These polls were conducted by Bloomberg and the Des Moines Register. The Republican poll shows Trump leading at 23% followed by a surprising showing by Carson at 18%. All the rest have single digits.
In the Democratic poll, Hillary still leads with 37% with Sanders getting close with 30% and the unannounced Biden at 14%.
Link - (
New Window )
Unfortunately kicker there are some that miss the point of unions and only see the evils of the 1960/70 era Teamsters, UAW etc. What they don't see or hear are the horror stories pre-union or the vast benefits of the unions.
No unions are not perfect, but in an age of ACA and people without medical insurance most unions have medical insurance or members can get it at a very cheap price, for example.
They serve their purpose and the benefits to the members far outweigh the disadvantages.
Quote:
Who has pretended that unions are 100% beneficent here?
Unfortunately kicker there are some that miss the point of unions and only see the evils of the 1960/70 era Teamsters, UAW etc. What they don't see or hear are the horror stories pre-union or the vast benefits of the unions.
No unions are not perfect, but in an age of ACA and people without medical insurance most unions have medical insurance or members can get it at a very cheap price, for example.
They serve their purpose and the benefits to the members far outweigh the disadvantages.
But more importantly, Tom Perkins is a batshit crazy octogenarian. He wrote a universally panned letter to the WSJ last year which began:
He concluded his obscene garbage rambling by warning:
His old firm quickly distanced itself from him, tweeting:
"Tom Perkins has not been involved in KPCB in years. We were shocked by his views expressed today in the WSJ and do not agree." He followed up that crazy with public remarks where he proposed that people who pay more in taxes should get more votes.
So he's a biased nut job.
Evidence shows they are much more effective than private sector unions recently. Their role is a bit muddier.
problem at the state and local level, but not at the national level.
Walker in Wisconsin and Kasich in Ohio had some valid arguments about the excess power of public sector unions. Their way of articulating those points was world-class incompetent. And of course in Walker's case, he tied Public Pension issues to Right to Work, largely on behalf of the Koch Brothers and their buddies. Kasich didn't attempt that, nor does he agree with it.
Santorum won Iowa in 2012, I believe. It's early and they aren't necessarily representative of anything but Iowa.
That isn't the point. The point is that there is a lot of crying about the Koch Brothers and Citizens United but the amounts of money that flow to the Democrats is never mentioned.
The reason Walker was against the unions was that they were bankrupting the states. Look at Illinois, Detroit and other municipalities that are having severe financial issues, yet the unions ask for more and more. Even Rahm Emanuel, dem mayor of Chicago had to say no to the Teachers union there.
problem at the state and local level, but not at the national level.
Walker in Wisconsin and Kasich in Ohio had some valid arguments about the excess power of public sector unions. Their way of articulating those points was world-class incompetent. And of course in Walker's case, he tied Public Pension issues to Right to Work, largely on behalf of the Koch Brothers and their buddies. Kasich didn't attempt that, nor does he agree with it.
KOCH BROTHERS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote:
are on of the 3-4 key reasons why Republicans dominate at the state and local level. Taxpayers have no say in the fact that public pensions in many cases are vast overpromises, and they are rightfully pissed about it. The public sector union link with the Democrats is thus a
problem at the state and local level, but not at the national level.
Walker in Wisconsin and Kasich in Ohio had some valid arguments about the excess power of public sector unions. Their way of articulating those points was world-class incompetent. And of course in Walker's case, he tied Public Pension issues to Right to Work, largely on behalf of the Koch Brothers and their buddies. Kasich didn't attempt that, nor does he agree with it.
KOCH BROTHERS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Who spends more, Buford? Koch brothers or all unions combined? - ( New Window )
Their mistake, because if you own an NBA team, Scott Walker gives you $250 million in state money for your new arena. Teachers are so stupid.
Their mistake, because if you own an NBA team, Scott Walker gives you $250 million in state money for your new arena. Teachers are so stupid.
