Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

paulk

(11,586 posts)
Thu Apr 5, 2012, 01:00 PM Apr 2012

you kind of have to ask yourself - "whose side is Obama on?" [View all]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/05/obama-jobs-act-labor_n_1404401.html?ref=politics

"Obama JOBS Act Leaves Labor Fuming In Democratic Feud "



"The JOBS Act -- short for Jumpstart Our Business Start-Ups Act -- was birthed in late-January by Obama's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, a group whose membership provides some insight into the administration's loyalties and priorities.

Of the two slots Obama awarded to labor unions on the 27-seat council, one was filled by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka. The 19 corporate executives included the heads of GE, Intel, Citigroup, Xerox, Boeing and American Express. Investment managers, lawyers and academics make up the remainder.

The jobs council recommended lowering the corporate tax rate and easing federal regulations across the board -- sweeping proposals with little chance of being enacted during an election year. But one of its suggestions had political potential: making it easier for growing private companies to sell stock to the public, a process known as an initial public offering. By attracting more funding, the council surmised, these enterprises could expand their operations and hire more workers.

While Obama and, to a lesser extent, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) are eager for a bipartisan photo-op, no JOBS Act supporters are trumpeting the number of jobs the legislation will create -- a notable PR omission in an era when lawmakers rarely hesitate to tout rosy employment projections.

Trumka publicly criticized the jobs council's report. He refused to sign off on it and boycotted a January meeting with Obama presenting the recommendations."

----------------


Sure doesn't seem to be labor's side....

I guess that's ok for the "new" Democratic Party - you know the one that increasingly resembles the pre-Reagan era Republican Party. Labor just isn't that important of a constituency any more. And who, after all, are they going to support? They'll end up supporting the Dem ticket this November because there is no where else to turn. Right?



