newsobserver.com projects - Institute for Emerging Issues - Comments

Re: Pink to speak at N.C. State forum

robdarich — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:49:37 -0400

This is a really good time to associate with NCSU and things that are created by governors, but paid for by taxpayers. An author who's all about mind and brains is talking to a think tank - it just sounds so intelligent.

Re: GOP: Tax plan is bait and switch

PaulTerrell — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:36:48 -0400

Democrats make this statement so easy.

"Tax and spend Democrats".

Re: Panel urges tax reform

rjohns — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 10:47:53 -0400

Can't the legislature advocate for a flat tax for all and get rid of the silly tax code?

Re: Better than nothing?

ryanteaguebeckwith — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:18:20 -0500

Comment deleted for cursing and personal attacks. You may repost without the offending language.

— RTB

Re: Perdue on vacation

ThoughtCrimes — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 20:34:38 -0500

Change! Question, What's the state constitution say about How to Impeach a governor?

Re: Perdue on vacation

phil002 — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:23:54 -0500

I am incensed. As an almost 20 year state employee among whom Bev has hinted may get laid off,I cannot believe she is on vacation already, much less a "working vacation". I have never had a "working vacation", nor even worked from home, ever. Even if she had to eat a couple of thousand dollars, lost to a vacation she had to renege on due to her new roll, she knew better than to do this. She will end up dogged, like Easley. The arrogance is sickening. With the crisis we're in, how can she leave and on taxpayers' dime, no less? Im dumbfounded. I work in the train wreck that is our mental health system and I can assure Gov Purdue, our sick and vulnerable wish her much rest and relaxation on her vacation...as do the people living in their cars and eating out of dumpsters, those unemployed and uninsured. Enjoy, Bev.

Re: Pols see infrastructure as key

CitizenOpinionated — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:39:02 -0500

Federal Agencies are controlled by the President through appointments, hiring and whatnot. Thus when an executive order of this manner is stated, then it is logical to state my affect, thus why the trade organization has expressed their concern.

Re: Pols see infrastructure as key

englewood — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:20:05 -0500

While the order is union-friendly, it is not an order "stating that all federal funds going to construction jobs must use union workers."

To quote the order directly:

"Accordingly, it is the policy of the Federal Government to ENCOURAGE executive 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." (capitalization mine).

If the order had been meant to rquire union workers it would have said so. But it doesn't.

We're all entitled to our own opinion, but not our own facts. As far as the UNC education....geez, we just can't seem to agree on anything, can we?

Re: Pols see infrastructure as key

CitizenOpinionated — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:54:19 -0500

Just read it and you must be incapable of reading through his KOOL-AID rhetoric as it is precisely how I described it. You can thank UNC-CH for my education.

Re: Pols see infrastructure as key

CitizenOpinionated — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:47:50 -0500

Blogs are not facts necessarily.

Obama Issues 4th Union-Friendly Executive Order
Friday, February 06, 2009
By Staff, Associated Press

Washington (AP) - President Barack Obama has issued an executive order backing the use of union labor for large-scale federal construction projects.

The order encourages federal agencies to have construction contractors enter project labor agreements. Those agreements require contractors to negotiate with union officials, recognize union wages and benefits and abide by collective bargaining agreements.

Obama's order restores a Clinton administration rule that was rescinded by President George W. Bush.

It is the fourth union-friendly executive order that Obama has signed since he's been in office.

This is what the AP wrote on the matter...

Facts are facts and the statements I made are completely true and substantiated by these article...Thanks for playing

As for my statistics...here you go...The Associated Builders and Contractors has already come out against the executive order. The organization claims that union-only project labor agreements increase construction costs between 10% and 20%. It also says that it discriminates against the 84% of construction workers that chose not to join a labor union.

http://sev.prnewswire.com/construction-building/20090206/DC6802106022009-1.html

Re: Pols see infrastructure as key

englewood — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:59:25 -0500

CitizenOpinionated:

Your statement about the presidential executive order is simply untrue. If you care to do so, you can read the actual executive order at http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/02/obama-exec-orde.html

Re: Better than nothing?

jonoflocke — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:45:25 -0500

History will indict you for repeating in far graver fashion the errors and assumptions that perpetuated the Great Depression. But all your pork pals will be pleased.

Re: Pols see infrastructure as key

CitizenOpinionated — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:29:45 -0500

Spending money on infrastructure might be well served during these tough economic times, but I am extremely worried about a recent Executive Order that has not been highly touted in the ranks of the media. Pres. BHO made an executive order stating that all federal funds going to construction jobs must use union workers. Facts show that 84% of the construction industry in not unionized, thus only a select few would be eligible or the remainder would have to join a union. Union workers will raise the cost of each project by 10 to 20%.

Is this truly the best bang for our buck, during this these economic times?

Re: Perdue on vacation

j1c2kp — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:21:08 -0500

Oh good gosh, she is on a "working vacation". Will the taxpayers have to share the vacation bill?

Re: Perdue on vacation

nml1118 — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 08:32:06 -0500

Took her less than a month to show conclusively that she has no clue what leadership is about ... or, worse, that she knows and couldn't care less as long as leadership in a difficult time doesn't interfere with her vacation. This will create a distraction for weeks, maybe months.

And to the bonehead press secretary who said "it couldn't be cancelled," well, somebody was planning to be governor a couple of years ago, somebody who presumably can read a calendar. IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SCHEDULED IN THE FIRST PLACE. And yes, Ms. Bonehead, it MOST CERTAINLY COULD be cancelled.