American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;436663]
They Need to Unionize, but the Republicans will not let Them Do it.[/QUOTE]I do not like Walmart and seldom shop there for a variety of reasons, but you need to get your facts straight WT69. Walmart does not unionize because their employees (the same ones you say are below the poverty line) repeatedly vote against a union, not because "the Republicans will not let them do it". If Walmart is such a bad employer, why does each Walmart store opening have at least five applicants for every job available? I do not think Walmart pays enough, but I also cannot argue with the numbers, and do not believe that they should be forced or coerced into paying more when the numbers say that there are people willing to work for what they are offering.

Tres3.

There was an article in Bloomberg about this.

[URL]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-13/how-mcdonald-s-and-wal-mart-became-welfare-queens.html[/URL]

In it the author says.

[QUOTE]Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private sector employer, is also the biggest consumer of taxpayer supported aid. According to Florida Congressman Alan Grayson, in many states, Wal-Mart employees are the largest group of Medicaid recipients. They are also the single biggest group of food stamp recipients. Wal-mart’s "associates" are paid so little, according to Grayson, that they receive $1,000 on average in public assistance. These amount to massive taxpayer subsidies for private companies.

Why are profitable, dividend-paying firms receiving taxpayer subsidies? The short answer is, because they can. The longer answer is more complex and nuanced.

Both McDonald's and Wal-Mart are engaging in perfectly legal behavior. The system was set up long ago in ways that failed to imagine companies doing this. Yes, they are taking advantage of the taxpayer, but they are also operating within the law.[/QUOTE]As the author says, they aren't breaking the law in any way. They are operating within the law and we as taxpayers are subsidizing their success. This isn't something they do by accident, they have resources within their companies that help their employees sign up for public assistance. I know the guys out to the right are going to say remove the public assistance and the employees will leave, it's their (employee's) own fault that they didn't prepare themselves for greater success and I have no argument against that and to a degree I agree with that position.

I'm not sure if I agree with the Authors solution that raising the minimum wage is the answer, but I do see a certain poetry in the idea of charging back companies that pay a dividend for the amount of tax payer supported aid that their employees receive. I'm not saying I think we should do that but I do see a certain poetry in it. If the majority of your employee's are on public assistance and your company is extremely profitable then there is obviously something wrong with your compensation package. I don't think it would work because Walmart would just throw everybody to part time and say our hands are clean.

I really don't know what the solution is but it still irritates me that a substantial part of Walmarts bottom line is a result of the fact that, by design, their employee benefit package is largely comprised of public assistance which we all pay for.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;436511]I thought it was interesting that on Friday my investment portfolio hit another all-time high, the day after I got notified I was eligible for the health care subsidy. So now the DOW is up over 50% since we got rid of Bush and his ilk, PLUS I now have affordable health care for the first time since I retired. Now all you righties have to bear in mind that when I retired early, that opened up an opportunity for someone younger, and that opportunity would not have been there had I not retired. So if you get pissed off about subsidizing my health care, find that person who took my job and make him or her pay.

Obama: Good for your portfolio and good for your health.[/QUOTE]He is telling me to brush my teeth. He is telling me to exercise. He is telling me to give my money to the poor. He is telling me to think of others. He is telling me too much! How can I enjoy my life when he is giving me all these shit. I need freedom, I need liberty. I need an ass-rim job after breakfast, a blow job after lunch, and a 3-girl all out no prisoners fuckfest after midnight.

Tell him he is fucking up my life.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;436667]Their wages equal to 17,00 a year, the national poverty level is $23,000 per year.[snip][/QUOTE]Poverty level for an individual is $11,495 after inflation not $23,000. Your $23,000 number is for a family of four, according to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

[url]http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/12computations.shtml[/url]

So at $8.18 per hour or $17,014 per year the individual is $5,519 a year above poverty level.

If you want to use the family of four number I think you have to assume two adults of working age, so you can double the $17,014 per year, so the families yearly income would be $34,028 which is $11,028 above poverty.

Don't we have a federal minimum wage law for just this reason?

I'm not defending Walmart but let use the real numbers.

Question, WT where did you get the $8.18 number?

I watch so many news channels I do not know which one it was.

But this may help you.

[URL]http://useconomy.about.com/od/glossary/g/Federal_Poverty_Level.htm[/URL]

[QUOTE=Punter127;436676]Poverty level for an individual is $11,495 after inflation not $23,000. Your $23,000 number is for a family of four, according to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

[url]http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/12computations.shtml[/url]

So at $8.18 per hour or $17,014 per year the individual is $5,519 a year above poverty level.

