private employees, but here's some more different data. It's very easy to find.
Oh, did you show that for Wisconsin, for comparable jobs? I missed that part. Can you link again? I looked briefly through the thread but didn't find what you're referring to.

quote:
She may be referring to the Koch-influenced provision of the budget bill that allows a corporation to buy a public power plant from the state via no-bid contract.
Yes.
Come on, that doesn't bother you?
These power plants belong to the public. They're an asset of the state, and in general they provide heating, cooling, and power to state-owned facilities. If the bill passes, they will be sold (or leased) to private entities whenever the Department of Administration wants, at whatever price someone wants to sell them for, without bidding. Other states and municipalities have explored this option in smaller, more controlled ways - it's a really obviously terrible plan for many reasons.
It is incredibly short-sighted and stupid, and an obvious setup for corruption.

Posts: 3791 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Come on, that doesn't bother you?
Well, it infuriates me, not least because I know specifically which plant Koch wants to own; it's a small coal-fired plant currently owned and operated by the University of Wisconsin, which they were going to switch over to biofuels until Walker nixed that with his third or fourth act as governor.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Daruma,

you keep ignoring the point of whether or not the private school is TAX DEDUCTABLE. If it is, then you consume 'tax dollars' when you purchase the private school services.

Ie assume a toy government - It spends 995$ on public schools, 5$ on tax related overhead.

Assume private schools are 100% deductible up to the amount spent on public schools (ie max of 995$), and that private school and public school teachers are taxed the same.

I keep ignoring it because it's not relevant to the larger point. This misses the forest for the trees. Even if a private school tuition were not tax deductible, the money used to pay public sector workers is the money raised through private sector taxation. That is for all industries, not just teachers in education.

You keep ignoring that point.

Public sector workers are paid from the money raised by taxing the private sector. All of this talk of tax deductions does not change that basic fact.

As soon as you have a situation in which public sector workers are making more money than the private sector generates in taxes, you get deficit spending to keep the public sector propped up. State goverments can only deficit spend for so long before the bill comes do and bankruptcy looms.

There is zero difference from a tax revenue availability perspective if the student attends the public school (the government collects 1000$ in taxes, and spends 995$ on the school and 5$ on overhead) or private school (the government collects 5$ in taxes).

Tax revenue availability?

I'm talking total tax revenue CREATED.

So what really happens is the individual either spends 995 tax dollars through distribution by the government, or spends 995 tax dollars directly by purchasing the private school service and deducting it from their taxes.

Your arguing that the outcome is the same because of the tax deduction. This still ignores my main point. The person hiring the private school to educate their children deducts the cost from his or her overall taxes...but they are still paying taxes from the money they earned in the private sector. That taxes - even with the deduction - is a source of increased tax revenue.

A public sectors salary and benefits come from those taxes collected. The public sector's taxes withheld from their paycheck is NOT new tax revenue...just less taxes used to pay that public sector worker. Deductions applied to private sector tax payers does not alter this basic reality.

[ February 25, 2011, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Daruma28 ]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
As soon as you have a situation in which public sector workers are making more money than the private sector generates in taxes, you get deficit spending to keep the public sector propped up.
This much is true, but it misses the point that such sending also keeps the private sector propped up because the public workers spend their earnings into the private sector. You old have a point here if were were experiencing labor or production shortages because public sector employee consumption was squeezing out that from private sector employees, but that's not the case at all; instead the answer lies in increasing private sector employment and pay until it properly drives the economy.


quote:
State goverments can only deficit spend for so long before the bill comes do and bankruptcy looms.
Which is why the federal government should be stepping in to pick up the deficits directly or through employment initiatives so that self-destructive budget choices aren't being made on the basis of private sector output that is artificially depressed due to an economic downturn and the corresponding additional needs to public emergency funds to support people until the situation improves.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You are so wrong Pyrtolin, it's painful to read, and increasingly tiring to bother responding to.

Public sector spending does not prop up the private sector.

Which is why the federal government should be stepping in

You mean the federal government that is already in debt to the tune of trillions of dollars?

You don't even realize how this entire debt-based economy is a house of cards already in the process of falling...

