Obama describes backlash against unions as "natural"

[spedtr90]

He has packed away those walking shoes.....

When will the "natural backlash" against CEO's result in shared sacrifice? Corporations?
When over 70% of Americans support tax increases on the wealthiest, can he not support that and push that, rather than join the assault on public employees?

"So I think it's important -- remember we talked about shared sacrifice and burden sharing. Well, this is an area where there's got to be burden sharing as well. If a public sector employee is able to retire at 55 with 80 percent of their wages, and the average public sector employee has got a 401(k) that they've just seen decline by about 20 percent and they have no idea how they're going to retire, and they're feeling burdened by a lot of taxes and they don't feel like the public sector employers are making any adjustments whatsoever to reflect the tough economic realities that are facing folks who are not protected, then there's going to be a natural backlash."

Does Obama not know public sector pensions are invested too? Does he not know most teachers' pensions are funded by teacher contributions and employer contributions made instead of paying higher salaries? That not everyone gets 80% of their wages? That public employees are also burdened by taxes? When should union workers start turning on one another based on how much they get paid or terms of their pensions?


http://blogs.govexec.com/fedblog/2011/08/obama_to_unions_i_back_you_but.php

[dennis4868]

1. and the bullshit continues....

[sudopod]

5. You could point out how the OP is wrong instead of throwing off one-liners about how mad you are. n

[placton]

62. the OP is of course, 100% right

Obamania aint enough anymore

[aggiesal]

75. A race to the bottom statement from Obama

shocks me.
"... and they don't feel like the public sector employers are making any adjustments whatsoever to reflect the tough economic realities ..."

Why can't the private sector employees start demanding from their employers better pension, medical, ... plans,
instead of having the private sector employees demand that public sector come down to their level?

Honestly, I don't think I need to hear this from the President.

Another reason why the voting public are getting disillusioned by Obama.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[w0nderer]

110. crab bucket effect

instead of helping you get a good deal this year and
saying 'good on ya' now help me get more pay next year
and you helping me next year

i'll just grab your leg and pull you down to me

animal nature

it's very hard to sell someone who has his eyes on his own immediate survival
on: 'we'll get to you next year',
he is focused on: 'me now, if not me now, not you now either'
he's using simple reasoning for short term 'getting by'
not complex planning thought for 'getting to a better place over a longer time'

sad, but either people have to loose it all
or gain a step of security (not live paycheck to paycheck) before crab bucket effect decreases

# standard disclaimer, this is based on personal observation, not official scientific research
# Mileage may vary

[Drahthaardogs]

126. Just for the record, Obama already froze all yearly salary increases for the feds for three years.

Which is about a 9% pay cut. See, the deal is, even in the best of times, feds only get a 3% or less raise. Obama cut that this year. The federal employees are "sharing in the sacrifice", how about the Wall Street Goon Club? When is it their time to share?

[aggiesal]

128. Good Call. ...

Next time Obama mentions sharing in the sacrifice, someone
should throw that back at him.

[Logical]

59. As does your lack of a intelligent response to OPs!

[sabrina 1]

98. Yes, it does, sadly, and from a Democratic President

who claimed to be a supporter of the Working class.

[julian09]

106. He supports working class not just retired class

[sabrina 1]

119. If he doesn't support Unions, he doesn't support the working

class. He supports big business from everything he's done since he took office. From education to healthcare to Social Security etc.

I have not ever seen him come out swinging for the working class. In every speech he is supporting taking more away from them. That's just how it is, I have come to expect it of him, not surprised or outgraged anymore. But definitely hoping for some solutions to having to accept that the Dem. Party leadership no longer stands up for the ordinary people, at least half of them anyhow. We have to change that.

[ixion]

2. Obama enforces the status quo narrative

big shocker there, not.

[Bluebear]

3. Those unions with their "Cadillac plans", right Mr. President?

[hifiguy]

4. The tone-deafness of this man since 1/20/09

beggars the imagination. Why does he say something so blindingly, arrogantly stupid?

The whirring sound you hear is FDR and Truman hitting 10,000 rpm in their graves.

[SusanaMontana41]

48. So THAT's what that sound is!

I thought it was from doing this too much during the past two years:

:banghead:

[B Calm]

6. Someone in the party has to run against him!

[mia]

39. I agree. Clinton? Dean? n /t

[SusanaMontana41]

49. While we're at it, let's grow better candidates at the local levels.

We truly have to be the change we want to see.

[MissDeeds]

64. I agree

His statements and policies are alarming. If he does not support the values and principles of the party, he should not represent us in 2012. I am very concerned about what he might do in the next four years, should he win re-election (which appears less and less likely). Hopefully, some of our leaders in DC are thinking the same thing.

