Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Peter_Puget

  • Birthday 09/12/1980


  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Peter_Puget's Achievements


Gumby (1/14)



  1. Peter_Puget

    He guys!

    Who cares about politics when catchers and pitchers report next week!!!!!
  2. Peter_Puget

    He guys!

    I came here to catch up an the latest election year news and its sadly missing!
  3. Sorry OW. Oddly the first singer for Airplane , Signe Anderson, died the same Day.
  4. Of course! What an awesome show. Let's catch the ranger game earlier in the evening. A SODO pub club
  5. Wasn't it originally "Liberty, Equality, Brotherhood or Death" In any event if France hadn't occupied the Ruhr perhaps the Maginot line's effrectivenss would have been a moot point.
  6. I agree Oly. There should be plenty of money to ensure costs are covered. So Jim I checked out your link and do wonder what you think about foxes prior claims regarding breast cancer: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/experts-fracking-critics-bad-science-161628123--finance.html Or how he represented flaming faucets
  7. A perfect case of government fuck up and a great case for private ownership. Here's another interesting link http://www.nber.org/papers/w21624
  8. he seems to be missing the basic point, and I'm stumped as to how to make it simpler about 2$ a month is deducted from my paycheck and goes to a state-based organization called WEA-PAC - they use that to pay lobbyists, interview candidates, issue recommendations (political action as commonly understood) - I have no access to that money and limited ability to say what it'll be used for. about 14$ goes to my local union. I have complete access to that money (as a member of our executive board) and can do a great many things with it, non of which involve political action as it would commonly be understand. it funds scholarships, pays officer stipends, buys snacks for rep council meetings, pays for social events, etc. none of that 14$ gets punted up to the state-level. Ivan I assume youre on the lookout for double entry bookkeeping. Keep up the good work.
  9. Ok I've been busy but I am back. Apparently Ive been a bit unclear as well. That said you are very clearly saying that I am claiming there is double-entry book keeping going on. (Kinda like the teamsters!?!?!?!?) That reinforces the fact that I have not been simple enough. Here is the definition of double entry bookkeeping: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/double-entry.asp Peace
  10. maybe I am missing something but I did as you requested. for comparison I used a $71K AGI and the tax tables from the 1040 2008 taxes paid for single - about $14K taxes paid for married file jointly about $10.4K 2014 taxes paid for single $13.6K taxes paid for single $9.7K Looks to me like your taxes went down during our socialist muslim prez term! Your analysis shows a $400 reduction (for a single) 2014 TO 2008 but I think you've swallowed the Koolaid and frankly I am surprised Mr. science didnt pick up on your error. CPI All Cities Average = 644. CPI 2014 average = 709.
  11. Well several actually - 1) The subsidy reduces the dues required to support the local leaving those with strong union proclivities with more money to finance political activities. This occurs even if you believe the fairy tale that there is a strong firewall between political and non political union activities. 2) Go back several posts and you will see the following: Peter said – A post or so later Ivan appeared to agree with everything but #5. The local was voting for a “fake” strike. The strike was fake in large part due to #2 in bold above. As I mentioned earlier politics is all pervasive.
  12. again, that's simply wrong - agency shop fees go to my local union (only 400 members) b/c we're the one that actually negotiate the contract and work to ensure it's followed our local union's budget doesn't cover anything traditionally considered political - it's doesn't pay for political advertising, contribute to political campaigns, tell the membership how to vote, etc. local members who want to opt-in to that action have to join WEA-PAC. We can go one and on but my position is simply “Anything supporting more than the marginal costs supports other activities.” This seems so self-evident that further discussion is just chatter. My guess is that the fees are not less than the marginal expense resulting from a new agency teacher to the extent they are over the agency teachers subsidize the other members.
  13. Was this a response to my use of “supply & demand”? If so I was suggesting that if there was an unmet demand for teachers (IE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTOF VACANIES) then we would have as strong case for districts paying under market. Of course you may argue that the wage is below the level required for quality teachers. In that case I wonder why the union hasn’t been actively pointing this out and trying to help identify the bad teachers. I wasnt making this arguement. I have heard the number of substitutes has been going down
  14. not true, for several reasons: 1. no one has to be part of the union if they don't want to, they can "opt out" - my district has several "agency fee payers" who pay no dues, but do have to pay a yearly fee for the contract negotiation we do on their behalf. Ah but agency fees are mandated and they are paid to the union. So they are compelled by law to support the union. 2.most of what a local union does is non-political (at least as it is commonly understood) - we negotiate a contract - we oversee the implementation of the contract - we deal with issues between members and management - we run a scholarship program for kids - we have social events - we put on professional trainings Not sure what your who this relates to my claim 3. the political part of the union (called WEA-PAC) is an "opt in" situation - this is the part that hires lobbyists, puts out political ads, interviews candidates for elections, and issues recommendations to voters on how to vote - folks who don't to be in the union at all don't pay for the politics part - members who don't want to be involved politically don't pay - just members who choose to be involved are part of WEA-PAC (about 75% of my 400 members) Just wondering if the costs associated with the strike are considered non-political. Again this doesnt refute my claim The idea that agency fees doesnt help support political activities is absurd. Anything supporting more than the marginl costs supports other activites. Further in the politicized enviroment in which we pooperate (ie one where union support of elected officials buys their freedom to break laws) the political is all pervasive. By the way check out the Davenport case for grins. Here's a link. Note how fast thelaws change when you, like the WEA, have the $$$$: http://washingtonstatewire.com/blog/dues-and-donts-wea-pays-1-7-million-in-states-biggest-campaign-violation-case/
  • Create New...