Mitt Romney: Teachers Unions' Contributions To Political Campaigns Should Be Limited

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by defcon5

 

Romney’s plan will lead us to a Chinese Democracy where a balance will never be struck.

Giving in to Obama's plan will have us all swimming to Cuba.

Originally posted by SM2
i would go further to say that public (government worker) unions should be banned. Government workers are our employees, they work for us. If you want higher pay, better benefits, go work in the private sector. Government jobs are for public servants. Anything else is just counter to the vision of the founding fathers.

To all the people that actually think the unions have "your best interests at heart" wake up, get a clue you are gullible. You really think that AFL-CIO or SEIU really care one little bit what happens to you? About as muchg as apple cares what happens to you. You are nothing but a revenue stream to them. The advatage to the unionis, they can force you to pay the dues even if you do not want to be apart of their little cabal.

Ah, yes. Lets make sure teachers are paid so little that only the worst type want the job. That will improve education!

It's a simple fact. If you want quality, you have to pay for it.

I made far more money working in a pharmacy....and after ten years of teaching, I'm seriously contemplating returning t that profession. Why? Because education continues to be the brunt of budget cuts and absurd policy changes.

Just an example, to clarify my point. How many other professions require you to buy the basics for your "clients?" We'll, education does.....I spend about five hundred dollars over each school year purchasing a basic supplies for my students because there's no money in the school budget for those items. Paper, pencils, folders, crayons....the parents in my area can't afford them and neither can my school.

THe problem is isn't the myth of the "millionaire teacher" (of which there are none). Romney is very hypocritical and it is so transparent how hypocritcal it is.

So to him it is FINE if Monsanto, Halliburton, Investment banks the Koch Brothers donate MILLIONS to Republicans but Teachers Unions are the ones that are somehow corrupt? REALLY????

Come on.

Are there problems with our educational system? Sure.. but to say that Teachers unions shouldn't be allowed to contribute money to campaigns but ignore the issue of all these corporations buying off our elections is laughable!!!.

I hate John Stossel.. he is a right wing shill. Typical media.

Someone commented that it appears that the Republicans are deliberately "throwing" this election and they aren't even giving the illusion they are trying. Either that is true or they just are truly that stupid..

I hate our two party system. I hate this Hegelian dialectic we are all caught up with... we need to break that mold right now and start finding out the truth and kicking these corrupt guys out of office and take back our govt.

If the teachers unions should be limited then all companies should also be limited. Oil and energy companies that receive subsides should be limited because of the amount of kickback they get for their contributions.

reply to post by sonnny1

Can anyone say a Teachers Union has backed a Republican?

Yes teachers unions have backed Republicans.

Teachers' Unions Donate To Republican Candidates Against Abortion, LGBT & Immigration Rights

It was the middle of July, and the race to represent Indiana's 36th district in the state senate was heating up. Incumbent Brent Waltz, an investment-banking Republican known for his fiscal conservatism, faced a challenge from Mary Ann Sullivan, a Democratic state representative who has helped launch several charter schools. Then, something unexpected happened. Faced with the choice of endorsing the Republican businessman or the school-savvy Democrat, the Public Action Committee of the Indiana State Teacher's Association (ISTA) endorsed Waltz.

Originally posted by Nite_wing

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by defcon5

 

Romney’s plan will lead us to a Chinese Democracy where a balance will never be struck.

Giving in to Obama's plan will have us all swimming to Cuba.

For what?

Originally posted by 46ACE

Originally posted by milominderbinder
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

Well...isn't it obvious? Corporations are people...but people aren't people.

Sure Mittens...whatever you say.

On the contrary: people who work for the govt shouldn't have undue influence over their govt (i.e.publicly provided)pay and benefits. Otherwise the locks are off the candy store!

Are you people purposely being "divergent"?

edit on 28-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

Right. Undue influence ought to be reserved only for oil companies, defense contractors, lobbyists of all kinds, Saudi's, Afghan druglords, pharmaceutical companies, Israel, China, and anyone else with enough money to buy a a few Senators.

...you know...to keep it fair.

Originally posted by buster2010
If the teachers unions should be limited then all companies should also be limited. Oil and energy companies that receive subsides should be limited because of the amount of kickback they get for their contributions.

Exactly. If we are against special interest groups...then lets get rid of them ALL...not just the one's who represent actual human beings.

well, you cant have it both ways. Either ban ALL corporate money, or allow it all. Unions, are corporations, regardless of how some of you may feel. They exist to make money, Andy Sterns never gave a rats butt if you got paid more or not, hell he didnt care if you remained a member or not. He was still getting your money. All he cared about was doing the things that would continue to keep him in his position within the union. Most unions are like that. Why do you think the mafia had their hand in them so much.

The sooner people realise that a union IS a corporation, and are just are "evil" as the evil corporations they claim to hate, the sooner we can have a real debate about this.

This is pretty simple. No organisation should be able to make political donations of either money or (benefits in kind).

No company, union, club etc.

Only individuals, up to a limit of say $50, 000 per person per year (or services of equivalent value).

With massively constrained budgets the parties would have to focus more on a message appealing to the general public rather than winning though the size of their megaphone and giving juicy benefits behind the scenes.

If you make it illegal you can start prosecuting people for buying influence or attempting to do so.

It wont happen because the only people who could force it to are those who stand to lose influence through it.