The Good, The Bad, and the Brainless

Posted Wednesday, February 23, 2011, at 12:35 AM
View 51 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • California's new Governor Jerry brown is going to use a Zen-style logic with the very strong unions that helped put him in office. He is going to give them what they want, and if they fail, they will have no bargaining power. To weaken a powerful man in your path, don't attack him with your own knife. You'll only end up bloodied. Better to hand the powerful man your knife-and hope he cuts himself.

    This is not a joke, you can search for Jerry Browns zen-style logic.

    -- Posted by Keda46 on Wed, Feb 23, 2011, at 1:39 AM
  • any links sham? Or should I just assume you have your facts right?

    -- Posted by president obama on Wed, Feb 23, 2011, at 7:38 AM
  • If Governor Walker is so concerned about the public employee unions - then why did he exempt law enforcement, fire employees, state troopers, and state inspectors in the legislation? Where is the outcry from the right concerning this hypocrisy? Isn't this an ideological argument against all organized public employee unions?

    I wonder if it has anything to do with them supporting him during his campaign for Governor.

    Also contained in the language of the bill is privatization of the states publicly owned power plants without a competitive bidding process being utilized.

    Following is an article which provides some insight into what is really going on in Wisconsin.

    -- Posted by Geezer on Wed, Feb 23, 2011, at 9:50 AM
  • *

    Truth of Lies? Double standards abound!

    -- Posted by Brian Hoag on Wed, Feb 23, 2011, at 10:50 AM
  • ochosinco

    They did not fulfill their campaign promise as you stated - they exempted those public unions from the legislation which supported them during the campaign.

    Otherwords, if you support me I will not mess with your union - just the ones that didn't support me.

    -- Posted by Geezer on Wed, Feb 23, 2011, at 10:53 AM
  • Brian

    Thanks for the link, it is appreciated.

    -- Posted by Geezer on Wed, Feb 23, 2011, at 11:01 AM
  • *


    Nice link, I for one am SHOCKED, SHOCKED!! You mean to tell me politicians and politial operatives and wags LIE?!?!?!

    Funny how both sides are so good at pointing the finger, as my grandma used to say, when you point a finger, three more are pointing back at you.

    -- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Feb 23, 2011, at 11:59 AM
  • From what I read the teachers were willing to take a pay and benifit cut to help out. Dosent sound like cry babies to me. They are willing to pitch in and help out. Why go after collective bargining?

    -- Posted by president obama on Wed, Feb 23, 2011, at 12:37 PM
  • I agree that unions, especially public works unions need to go. States, counties and cities are paralyzed in trying to deal with this recession. The lack of serious flexibility on the part of the unions is going to seal their fate.

    -- Posted by BuffRoam on Wed, Feb 23, 2011, at 12:45 PM
  • *


    What is the benefit of collective barganing? I don't mean feel good, it protects the workers from the tyranny and usurpation of the boss language, but the real benefit?

    -- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Feb 23, 2011, at 1:18 PM
  • SWNebr Transplant

    Here are some benefits of collective bargaining.

    Collective bargaining is the only way to level the playing field -- to assure that increases in American productivity are widely shared throughout the economy.

    And when they are not shared, that is not only bad for the everyday family. It is horrible for the economy. Economies are in balance if productivity gains result in commensurately higher salaries for employees that allow them to buy the larger number of products and services that the productivity increases allow corporations to manufacture and sell. If they don't have increased buying power -- if all of the income growth goes to the top 2% -- then a demand deficit will inevitably develop that will lead to a recession -- or depression. That gap in buying power can be filled for a while -- as it was in the early 2000's -- with greater consumer debt. But after while the bubble bursts and the house of cards comes tumbling down.

    We saw that movie -- we know the ending. And it was mainly a result of the disparity between increased worker productivity and increased worker income. It was the direct consequence of the corporate attack on the right to join a union.

    American workers -- and the American economy -- need unions now more than ever. They are the only means by which we can guarantee widely-shared economic growth. And as it turns out, sustained, long-term economic growth requires widely-shared economic growth. Unions are the only way to prevent the collapse of the American middle class.

    That's why the fight in Wisconsin is so fundamental. Governor Scott Walker and his corporate supporters want to destroy labor unions -- to eliminate the right to choose a union. They want a low wage economy. They want the freedom to pay people as little as possible at their companies -- and in the government.

