Union Thuggery: AFL-CIO Speaks Out Against… Our Military Vets?

Apparently, the haters at the AFL-CIO decided that military veterans shouldn’t be allowed to take jobs offered by Walmart.

Recently Walmart announced a program to hire 100,000 military vets as a “welcome home” gift when they return from service. This brought the anti-veterans at the left-wing, anti-business union to the height of pique.

In a new statement, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka–a man with a long history of violence and murder–took a stand against our veterans.

Walmart’s recent announcement of a plan to hire returning honorably discharged veterans is more about public relations than honoring our heroes. That this effort was valorized by President Obama and Vice President Biden reflects an acceptance of economic failure out of line with America’s history or future.

We owe it to our returning veterans to make sure they are treated as the heroes they are, rather than as symbols used to “greenwash” Walmart’s eroding brand. After facing enemies abroad, is an $8.81 an hour part-time job the best we can offer returning veterans?

Already, working families and our economy are struggling against an epidemic of low-paying, low-benefit, part-time work. Instead of legitimizing that trend, we need to treat the talents of our veterans—and of all of America’s people—as a critical national resource.

We need businesses in this country to step up and make family-sustaining jobs available to returning veterans. Previous generations of heroes returned from overseas service to critical jobs in manufacturing, construction and public service, jobs that enabled veterans to help build the nation and support families. With the right policies, including those in President Obama and Vice President Biden’s American Jobs Act, we can live up to the standards of our past and empower our veterans for the future.

I see. So, who cares if it is a publicity stunt? The vets STILL have the jobs.

This is just evidence that murder suspect Trumka is so filled with hate that he can’t even accept a good thing if it is conducted by a business–especially his hated Walmart.

Unionism means not having to be a human being.

New 'Explosives' License Impinges on Gun Owners that Load Own Ammo
Store Owner Installs $350K of Surveillance to Stop Frivolous Lawsuits
  • Union (thug) leader Trimka (the thug is silent) is the poster child for all that is wrong with unions today …

  • GarandFan

    How many jobs as Dickless Trumka created?

    • 7… for the illegal aliens on the yard crew for his mansion.

  • jim_m

    It isn’t a job if the left can’t control it.

    • Brucehenry

      It isn’t a GOOD job if it pays $8.81 an hour. Which was Trumka’s point.

      • jim_m

        Then maybe he should pay his picketers something higher than minimum wage.

        So instead, the union hires unemployed people at the minimum wage—$8.25 an hour—to walk picket lines.

        Now to be fair the UBC is no longer affiliated with the AFL-CIO, but this is common practice among unions, to hire non-union labor at sub union wages and with no union benefits. These guys don’t believe in paying others what they are demanding. This fact is an admission that what they demand is a bunch of BS and that their demands are ultimately unsustainable for nearly any business.

        If what they demanded was fair and sustainable they would not hesitate to offer it to their own employees.

        As for Walmart, they offer jobs that also come with a potential career path, most union jobs do not.

      • On the hierarchy of needs, it’s a lot better to have $8.81 an hour than $0.00 an hour. Having ANY job while looking for another means to the potential employer that you aren’t some deadbeat looking to pad out his unemployment.

        • Brucehenry

          Fine. Trumka’s point still stands:

          “We owe it to our returning veterans to treat them as the heroes they are, rather than as symbols used to ‘greenwash’ Walmart’s eroding brand. After facing enemies abroad, is an $8.81 an hour part time job the best we can offer returning veterans?

          Already, working families and our economy are struggling against an epidemic of low-wage, low-benefit, part-time work. INSTEAD OF LEGITIMIZING THAT TREND, we need to treat the talents of our veterans — and of all of America’s people — as a critical national resource.”

          It’s fine that Walmart will prioritize hiring to give veterans an advantage in being hired. But it IS a publicity stunt, and Trumka was making a larger point about the economy. I say he can be forgiven for his cynicism about Walmart and those lionizing it.

          P.S. Warner calling Trumka a “murder suspect” is dishonest, and typical of him. And how Trumka’s remarks can be characterized as “speaking out against our military vets” is a mystery, at least to me. What about you?

          • jim_m

            No it doesn’t. If the cost of labor becomes too high then the jobs disappear. So if the choice is minimum wage or nothing then the choice is between taking the job vs starving vs supporting a fascist/communist government that controls the work force. We understand that you support the last choice.

            If your complaint is that wages are too low, then the answer is not wage controls that strangle businesses and productivity, but to promote a growing economy and an expanding job market. Only by increasing the need for labor will you increase wages in a sustainable way. You and your lefty friends in the unions and the dem party are for forcing increased wages in an unsustainable way that will ultimately crush the economy and the job market.

            Oh…. And minimum wage is not the best this country can offer our veterans. There are plenty of jobs that require skills that pay more than minimum wage. The argument you and Trumka are trying to make is that minimum wage is all ANY vets are getting. That is simply false. If they have the right skills they can and do get paid more. The stereotype you and Trumka are pushing is a lie.

          • Brucehenry

            Do you see me calling for wage controls?

            I don’t know what the solution is, but it’s not allowing a few companies to dominate the labor market and hold wages down, then patting them on the back when they paternally deign to grant a few of those crappy jobs to the very veterans who have kept their supply lines safe for them.

            And if our only choice is between “minimum wage and nothing” then I’m glad there IS a minimum wage, something “free-market” champions like Warner and yourself think is silly froofroo.

            EDIT: Also, too, why we still need unions:http://wonkette.com/515810/friday-nice-time-hugo-chavez-gets-fired-strawberry-pickers-their-jobs-back#more-515810

          • jim_m

            I work for one of the largest employers in Illinois. I can guarantee you that Walmart is not holding anyone hostage by suppressing wages. The whole attack Walmart because it is evil meme is ridiculously stupid. No wonder lefties fall for it constantly.

            There would be a lot more jobs if we would quit fussing with the minimum wage. We are heading into summer and soon we will be hearing all the lefty sob stories about how there are no jobs for teens so they can get some work experience. You and your lefty buddies are directly to blame for that.

          • Brucehenry

            So because you work for a large employer you know about any and all matters relating to business/labor issues?

            It’s fairly simple. If the largest private employer in the country is paying minimum wage then all its competitors, already struggling to keep up with it on price, must pay minimum wage, too. As a general rule, that is.

            Given that our choice now is “minimum wage or nothing,” what do you suppose our choice would be if there WAS no minimum wage?

          • jim_m

            No. The point which I meant to include but left out is that my employer, with its 90,000 some employees, does not have very many minimum wage employees and the idea that Walmart is suppressing wages is obscenely silly. And yes, we are hiring.

            If there was no minimum wage? There would be choices of where to work and employers would compete for workers. Where employers needed better workers they would pay a little more. What you have done is eliminate any differences between jobs where employers just need a warm body and don’t care about quality of work or customer service and jobs where employers do care but the value of the work is very low. So what you have achieved is eliminating any incentive for people at the low end of the wage scale to care or try to do well (unless, like Walmart, you give them a career path from that starting point.)

          • Brucehenry

            Yes because low end workers were so much better off before there was a minimum wage law. Why, many of them were earning almost a dollar a day! Of course, that was when employers had to compete for the best ones!

            What advocates for throwing out minimum wage laws forget is that one gets hungry every day, and pretty soon one WILL accept starvation wages rather than, you know, die, or let one’s kids die. An employer doesn’t have to hold off hiring for very long before he has the whip hand.

          • jim_m

            Yes because low end workers were so much better off before there was a minimum wage law

            Since you obviously have not noticed, the world has changed somewhat since October 24, 1938. Your idiotic assertion that employers have not changed, the country has not changed, and that the culture has not changed is beyond stupid. If that is all your argument stands on I suggest that you should be sitting down.

          • Brucehenry

            One of the ways the world has changed is that we now have minimum wage laws. All civilized countries do. And partly as a result, to whatever degree, people are better off now than before they were implemented.

            Also, too, only your strawman made those idiotic assertions, not me.

          • jim_m

            No. All countries where there is some degree of socialism have such laws. Your statement comes with the implicit claim that civilization started in 1938. You’re being stupid.

          • Brucehenry

            Want to name a civilized country that doesn’t have a minimum wage law?

            Also, I love how you create strawmen by asserting that someone else is making an “implicit” claim.

