The President Obama Thread

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by Marvolo

Frankly the Unions can get the hell out of the way of progress. Ironic statement, I know.

Obviously our current system is failing us. We have to try some new approaches to our problems. The Unions shouldn't be allowed to hold up progress for the whole country and our future economy, because something doesn't fit into their old ways.

And yet they do it AAAAAAALLLLL the time. Yet, IMO, they are one of the main reasons for our economic problems today.....and they will continue to be.

[justinlancaster]

Originally Posted by Marvolo

I like that.



That is all well and good, but corporations have proven they would just cut everyone's pay to the absolute bare minimum to help their own profits. Minimum wage is the only keeping corporations like walmart and mcdonald's from paying 15 cents an hour.

The minimum wage is not keeping Walmart & McDonalds from paying people 15 cents an hour. What would happen if they did pay people 15 cents an hour? They would have no labor pool to pull from skilled or unskilled. Nobody would work for them. If I could make more money collecting cans and washing cars why would I go work for Walmart or McDonalds? I could set my hours and its all cash. I wouldn't pay any tax. Win/win.

[Marvolo]

Originally Posted by Kelly

And yet they do it AAAAAAALLLLL the time. Yet, IMO, they are one of the main reasons for our economic problems today.....and they will continue to be.

Il be the first to admit, I live in a non union state, I dont know the inner workings of unions, and what little I do know comes from the news, people I know who have worked in unions, and info I glean from other info here and there. What Ive seen is that Unions did a lot of good in their early days, and effected change good and bad. What I see today is that they seem to be getting in the way of progress and the cons outweigh the pros.

Anyone with more knowledge feel free to correct or inform me.

[Holiday]

Originally Posted by Marvolo

Spelling corrected, though, you knew what I meant. I never said a person's life wasn't their responsibility nor that their children was the responsibility of the government. You said that low income non skilled people should not have children which is a ridiculous thing to say. We as a progressive society should not be limiting our propagation to a select few. Its the mark of a species moving in th wrong direction. My definition of "rich" is irrelevent and a shifting one based on many factors. I only brought it up, because you equated income and skill level with someone's right to bare children. This goes beyond government and points to a problem with our modern society when we as a species are becoming increasingly depressed and hindering propagation based on money.

Also, your original post completely missed the point of my original post which is that multi-billion dollar corporations should be paying their employees more than scraps. People can't live off scraps. In 700+ years we still have peasants working for fuedal lords. This day and age we just call them corporations. I see a slight problem with that.

I didn't know what you meant by propegation, I had to look it up. Anyway, let me revise my earlier statement...

It is not in one's best interest to take on the responsibility of raising a child if one cannot financially afford to do so. Does that make sense?

If you just entered the workforce and do not have the skills to justify getting payed anything more than the minimum, getting your girlfriend pregnant or whatever the case may be is totally irresponsible.

You say that someone can't live off "scraps" but low paying jobs are for young people who do not have any skills yet, still living with their parents or with a roommate, whatever the case. That's who gets hurt the most by minimum wage increases. If your labor does not warrant an employer investing $9 an hour into you, you can't get hired.

And yeah, I agree we're peasants working for our masters but I don't believe them to be the corporations like Wal-Mart and McDonald's but the big banking institutions.

[DACrowe]

Originally Posted by Webfoot Hero

And adding more laws for many understaffed and underfunded local law enforcement agencies, who already have a hard time enforcing laws currently on the book, isn't going to do much either. Addressing the economic disparity, bullying, mental health, and decline of basic decency will do more for gun violence than just banning things that are merely a symptom, rather than a cause.

Federal laws, which are far too little right now, are mostly unenforced by understaffed and less-powered agencies because of politicians (on both sides, though notably more on the right) writing legislation approved by the NRA to remove any gun laws with teeth.

Do you think Boehner and the House GOP will even make a law that makes background checks universal, closes the gun show loophole and limits reselling of firearms while also giving the ATF actual legitimacy?

Because I doubt it.

Do noot pretend that by mildly endorsing our current inept laws that they are actually interested in doing anything. Too many gun nuts and politicians subserviant to the NRA make up the Republican caucus to do anything. But Boehner will shed a tear. How nice.