    They believe if they can break public employee unions, that they can ultimately eliminate organized labor as a meaningful force in the American economy -- and in American politics.

    Walker's action are a case study in right wing philosophy. He cut state taxes on corporations and then demanded that middle class state workers take cuts in wages and benefits in order to pay for the corporate tax cuts.

    Luckily regular voters have begun to smell the coffee. Nationally a new poll shows that 61% of voters reject the kind of proposals that Walker is trying to cram down the throats of the people of Wisconsin.

    In Wisconsin itself a new poll by Greenberg, Quinlan, Rosner Research found that a majority of Wisconsin voters disapprove of Walker's job performance and give him a negative favorability of 39 percent favorable and 49 percent unfavorable. In contrast 62 percent of voters offer a favorable view of public employees and only 11 percent unfavorable. And 53 percent rate labor unions favorably with only 31 percent unfavorable.

    Over half of the voters oppose the agenda offered by Walker and Republicans in the legislature. Only 43 percent favor it. There is a major intensity gap as well, with 39 percent strongly opposing their proposals and only 28 percent strongly supporting them.

    In the end, the Republican attack on the right to choose a union completely ignores what is good for everyday Americans -- and for the American economy. It is only concerned with what is good for the narrow economic and political interests of a tiny fraction of our population. That's why they must be defeated. That's why the battle of Wisconsin is really a battle for the survival of the American middle class.

    -- Posted by Geezer on Wed, Feb 23, 2011, at 1:55 PM
  • *

    Milwaukee received over 700 million in stimulus funds. You remember the stimulus don't you? It was not a stimulus, it was the Democrat Party Slush Fund for union bribes and payoffs.

    Obama lied and said that the Stimulus/Slush Fund was for "shovel ready jobs".

    Something was being shoveled alright.

    Milwaukee used 632 million of the slush funds to funnel money into public employee union pension plans.

    Also, remember a separate 32 billion slush fund was set up after that to payoff teachers unions.

    Public Employee unions are nothing but money laundering operations for the Democrat Party.

    -- Posted by sameldridge on Wed, Feb 23, 2011, at 2:23 PM
  • *

    Public employee unions are a breeding ground for incompetence and laziness, and an excuse for greed.

    Remember, our own Senator Nelson said he voted for the stimulus/slush fund to funnel money to Nebraska schools. It would be interesting to know how much of those slush funds actually ended up being used for schools, and how much went into power-packing fat public employee pension plans.

    The taxpayers = the gifts that keep on giving, and keep on giving, and keep on giving, and keep on giving, and keep on giving, and keep on giving, and keep on giving, and keep on giving.

    And when we have nothing left to give, the government just takes it.

    -- Posted by sameldridge on Wed, Feb 23, 2011, at 2:29 PM
  • captainobvious

    That's Hogwash

    Wisconsin was the first state to allow Collective Bargaining of public employees back in 1959 - 52 years ago. I doubt you were even born then.

    The system has worked fine through the years until the recent financial crisis. As bigdawg stated in his post above the Union has agreed to concensions in wages, pension, and benefits. So the only real issue is the right to collective bargaining which the Union Members refuse to give up.

    -- Posted by Geezer on Wed, Feb 23, 2011, at 2:29 PM
  • *

    Yo dawg - anyone that has read the mind-numbed ramblings of Edward Hinn, like you have, or anyone who delights at piling huge debt upon the shoulders of his children, like you do, can do his own **** research.

    I did mention the MacIver Institute. What, your computer cannot access Bing or Google?

    -- Posted by sameldridge on Wed, Feb 23, 2011, at 2:33 PM
  • Sam

    Glad to see you participate - can you provide some links to sources of facts used in your article?


    -- Posted by Geezer on Wed, Feb 23, 2011, at 2:34 PM
  • *


    There are a couple of interesting points in your discussion of collective bargaining. You spoke several times about increased production. How have the public service unions increased production?

    Teachers Unions have steadily gained power, have our students been getting a steadily improved education. Are students now more or less prepared for life after high school in your opinion?

    People on the left shouldn't be throwing stones about right wing bodies shoving bills down the throat of taxpayers, what was the support for the healthcare bill as it was passed?