          • jim_m

            Minimum wage is not a sign of civilization, that’s all. Nor is it necessarily a sign of sensible government. It does not serve to elevate anyone out of poverty but it does price people out of the labor market and force employers to hire fewer workers.

            The truth of the matter is that thugs like Trumka want to increase the minimum wage because they tie their union contracts to it, making union wages a multiple of the minimum wage. An increase in the minimum wage means higher union salaries, meaning increased union dues, meaning increased donations to the dems.

            That is in reality the only reason to increase the minimum wage today: corruption.

          • Brucehenry

            Oh, well, now that you’ve explained it all so clearly I see your point.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes, there ARE plenty of jobs that require skills that pay more than minimum wage. However, they’re all filled.

            That’s why the unemployment rate is high. That’s why Walmart is offering entry-level jobs to veterans.

          • So if the choice is no job, or a entry-level job…

            You know, if what’s being done doesn’t work – and I’d argue that a high unemployment rate 4-5 years after the ‘Stimulus’ was passed, with 9 to 10 million people officially ‘leaving the work force’ is an indication that whatever the Obama administration is doing, it isn’t working to create jobs – then you need to try something different.

            Assuming, that is, that the administration IS actively looking to create jobs.

            BTW, looks like the Keystone pipeline decision has been delayed AGAIN.


            Focused like a laser on creating jobs, isn’t he?

          • Brucehenry

            Remember that the last few months of the Bush administration the economy was losing hundreds of thousands of jobs per month. Since the Stimulus the unemployment rate has slowly inched down. Republicans want to return to the Bushian policies for creating jobs — tax cuts for the rich, etc — which arguably didn’t help much either.

            One of the many reasons for the slow recovery is the divided nature of the policies our government is pursuing. One one hand you have the Fed pursuing an expansionary monetary policy and on the other you have the deficit-obsessed Congress pursuing “austerity” –which can be seen by the example of the European Union NOT TO WORK.

          • jim_m

            Please supply evidence that any improvement in the rate of unemployment is due to the stimulus (and anecdotal stories that a company hired people is not evidence of an impact on the economy as a whole).

            More effective in suppressing the economy than either of the two items you mentioned are the anti-business rhetoric of the administration and the dramatic increase in taxation and regulatory burden.

          • Brucehenry

            All assertions based on opinions, as are mine.

          • Brucehenry

            OK, here’s some graphic evidence, albeit from a biased source (FOX News, via a lefty blog I rarely visit:)http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/tag/bikini-graph/

          • jim_m

            It’s a bullshit lefty blog and the first clue to that is that it talks about “Budget Deficits”. Please tell us all about the budgets obama has passed in the last 4 years.

            In fact this idiot talks about a Budget surplus and then presents negative numbers. You really have to be pretty freaking ignorant to think that a multi trillion dollar negative number is a surplus.

            [edit]Who cares if any given month has a surplus when the whole year is more than a trillion dollars in the red. Only a leftist fool would think that this is meaningful

          • Brucehenry

            Well, many blogs have used the term “budget deficits” over the past few years, on both the left and the right. Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney used the term many times during the campaign. Everyone understands what they mean — except the ones being deliberately obtuse.

            That’s not to say that the Political Carnival isn’t a lefty blog — it is. But the bikini graph constitutes at least partial evidence of what you asked for, no matter where I found it. You can find the same graph lots of places.

          • jim_m

            Or we could just look at what obama said unemployment would do with and without his stimulus and what it really did with it. Your lord and savior actually delayed economic recovery not hastened it. With that in mind I would argue that any recovery is in spite of obama and not because of anything he has done.

            Saying that obama is responsible for saving our economy is like saying Megele did us a service by advancing the understanding of twins.

            [edit] and remember, the only reason unemployment looks half way decent is because the labor force is at a 45 year low.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes, I agree that unemployment is still too high. However, Obama didn’t know when he made his prediction that the focus of Congress would still, 4 years later, be on “austerity” and not, you know, something that would actually help reduce unemployment.

            But our little pissing match is just evidence that one can find statistics to support pretty much any political/economic opinion. You asked for evidence to support my assertion. I supplied some.

          • jim_m

            Actually, congress has done a pretty decent job fighhting against obama’s flood of red tape. The biggest thing crushing the economy today is not an austerity congress it is obamacare. Even the congressional dems are starting to admit this. The unions have long since reached this conclusion.

            And no. You have not supplied anything but a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument. You have not shown what it is in obama’s stimulus that improved the economy. You have shown that there was a stimulus and then at some point afterward the economy improved. You have failed to show any linkage.

            On the other hand arguments have been made that increasing the minimum wage, increasing regulation, etc are ways that obama has increased the cost to business and prevented them from hiring. There is little doubt that obama has increased these costs, reduced hiring was predicted when he did it and we have evidence that there is reduced hiring.

          • Brucehenry

            The assertion that Congress “has done a pretty decent job” on ANYTHING is pretty novel, I’ll grant you that.

          • jim_m

            Ok then. Since my contention was that congress had somewhat stemmed the flood of regulation, I will grant you that Congress has done little to stop obama from implementing everything he has wanted.

            So according to your wish, obama has done everything he wanted and the economy still sucks.

            You can’t have 5% unemployment under Bush and declare it is the worst economy ever and have double that (significantly more than double if you look at real unemployment and not the bogus numbers floated by the MSM) with obama and it is the best ecnomy since the invention of the word ‘economy’. You can try to have this both ways but it just makes you look foolish.

          • Brucehenry

            Gee, I’m trying to remember declaring the Bush economy to be the worst ever or the Obama economy to be the best ever and I’m drawing a blank on when I did either.

            I’m taking a little break now, but go ahead and continue arguing with whoever it is you’re arguing with, Jim.

          • Not necessarily you, Bruce – but that was the meme in 2006 and 2008 – pushed by the Democrats as a constant drumbeat as to why we needed to trust THEM with the economy.


            Of course, what does that matter? It was so long ago… and it was effective enough to get the Dems control of the House and Senate and President Obama elected.


            “A Google News search shows that the phrase “since the 1930s” has been used 6,223 times in the last month, and the phrase “since the Great Depression” has been used more than 14,000 times in the last month, and most of these news references are comparisons of today’s economic and financial conditions to the 1930s and the Great Depression. In contrast, the phrase “since the 1980s” has been used only 1,588 times in the last month.”


            Compared to the ’80s, things were doing pretty well. But what does that matter, anyway? What was important was that the Democrats get hold of power, and implement Obamacare, which was supposed to make everything better for us all.

            Guess the definition of ‘better’ is rather variable, isn’t it?

          • Brucehenry

            Did you read your Daily Kos link beyond verifying that it said mean things about Bush? There didn’t seem, at least to the extent I skimmed it, to be a lot of factual inaccuracies or unfounded assertions in it.

            For instance, the 2001-2006 recovery was the first since the 1930s in which household income failed to grow. Productivity grew, but who realized the benefits of that? Not the workers who were more productive, but the corporations for which those workers were busting their asses.

            BTW, boohoo that mean old bloggers were comparing the Hoover II, umm, I mean the Bush II administration, to the early 1930s and not the early 1980s. Maybe they should have got better PR people.

            Look, as I mentioned to the Strawman Slayer, we can trade charts and graphs all day. The KOS link you posted was full of ’em. It still boils down to ideology, don’t it? You’ll tend accept the evidence that conforms to your worldview and reject the evidence that doesn’t. I’ll tend to do the same.

          • ” I’ll tend to do the same.”

            (Shrug.) Ok.

            Hope the rest of your Sunday’s peaceful. I get to go take my son, who just got his learner’s permit, driving.

            Pray for me, lol…

          • Brucehenry

            I feel for you, dude. My daughter and I are really close, but that phase was REALLY stressful.

            Oh, and my remark about accepting this evidence or that? Just meant to be an observation about human nature. I didn’t necessarily mean “you” and “I” literally. We both know that both “you” and “I” are absolutely fair-minded, impartial, and beyond inappropriate influence or preconceived notions.

          • LOL. I’d like to think that, but I know I’m not – which is why I try very hard to be.

            Actually, he’s not doing badly. The last couple of months I’ve been having him drive around the neighborhood, trying to build good habits. Wish I had a car with a clutch – I’d much rather him learn on one, but you make do with what you’ve got.

