President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[S2M]

I am anti-union. I'll tell you right up front. Union workers need to be weaned off the tit of the collective bargaining cow....Unions protect lazy workers, bad teachers, and promote an environment of entitlement. Believe me, there's nothing more pathetic than watching a grown-ass mail carrier running to the union steward EVERY morning because he he was asked to actually do his job today...

I'm all for what happened in Wisconsin....let's hit every state, I say. I dont want to hear any union worker, who is reaping the benefits of a CBA, bitch about entitlements.

Read up on what unions have done for this country and the rest of the industrialized world.

If you're looking for another third world country. You're barking up the right tree.

Blatant fallacy alert. 'Appeal to Consequences'.

Dave is correct...unions have outlived their usefulness.

[conversationpc]

I know it happens from the corporate side of things, too, but here's another example of Big Union trying to hurt their own employees' companies.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/open-se ... -managers/

[hoagiepete]

I am anti-union. I'll tell you right up front. Union workers need to be weaned off the tit of the collective bargaining cow....Unions protect lazy workers, bad teachers, and promote an environment of entitlement. Believe me, there's nothing more pathetic than watching a grown-ass mail carrier running to the union steward EVERY morning because he he was asked to actually do his job today...

I'm all for what happened in Wisconsin....let's hit every state, I say. I dont want to hear any union worker, who is reaping the benefits of a CBA, bitch about entitlements.

Read up on what unions have done for this country and the rest of the industrialized world.

If you're looking for another third world country. You're barking up the right tree.

I work closely with the unions in the construction industry and have seen plenty of the good and bad. There are some good things and good people, but I've witnessed (and experienced) first hand the bad. I think there is still a purpose, but their focus is lost on concentrating on the union itself and not the people they are there to represent.

Jurisdictional issues, intimidation, unmotivated workers, unwillingness to work with the rest of industry on industrywide issues such as workforce development are all weaknesses. I've had 6'5" 280 pound reps threatening to "kick the ass" of 70 year olds, telling office help (ladies) to tell owners to stick offers of their ass, bricks thrown at our building...I could go on.

In the meeting and convention business, groups avoid union hotbeds like the plague because of outrageous fees to do things as simple as moving a portable display...which is on wheels...from the door to the trade show floor. That shit has to stop someday.

Having been stuck in airports for hours during union "slow downs" that caused me to miss one of my kid's birthday parties and another's performance in a play really soured me on airline unions. The bully, screw everyone to get what they want attitude sucks. Sorry, but it is true.

[Michigan Girl]

I work closely with the unions in the construction industry and have seen plenty of the good and bad. There are some good things and good people, but I've witnessed (and experienced) first hand the bad. I think there is still a purpose, but their focus is lost on concentrating on the union itself and not the people they are there to represent.

Jurisdictional issues, intimidation, unmotivated workers, unwillingness to work with the rest of industry on industrywide issues such as workforce development are all weaknesses. .

I agree, Pete!! Focus lost concentrating on the Union itself and the riff raff,
dead weight, losers ...but still necessary!!

[slucero]

Yo Seven... just in case you missed it...

OK, then. I'll play.

Name the programs to cut. Explain why. Then explain how you'll replace them if they're vital to our infrastructure or if they create jobs.

Convince me. I'm open.

Ok lets 1st get the estimate of the Bush Tax cuts and the Cost of the Wars figured out... I did some research... and found the following... (sources provided)

Cost of Wars:
The Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies did a study on the cost of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The report, written by more than 20 economists, political scientists, lawyers, anthropologists and humanitarian personnel for Brown's Watson Institute for International Studies, gives staggering estimates for the cost of military action in those three countries. Nearly ten years since U.S. troops first entered Afghanistan, the report estimates the U.S. government has already spent between $2.3 trillion to $2.7 trillion and will spend at least a trillion more over the next fifty years. That report data is represented here: http://costsofwar.org/article/economic-cost-summary


Lets error on the high side and use $2.7T as the 10 year cost... so $270B per year is the estimated cost (savings). If you want different numbers let me know and of course please provide sources.

Note that Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are not included as they are off balance sheet.