    I said earlier and I'll say it again, elections have consequences, if the people of Wisconsin don't like the laws that are passed they have the obligation to elect new leaders. I find it despicable that the Wisconsin Senators choose to run away from problems rather than face them. Do you have any comment on these actions?

    -- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Feb 23, 2011, at 2:40 PM
  • *


    Also, good luck getting Sam to cite things, he likes to share his opinions, just look at them that way.

    -- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Feb 23, 2011, at 2:42 PM
  • Wisconsin's Phony Budget Crisis

    Wisconsin's nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau report. There is a section that, read in isolation, does show a $121.4 million general fund gross balance as of June 30, 2011, and a net balance of $56.4 million. These are the figures used by the governor's opponents to say the state is in surplus.

    WOW!! With that kind of money, why are they considering laying off thousand of PUBLIC employees. (By the way, don't public employees work FOR the taxpayers? Kinda stupid to bite those that pay your salary!)

    Oh, OOPS, guess we should read on in the article... at least $315.7 million in unpaid bills...The figure rises to $437 million if you factor in all of the costs submarined in the footnotes.

    So, let's see...$56.4 million in the bank - $437 million = HUGE OVERDRAFT.

    You just have to wonder how many math teachers are standing in that protest.

    On the other hand, given their results, maybe Wisconsin should just leave them all there, fire their butts, and hire teachers that actually understand basic math and English!

    -- Posted by MrsSmith on Wed, Feb 23, 2011, at 2:46 PM
  • *

    Ocho - Thanks for your kind words.

    I am now finished with my travels across the nations highways. Increased costs, and increased taxation have made it almost impossible to earn a decent living, even working 80+ hours a week.

    I know, I know, Obama promised no new taxes for anyone earning under 250K.

    We know what that is worth.

    Just this morning when I paid my cable bill, there was a nice note with my bill explaining that the Federal Universal Service Fee has gone up 15.5% as of this month.

    Listen to this explanation: "The FUSF was established and is maintained to ensure that all customers, regardless of location, have access to essentially the same telecommunications services at affordable prices." (redistribution of wealth?)

    "The fund also provides schools, libraries, LOW-INCOME CUSTOMERS and rural health care providers with assistance in obtaining telecommunications services."

    Well isn't that special? So my cable bill goes up so I can help the poor pay for cable tv. Nice huh?

    Anyways - I have parked my truck, and will now look for some industry that government has not completely screwed up to engage in. Sure would appreciate your prayers.

    -- Posted by sameldridge on Wed, Feb 23, 2011, at 2:48 PM
  • *

    Another great article, Sam! I am sorry about your being forced to stop trucking. Almost everything moves by truck, and we need that stuff. You have my prayers.

    As an aside to your article, do you know why liberals are so predominant in education? I believe it's because they are not risk-takers; those folks are found in private enterprise, like you, Sam. Liberals look for the safest, most secure source of employment they can find; where they can do mediocre work (or even poor work) and remain employed and unpunished by their employer. I have no problem with someone wanting security. However, secure jobs normally pay less than the risky ones. Not so in education. The sole purpose of labor unions is to achieve superior wages for average work so unions are a natural fit for educators.

    I personally know many teachers and half of them are above average teachers. Half are also below average, for that is the nature of mathmatical averages. But their employer has little power to improve teaching staffs, and little incentive to do that uphill struggle.

    When the cost of teacher salaries and benefits gets too high, the unions push to keep it that way. The result is layoffs. The movement of employers overseas in other industries is the direct result of our work force pricing itself out of the market. Goodbye USA, hello China. In eduction, that means larger classroom size, and fewer music, art, and other programs at the expense of higher compensation for those who remain.

    -- Posted by Boomer62 on Wed, Feb 23, 2011, at 3:49 PM
  • A new poll was released Wednesday showing the public strongly supports union bargaining rights by a two-to-one margin. The Fox News Channel's "Fox and Friends" program displayed and voiced the results of the poll backwards, in a way that depicts the public as strongly opposed to unions.

    Could this be another "honest mistake" by the conservative network? Or something else?

    This is how the poll results were displayed by Fox:

    -- Posted by Geezer on Wed, Feb 23, 2011, at 3:54 PM
  • transplant,

    If collective barganing does no good anyway why not let them keep it. If it is as useless as you say it is then it is not hurting anyone.

    You should look at shams posts as his opnion even though he states them as fact.

