and now, Ann Coulter on democrat public sector unions

[billc]

From this weeks column,

http://www.anncoulter.com/

For Democrats, the purpose of government is to generously provide jobs for people who otherwise couldn't be hired -- because their skills, attitude or sense of entitlement are considered undesirable in the private sector. And no, I'm not just talking about Barack Obama.

Democrats use taxpayer money to fund a government jobs program, impoverishing the middle class and harming the people allegedly helped by the programs -- but creating a vast class of voters who owe their jobs to the Democrats.

 

[granfire]

it does not say one word about unions....

 

[Twin Fist]

try again granfire.

just a snippit, and particuarly fitting for the current situation:

Members of public sector unions see their pensions and benefits the way the Mafia views its "partnership" with a restaurant, as described in the movie "Goodfellas": "Business bad? F--k you, pay me. Oh, you had a fire? F--k you, pay me. Place got hit by lightning, huh? F--k you, pay me."

The gov of wisconsin is saying "we are broke" and the teachers union is saying "F*** you, pay me."

 

[elder999]

The gov of wisconsin is saying "we are broke" and the teachers union is saying "F*** you, pay me."

Actually, the Gov. of Wisconsin is saying "We are broke, and I won't let you negotiate," and the teachers union is saying "**** you, you have a legal commitment to negotiate, and we will." In the past, in situations like this, unions have taken pay cuts, freezes, and reductions in pensions and benefits-the union is willing to negotiate, but the governor is telling the union, "**** you, you're out of here.I'm going to take away your right to negotiate what you get reimbursed for your services, and pay you whatever I damn well please.I'm going to burn the whole goddam thing down"

I mean, all the union has really done is protest the proposed law that does this-they've even told the protesting teachers to go back to work.

Just to be accurate, and all..............

 

[Empty Hands]

"democrat public sector unions"

 

[Ramirez]

Bill, just wondering, why do you always post other peoples opinions, columns etc. with what seems like no opinion of your own? It makes it seem like you wait to be told what to think instead of thinking for yourself. I don't care what Coulter thinks, I have read enough of her opinions since she came on the scene to be fairly sure I have no interest in it.


How about posting what you think for a change?


My thoughts on this issue is as follows, yes public sector unions (and workers in general) have had it too good for too long, I perfectly agree with the Wisconsin governor that they should fund more of their benefits , pensions and have their salaries curtailed because of the fiscal problems facing the state.
However taking away their collective bargaining rights is undemocratic IMO. In fact if the governor were shrewder he would keep this as a threat for future negotiations instead of actually implementing it.

 

[Ramirez]

Bill, I also find it ironic that you the professed great anti-communist are against the collective bargaining rights of unions , something that people like Lech Walesa fought hard for in the old Soviet Bloc.

 

[yorkshirelad]

Actually, the Gov. of Wisconsin is saying "We are broke, and I won't let you negotiate," and the teachers union is saying "**** you, you have a legal commitment to negotiate, and we will." In the past, in situations like this, unions have taken pay cuts, freezes, and reductions in pensions and benefits-the union is willing to negotiate, but the governor is telling the union, "**** you, you're out of here.I'm going to take away your right to negotiate what you get reimbursed for your services, and pay you whatever I damn well please.I'm going to burn the whole goddam thing down"

I mean, all the union has really done is protest the proposed law that does this-they've even told the protesting teachers to go back to work.

Just to be accurate, and all..............

Pretty much the same as Carter did with the Federal government in the 70s. Do federal employees have the same "rights"? If not, I'm sure the Democrats will start demanding the same rights for them.

 

[yorkshirelad]

Bill, just wondering, why do you always post other peoples opinions, columns etc. with what seems like no opinion of your own? It makes it seem like you wait to be told what to think instead of thinking for yourself. I don't care what Coulter thinks, I have read enough of her opinions since she came on the scene to be fairly sure I have no interest in it.


How about posting what you think for a change?


My thoughts on this issue is as follows, yes public sector unions (and workers in general) have had it too good for too long, I perfectly agree with the Wisconsin governor that they should fund more of their benefits , pensions and have their salaries curtailed because of the fiscal problems facing the state.
However taking away their collective bargaining rights is undemocratic IMO. In fact if the governor were shrewder he would keep this as a threat for future negotiations instead of actually implementing it.

Maybe he like what Coulter has to say and they share the same opinion! Have you ever thought of that?

 

[elder999]

Pretty much the same as Carter did with the Federal government in the 70s. Do federal employees have the same "rights"? If not, I'm sure the Democrats will start demanding the same rights for them.

Or St. Ronald did to PATCO in 1981, although they started it by breaking the law when they went on strike, and he was only upholding that law, as was his job.......in fact, Carter did more to damage unions than Reagan did....

 

[Ramirez]

Maybe he like what Coulter has to say and they share the same opinion! Have you ever thought of that?

Except he is constantly posting other people's opinions/essays...I can understand once in a while but not the rate he does it.

 

[granfire]

Bill, I also find it ironic that you the professed great anti-communist are against the collective bargaining rights of unions , something that people like Lech Walesa fought hard for in the old Soviet Bloc.

