Another reason I don't support Democrats

[ISUguy]

Originally Posted by benjay

These sources might be a bit out of date, but it shows how far off your $35/hr number is.

http://www.workinglife.org/wiki/index.php?page=Union+vs.+Nonunion%3A+Wages+(2004)

Union Wages By Gender and Occupation

The Union Wages information appears to be from Canada?

[CloneAggie]

Originally Posted by keepngoal

geez.... if it wasn't for unions the Dems would be in serious financial trouble.

%$@*&% Unions.

-keep.

A breakdown of the Top 100 donors by type of donor. Classifications, which I assigned the best I could, are Businesses, Business Associations (AMA, Assn of Home Builders, American Bankers Assn, etc.), Political Associations (NRA, Human Rights Campaign, national Cmte for Effective Congress, etc.), and Unions.

Where Democrats get their money from the Top 100:
Businesses: 28.9%
Business associations: 11.8%
Political associations: 7.9%
Unions: 51.3%

Where Republicans get their money from the Top 100:
Businesses: 66.7%
Business associations: 25.1%
Political associations: 3.2%
Unions: 5.0%

So, as expected, if one can say the Dems are in bed with the unions, one could also say the Repubs are in bed with big business.

[keepngoal]

What will happen when Mexico workers unionize??!!!
-keep.

[keepngoal]

Originally Posted by CloneAggie

A breakdown of the Top 100 donors by type of donor. Classifications, which I assigned the best I could, are Businesses, Business Associations (AMA, Assn of Home Builders, American Bankers Assn, etc.), Political Associations (NRA, Human Rights Campaign, national Cmte for Effective Congress, etc.), and Unions.

Where Democrats get their money from the Top 100:
Businesses: 28.9%
Business associations: 11.8%
Political associations: 7.9%
Unions: 51.3%

Where Republicans get their money from the Top 100:
Businesses: 66.7%
Business associations: 25.1%
Political associations: 3.2%
Unions: 5.0%

So, as expected, if one can say the Dems are in bed with the unions, one could also say the Repubs are in bed with big business.

I was waiting for this reply.

Simply put Republicans get a lot of $$ from businesses (a very diversified group). Dems get a lot of $$ from a select group (union dues).

- keep.

why did i join in this conversation?

[jdoggivjc]

Originally Posted by CloneAggie

A breakdown of the Top 100 donors by type of donor. Classifications, which I assigned the best I could, are Businesses, Business Associations (AMA, Assn of Home Builders, American Bankers Assn, etc.), Political Associations (NRA, Human Rights Campaign, national Cmte for Effective Congress, etc.), and Unions.

Where Democrats get their money from the Top 100:
Businesses: 28.9%
Business associations: 11.8%
Political associations: 7.9%
Unions: 51.3%

Where Republicans get their money from the Top 100:
Businesses: 66.7%
Business associations: 25.1%
Political associations: 3.2%
Unions: 5.0%

So, as expected, if one can say the Dems are in bed with the unions, one could also say the Repubs are in bed with big business.

It may be a 2-1 advantage, but when 30% of Dem's money comes from big business, the second largest amount in their funding, it's a little hypocritical to point that finger at the Republicans. Especially when Dems have a 10-1 advantage on Union support which is just as controversial (or should be if it's not)

[CloneAggie]

Originally Posted by jdoggivjc

It may be a 2-1 advantage, but when 30% of Dem's money comes from big business, the second largest amount in their funding, it's a little hypocritical to point that finger at the Republicans. Especially when Dems have a 10-1 advantage on Union support which is just as controversial (or should be if it's not)

I was just posting the information, which somewhat confirms what people often say. I wasn't making a judgment as to who is more righteous or that one is more controversial.

Based on the information, couldn't it be said that democrats are more balanced in who they get money from?

[jdoggivjc]

Originally Posted by CloneAggie

I was just posting the information, which somewhat confirms what people often say. I wasn't making a judgment as to who is more righteous or that one is more controversial.

Based on the information, couldn't it be said that democrats are more balanced in who they get money from?

You can make stats say whatever you want them to say

[mteiglan]

Aren't we supposed to be discussing sports on this website?

[Cyclonepride]

Originally Posted by joepublic

I agree with you. It's like the original poster has never even heard of the pharmacuetical industry buying off politicians with its lobby. Or the farm lobby getting welfare for multimillionaire farmers. Everything's for sale in D.C., and if you're not in the game you are gonna get hosed.

If you've read (or remembered) enough of my posts, you'd know that I am completely against the buying of politicians for any reason, even those causes I support. Campaign finance reform, serious reform, is ahead of almost any other issue in my mind, because without that, you will never have Congress or presidents making decisions for the sole benefit of the country and the people.

[Cyclonepride]

Originally Posted by Clone9

Sounds like we've got some people who are jealous that the're not in a union.

Now that is funny! No, I would rather be paid for my own accomplishments than be protected from my own mistakes.

Also, as to your Enron comment. You might want to check your facts. Enron paid lots of campaign money, and not just to Republicans. They were all over the global warming issues.

[Johnny Tremain]

Originally Posted by Cyclonepride

Also, as to your Enron comment. You might want to check your facts. Enron paid lots of campaign money, and not just to Republicans. They were all over the global warming issues.

The facts is that Enron's political and lobbying contributions were overwhelmingly Republican.

