« | »

Obama: ‘These So Called Right To Work Laws’

From the New York Times:

Obama, With Blue-Collar Backdrop, Pushes for Higher Taxes on the Richest

By MARK LANDLER | December 10, 2012

REDFORD, Mich. — Using a German-owned truck factory as a grease-stained backdrop, President Obama on Monday pressed his case for higher tax rates for the richest Americans, declaring that his economic program would cut the deficit without crimping the job market.

“Our economic success has never come from the top down,” Mr. Obama said to a few hundred cheering autoworkers. “It comes from the middle out; it comes from the bottom up.” …

This time, he chose a nearly 75-year-old truck engine maker, where the owner, the German company Daimler, announced $120 million in investments in new production that will create 115 jobs.

Is it possible that Daimler’s decision was influenced by Michigan becoming a right to work state?

In a speech replete with the cadences of his late-inning campaign swings, Mr. Obama ratcheted up the pressure on Republicans, who are still resisting his call for higher tax rates on income above $250,000 a year…

Later in this article we will be told Obama "skipped partisan attacks on the Republicans."

[F]airness, he said, demanded that those earning much more pay a greater share.

“I’m not going to have a situation where the wealthiest among us, including folks like me, get to keep all our tax breaks, and then we’re asking students to pay higher student loans,” he said…

Notice his words here. Obama is no longer just pushing for increasing the tax rate on the rich. He wants to take away their tax breaks, too. Their deductions. Which is to say, Obama wants the Boehner plan along with his own plan.

In Mr. Obama’s first visit to Michigan since the election, he still seemed to be in election mode, presenting the fiscal debate as a choice about what kind of future America will have. But he skipped partisan attacks on the Republicans and devoted much of his remarks to extolling Detroit Diesel as an example of how the country can rebound…

Except that his entire appearance was a partisan attack on the Republicans for trying to pass right to work legislation.

A detail that even the Washington Post noticed:

Obama lashes out at Michigan Republicans over ‘right to work’

By Philip Rucker | December 10, 2012

REDFORD, Mich. —President Obama brought his campaign to raise taxes on the wealthy to the greasy cradle of working-class America on Monday, visiting a Detroit area auto engine plant to drum up public support for his plan to avoid the “fiscal cliff.”

Obama’s visit to Michigan comes as the state’s Republicans, backed by powerful and well-financed conservative groups, are moving to adopt so-called right-to-work legislation that would effectively ban unions here from requiring workers to pay dues.

How those power and well-financed conservatives.

By the way, how is this "so-called right to work legislation"? Right to work is certainly a more accurate term than Obama’s so-called Affordable Care Act (Obama-Care).

In his remarks, Obama lashed out at state legislators who are pushing the measure, telling the assembled auto workers that it was akin to “taking away your rights to bargain for better wages and working conditions.”

How does right to work legislation take away anyone’s rights? It fact it provides the people of Michigan with a very important right. The right to get a job without having to pay shakedown money to the unions and the Democrat Party machine.

Obama, who won Michigan resoundingly in last month’s election, in part because of the strong support he received from the United Automobile Workers, said the right-to-work bill was more about “giving you the right to work for less money.” …

And the money that he received form the UAW. In one of the worst examples of political kickbacks in recorded history.

By the way, Washington Post article doesn’t directly quote Obama, but he also called this the "so-called right to work laws," according to the Associated Press:

"These so-called right-to-work laws, they don’t have anything to do with economics, they have everything to do with politics," Obama told cheering workers Monday during a visit to an engine plant in Redford, Mich. "What they’re really talking about is giving you the right to work for less money."

But what do you expect from our ‘so-called President.’

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Tuesday, December 11th, 2012. Comments are currently closed.

6 Responses to “Obama: ‘These So Called Right To Work Laws’”

  1. GetBackJack

    Daimler and War Crimes Against Humanity. See Mercedes In Peace And War

    … Daimler-Benz, for example. The firm avidly supported Nazism and in return received arms contracts and tax breaks that enabled it to become one of the world’s leading industrial concerns. (Between 1932 and 1940 production grew by 830 percent.) During the war the company used thousands of slaves and forced laborers including Jews, foreigners, and POWs. According to historian Bernard Bellon (Mercedes in Peace and War, 1990), Jews were murdered by DB managers or SS men at a plant in occupied Poland. There was a report that Daimler-Benz built mobile poison gas vans …

    PERFECT setting for our Marxist President to harangue Constitution-loving Americans about moral issues.

    • captstubby

      “built mobile poison gas vans …”

      to the Campaigner In Chief,

      just White Jews.
      and it was a long time ago.

  2. Rusty Shackleford

    “”What they’re really talking about is giving you the right to work for less money.”

    Yes, Barry…that’s true. So…let’s extrapolate your ‘logic’ here. The way you see it…all the workers should be making killer money. So let’s say the company does that and their bottom line is now zero. No profit at all. How does the company stay in business? More tax dollars funneled to it by virtue of your grand benevolence?

    Or, how about this: It FAILS because…the moment demand for that product decreases, it seriously affects the margins. Thus, workers will have to be laid off or terminated.

    Socialists NEVER seem to get that the market is a dynamic system.

    If you want less of a thing, tax it. That includes also, SUBSIDIZING it. An incentive to do less is always the bane to business. Costs are high…and those who do the labor are the ones who reap the advantage of being able to get a job elsewhere if they don’t like where they are now..but…socialists have that conveniently wrapped up by ravaging the economy further and making it a stagnant entity, thus preventing a worker from seeking employment AT ALL, let alone at a place of their choosing.

  3. Rusty Shackleford

    So…at the end of the day, that old joke from the Soviet Bloc will become true.

    A reporter went to the USSR in the 1970′s and noted that every day…there were a large group of men with their union hats on, sitting around doing nothing. Intrigued, he had to ask them who they were and what they were doing.

    “Vell….effry day ve come to vork here….but there is no vork. But ve are in ze union so…ve MUST report to vork effry day, as iz ze rule so ve can get paid.”

    “But, you’re never doing anything.”, said the reporter.

    “Da, zat is correct.”, the union man said, “So…effry day ve come here and pretend to vork…and…..ze factory…zey pretend to pay us.”

  4. Anonymoose

    The British tried subsidizing industries beginning in the 70′s, trying to replace competitiveness with money—and look at where they are today.

    Honestly, when entered the workforce in the 80′s I couldn’t believe some places required people to pay “union” dues to work there, even though the company was owned by someone else.

    Honestly, “right to work” scares the unions to death, as that is where most of their power has come from–people joining because they had no choice.

    I only ever worked one place that had unions, and it was unreal how the favored people could do as they please and talk all day, while the low rent hourly workers were run ragged. Right to work in the heartland of unions…….the Democrats are still doing their election victory dance but are looking worried.

  5. P. Aaron

    Quite a comment coming from a so-called ‘president’.




« Front Page | To Top
« | »