pBills Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 You cant tell the difference between a straight political donation and one where the party making the donation THEN sits down with those they helped elect and has DIRECT TALKS to negotiate contracts? So individuals and corporate donors don't have direct talks or extra perks when it comes to dealing with the politicians they endorse? Your belief is that people like Koch Brothers just donate and then say I hope they win and if they do win. Yay and nothing more? BS, they have politicians in their pockets BIG TIME!! youtube.com/watch?v=avB_iFEURY4 SEIU at its best. Sounds like the Tea Party huh? Seriously what is so wrong with saying we had your back with getting the vote out, now why aren't you helping us out with policy? Try this one on! View the Governor last. http://votingfemale.wordpress.com/2010/10/27/gov-christie-reacts-and-nj-com-whines-re-nj-teacher-union-malfeasance/ "Using our publicly owned classrooms as captive pens in which to indoctrinate our own children according to their Socialist-Marxist ideology, is criminal." HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 "Using our publicly owned classrooms as captive pens in which to indoctrinate our own children according to their Socialist-Marxist ideology, is criminal." HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Why is that funny? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 Why is that funny? Just the constant crap coming from "conservatives" which basically is if you don't agree with them or if you are a democrat you are a socialist/marxist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 Just the constant crap coming from "conservatives" which basically is if you don't agree with them or if you are a democrat you are a socialist/marxist. I know what you mean. It's not like there's anything remotely socialist/marxist about nationalizing industry and redistributing wealth. What a bunch of tards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 I know what you mean. It's not like there's anything remotely socialist/marxist about nationalizing industry and redistributing wealth. What a bunch of tards. On the redistribution of wealth... most democrats want corporations and the top few percent to pay more in taxes. Which is fair if Republicans are making cuts for the middle-class or having them pay more towards benefits. I believe it equates to a 12% hit. How are all democrats for nationalizing industry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 On the redistribution of wealth... most democrats want corporations and the top few percent to pay more in taxes. Which is fair if Republicans are making cuts for the middle-class or having them pay more towards benefits. I believe it equates to a 12% hit. How are all democrats for nationalizing industry? It's not that ALL Democrats are for anything. The leaders of Democrat/Liberal movements always want more government. Except when playing politics I've never heard them want to slow or stop expanding government reach. The President himself (he's a middle of the road moderate, so I'm told) is on record in favor of government run health care and wealth redistribution. If it was just a matter of raising top tax brackets a few % pts it wouldn't be that big of a deal, but that's not the case. And don't underestimate the power of propaganda. If the feds get control of the schools and curriculum they can control the minds of the next generation. How are you supposed to be critical of your government when the government teaches you how to think about government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 10, 2011 Author Share Posted April 10, 2011 On the redistribution of wealth... most democrats want corporations and the top few percent to pay more in taxes. Which is fair if Republicans are making cuts for the middle-class or having them pay more towards benefits. I believe it equates to a 12% hit. How are all democrats for nationalizing industry? pBills: What did you think of the link in post #76 of this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 It's not that ALL Democrats are for anything. The leaders of Democrat/Liberal movements always want more government. Except when playing politics I've never heard them want to slow or stop expanding government reach. The President himself (he's a middle of the road moderate, so I'm told) is on record in favor of government run health care and wealth redistribution. If it was just a matter of raising top tax brackets a few % pts it wouldn't be that big of a deal, but that's not the case. And don't underestimate the power of propaganda. If the feds get control of the schools and curriculum they can control the minds of the next generation. How are you supposed to be critical of your government when the government teaches you how to think about government? I think that the tax rate for those mentioned SHOULD be raised by 10% or 12%. When we are seeing that the average CEO earnings are going up in "downtimes" and the middle-class is losing out based on the COL going up and having to pay more in benefits, etc. There is something fundamentally wrong there. I also believe that most democrats want regulations for Wall Street to upheld or expanded back to where they were prior to GWB. Personally, being a parent of three children. I am not worried about the government coming into their schools and controlling their minds. I am more worried about minds being controlled by the media pundits, which as we know skew the truth. This does happen for both sides of the aisle. Which is why I can not take the teachers union website completely at face value. It sounds more like an attack on the union than anything else, someone who got their panties in a bind over something that they didn't believe in and didn't work out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 10, 2011 Author Share Posted April 10, 2011 I think that the tax rate for those mentioned SHOULD be raised by 10% or 12%. When we are seeing that the average CEO earnings are going up in "downtimes" and the middle-class is losing out based on the COL going up and having to pay more in benefits, etc. There is something fundamentally wrong there. I also believe that most democrats want regulations for Wall Street to upheld or expanded back to where they were prior to GWB. Personally, being a parent of three children. I am not worried about the government