[gratuitous]

7. Yes, let's race to the bottom

Rather than assuring all workers a floor, let's bring all the workers down to the subterranean level of the lowest and most impoverished. After all, anything's better than facing the horror (the horror, I tell you!) of asking Charlie Sheen or Paris Hilton to pay an additional three cents on the dollar on their "earnings" above a quarter million a year. Or asking investment bankers to pay taxes at the same rate as their secretaries administrative assistants do.

[elehhhhna]

8. wtf? "Others are totally screwed and a real patriot would volunteer tjoin them in dignified poverty

wtf Obama?

[DefenseLawyer]

9. The President champions the race to the bottom

This "shared sacrifice" is just code for lowering "labor costs" for business. These nearsighted buffoons don't care that they are creating a nation of serfs that can't buy a pot to piss in and thus slowly destroying the country. Next quarter profits look great though! And the dow is up! More shared sacrifice!

[whathehell]

73. +1000 n/t

[whathehell]

74. +1000 n/t

[spedtr90]

10. Public unions should only contribute to congressional races.

I contributed to Obama's 2008 campaign and all I got were these tire tracks across my hope and change T-shirt.

[SusanaMontana41]

78. That sounds like a decent strategy.

I'm putting Alan Grayson on layaway.

Welcome to DU, spedtr90!

:hi:

[sakabatou]

11. FFFUUUU-

[FiveGoodMen]

12. Well, I see the basis for a natural backlash here...

But not against the unions.

[Scuba]

13. Scuba describes backlash against Obama as WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU EXPECT?

[JDPriestly]

14. This is why I cannot campaign for Obama.

He does not know what he is talking about.

[phleshdef]

17. He obviously knows better than you.

If you don't know enough about human beings that you can't recognize that when on group has something and another group doesn't, that the group that doesn't have it usually ends up with angst against those that do, then you have no business campaigning for anyone that I'd want to see get elected.

[Goblinmonger]

27. What do public sector employees have that others don't?

Getting shit on by those not in the public sector because apparently instead of teaching America's youth I am, instead, just a parasite sucking off the public teet?

Getting significantly lower wages than my degrees would get me in the private sector?

Having to take an even lower salary so that my pension can be funded? (not like that pension is just handed to me)

How about if Obama and my fellow progressives actually let those that have the "angst" you mention know what the reality is rather than just shrugging your shoulders and saying "what can you do"?

[phleshdef]

51. Some public sector employees have it great, some have it AWFUL.

It depends a lot on the state. You are misunderstanding his statements anyway. He never said anything that suggested that public sector workers DESERVE less. He was explaining what the other side is thinking and why some of them are thinking it.

[noiretextatique]

do you mean the other side, as in PUBLIC EMPLOYEES in the house and senate?

if they give up some of their benefits first, perhaps i'd care what they think. as for private sector employees. the people who he claimed would be responsible for this imagined "backlash," i don't believe that even HE believes that nonsense. the only "backlash" that should concern him is one his is creating for himself.

[phleshdef]

104. No, I mean the other side as in misguided private sector workers who buy into this anti-public shit.

Look, its not just rhetoric coming from politicians and conservative activists. I personally have ran into a few these people myself. They are middle class, not-so politically keen, private sector workers who have been laid off and/or ended up getting a crappier job and they get bitter and ultimately decide to blame it on the government. And by association, public workers, especially the ones who have states that take good care of them, end up becoming another symbol of that bitterness.

Obama has always done the thing where he explains the point of view coming from both sides of an issue and how fear and bitterness and other factors of the human condition play into people's negative moods. He did it in his Dem convention speech in 04 (red states and blue states), he did it during the big Rev. Wright speech (white people and black people), he did it in Cairo (the west and the middle east), he did it in Germany (America and Europe) and he was doing the same god damn thing again in this speech (public sector and private sector labor). If you listen to the whole speech, its apparent that it was nothing more than that same style of trying to find a way to speak to people of different persuasions on an issue.

People on DU use to recognize this quality of Obama's speech style but nowadays it seems like they purposefully forgot that this is what he does and it was a big reason for people being attracted to his candidacy.

[RaleighNCDUer]

111. If that was what he was doing he would have gone on to explain

that the public employee he described is a MYTH.

Most public employees make less than their private sector counterparts. I've NEVER heard (in 20 years as a public employee) of a public employee retiring at 80% of pay. Most public employees are not even allowed to strike - they have 'employee associations' not unions which are only effective as a organizable voting block.

Most public employees are not federal, but are STATE employees and are subject to the whims of their state legislatures. If times get tight, and the legislature decides the save money by not funding the pension fund, the employees have NOTHING to say about it. If the legislature decides to change the terms of their health care, it gets changed and the public employees have exactly two choices - like it or lump it.

But he didn't say that. He left the onus hanging on the public employees - he wants federal employees to have the same options as most state employees - like it or lump it.

