IGX

Pinky wrote:I'm just saying that comparing the amounts of money contributed by business and labor doesn't really say much. They're both working toward the same end. They're both trying to convince DC to screw over the rest of us, often in exactly the same way.

Perhaps, but since the amount spent by organized labor is infinitely smaller than the amount spent by corporations including financial industries, it's a bit like saying both the minnow and the shark want to take a bite of me and so are equally bad. One cannot compare the respective threats.

Pinky wrote:What's more meaningful is the total business and labor spend. That's over 1.4 billion wasted on taking money from other people. We'd be better off if that money were simply put in a pile and burned.

If it were not for the previous abuses of workers by corporations, there would be no organized labor, so I can only assume that you hold them accountable for both.

Dux wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2qqRFYv3ao[/youtube]

Discuss.

I was just thinking I didn't know HVLN had his own Youtube channel.

Fat Cat wrote:

Pinky wrote:I'm just saying that comparing the amounts of money contributed by business and labor doesn't really say much. They're both working toward the same end. They're both trying to convince DC to screw over the rest of us, often in exactly the same way.

Perhaps, but since the amount spent by organized labor is infinitely smaller than the amount spent by corporations including financial industries, it's a bit like saying both the minnow and the shark want to take a bite of me and so are equally bad. One cannot compare the respective threats.

Pinky wrote:What's more meaningful is the total business and labor spend. That's over 1.4 billion wasted on taking money from other people. We'd be better off if that money were simply put in a pile and burned.

If it were not for the previous abuses of workers by corporations, there would be no organized labor, so I can only assume that you hold them accountable for both.

The only powerful organized labor right now is public-- which complicates your argument. There is little abuse, even historically, of public labor relative to private labor.

Even the Democrats, outside of the rust belt at least, have no problem with sticking it to private organized labor.

baffled wrote:

Dux wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2qqRFYv3ao[/youtube]

Discuss.

I was just thinking I didn't know HVLN had his own Youtube channel.

It's not me. Much like employed, hard working, liberals, I don't see the value of dumping any extra time in all of this and let others jump, scream and shout about the OWSFarse.

Fuck off turd, you're like a mosquito. Here are the top 10, with last years political donation next to their name:

National Education Association...$3.7 million

Service Employees International Union...$2 million

United Food & Commercial Workers...$1.9 million

International Brotherhood of Teamsters...$2.3 million

American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees...$2.3 million

Laborers' International Union of North America...$1.7 million

American Federation of Teachers...$2.4 million

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers...not available

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers...$1.98 million

United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America...$1.6 million

Source: Center for Public Integrity

So basically, we can see that yet again you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. The largest, most powerful unions aren't public and their money doesn't interfere with the public process on anything close to the scale of corporate money. Oh, and despite what you say about Democrats, they apparently receive more than 90% of total distributions from ALL of those unions. Why? Because workers know that Republicans will fuck them over any chance they get.

Compare with corporate money, we can see that some of the largest corporations have spent more money on political influence in a SINGLE YEAR than all of those unions combined.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php (Click on any corporate donor and you can see their annual breakdown)

So please go back to sucking a priest's dick and let the grown ups think this through.

This is very interesting and if correct, labor is much less than I imagined. Assuming that Repugs and Dumbos are equally venal anal warts, we can assume that they all go where the money is.

One might assume that the preponderance of business money goes to Repugs but the Dumbos are definitely getting their vig. Does Hollywood or financial market money that's hugely weighted towards Dumbos count in the business category? What about PACS financed by George Soros and his ilk? Judging from what I see on my TV libs get equal or more TV time compared to "business" interests.

LOL you are still confused. They are the same. TV itself is a "business interest" do you really think that your supposed liberal agenda on television is going to conflict with their ultimate interests? Is your gullibility really that indestructible?

So-called Liberal and Conservative columns are non-different. The "conservatives" you puppets worship are themselves shills of a system of hyperliberalism, the sharp end of which is global capitalism. It's kid-friendly face is your precious and flattering individualism where everyone is special and unique, society is atomized, and no one has anything in common with each other, thereby necessitating a caretaker state to keep everyone in line.

Fat Cat wrote:LOL you are still confused. They are the same. TV itself is a "business interest" do you really think that your supposed liberal agenda on television is going to conflict with their ultimate interests? Is your gullibility really that indestructible?

I'm talking about ads purchased by special interests. The lib/conservative ratio seems at least 50/50 around here. So, the business bar in your graph either has a ton of money going to libs or there is another factor that I'm missing.

Don't assume that my general conservatism is anti-union. I believe that a certain amount of organized labor and unions are essential to a healthy America (not counting gov't unions of coarse - they are a plague).

LOL at fatboy keeping this thread alive.

coop wrote:LOL at fatboy keeping this thread alive.