coming into their schools and controlling their minds. I am more worried about minds being controlled by the media pundits, which as we know skew the truth. This does happen for both sides of the aisle. Which is why I can not take the teachers union website completely at face value. It sounds more like an attack on the union than anything else, someone who got their panties in a bind over something that they didn't believe in and didn't work out. I was sort of hoping that with your extensive union experience that you might comment on my earlier post and link. You know, the one where the teachers union recommends annuities, life insurance etc. to their membership? The one that talks about the union getting $50,000,000 in fees for endorsing products that the union officials won't use themselves? Just thought you might have some insight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 (edited) I was sort of hoping that with your extensive union experience that you might comment on my earlier post and link. You know, the one where the teachers union recommends annuities, life insurance etc. to their membership? The one that talks about the union getting $50,000,000 in fees for endorsing products that the union officials won't use themselves? Just thought you might have some insight. A lot of unions endorse certain pro-union companies for life insurance, health insurance, etc. Just because they recommend it doesn't mean that they have to use it does it? No. Not sure why you put the oops in there, not like you had a gotcha moment or anything. Edited April 10, 2011 by pBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 I think that the tax rate for those mentioned SHOULD be raised by 10% or 12%. When we are seeing that the average CEO earnings are going up in "downtimes" and the middle-class is losing out based on the COL going up and having to pay more in benefits, etc. There is something fundamentally wrong there. I also believe that most democrats want regulations for Wall Street to upheld or expanded back to where they were prior to GWB. This is where you derail in my view, because you are more concerned with being the arbiter of whe "deserves" what. Where you guys misunderstand fiscal conservatives is you think by and large we support CEOs making 10s of millions of $$$s because they "deserve" it. Most of us are more concerned that you may indirectly do more harm than good for the average Joes of the country when you start jacking tax rates up too high. We can debate what the optimal tax rate should be, but I'd be arguing pragmatism and efficiency while you argue for "fairness". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 This is where you derail in my view, because you are more concerned with being the arbiter of whe "deserves" what. Where you guys misunderstand fiscal conservatives is you think by and large we support CEOs making 10s of millions of $$$s because they "deserve" it. Most of us are more concerned that you may indirectly do more harm than good for the average Joes of the country when you start jacking tax rates up too high. We can debate what the optimal tax rate should be, but I'd be arguing pragmatism and efficiency while you argue for "fairness". I don't care too much about CEO pay unless the company is getting a government bailout or I own the stock - There has been legislation proposed that would give shareholders a greater say in CEO compensation but it can't seem to get much traction. The compensation for U.S. executives are greater than European or Asian executives for a given sized company about double that of their European counterparts and more than double their Asian counterparts. I'm less concerned with fairness than fraud even legalized fraud like accounting rules that allow companies to hold loses off balance and misuse of restatement of earnings.restatement of Earnings Restatement of earnings becomes an issue if CEO compensation is influenced by the original statement and there is no clawback provision for a lower restatement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 Try this one on! View the Governor last. http://votingfemale.wordpress.com/2010/10/27/gov-christie-reacts-and-nj-com-whines-re-nj-teacher-union-malfeasance/ Have you ever seen The Cartel? It's available on streaming Netflix if you have that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 11, 2011 Author Share Posted April 11, 2011 A lot of unions endorse certain pro-union companies for life insurance, health insurance, etc. Just because they recommend it doesn't mean that they have to use it does it? No. Not sure why you put the oops in there, not like you had a gotcha moment or anything. You didn't read the article, did you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 11, 2011 Author Share Posted April 11, 2011 A lot of unions endorse certain pro-union companies for life insurance, health insurance, etc. Just because they recommend it doesn't mean that they have to use it does it? No. Not sure why you put the oops in there, not like you had a gotcha moment or anything. Short version of the article here----------The union recommended products that were clearly inferior but pocketed 50 million dollars for recommending those products. The union officials did this to its members. Members are/were suing the union because of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 I don't care too much about CEO pay unless the company is getting a government bailout or I own the stock You OWN STOCK?????? You evil financier, you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 11, 2011 Author Share Posted April 11, 2011 You OWN STOCK?????? You evil financier, you... More likely livestock that needs shearing now and then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 11, 2011 Author Share Posted April 11, 2011 More union bs. http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/11/teachers-support-cop-killer/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 More union bs. http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/11/teachers-support-cop-killer/ Ah, my good friends at the AFT. Buncha crooks. You know they have a huge wine cellar at the national headquarters? To preserve Al Shanker's legacy. Paid for by union dues, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 More likely livestock that needs shearing now and then. Is he into sheep or goats? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts