Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Another liberal conspiracy theory. As if there are no power plants already in WI that might be looking for help.
Not a conspiracy theory, a questioning of the appearance of impropriety, which is a legitimate concern in politics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821
Isn't this a good sign, that there are jobs out there?
Did I say it wasn't? right back at ya.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821
As to the only point in your post really worthy of discussion (the last sentence), I think we do need to reform campaign contributions. That includes contributions from ALL donors, unions included.
Privatize the rewards socialize the risk. These people actually worked for that pension and calling them deadbeats after the fact is foul beyond belief. It's not free lunch. If someone misappropriated those funds, can you name those people? It's not the unions misappropriating funds because the law scrutinizes them the same way they do 401k plans. There are laws protecting pension money. Is there a reason why those laws wouldn't apply to a government agency?
If more and more democrats are realizing the wisdom behind abolishing and curbing lobbyist influence, why continue your one upsmanship nonsense when the consequence of that action would apply to all equally?
Why can't you provide that evidence just to show you're in this forum for adult consideration of issues?
Ah, the liberal way. When they can't discuss, insult. And you challenge my adulthood.
It is very clear to ANY ADULT, the purpose of the OP is to cast aspersions on Walker, ignoring what his opponent got in campaign funding.
If this is over your head, sorry.
Are you trying to sat the dems are behind abolishing and curbing lobbyist influence? if so please provide date to support your claim.
So what is wrong with 2 highly successful men creating jobs for those who want to work?
The brothers have created more jobs the the idiot in the WH!!!
And they were not handed 800 billion dollars to do so either like the idiot was.
Nothing like minimum wage jobs that no longer offer benefits to workers.
Quote:
Unions raise wages of unionized workers by roughly 20% and raise compensation, including both wages and benefits, by about 28%
.
Quote:
• The most sweeping advantage for unionized workers is in fringe benefits. Unionized workers are more likely than their nonunionized counterparts to receive paid leave, are approximately 18% to 28% more likely to have employer-provided health insurance, and are 23% to 54% more likely to be in employer-provided pension plans.
OK, ENOUGH HIJACKING THIS THREAD TO MAKE IT ABOUT THE UNIONS.
There are plenty of threads already about that.
As the OP, I have acknowledged and addressed the "the unions do it, too" argument. Any further attempts to hijack this thread will be reported as violations of the TOS here.
GE gets more from Obama than the Koch Brothers do from a mere governor.
GE has for decades contributed to both sides. It's been stuck in the middle of a tug of war power trip for decades. It developed a comprehensive portfolio to attend whatever sensible choice America would make to invest in energy. That is a reasonable interaction between commerce and government without undo influence for self service. The other plan on their drafting board is dropping their attention of America as their best customer and focusing on international markets because this customer is too stuck to move forward.
If you choose coal, they have a plan. If you choose anything, they have a product to offer. Koch bros steering fish into their private barrel is a whole other animal.
I'll bet you think that the word, bears, here should be spelled bares. Maybe your spell checker can decipher meanings as well as spellings but I doubt that. I think that you worry too much about spelling. I will watch you from now on and make sure that any little mistake from you is called to your attention.
BTW, you are welcome to do the same for me since I write from the right side of things.
the embarassing part for jojy, roy, is that 'bears' is the correct word to use in this case. not 'bares.'
Quote:
bear1 /bɛər/ Show Spelled
[bair] Show IPA
verb, bore or ( Archaic ) bare; borne or born; bear·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1. to hold up; support: to bear the weight of the roof.
..
..
11. to be fit for or worthy of: It doesn't bear repeating.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As if there are no power plants already in WI that might be looking for help.