          • Brucehenry

            Guess it’s just me then. 😉

          • BTW, I’ve got to wonder what those charts would look like with today’s metrics added in.

            But now – off to deal with the dangers of the open road…

          • Sometimes the best thing you can hope for from Congress is complete inaction.

          • jim_m

            Or you could take a break from your delusional fantasy and take a look at the labor participation rate

            obama has done a great job of destroying jobs since he took office. Where are all those obs that his stimulus created? China and Mexico I assume.

            And don’t reply with some stupid, “it’s all Bush’s fault” excuse. If it were the case then why is the participation rate still declining when the obama economy is so great?

          • Brucehenry

            Yes I’ve noticed you guys wetting the bed about the labor participation rate for some time now, as if it’s conclusive proof that we’re becoming a nation of moochers. As usual, I’m thinking it might be a little more complicated.

            I don’t know, maybe the 2.2% drop in participation IS partially because public employees who have been trimmed because of austerity measures took early retirement and aren’t looking for work. Maybe some of it is because the work force is older than it was 5 years ago, on average, and some of them maybe wanna work less. Much of it is probably due to discouragement from long term job seekers who have given up and indeed ARE forced to get government help, no question. Some of it may be because young people aren’t finding the opportunities they used to find before the Crash of ’08, and since they haven’t worked much many don’t qualify for unemployment benefits and so don’t show up on the unemployment rate, even though they are indeed unemployed or underemployed.

            The extent to which Obama is to blame for all that is what’s in question, I guess. You have your opinion as to that extent, and I have mine. And we can both find charts, graphs, and statistics to bolster our respective cases.

            And we here in the Wizbang comment section still see two familiar situations: you, Jim, slaying strawmen (woooops, I mean “implicit claims” made by other commenters), and Warner making over-the-top allegations of someone being a “murder suspect,” unchallenged except by me.

          • jim_m

            There’s no fool like a lefty fool.

            Government jobs have gone up under obama. It is private sector jobs that have collapsed.

            Perhaps you should think before you write your next lie. It has been widely reported that the only part of the country not experiencing recession has been Washington DC because obama has so dramatically expanded government.

            And while you attempt to laugh away a 2.2% decrease in labor participation that is over 3 million jobs permanently lost.

          • Brucehenry

            I didn’t say Federal jobs, I said public employees. There have been many layoffs of state and local workers due to austerity measures. It is my understanding that, overall, public sector employment has been shrinking while private sector jobs have enjoyed a very modest growth. I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m wrong.

          • jim_m

            According to the BLS there were 154 million people employed in 2008. A decline of 2.2% is a permanent loss of 3,388,000 jobs. State and local jobs lost amounts to 621,000.

            Plus, the jobs lost by the participation rate are not all the jobs lost. THey are only a fraction of those jobs. With real unemployment closer to 12%, you could add another 12 million jobs to that pyre. So the government jobs lost are 4% of the total jobs lost (jobs lost being = # of people who have left the labor force + # of people unemployed).

            Cry me a river for all the parasites that have to find real jobs.

          • Brucehenry

            If fewer people are participating in the labor force that doesn’t mean those JOBS are permanently lost. It means that those not participating won’t get them.

            If I get laid off, and decide to just say fuck it and live on my wife’s income, and then later my company hires somebody else, that job is not “permanently lost.” See how that works?

          • jim_m

            The point being that you made the laughable claim that the decline in employment was in some way attributable primarily to the loss of state and local government jobs. It wasn’t. The enormity of the job loss dwarfs those lost from state and local government. The leftist lie that government jobs lost are in any way like the losses in the private sector has been demonstrated.

          • Brucehenry

            Nope. Never said “primarily.” I said “partially.” Or was “primarily” somehow implicit in the word “partially?” LOL.

            Here’s a non-chicken-little link for you:http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

            Here’s another, more germane to my argument:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/04/business/economy/us-adds-165000-jobs-in-april.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

          • jim_m

            OK. Nw you are saying that public employee layoffs only “partially contribute to unemployment yet above you claim:

            It is my understanding that, overall, public sector employment has been shrinking while private sector jobs have enjoyed a very modest growth

            So if private employment has been rising, it follows that increased unemployment must be entirely due to public employee layoffs.