Its known as UW stadium because 250M is the same amount he deducted from the University of Wisconsin budget that year.
Not sure how he's going to get past that.
Quote:
In comment 12445061 kicker said:
Quote:
Who has pretended that unions are 100% beneficent here?
Unfortunately kicker there are some that miss the point of unions and only see the evils of the 1960/70 era Teamsters, UAW etc. What they don't see or hear are the horror stories pre-union or the vast benefits of the unions.
No unions are not perfect, but in an age of ACA and people without medical insurance most unions have medical insurance or members can get it at a very cheap price, for example.
They serve their purpose and the benefits to the members far outweigh the disadvantages.
DOes that include public sector unions? I've always had a difficult time seeing them in the same light as those fighting the robber barons.
Is there a bigger "robber baron" than the government? The government "owns" the courts system. Their lawyers are on "retainer." Do you think a public employee has the resources to fight the city, county, state, or federal government. Look at what Walker did in Wisconsin even with union resources...
He is.....
Quote:
In comment 12445115 manh george said:
Quote:
are on of the 3-4 key reasons why Republicans dominate at the state and local level. Taxpayers have no say in the fact that public pensions in many cases are vast overpromises, and they are rightfully pissed about it. The public sector union link with the Democrats is thus a
problem at the state and local level, but not at the national level.
Walker in Wisconsin and Kasich in Ohio had some valid arguments about the excess power of public sector unions. Their way of articulating those points was world-class incompetent. And of course in Walker's case, he tied Public Pension issues to Right to Work, largely on behalf of the Koch Brothers and their buddies. Kasich didn't attempt that, nor does he agree with it.
KOCH BROTHERS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Who spends more, Buford? Koch brothers or all unions combined? - ( New Window )
All unions combined (just in the top 100 of donors) top the Koch's at 1,207,000,000.
Quote:
Make a Law that God is a White Male?
He is.....
And he lives in "real America". And is in talks with TLC for a show.
Quote:
In comment 12445143 buford said:
Quote:
In comment 12445115 manh george said:
Quote:
are on of the 3-4 key reasons why Republicans dominate at the state and local level. Taxpayers have no say in the fact that public pensions in many cases are vast overpromises, and they are rightfully pissed about it. The public sector union link with the Democrats is thus a
problem at the state and local level, but not at the national level.
Walker in Wisconsin and Kasich in Ohio had some valid arguments about the excess power of public sector unions. Their way of articulating those points was world-class incompetent. And of course in Walker's case, he tied Public Pension issues to Right to Work, largely on behalf of the Koch Brothers and their buddies. Kasich didn't attempt that, nor does he agree with it.
KOCH BROTHERS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Who spends more, Buford? Koch brothers or all unions combined? - ( New Window )
All unions combined (just in the top 100 of donors) top the Koch's at 1,207,000,000.
NOPE. That's the "All Cycles" number. That's 12 years of elections.
And this database you present just shows the money that needs to be reported. It doesn't show the 501c money, which is where the real money is spent nowadays. We don't know how much the Kochs, Unions or anyone is spending there - because of Citizen's United.
And Buford, when you haven't the vaguest fucking idea what you are talking about, you would do all of us, including yourself, a favor by staying away from the conversation. I'm not comparing Koch brothers spending nationally to union spending. It is a dead-on fact that Walker, in particular, got considerable help in his recall election and re-election from the Kochs and their buddies, and that they continue to support him (link). The Kochs have made impressive headway in a handful of pockets nationwide--see North Carolina if you want a major example--and the unions couldn't do thing one about it. In fact in NC it wasn't even ABOUT unions.
This has absolutely nothing to do with aggregate Koch spending nationwide or union spending nationwide.
But, of course, you couldn't comprehend that if we spotted you 50 IQ points and a two day head start.
And people wonder why you get picked on.