82 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
These Democrats are the only game in town. Autumn Apr 2012 #1
Hasn't that been the plan all along? tex-wyo-dem Apr 2012 #62
I agree with everything you said Autumn Apr 2012 #75
it's funny paulk Apr 2012 #76
There was certainly a pretense... tex-wyo-dem Apr 2012 #81
It's amazing ProSense Apr 2012 #2
My rep, Nancy Pelosi, voted for it too. nt AtomicKitten Apr 2012 #4
after criticizing it paulk Apr 2012 #6
She thinks it's innocuous unlike the hair-on-fire folks AtomicKitten Apr 2012 #11
you always need to make it personal, don't you? paulk Apr 2012 #25
Bad Logic makes her upset. That is what it says. nt stevenleser Apr 2012 #54
makes Nancy upset? paulk Apr 2012 #55
the important point is not the bill necessarily paulk Apr 2012 #5
Really? ProSense Apr 2012 #8
More ProSense Apr 2012 #10
like I point out in the OP paulk Apr 2012 #12
Oh please ProSense Apr 2012 #14
Oh please paulk Apr 2012 #18
Wow ProSense Apr 2012 #20
Oh, and ProSense Apr 2012 #22
lolz Yeah, unions are just powerless powder puffs! JNelson6563 Apr 2012 #64
This has nothing to do with Obama's re-election. The post is about this piece-of-shit bill progressoid Apr 2012 #28
Our leaders can be as politic as anyone else bread_and_roses Apr 2012 #65
priorities marshall gaines Apr 2012 #38
So are you saying? zipplewrath Apr 2012 #15
pre-reagan? bart95 Apr 2012 #3
I agree, I have them pegged as early to mid nineties Republican-like Dragonfli Apr 2012 #19
I was thinking the same thing. It was during the Reagan Administration and his Voodoo economics RC Apr 2012 #66
I'd have to ask the same of you paulk. Swede Apr 2012 #7
Seems to me he is on Labors side, where Obama should be. Autumn Apr 2012 #9
what "Autumn" said paulk Apr 2012 #13
Post removed Post removed Apr 2012 #17
Shhhhh! That wasn't supposed to be common knowledge. Tarheel_Dem Apr 2012 #26
If there's proof, we should post it. nt msanthrope Apr 2012 #33
if it's "common knowledge" then I suggest you provide proof paulk Apr 2012 #34
Post removed Post removed Apr 2012 #39
They won't offer proof, just like the republicans they Autumn Apr 2012 #45
I could say that I'm surprised at the depths some of these people will go paulk Apr 2012 #52
MY Union decided a long time ago to support this president in his bid for another term. Ikonoklast Apr 2012 #23
I belonged to a union for 20 years paulk Apr 2012 #27
And there is the irony. progressoid Apr 2012 #31
Wow that is ironic...for a political party to repeatedly undermine their own base of support. limpyhobbler Apr 2012 #63
This message was self-deleted by its author countryjake Apr 2012 #47
'no criticize party' bart95 Apr 2012 #16
it would be nice if someone could provide a timeframe where it would be acceptable.. frylock Apr 2012 #35
Hey pal, that thirty seconds of meany mean bashing could suppress a vote somewhere. Dragonfli Apr 2012 #61
+1...nt SidDithers Apr 2012 #72
You don't have to ask yourself which side Rmoney is on. KamaAina Apr 2012 #21
I'm inclined to vote for the person most likely to listen to valid criticism from the "left" ... TahitiNut Apr 2012 #73
Yep... Once Again The White House Screwed The Pooch... WillyT Apr 2012 #24
The side with the biggest donors. LetTimmySmoke Apr 2012 #29
+1 harun Apr 2012 #40
Yup. SammyWinstonJack Apr 2012 #67
True! The proof is the billions Koch Bros and Karl Rove are spending to promote Obama emulatorloo Apr 2012 #74
but when it comes to corporations vs unions paulk Apr 2012 #77
"new" democratic party? how about the democratic party NOT run by liberals pasto76 Apr 2012 #30
OMG! 19 corporations on the board! How come the board isn't made up completely of unions? freshwest Apr 2012 #32
"We are disappointed -- and angry" progressoid Apr 2012 #36
Our party needs a progressive ass-kicking. I am sick to death of centrist & "bipartisan" BS. mother earth Apr 2012 #37
+1. anti-alec Apr 2012 #41
They are certainly guilty...love your moniker. :) mother earth Apr 2012 #43
How strange... chervilant Apr 2012 #42
that's the choice - the Democratic Party has moved way to the right and the Republican party has Douglas Carpenter Apr 2012 #44
And that is very useful, indeed, for those who own both of them. woo me with science Apr 2012 #48
yeah that's true. But what the hell else do we do? Douglas Carpenter Apr 2012 #56
Occupy, woo me with science Apr 2012 #60
the problem with the Democratic Party paulk Apr 2012 #78
I agree - the GOP has become the part of an inceasingly narrowly defined belief system and the Douglas Carpenter Apr 2012 #79
Again? n/t jtuck004 Apr 2012 #46
This is the new politics, and it really is brilliant. woo me with science Apr 2012 #49
I think only die hard democrats refuse to get it..everyone else gets it but doesn't know what to do xiamiam Apr 2012 #57
It's an airtight racket. nt Poll_Blind Apr 2012 #58
Du rec. Nt xchrom Apr 2012 #50
not on the side of labor. KG Apr 2012 #51
I haven't asked that question since the transition team was announced. Egalitarian Thug Apr 2012 #53
They'll end up supporting the Dem ticket this November because there is no where else to turn. ThomThom Apr 2012 #59
Like most of us Doctor_J Apr 2012 #68
He sold us out on health care, war crimes, torture, Doctor_J Apr 2012 #69
Kick woo me with science Apr 2012 #70
K & R Better Believe It Apr 2012 #71
Now is not the time to point fingers. Stop picking on this president. Hotler Apr 2012 #80
around here upi402 Apr 2012 #82
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»you kind of have to ask y...