            You can see my confusion. You are just trying to have it both ways.

          • Brucehenry

            No, I have said that public employee layoffs have partially contributed to the decrease in the participation rate. Try to follow along.

            Also, not my fault if concepts like “partially” and “entirely” confuse you.

            And it’s BLS that says private sector employment has risen and public sector employment has dropped lately, not just me.

          • jim_m

            lately. but not to recover previous losses, and if you look at the increases in private sector hiring they are tiny. In reality the graphs I’ve seen have looked rather flat and not what I would call “modest increases”.

            [edit] and it is not a problem of understanding the difference between entirely and partially. You claimed that private sector job growth was positive and that public sector job growth was negative. It follows that you were claiming that most if not all unemployment was due to public sector losses. That is not true. You still won’t even admit that much.

          • Brucehenry

            The bikini graph shows that previous losses have indeed been recovered, but I get your point.

          • jim_m

            The bikini graph is of monthly unemployment claims and job growth. Not total unemployment. You also conveniently ignore the fact that due to population growth we need 120,000 to 130,000 new jobs every month just to keep unemployment even, so what you claim are decreases in unemployment are more often than not, actually increases in unemployment.

            We are still millions of jobs short of where we would be if obama weren’t a communist bent on destroying private industry.

            Take your bikini graph and draw a line at 130,000 and then extend lines from that point and not zero THAT would be an accurate reflection of the jobs market.

            Just to stay even, the economy would have to create 6.76 million jobs since obama was inaugurated in 2008. It hasn’t done that. Don’t go crowing about what a great jobs president obama is because the facts say otherwise.

          • Brucehenry

            Good points. While we chew on them, you should review the Daily Kos link that JLawson posted. It has a lot of stuff in there about Bush that sounds like a mirror image of what you’re saying about Obama. Of course, you won’t look at it, most likely.

            And I guess if I use Warner/Jim logic, Obama really IS a “communist bent on destroying private industry” and Trumka really IS a “murder suspect.” LOL.

          • jim_m

            OK, to be fair he is only bent on destroying private industry that doesn’t pay him off, just ask Gibson Guitar. (then again you could try to convince everyone that obama has not been using the IRS to punish political opponents. Not that anyone would believe you)

          • jim_m

            As for Bush, I will say that I opposed many of his policies in his second term. The auto bailout was a mistake. The collapse of Lehman Bros was horribly mishandled. It was under Bush that the mantra of “too big to fail” was created and such thinking is horribly wrongheaded. Too big to fail is simply too big to not break up.

          • Brucehenry

            Name a few banks, many of which would still be considered “too big to fail,” that you would target for breakup, Jim.

          • jim_m

            GM was considered too big to fail. It should have been left to its creditors. My point is not to actively intervene as a preventative action (government is too incompetent to be trusted to do so ), but that such companies, hen they do fail should be allowed to. Let them fail and their assets be distributed back into the economy where they can be used again to create jobs. Large companies do a poor job of recycling resources.

          • jim_m

            I looked at the Daily Kos BS. So you think that it is epically poor job creation to have unemployment at ~5% and a record high job participation rate?

            Explain exactly how you create more jobs when you have pretty much maxed out the part of your population that is capable and willing to work and when you are at unemployment levels that have been historically considered to be as low as you can functionally make them?

            Seems to me that such a combination means that without population expansion you can’t create jobs at all. It’s a shame you know so little about the economy. It’s a bigger shame that in your ignorance you think that obama and Bush are equivalent. In order to do that you pretty much have to ignore reality.

          • Brucehenry

            My point was not to defend the accuracy of the KOS link (I never visit there, I don’t get the whole “diary” thing they do there.) It was to point out that it used lots of graphs and charts to “prove” that Bush was doing a terrible job on the economy. And also that it made the point that you made about the number of jobs needed just to keep up with population growth.

            Lefty blogs screamed about doom and gloom when Bush was in charge. Wingnut blogs do the same now. Lefty blogs were over-the-top about what was gonna happen under Bush — until they weren’t. Wingnut blogs ignore the slow improvement under Obama in their weird need to paint him as a “communist bent on destroying private industry.” I don’t think they’re gonna be proven right to the extent that Bush’s detractors were. Maybe it’s just me.