[noiretextatique]

60. dupe

[SpankMe]

105. The president should choose a different manner of speechifying.

It's true that he did not suggest that public workers deserve less. And, I agree that he was simply explaining what the other side is thinking.

But every public utterance should be tailored to show that the other side is wrong and out of step, and his words and actions should always promote Democratic values. In saying the backlash is "understandable", he's almost striking a sympathetic tone with the other side and admitting that it is a logical or legitimate perspective.

There have been some excellent points in this thread about the "race to the bottom" concept, the seeming lack of an "understandable" backlash against against CEO's and the super rich who caused the economic catastrophe, and the odd emphasis on having union workers share the sacrifice without mentioning the uber rich in the same breath.

Obama has expert speech writers. There should be wordsmithing that brutally indicts those perspectives that seek to dilute the power of the people and the worker while offering words of understanding to those who sympathize with a reduction in the status of public workers and represented labor.

[Dragonfli]

43. I know this line of thought, it is popular among Republicans:

You sir! your wife was raped going through the park at night and three others have also been raped this month.
Say, I noticed your neighbor Jerry has a wife that has avoided being raped, does this sound fair to you? We should make her take a walk at night through that park until she gets raped!
They have a lot of nerve walking around with wives that have not been physically and emotionally savaged like you and some of your other neighbors.

It is just not fair that she has not been raped like so many others, I believe she should realize the impending backlash and volunteer to reform her habits in such a way that she walks through the rapist
's woods every night until she sacrifices like all those other women have, the pain must be shared and balanced if the goal's of the rapist (and for the greater good)are to be met.

This Right wing line of thought that we should hate those that are not raped figuratively at work like many of us. It is both sick and it ignores the obvious solution where all the stout men and yes stout women (I know many dancers that could destroy your average bouncer, so I would hope for some stout woman on the crew) should instead gather together collectively and fight for the right to achieve a rape-less park for everyone.

The RW and Obama way: if some have bad working conditions low pay and few worker rights. we should level the playing field by lowering the pay , stripping the working rights, and making working conditions poorer for all those that aren't yet being raped , that will make it "fair"

MY Way: if some have bad working conditions low pay and few worker rights. work to elevate the working condition, raise the pay, and expand worker rights of those held below in the rape room of the corporations until they have working conditions equal to those that have been spared the daily rapes.

One way leads to a third world style working force, while the other leads to a strong middle class (we know this because the unions were able to do this before until the monetary royalty began dismantling unions and creating this underclass of the working poor that Obama would like to see more of (in the interests of shared sacrifice we must all turn into low wage non union serfs that will be able to compete with the Chinese pennies per hour wages with draconian and dangerous work hours and conditions.


I can't get behind his belief in shared rape over the shared prosperity that FDR and Unions spent so much blood and will to leave to us.

I just don't buy into his all boats must sink so that the yachts can become larger style of optimism, but perhaps opinions change when one becomes wealthy, perhaps those that are not also wealthy appear to them as sub-human tools that deserve their subsistence while their bodies fall apart well before retirement age.


I am not rich, and so cannot understand his turning non-union against union strategy as that strategy was designed to enrich further the already rich at the expense of people that work much harder.
People with no hopes left but the hope that the pay will only be lowered a little more, or the price of bread does not rise again next week because even one more change could mean no dinner one night a week or no chance to catch up on the rent or mortgage, or maybe this will be the week My electric is cut off. We live in fear of soon being on the streets, starving and invisible to all, as if we didn't exist.

And The Rich President thinks all workers should share in this poverty and hopelessness.

If this were not true, he would say the exact opposite, something like, "It is time to reform labor, I would like to examine how these unions are helping to create a middle class with discretionary money that they spend and release into the Economy , my purpose would be to create more of these middle class pockets by making it easier to unionize so workers will be able to bargain for some of those record high production number profits.

I would like to help all workers to get back to the place where workers whose production numbers are excellent receive raises as a share of the extra profits the workers productivity has provided the company. We should not demonize a person that works hard and has found a work environment where that hard work can enable better pay and health care. Instead we should learn from them, emulate what works and try to make the union jobs all jobs, and all boats can be raised rather than racing to the bottom of the Ocean where workers drown in poverty.

I just don't get this cold Dickensian point of view where all the money must go to the top, leaving the worker literally poor for his/her hard work. it is a cruel world where the hardworking live on subsistence wages that do not increase like the cost of living does leaving them looking at a future of homelessness for the privilege of working as a very real possibility, all the while lecturing those that are not poor yet for not being poor enough for the sacrifice to be shared by all, (except the owner investor banker and political classes, the shared sacrifice is a shared bonus for them)

[phleshdef]

52. Wow what a long, pointless, foamy mouthed piled of shit.

You lost me at rape. Your argument just turned stupid at that point.

