**Obama’s Promised March With Union Workers Fails to Materialize (yet another broken promise!)

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e2db5df957d2.jpg[/atsimg]
Barack Obama and AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka

When candidate Obama was campaigning in South Carolina in 2007, he said he was proud to wear the “union label” and that if workers were denied rights to organize or collectively bargain when he was elected, “I'll put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself, I'll will walk on that picket line with you as president of the United States of America.”

But as the protests over collective bargaining rights drag out in Wisconsin, President Obama has yet to join the demonstrators outside the Capitol building in Madison, and it appears his administration is trying not to get involved in the fight. White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett says what’s happening in Wisconsin is not a national fight. “Let’s not turn what’s really a Wisconsin issue into a Washington issue,” Jarrett told Fox News in an interview Tuesday.

But as the battle drags on in Wisconsin, the White House finds itself trying to explain why the president seemed to enter the fray when he told a local reporter in Wisconsin the collective bargaining issue in the Badger State seemed like “an assault on unions.”

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, who was not working for Obama in 2007, but was on the job last week when the president made the “assault” comment to WTMJ in Milwaukee, says the president used the interview as an opportunity to be heard on an issue, but refused to elaborate on either the 2007 statement or the president’s most recent comments. Instead, Carney chose to focus on how the whole country should be “living within their means.”

Source: www.foxnews.com...
Link to The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978: www.dol.gov...

WOW, sure sounds good-from the White House folks that is. Pssstttt..... here is the real reason:

I will start with the piece that I read that starts it all:

Union Power for Thee, But Not for Me
If the president is so upset with Wisconsin's labor law reforms, why won't he allow federal workers to bargain collectively?
online.wsj.com...

The Skinny of it: It will no doubt surprise you to learn that President Obama, the great patron of the working man, also happens to be the great CEO of one of the least union-friendly shop floors in the nation.

The union horde is spreading, from Madison to Indianapolis to a state capital near you. And yet the Democratic and union bigwigs engineering the outrage haven't directed their angry multitudes at what is arguably the most "hostile workplace" in the nation: Washington, D.C.

This is, after all, the president who has berated Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's proposal to limit the collective bargaining rights of public employees, calling the very idea an "assault on unions." This is also the president who has sicced his political arm, Organizing for America, on Madison, allowing the group to fill buses and plan rallies. Ah, but it's easy to throw rocks when you live in a stone (White) house.

Fact: President Obama is the boss of a civil work force that numbers up to two million (excluding postal workers and uniformed military).

Fact: Those federal workers cannot bargain for wages or benefits. Fact: Washington, D.C. is, in the purest sense, a "right to work zone." Federal employees are not compelled to join a union, nor to pay union dues.

Fact: Neither Mr. Obama, nor the prior Democratic majority, ever acted to give their union chums a better federal deal.

Scott Walker, eat your heart out.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b3379b3d31df.jpg[/atsimg]

For this enormous flexibility in managing his work force, Mr. Obama can thank his own party. In 1978, Democratic President Jimmy Carter, backed by a Democratic Congress, passed the Civil Service Reform Act. Washington had already established its General Schedule (GS) classification and pay system for workers. The 1978 bill went further, focused as it was on worker accountability and performance. It severely proscribed the issues over which employees could bargain, as well as prohibited compulsory union support.

Democrats weren't then (and aren't now) about to let their federal employees dictate pay. The GS system, as well as the president and Congress, sees to that. Nor were they about to let workers touch health-care or retirement plans. Unions are instead limited to bargaining over personnel employment practices such as whether employees are allowed to wear beards, or whether the government must pay to clean uniforms. These demands matter, though they are hardly the sort to break the federal bank.

Which is precisely the point. Washington politicians may not know much, but they know power—in particular, the art of keeping it. Even Carter Democrats understood the difference between being in electoral debt to the unions, and being outright owned by them. And as Gov. Walker will attest, allowing unions to collectively bargain over pay and benefits is allowing them the keys to the statehouse.

Okay you Obama supporters- read this and get back to me/us.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c14b68eadc84.jpg[/atsimg]
(not for much longer.....)

Here's one for you. The Difference between a Real Democrat and a Socialist type of Modern Democrat:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cab8171933d8.jpg[/atsimg]

Have a great weekend !!