          • “Republicans want to return to the Bushian policies for creating jobs — tax cuts for the rich, etc — which arguably didn’t help much either.”

            4.4% in Nov. 2006. Bush in office, but after talking things down Democrats get control of Congress. Remember all the hysterical speeches about how the economy was doing worse than the Great Depression? And that it was all the Republicans fault?

            5% in April 2008. Lot of inertia in that economic train – it takes a while to stop it and get it turned around.

            6.8% in Nov. 2008. The high unemployment was proof a change was needed! Obama gets elected, and the Democrats have complete control.

            10% in October, 2009. How’s that control working out for ya?

            7.8% in Dec. 2012


            And the answer is continual high government spending?

            I’m thinking the Bush-era unemployment rates are looking pretty damn good right now, and that the Democrats – for all their emotive appeals and professed good intentions – don’t have a clue about how anything works outside of DC. They THINK they do, but they’ll trust someone who says what they want to hear over someone telling them they’re doing something wrong. (To be fair, that’s most politicians.)

            The economic damage done by an overconfident fool can’t be excused because ‘they really meant well for us all’.

          • Brucehenry

            I’m no economist but it always seemed to me that the “prosperity” of the Bush years was a false one, based on the housing bubble. Spending was fueled by homeowners borrowing against the value of their homes for everything from home improvements to college tuition for their kids to vacations for themselves.

            When the bottom fell out, all that liquidity melted. And sure, maybe many of the things Obama has done haven’t helped as much as hoped, and maybe he should have done some things differently. But to blame EVERYTHING on him, and nothing on Republican obstructionism since he took office and cluelessness before, is unfair and inaccurate.

            BTW, the unemployment rate in November of ’08 is hardly the only proof voters needed that a change was necessary. There were also the little matters of war-bungling, ineptitude in handling natural disasters, and the fact that both 9/11 and the Crash of ’08 happened on a GOP president’s watch for them to consider. I predicted LONG before Obama clinched the nomination that a Democrat would win in ’08. Hell a ham sandwich could have won if it ran as a Democrat in ’08. The fact that it would have been running against the ridiculous ticket of McCain and Sarah Freaking Palin was just gravy.

          • Of course a Democrat won. With the media pushing as hard as it could the line that Bush was a complete and total failure, it wasn’t surprising.

            But you’re right – you’re no economist. And not all that observant when it comes to the machinations of the political ‘elite’ – you’re pretty blind to those you favor, and focused like a microscope on the failings of those you don’t like.

            “When the bottom fell out, all that liquidity melted. and sure, maybe many of the things Obama has done haven’t helped as much as hoped, and maybe he should have done some things differently.”

            Ya THINK? And why did the bottom fall out? Could it have been because of Barney Frank (D) insisting that NO oversight of Fannie and Freddie was needed? That it was FINE for loans to be made to folks who’s practically only qualification for getting them was BREATHING? Hmmm?

            Let’s look at some early things – “Stimulus” didn’t do much, if anything, to reduce the unemployment rate.

            Cash$Clunkers – wow, what a kick in the nuts to the automobile sector of the economy THAT was. Sudden short-term spike in sales, sudden long-term drought in sales, suddenly jacked-up prices in the used car market to where poor people couldn’t afford them, all to ‘protect the environment’ by reducing CO2 in the long run. Well, the scrap yards were kind of happy – but they couldn’t strip out the motors of the ‘clunkers’ and part ’em out.

            We’re seeing Democrats retiring before Obamacare starts, with one of the main architects of that mess saying that it’s going to be a train wreck. Oh, yeah, that could have been done differently.

            A long time back, when Obama was elected, I commented something to the effect that sometimes the worst thing that can happen is to get exactly what you want.

            The Democrats wanted control – and they had control of the House and Senate until 2010 with Obama being elected in 2008. Republicans didn’t have much of a say in anything at that point – all they could try to do was put the brakes on and restrain the Democrats from causing worse damage than they’ve managed so far.

            But you know something? Keep on thinking that ‘If it wasn’t for the Republicans we’d be in really great shape right now’ – and survey the wreckage that Obama, Reid and Pelosi have managed to accomplish so far.

            And think how much MORE they could have accomplished if it hadn’t been for the Republicans holding them back.

          • Brucehenry

            Funny you mention the auto industry, which was on the verge of death when Obama took office and is much healthier now. Huge failure, huh?

          • retired.military

            Remember Bruce that a lot of those vets would still be in the military if Obama and company had not cut about 100k military from the force structure.
            Oh wait. I know. Inconvenient facts.
            Speaking as a vet I would say that I would rather work for $8.81 an hour than collect unemployment and be a mooch on society.

          • Brucehenry

            By Obama “and company” I assume you mean Congress.

          • retired.military

            Yes Bruce of which Dems control half of it. Also remember that Obama was offered control over what would be cut and he turned it down.

        • Par4Course

          While I agree that having any job is better than having no job, today fewer members of the (potential) labor force agree. We have a significantly lower percentage of participation in the workforce than we did under Bush, Clinton or their predecessors. Unemployment benefits now continue for 99+ weeks. A higher percentage of potential workers are managing to qualify for Social Security disability payments. And we’ve had a huge increase in the number of Americans on food stamps.

          That is the Obama economy – when we reward people who aren’t working, we get more of them. We have fewer makers and more takers. The fact that about 47% of Americans draw a regular government check has a lot to do with Obama’s reelection, whether it was smart of Mitt to say so or not. I know people who, when they were working, voted Republican but when they started getting monthly Social Security benefits suddenly began voting Democrat. I can’t prove they are typical but suspect they may be.

          • Brucehenry

            Maybe these anecdotal people you know are like the anti-gay Republicans who suddenly become pro-marriage equality when they find out their own kid is gay.

            In other words, they’ve seen the light after years of benighted bigotry. Maybe.

          • “That is the Obama economy – when we reward people who aren’t working, we get more of them.”

            Or to put it another way, you get more of what you reward – and less of what you punish effectively.

            We’re at a point where successful businesses are looked upon with suspicion – and regulation is piled on in case they get an idea to do something that isn’t covered in the IRS playbook – which as we’re finding out may not be fairly applied to all political persuasions, and now the new health insurance taxes themselves are seen as nearly punitive.


            You get more of behavior you reward, and less of what you punish or don’t reward.

            Dog trainers figured that out a long time ago… is it completely absurd to expect that government should be able to understand that concept?

      • retired.military

        Last I checked being paid $8.81 an hour for working is better than being paid $600+ a month for not working. At least it is better for those taxpayers who are paying for folks unemployment, and welfare.

        • Brucehenry

          I’m glad you’re still here.

          • retired.military

            I will take that to mean you are glad to see I still post here as my postings have been few and far between lately.
            My wife had some serious surgery and I was quite busy trying to take care of everything that she normally does.
            In addition, I haven’t felt like posting for whatever reason.
            BTW my wife is home now and is doing fine.

          • Brucehenry

            Good. Someone said the other day that you had announced you wouldn’t be commenting here any more, and I think that would be a loss to all concerned. I value your opinions and appreciate the polite way you express disagreement. You’re OK in my book, man.

            And I’m glad your wife is OK, too. Take care.

          • retired.military

            Thanks Bruce

            Don’t know who may have spoke up incorrectly on my behalf.

            I am still looking forward to buying you that steak some day.
            Take care.

  • Par4Course

    Like any entry-level job, the idea is to become employed and then move up within the organization. Many of our veterans are capable people who, whether working at Wal-Mart or other employers, will show they are worth more than their starting pay.

    There is good reason private-sector employees have turned away from unions over the years. Quality workers improve their lot without paying tribute to union bosses, many of whom are willing to use thuggery to advance their positions, and all of whom walk in lock-step with Democrat politicians.

    • jim_m

      The reason the left is fixated on the minimum wage is because they are not interested in providing upward mobility for workers. If a worker moves up in a company they often move into management, meaning that they will no longer be eligible for union membership, meaning they won’t pay dues, meaning that those dues won’t be available to pass on to the dems.

      The dems want you to get a job out of school and be stuck in it for the rest of your life. A management position is not achieved through hard work, but through political favor.