Bush Tax Cuts:
(source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html)

President Bush instituted two big tax cuts, one in 2001 and another in 2003. The first was implemented amid rosy predictions of a 10-year, $5.6 trillion surplus; the second was enacted after the economy appeared to stumble after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. When the tax cuts were passed, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimated how much they might reduce revenue: the 2001 tax cuts was pegged at $1.35 trillion over 10 years; the 2003 tax cut was set at $350 billion over 10 years. Those estimates have never been updated, even as the economy and the budget have moved on.

I propose we use $1.7T as the 10 year cost... so $170B per year is the estimated cost (savings)


That gives us $440 Billion per year in savings...


I've built a spreadsheet that includes the Cost of Wars and Bush Tax Cuts

• 1st section is the budget Estimate for FY12 - FY16 ( http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/ ... st10z1.xls )
• 2nd section will reflect percentage reduction (yellow area)
• 3rd section is the Bush Tax Cuts and Cost of Wars
• 4th section is summary 2nd and 3rd sections

Note that Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are not included as they are off balance sheet.






Once the Cost of Wars and Bush Tax Cut amounts are settled we can work the other categories...

[Seven Wishes2]

Good post, slucero.

SO, reform entitlements, end the tax cuts, end the wars...good start.

[donnaplease]

And so it begins.... (well, continues)

I was listenting to Mark Thompson who is filling in for Alex Bennett this morning. They were discussing how Rick Perry is a racist because he said there was a "black cloud hovering over Washington". Supposedly the 'black' cloud is a hidden slur against Obama.

[Seven Wishes2]

Yeah, that's a reach. Back to the issues.

Such as Perry flying the Confederate flag higher than the Stars and Stripes in San Antonio, or supporting the right of Texas to issue Confederate License Plates.

[slucero]

Good post, slucero.

SO, reform entitlements, end the tax cuts, end the wars...good start.

Cool.. so lets start cutting...

I've got:

Pensions 10%
Defense 10%
Protection 15%
General Government 10%
Other Spending 10%

Assuming no new spending, the wars are ended and the Bush tax cuts are allowed to lapse... that puts us in the black in 2015 with a $31.11B surplus...


Your turn...

[RedWingFan]

Yup and also said that it was a failure in leadership to have to raise it at the time. I guess we now have a failure in leadership...in Congress AND the President.

Obama is a failure in almost every possible way.

You mean like conservatives said he would be due to his far left policies and socialist loving cabinet and staff?

You're either at least 3 years "slower" than conservatives or you just joined your local chapter of the KKK. Which is it? You a racist too now?

[Saint John]

The creator of the Laffer curve called Warren Buffett a hypocrite for urging lawmakers to raise taxes on the super-rich to cut the budget deficit.

"The hypocrisy of Warren Buffett is unfathomable," Arthur Laffer, chairman of Laffer Associates, told CNBC Thursday, referring to the Berkshire Hathaway chairman.

"If he really wanted to make (the tax code) fair, why doesn’t he propose a wealth tax on everyone over $1 billion worth of wealth of 50 percent once and for all," Laffer said. "That would really work for him, but of course he’s not going to suggest that because he would have to pay that."

Laffer said most of Buffett's wealth is in unrealized capital gains. "It’s never seen a tax, and when he gives (the investments) to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, it never will. This is ridiculous," he said.

The Laffer curve shows the relationship between tax rates and tax revenue. Its creator said that if "you raise tax rates on the rich, all the evidence suggests they pay less in taxes, because they can get lawyers, accountants, deferred-income specialists. They can change the location of their income, the timing of their income, the composition, and the location. They just leave."

Meanwhile, Laffer said, the "lower-income guys, you raise their taxes and you collect more money, unfortunately. But that’s the way the world works."



There you go. Start raising the taxes on the lower and middle classes immediately. After all, it's "only 3%."

[RedWingFan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5H4Z09gm2k

[RedWingFan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIoALj0c ... r_embedded

[Seven Wishes2]

He continues to find ways to make himself look like an even bigger douche every day.

Mike Dukakis, anyone?

