Obama putting pay to play back in federal business...where is the media?

• believer

  

  Ty Webb;765565 wrote:It's totally meaningless when he is beating the two main candidates by atleast 12% each??

  It's as meaningless as the polls you kept tossing at us prior to the November mid-term election when you were absolutely delighted with the "fact" that the Dems would easily retain the House.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Ty Webb;765565 wrote:It's totally meaningless when he is beating the two main candidates by atleast 12% each??

  
  Two main candidates according to who? The primaries have been taking place and I missed them?
  
  That article and those like it are nothing more than the media beating off while looking at a picture of Obama. At this stage of the process, there has been no single candidate identified who would appear to have an edge on any of the others.
  
  In other words: it's early.
• Ty Webb

  

  According to Every single serious poll that has been released in the last year Writer....
• stlouiedipalma

  Ty,
  
  Writer doesn't believe in polls, except the ones which agree with his way of thinking.
  
  Just let him and his little sidekick keep believing they have a candidate out there (somewhere?) who can actually win. Maybe it's Newt, maybe it's Mitt, maybe it's no one.
• Prescott

  Polls mean nothing.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  stlouiedipalma;765993 wrote:Ty,
  
  Writer doesn't believe in polls, except the ones which agree with his way of thinking.
  
  Just let him and his little sidekick keep believing they have a candidate out there (somewhere?) who can actually win. Maybe it's Newt, maybe it's Mitt, maybe it's no one.

  
  Want to make a bet right now that the Republican nominee won't be Newt or Mitt?
  
  We're 18 months from the election and you guys are gloating about a poll that MOST LIKELY doesn't even include who the primary candidate against Obama will be. You don't find that just a wee bit presumptive at this point?
  
  And yes, at this stage of the process, POLLS ARE MEANINGLESS AND I DON'T CARE WHO IS DOING THE POLL.
• Thread Bomber

  

  Writerbuckeye;766339 wrote: And yes, at this stage of the process, POLLS ARE MEANINGLESS AND I DON'T CARE WHO IS DOING THE POLL.

  Aside from the obvious sampling errors with the mix in political ideology, I agree with this.
  
  The poll questions are something like this :
  
  "If you voted tomorrow, Who would you vote for?" I know this because somehow my name is being passed around to several polling companies (presumably because I am registered independent)
  
  With the political landscape in the early stages, How exactly does anyone know Who or what will be on the ballot?
  
  Again, I am in shock that I am in agreement with writer (probably because this is a logical, not a political statement)
• Zombaypirate

  Writerbuckeye;762095 wrote:Did you even read the column? This opens the door for a lot of corruption -- and it's totally unnecessary. Laws were put in place to prevent just this kind of power play, and now Obama is reversing the field so Democrats can have a huge advantage. This order will almost certainly be used to cull out companies that donate to Republicans. To think otherwise is naive.
  
  It's the Chicago way, after all.

  This guy has the right answer, nice job Writerbuckeye!
  
  Only Republicans have our best interests in mind, the Democrats are looking for an advantage once again.
  
  Hopefully the Republicans can gain total control and eliminate minimum wage so I can pay my employees what they really deserve. (which is not close to minimum wage)
• believer

  

  Newt, Romney, or Palin will not be the Republican nominee. Mark it down.
• Ty Webb

  

  I never said Newt or Palin was involved in the poll...
  
  It's Huckabee and Romney...who between them have won almost every single Republican poll the last year and a half
• believer

  

  Ty Webb;766870 wrote:I never said Newt or Palin was involved in the poll...
  
  It's Huckabee and Romney...who between them have won almost every single Republican poll the last year and a half

  Oh yeah, thanks. Huckabee will not get the nomination either.
• majorspark

  

  Zombaypirate;766814 wrote:This guy has the right answer, nice job Writerbuckeye!

  You republicans always have to massage each others balls. The American people can see through this. That is why your party is nothing but one big circle jerk.
  

  Zombaypirate;766814 wrote:Only Republicans have our best interests in mind, the Democrats are looking for an advantage once again.

  You need to stop drinking the Koolaid. Republicans have the best interests of the rich in mind. They are in the pockets of big oil, big pharma, health insurance companies, and big banks. The republicans hang out on Wall Street not Main Street. The only advantage Democrats are looking for is for is that of working Americans. Democrats are protecting the interests of working Americans.
  

