Remember when?

No, because they hadn't been born yet and weren't named. Can you remember the names of future students of public school teachers, future listeners to NPR/PBS, future union workers, and future taxpayers who ran down your leg?

Wayn-O wrote: No, because they hadn't been born yet and weren't named. Can you remember the names of future students of public school teachers, future listeners to NPR/PBS, future union workers, and future taxpayers who ran down your leg?

Wayn-O is the only name I can remember being dropped into a pool of water from my buttocks - sort of aborted like those precious babies.

Can anyone remember the names of the future students of public school teachers, future listeners to NPR/PBS, future union workers, and future taxpayers who were murdered by Planned Parenthood?

archer wrote:

SS109 wrote: Not trillions of dollars went to union coffers, but union dues were paid by the retained goverment employees and union leaders donate a percentage of those funds to Democrats.

Remember those shovel ready infrastructure projects? The majority of those had to hire union construction workers. Wonder why that is? A payback for all the donations of unions to Dem politicians. VL will verify that.

They HAD to hire union workers?

I think you are really reaching on all this, but you are entitled to your opinion. I just find it a bit of an exaggeration that the stimulus funds were spent such that they would come back to fund Democrat's campaigns. Whatever. Ever wonder how much of the corporate bailout money ended up in Republican's coffers? I thought not.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/02/infras ... kers-only/


Q: Did Obama require that all infrastructure jobs in the stimulus bill go to union workers?

A: Obama didn’t set a requirement. He issued an executive order that "encourage executive agencies to consider requiring" union labor for "large-scale" government contracts.


FULL QUESTION


I received this e-mail from a friend. Is it true that President Obama signed an Executive Order that gives the infrastructure jobs that are in the stimulus bill to union workers only?

President Obama quietly signs Pro-Union Executive Order

February 9, 2009

While everyone is talking about the pork laden stimulus that Obama and many Democrats in Congress are pushing, President Obama very quietly signed a pro union executive order on Friday. It ordered the use of union labor for federal construction projects. This is one of the most blatant payoffs I have ever seen.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele has made the following statement.

"President Obama’s executive order will drive up the cost of government at a time when we should be doing everything possible to save taxpayer dollars. Federal contracts should go to the businesses that can offer taxpayers the best value – not just the unions who supported the Democrats’ campaigns last year. Quietly signing executive orders to payback campaign backers undermines Obama’s promise to change Washington. It is a disappointment for Americans hoping for more transparency and less politics as usual in Washington ."

I would have to agree with everything the chairman said. It is nothing less than a payoff to the unions who supported his campaign with both money and troops. And the fact that it was done with no media coverage shows that he once again is trying to slip one by Americans, which is anything but transparent.


FULL ANSWER


It’s not often that we receive chain e-mails that actually check out, but this one, while exaggerated, is largely right. On Feb. 6, Obama issued Executive Order 13502 that encourages federal agencies to "consider requiring the use of project labor agreements in connection with large-scale construction projects in order to promote economy and efficiency in Federal procurement." A project labor agreement requires contractors and subcontractors to pay union wages and to recognize collective bargaining agreements. The order "does not require" project labor agreements, but it’s reasonable to say that "encouragement" from the president is likely to carry considerable weight with federal agencies.

As for RNC Chair Michael Steele’s allegation that the order constitutes "payback" for the unions who supported Obama’s campaign, well, we don’t have any way to know Obama’s motives. What Obama says is that the policy will help to make labor costs more predictable and will prevent construction delays by nipping labor disputes in the bud. Critics, such as the Associated Builders and Contractors, a trade group representing non-union construction firms, agree with Steele. ABC says that by eliminating bids from non-union contractors, the measure will increase costs for American taxpayers.

It is worth noting that the first President Bush prohibited project labor agreements on federal projects in 1992. President Clinton reversed that policy shortly after taking office in 1993. The second President Bush put it back in 2001. Now Obama has returned to Clinton’s policy. We’ll leave it to you to decide whether that pattern reflects ideological differences or "paybacks."