[Dragonfli]

83. Conservatives do not understand bottom up economics, you are indeed lost sir but I had nothing to do

with it.

Get out of the trickle down "blame the union workers because they are not poor enough" mindset and my words will make sense, I wrote in English.

[bahrbearian]

112. Your argument just turned stupid.

" you have no business campaigning for anyone that I'd want to see get elected."
Alert

[WiffenPoof]

87. Love Your Line...

I can't get behind his belief in shared rape over the shared prosperity that FDR and Unions spent so much blood and will to leave to us.


Excellent!

-P

[GOTV]

57. Really? I see lots of poor conservatives and tea baggers defending the rich without angst

[liberation]

86. I don't know whats more fascinating about this post

the grammar or the condescension

[phleshdef]

15. It IS natural for people to crave what others have.

How long have you been a fucking member of humanity? He never said that unions shouldn't have nice benefits. He said its natural for people who don't have them to basically become jealous. Listen to the whole god damn speech. He strongly defended unions in that speech.

I'm sick of this Republican-esque way of overanalyzing everything the President says and making it something that it isn't.

[Marr]

20. I'm sick of the red herrings.

No one is arguing over the point you cited. They're angry because he's calling for more "sacrifice" from public employee unions, saying we all need to be ready to race to the bottom.

[spedtr90]

22. Long enough to know crave is not the same as backlash

crave - envy, desire to have

backlash - an antagonistic reaction, a strong or violent reaction

The BACKLASH against public employees, especially teachers, is not normal. It should not be considered normal. The president's comments give validation to those who have been attacking teachers and other public union members. All union benefits and pensions are not created equal and all are not superior to private sector compensation and benefits. Somehow, despite people's natural cravings, this backlash has not always existed.

[phleshdef]

23. Apparently not long enough to develop reading comprehension.

I never suggested that craving is the same thing as backlash. The backlash is BECAUSE of the craving.

[spedtr90]

25. I never said it wasn't.

Thanks for a reply without the swearing.

[phleshdef]

50. Spare me the fucking act.

[RaleighNCDUer]

116. No, the backlash is because of incessant propagandizing by people who

will NEVER in their lives be poor enough to worry about what public employees make.

[shanti]

24. isn't that funny

i never heard anything like this until about 5 years ago, when schwarzenegger was attacking our unions here in cali. now everyone's jumped on the bullshit bandwagon.

ps-if you crave something, you don't get jealous and angry, you GO OUT AND GET IT YOURSELF!

[Goblinmonger]

29. We pay for those beneifts.

They aren't handed to us. THAT is what pisses me off. Everyone bitches about public sector employees but try talk to them about deferred benefits and they just won't even listen.

[we can do it]

66. EXACTLY and the SOB Will Not Get Another Minute of My Time Working On His Campaign

[phleshdef]

107. I don't believe Obama or anyone here ever suggested otherwise.

But the truth is, some states have screwed their budgeting up so bad for such a long time, they didn't do the work of legislatively anticipating everything they need to support their own public sectors and now they are looking at coming up short. Regardless of what state workers pay out of their paychecks for benefits and pensions, the bottom is line the state workers themselves are also supported on publically raised revenue and the benefits they receive have to be partially paid for with that same money. If states don't do what they need to be doing in terms of keeping that revenue where it needs to be, then they end up ultimately screwing up their entire public sector by slowly breaking their own bank.

No matter how unfair it may seem, the sad truth is if states screw up their own budgets bad enough, they will have no choice but to stop paying for things that they need and/or should be paying for... at least until they have time to wake up and do the right thing.

Now don't get me wrong, some of these governors are pretending they are in the dire situation that I've described in order to justify screwing over public workers, because its a liberal interest group and therefore "must be destroyed". Thats not the case for all the states that are cutting back on their public sector though. Some of them really don't have a better choice right now.

[NashVegas]

35. We've Gone Beyond That Now - We Want to Destroy Fair-Gotten Benefits of People Like Us

Who wanted to retire securely without knee-capping anyone.

And this frenzy is all whipped up in the game of politics - it's disgusting.

[Lorien]

56. Pure and absolute bullshit. See post #55. nt

[whathehell]

81. So who's telling these "naturally" envious non-union workers that they can't form their own union?

It's like refusing to look for work but complaining

because someone with a job earns a paycheck.:shrug:

[phleshdef]

109. I never said their envy was justified.

Natural doesn't always imply "good" or "okay".

For example, I naturally want to assault Sean Hannity with a large blunt object. And I'm sure if President Obama had to give a speech on it, he'd do a good job at explaining how and why I arrived at such a position. But that doesn't mean its the right thing for me to do. You can empathize with someone without ultimately approving of the silly conclusions they settle on.