Link - ( New Window )
Well with Christie is was a question of who gets fucked over, the teachers who at early retirement in their 50's got 100% state paid for family health insurance or the state's taxpayers who were going to pay for it. Yes, they were promised that, but it was so typical of politicians (neither party is innocent) who traded future benefits that would be paid for after they were dead or out of office for short term electability.
I like to think of myself as a sufferable snob.
That's because they generally choose to try to raise taxes rather than reduce benefits. And the taxpayers look at it and say: "Really, health care plans with no employee/retiree contribution and my taxes are going up to pay for it?"
You cant look at healthcare spend in a vacuum. The gold plated plans may be a substitute for market competitive wages.
Teachers in many cases are still underpaid, but pensions are a lousy way to offset that.
Teachers in many cases are still underpaid, but pensions are a lousy way to offset that.
Not my area of expertise. Your post doesnt make any sense to me. Are you suggesting that we reduce benefits and increase wages? Or reduce teacher benefits and hold wages constant? Because the first one is no savings, and the second one is to effectively pay teachers less. But we already have a hard time recruiting teachers as is -- I saw a study that said you cant get anyone in the top 1/3 of college grads to teach, and you cant get the middle 1/3 to teach in poor schools.
Compensation is compensation. What this fight really seems to be to me is a bunch of politicians/taxpayers who financed their kids educations with debt (future benefits) rather than pay the bill when the services were rendered (in the form of immediate wages or funding these benefits). And now they're trying to blame teachers for taking deferred benefits. Im more okay with changing the rules for new hires and recent hires (which is all that some districts are doing).
And quality of life. I know a number of attorneys working at DOJ who bust their asses, but you wouldn't compare their existence to that of the first year associate.
Teachers in many cases are still underpaid, but pensions are a lousy way to offset that.
Compensation varies widely at the state and local level. Some teaching and law enforcement salaries and benefits packages are very competitive, others are not. To insure my family on my county's healthcare plan would cost me more than 1/4 of my take-home pay. For the majority of county law enforcement it's more than 1/3. Other counties have comparable salaries but out of pocket for healthcare is from 2/3 to 1/2 ours. Other counties have higher salaries and the more competitive benefits packages.
Quote:
I know that for lawyers (my field), the government way underpays for the best and brightest. Sure there are some government lawyers who are doing better on the inside than they could on the outside, but almost all government lawyers and judges make less in cash compensation than the thousands of junior associates at "big law" firms. Now a lot of these people like the power/prestige of government jobs or like the "do good" aspect. But things like job security and retirement benefits help make up some of the gap versus private sector wages.
And quality of life. I know a number of attorneys working at DOJ who bust their asses, but you wouldn't compare their existence to that of the first year associate.
Some of the DOJ and public service lawyers are in it for the prestige so that they can boost future reputation/earnings. (Or, e.g., to get to do more hands-on trial work earlier in their careers.) I therefore don't think law is a great comp for other fields.
--Take a sharp reduction in future cost of living increases;
--Take a modest reduction in annual payouts, especially in the extreme cases, such as police and fire who get over $100,000 a year and then can double dip with another job; and
--Permit new employees to come in under a much less expensive system.
Only wherever any of that has been tried, the unions went to court, and a a large proportion of cases, the courts have usually insisted on the status quo.
So, taxpayers take all the burden, until the bridges fall into the river, potholes devoure roads, and water/sewer systems fall apart because there is no money to pay for infrastructure, and the economic value of a governmental entity begins to collapse. It's called a death spiral.
And Democrats will continue to take it in the neck at the state and local level so long as they support this mess.
If you couple this with what are, on average, more generous non-wage benefits and much less employment turnover, it appears that federal workers are in a much better position than private workers.
A note: one explanation for this is that federal workers are, en masse, slightly above average in terms of ability. There is little deviation in pay between the workers in this system, meaning that the private sector comprises 2 groups: below average and superior. Since, by simple numbers, below average comprises the majority of the private sector workforce, the wage gap can be explained away almost wholly.