[slucero]

gotta love the bankers... "meet the new boss... same as the old boss"....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fRhb0aw ... r_embedded

[Seven Wishes2]

Rick Perry, like Michelle Bachmann, just signed his own "Guaranteed Inelectible as President" warrant with these postulations:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/seven-ways-rick-perry-wants-change-constitution-131634517.html

#3 and #4 are pretty good ideas. #5? Only works if you're cutting discretionary programs that don't create jobs. Otherwise, a ridiculous notion. The rest of these are just the ramblings of another self-anointed swashbuckling Texan cowboy with a far, far-right fundamentalist agenda.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Rick Perry, like Michelle Bachmann, just signed his own "Guaranteed Inelectible as President" warrant with these postulations:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/seven-ways-rick-perry-wants-change-constitution-131634517.html

#3 and #4 are pretty good ideas. #5? Only works if you're cutting discretionary programs that don't create jobs. Otherwise, a ridiculous notion. The rest of these are just the ramblings of another self-anointed swashbuckling Texan cowboy with a far, far-right fundamentalist agenda.

I agree with 3- 5. 2 is a howler, 6 is horrible and no business of the federal govt. 7 I agree with but should be left to the states.

[RedWingFan]

I have no problem with ANY changes to the Constitution as long as it's done through the amendment process like it's suppose to be done. Rather than activist judges reading words that aren't there, ignoring words that are or citing foreign law.

[Seven Wishes2]

WTF. I actually agree with you again.

I need a beer.

[Seven Wishes2]

Question:
What do patent reform, payroll taxes, the bipartisan commission on the deficit, cap and trade, the individual mandate, immigration reform, and the Dream Act all have in common?

(Answer:
They were all proposed by Republicans in 2008, approved by the Obama Administration, and are now officially opposed by the GOP).

[RedWingFan]

SUCKERS!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVezWBmDp7U


http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/ ... Z820110819

* New GM said not responsible to fix Impala made by old GM

* Suspension problem said to cause excessive tire wear

By Jonathan Stempel

NEW YORK, Aug 19 (Reuters) - General Motors Co (GM.N) is seeking to dismiss a lawsuit over a suspension problem on more than 400,000 Chevrolet Impalas from the 2007 and 2008 model years, saying it should not be responsible for repairs because the flaw predated its bankruptcy.

The lawsuit, filed on June 29 by Donna Trusky of Blakely, Pennsylvania, contended that her Impala suffered from faulty rear spindle rods, causing her rear tires to wear out after just 6,000 miles. [ID:nN1E7650CT]

Seeking class-action status and alleging breach of warranty, the lawsuit demands that GM fix the rods, saying that it had done so on Impala police vehicles.

But in a recent filing with the U.S. District Court in Detroit, GM noted that the cars were made by its predecessor General Motors Corp, now called Motors Liquidation Co or "Old GM," before its 2009 bankruptcy and federal bailout.

The current company, called "New GM," said it did not assume responsibility under the reorganization to fix the Impala problem, but only to make repairs "subject to conditions and limitations" in express written warranties. In essence, the automaker said, Trusky sued the wrong entity.

"New GM's warranty obligations for vehicles sold by Old GM are limited to the express terms and conditions in the Old GM written warranties on a going-forward basis," wrote Benjamin Jeffers, a lawyer for GM. "New GM did not assume responsibility for Old GM's design choices, conduct, or alleged breaches of liability under the warranty."

David Fink, Trusky's lawyer, declined to comment.

John Penn, a former president of the American Bankruptcy Institute who is not involved in the case, said the question of "successor liability" is common for manufacturing companies that go through bankruptcy.

"The fact it comes up now is not a surprise, as this type of issue was widely discussed during GM's bankruptcy," said Penn, now a partner at Haynes and Boone in Fort Worth, Texas. "The court will need to evaluate the claims to see if they fit within any cubbyhole of liability that New GM assumed."

GM said an argument similar to Trusky's failed this year in a case involving its OnStar security and navigation product.

"There are no specific factual allegations that New GM -- as opposed to Old GM -- did anything at all in relation to her vehicle," Jeffers wrote. "Plaintiff here is trying to saddle new GM with the alleged liability and conduct of old GM."

[Seven Wishes2]

Question:
What do patent reform, payroll taxes, the bipartisan commission on the deficit, cap and trade, the individual mandate, immigration reform, and the Dream Act all have in common?