[DACrowe]

Originally Posted by Kelly

I don't think there is a proposal out there where they want to do "nothing"....I think the priorities are simply different. You have one group that wants to enforce the laws on the books BETTER, and set restrictions as far as the mental health aspect....and those that want to ban anything with a trigger. I believe there is a happy medium between those two.

As far as the rest of what you wrote, I don't know....nothing has been put forward yet that isn't wholly to one side of the spectrum I just mentioned...

No one of serious consequence is asking to ban anything with a trigger. Guns meant for massive death in warfare? Yes. But that is also off the table along with everything else. Boehner isn't trying to find common ground and the NRA doesn't want a stronger ATF. They are just waiting and hoping that the media frenzy will die down and nothing will get done. Until it happens again. Which it unfortunately will.

[Marvolo]

Originally Posted by Holiday

I didn't know what you meant by propegation, I had to look it up. Anyway, let me revise my earlier statement...

It is not in one's best interest to take on the responsibility of raising a child if one cannot financially afford to do so. Does that make sense?

If you just entered the workforce and do not have the skills to justify getting payed anything more than the minimum, getting your girlfriend pregnant or whatever the case may be is totally irresponsible.

You say that someone can't live off "scraps" but low paying jobs are for young people who do not have any skills yet, still living with their parents or with a roommate, whatever the case. That's who gets hurt the most by minimum wage increases. If your labor does not warrant an employer investing $9 an hour into you, you can't get hired.

And yeah, I agree we're peasants working for our masters but I don't believe them to be the corporations like Wal-Mart and McDonald's but the big banking institutions.

While fast food may be intended for teens and young people I can assure you it is equally filled with middle aged people who dont have the education or ability to compete in the higher job market. And even while living with parents minimum wages at fast food wasnt coming close to covering my bills and weekly necessitates. I cant even imagine what I would have done without any support from the parents. The fact is these minimum wage jobs that screw with your hours so you dont get 40 a week just arent worth a damn anymore to anyone. Yeah maybe highschool students who want some spending money, but any person over 18 isnt going to make it far on a single minimum wage job.

And I agree with you on the banks. Our problems are being caused by multiple factors from the top down.

[chaseter]

Originally Posted by Marvolo

Frankly the Unions can get the hell out of the way of progress. Ironic statement, I know.

Obviously our current system is failing us. We have to try some new approaches to our problems. The Unions shouldn't be allowed to hold up progress for the whole country and our future economy, because something doesn't fit into their old ways.

I can back you on this statement.

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by Marvolo

Il be the first to admit, I live in a non union state, I dont know the inner workings of unions, and what little I do know comes from the news, people I know who have worked in unions, and info I glean from other info here and there. What Ive seen is that Unions did a lot of good in their early days, and effected change good and bad. What I see today is that they seem to be getting in the way of progress and the cons outweigh the pros.

Anyone with more knowledge feel free to correct or inform me.

They did an ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF GOOD IN THE EARLY DAYS.....and you really have to separate the two types of unions. Private unions, still do quite a bit of good for their employees, I don't necessarily begrudge them too much....the auto industry has had some problems with these unbelievable retirement packages that have helped bankrupt a couple of them....but for the most part they are pretty good. It is the public sector unions, teachers unions, other government based unions that are, IMO, EXTREMELY CORRUPT today, and have far more power in politics than most of the special interest groups that people on here bellow about so much.

[Holiday]

Originally Posted by Marvolo

While fast food may be intended for teens and young people I can assure you it is equally filled with middle aged people who dont have the education or ability to compete in the higher job market.

Whose responsibility is that though? It's up to the individual person to develop their own skills to make it in the job market. What kind of sense does it make for a middle-aged person with the same skills as your typical high school student to get paid as much as someone has learned a trade?

And even while living with parents minimum wages at fast food wasnt coming close to covering my bills and weekly necessitates. I cant even imagine what I would have done without any support from the parents. The fact is these minimum wage jobs that screw with your hours so you dont get 40 a week just arent worth a damn anymore to anyone. Yeah maybe highschool students who want some spending money, but any person over 18 isnt going to make it far on a single minimum wage job.

And I agree with you on the banks. Our problems are being caused by multiple factors from the top down.