  Zombaypirate;766814 wrote:Hopefully the Republicans can gain total control and eliminate minimum wage so I can pay my employees what they really deserve. (which is not close to minimum wage)

  Is that all you Republicans care about is big profits? You know the only way you can make those big profits is by exploiting your workforce. Hopefully the Democrats can gain control and eliminate poverty once and for all by raising the minimum wage to $30/hr.
• believer

  

  majorspark;767097 wrote:Hopefully the Democrats can gain control and eliminate poverty once and for all by raising the minimum wage to $30/hr.

  And FREE health care....don't forget to mention FREE health care!
• CenterBHSFan

  

  majorspark;767097 wrote:You republicans always have to massage each others balls. The American people can see through this. That is why your party is nothing but one big circle jerk.
  
  You need to stop drinking the Koolaid. Republicans have the best interests of the rich in mind. They are in the pockets of big oil, big pharma, health insurance companies, and big banks. The republicans hang out on Wall Street not Main Street. The only advantage Democrats are looking for is for is that of working Americans. Democrats are protecting the interests of working Americans.
  
  Is that all you Republicans care about is big profits? You know the only way you can make those big profits is by exploiting your workforce. Hopefully the Democrats can gain control and eliminate poverty once and for all by raising the minimum wage to $30/hr.

  This whole post, but in particular the last line which I bolded, literally made me choke on my coffee!
  
  But, help me understand: is $30/hour a LIVABLE wage? I wonder if that is enough to feed a family of 16?
  
  The thought really makes me believe that all jobs should also include collective bargaining, step in creases, and employers pay 99% of health coverage (the guv. can pay the other 1%) and employers should also send everybody's children to college on their own dime; after all, if they have to provide insurance to your children until their 26, why not just make them pay for the whole package deal?!
  
  
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Center: I may be wrong, but I think a lot of those responses were sarcasm -- really harsh (stupid sounding in some cases) sarcasm.
• KnightRyder

  

  CenterBHSFan;763869 wrote:Here's the thing: Democrats can donate whatever they want to politicians or organizations or parties. There's nothing to stop them. Nothing. Same with republicans or libertarians, constitutionalists, etc.
  
  Collective bargaining and/or unions have NOTHING to do with how much money you want to give to anything political.

  
  if the unions were making donations to the GOP, do you think the republicans would be trying to abolish collective bargaining?
• Writerbuckeye

  

  KnightRyder;767415 wrote:if the unions were making donations to the GOP, do you think the republicans would be trying to abolish collective bargaining?

  
  Totally irrelevant.
  
  Collective bargaining began in Ohio by an act of Democrats who controlled the Ohio General Assembly and the Governor's office. Do you question them doing this when, clearly, 99.9 percent of all union donations go to Democrats?
  
  Of course you don't.
  
  It's part of the politics.
  
  But the FACT remains that the system is not sustainable as it exists now. And since Republicans now control the government, they did what is best both for the state and their party.
  
  Not a damn thing wrong with it.
• KnightRyder

  

  Writerbuckeye;767433 wrote:Totally irrelevant.
  
  Collective bargaining began in Ohio by an act of Democrats who controlled the Ohio General Assembly and the Governor's office. Do you question them doing this when, clearly, 99.9 percent of all union donations go to Democrats?
  
  Of course you don't.
  
  It's part of the politics.
  
  But the FACT remains that the system is not sustainable as it exists now. And since Republicans now control the government, they did what is best both for the state and their party.
  
  Not a damn thing wrong with it.

  
  now that is total bullshit. if unions made major donations to the GOP , collective bargaining would be the greatest thing since the paper napkin. and there is no fact that the system is not sustainable. the REPUBLICAN government did what was best for their party and those that financially backed them in their campaign. they want to talk about balancing the budget but yet they give the wealthy a tax break. do you actually ever stop and smell what your are shoveling?
• Thread Bomber

  