If you want to use the family of four number I think you have to assume two adults of working age, so you can double the $17,014 per year, so the families yearly income would be $34,028 which is $11,028 above poverty.

Don't we have a federal minimum wage law for just this reason?

I'm not defending Walmart but let use the real numbers.

Question, WT where did you get the $8.18 number?[/QUOTE]

I have heard this so many times. The workers are afraid to vote for the Union because if they did they would be fired.

[QUOTE=Tres3;436669]I do not like Walmart and seldom shop there for a variety of reasons, but you need to get your facts straight WT69. Walmart does not unionize because their employees (the same ones you say are below the poverty line) repeatedly [b]vote against a union[/b], not because "the Republicans will not let them do it". If Walmart is such a bad employer, why does each Walmart store opening have at least five applicants for every job available? I do not think Walmart pays enough, but I also cannot argue with the numbers, and do not believe that they should be forced or coerced into paying more when the numbers say that there are people willing to work for what they are offering.

Tres3.[/QUOTE]

Washington Times, November 19,2013.

"The law was a costly mistake, but at least it started us on the road to much needed health care reform, and it authors can be proud of the fact."

A nice way to say "let's work together". But for the Hatfields vs McCoys feud. Shi'a vs Sunni. The issues are irrelevant, the ideology reign supreme. The extremists in America are no different from the Muslim fundamentalists that we so despise. So proud, so stubborn, so divisive. Sitting so pretty, feeling good & dismissive just because they have a little more cash in their pockets than the other guy

Did you oppose voting rights, women's rights, labor rights like your forefathers? Who are you?

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;436679]I have heard this so many times. The workers are afraid to vote for the Union because if they did they would be fired.[/QUOTE]WT,

I assume that you know that the DOJ investigates allegations of employee intimidation in unionization votes, right?

I defy you to find one example in the past 10 years where a federal investigation resulted in a conviction in a case where company employees were intimidated into refraining from voting in a unionization vote by agents of the company.

Of course, it's entirely possible that the company employees know that the unions will eventually destroy their jobs.

Does anybody remember the 1979 movie "Norma Rae" in which the union organizers were successful in organizing the textile factory where Norma worked.

Does anybody know what actually happened to the textile industry in the South after the wave of factory unionization's? That's right, in the next 30 years, all of those factories closed and the jobs moved overseas.

I understand the same thing happened to the printing industry in San Francisco, but I could be mistaken.

Thanks,

Jackson.

"[I]Facts aren't important to liberals. Only emotion is important.[/I]"

From Steven Hayward, Forbes, November 11,2013.

"While liberals are in dismay, they should recognized that ObamaCare may well have achieved its chief purpose of making universal care or at least greatly expanded health coverage a fixture of American social policy.

So, stop the foaming at your mouth!

Here is one.

[URL]http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/10/31/union-busting-tacticsondisplayatduluthgaplant.html[/URL]

I remember some that happened in the past, but I can not remember the company names.

Yes, the Printers Union lost many jobs because of Outsourcing.

Why pay Union wages, if you can pay someone $1 or $2 a day to do the work, with no health care benefits.

Oh yes, you mean the 8 stories that collapsed killing the textile workers. Remember the illustration I posted?

[QUOTE=Jackson;436684]WT,

I assume that you know that the DOJ investigates allegations of employee intimidation in unionization votes, right?

I defy you to find one example in the past 10 years where a federal investigation resulted in a conviction in a case where company employees were intimidated into refraining from voting in a unionization vote by agents of the company.

Of course, it's entirely possible that the company employees know that the unions will eventually destroy their jobs.

Does anybody remember the 1979 movie "Norma Rae" in which the union organizers were successful in organizing the textile factory where Norma worked.

Does anybody know what actually happened to the textile industry in the South after the wave of factory unionization's? That's right, in the next 30 years, all of those factories closed and the jobs moved overseas.

I understand the same thing happened to the printing industry in San Francisco, but I could be mistaken.

Thanks,

Jackson.

"[I]Facts aren't important to liberals. Only emotion is important.[/I]"[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;436690]Here is one.

[URL]http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/10/31/union-busting-tacticsondisplayatduluthgaplant.html[/URL]

I remember some that happened in the past, but I can not remember the company names.

Yes, the Printers Union lost many jobs because of Outsourcing.

Why pay Union wages, if you can pay someone $1 or $2 a day to do the work, with no health care benefits.

