No. Or at least not necessarily. You overlook three obvious problems with your support of mob rule:And if that is what the voters voted for, twice in this instance, then that was the right thing to do, no?
Sorry, Bubba, but the fact is that campaign contributions come off the company's bottom line, and the bottom line is what determines how much the company can pay its employees.
Sorry, Bubba, but the fact is that campaign contributions come off the company's bottom line, and the bottom line is what determines how much the company can pay its employees.
So what if union does are a tax?[...] Union dues are nothing more than a tax. If unions were so awesome, they would do all their wonderful work for free.
It comes out of his paycheck just as surely as union dues — just not as directly.
No. Or at least not necessarily. You overlook three obvious problems with your support of mob rule:
1. That the mob (voters) know what they are doing (or are knowledgeable/intelligent in their actions).
2. That, according to exit polls, some Walker supporters were voting against the circumstances of the recall rather than voting to support Walker's actions.
3. The founding fathers were opposed to mob rule (direct democracy, which you are arguing supports Walker's actions).
As far as opinions of why voters voted the way they did, I suspect time heals all wounds; in other words, had the election been much sooner while the events that prompted the recall still be fresh in voters minds, then Walker may well have lost. That the attention span of the public is rather short I'd think is not something with which most would disagree.
Of course they can. Exxon can spend $5 billion on campaign ads supporting Romney any time they want, directly out of corporate funds, even if it bankrupts the company (well, assuming the board doesn't prevent it). Do you think that is not an effective contribution to Romney?Can you possibly understand how rediculous you sound right now? Coporations can't make financial contributions to political campaigns.
Since there is no legal requirement that he do so, what is your point?But, Walker did nothing to warrant a recall in the first place. [...]
So what if union does are a tax?
And if unions did their work for free, who would pay their expenses? Building rental/lease, communications, office equipment/supplies, insurance, travel, . . . . .
No. Or at least not necessarily. You overlook three obvious problems with your support of mob rule:
1. That the mob (voters) know what they are doing (or are knowledgeable/intelligent in their actions).
2. That, according to exit polls, some Walker supporters were voting against the circumstances of the recall rather than voting to support Walker's actions.
3. The founding fathers were opposed to mob rule (direct democracy, which you are arguing supports Walker's actions).
As far as opinions of why voters voted the way they did, I suspect time heals all wounds; in other words, had the election been much sooner while the events that prompted the recall still be fresh in voters minds, then Walker may well have lost. That the attention span of the public is rather short I'd think is not something with which most would disagree.
I asked for proof of that in a previous post.
Of course they can. Exxon can spend $5 billion on campaign ads supporting Romney any time they want, directly out of corporate funds, even if it bankrupts the company (well, assuming the board doesn't prevent it). Do you think that is not an effective contribution to Romney?
Yes, and I explained it to you. Or are you going to argue that employee pay is NOT connected to profits?
Yes, and I explained it to you. Or are you going to argue that employee pay is NOT connected to profits?
Sorry, Bubba, but the fact is that campaign contributions come off the company's bottom line, and the bottom line is what determines how much the company can pay its employees.
A rational person knows that it is not.[...] BTW, paying for an ad and giving money to a campaign are two different animals.
Might want to do a little historical reading on the founders reasoning in choosing a representative form of government for the country, versus 'direct democracy'.When the voters don't vote your way, it's "mob rule"? :lamo
Might want to do a little historical reading on the founders reasoning in choosing a representative form of government for the country, versus 'direct democracy'.
Or not :shrug:
Might want to do a little historical reading on the founders reasoning in choosing a representative form of government for the country, versus 'direct democracy'.
Or not :shrug:
Yes, and I explained it to you. Or are you going to argue that employee pay is NOT connected to profits?
what an interesting question. Are you suggesting that if my business does not make a profit one month, I am not obligated to pay my employees for their labor during that time period?
Payroll is overhead, so no, employees aren't connected to profits.
What if I decide to quit the military, can I walk in say I quit and go home?
This is but one difference.
Same with the satate actually. They are free to ask the people if we need police officers, firefighters or teachers. They can reduce force and be responsive to the needs of the people. And they can ask if they want to pay for these services, and the people can elect people who will or won't. NO ONE is held at gun point.
As in slaves?
No it is the issue. Two sit down to the table
They can do what any business does and negotiate.
And yet, other states have union, and their influence, and are not in trouble.
Not without incurring penalties. However, that's a good point. We in the military need to unionize more than civilian government employees!
:roll:
However, you didn't argue that there were differences between military and civilian service; you argued that we were not public employees.
Actually it's not. It is true of anyone who signs a contract to provide labor over a specified period of time to the Defense Department.
That doesn't really answer the point at all. Unions attached to private industry have definite limits placed on their capriciousness by the need for their host to maintain profitability, putting out a quality product at a decent price. Unions attached to public services have no such limits except at the very extremes of State and Local bankruptcy. And even then their power to continue to drive the state into the ditch is impressive (see: California).
No. As in public servants. Public employees are supposed to work for the populace, not the other way around.
One of which owes everything to the other, can be pulled from their position by the other, and knows it. Which one has the advantage?
Except that business management is negotiating in the interest of the business, whereas public negotiators are often negotiating in the interest of the public union that they are beholden to, and who is sitting across the table from them.
No, I am telling you that if you don't make any profit for a period of time your employees won't be getting any raises, and may in fact get a pay cut, or a pink slip.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?