These rights were bought with a lot of blood, indeed.

 

[Darksoul]

-I don't know, I haven't heard Govenor Walker make any concessions; if his state is really in that much trouble, shouldn't he offer to give up something? Maybe take a paycut?

-Futhermore, before Unions, most people seemed to be a certain standard of living; when people organized and demanded change, that standard of living increased. Obviously, if you weren't in the union, you may not have benefitted directly, but indirectly, you did. Some unions have gone overboard, no arguement there. But I do believe that stripping collective bargaining rights away from people is a step on the path to bringing people back down to a lower standard of living. We seem so interested in tearing people down in this country, instead of lifting people up. Can't lift up everyone but the goal should be to lift as many as possible. That means jobs, and jobs with good pay if you're willing to work for it. Working people pay taxes, more people working, more taxes being paid in and so on which would bring things up, assuming greed doesn't take too big of a bite.

-Otherwise, we're telling people, too bad, if you can't make it and die in the streets, you should've tried harder. I think that is the wrong attitude.

-Am I my brother's keeper? Why yes, I have two older brothers, and if they needed anything, I would be there in heartbeat.

-Am I my brother's keeper? Why yes, I am an American, and I do feel duty bound to help out my brother and sister Americans. That doesn't mean a free ride.


Andrew

 

[Steve]

the purpose of government is to generously provide jobs for people who otherwise couldn't be hired -- because their skills, attitude or sense of entitlement are considered undesirable in the private sector.

Is this your personal opinion of State and Federal employees? That government employees are unemployable in the private sector?

Do federal employees have the same "rights"?

Yes. AFGE represents thousands of federal, bargaining unit employees. They have negotiated contracts agreed to under collective bargaining.

 

[billc]

well, I have heard throughout the wisconsin "live in" at the captial that up to 90 percent of public sector union dues, or that may just be union dues in general, go to the democrat party. That certainly doesn't make them republican unions does it.

On the FMAtalk part of this website you will see various people posting videos of the various masters of the Filipino martial arts. A few of my favorites are Master Ilustrisimo, and Master presas. they are both incredible sword and stick men and Master Ilustrisimo has an incredible number of stories attached to him, actual survival experiences using his blade art. Now, with video of this master of the arts, why would I ever want to post video of my own attempts at the FMA.

Of course, I post my opinions on various topics, and take the heat for them, but usually the best defenders of the united states conservatism and my views are not me. I like to post those things that I think will be more helpful in explaining things to people on the forum.

 

[Twin Fist]

private sector unions? sure

public sector jobs piad by taxes unions? not no but hell no

 

[Steve]

the purpose of government is to generously provide jobs for people who otherwise couldn't be hired -- because their skills, attitude or sense of entitlement are considered undesirable in the private sector.

Bill, you said this a few posts back. I would like to know if this is your honest opinion, if you're just stirring the pot, or if you're posting someone else's opinion and just forgot the attribution. This is a pretty severe statement, and I'm curious why you'd say such a thing.

90 percent of public sector union dues, or that may just be union dues in general, go to the democrat party

I'd like to know the source of this, as well. This is another pretty severe statement. Would certainly be bad if true, but I'd like to know if this is your... recollection, if you can support it, or if you're pulling a Fox News and saying only that "it's been said that...."

 

[billc]

Actually, that is Ann's comment from the article, but I have to say, I have never worked in a union place, have always been treated fairly, and have heard nothing but bad stories about how the unions behave in union kitchens, at Mccormick place in chicago and also at one of my old jobs. I think that unions, which may have been helpful in the past have become that which they fought and need to go away, until perhaps the balance tips again.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/19/unions-fuel-democratic-party-financially/

The article above details the money given to the democrat party by various unions. I am still looking.

This next is from a book on Google that talks about unions and politics:

http://books.google.com/books?id=u6...&resnum=3&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[billc]

Here is an article from CBS news that actually uses the 90 percent figure for union donations going to the democrats.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/31/opinion/main3224958.shtml

According to the National Institute for Labor Relations Research, unions contributed $925 million to political campaigns and causes during the last presidential-election cycle. Nearly all of that money went to Democrats. On top of those nine digits, unions routinely run massive get-out-the-vote drives to help Democrats, and their officers often volunteer full time for Democratic campaigns while collecting salaries from their union jobs. In recent election cycles, unions have spent 87 to 90 percent of their money from PACs and “527” groups on Democratic candidates and causes.

In return, Democratic politicians have supported policies that benefit union leaders at the expense of union members, as well as the non-members who are forced to pay dues in many states.

 

[billc]

Also from the above cbs news article:



Notwithstanding their professed interest in oversight and accountability, the House Democrats passed a Department of Labor appropriations bill this summer that cut $2 million from the budget for the Office of Labor and Management Standards, which oversees how unions spend dues money. During the Bush administration, this office has finally gotten unions to start complying with decades-old laws requiring itemized disclosure of their spending and their officers’ conflicts of interest. No wonder union leaders don’t want it funded.