[whathehell]

118. but your making excuses for them and for Obama, who, by the way,

could have HELPED the cause of unions by endorsing

and umm..actually "fighting" for The Employee Free

Choice Act he gave lip service to when he was campaigning.

Obama's nothing but a repuke in Dem's clothing, IMO.

[Brickbat]

16. He's normalizing it himself! Jesus Christ!

[FiveGoodMen]

19. That's what he's there for.

[Brickbat]

21. That much is clear.

[amborin]

33. +1000 blasphemous statements

[county worker]

18. Hey how about a little get real truth here?

If Obama said those things he is repeating already discredited talking points. The only ones who can retire at 50 or so and get 80% of there salary are fire fighters and fist responders who have worked 30 yrs or so at the same job.

There are relatively few people if any who fit that description. But it is used as if all public sector workers can retire at 50 with a 80% pension. That is pitting the working class against each other.

Now if Obama was a real progressive he would have said that we should fight for better working conditions for everyone not reduce those that remain after all the past union busting.


Here is our new union/county contract we are to vote on.

Thinks to notice:
No salary increase I reduction for term of contract.
Forty hours of furlough per year of the agreement (without pay)
Eliminate 2.5% salary adjustment scheduled to be received June 2011


We will probably accept this but it does give us some sacrificing to do.




• Term: Open — September 5, 2011 through June 23, 2013.
Salary:
• No salary increase I reduction for term of contract.
• Forty hours of furlough per year of the agreement.
• Eliminate 2.5% salary adjustment scheduled to be received June 2011.
• Freeze merit / performance based increases for the term of the contract.
Benefits:
• Existing Medical Insurance Language — Status Quo.
• Existing Unit Cash allowance remains at current level — Status Quo.
• Unit Cash: Willing to eliminate $20 increase scheduled to be received June 2011 - Status Quo
• Vacation Cash Out: Willing to accept County’s Language.
• Overtime: Sick Leave not considered as hours worked for purposes of overtime. All other leaves
vacation, comp, holiday and furlough hours will continue to be considered hours worked for the
purposes of overtime.
• County Health Stat Clinics: Spouse I Domestic Partner will be able to use Health Stat Clinics effective
January 1, 2012. To be documented by letter of understanding between the parties.
• Vacation Caps: Increase by 2% 20%. Drop
• Voluntary Time Off: Under Consideration.
• No partial use of leave balances — TA
Retirement existing employees:
• Eliminate employer $25 offset: Willing to eliminate retirement offset contingent on 2,0% cap on
increase to retiree COLA Normal.
• Vacation Conversion: TA
• Post-Employment COLA Cost: Willing to accept that employees will pick up ¼ of retirement COLA
cost increase for COLA Normal only effective 6/25/2012 with a 2.0% Cap.
Retirement Future employees:
• Formula: 2% @ 61 ¼ Contingent on overall agreement. Effective 6/25/2012.
• Half Rates: Willing to accept County’s June 16, 201L-
• Reduce Post retirement COLA from 3% to 2%. Willing to agree.
• Eliminate employer $25 offset: Willing to eliminate retirement offset contingent on 2.0% cap on
increase to retiree COLA NormaL
• FAS 3: willing to accept.
• Eliminate County funded retiree medical program for future employees: Willing to accept contingent
on 2.0% cap of Cola Normal.
• Post-Employment COLA Cost: Willing to accept that employees will pick up V2 of retirement COLA
cost increase for COLA Normal only effective 6/25/2fll2 with a 2,0% Cap.
Other Union proposals
• Schedules: Willing to accept the County’s conceptual agreement.
• Telecommuting: Willing to accept the County’s conceptual agreement.
• Union Family Leave Proposal: Willing to agree with including Step Parent & Step Child in
immediate Family.
• Appeal of EPR’ Ability to appeal EPR to mediation for ess than satisfactory. Willing to T/A

[SammyWinstonJack]

26. Setting workers against one another to save the greedy rich from

having to pony up their fair share. He sucks!

[we can do it]

67. Pretty Much.

[mmonk]

28. Only natural to those programmed to place blame on them.

[EFerrari]

30. Obama thinks Republican talking points are natural, may that's his problem. n/t

[scarletwoman]

31. Bingo. Maybe Obama doesn't see it as a problem, but I sure do!

[amborin]

32. given today's union-bashing climate, those remarks are irresponsible

[scarletwoman]

34. Thanks for nothing, Obama, again.

I mean, :wtf:!

[highplainsdem]

36. Is he trying to guarantee he'll have no union support?

[Hydra]

37. He thinks they have nowhere to go

This is playing with fire. If no one in the dem party thinks they're being heard, they WILL leave and look at other options.

[mvd]

41. And that is a shame, taking advantage of the base like that

I haven't been impressed, but feel I have nowhere to go. The Repukes are either extreme or crazily nuts. I do not think a Primary will do anything unless it's a big name like Dean or Hillary, and I don't feel that they will get involved. At least this time. I'm not enthused, and that can also have an effect. The only way I will completely sour on the President is if we get all spending cuts from the commission of 12 (including entitlement cuts) with no revenue increases.

[Dragonfli]

97. Luckily the talk is that they will seek revenue by flattening the tax a bit

Thus "widening" the tax base in order to lower the top rates while bringing in more from the broadened base (that means more lower income taxes, those that pay nothing because they are to poor will be taxed as well thus broadening the base.)

I guess you could say this is revenue increase, personally I like progressive taxation, but unfortunately if anything, the top rates are slated to be lowered and payed for by this flatter broader base.
This approach to me is ass backwards as I believe tax relief should go to those that can't live on what they make, I also believe upper brackets need their taxes raised, but that is not what they are talking about.

Listen for the buzz words "broadening the tax base" and "a flatter tax"

The approach has been touted because it is what the catfood commission was working on regarding taxes, lower top rates, broader tax base.

Tell me, if that is how they end up going, could you support that type of revenue increase? (personally I can't support it because as I said, I believe in progressive taxation, but I am curios what your take is.)

[julian09]

108. Alot of Fire and Police unions go republican

[GeorgeGist]

38. Tragic ...

the man has become.

[Bozita]

40. The bus is boarding now-Have your tickets ready-The bus is boarding now-Have your tickets ready-...

Change that's happening now.

[Bluebear]

46. !!

[Plucketeer]

82. Perxactly! nt

[BlueCheese]

42. "...they're feeling burdened by a lot of taxes..."

Of course, tax rates are historically low right now, but let's feed the right-wing meme that taxes are too high, while we're at it.

[upi402]

44. Well yeah, he's against workers and FOR corporations and the rich

And still they hate his butt with venom. Sad. No matter what he does, they hate him. And I bet they enjoy it as he pisses on us while trying to appease them.

[Necronomiconomics]

45. Unions are more important than ANY president

[Bluebear]

47. Quite the Profile there!

[_ed_]

53. Obama continues to use Republican framing for all his

arguments. At what point do we just call a spade a spade and say he's a conservative?

[ecstatic]

54. The reading comprehension around here has taken a big dive

Since when does explaining human nature count as a rejection of unions? This is no different than describing the backlash against the rich or politicians as natural. Tough times breed resentment and jealousy targeted at certain groups.

[Lorien]

55. That's NOT "human nature"; that's GOP framing and misdirection. Learn

to recognize when they are YANKING YOUR CHAIN! NO ONE was attacking teachers and other union workers until the teabaggers targeted them. Remember the decades before this one? Teachers and other union workers were considered among the most noble of hard working Americans. Obama JOINED the teabaggers by legitimizing their bullshit arguments. He is helping to turn decades worth of well earned respect for difficult, low pay jobs into misdirected and delusional hatred while his pals on Wall Street rob us all blind!!

[Bluebear]

58. Oh I know, everyone is so stupid!

:silly:

[liberation]

88. LEAVE OBAMA ALONE!!!!

:cry:

[Bluebear]

103. Can't you read?????

:cry:

[Fearless]

92. Yes, how dare union workers demand fair wages. How dare they demand security...

Food... health care... and a roof over their heads. How fucking dare they pick the pockets of their wealthy masters.

[blindpig]

61. Natural for the capitalists and those manipulated by them. n/t

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kctim]

71. True

but you gotta admit that watching all the headline lemmings jumping to conclusions is kind of funny and entertaining.

[we can do it]

65. OMG...I AM So Done With the Man

[Fearless]

68. He can fuck himself and the entire DLC.

[Marrah_G]

69. It's like listening to a repuke talking

[B Calm]

72. He fooled a lot of us. He's a republican and needs to go!

[begin_within]

70. Obama doesn't get it and never will. He's set for life and so is is family.

The Clintons never got it and never will either.

[Jakes Progress]

76. Obama keeps opening him mouth, but reagan keeps talking.

[pam4water]

80. +1

[whathehell]

77. What's "natural" in the case of non-union workers resenting union workers is that

the non-union workers unionize THEMSELVES instead

of being jealous of the workers who were smart enough

to form unions in the first place.

[loyalsister]

90. Unionizing at McDonald's?

Or working for independent contractors? There is a bit of privilege in having a job with existing unions. I think Obama was pointing out that people who do not have the same opportunities legitimately envy those job opportunities.

Union workers don't always feel their privilege but to be able to have a job with an existing union is very much a privilege compared to someone who would have to put in endless amounts of time to try to form a union.

Interesting how giving credence to the experiences of one average joe makes another angry.