It's nice work.

One thing's for sure, OWS'ers aren't protesting any of this so we're getting off topic. OWS'ers want loans forgiven and jobs created out of thin air and on our tax dimes. Clearly, it's all about them. Of course a big 'no thanks' to any thought of serving at Starbucks or loading/unloading moving vans until that dream gig comes along.

Only three of the top five union donors are public sector (including the top two)? Clearly private sector unions run things.

Thanks for sharing your incredible ignorance-- again.

Fat Cat wrote:So-called Liberal and Conservative columns are non-different. The "conservatives" you puppets worship are themselves shills of a system of hyperliberalism, the sharp end of which is global capitalism. It's kid-friendly face is your precious and flattering individualism where everyone is special and unique, society is atomized, and no one has anything in common with each other, thereby necessitating a caretaker state to keep everyone in line.

Ah, the fruits of an Alinsky education.

Turdacious wrote:Ah, the fruits of an education.

fixed

Turdacious wrote:Only three of the top five union donors are public sector (including the top two)? Clearly private sector unions run things.

Thanks for sharing your incredible ignorance-- again.

Tell us turd, what is 3 out of 10 expressed as a percentage? No, don't strain yourself; it's 30%. 30% of the top unions are public, not all as you blithely and ignorantly asserted. Please try to be a better human being as some point in the future.

Occupy Wall Street protesters are flocking to nearby health clinics for STD and HIV testing after getting their freak on in ’60s-style hookups with crusty strangers, sources told The Post yesterday.

“Last week was free love,” said a medical professional at a clinic located a short walk from Zuccotti Park, referring to the number of people who organizers have referred for sexually transmitted disease testing.

A volunteer at the park admitted concern among protesters about STDs.

“We give directions to clinics if people ask for information regarding STDs,” said the volunteer, who identified himself only as “Captain” and added that pregnancy tests are also a hot item.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manh ... Zm9oX5aGWM

.

Fat Cat wrote:Fuck off turd, you're like a mosquito. Here are the top 10, with last years political donation next to their name:

National Education Association...$3.7 million

Service Employees International Union...$2 million

United Food & Commercial Workers...$1.9 million

International Brotherhood of Teamsters...$2.3 million

American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees...$2.3 million

Laborers' International Union of North America...$1.7 million

American Federation of Teachers...$2.4 million

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers...not available

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers...$1.98 million

United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America...$1.6 million

Source: Center for Public Integrity

The ones in bold are public sector unions. That's 40%. And on second look, 4 of the 5 largest contributors were public sector unions.

Congratulations on using blithely correctly in a sentence. Try learning the definition of all.

And LOL at your numbers:

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), a 1.6 million member public sector union, has taken the lead as the biggest outside campaign spender in the 2010 election cycle, the Wall Street Journal reports.

AFSCME is contributing a combined $87.5 million to support democratic candidates in the upcoming election, it confirmed to CBS News.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... 03544.html

Fat Cat wrote:

Pinky wrote:I'm just saying that comparing the amounts of money contributed by business and labor doesn't really say much. They're both working toward the same end. They're both trying to convince DC to screw over the rest of us, often in exactly the same way.

Perhaps, but since the amount spent by organized labor is infinitely smaller than the amount spent by corporations including financial industries, it's a bit like saying both the minnow and the shark want to take a bite of me and so are equally bad. One cannot compare the respective threats.

This is true. "Labor" is a very small group. It couldn't lobby as much as all businesses do. I don't think that's the point the people who put that graph on the page wanted to make, but maybe I'm wrong. Do you think they were simply trying to say that groups representing about 10% of the workforce aren't as capable of screwing the rest of us over as the collection of all businesses?

Pinky wrote:What's more meaningful is the total business and labor spend. That's over 1.4 billion wasted on taking money from other people. We'd be better off if that money were simply put in a pile and burned.

If it were not for the previous abuses of workers by corporations, there would be no organized labor, so I can only assume that you hold them accountable for both.

I don't really hold anyone "accountable" for the organization of labor in most cases. It makes sense for skilled workers who face monopsonistic employers to organize and bargain for better wages and working conditions, just as it makes sense for firms not to pay more for any input than they have to. This would be true regardless of the history of abuses. (Never mind that about a third of "Labor" isn't working in the private sector.)

None of this justifies the money that either of them spends on lobbying efforts.

Pinky, I like you, but the way you talk smug and superior makes me wonder why this country is so fucked up even though there are economists all over DC.

Either a) you economists are sooo right but no one implements your ideas or b) y'all really don't have any practical foundation for your theories.

Mostly a). Economists have enormously less influence on policy than people think. Even when a good idea is sent to Congress lobbying efforts water it down or kill it completely.

But I apologize for sounding smug. It's an epidemic in my profession, and something that I'm trying to work on.