Obama Dictating California Budget Via Blackmail

Looks like Obama is running the California budget from Washington through blackmail. Hopefully people are seeing what's going on, and wake up! He's given one union an automaker already. Will he give Kalifornia to another?

U.S. threatens to rescind stimulus money over wage cuts

LOL. Obama doesnt want to see one of the most liberal states in the country become slightly less liberal. That and he has to kiss some union butt if he wants to get elected again. You'd think they would give him a free ride though at this point since he just handed them 55% of Chrysler for free. Well not free because they had to fake loan themselves some money, but you get the point

Wow, no other term than blackmail can be used here!

If you don't do this, we are taking this from you.

What does he propose they cut instead to save that 74 million?

reply to post by breakingdradles

---

Cut 74 million.. We dont have to worry about that. Obama has it covered. Remember he cut a whopping $17billion out of the federal budget.

maybe, just maybe, he doesn't want the average workers WAGE CUT!!!
these people go out and spend 95% of what they earn, back into the local businesses, creating LOCAL jobs for the WORKERS in those businesses. what part of stimulus do you not understand? you do not grow the economy by cutting regular workers wages. you create a country that has the poor and the rich, and if that is what you want, move to vietnam, or cambodia, or any other third world country.

reply to post by jimmyx

---

If he cares so much why doesnt he ever do anything to raise the wages of workers that are not in unions. You dont see him out there cutting off stimulus to the banks because the bank teller only makes minimum wage do you. Hmmmm.. I wonder why?

is anyone surprised?

everyone knew who they were voting for, didnt they?

you mean the mainstream media forgot to tell anyone about how chicago politics work?

tsk...

well, he did manage to help close a few chrysler plants...

not any in mexico or canada, only ones here in the states.

say, who did the unions make their members vote for, again?

reply to post by DohBama

---

Yeah I cant wait until the union has to negotiate a contract with itself. That should get interesting. It will be a Linda Blair moment.

I do believe I can chime in on this one:
For starters right now I am looking for a job. But I work part time for the IHSS. Let me ask you this, can you survive on 50 hours a month? It is very difficult and it is a slow process for me to live on such. But if he cuts the budget, then what I can do and am able to do will be limited. Most of the IHSS caretakers have to travel to get to their clients homes to do the things for the clients. It is not hard work, nor is it easy. I know in my case it involves cleaning, cooking, making sure the clients medicines are set out, ensuring he gets to his DR appointments, moving heavy things, and other things to make life easy for those who are disabled. Hours are based on the clients ability to function, the less they are able to function, the more hours are given. It is not something you want to mess with. Yes there is a big problem in the economy of the state, but cutting the rate of pay is not the correct way either, cause what will happen is that the people who will loose are those who need IHSS caregivers for assistance, and those who remain will end up either saying no can't help or will take advantage of the entire situation.

Um, they tried to do that with me, and I told them to take a flying leap. I may have to be a member of a union cause of the job I work, but when it comes to politics, that is personal and I told them that. Actually I told them alot more, but the point being, that they tried to influence my vote and wanted to know who I would vote for. I told them it was personal and that I would not tell them at all, and any other contact would mean I would go against them in the poles and vote for the person they did not want to see get into office. They backed off real quick.

They won't have to. The UAW is moving Chrysler operations south of the border to cut costs.

Kenosha County Board urges Chrysler to keep plant



I think it's kind of hypocritical that the UAW is doing the exact same thing they were enraged at Chrysler over in 1988. But what else would you expect from them?

reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II

---

Thanks for sharing that information. That is just perfect. I am sure somehow it is someone elses fault. So we spend 12 or 13 billion dollars on a company that was worth around 15 billion on a good day so they could move the jobs to mexico... That is priceless.

Whomever has the gold makes the rules...

The Federal Government uses its money that it created out of nothing like a carrot on a stick to get the states to toe the line.

As far as California is concerned, if they could balance their budget, they wouldn't need to rely on the Gov for money. Of course to do that they would have to cut all the welfare programs (aint happening) and lower taxes at the same time to attract businesses to create jobs.

Nobody is wiling to do this though because in the short run its very painful. Well, sometimes the cure hurts. Better just take the easy route and beg for money from Obama.

Well, it makes perfect sense if you look at it through the Eyes of Obama:

He has already limited the top rate of pay that bank execs can earn...

Now he wants to raise the limits on the low end...

It's all part of his campaign promise that so many people refused to hear, even when he said it as plain as day...


Income Redistribution.

Or, as spelled out in my sig: Redistributive Change.

[edit on 12-5-2009 by jsobecky]

Download and watch this and all will be revealed about Obama!!




rapidshare.com...
rapidshare.com...
rapidshare.com...
rapidshare.com...
rapidshare.com...
rapidshare.com...
rapidshare.com...
rapidshare.com...

This will shock u!!

I believe that states know their problems better than anyone in D.C., I didn't read it all in detail, but it's not looking good...especially if more incidents like this come up.

If by black mail, your refer rather crudely to sexual innuendo and your dog. Yes he is. If not, well your facts are rather poor.

reply to post by cancermanxx

---

For the short bus kids, here's a definition.

Blackmail: extortion or coercion by threats

I don't think anyone has a problem understanding 2nd grade vocabulary. Its apparent your evidence is not very damning and critically misses the the bus to a logical conclusion. The only thing taking a trip on the short bus might just be your theory.