Yep. In the last two months, I've decided that the romance is definitely gone from this relationship. The white house's outright support for autocratic regimes, the hypocritical sanctioning of Libya, and of course this whole "Herp derp whuzza yoon-yun?" act has told me that this horse is lame.

Of course, that lame horse is still the only one making any distance; all the other contenders are falling over and peeing themselves.

However, that last cartoon of yours, and the commentary you give on it, is rather ridiculous. Especially if you're trying to pretend you're pro-union for federal employees.

reply to post by anon72


Don't you LOVE the hypocrisy?

But then again those democrats are very supportive of the Unions as long as it doesn't cut into their PROFITS


Anyone else find it very ironic that the "people's party" the democrats, has ten out of 13 of the top wealthest members of Congress??? I thought it was SUPPOSED to be the Republicans!

The 50 Richest Members of Congress (2010)


1. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.)
$188.37 million

2. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)
$160.05 million

3. Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.)
$152.62 million

4. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)
$81.50 million

5. Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas)
$73.75 million

6. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.)
$70.19 million

7. Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.)
$56.49 million

8. Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.)
$55.47 million

9. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.)
$49.70 million

10. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)
$46.07 million

11. Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.)
$31.41 million

12. Rep. Harry Teague (D-N.M.)
$25.52 million

13. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)
$21.74 million
.
.
.
.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Well, I am not in support of Federal Unions, either.

So, how am I wrong about my comment to that.

You think the FDR democrate is the same as the ones today-Obama included?

reply to post by anon72


Yeah well, I am. Workers have rights, no matter who the employer is.

Asking if Obama is different from FDR is like asking of cheddar cheese is different from a lawn chair. Of course they're different, but that fact is pretty irrelevant to anything. The nation is a very different place from where it was seventy years ago, the political systems have mutated drastically, and the culture has shifted dramatically.

If we to bring FDR back from the dead and put him in office today, he'd probably be completely useless on all counts.

Say anything to get elected it isn't necessarily what you say it is what you do in life that counts. As Union workers march on the various state capitols of this country the price of gas and oil are sky rocketing. Beneath the Rocky Mountains there are 2 trillion barrels of potential oil setting there to be extracted and in North Dakota and Montana another half Trillion barrels beneath the surface 25 times the reserves in the middle east.

Who are you going to complain to when food prices are so high you can no longer feed your family. Can you say pay down the debt and can you say no more dependence on foreign oil or is it run this country into the ground. Yes we can use hydrogen but it takes time to change over in the mean time drill baby drill. ^Y^

Sorry, the prez couldn't attend your political statement because
he was out putting his I won a nobel peace prize stickers
on the bumper
of his brand new tank.


you'll note he has started no new trade unions in afghanistan or iraq.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

FDR back from the dead and put him in office today...

If FDR was brought back he should be brought up on charges of the largest theft in history!

In 1934, gold was confiscated from US citizens, melted from coins into bars, and placed in the storage facility at Ft Knox, Kentucky. Presidential Executive Order 6102: Gold Hoarding

By 1949, Ft Knox stored 69.9% of all the gold in the world

At least 79% of official US gold left the nation in exchange for paper dollars which were printed by the Banksters.

The remaining gold is poor quality or worse gold plated tungsten bars.

FDR aided the Banksters THEFT of the wealth of an ENTIRE NATION

References:
www.lewrockwell.com...
Largest Private Refinery Discovers Gold-Plated Tungsten Bar
The New Deal and Roosevelt's Seizure of Gold: A Legacy of Theft and Inflation

I am not a big fan of Unions, I believe that Unions destroyed the economy in Michigan.

As far as an Obama broken promise, it's not broken till the end of the picket. But I realistically seriously doubt that Obama will be putting on running shoes and marching along side these people.

I am of the opinion that government and state employees should not be allowed to be in a Union, I include police and fire departments in this, I think that is wrong and I don't think thats fair to the people of the state that these people are employed by.

If a private company has a Union, that's one thing, I still don't agree with Unions, I think that pay and benefits should be based on performance and not because someone has punched a clock for 20 years. But government employees? No, I don't agree with the Unions of on this issue, I don't believe they should have the right to collective bargaining when it's the tax payer dollars that are paying their salary and I don't think that the POTUS will be marching with these people.

Unions didn't destroy Michigan's economy. That is an incredibly myopic view.

Without unions, we would still have child labor factories, people would regularly die in workplace accidents, there would be no minimum wage, and there would be entire swathes of the US covered in tent covered shanty towns. And you'd probably be living there.

