Do you feel that public sector unions using taxpayer money to fund the Dem's is a form of money laundering?

The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, the biggest public-employee union, gave Democrats $90 million in the 2010 cycle

*I know the Republicans get funding from big oil..ect not saying i agree with that either, but at least it not taxpayer money it's all from profit of a private business

If you are pro public sector unions, would you feel different if they used taxpayer money to fund Republicans?

Update:

uh everybody saying that they pay the union dues from their paychecks which is true but..NEWS FLASH their paychecks are taxpayers money. How do you think teachers, police, firefighters get paid, the magical union fairy?

Update 2:

"AFSCME gets its money from persons' contributions, not from taxpayers' money. If you count the earnings of a public employee as "taxpayers' money", then you need to worry about taxpayers' money going to pay rent and groceries for public employees!"

Here's the flaw in your argument when union members pay union dues they have no control on what the union does with that money. Buying items is a personal choice. If your part of a union you have no power over what political party the union leaders fund with your mandatory union due money.

Update 3:

this is for Jade.

Public sector unions pay taxes too. This is true but how would you feel if your taxes went to fund the GOP. By cutting union benefits will in turn lower taxes as a whole and would give Everyone more disposable income and lower the states deficit. The division between Public and Private sectors is what really hurts the middle class.

8 Answers

Relevance
  • 9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Ask again when a Republican supports legislation that benefits Union members.

    Let me tell you a story that actually happened.

    Then Mayor Giuliani has to deal with a city with a long standing union tradition and public sector employment, at the same time huge budget gaps due in part to the decline of revenues from (guess who ?) Wall Street, following the collapse of the dot com bubble.

    Following the Regan anti union and trickle down model of economics, he sold off city assets such as real estate (parking lots is a huge money maker in NYC) gave tax abatement's to the Coffee,Tea and CoCoa exchange and privatized 40% of all ambulance service to "For profit" hospitals merging the remaining 60% with the Fire Department. The 40% that went private was in the wealthiest part of the city and the loss of revenue to the city from insurance reimbursement went down.To the private hospitals went up and the crews know not to bring the uninsured to the private hospital instead diverting to the public facilities.

    Now in the middle of another budget crisis, the current mayor has ordered the closing of 20 Firehouses and the reduction of staffing on fire trucks from 5 men to 4.

    What happened to the security and stability elimination of public sector jobs was supposed to bring ?

    In fairness, you must note current employees were retained.

    New hires were hired at lower salaries, higher retirement age and required to work 2 weeks (over 2 years) for NO pay.

    What happened to the expansion of jobs tax breaks was supposed to create ?

    Didn't happen.

    The City was quite displeased with the mayor in general when fate stepped in.

    9/11 turned Giuliani into Americas Mayor and a national figure.

  • 9 years ago

    I am not a union supporter by any means, but you have it wrong. Public sector employees pay their union dues to their unions. It is not tax payer money, eventhough public sector emloyee are paid from tax payer money. They earned their money and then have to pay out some percentage of their wages as union dues. The problem is that good conservatives who are also union member (yes there are quite a few) have to sit there and allow their union executives fully support Democratic party candidates and never Republicans. If anything that is practically taxation without representation.

  • 9 years ago

    Rush Limbaugh is wrong.

    AFSCME gets its money from persons' contributions, not from taxpayers' money. If you count the earnings of a public employee as "taxpayers' money", then you need to worry about taxpayers' money going to pay rent and groceries for public employees!

    It is like saying, when an employee of a company uses his earnings to purchase booze and hookers, it is using company money for booze and hookers. No, after the company pays the employee, it is the employee's money.

    Rush is trying to deceive people and manipulate the facts. Try listening to someone with more integrity.

  • Jade M
    Lv 6
    9 years ago

    NEWSFLASH: I'm a public sector employee and I pay taxes too! NEWSFLASH: wages from union workers buy goods and services that keep you in business whatever that business may be. Cutting disposable income from a sizeable group; union employees, will have "unintended" economic consequeces. I wish I could post the link that outlines it so well..but its not working for me at the moment.

    Think about it; it's common sense. Labor unions represent a large sector in our economy...if you cut their disposable income, they will have to cut their spending...how will that effect your company?

    Think outside the box...the big picture.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 9 years ago

    Considering it is money taken from paychecks funding the unions it is no longer "taxpayer" money.

  • ?
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    I think it's merely healthy self-interest - if Republicans ever showed any interest in promoting middle-class interests instead of fellating corporate interests at every turn, maybe unions would throw some campaign funds their way instead.

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    No, that's not what money laundering means. If AFSCME contributed to Republican candidates or campaigns, I'd consider them foolish.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.