(Answer:
They were all proposed by Republicans in 2008, approved by the Obama Administration, and are now officially opposed by the GOP).

I didn't think this would elicit a response.

[RedWingFan]

Question:
What do patent reform, payroll taxes, the bipartisan commission on the deficit, cap and trade, the individual mandate, immigration reform, and the Dream Act all have in common?

(Answer:
They were all proposed by Republicans in 2008, approved by the Obama Administration, and are now officially opposed by the GOP).

I didn't think this would elicit a response.

Yeah and you forgot amnesty for illegals that Bush and McCain tried to sneak through with the help of Democrats. Who stopped it? Conservatives in and out of the Republican party.
Kinda how Conservatives were trying to stop the damage Obama has inflicted on this country, while he was being aided by liberals like you!

Sure, the Republican Party has some liberals that could help destroy the country. The same kind of liberals that infest your party. At least there is a growing segment in the Republican Party that could save this country.

Now why don't you stand behind your President and credit him with his policies rather than trying to point fingers and blaming someone else. Try manning up for once.

[Seven Wishes2]

Question:
What do patent reform, payroll taxes, the bipartisan commission on the deficit, cap and trade, the individual mandate, immigration reform, and the Dream Act all have in common?

(Answer:
They were all proposed by Republicans in 2008, approved by the Obama Administration, and are now officially opposed by the GOP).

I didn't think this would elicit a response.

Yeah and you forgot amnesty for illegals that Bush and McCain tried to sneak through with the help of Democrats. Who stopped it? Conservatives in and out of the Republican party.
Kinda how Conservatives were trying to stop the damage Obama has inflicted on this country, while he was being aided by liberals like you!

Sure, the Republican Party has some liberals that could help destroy the country. The same kind of liberals that infest your party. At least there is a growing segment in the Republican Party that could save this country.

Now why don't you stand behind your President and credit him with his policies rather than trying to point fingers and blaming someone else. Try manning up for once.

Right.

I figured you'd ignore the facts again. Never mind that history, facts, and economic theory fly directly in the face of everything the Tea Baggers try to promote.

[Seven Wishes2]

Exactly.

The GOP strong-armed (forced) the Democrats to include the individual mandate. It was actually a brilliant strategy on their part.

[Seven Wishes2]

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-may-ok-tax-increase-obama-hopes-block-124016578.html

NEWS FLASH! Republicans want to raise taxes on the middle class!!

Surprise, surprise. Of course, I'm sure you brainwashed, Faux News troglodytes will spin the shit out of this one, and try to justify it in the way only the best bullshit artists can.

Bottom line: NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL here between the expiration of this tax cut, and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the rich. NONE. Except THIS one takes money OUT of the pockets of the middle class (again).

I'm dying to hear how you hackneys attempt to cover up for your elitist party AGAIN on this one. Please, let's hear them. This should be MINT.

[Seven Wishes2]

Bullshit.

HUGE, VAST numbers of people are opposed to this. It's pure, unadulterated, factoid-manipulation of the worst kind. Those tax cuts for the rich haven't exactly worked out as planned the past eight years, have they? Unemployment has MORE than DOUBLED. The lost revenues are costing this country TENS OF MILLIONS of jobs. Now your party wants to take more money away from the middle class and put it in the hands of the rich, who aren't creating ANY jobs, as I've already proven time and time again.

Indefensible.

[Seven Wishes2]

Fuck that. Wow, you're an ass licker.

YOUR party is trying to take away social security. YOUR party is taking money out of granny's check. The Democrats are trying to stop YOUR party from doing it. Nice try. I call BULLSHIT.

[Seven Wishes2]

Come on 7, even the Won thinks everbody should "have some skin in the game." Again, you're centered around the thought that the rich should shoulder more and more and the middle should bear little to none, and of course 47 million won't pay a dime.

If that's what he thinks, why is he (and why are 84% of all Americans) OPPOSED to the end of the payroll tax reduction YOUR party is sponsoring? Come on. Just ONCE, admit your party is wrong. ONCE.

[mikemarrs]

He continues to find ways to make himself look like an even bigger douche every day.

Mike Dukakis, anyone?

When was it '88 when he ran for president? i remember him making some type of blunder that cost him big time but its been so long ago i can't remember what it was.