United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Typical Union weenies
Source:
Personal Liberty Digest
URL Source: http://www.personalliberty.com/news ... PLA_[P11449121]&rrid=306967465
Published: Mar 4, 2011
Author: Personal Liberty News Desk
Post Date: 2011-03-04 10:20:18 by CZ82
Keywords: None
Views: 10961
Comments: 22
State Workers Don’t Want To Play By Same Rules As Federal Employees March 4, 2011 by Personal Liberty News Desk Liberals across the United States are up in arms about several State proposals that would limit collective bargaining rights for public worker unions. Legislation has been filed, and protested, in Ohio, Tennessee, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas and Indiana. However, FOX News reported that the public outcry against these bills might be much ado about nothing. The Republican model being considered by many State legislatures is quite similar to the set of limitations placed on Federal employees. The Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) of 1978, which was passed by Democratic President Jimmy Carter, limited the collective bargaining rights of Federal workers. No President or legislature has since overturned the CSRA because, according to a USA Today report, Federal employees are doing just fine. The news provider estimated that Federal workers out-earn their private-sector counterparts in the same jobs by an average of $7,000 per year. In regards to benefits, Federal employees, on average, earned approximately $30,000 more than their private-sector peers. In addition, some GOP lawmakers are calling for the end of "closed shops," which require State employees to join a union. According to FOX News, the elimination of this system has alarmed many liberal politicians because a percentage of union dues, which are mandatory contributions from employees, fund Democratic election campaigns. For example, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that the 14 Democratic State Senators who have fled Wisconsin to protest Governor Scott Walker's budget have benefited from union dues in the past. Approximately 20 percent of all campaign funds raised by these lawmakers during the last two election cycles came from public employees, according to the news source.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 19.
#2. To: CZ82 (#0)
Welcome to LF. Here, you'll need this:
Here, you'll need this: when you deal with the local resident partisan hacks Thanx Amos I'll keep your wall in mind but I don't think I'll need it. I've dealt with many of them over the years and all you need to do is keep telling the truth and eventually they will either realize they were stupid, or they just have a massive coronary because they can't handle the truth..... You know what they say about learning; "If you're not learning something new everyday that you can use to improve yourself then it's your own fault. God didn't let you be born stupid, you just like being stupid"!!!!!
I used to think that, too. Now I'm not so sure. I think the thing that is frustrating is so many are so two-dimensional, "everything D is good and everything R is bad" types. To me, it's interesting to engage someone who is multi-faceted. For an example, I am a pretty right-wing conservative - but I don't typically support these military excursions that a lot of my fellow conservatives support (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) So to me, it would be interesting to go beyond the "Bush did it/Obama did it" paradigm and engage others in intelligent discussions. Hell, I don't like much of anything Obama has done - but at least I'm honest enough to give HIM credit for (so far, at least) doing the right thing vis-a-vis Libya and staying the hell out. Being a conservative, I don't know of any Democrats on the national scene I could ever support (is Zell Miller still around?). So I'm accused of being partisan. But there's damn few Republicans I could support either. Anyway, there are a few posters here on LF that are intelligent, multi-faceted types. (at the risk of leaving someone out, I won't mention any names. Once you've been here awhile, it will become apparent who they are.) The two-dimensional partisans will become obvious, too. Again, welcome.
But there's damn few Republicans I could support either. The only Democrat that I would have even thought about supporting was JFK. There used to be a time when Democrats were actually conservative but that stopped about 100 years before I was born. The only Republican I ever supported was Reagan even though he had some faults too.... He was my first Commander in Chief when I was in uniform and he treated us and the country well. Of course you won't hear the Democrats admit that even when they try to say (lie) they are like him.....
I voted for Reagan twice. It's interesting when you say he had faults. This dovetails with something that's been on my mind recently. One of the problems we have in today's political realm is our tendency to put people - rather than ideals - on pedestals. Ideals (like being honorable, being moral, and living within one's means) are timeless. This makes them different than we humans (who may espouse those ideals). We are not timeless, perfect, or incorruptible. We are fallible. I'd like to see us put more emphasis on ideals and less on personalities. Reagan was (I believe) a good man, and a good president. Certainly the best one we've had in my lifetime. He supported good ideals. But was he perfect? Of course not - he was human. The trap we fall into when we become so enamored of personalities is that when these personalities fail - as they always will, then it gives an opening for the Left to attempt to discredit the IDEAL that the personality may have represented.
It's not a trap - it was done on purpose - extolling Reagan - as a political tool by right wing groups. It goes to my point that for some reason those that are so called conservatives these days just accept these propaganda items thrown at them without question. It is almost cult like in its acceptance of a narrative that does not match reality.
You make my point. To me, it's fine to extol what he did and what he stood for. Just avoid the pedestals. (I'd hate to see conservatives fall into the same pattern that the libs did for years where they deified FDR. We should be smarter than that.)
There are no replies to Comment # 19. End Trace Mode for Comment # 19.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
when you deal with the local resident partisan hacks.
#8. To: Ignore Amos (#2)
Welcome to LF.
#11. To: CZ82 (#8)
I've dealt with many of them over the years and all you need to do is keep telling the truth and eventually they will either realize they were stupid, or they just have a massive coronary because they can't handle the truth.....
#13. To: Ignore Amos (#11)
Being a conservative, I don't know of any Democrats on the national scene I could ever support (is Zell Miller still around?). So I'm accused of being partisan.
#17. To: CZ82 (#13)
(Edited)
The only Republican I ever supported was Reagan even though he had some faults too.
#18. To: Ignore Amos, CZ82 (#17)
e trap we fall into when we become so enamored of personalities is that when these personalities fail - as they always will, then it gives an opening for the Left to attempt to discredit the IDEAL that the personality may have represented.
#19. To: Godwinson (#18)
It's not a trap - it was done on purpose - extolling Reagan - as a political tool by right wing groups.
Replies to Comment # 19.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]