You say they are not worth a damn anymore and I can agree to an extent because the cost of living is rising thanks to inflation but wages are not catching up. That said, I've been working my job for a year now making 8 an hour, anywhere from 13 to 40 hours a week, and I'm definitely thankful to have it. I share a nice two bedroom apartment with one roommate, have internet access, plenty to eat without resorting to food stamps, and I payed off a thousand dollar debt I owed while still saving some money. I've learned how to manage money pretty well I think. I would like to know how many of the full-time, minimum wagers you mentioned earlier live within their means. I'd bet a lot of them, like most Americans, don't.

[Paradoxium]

Originally Posted by Kelly

They did an ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF GOOD IN THE EARLY DAYS.....and you really have to separate the two types of unions. Private unions, still do quite a bit of good for their employees, I don't necessarily begrudge them too much....the auto industry has had some problems with these unbelievable retirement packages that have helped bankrupt a couple of them....but for the most part they are pretty good. It is the public sector unions, teachers unions, other government based unions that are, IMO, EXTREMELY CORRUPT today, and have far more power in politics than most of the special interest groups that people on here bellow about so much.

See this is why I have no problem with Private Unions, they get greedy and stupid, they succumb to Darwinism Market forces. Public unions, it might as well be extortion.

[Matt]

Obama ought to pull Hagel. Yes, it would look like he is backing down, but frankly, I think there are better ways to spend his political capital than forcing Hagel's nomination through. To be honest, I don't think that he should have ever nominated Hagel to begin with. It just furthers the notion that Democrats are weak on defense.

[Fading]

The Hagel thing is getting stupid from all sides. His hearing made him seem weak. Not something appealing for someone going for his position. I also agree Obama spent too much political clout on his cabinet nominations. Then again, look at Susan Rice. The Republicans are going to fight any nomination tooth and nail regardless of qualifications. Kerry got by because he's formed a good relationship with many politicians.

If the Republicans blocking, and filibustering Hagel were doing so because they honestly thought he was a bad choice, and not just Obama obstructionism, I'd have more sympathy. Just listen to McCain for the real reasons.

“There’s a lot of ill will towards Senator Hagel because when he was a Republican, he attacked President Bush mercilessly, at one point said he was the worst president since Herbert Hoover, said the surge was the worst blunder since the Vietnam War, which was nonsense,” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said on Fox News yesterday.

“[He] was anti-his own party and people. People don’t forget that. You can disagree, but if you’re disagreeable, then people don’t forget that.”

It's not because they think he's bad for the job, but because he dared not tow the party lines, and Obama picked him. I do agree though that it's baffling how Democratic presidents always choose Republicans for defense. It doespush the perception that only Republicans can handle defense. However I think someone being right for the job is more important than petty politics.

As much as I do wish Obama would have not picked the fights he has, the Hagel ordeal strikes me as more of a petty problem the Republicans are creating. I think it looks worse on them than Obama. Especially considering most voters are not happy with the current Republican party, and this sends the message that if you're not 100% with the party on everything they'll block you from political advancement.

[Marvolo]

Ive yet to see anything that makes me think Hagel is wrong for the job. Doesnt kiss Israel's ass? We could use someone like that. Called George Bush out on his stupidity? Sounds like a sensible man. Willing to talk to Iran before sending in the attack dogs. Sounds logical.

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by Marvolo

Ive yet to see anything that makes me think Hagel is wrong for the job. Doesnt kiss Israel's ass? We could use someone like that. Called George Bush out on his stupidity? Sounds like a sensible man. Willing to talk to Iran before sending in the attack dogs. Sounds logical.

Are you kidding me, the fact that he knows ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT THE JOB....did you not watch the hearings? I could careless about the Israel stuff, the fact that he could not answer basic questions about what his job is about, and policies of the administration was embarrassing at the least.

Dear lord the guy was a fumbling idiot....and people can say well, that was a lot of pressure......HELL YEAH IT WAS, AND HIS JOB WILL BE THAT a good majority of the time.

Just no......not for the reasons the Republicans are talking about. I actually agree with him on that stuff, but the fact that he doesn't know what the hell his job is about....

[SV Fan]

Originally Posted by Matt

Obama ought to pull Hagel. Yes, it would look like he is backing down, but frankly, I think there are better ways to spend his political capital than forcing Hagel's nomination through. To be honest, I don't think that he should have ever nominated Hagel to begin with. It just furthers the notion that Democrats are weak on defense.