Oh yes, you mean the 8 stories that collapsed killing the textile workers. Remember the illustration I posted?[/QUOTE]Now you're quoting Aljazeera as a news source? Jajajajaja!

Anyway, the article you referred to is titled "[I]Workers allege union busting at government contractor in Georgia[/I]".

That's not exactly the same as "[I]Dept. Of Justice attorneys secured a conviction for union busting at government contractor in Georgia[/I]".

I challenged you "[I]to find one example in the past 10 years where a federal investigation resulted in a conviction in a case where company employees were intimidated into refraining from voting in a unionization vote by agents of the company.[/I]"

What you presented was "[I]Allegations made by workers to Aljazeera reporters[/I]".

Do you see the difference?

Once again, you need to up your game because there aren't very many LIV (Low Information Voters) on this website, so the usual liberal drivel won't fly.

Thanks,

Jax.

Mongers-.

The right wing fascists on this forum, led by Jackson himself, bashed the auto bailouts and were willing to let both GM and Chrysler be liquidated and allow millions of workers to lose their jobs. GM is now sitting on a $26 billion cash pile and Chrysler is looking at a $10 billion valuation for its soon to come IPO; the US Treasury will liquidate its final 2% of GM holdings before year end. The entire US auto industry has surpassed pre-crisis sales figures and are making genuinely competitive vehicles; if Jackson and his fascist lackies (Punter, Toyman, Sidney, etc) had their way only Ford would exist millions of well-paid workers would have footholds in the fast food and retail industries earning minimum wage.

[URL]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-21/treasury-plans-to-exit-general-motors-investment-by-year-end-1-.html[/URL]

This is what anti union jobs lead to.

[url]http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0SO8zb_Ao9SNiwAmrRXNyoA?p=building+colapses+in+banladesh&fr=yfp-t-900&fr2=piv-web[/url]

[URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/28/bangladesh-building-collapse-fire-factory_n_3174732.html[/URL]

[URL]http://accountingfuture.wordpress.com/2013/11/16/how-outsourcing-has-affected-job-markets/[/URL]

[URL]http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2013/08/29/top-india-stories-from-wsj-skidding-rupee-endangers-economy-outsourcing-firms-cry-foul-on-bill-building-collapses-kill-11/[/URL]

[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/opinion/a-broken-outsourcing-model.html?_r=0[/URL]

[URL]http://outsourcingandthedollar.blogspot.com/[/URL]

[URL]http://science.time.com/2013/04/29/fast-cheap-dead-shopping-and-the-bangladesh-factory-collapse/[/URL]

Jackson have ever really did {done} a physical days work in your life? Do you know what a shovel is?

[QUOTE=Jackson;436691]Now you're quoting Aljazeera as a news source? Jajajajaja!

Anyway, the article you referred to is titled "[I]Workers allege union busting at government contractor in Georgia[/I]".

That's not exactly the same as "[I]Dept. Of Justice attorneys secured a conviction for union busting at government contractor in Georgia[/I]".

I challenged you "[I]to find one example in the past 10 years where a federal investigation resulted in a conviction in a case where company employees were intimidated into refraining from voting in a unionization vote by agents of the company.[/I]"

What you presented was "[I]Allegations made by workers to Aljazeera reporters[/I]".

Do you see the difference?

Once again, you need to up your game because there aren't very many LIV (Low Information Voters) on this website, so the usual liberal drivel won't fly.

Thanks,

Jax.[/QUOTE]

WT, explain this: CGI Federal is the USA Arm of a Canadian company.

[QUOTE=RockHarders;436692]Mongers-.

The right wing fascists on this forum, led by Jackson himself, bashed the auto bailouts and were willing to let both GM and Chrysler be liquidated and allow millions of workers to lose their jobs. GM is now sitting on a $26 billion cash pile and Chrysler is looking at a $10 billion valuation for its soon to come IPO; the US Treasury will liquidate its final 2% of GM holdings before year end. The entire US auto industry has surpassed pre-crisis sales figures and are making genuinely competitive vehicles; if Jackson and his fascist lackies (Punter, Toyman, Sidney, etc) had their way only Ford would exist millions of well-paid workers would have footholds in the fast food and retail industries earning minimum wage.

[URL]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-21/treasury-plans-to-exit-general-motors-investment-by-year-end-1-.html[/URL][/QUOTE]More liberal hyperbole, designed to sway the emotions of the LIV.

The truth is that the demand for cars would still exist, and thus the need for the factories and their workers would still exist, and thus ultimately the only difference would have been the company name on the side of the building.