    -- Posted by president obama on Wed, Feb 23, 2011, at 7:05 PM
  • *


    I think you need to read more closely.

    I didn't say it is useless, I asked what the benefit is. You haven't answered although Geezer did.

    But lets go with what you imply I said that it is useless. If something is useless, what is the point of keeping it around? Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. I've had several appliances or cars that no longer function and are useless, should I then litter my yard with them?

    If something provides no benefit I think it should go. However, before you jump all over that, keep in mind I never said collective bargaining was useles, you did.

    -- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Feb 24, 2011, at 9:03 AM
  • My argumentg makes no sense? Your comparing it to appliances and cars?

    -- Posted by president obama on Thu, Feb 24, 2011, at 12:11 PM
  • The last several years have seen record breaking corporate profits (in fact Exxon recorded the greatest profit ever by a U.S. Company) in the tens of billions of dollars and yet some of these companies refuse to address their toxic waste problems. Recent legislation addressed this need by offering expensing of environmental remediation back to 2009 (this includes the BP oil spill timeline). Do you think it is right to make union employees give up their bargaining rights at the same time tax payers have to continue to bear the burden of industry not meeting their obligations? If Industry addressed their toxic waste problems we would have more jobs than people to fill them.

    Who do you think picks up the tab? Everybody needs to pay their fair share in solving our financial woes. Wait a minute; I forgot that the trickle down economics should kick in pretty soon - that will solve all our problems just like it has in the past.

    -- Posted by Geezer on Thu, Feb 24, 2011, at 12:24 PM
  • *


    Sorry if you don't like the appliances and cars analogy, it's just the first thing that popped into my head.

    Can you give a valid reason to keep around anything that serves no purpose? That is what I was challenging, also I liked the mental image of a yard full of junk.

    Please answer some questions instead of avoiding the issue.

    -- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Feb 24, 2011, at 12:55 PM
  • *


    I'm not sure who you addressed your question to so I can only answer for myself.

    I think companies should be held responsible for their obligations.

    If you think everybody needs to pay their fair share, do you think the Unions need to pay a similar rate of benefits that non-union workers do? You've talked about people wanting to destroy unions and that unions are great but I don't think you've mentioned much about what union worker's responsibilties are like you do with corporations.

    -- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Feb 24, 2011, at 12:59 PM
  • Let's see, today we have some very well compensated public sector employees in Wisconsin protesting possible cuts to an otherwise generous benefits package, obtained through collective bargaining, and paid for by the Wisconsin taxpayer. They are hero's we are told by the MSM and a Gazette blogger, every bit as much as those protesting for democracy in the Middle East. We must honor and worship them. A little over a year ago, a small group of private sector citizens got together to protest out of control government spending. The movement grew and affected an election. The MSM and a Gazette blogger told us they, and all those who supported them, were racists, homophobes, xenophobes, and every other type of bigotry real or imagined.

    A couple of years ago, oil prices sky-rocketed by a shortage, real or perceived. We were told by the MSM this was caused by Bush/Cheney and big oil exploiting consumers for obscene profits. Increasing supply to meet demand was not an option, we were told, we must all cut back our usage, even if our economy suffered. Today, oil prices are climbing through the roof, where are the voices of reason, the MSM, today?

    On a final note, has anyone seen Sarah Palin's birth certificate?

    -- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Thu, Feb 24, 2011, at 1:17 PM
  • ok transplant, you believe that collective bargining does nothing. I would say that if they got rid of that provision in the bill the teachers would not be protesting.

    Why would the govonor want to get rid of it if it is of no use. He could let them have collective barganing and they would all go home.

    you say if its useless get rid of it, I say if its useless then whats the harm in letting them have it?

    I would think the govonor would be laughing his arse off about letting keep collective barganing knowing it does no good.

    If I went to throw your junk car away in your yard and thousands of people protested my removal of the car I would leave it there knowing that it really dosent matter.

    -- Posted by president obama on Thu, Feb 24, 2011, at 5:30 PM
  • *

    If I had become a teacher when I got out of college in 1975, I could have retired 5 years ago with a full pension (provided by the taxpayers with no money from myself), and got another job to make even more money.

    Since I went into private business, I have no idea when (if ever) I will be able to retire. I have to pay for ALL my retirement and ALL my health insurance.

    I say to public service employees, "You need to get some skin in the game."