[Exploding]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye
Member
Member # 6554

 - posted      Profile for flydye   Email flydye       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
lease show me a billionaire or a corporation which pays Republicans with such numbers and huge percentage of party loyalty.
Please show me a single union that does the same for the Democrats. Or, y'know, show some actual intellectual honesty and admit the truth about who "owns" the Republican Party. But the latter would of course require that you stop regurgitating talking points.
Open Secrets Top Hitters with breakdown of party affiliation.

Note this chart well. Out of the top ten contributors, SIX are unions. SEVEN tilt more then 90% Democratic (forgot the Lawyer corporate masters...) In the top twenty, 11 are unions, while ActBlue is a Democratic PAC (Number 1 $51 million)

It isn't until we get to 18 that we get the first 'elephant' (60-69% support) and at 22 we find Altira group (aka Philip Morris) who gives 72% to Republicans.

But a break down. One animal 60-69% Two 70-89% Three 90%+

Single Elephant: 19
Two Elephants: 18
Three elephants: 4

These triple elephants are worth noting. They are

Club for Growth (position 78)
Associated Builders & Contractors (88)
Amway (115)
National Fedn of Independent Business (118)


Single Donkey: 5
Double Donkey: 14
Triple Donkey: 26

Triple donkeys in the top ten:

ActBlue
American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees
American Assn for Justice
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
National Education Assn
Laborers Union
Teamsters Union

54 sit on the fence (around 40-50% support to both parties)

So, Tom...where are these corporate masters? In quantity, dedication and sheer numbers, Democrats have a lot of bang for their buck. The dreaded Koch Industries are 83 ($11 million, two elephants). It is not out of line to wonder what these unions (who outstrip corporate America in donations by a wide margin according to the chart) are getting for their money.

A talking point is a fact you don't like. That doesn't change the fact.

Edited to add: That chart is for all cycles. For 2010, there was a single elephant in the top ten (Goldman Sachs didn't like the class warfare rhetoric from the WH and having bussed in protestors to people's houses I guess) Still 7 of 10 are triple Donkeys.

[ February 25, 2011, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: flydye ]

Posts: 702 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And in the final picture, Tom and Fly, it doesn't matter a whit who the masters of the Donkeys and Elephants are. Corporations and Unions are both Special Interests who outright buy the politicians so they can get laws and regulations passed in their own favor, to the detriment of us all in so many different cases.

Arguing which special interest is better or worse (corporate or union) is missing the forest for the trees.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye
Member
Member # 6554

 - posted      Profile for flydye   Email flydye       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma, he said some...scratch that. He made a leading question which implied a great deal, illuminated nothing and worked very hard to distract from the issue of how much money went came unions to the 'brave' Democratic Sentators whose warchests are 24-73% from unions.

I'd like to see him back up one of these passive aggressive statements for a change.

[ February 25, 2011, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: flydye ]

Posts: 702 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Keep in mind:
quote:
Contributions by individuals connected with the organization. This includes employees, officers, and members of their immediate families.
Which clouds the numbers a fair amount if you can't see the baseline support. Both numbers are valuable here (and, I'd imagine, there's a lot of potential for double-counting or more)

In comparing the lists, I see a hand full of corps that do support the democrats, but it's mostly Unions and worker groups, on the other hand, Republican support is almost entirely corporations business leader groups, with little, if any, representation of workers.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fly, your numbers aren't making the argument you think. Of course unions are going to be monolithic donors; equally certainly, businesses are not. That's not the question.

The question, rather, is where the money comes from for each party. You have correctly observed that most of the Democrats' money comes from unions, and argued therefore that unions have bought and paid for the Democratic Party. I am asking you where you think most Republican money comes from, and whether you think those sources have also bought and paid for the Republican party.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye
Member
Member # 6554

 - posted      Profile for flydye   Email flydye       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Corporations (which is going in somewhat equal amounts to Democrats) and small donors. Until Obama's historic election, Republicans have been the party of small donors. And if corporations are schizzy with their contributions, how much more so small donors? As stated there ARE groups which reliable put 'feet on the ground' ala Union manpower: gun rights advocates and Pro Lifers. But as you can see, only the NRA contributes in the top 140 and even that at 39 ($18 million) that number is dwarfed by the Union manpower and money. So are Republicans 'bought' as reliably as Democrats? It's obviously no.

