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
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)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?
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
82 replies, 13203 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (90)
ReplyReply to this post
82 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
This has nothing to do with Obama's re-election. The post is about this piece-of-shit bill
progressoid
Apr 2012
#28
I was thinking the same thing. It was during the Reagan Administration and his Voodoo economics
RC
Apr 2012
#66
MY Union decided a long time ago to support this president in his bid for another term.
Ikonoklast
Apr 2012
#23
Wow that is ironic...for a political party to repeatedly undermine their own base of support.
limpyhobbler
Apr 2012
#63
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
I'm inclined to vote for the person most likely to listen to valid criticism from the "left" ...
TahitiNut
Apr 2012
#73
True! The proof is the billions Koch Bros and Karl Rove are spending to promote Obama
emulatorloo
Apr 2012
#74
OMG! 19 corporations on the board! How come the board isn't made up completely of unions?
freshwest
Apr 2012
#32
Our party needs a progressive ass-kicking. I am sick to death of centrist & "bipartisan" BS.
mother earth
Apr 2012
#37
that's the choice - the Democratic Party has moved way to the right and the Republican party has
Douglas Carpenter
Apr 2012
#44
I agree - the GOP has become the part of an inceasingly narrowly defined belief system and the
Douglas Carpenter
Apr 2012
#79
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
I haven't asked that question since the transition team was announced.
Egalitarian Thug
Apr 2012
#53