    -- Posted by Boomer62 on Thu, Feb 24, 2011, at 6:18 PM
  • CPB

    Nice discussion - Thanks!

    I understand where you are coming from - why not harvest the resource in hopes of lowering the price of petroleum products, stimulating the economy, and creating jobs.

    I remember that same type of argument when the logging Industry was questioning harvest limits and using the price of lumber to justify further resource development. One of the biggest wastes of resources I have seen in my life was after the Yellowstone Wildfires. There was literally hundreds of thousands of acres of harvestable old growth timber that could have been used in Log Home construction, rough sawn lumber, post and rails, etc. Because of it being a National Park it was left standing as nature would have done. The new growth, although still young is withstanding the onslaught of the bark beetle, which was decimating the old growth forest and creating the very fuel for a monster fire.

    Many of the Western States with National Forests are losing the battle with the bark beetle. I think it would be wise for our country to assess the value of that resource and determine if harvesting is a viable option, otherwise it will someday go up in flames just like Yellowstone did.

    Oil is a little different than trees -- it does not renew, it is a one shot deal. Once it's gone the game is over. Should we as a country harvest our oil resources now in hopes of addressing our current petroleum products shortage, or hang on to it for as long as we can, knowing that someday we may not be able to buy imported oil? I look at our oil reserves as one of our countries last remaining treasures. Until alternative energy sources prove themselves, future generations will also have to rely on petroleum products to power our military efforts and address other critical needs of our country. Has that time arrived? I wish Wallis would drop in and spend a few minutes of his time to give us his opinion; he is part of the oil industry.

    -- Posted by Geezer on Thu, Feb 24, 2011, at 7:47 PM
  • Yes, I too wish Wallis would drop by. I am pretty sure he could give us his insight on how crude oil is made. I believe crude is a renewable resource. Either way, let's use it until another energy source that is even more efficient can be found and used.

    -- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Thu, Feb 24, 2011, at 9:27 PM
  • *


    I think you continue to misunderstand me and I must apologize for not making myself clear.

    "ok transplant, you believe that collective bargining does nothing."

    I never said I believe collective bargaining does nothing, I asked what the benefit is in a desire to learn, but no one really answered that in a way I understood.

    "I say if its useless then whats the harm in letting them have it?"

    Can you explain to me this reasoning to me I just don't get it? Do you keep things around your house that do no good? I don't, I donate it to someone who can use it or get rid of it in some other way. I just don't understand why people would prefer to keep things around that do nothing if you could explain your reasons I'd appreciate it.

    "If I went to throw your junk car away in your yard and thousands of people protested my removal of the car I would leave it there knowing that it really dosent matter."

    What if after you left the cars there and the crowd dispersed, and a new group of thousands came and wanted you to get rid of it, what would you do? Do you have no personal will that you let others dictate your every move, or do you make decisions based on what you believe to be best?

    -- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Feb 25, 2011, at 9:18 AM
  • Out of every dollar that funds Wisconsin' s pension and health insurance plans for state workers, 100 cents comes from the state workers.

    How can that be? Because the "contributions" consist of money that employees chose to take as deferred wages -- as pensions when they retire -- rather than take immediately in cash. The same is true with the health care plan. If this were not so a serious crime would be taking place, the gift of public funds rather than payment for services.

    Thus, state workers are not being asked to simply "contribute more" to Wisconsin' s retirement system (or as the argument goes, "pay their fair share" of retirement costs as do employees in Wisconsin' s private sector who still have pensions and health insurance). They are being asked to accept a cut in their salaries so that the state of Wisconsin can use the money to fill the hole left by tax cuts and reduced audits of corporations in Wisconsin.

    The labor agreements show that the pension plan money is part of the total negotiated compensation. The key phrase, in those agreements I read (emphasis added), is: "The Employer shall contribute on behalf of the employee." This shows that this is just divvying up the total compensation package, so much for cash wages, so much for paid vacations, so much for retirement, etc.

    The fact is that all of the money going into these plans belongs to the workers because it is part of the compensation of the state workers. The fact is that the state workers negotiate their total compensation, which they then divvy up between cash wages, paid vacations, health insurance and, yes, pensions. Since the Wisconsin government workers collectively bargained for their compensation, all of the compensation they have bargained for is part of their pay and thus only the workers contribute to the pension plan. This is an indisputable fact.