If they don't like Hagel, he should nominate Barney Frank. lol

Personally I think the Republicans biggest beef with Hagel beyond just blocking him to be a bunch of buttholes is Hagel seems to be open to cutting defenses budget. Basically putting down Hagel is supporting the neocon wing of the Republican party that feels we need to be in perpetual war in order to support weapon manufacturers......errr i mean look strong. What makes me laugh is when I see the so called Tea Party guys take issue with Hagel who might want to reduce defense spending(aren't they against big wasteful spending government).

[Matt]

Democrats have adopted Hagel as their poster boy for the same reason Republicans have adopted Manchin as theirs. He says what they want to hear. Hagel isn't a strong choice for SecDef, IMO.

It is a shame that Obama cannot get Gates to come out of retirement. Gates was probably the best SecDef we've had since....well....Dick Cheney. For all Cheney's shortcomings as VP, he was a great Defense Secretary (his handling of the first Iraq War was inspired).

[hippie_hunter]

Yeah having Gates back would be a great idea.

[Thundercrack85]

Bring back Dick Cheney. The reaction would be hilarious.

[Marvolo]

Originally Posted by Kelly

Are you kidding me, the fact that he knows ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT THE JOB....did you not watch the hearings? I could careless about the Israel stuff, the fact that he could not answer basic questions about what his job is about, and policies of the administration was embarrassing at the least.

Dear lord the guy was a fumbling idiot....and people can say well, that was a lot of pressure......HELL YEAH IT WAS, AND HIS JOB WILL BE THAT a good majority of the time.

Just no......not for the reasons the Republicans are talking about. I actually agree with him on that stuff, but the fact that he doesn't know what the hell his job is about....

Setting in front of a witch hunt council is hardly what his job is about. I come across nervous and unsure when interrogated and questioned by *******s but that doesnt mean I dont know what im doing when it counts.

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by Marvolo

Setting in front of a witch hunt council is hardly what his job is about. I come across nervous and unsure when interrogated and questioned by *******s but that doesnt mean I dont know what im doing when it counts.

You are not going for Secretary of Defense....he made key policy mistakes, he was not able to answer key questions, and when he did it was obvious he had no idea what the hell he was talking about. Hillary Clinton faced a FAR MORE hostile hearing and never balked at a question, never stammered, never had to have someone from the administration come in and say...."um, that is not this administrations stand on that policy..." Not once....

He has no clue what the job is about, and it was OBVIOUS.... I don't care how he answered questions about his voting record, etc....but I do care how he answers questions about day to day workings of the department he will head up, and the policies of that department. THAT, I CARE ABOUT....he had no clue...

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Marvolo

Setting in front of a witch hunt council is hardly what his job is about. I come across nervous and unsure when interrogated and questioned by *******s but that doesnt mean I dont know what im doing when it counts.

Originally Posted by Kelly

You are not going for Secretary of Defense....he made key policy mistakes, he was not able to answer key questions, and when he did it was obvious he had no idea what the hell he was talking about. Hillary Clinton faced a FAR MORE hostile hearing and never balked at a question, never stammered, never had to have someone from the administration come in and say...."um, that is not this administrations stand on that policy..." Not once....

He has no clue what the job is about, and it was OBVIOUS.... I don't care how he answered questions about his voting record, etc....but I do care how he answers questions about day to day workings of the department he will head up, and the policies of that department. THAT, I CARE ABOUT....he had no clue...

Not to mention Hagel is a United States Senator and everything. He should be able to handle just a bit of scrutiny.

[TheVileOne]

Unions are blocking MMA from being regulated in New York.

[Hobgoblin]

Bob Woodward Claims He Was Threatened By The White House

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...use/?hpt=hp_t1

[Webfoot Hero]

Originally Posted by Hobgoblin

Bob Woodward Claims He Was Threatened By The White House

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...use/?hpt=hp_t1

I posted a story similar to this in the Economic Discussion thread from Politico and I'm sort of inclined to believe Woodward over the WH. Woodward has nothing to really gain from calling them out and the WH has proven they aren't above being petty, vindictive or thin-skinned when called out on something.

Edit: Looks Talking Points Memo has possibly identified who Woodward talked to. The WH is also denying they did anything to threaten Woodward. With how many times they've denied stories that ended up being true, I don't exactly trust their stance. For how much credibility Woodward has, it's kind of funny to see how many bloggers/journalists are circling the wagons around the WH.

http://editors.talkingpointsmemo.com...ting_couch.php