What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Your opinion on the job that President Obama is doing so far (1 Viewer)

Your opinion on the job that President Obama is doing so far

  • strongly approve

    Votes: 43 17.8%
  • mildly approve

    Votes: 43 17.8%
  • mildly disapprove

    Votes: 31 12.8%
  • strongly disapprove

    Votes: 121 50.0%
  • neutral/no opinion

    Votes: 4 1.7%

  • Total voters
    242
The blood of 6 more American Soldiers in Afghanistan on obama's hands yesterday...

I am sure we will see the flag covered caskets as they are unloaded at Dover Air Force base all over the national media...

I am sure Cindy Sheehan will be picketing obama as he goes to meet the caskets as they come back to the country...

Oh wait she doesn't protest war anymore, the media doesn't cover it and besides obama has more important campaigning to do that is way more important...

What a shining example of leadership he is...

 
In 2010, influenced by the Tea Party and its focus on fiscal issues, 17 states elected Republican governors. And, according to an Examiner.com analysis, every one of those states saw a drop in their unemployment rates since January of 2011. Furthermore, the average drop in the unemployment rate in these states was 1.35%, compared to the national decline of .9%, which means, according to the analysis, that the job market in these Republican states is improving 50% faster than the national rate. Since January of 2011, here is how much the unemployment rate declined in each of the 17 states that elected Republican governors in 2010, according to the Examiner: Kansas - 6.9% to 6.1% = a decline of 0.8% Maine - 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of 0.6% Michigan - 10.9% to 8.5% = a decline of 2.4% New Mexico - 7.7% to 6.7% = a decline of 1.0% Oklahoma - 6.2% to 4.8% = a decline of 1.4% Pennsylvania - 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of 0.6% Tennessee - 9.5% to 7.9% = a decline of 1.6% Wisconsin - 7.7% to 6.8% = a decline of 0.9% Wyoming - 6.3% to 5.2% = a decline of 1.1% Alabama - 9.3% to 7.4% = a decline of 1.9% Georgia - 10.1% to 8.9% = a decline of 1.2% South Carolina - 10.6% to 9.1% = a decline of 1.5% South Dakota - 5.0% to 4.3% = a decline of 0.7% Florida - 10.9% to 8.6% = a decline of 2.3% Nevada - 13.8% to 11.6% = a decline of 2.2% Iowa - 6.1% to 5.1% = a decline of 1.0% Ohio - 9.0% to 7.3% = a decline of 1.7%On the other hand, the unemployment rate in states that elected Democrats in 2010 dropped, on average, as much as the national rate decline and, in some states such as New York, the unemployment rate has risen since January of 2011. This is yet another example of how the so-called “blue state” model is not working.
You know something kind of interesting? A lot of those states you listed take more from the federal government than they pay in, making them essentially welfare states leeching off the "blue states" whose model is not working according to you.And just to be clear, you blame the Republican governor of Nevada for the 11.6% unemployment rate there and the GOP governor of South Carolina for the 9.1% unemployment rate there and the Republican governor of Georgia for the 8.9% interest rate there, etc? Good to know.
Unemployment is down though in these states, but, it couldn't have gotten much worse.Did these blue states just begin receiving money when Republican governors took over, or is that a new policy? Is the unemployment numbers down because of this? If so, how?
 
In 2010, influenced by the Tea Party and its focus on fiscal issues, 17 states elected Republican governors. And, according to an Examiner.com analysis, every one of those states saw a drop in their unemployment rates since January of 2011. Furthermore, the average drop in the unemployment rate in these states was 1.35%, compared to the national decline of .9%, which means, according to the analysis, that the job market in these Republican states is improving 50% faster than the national rate. Since January of 2011, here is how much the unemployment rate declined in each of the 17 states that elected Republican governors in 2010, according to the Examiner: Kansas - 6.9% to 6.1% = a decline of 0.8% Maine - 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of 0.6% Michigan - 10.9% to 8.5% = a decline of 2.4% New Mexico - 7.7% to 6.7% = a decline of 1.0% Oklahoma - 6.2% to 4.8% = a decline of 1.4% Pennsylvania - 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of 0.6% Tennessee - 9.5% to 7.9% = a decline of 1.6% Wisconsin - 7.7% to 6.8% = a decline of 0.9% Wyoming - 6.3% to 5.2% = a decline of 1.1% Alabama - 9.3% to 7.4% = a decline of 1.9% Georgia - 10.1% to 8.9% = a decline of 1.2% South Carolina - 10.6% to 9.1% = a decline of 1.5% South Dakota - 5.0% to 4.3% = a decline of 0.7% Florida - 10.9% to 8.6% = a decline of 2.3% Nevada - 13.8% to 11.6% = a decline of 2.2% Iowa - 6.1% to 5.1% = a decline of 1.0% Ohio - 9.0% to 7.3% = a decline of 1.7%On the other hand, the unemployment rate in states that elected Democrats in 2010 dropped, on average, as much as the national rate decline and, in some states such as New York, the unemployment rate has risen since January of 2011. This is yet another example of how the so-called “blue state” model is not working.
You know something kind of interesting? A lot of those states you listed take more from the federal government than they pay in, making them essentially welfare states leeching off the "blue states" whose model is not working according to you.And just to be clear, you blame the Republican governor of Nevada for the 11.6% unemployment rate there and the GOP governor of South Carolina for the 9.1% unemployment rate there and the Republican governor of Georgia for the 8.9% interest rate there, etc? Good to know.
Unemployment is down though in these states, but, it couldn't have gotten much worse.Did these blue states just begin receiving money when Republican governors took over, or is that a new policy? Is the unemployment numbers down because of this? If so, how?
Unemployment is down in almost every state. I have no idea what you are talking about in the rest of your post.
 
