HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Trumka: Obama Showed He H...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 10:38 PM

Trumka: Obama Showed He Hears People Not Heard by 1%


http://blog.aflcio.org/2012/01/24/trumka-obama-made-clear-hes-a-friend-of-the-99/

by Tula Connell, Jan 24, 2012

President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address tonight made clear that he hears the people who aren’t being heard by the 1 percent, says AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka. Obama’s speech showed he “listened to the single mom working two jobs to get by, to the out-of-work construction worker, to the retired factory worker, to the student serving coffee to help pay for college.”

By laying out a vision of an America that can create jobs and prosperity for all instead of wealth for the few, Trumka said the president “voiced the aspirations and concerns of those who are too often ignored.”

Obama also made clear that the era of the 1 percent getting rich by looting the economy, rather than creating jobs, is over.

“Now it’s time for Congress to stop standing in the way of rebuilding our country and act,” Trumka said.

FULL story at link.



22 replies, 3909 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 22 replies Author Time Post
Reply Trumka: Obama Showed He Hears People Not Heard by 1% (Original post)
Omaha Steve Jan 2012 OP
DJ13 Jan 2012 #1
RBInMaine Jan 2012 #8
Skittles Jan 2012 #9
Armin-A Jan 2012 #10
Skittles Jan 2012 #11
SemperEadem Jan 2012 #12
vaberella Jan 2012 #13
CBHagman Jan 2012 #14
vaberella Jan 2012 #17
CBHagman Jan 2012 #18
vaberella Jan 2012 #19
CBHagman Jan 2012 #21
vaberella Jan 2012 #22
Stuckinthebush Jan 2012 #16
alp227 Jan 2012 #2
joshcryer Jan 2012 #3
TBF Jan 2012 #5
JJW Jan 2012 #4
TBF Jan 2012 #6
JJW Jan 2012 #7
quaker bill Jan 2012 #15
mackattack Jan 2012 #20

Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 10:41 PM

1. Every four years he hears them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DJ13 (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 11:59 PM

8. He hears them EVERY DAY and if I had a month I could list the legislation he's passed or fought for

to prove it. Enough of this HYPERBOLIC PURIST EXTREMIST NONSENSE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RBInMaine (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 25, 2012, 12:00 AM

9. bullshit

he certainly listens more come election time

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 25, 2012, 01:33 AM

10. not arguing for or against but doesn't everyone listen more during election time?

look at newts commercials the last month for an example

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armin-A (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 25, 2012, 01:37 AM

11. it's PAINFULLY obvious with some folk

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 25, 2012, 05:31 AM

12. all politicians feign that they listen more come election time

that's part of the shtick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 25, 2012, 06:57 AM

13. You think so...?!

Tell that to Native Americans, Peurto Rico, Aids research, women in general, the military, seniors, and anyone getting unemployment. That is definitely stuff he waited for election time to pass even though they happened during the first, second, and third year of his office. You'd be very alone in your prespective. Thank the Gods.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vaberella (Reply #13)

Wed Jan 25, 2012, 07:17 AM

14. "Women in general"?

"You'd be very alone in your perspective"?

And you base this on what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CBHagman (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 26, 2012, 07:38 AM

17. Would I be...I think not. A quick search on Ms. Will give you amazing insight.

When I listed Native American, this directly extends to Native American Women.

Tribal Law & Order Act: http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2010/07/29/obama-signs-act-to-empower-native-americans-to-fight-rape/

Obama extends birth control coverage so the health care bill makes all health insurance companies provide BC meds...this was the most recent one: http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012/01/20/victory-obama-stands-up-to-bishops-and-protects-birth-control-coverage/

Obama admin removes definition of "foricable rape" : http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012/01/06/finally-finally-fbis-forcible-rape-definition-is-officially-history/

Obama admin stopped funding of abstinence only program (although there is legislation to bring it back): http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2011/12/22/abstinence-only-its-baaack/

Repeal of DADT affects lesbian women in the armed forces.