Of course, Obama wouldn't have had the opportunity to strip the GM bondholders of their equity and then give it to the unions, but he needed their support regardless of what was legally correct.

You liberals need to up your game here because the drivel you usually pitch to the LIV's just isn't going to work in this intellectually elevated venue.

Thanks,

Jax.

I love Christmas lights! They remind me of the people who voted for Obama.

They all hang together; half of them don't work, and and the ones that do, aren't all that bright!

Tres3.

You are the only one here lacking facts; you are speculating about what a possible outcome MIGHT have been and have no actual empirical evidence to back up anything you are claiming. The FACT is that both GM and Chrysler were BANKRUPT, were saved from liquidation (meaning EXISTING jobs and EXISTING factories continued to EXIST) and today are earning BILLIONS. The most likely outcome of allowing GM and Chrysler to implode is that Japanese automakers would have absorbed the additional demand for cars through their own factories and employees. Regarding what was "legally correct", the entire TARP program was with no precedent and on dubious legal ground before it was invented on the fly and implemented to stop the US economy from grinding to a halt.

[QUOTE=Jackson;436705]More liberal hyperbole, designed to sway the emotions of the LIV.

The truth is that the demand for cars would still exist, and thus the need for the factories and their workers would still exist, and thus ultimately the only difference would have been the company name on the side of the building.

Of course, Obama wouldn't have had the opportunity to strip the GM bondholders of their equity and then give it to the unions, but he needed their support regardless of what was legally correct.

You liberals need to up your game here because the drivel you usually pitch to the LIV's just isn't going to work in this intellectually elevated venue.

Thanks,

Jax.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=RockHarders;436707]You are the only one here lacking facts; you are speculating about what a possible outcome MIGHT have been and have no actual empirical evidence to back up anything you are claiming. The FACT is that both GM and Chrysler were BANKRUPT, were saved from liquidation (meaning EXISTING jobs and EXISTING factories continued to EXIST) and today are earning BILLIONS. The most likely outcome of allowing GM and Chrysler to implode is that Japanese automakers would have absorbed the additional demand for cars through their own factories and employees. Regarding what was "legally correct", the entire TARP program was with no precedent and on dubious legal ground before it was invented on the fly and implemented to stop the US economy from grinding to a halt.[/QUOTE]You're right. I can't PROVE that my scenario would have come to fruition, any more than you can PROVE that it wouldn't have happened, but the history of the human race has repeatedly and consistently PROVEN that entrepreneurs will step in and meet any unfilled market demand.

However, it's possible that you have no faith in the free market system.

BTW, if your belief that "[I]Japanese automakers would have absorbed the additional demand for cars through their own factories and employees.[/I]" was true (which you also can't PROVE), then why are Japanese, German and other foreign car makers rushing to build auto factories in the USA, abet in non-union "Right to Work" states?

Thanks,

Jax

[B][size=3]Of course, the most important thing to liberals is that we're not talking about the ObamaCare diaster![/size][/B]

[QUOTE=RockHarders;436707]You are the only one here lacking facts; you are speculating about what a possible outcome MIGHT have been and have no actual empirical evidence to back up anything you are claiming. The FACT is that both GM and Chrysler were BANKRUPT, were saved from liquidation (meaning EXISTING jobs and EXISTING factories continued to EXIST) and today are earning BILLIONS. The most likely outcome of allowing GM and Chrysler to implode is that Japanese automakers would have absorbed the additional demand for cars through their own factories and employees. Regarding what was "legally correct", the entire TARP program was with no precedent and on dubious legal ground before it was invented on the fly and implemented to stop the US economy from grinding to a halt.[/QUOTE]Congratulations to all you Political pundits for not parsing the piss out of this subject.

I enjoyed your Executive Summaries posted to the point.

Its really nice not to have to wade through countless boxes of unconnected thoughts.

Jackpot.

I had to post this, as I thought it was kind of funny (actually bust a gut at the last paragraph). Jackson and I just recently had a discussion about this, where we turned out we were arguing the same basic premise, just to different degrees.

[QUOTE]
Still, as historian Michael Beschloss pronounced the day after his election, he’s “probably the smartest guy ever to become president.” Naturally, Obama shares this assessment. As he assured us five years ago, “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors.” Well, apart from his signature health-care policy. That’s a mystery to him. “I was not informed directly that the website would not be working,” he told us. The buck stops with something called “the executive branch,” which is apparently nothing to do with him. As evidence that he was entirely out of the loop, he offered this:

Had I been I informed, I wouldn’t be going out saying, “Boy, this is going to be great.” You know, I’m accused of a lot of things, but I don’t think I’m stupid enough to go around saying, “This is going to be like shopping on Amazon or Travelocity,” a week before the website opens, if I thought that it wasn’t going to work.