In 2010, influenced by the Tea Party and its focus on fiscal issues, 17 states elected Republican governors. And, according to an Examiner.com analysis, every one of those states saw a drop in their unemployment rates since January of 2011. Furthermore, the average drop in the unemployment rate in these states was 1.35%, compared to the national decline of .9%, which means, according to the analysis, that the job market in these Republican states is improving 50% faster than the national rate. Since January of 2011, here is how much the unemployment rate declined in each of the 17 states that elected Republican governors in 2010, according to the Examiner: Kansas - 6.9% to 6.1% = a decline of 0.8% Maine - 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of 0.6% Michigan - 10.9% to 8.5% = a decline of 2.4% New Mexico - 7.7% to 6.7% = a decline of 1.0% Oklahoma - 6.2% to 4.8% = a decline of 1.4% Pennsylvania - 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of 0.6% Tennessee - 9.5% to 7.9% = a decline of 1.6% Wisconsin - 7.7% to 6.8% = a decline of 0.9% Wyoming - 6.3% to 5.2% = a decline of 1.1% Alabama - 9.3% to 7.4% = a decline of 1.9% Georgia - 10.1% to 8.9% = a decline of 1.2% South Carolina - 10.6% to 9.1% = a decline of 1.5% South Dakota - 5.0% to 4.3% = a decline of 0.7% Florida - 10.9% to 8.6% = a decline of 2.3% Nevada - 13.8% to 11.6% = a decline of 2.2% Iowa - 6.1% to 5.1% = a decline of 1.0% Ohio - 9.0% to 7.3% = a decline of 1.7%On the other hand, the unemployment rate in states that elected Democrats in 2010 dropped, on average, as much as the national rate decline and, in some states such as New York, the unemployment rate has risen since January of 2011. This is yet another example of how the so-called “blue state” model is not working.
You know something kind of interesting? A lot of those states you listed take more from the federal government than they pay in, making them essentially welfare states leeching off the "blue states" whose model is not working according to you.And just to be clear, you blame the Republican governor of Nevada for the 11.6% unemployment rate there and the GOP governor of South Carolina for the 9.1% unemployment rate there and the Republican governor of Georgia for the 8.9% interest rate there, etc? Good to know.
Unemployment is down though in these states, but, it couldn't have gotten much worse.Did these blue states just begin receiving money when Republican governors took over, or is that a new policy? Is the unemployment numbers down because of this? If so, how?
Unemployment is down in almost every state. I have no idea what you are talking about in the rest of your post.
Do you have the numbers on unemployment between 2009 and now?If these blue states are welfare states, how does the extra money they receive benefit? What are they using it for, and did the blue states become welfare states recently?
 
Today, most of the news has been about Obama's push to extend W's tax rates for another year, except for those making over $250k....

News really has become about number of viewers & clicks, telling your audience what they want to hear. Here are the headlines about this:

CNN - Obama calls for tax cut extensions

Fox - Obama "100% committed" to tax hike

:lmao:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Today, most of the news has been about Obama's push to extend W's tax rates for another year, except for those making over $250k....

News really has become about number of viewers & clicks, telling your audience what they want to hear. Here are the headlines about this:

CNN - Obama calls for tax cut extensions

Fox - Obama "100% committed" to tax hike

:lmao:
Gotta love that ####. Obama is outmaneuvering Romney on this one. The statement of 'those over $250k'can only be countered with 'raising taxes' and hope that the dumb of the US don't hear 'for those over $250k'. Pitting the rest vs the rich for votes is a winning strategy.
 