  Democrats/ Republicans donations by unions
  
  American Fed. of State, County, & Municipal Employees
  $40,281,900 $547,700
  Intel Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
  $29,705,600 $679,000
  National Education Association
  $27,679,300 $2,005,200
  Service Employees International Union
  $26,368,470 $98,700
  Communication Workers of America
  $26,305,500 $125,300
  Service Employees International Union
  $26,252,000 $1,086,200
  Laborers Union
  $25,734,000 $138,000
  American Federation of Teachers
  $25,682,800 $200,000
  United Auto Workers
  $25,082,200 $182,700
  Teamsters Union
  $24,926,400 $1,822,000
  Carpenters and Joiners Union
  $24,094,100 $658,000
  Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union
  $23,875,600 $226,300
  United Food and Commercial Workers Union
  $23,182,000 $334,200
  AFL-CIO
  $17,124,300 $713,500
  Sheet Metal Workers Union
  $16,347,200 $342,800
  Plumbers & Pipefitters Union
  $14,790,000 $818,500
  Operating Engineers Union
  $13,840,000 $2,309,500
  Airline Pilots Association
  $12,806,600 $2,398,300
  International Association of Firefighters
  $12,421,700 $2,685,400
  United Transportation Workers
  $11,807,000 $1,459,300
  Ironworkers Union
  $11,638,900 $936,000
  American Postal Workers Union
  $11,633,100 $544,300
  Nat'l Active & Retired Fed. Employees Association
  $8,135,400 $2,294,600
  Seafarers International Union
  $6,726,800 $1,281,300
  
  With out exception , the Dem's collect most of the union monies. If the actual workforce HAD A CHOICE on where this money went, I could give a shit less.
  
  I can't find a source for the GOP donations, but I would venture a guess that It would look exactly opposite. The problem here is that after the SCOTUS decision on corperate donations, Millions are being donated anonymously.
  
  I think that any donation made to a candidate or political cause should be public knowledge and subject to the Sunshine laws.
• Thread Bomber

  

  The time period fot the above post is 1990 to 2010.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  KnightRyder;767545 wrote:now that is total bullshit. if unions made major donations to the GOP , collective bargaining would be the greatest thing since the paper napkin. and there is no fact that the system is not sustainable. the REPUBLICAN government did what was best for their party and those that financially backed them in their campaign. they want to talk about balancing the budget but yet they give the wealthy a tax break. do you actually ever stop and smell what your are shoveling?

  
  So you had no problem when collective bargaining was shoved down every taxpayer's throat in the 1980s, and it's okay that basically all the money goes to Democrats, right?
  
  You have no complaint, so stop your whining.
• majorspark

  

  Writerbuckeye;767339 wrote:Center: I may be wrong, but I think a lot of those responses were sarcasm -- really harsh (stupid sounding in some cases) sarcasm.

  Sometimes the best way to illustrate absurdity is with absurdity.
• BoatShoes

  Writerbuckeye;767694 wrote:So you had no problem when collective bargaining was shoved down every taxpayer's throat in the 1980s, and it's okay that basically all the money goes to Democrats, right?
  
  You have no complaint, so stop your whining.

  
  Shoved down their throats? I mean they kept deep throating for a couple decades so I think there might have been a little consent there no? And, when you add in that more Ohioan's oppose the ban on collective bargaining than support it, it does not appear as if the swallowing is forced at least for a large part of the population.
  
  Now, I'm not making the argument that teacher's ought to be able to bargain collectively...just pointing out that you must at least agree that it's probably not true that taxpayers felt as if they had collective bargaining shoved down their throats.
  
  I mean what is all the talk of shoving down throats in the last couple years???
• Writerbuckeye

  

  BoatShoes;767699 wrote:Shoved down their throats? I mean they kept deep throating for a couple decades so I think there might have been a little consent there no? And, when you add in that more Ohioan's oppose the ban on collective bargaining than support it, it does not appear as if the swallowing is forced at least for a large part of the population.
  
  Now, I'm not making the argument that teacher's ought to be able to bargain collectively...just pointing out that you must at least agree that it's probably not true that taxpayers felt as if they had collective bargaining shoved down their throats.
  
  I mean what is all the talk of shoving down throats in the last couple years???

  
  They didn't do anything because they lacked the guts to take on a system all of them were also profiting from -- and because there wasn't a numbers problem until lately.
  
  We've now got far more people retiring and collecting pensions over longer periods of time, and not enough people working to make up for it.
  
  UN-SUSTAINABLE.
• KnightRyder

  

  Writerbuckeye;767694 wrote:So you had no problem when collective bargaining was shoved down every taxpayer's throat in the 1980s, and it's okay that basically all the money goes to Democrats, right?
  
  You have no complaint, so stop your whining.

  
  i had no problem with it. and it wasnt shoved down anybody throat. and so what is the money goes to the democrats? but that seems to be the problem. this has nothing to do with balancing the budget. this is all about trying the GOP trying to cut off money to the dems plain and simple. you can try to spin it anyway you like. but everyone knows your wrong. your biggest problem is this, you are a person that doesnt know he doesnt know.