No surprise any more that Obama doesn't do what he said.
He hasn't done ANYTHING he said.
He's the ultimate bullshi**er.
Just like W. Just like Clinton and Reagan.

reply to post by anon72


I have a question about these demonstrations against this Union bill.

Non-Union Plumber: $100

Union Plumber: $175

A percentage of this $75 goes to the big hotshots that run the unions, they are very corrupt, are they not?

Or,

I hated my small California town's highschool. Many of my teachers were "dead in the water", no passion, waiting for retirement or riding the Union's tail. They could not be fired or transfered because of Union laws, so I and my school was stuck with them. An alcoholic P.E teacher who slept in his office and woke up with stains on his sweatpants, a pilled out English teacher, a stoned science teacher, and an art teacher who was finally caught molesting her younger students.

Is this the Union that they are defending? What is actually going on with this bill in specific?

I am not proposing a debate, I am merely trying to find out more about this.

Originally posted by anon72
Okay you Obama supporters- read this and get back to me/us.

You rang?

My political bent is no secret here and I'll admit I am VERY DISAPPOINTED that the POTUS has not made good on his promise to stand tall with the Union workers. No howevers, no buts, no justification.

Only to add that given the ONLY TWO choices I had to vote in 2008 I stand by my decision. Heck even in my local town, there are 5 people running for Mayor. I wish we had as many choices for President. And also this the 2nd strike, the first being response to Gulf Oil Disaster. Benefit of doubt extended until Strike 3, (troop draw down in Iraq?) then I'll be considering a new voter registration card. As I frequently quote:

When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken, or cease to be honest. --Unknown

Regards...kk

Not too hard to realize he failed in his promise keeping...here is a website to keep track of them!!

www.politifact.com...

reply to post by kinda kurious


Why did you have only two choices? In addition to Obama and McCain, there was Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney and maybe more plus whomever you might write in. There were choices, most just seem to make the wrong choices election after election.

Much of this post is trying to blame Obama for the state of affairs and status quuo as he inherited it. He's already spoken several times with support for the WI workers, but I think he's walking a fine line with leaving WI to sort out it's own affairs. As of right now I doubt he, as president, will be doing anything other than keeping an eye on the situation with Libya. We have a number of our ships there keeping an eye on things and personnel evacuating.

To the OP, are you saying you want to see Obama lead federal employees to create unions? Or are you blaming him for the fact that they don't already have them? Why don't you put the blame on Reagan for busting those 30 years ago. As far as supporting them, Obama does enough, how is this even a "broken promise", because he's not picketing at the WI capitol?

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by anon72

 

Don't you LOVE the hypocrisy?

But then again those democrats are very supportive of the Unions as long as it doesn't cut into their PROFITS

Anyone else find it very ironic that the "people's party" the democrats, has ten out of 13 of the top wealthest members of Congress??? I thought it was SUPPOSED to be the Republicans!

The 50 Richest Members of Congress (2010)


1. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.)
$188.37 million

2. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)
$160.05 million

3. Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.)
$152.62 million

4. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)
$81.50 million

5. Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas)
$73.75 million

6. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.)
$70.19 million

7. Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.)
$56.49 million

8. Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.)
$55.47 million

9. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.)
$49.70 million

10. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)
$46.07 million

11. Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.)
$31.41 million

12. Rep. Harry Teague (D-N.M.)
$25.52 million

13. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)
$21.74 million
.
.
.
.

Can you explain to me how those people got that rich?

Does it pay that much being a member of congress?

reply to post by St-Patrick


Kerry married money, the heiress of the Heinz family. He made his money the old-fashioned way, he married it.

reply to post by PplVSNWO


You are indeed correct.

Perhaps I should have said [b[viable

reply to post by crimvelvet


Hi CV. While I do not dispute your facts regarding 10 of top 13 wealthiest as being Democrats it is worth pointing out this from YOUR LINK:

But while it’s all based on a version of the truth — the annual financial disclosure reports that Members must file each year — none of it is necessarily accurate.

And to add of Top 50:

Republican = 22
Democrat = 28

Not exactly an overwhelming majority. Just sayin' for clarity.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Don't even get me started on that slime bucket Kerry.

Another shame. Someone who could have done so much more-better for the people but..... no.

Another rich, arogant SOB.

I hope he runs again so he can get the snot kicked out of him again. How he keeps getting elected befuddles me (and logic) IMO