[whathehell]

93. You can attempt to unionize anywhere.

"Union workers don't always feel their privilege but to be able to have a job with an existing union is very much a privilege compared to someone who would have to put in endless amounts of time to try to form a union".

Union workers are hardly "privileged" -- They pay union dues and WORKED to form their unions, or at least their forbears did. "Existing" unions did not always exist...THEY had to "put in endless amounts of time to try and form a union" and that's what they did.

For God's sake, read some Labor history...Some people lost more than time, they lost their LIVES trying to get the eight hour day and other "privileges" even we non-union workers now enjoy.

[loyalsister]

100. I understand labor history

I also have friends who would consider themselves extremely lucky to get a job at Ford because it has more reliability, benefits, and higher pay than construction.

Yes it was a long struggle to form unions. In todays world (the one in which we live) unions are a long standing institution that not everyone has access to. There are many people who get paid what they get paid, and don't have health care, or retirement plans who most certainly do see those things as a privilege. With your awareness of labor history, I assume you know how much easier said than done it is to organize a union.

Is there really no way to consider their POV valid?

[whathehell]

115. I'm sorry, I'm not buying it

"Today's world" was not always "today's world"...It was yesterday's, the day before that and years before that...Why didn't these

people organize for unions then?...The benefits of unions are WELL known and have been for some time and no, organizing one has never been "easy"

not now, not then, but it's a LOT more productive than whining about your neighbor because he or she has a bit more than you do.

As for Obama, he might have made it a lot easier for these people had he ever bothered to support The Employee Free Choice Act,

otherwise known as "Card Check".

No, all that said, I do NOT consider that POV valid...and the fact that

Obama is hawking it, just reinforces the idea that he's a Republican in Dem's clothing.

[loyalsister]

121. Turning the working class against each other seems to be working

nt

[whathehell]

123. You are the one who seems to "understand" it.

[loyalsister]

127. Here's what I understand

I am dirt poor living in public housing on disability and am privileged to have medicare. There are hard working people who desperately need health care.
There are homeless people who would love to have my place to live.

I also think it sucks that there is a work penalty and I lose the $1000\month meds I need if I earn money. I have worked it out, so that I am satisfied doing volunteer work and am very frugal.

I have neighbors who deeply resent people with secure jobs because they are stuck with a work penalty.
At the same time, there are people who are trying to earn a living who would love to have my place because it is income based and I don't pay utilities.
People are prone to envy what they don't have particularly if they think it would make their lives better.

Obama acknowledges the various experiences and is accused of being anti- union.

It is the republicans' attack on unions has people fighting against each other so much that they aren't taking a broad view outside of their experience.

[whathehell]

129. I get where you're coming from,

and I heartily agree with you that the "work penalty" in your situation sucks, and I hope that your situation gets better,

and I understand your point that "hardship" is perceived in relative terms.

The reason, IMO, that Obama is being accused of being "anti-union" is not just because of that comment,

but because of his weak support for unions all along -- He did NOT come out and support the workers in Wisconsin

last winter, as he said he would in the campaign, he barely offered even LIP service to them...On top of that, he failed

to champion the Employee Free Choice Act. Given that record, the remarks he's made recently, are perceived as the "last straw" for a lot of us.

He is clearly NOT at all strong in his support for unions and people are pissed off about it.

[loyalsister]

130. I can see that POV

I know that having a unionized job is a way of life. And, I can see how people would feel like that is under attack.

I guess I am defensive, because those of us who have disabilities have finally been acknowledged. We have been recognized as valued stake holders for the first time in history. This DOJ is finally making enforcement of the ADA a priority. The president himself has met with advocates. And, he signed an international treaty on disability rights. These are the things that bring our population closer to more widespread employment - the labor participation is at 29% Unemployment= 16.8% I fall into the 70% category of not participating because searching would be counterproductive. I've got it pretty good, though because I do enjoy the volunteer work I do.

So, there has been some privilege in the attention the administration has given to us in contrast to that offered unions.
In that context, I see where people like me - who believe in equal opportunity- must be sure to be on the side of union members. It is up to people like you and me to have civil conversations to hopefully come together in our goals.
Thanks for talking with me. I do try to keep fairness in mind when I form my opinions.

[whathehell]

131. Thanks, loyalsister, for talking to me.

I can see that you value fairness and I very much like your open, non-defensive approach.

Like you, I believe, like you, that it is important to have civil conversations.

They can be rare around here sometimes, and I am as guilty as anyone of keeping it that way.

Thanks for being a better example.:pals:

[John Agar]

79. WHY is he out there saying this SHIT?

UNDERMINING public sector unions and workers while they are under assault from puke governors and legislators across the country!

Is this the DEMOCRATIC party president, or Scott Walker speaking?

I'm just about done with this, AND with him.