    -- Posted by Geezer on Fri, Feb 25, 2011, at 11:32 AM
  • im beginning to think you are to obtuse to step outside and think outside the box.

    -- Posted by president obama on Sat, Feb 26, 2011, at 7:57 AM
  • *


    I'm beginning to think you are too much like Mike in that he loves to make claims but doesn't answer questions.

    -- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Sat, Feb 26, 2011, at 11:39 AM
  • *

    Gee Geezer...if all that is true, you should take a roadtrip to ol' Wisconsin and show them your links. You could single handedly show those ignorant elected officials the error of their ways.

    The fact that 99.9% of the rest of the world hasn't latched on to your point of reasoning tends to make me wonder whether or not you're on target here.

    Perhaps you should be reading Wisconsin legislation on the matter, instead of opinion blogs.

    -- Posted by Mickel on Sat, Feb 26, 2011, at 12:06 PM
  • Mickel

    Can you provide some data or a link that supports your position or is this just your own personal opinion?

    -- Posted by Geezer on Sat, Feb 26, 2011, at 2:09 PM
  • Geezer,

    That's all fine and dandy that public employees are required to pay for a fraction of their benefits. But. that is still money paid by the taxpayer. Their wages and salaries, paid by the taxpayer. Those benefits, bizarrely claimed to be paid for by the government employees, are ultimately paid by the taxpayer. It was the Wisconsin taxpayers, who actually pay for their own retirements and health care, demanded that government spending slows down. It was the private sector that voted in their governor, and their representatives.

    -- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Sat, Feb 26, 2011, at 7:35 PM
  • CPB

    We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this issue I guess. I would like to leave you with one question to ponder.

    Why were several of the Union Groups exempted from the proposed legislation - State Patrol Troopers and State Patrol Inspectors? What makes them special? Could it possibly be they supported Governor Walkers campaign? See section A.2 in the following link for verification they were exempted.

    -- Posted by Geezer on Sat, Feb 26, 2011, at 9:15 PM
  • I would say probably not, the exempted unions tend to focus around actual public safety, and not so much for public regulatory unions.

    -- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Sat, Feb 26, 2011, at 9:20 PM
  • I believe I also read that out of hundreds of police and firefighters union, only 4 supported Governor Walker.

    -- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Sat, Feb 26, 2011, at 9:55 PM
  • CPB

    It did not happen that way at all. Following is a link to the Wisconsin Law Enforcement Association which all Troopers fall under. They were blind sided. Please take a minute of your time and read the article from their website.

    -- Posted by Geezer on Sat, Feb 26, 2011, at 10:26 PM
  • The way I described is exactly the way it happened. The wlea is a union organization, of course they will feel cheated.

    -- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Sat, Feb 26, 2011, at 10:38 PM
  • I answered your question more then once, it is not my fault if you dont understand.

    -- Posted by president obama on Sun, Feb 27, 2011, at 12:08 AM
  • *

    Geezer - links to what...your opinion? My statement was that 99.9% of the world hadn't attached to your line of reasoning...I guess I'm thinking that statement is made evident by the lack of support of your statement in the MSM or blog media.

    Here's something for you to look up...If your google page is working... Wisconsin got $701 million in the stimulus, a little under 10% of the entire stimulus. (easy so far, right?) $600 million of that $700 million went to the public sector unions. (again easy to look up, right?)

    Now tell us again how the unions pay their own pensions and healthcare benefits when they are gorging at the taxpayer trough.

    -- Posted by Mickel on Sun, Feb 27, 2011, at 4:50 PM
  • *


    Where did you answer my question about the benefit of collective bargaining? I honestly must have missed it and would like to re-read it.

    -- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Feb 28, 2011, at 11:05 AM
  • *

    SW - he/she doesn't have a response, which is why you are getting dead air-space. The silence itself speaks volumes.

    -- Posted by Mickel on Tue, Mar 1, 2011, at 7:10 PM
  • *

    Nah, bigdawg answered. He was just talking to someone else about some other topic entirely. It isn't his fault that everyone else is such a dullard that they cannot understand his exiguous sagacity.

    -- Posted by Sir Didymus on Wed, Mar 2, 2011, at 1:01 AM
  • *

    Ditto that on the "Liberalville" thread Sir Didymus...

    -- Posted by Mickel on Wed, Mar 2, 2011, at 4:42 PM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: