On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 12:43:31 -0700, Canuck57 wrote:

On 25/02/2011 7:06 AM, I_am_Tosk wrote:


"Elections have consequences"??

Obama said that before he cut the republicans out of any negotiations
and started steamrolling us with his "punishments for those who are
against us and rewards for those who support us".

Now when the shoe is on the other foot, they are refusing to earn their
pay.

I was watching a news broadcast last night and the reporter noted that
not one paper or organization in Wi. is polling on the issue of the
walkout, obviously because they don't want the folks there to see the
results. BTW, for the record, the national polls say 67% do not support
the unions there, only 25% do. Now I know the libs here will come back
and say the opposite, but those numbers are clearly beyond any margin
of error. Yup, that's why the media won't ask the question

Maybe taxpayers should pick up some bats and do a protest of their own?
Run the unions off.

Well paid workers pay more taxes than those that aren't. We have the same
shortfalls in NC, but have the lowest union membership. Those geographic
regions doing the best (regrettably) have large population of ex union
workers with money to spend.

I think the bottom line is that our economy has become like an enormous
Monopoly game. All of the money is concentrated in the hands of very few.
The fewer the points that trickle down, the less available money.

Maybe you see some connection that busting the unions will put those
trillions of static wealth back into circulation. I don't see it.....

--
C:\Program Files\Pan\Signatures\boating.txt