-Joe Miller


"

Thanks Neptune....nice to know someone will actually answer a question, even if it's not the poster that was asked. I'm still looking for where the figure of "trillions" came from as all I can find is the money may reach a trillion. Oh well, too late at night to be looking for answers.

LadyJazzer wrote:

SS109 wrote: LJ herself says many of the jobs created in Texas were public sector and paid for with federal stimulus money.
Tripped up by your own side?

I said no such thing...

In Rick Perry's Texas, Most New Jobs Have Gone To Immigrants

As the 2012 presidential campaign has started to take shape, Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry has made much of the Lone Star state's job-creation numbers during his time in office. But repeated analyses have suggested that once you get past the talking points, Texas job growth under Perry hasn't actually been very impressive.

In a report that complicates Perry's claims to have created hundreds of thousands of new jobs for Americans, the Center for Immigration Studies has found that from 2007 to 2011, about 40 percent of the jobs created in Texas went to undocumented immigrants. About another 40 percent of new jobs went to immigrants who were in the country legally.

All told, legal or undocumented immigrants held about 225,000 of the 279,000 jobs created in Texas in the past four years. This is particularly noteworthy, the CIS notes, because while Texas's working-age population grew between 2007 and 2011, 69 percent of that growth came from native-born U.S. citizens. Yet immigrants accounted for 81 percent of the job growth.

In one sense, these numbers aren't surprising, but rather a reflection of national trends. Over a million immigrants found jobs in the U.S. between 2008 and 2010, a period during which the economy crashed and unemployment skyrocketed. Texas shares 1200 miles of border with Mexico, making it particularly easy for immigrants to enter the state and find work.

Still, the CIS report offers further ammunition to those who want to push back against the narrative Perry has been touting on the campaign trail, that Texas has led the country in job creation thanks to his stewardship.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/2 ... 76068.html

Jeez, you can't even lie worth a sh*t....

You are the liar, when you were running your rants on Perry, one of them was that much of the job growth in Texas was goverment jobs, paid for by Washington stimulus.
And then you contradicted yourself with the other rant piece saying most of the jobs created were minimum wage.

And the way the contracts are written on big construction projects, they have to be staffed by union labor.
So instead of repairing two bridges, paying employees $20 a hour, you have to hire one $40 union employee and only repair one bridge. (And leave another guy out of work on unemployment and food stamps.)

SS109 wrote: You are the liar, when you were running your rants on Perry, one of them was that much of the job growth in Texas was goverment jobs, paid for by Washington stimulus.
And then you contradicted yourself with the other rant piece saying most of the jobs created were minimum wage.

And the way the contracts are written on big construction projects, they have to be staffed by union labor.
So instead of repairing two bridges, paying employees $20 a hour, you have to hire one $40 union employee and only repair one bridge. (And leave another guy out of work on unemployment and food stamps.)

Do you ever provide proof of what you post as fact? the $20/hour and the $40/hour figures came from where?

And the contracts written on big construction projects mandating union labor.....where did that come from?

And you might as well quote us LJ's posts you are referring to while you are at it.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-signs-pro-labor-executive-orders

Need we say more?

BearMtnHIB wrote: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-signs-pro-labor-executive-orders

Need we say more?

Yeah, the OP could answer the questions. Or is that too much to ask?

archer wrote:

SS109 wrote: You are the liar, when you were running your rants on Perry, one of them was that much of the job growth in Texas was goverment jobs, paid for by Washington stimulus.
And then you contradicted yourself with the other rant piece saying most of the jobs created were minimum wage.

And the way the contracts are written on big construction projects, they have to be staffed by union labor.
So instead of repairing two bridges, paying employees $20 a hour, you have to hire one $40 union employee and only repair one bridge. (And leave another guy out of work on unemployment and food stamps.)

Do you ever provide proof of what you post as fact? the $20/hour and the $40/hour figures came from where?

And the contracts written on big construction projects mandating union labor.....where did that come from?

And you might as well quote us LJ's posts you are referring to while you are at it.

And $20 & $40 were just used as examples. And who cares about original source material when Wayne & LJ are using the radical Huffington Post as their sources?