I guess if you can justify drug tests for welfare recipients, you can justify medicaid recipients being subject to the laws that cover state workers, they are, after all being paid by the state. I don't agree with either one, but some will support the former while being outraged by the latter.
I guess if you can justify drug tests for welfare recipients, you can justify medicaid recipients being subject to the laws that cover state workers, they are, after all being paid by the state. I don't agree with either one, but some will support the former while being outraged by the latter.
I think it is small minded of me but I have to admit that I enjoy when the leftists make fools of yourselves.
archer wrote: I guess if you can justify drug tests for welfare recipients, you can justify medicaid recipients being subject to the laws that cover state workers, they are, after all being paid by the state. I don't agree with either one, but some will support the former while being outraged by the latter.
I think it is small minded of me but I have to admit that I enjoy when the leftists make fools of yourselves.
Point one...Since ridicule is your game tonight, what part of that didn't you like? State employees in Michigan are unionized and pay union dues. At this time, those who receive medicaid benefits for their children are classified as state employees, therefore they must pay union dues. I presume there is some sort of law, whatever, that makes state workers union workers? or allows them to vote in a union.....don't ya think? I didn't say it was right, only that this is the way it is in Michigan. Why insult me for stating a truth? I understand that you are outraged at this, but why would you lash out at me for your outrage about Michigan?
Point two.....did you support the drug testing of welfare recipients?
Point three....can you find us any reporting of this that isn't from a right wing web site/blog. Not saying it isn't true, just would like to get a unbiased report of it.
now, what other insults do you have in store for me?
archer wrote: I guess if you can justify drug tests for welfare recipients, you can justify medicaid recipients being subject to the laws that cover state workers, they are, after all being paid by the state. I don't agree with either one, but some will support the former while being outraged by the latter.
I think it is small minded of me but I have to admit that I enjoy when the leftists make fools of yourselves.
Point one...Since ridicule is your game tonight, what part of that didn't you like? State employees in Michigan are unionized and pay union dues. At this time, those who receive medicaid benefits for their children are classified as state employees, therefore they must pay union dues. I presume there is some sort of law, whatever, that makes state workers union workers? or allows them to vote in a union.....don't ya think? I didn't say it was right, only that this is the way it is in Michigan. Why insult me for stating a truth? I understand that you are outraged at this, but why would you lash out at me for your outrage about Michigan?
Point two.....did you support the drug testing of welfare recipients?
Point three....can you find us any reporting of this that isn't from a right wing web site/blog. Not saying it isn't true, just would like to get a unbiased report of it.
now, what other insults do you have in store for me?
Point one, You are attempting to justify SEIU stealing from medicaid recipients because there is some kind of law? rofllol
That is the point, this is a democratic administration that has legislated stealing from poor medicare recipients by classifying them as employees.
Point two, peddle your straw men elsewhere. What the hell does drug testing of welfare recipients have to do with the SEIU stealing $ from medicaid recipients.
neptunechimney wrote: Point one, You are attempting to justify SEIU stealing from medicaid recipients because there is some kind of law? rofllol
That is the point, this is a democratic administration that has legislated stealing from poor medicare recipients by classifying them as employees.
Point two, peddle your straw men elsewhere. What the hell does drug testing of welfare recipients have to do with the SEIU stealing $ from medicaid recipients.
Point three. Seriously?
I justified nothing, I simply told you what the situation is in Michigan. I actually even posted that I did not agree with what they were doing. Is that too much for you to wrap your mind around?.....that I do NOT agree with this, if it is as reported? I am wondering why even try to have a discussion with you if you attack someone who actually agreed with you......well, actually you decided that I didn't and attacked me for that.
I guess you thought answering the question about drug testing would put you in an untenable position on this, that's OK, I understand. Drug testing has a lot to do with this, it's the state government deciding that they can make up requirements for people simply because they are getting public money. If they can say anyone who gets public money must have a drug test, then they can say anyone who gets public money for their children are state employees and are a member of the union. I disagree with both, you declined to answer.
Yes seriously, do you have a link to an unbiased web site for this story or don't you?
As for the insults....keep em coming, it says a whole lot more about what kind of poster you are than it does about me.
edited to add....I almost forgot....the SEIU is not stealing from welfare recipients if indeed they are classified as state employees. It is that classification that allowed the SEIU to charge them union dues. A technicality, sure, but the one that makes it all possible and that was a government classification, not the Unions doing. Yeah.....a democrat did it.....surprise, I don't agree with everything every democrat does.
neptunechimney wrote: Point one, You are attempting to justify SEIU stealing from medicaid recipients because there is some kind of law? rofllol
That is the point, this is a democratic administration that has legislated stealing from poor medicare recipients by classifying them as employees.
Point two, peddle your straw men elsewhere. What the hell does drug testing of welfare recipients have to do with the SEIU stealing $ from medicaid recipients.
Point three. Seriously?
I justified nothing, I simply told you what the situation is in Michigan. I actually even posted that I did not agree with what they were doing. Is that too much for you to wrap your mind around?.....that I do NOT agree with this, if it is as reported? I am wondering why even try to have a discussion with you if you attack someone who actually agreed with you......well, actually you decided that I didn't and attacked me for that.
I guess you thought answering the question about drug testing would put you in an untenable position on this, that's OK, I understand. Drug testing has a lot to do with this, it's the state government deciding that they can make up requirements for people simply because they are getting public money. If they can say anyone who gets public money must have a drug test, then they can say anyone who gets public money for their children are state employees and are a member of the union. I disagree with both, you declined to answer.
Yes seriously, do you have a link to an unbiased web site for this story or don't you?
As for the insults....keep em coming, it says a whole lot more about what kind of poster you are than it does about me.
edited to add....I almost forgot....the SEIU is not stealing from welfare recipients if indeed they are classified as state employees. It is that classification that allowed the SEIU to charge them union dues. A technicality, sure, but the one that makes it all possible and that was a government classification, not the Unions doing. Yeah.....a democrat did it.....surprise, I don't agree with everything every democrat does.[/quote]
Seriously archer - an unbiased web site? One free of any and all biases? I challenge you to name one' just one, that meets that standard given that each and every author possess a bias that, consciously or unconsciously, weaves itself into the fabric of all that they pen.
The presence of this situation, state charity program funds being subjected to levies of union dues, is in and of itself an outrage and exhibit one in a prima facia case as to why closed shops in government employment, and beyond that a traditional collective bargaining environment, should never exist.
How else can a union screw people? Perhaps if you were to win the lottery but are a union member they are entitled to dues also? The point I'm working towards it that a recipient of support , be it health, food, or whatever ought not be subject to union dues. Are the not supposed to be collected on income instead of benefits. Yes, I understand the technicality of the situation. It is the principle that is out of whack. If such a law exists it needs to be changed.
Rockdoc Franz wrote: How else can a union screw people? Perhaps if you were to win the lottery but are a union member they are entitled to dues also? The point I'm working towards it that a recipient of support , be it health, food, or whatever ought not be subject to union dues. Are the not supposed to be collected on income instead of benefits. Yes, I understand the technicality of the situation. It is the principle that is out of whack. If such a law exists it needs to be changed.
Since it's a Michigan law, voted on by Michigan's representatives, it's really none of your business whether it "needs to be changed" or not...is it.... If you believe in changing it that strongly, I suppose you could donate some money to the Michigan GOP to help them overturn it.
Lord knows, I've donated money to overturn bad GOP laws in at least three different states.
Which says nothing regarding your view of the policy LJ. Do you believe that public charity funds should be subject to a levy of union dues? Would you support or oppose a similar policy in the state in which you are a citizen?
I think it is small minded of me but I have to admit that I enjoy when the leftists make fools of yourselves.