Ooooo-kay. So, if I follow correctly, the smartest president ever is not smart enough to ensure that his website works; he’s not smart enough to inquire of others as to whether his website works; he’s not smart enough to check that his website works before he goes out and tells people what a great website experience they’re in for. But he is smart enough to know that he’s not stupid enough to go around bragging about how well it works if he’d already been informed that it doesn’t work. So he’s smart enough to know that if he’d known what he didn’t know he’d know enough not to let it be known that he knew nothing. The country’s in the very best of hands.
[/QUOTE]This is from an article ([URL]http://www.nationalreview.com/article/364093/thus-spake-obama-mark-steyn[/URL]) accusing Obama of acting like a king.

In my opinion, where JFK was associated with King Arthur and Camelot, the same was tried with Obama but it seems to me he comes across as more King John Lackland of England, famous for having had the Magna Carta forced on him and such a bad king (lost land to France, was cruel and vindictive in his rule, etc) there was never another named John, as I understand.

King Obama Lackplan of America.

[QUOTE=Tres3;436706]I love Christmas lights! They remind me of the people who voted for Obama.

They all hang together; half of them don't work, and and the ones that do, aren't all that bright!

Tres3.[/QUOTE]So you are claiming that you are the Silver Star atop the Christmas tree? Too many people wearing a big Ego medallion on their chest around here just because they can spell a few words.

[QUOTE=RockHarders;436707]You are the only one here lacking facts; you are speculating about what a possible outcome MIGHT have been and have no actual empirical evidence to back up anything you are claiming. The FACT is that both GM and Chrysler were BANKRUPT, were saved from liquidation (meaning EXISTING jobs and EXISTING factories continued to EXIST) and today are earning BILLIONS. The most likely outcome of allowing GM and Chrysler to implode is that Japanese automakers would have absorbed the additional demand for cars through their own factories and employees. Regarding what was "legally correct", the entire TARP program was with no precedent and on dubious legal ground before it was invented on the fly and implemented to stop the US economy from grinding to a halt.[/QUOTE]Far from being a right-wing fascist myself, I am rather a true Libertarian who has some grounding in a whole lot of activities ranging from ditch digging to designing / drafting buildings, to erecting large buildings as a superintendent, to being a programmer, to managing software development for the world's largest offshore drilling company and finally running my own businesses, and having had a failure am in the middle of rebuilding. For the last few years I have been studying economic concepts of both the Austrian and Keynesian schools. While not a highly-learned student of economics, I do see in this point about the distribution of resources what seems to me to be a typical misunderstanding of what all this means.

If there is a demand for something, the resources WILL be recovered in some fashion. This isn't some might-have-been; even Keynesians believe this to some extent, they simply think it's a good idea to encourage the economy to do it quicker than natural, and in the direction they want (which, of course, almost always leads to bubbles).

Austrians believe that you will always pay for your tampering of the market. They believe that the resources will be naturally recovered and redistributed by market forces and less damage will be done as a result, both because an artificial bubble made by politician's whimsical desires doesn't lead a lot of consumers or investors into the wrong sort of thing (I.e., reduces risk to begin with) and doesn't leave the economy weak as a result of messing with chaotic forces that no one has yet been able to predict and really plan for, limiting future growth until everything is in harmony again.

The reason free market believers have problems with bailing out private industry is because it is only making a bad position worse and will never get better. The auto-industry has been hampered long past necessity by unions. The demands made by collective bargaining have distorted that market in the US and made it very vulnerable to competition from the outside. There are certainly other issues, such as bad management and in some cases bad quality, etc. But at the end of the day, the government propping up private industry is doing nothing but taking money from the economy and using it to continue to prop up bad business and keep resources locked up in poorly-performing economic situations.

If the businesses failed, they would certainly have been redistributed back into the economy and eventually recovered. No might-have-been. I don't think any real economists actually doubt that. But the problem is, those resources may not have been redistributed back into Detroit and other places that have high labor and other costs due to the high influence of collective bargaining. That is where everyone freaks out. My god, all those people may not have had jobs!

But it was their choice! In this day and age, collective bargaining is ridiculous. A job is worth what a job is worth. I don't have a problem if a particular state has a belief that collective bargaining is cool and gets great salaries, but don't expect me, as a taxpayer, to want to contribute to that because the only way they can survive long term with ridiculous salaries and benefits is for the government to help them out at some point. It's not my problem that in my opinion they are way overpaid, and how dare anyone tell me that I should support their artificially-high prices.