"Enron has already contributed nearly $173,000 to candidates and parties so far this year, (2001) almost 90 percent to Republicans. Since the 1989-90 election cycle, Enron has made nearly $5.8 million in campaign contributions, 73 percent to Republicans."

Election Cycle Total Contributions % to Dems % to Repubs

1996 $1,141,016 18% 81%
1998 $1,049,942 21% 79%
2000 $2,441,398 28% 72%
2002 $353,959 6% 94%

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH Top Contributors

12. Enron $113,800

Enron also donated $100,000 to the Bush/Cheney inaugural gala in January, a contribution that was matched by Enron’s chairman and chief executive, Kenneth Lay, and his wife. The Lays have contributed a total of almost $883,000 to candidates and parties since 1989, of which 90 percent went to Republicans."

News Alert 11/9/01: Enron

[Cyclonepride]

Originally Posted by Johnny Tremain

The facts is that Enron's political and lobbying contributions were overwhelmingly Republican.

"Enron has already contributed nearly $173,000 to candidates and parties so far this year, (2001) almost 90 percent to Republicans. Since the 1989-90 election cycle, Enron has made nearly $5.8 million in campaign contributions, 73 percent to Republicans."

Election Cycle Total Contributions % to Dems % to Repubs

1996 $1,141,016 18% 81%
1998 $1,049,942 21% 79%
2000 $2,441,398 28% 72%
2002 $353,959 6% 94%

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH Top Contributors

12. Enron $113,800

Enron also donated $100,000 to the Bush/Cheney inaugural gala in January, a contribution that was matched by Enron’s chairman and chief executive, Kenneth Lay, and his wife. The Lays have contributed a total of almost $883,000 to candidates and parties since 1989, of which 90 percent went to Republicans."

News Alert 11/9/01: Enron

Very few are clean, but if you would like, you can assert that some are more clean than others. Either way, I don't like either party, or the practice of selling themselves.

Byron York on Enron's Political Contributions on National Review Online=

[Johnny Tremain]

Originally Posted by Cyclonepride

"but if you would like, you can assert that some are more clean than others."

I do indeed so assert.

However, let me rephrase my previous statement: The facts is that Enron's political and lobbying contributions, while not exclusive, were overwhelmingly Republican.

Regarding your source. In his Nation Review article, Mr. York attempts his best right wing hyperbole to comfort his conservative National Review audience away from reality.

Most of National Review's commentators are affiliated with think tanks such as the conservative Heritage Foundation and the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute. Not exactly pillars of unbiased, unvarnished political thought.

And, by the way, Mr York is the auther of the book: "The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President -- and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time". Only $9.95 @ The Conservative Book Service. Ann Coulter is another headliner here.

[joepublic]

Originally Posted by Johnny Tremain

I do indeed so assert.

However, let me rephrase my previous statement: The facts is that Enron's political and lobbying contributions, while not exclusive, were overwhelmingly Republican.

Regarding your source. In his Nation Review article, Mr. York attempts his best right wing hyperbole to comfort his conservative National Review audience away from reality.

Most of National Review's commentators are affiliated with think tanks such as the conservative Heritage Foundation and the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute. Not exactly pillars of unbiased, unvarnished political thought.

And, by the way, Mr York is the auther of the book: "The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President -- and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time". Only $9.95 @ The Conservative Book Service. Ann Coulter is another headliner here.

As an aside on the National Review, I have a good winger friend who has tried for many years to get one of his letters published in the review. Failure, year after year. Then out of the blue, after he had corrected a grammatical error in one of Buckley's columns, he gets a hand written note of thanks from WFB.

[CloneAggie]

Originally Posted by Johnny Tremain

The facts is that Enron's political and lobbying contributions were overwhelmingly Republican.

"Enron has already contributed nearly $173,000 to candidates and parties so far this year, (2001) almost 90 percent to Republicans. Since the 1989-90 election cycle, Enron has made nearly $5.8 million in campaign contributions, 73 percent to Republicans."

Election Cycle Total Contributions % to Dems % to Repubs

1996 $1,141,016 18% 81%
1998 $1,049,942 21% 79%
2000 $2,441,398 28% 72%
2002 $353,959 6% 94%

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH Top Contributors

12. Enron $113,800

Enron also donated $100,000 to the Bush/Cheney inaugural gala in January, a contribution that was matched by Enron’s chairman and chief executive, Kenneth Lay, and his wife. The Lays have contributed a total of almost $883,000 to candidates and parties since 1989, of which 90 percent went to Republicans."

News Alert 11/9/01: Enron

Your data doesn't match what I found from the same website:

Election Cycle Total Contributions Dems Repubs % to Dems % to Repubs
2006 $25,300 $14,350 $10,950 57% 43%
2004 $39,691 $20,441 $19,250 52% 49%
2002 $552,300 $157,690 $394,110 29% 71%
2000 $2,542,823 $742,169 $1,800,654 29% 71%
1998 $1,101,042 $254,364 $846,678 23% 77%
1996 $1,237,816 $251,600 $986,216 20% 80%
1994 $581,926 $252,076 $329,850 43% 57%
1992 $336,509 $134,975 $200,034 40% 59%
1990 $174,250 $77,200 $97,050 44% 56%
TOTAL $6,591,657 $1,904,865 $4,684,792 29% 71%

Enron Donor Profile