But your implication that corporations 'own' Republicans is not supported by the observable facts.

IF a large number of corporations gave at 70-90% rates, you would have a point with this implication. But that is not so. Contrast this to Unions, who don't SINK below 70% rates of support...and contribute vast more sums. So the 'buying' isn't comperable at all.

And again, why don't you show where the money is coming from?

[ February 25, 2011, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: flydye ]

Posts: 702 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

Well, it infuriates me, not least because I know specifically which plant Koch wants to own; it's a small coal-fired plant currently owned and operated by the University of Wisconsin, which they were going to switch over to biofuels until Walker nixed that with his third or fourth act as governor.

Yeah this whole thing is such a dog-and-pony show. People are getting distracted talking about how much public employees should be paid, and how much they are paid, and who contributes how much money to which party.
All of which is entirely beside the point.

Posts: 3791 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Right now, this thread has given me a vision.

A rather comical picture in my mind's eye.

Tom D and Pyrtolin on a donkey -- with a lance and saddle bought and paid for by union dues -- leveled and charging at flydye atop a charging elephant -- with his own lance and saddle bought and paid for with corporate donations.

Each side is convinced they are going to unseat the other.

They don't realize that the lord and his lady are sitting high above in the stands laughing as they watch in bemusement as they are about to unseat each other. They know what's going to happen...and they're laughing it up. They are having quite a good time at the specter of a never ending day of amusement is ahead of them, as they know the next set of donkey and elephant riding Don Quixote's are rigging up for the next entertaining matchup for their profit and amusement.

When will the jousting ever end and both sides look up at the people setting up the tournament for their own profit instead of beating each other up in this rigged matchup?

[Confused]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Corporations (which is going in somewhat equal amounts to Democrats) and small donors.
So let's look at this assertion for a second. You have demonstrated that unions give a substantial amount to the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party also collects a fair amount of money from small donors, although which party collects more tends to change from year to year. (The Tea Party "revolution" gave the Republicans an edge in small donations last year, but Dems did better during the presidential election.) And you're claiming that corporations generally pay out in something like parity (although I'd argue that a 20% difference on the books is significant, especially now that those donations don't need to be reported.) So are you alleging that the Republican Party is, by and large, less well-funded than the Democratic Party? Are Republican candidates generally less able to fund elections?

quote:
IF a large number of corporations gave at 70-90% rates, you would have a point with this implication.
Why do you believe this is the case? Note that I am not asserting that the Republicans own the corporations, so that the corporations have no political choice but to show them loyalty. It makes good financial sense for a corporation to spread its love a bit -- as Daruma will no doubt explain to you. The issue, rather, is how much of the Republicans' war chest is made up of corporate and/or large donor contributions, not the other way around.

----------

quote:
When will the jousting ever end and both sides look up at the people setting up the tournament for their own profit instead of beating each other up in this rigged matchup?
Give it a rest, Daruma, until you come up with some constructive suggestion. We all know the system's broken; it's not like you're pointing out something surprising. Heck, I was blowing that trumpet before you were on this site.

[ February 25, 2011, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Heck, I was blowing that trumpet before you were on this site.

Yet you still mount up on the old donkey and continue to charge at the elephant on the other side.

When are YOU going to give it a rest?

[ February 25, 2011, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: Daruma28 ]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
When are YOU going to give it a rest?
When a legitimate third party shows up that a) takes reform seriously; and b) isn't full of crazies.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
michaellve
Member
Member # 6206

 - posted      Profile for michaellve   Email michaellve       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
flydye -
quote:
So, Tom...where are these corporate masters? In quantity, dedication and sheer numbers, Democrats have a lot of bang for their buck. The dreaded Koch Industries are 83 ($11 million, two elephants). It is not out of line to wonder what these unions (who outstrip corporate America in donations by a wide margin according to the chart) are getting for their money.
While I don't disagree with you that Unions use much more of their money for political action. This doesn't take into account the individual donations and work that the Koch brothers for example give and do for their causes. Since we are using the Koch brothers they have individual PACs and organizations that they give huge sums of money too. So, while the company itself may not be giving huge sums of money the people running the company may be. Also, my guess would be that there are very few millionares much less billionares running unions. The whole idea of a Union giving money to political causes is that the Union a conduit for the money and the voice of its membership.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1