If the resources are released and Japanese and German automakers want to by up tools and equipment and other such things and move to other states where collective bargaining is not a problem (considering that foreign automakers already have a number of factories in the US, I can't imagine why they would try to export cars at a higher price than consumers want to pay), I say more power to them. The people in other states will get the benefit of the new jobs, I won't have to bail out a bunch of people who think they are entitled to artificial wage rates, and maybe it will force those people where the jobs were to innovate in some fashion to bring jobs back into their state instead of depending on the other taxpayers of the same country to keep them in their little idealic fantasy.

Let the resources go to those who deserve them by taking care of the resources and increasing their value by using labor and the ingenuity of those workers and not expecting everyone else to suffer for their artificially high demands.

Unfortunately, propping them up has extended the problem and it will just get even worse the next time.

Propping up ANYTHING (be it banks, Wall Street, the auto industry, or the restaurant around the corner) is doing nothing more than delaying the problem.

I think politicians should adopt an item from the Hippocratic Oath: First, do no harm.

Don't just read the words, understand why the Hippocratic Oath contains those words and how they apply to a doctor meddling with his patient.

From the NY Times, Timothy Egan, November 21,2013.(selected).

"The South is once again committed to take a backward path. By refusing to expand health care to the working poor through Medicaid, most of the Confederacy is keeping millions of its own citizens in poverty and poor health. They are dooming themselves further, as the Left Behind States.

And they are doing it out spite(can you believe that, just because of Obama). Most of the South is defiant--their own Lost Cause of the 21st century.

And so the South continue their incestous and self destructive ways. In a world of their own making. But there will be an awakening one day, hope it won't be too late.

[QUOTE]The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 45% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Obama's job performance. Fifty-four percent (54%) disapprove.

The latest figures include 22% who Strongly Approve of the way Obama is performing as president and 44% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -22.[/QUOTE]The only thing dropping faster than Obamas poll numbers is the number of insured people.

[QUOTE=Jackson;436705]Of course, Obama wouldn't have had the opportunity to strip the GM bondholders of their equity [/QUOTE]Bondholders don't have equity. They are creditors. And THAT is a fact.

Notice how Republicans never cite their own poll numbers, which are absolutely in the toilet. Lower than approval ratings for Congressional Democrats, and less than half of Obama.

[QUOTE=Esten;436737]Notice how Republicans never cite their own poll numbers, which are absolutely in the toilet. Lower than approval ratings for Congressional Democrats, and less than half of Obama.[/QUOTE]Surely you jest. There are no Republicans on this board, only 'Libertarians.

Mongers-.

The clock is ticking for Jackson and his slithery fascist brethren.

[URL]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-20/blame-rich-overeducated-elites-as-our-society-frays.html[/URL]

[QUOTE=RevBS;436723]From the NY Times, Timothy Egan, November 21,2013.(selected).

"The South is once again committed to take a backward path. By refusing to expand health care to the working poor through Medicaid, most of the Confederacy is keeping millions of its own citizens in poverty and poor health. They are dooming themselves further, as the Left Behind States.

And they are doing it out spite(can you believe that, just because of Obama). Most of the South is defiant--their own Lost Cause of the 21st century.

And so the South continue their incestous and self destructive ways. In a world of their own making. But there will be an awakening one day, hope it won't be too late.[/QUOTE]That sounds a lot to me more like a passive-aggressive way of saying "you're either with us or against us", much like a lot of progressives accused Bush of when he was inciting war with Iraq. God forbid should people have their own reasons for doing things without all the guilt-tripping that goes along with it. On either side.

I'm sure they are doing all that "just to spite Obama."

[QUOTE=Dickhead;436734]Bondholders don't have equity. They are creditors. And THAT is a fact.[/QUOTE]And as creditors, they were in line before any stockholders to be repaid from any equity that may have remained after a legal bankrupacy, and THAT is a fact.

In this case, the Obama administration ignored the country's bankrupacy laws and instead gave $25 billion in GM stock to the UAW while simultaneously telling the legitimate GM bondholders to go pound sand, and THAT is a fact.

[B][size=3]Of course, the most important thing to liberals is that we're not talking about the ObamaCare diaster![/size][/B]

[QUOTE=Dickhead;436745]Surely you jest. There are no Republicans on this board, only 'Libertarians.[/QUOTE]That's because in the view of many fiscally conservative members of this forum the Republican Party is on the wrong side of a number of social issues including recreational drugs, contractual sex, right to choose, etc.