Lily Ledbetter Act and so on and so forth. And when there is a bill put out there that is passed and benefits American citizens- half that population is women.

This doesn't even count the fact that the Obama administration has more women in high profile governmental positions than any other before him.

Yet you and a few others shit on that. You claim there are women who don't see that. If that's the case there are one too many uneducated women in America, which saddens me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vaberella (Reply #17)

Thu Jan 26, 2012, 02:51 PM

18. I read your post as a put-down of the Obama administration.

Your original post:

Tell that to Native Americans, Peurto Rico, Aids research, women in general, the military, seniors, and anyone getting unemployment. That is definitely stuff he waited for election time to pass even though they happened during the first, second, and third year of his office. You'd be very alone in your prespective. Thank the Gods.

It wasn't clear what you meant. Quite a few women are angry that HHS didn't approve the morning-after pill for over-the-counter-purchase by teenagers. I thought perhaps you were suggesting the Obama administration had let women down.

If you'd just said that the repeal of DADT, the Lily Ledbetter Act, and so forth had passed over the course of several years, rather than using the term they, which could have referred to Native Americans Puerto Rico, women, et al, I would have understood the intention of your post.

However, in your second post, you write:

Yet you and a few others shit on that. You claim there are women who don't see that. If that's the case there are one too many uneducated women in America, which saddens me.

"Yet you and a few others shit on that." No, I asked you a question. There's no need to make false assertions or insult fellow DUers.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CBHagman (Reply #18)

Thu Jan 26, 2012, 04:01 PM

19. Actually the post you quote...is sarcasm.

The poster I was responding too has found all Obama has done is wrong and sees nothing good from his Presidency. That's why I took the tone. I found that your questioning my statement as someone who supports the aforementioned poster. Hence my tone in the second post. It's irritating. This volley has gone back and forth since DU2.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vaberella (Reply #19)

Thu Jan 26, 2012, 07:37 PM

21. But at present you don't actually know what or whom I support.

You also don't know what my position is on the Obama administration or whether I read (or subscribe to) Ms.

Now, to your latest post:

The poster I was responding too has found all Obama has done is wrong and sees nothing good from his Presidency. That's why I took the tone. I found that your questioning my statement as someone who supports the aforementioned poster. Hence my tone in the second post. It's irritating. This volley has gone back and forth since DU2.

You "found"? Do you mean you passed judgment? Or that you had the mistaken impression that I was putting down the Obama administration?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CBHagman (Reply #21)

Fri Jan 27, 2012, 03:53 AM

22. I didn't care if you read it or not.

It was an FYI comment, like googling.

As for the latter... mistaken impression you were putting down the Obama admin when I mentioned women since that has happened in the past.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RBInMaine (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 25, 2012, 10:48 AM

16. True, that

The purist crap is chapping my ass too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 10:57 PM

2. of course because of Occupy Wall St & such breaking the glass with their noise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 11:01 PM

3. Where's Robb?



(Jury: Not a call out, I am honestly interested in what he thinks! )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 11:27 PM

5. He put up an OP earlier - he stands with the unions and

called for solidarity. Here's the thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002212667

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)


Response to JJW (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 11:31 PM

6. That is nonsense.

We have at best 10-12% of our populace right now - unions have been beat down to near nothing. Our only hope is in building them up again so we have leverage against capital. Which side are you on?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #6)


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Wed Jan 25, 2012, 07:40 AM

15. I agree

This will be the basic theme of the 2012 run.

He will use his accomplishments on the defense front to quickly and with few words blunt the repugs usual "dems weak on defense" argument. He will then spend the rest of the time attacking the repugs where they can't defend, on their policies that clearly favor the 1%.

He is making them run on tax cuts for the rich.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Thu Jan 26, 2012, 04:03 PM

20. "voiced the aspirations and concerns of those who are too often ignored."

 

Exactly. I for one am grateful that he listens to the concerns of the people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread