It’s now been almost four full years that Barack Obama has been running for office against George Bush. Yes, some of us (almost all on the right) know that George Bush hasn’t been on the political scene, let alone been President, for 18 months. None the less, President Obama (isn’t that odd how he carries the title “President” but still doesn’t know that George Bush isn’t?) continues to campaign against George Bush.
During his campaign stop on Wednesday with the AFL-CIO Executive Council, he pledged his commitment to rebuild the economy (I wonder if VP Biden knows this as he’s already told us we’ll have 500,000 new jobs each month and that this is “Recovery Summer”), that he was not “giving up or giving in” and he was going to change the direction from:
at least eight years in which there was a profound animosity towards the notion of unions.
Well, if “profound animosity towards the notion of unions” is what kept our unemployment rate under 5%, a GDP that was the envy of the world, the ability if not to shrink the deficit, at least keep up with the ridiculous Washington spending, then I’d have to say, “bring it on!”
Instead of “profound animosity towards the notion of unions,” President Obama has shown himself to have profound animosity towards all forms of employment or enterprise that do not include unions. When it came to the union shops i.e. GM, Chrysler et al, President obama rushed into the burning buildings to save his constituents. In every other effort regarding the economy, you can determine President Obama’s position in advance by determining what would be the best solution in a free market, and take the opposite!
Even if it was proved true that George Bush had “profound animosity towards the notion of unions,” I would take that back in a hearbeat over the profound animosity that President Obama has shown towards the 87.7% of us workers who can manage employment without paying a monthly allotment towards protection money.
“Well, if “profound animosity towards the notion of unions” is what kept our unemployment rate under 5%, a GDP that was the envy of the world, the ability if not to shrink the deficit, at least keep up with the ridiculous Washington spending, then I’d have to say, “bring it on!””
Uh…Interesting.
Ya really think de-unionization brought us sub-5% unemployment and a GDP that was the envy of the world?
Really?
Really, really?
GDP growth during the Bush years averaged just south of 2.5%.
And deficit/GDP was about 0% in 2000 and a touch over 8.3% at the end of 2008 (give or take).
Are you saying stuff just because it sounds good?
Strupp;
While the damaging effect of unions on the free market is obvious and inarguable, the biggest problem with them right now is how they are being showered with legislative gifts and special privileges in return for massive political contributions and guaranteed voting blocs. Further, it is the greed of the unions (who make Wall Street look like pikers) which has spiraled government employee costs out of control and will soon be responsible for the financial collapse of at least two states, with many more on the way.
I consider this to be a Bad Thing and hence do not regard unions, as they currently exist, as good for our country.
Hey fine. You’re oversimplifying big time but fine.
All i’m saying is that “profound animosity towards the notion of unions” did not keep our unemployment rate under 5%, provide solid growth and magically balance the budget over the last 10 years. That’s crap.
Which was my point.
Well of course it wasn’t. Nor was that my point. It was however, the link that Obama was attempting to make