Thus if you are fiscally conservative but socially liberal, you have embraced the basic tenants of the Libertarian philosophy.

Thanks,

Jax.

==============================================

For the record, I am [u]NOT[/u] a Republican, and I am [u]NOT[/u] a conservative.

- I am [u]against[/u] the death penalty.
- I am [u]against[/u] [u]any[/u] government support of religious organizations.
- I am [u]for[/u] the legalization of recreational drugs.
- I am [u]for[/u] the legalization of commercial sex.
- I am [u]for[/u] a woman's right to choose.
- I am [u]for[/u] comprehensive sex education.
- I am [u]for[/u] a foreign guest worker program.
- I am [u]for[/u] a universal flat tax on [u]EVERYONE'S[/u] income.
- I am [u]for[/u] health [u]INSURANCE[/u] reform.
- I am [u]for[/u] health [u]JUSTICE[/u] reform.

I am a member of the Libertarian Party, registered as an Independent.

[QUOTE=RockHarders;436746]Mongers-.

The clock is ticking for Jackson and his slithery fascist brethren.

[URL]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-20/blame-rich-overeducated-elites-as-our-society-frays.html[/URL][/QUOTE]Hey Rock,

Apparently you missed an important day in civics class, so let me educate you.

According to the Webster dictionary, fascism is "[I]a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government, very harsh control or authority[/I].

The word "fascist" much more accurately describes your hero Obama than it does me.

Thanks,

Jax

==============================================

For the record, I am [u]NOT[/u] a Republican, and I am [u]NOT[/u] a conservative.

- I am [u]against[/u] the death penalty.
- I am [u]against[/u] [u]any[/u] government support of religious organizations.
- I am [u]for[/u] the legalization of recreational drugs.
- I am [u]for[/u] the legalization of commercial sex.
- I am [u]for[/u] a woman's right to choose.
- I am [u]for[/u] comprehensive sex education.
- I am [u]for[/u] a foreign guest worker program.
- I am [u]for[/u] a universal flat tax on [u]EVERYONE'S[/u] income.
- I am [u]for[/u] health [u]INSURANCE[/u] reform.
- I am [u]for[/u] health [u]JUSTICE[/u] reform.

I am a member of the Libertarian Party, registered as an Independent.

[QUOTE=Jackson;436757]I am [u]for[/u] health [u]JUSTICE[/u] reform.[/QUOTE]I've never heard the term "health justice". I googled it but came up empty. What does it mean if you don't mind me asking?

How do you feel about the Tea Party?

Shouldn't the Tea Party be a third Party?

It seems like they are too conservative for the Sane Republicans.

[QUOTE=Jackson;436757]Hey Rock,

Apparently you missed an important day in civics class, so let me educate you.

According to the Webster dictionary, fascism is "[I]a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government, very harsh control or authority[/I].

The word "fascist" much more accurately describes your hero Obama that it does me.

Thanks,

Jax

==============================================

For the record, I am [u]NOT[/u] a Republican, and I am [u]NOT[/u] a conservative.

- I am [u]against[/u] the death penalty.
- I am [u]against[/u] [u]any[/u] government support of religious organizations.
- I am [u]for[/u] the legalization of recreational drugs.
- I am [u]for[/u] the legalization of commercial sex.
- I am [u]for[/u] a woman's right to choose.
- I am [u]for[/u] comprehensive sex education.
- I am [u]for[/u] a foreign guest worker program.
- I am [u]for[/u] a universal flat tax on [u]EVERYONE'S[/u] income.
- I am [u]for[/u] health [u]INSURANCE[/u] reform.
- I am [u]for[/u] health [u]JUSTICE[/u] reform.

I am a member of the Libertarian Party, registered as an Independent.[/QUOTE]

Michael Hiltzik, Los Angeles Times, November 22,2013.(selected).

"House Speaker John Boehner tried to make a public spectacle out of his own experience signing for a health plan. Things didn't turn out quite the way he'd hoped for. In other words, he succeeded. Boehner did pretty well with ObamaCare. He was eligible for a bronze plan (among others) with a $6,000 annual deductible for $372.14 which is just 2% of Boehner's salary.

And so it goes, we are 7 weeks into the transition, it's been crazy. You mean you expected it to be clockwork, how naive can you be. Ever try to go to the airport on a holiday weekend? One Monday, I couldn't even return my rental car for over an hour. Frustration abound. But in the GOP camp, they are dancing with joy and predicting disaster. We shall see, in another 2 months, in another 10 months. Will the dancing continue to be frantic, drug induced body jerking or to a mere shuffling of the feet. Very interesting times.

Fascists and libertarians are about as far apart as you can get on the political spectrum.

Fascism, socialism, and communism are movements that have considerably more in common with modern progressive liberalism (aka nannyism) than modern Conservatism or Libertarianism.

The auto bailout which was started under Bush and continued by Obama (anybody can follow the leader) was a merger of government and corporate power, however in true capitalism there is no such thing as "to big to fail". Chrysler has been bailed out twice over the years, how many times should we reward poor management, until they can't repay perhaps?

If you want to see the real effects of collective bargaining and progressive liberal leadership one need look no farther than the auto industry and the bankrupt city of Detroit, which hasn't had a Republican mayor in 50 years.

You can also see the merger of government and corporate power in ObamaCare, individuals are being forced to buy insurance from private insurers, that's certainly not capitalism. It's all being controlled by big business, the unions, (which are also big business) and big banks, and the Obama parasites are in bed with all of them.

When a bigoted progressive liberal starts name calling and stereotyping people it really doesn't have much effect other than to get them some left handed high fives. In this case however it also exposes the progressive liberals lack of class and their desperation as the wheels fall off the ObamaCare buggy.

[B]”Democrats Afraid Leaders Suffer Obamacare Denial”[/B]

[QUOTE]With millions of Americans receiving health insurance cancellation notices and President Barack Obama's approval and trustworthiness ratings nosediving, Democratic strategists and pollsters say they fear top Democratic congressional leaders are in denial over the electoral consequences of the Obamacare debacle.

"We're trying to deny what everyone knows is happening," a veteran Democratic pollster told Politico. [highlight]"Anybody who is halfway intelligent knows this is a big ... problem for us.[/highlight] It's impossible not to see. We can try to hide our heads in the sand and pretend it's not a problem, but it is."

Another Democratic pollster, Paul Maslin, said, "As worried as they were a month ago, we're worried now."

Still, Democratic leaders like House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) say Obamacare will be an electoral asset, not liability, in next year's midterm elections.

"I think actually that Democratic candidates will be able to run on Obamacare as an advantage leading into the 2014 elections," Schultz said.

Similarly, Pelosi has said Democrats "stand by the policy--we're proud of it."

[highlight]A CNN/ORC poll released Monday finds that for the first time, 53% of Americans believe Obama is not honest or trustworthy, and 56% do not admire Obama.

According to the RealClearPolitics poll average, 57% of Americans are against Obamacare.[/highlight]

[url]http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/25/Democrats-Afraid-Leaders-Suffer-Obamacare-Denial[/url]

[/QUOTE]We didn't need Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman Schultz to tell us ObamaCare's an electoral asset, Rev. BS has been preaching that for a long time.

I hope every Democrat running takes thier advice and openly supports ObamaCare.

Obama circumvented standard Chapter 13 bankruptcy laws and placed GM & Chrysler in something I call Obama-rutcy, to insure the UAW kept their current labor contracts intact and not to "save the company".

Neither GM nor Chrysler considered filing Chapter 7, liquidation of the company and it's assets. Had GM & Chrysler followed a standard Chapter 13 bankruptcy course the court would most probably have allowed them to void their current labor contracts with the UAW. The companies would have emerged from Chapter 13 leaner and more competitive with new labor contracts.

This was simple naked pandering to the UAW by Obama. Why else would Obama put the American people on the hook for THREE TIMES WHAT THE COMPANY WAS WORTH?

While GM has "repaid" their loans from the initial bailout, they merely exchanged those loans for new government loans.

ObamaCare is still a train wreck and the website will not be up and running by the end of November as Obama promised. In fact the administration is telling its supporters not to use the site and is trying to place work- a-rounds in to let people sign up and not use the website.

If Obama thought the individual health policy cancellations were something the second shoe is going to drop in August – October 2014 when company insurance policies begin receiving cancellation notices throwing over 100 million people off their company plans.

Obama and the Democrats knew back in 2010 both individual and company insurance plans would be cancelled due to ObamaCare and just continued to lie to the American people.

2014 is coming and it will make 2010 look like a church social for the Democrats. I only hope the Republicans don't dance on their dicks too much and win a veto proof majority to insure there is no ink in Obama's veto pen. Then we can get back to a sane domestic and foreign policy.

Wow, can you believe it?

[URL]http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Conservative-leads-effort-on-wages-in-California-5014766.php[/URL]