[Initech]

84. That's it. I've had it. I'm so sick of "shared sacrifice" I could puke.

[peace frog]

85. Obama makes the statement to prove once again

that he doesn't care about being re-elected. Good thing for him but WTH does it leave us.

[Fearless]

89. How about the backlash against him? Turns out liberals don't like being told to shut up.

[caseymoz]

91. If this is Obama's best defense of workers . . .

I could see him coming out of this with lower approval ratings.

Can it be clearer that Obama is not really failing, that he's actually succeeding in not defending the middle and lower classes?

[reggie the dog]

94. we get this shit from the righ wing in France

the left actually still defends our unions and our public sector jobs and says that labor laws need to change so the that private sector can have better conditions and they also point to lower salaries in the public sector then in the private sector in exchange for job security etc.

[mzmolly]

95. He's not saying it's appropriate.

One would think that matters.

[whatsitworthtoyou]

99. Where are the cuts going to come from?

Our debtors want major reform. This includes cutting trillions from the budget. Obviously federal employees need to be part of the package here. Perhaps he is prepping them for the inevitable?

[orbitalman]

101. K & R

[susanwy]

102. With all due respect....Mr. President

I am a public sector employee and I have sacrificed. We don't have a union and have to pay into our pension fund for the first time starting last year - I'm okay with that, many private sector employees have no defined benefit plans at all anymore.

My pension and my public 427b (like a 401k, but has no employer matching) is invested in the stock market and I lost a great deal since 2008 and the last month. My boss left for the private sector for a 30% raise over what he was making in the public sector. Really, if you figure salary against benefits, I think we are even - with my ex-boss making a little more doing roughly the same job. Only he isn't overworked because his company is fully staffed and I had to take over his duties in the public sector because our department eliminated his position to save money, shorting our department by one full-time employee. This makes our right-wing legislature happy because we are "cutting government". Never mind it takes me twice as long to get all my work done now and my time still costs money. Contractors with whom I deal with for work also make 30% more than I do, but again, I get a defined pension plan.

Private sector workers who have defined pension plans (the ones that are left) are penalized for taking early retirement too, why is that a valid argument? With their average salaries 30% more than mine, maybe they can save more and retire at 80% of their wages too. So what? Is that a crime? I know of very few public sector employees that take early retirement anyway because the cost of health care will kill them and eat up 50% of that 80% of wages.

Please, we are not the problem and really the wheels rolling over me under the bus hurt. Back to work - break time is over - oh I suppose private sector employees don't get breaks, do I have to give that up to to "sacrifice".

Susan

[GETPLANING]

113. It's like he's being advised by Club For Growth

[Hart2008]

114. And those of us who disagree with that are just a bunch of "Firebaggers"...

Obama Campaign Staffer Sends Out Email Bashing Paul Krugman And The 'Firebagger Lefty Blogosphere':
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/17/new-mexico-ofa-firebagger-lefty-blogosphere_n_929231.html

:grr::nuke::grr::nuke::grr::nuke::grr::nuke::grr::nuke::grr::nuke::grr::nuke::grr::nuke::grr::nuke::grr::nuke::grr::nuke::grr::nuke::grr:

[Omaha Steve]

117. I started with the city full time at age 40 after 10 years part time & NO benefits with LOW pay!

I have to work till I'm 65 to get HALF pay. I also work for less than the going rate by several dollars an hour because state law doesn't let us get a fair comparison. Nebraska was one of the first states to pass right t work laws too.

The average worker changes jobs every 7 years BTW. So a pension for long years of service for less than average pay are not out of line.

K&R!

[lanlady]

120. PLEASE stop this ridiculous war against public servants

I am not government myself, but I work day in and day out with fed employees at Defense, IRS, HHS, and Veterans. They are hard-working and dedicated. They have families just like the rest of us, and mortgages, and bills, and tuitions to pay for their children, and elderly parents to care for. They don't live in mansions and don't travel in private jets. They're not even allowed to travel in business class.

They're working stiffs like the rest of us.

This GOP war on public servants that Obama seems to have bought into (quelle surprise. Not.) is a proxy war on the middle class of this country.

[whathehell]

124. You are correct, Madam....It is a war against the middle class. Period.

[smiley_glad_hands]

122. Cannot deny the fact that folks out there perceive what he is describing?

I don't like it and know its not true, but that is the perception about public employees, including teachers. They have something that other folks don't, jobs.....

When one thinks of teaching, the first thing that comes to mind is getting summers off. That's not true for all teachers either.

I have to say that Obama has befuddled me as well on many issues, but I also know that republicans haven't made his job easy. He has to maintain a center that the media lets the republicans keep moving to the right.

He continues to have my support though.

[whathehell]

125. The folks out there "perceive" a lot of things...That doesn't mean one should reinforce BS

as Obama is doing.:eyes:

[Proles]

132. Sigh... sometimes I wish he'd stop saying things. nt