In 2010, influenced by the Tea Party and its focus on fiscal issues, 17 states elected Republican governors. And, according to an Examiner.com analysis, every one of those states saw a drop in their unemployment rates since January of 2011. Furthermore, the average drop in the unemployment rate in these states was 1.35%, compared to the national decline of .9%, which means, according to the analysis, that the job market in these Republican states is improving 50% faster than the national rate. Since January of 2011, here is how much the unemployment rate declined in each of the 17 states that elected Republican governors in 2010, according to the Examiner: Kansas - 6.9% to 6.1% = a decline of 0.8% Maine - 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of 0.6% Michigan - 10.9% to 8.5% = a decline of 2.4% New Mexico - 7.7% to 6.7% = a decline of 1.0% Oklahoma - 6.2% to 4.8% = a decline of 1.4% Pennsylvania - 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of 0.6% Tennessee - 9.5% to 7.9% = a decline of 1.6% Wisconsin - 7.7% to 6.8% = a decline of 0.9% Wyoming - 6.3% to 5.2% = a decline of 1.1% Alabama - 9.3% to 7.4% = a decline of 1.9% Georgia - 10.1% to 8.9% = a decline of 1.2% South Carolina - 10.6% to 9.1% = a decline of 1.5% South Dakota - 5.0% to 4.3% = a decline of 0.7% Florida - 10.9% to 8.6% = a decline of 2.3% Nevada - 13.8% to 11.6% = a decline of 2.2% Iowa - 6.1% to 5.1% = a decline of 1.0% Ohio - 9.0% to 7.3% = a decline of 1.7%On the other hand, the unemployment rate in states that elected Democrats in 2010 dropped, on average, as much as the national rate decline and, in some states such as New York, the unemployment rate has risen since January of 2011. This is yet another example of how the so-called “blue state” model is not working.
You know something kind of interesting? A lot of those states you listed take more from the federal government than they pay in, making them essentially welfare states leeching off the "blue states" whose model is not working according to you.And just to be clear, you blame the Republican governor of Nevada for the 11.6% unemployment rate there and the GOP governor of South Carolina for the 9.1% unemployment rate there and the Republican governor of Georgia for the 8.9% interest rate there, etc? Good to know.
Unemployment is down though in these states, but, it couldn't have gotten much worse.Did these blue states just begin receiving money when Republican governors took over, or is that a new policy? Is the unemployment numbers down because of this? If so, how?
Unemployment is down in almost every state. I have no idea what you are talking about in the rest of your post.
Do you have the numbers on unemployment between 2009 and now?If these blue states are welfare states, how does the extra money they receive benefit? What are they using it for, and did the blue states become welfare states recently?
Um, blue states arent welfare states, red states generally are. Still no idea what you are talking about.
 
Right, because Obama decided to actually fight in Afghanistan where Al Qaeda attacked us from, instead of Bush who almost immediately after invading decided to take all the linguists and special forces out of Afghanistan, send them to Iraq, almost lose in Iraq until he was forced kicking and screaming to fire Rumsfeld and actually try to win in Iraq......And now Obama is wrapping up both messes pretty cleanly.
Pretty poor recap here, Todd.
Feel free to correct it then.
C'mon Todd, you seem to be smart enough to know what you wrote is hyperbolic claptrap; if you believe what you wrote, I sure wont be able to explain it to you.
 
Tax the "rich" that will solve our problems, or at least get me re-elected...250K is a small business and you wonder why this bs won't work???

In Maryland, Higher Taxes Chase Out Rich: StudyA new report says wealthy Maryland residents may be moving out due to recent tax hikes – a finding that is sure to escalate the battle over taxing the American rich.The study says that a net 31,000 residents left the state between 2007 and 2010, the tenure of a "millionaire's tax" pushed through by Gov. Martin O'Malley. The tax, which expired in 2010, in imposed a rate of 6.25 percent on incomes of more than $1 million a year.The Change Maryland study found that the tax cost Maryland $1.7 billion in lost tax revenues. A county-by-county analysis by Change Maryland also found that the state’s wealthiest counties also had some of the largest population outflows.In total, Maryland has added 24 new taxes or fees in recent years, Change Maryland says. Florida, which has no income-tax, has been a large recipient of Maryland's exiled wealthy.“Maryland has reached the point of diminishing returns. We're taxing people too much and people are voting with their feet," said Change Maryland Chairman Larry Hogan. “Until we change our focus from tax increases to increasing the tax base, more people are simply going to leave, leading to a downward spiral of raising revenues on fewer citizens."The finding adds to the renewed debate over raising taxes on the wealthy. In New Jersey, Gov. Chris Christie recently vetoed a millionaire's tax passed by his legislature, while California and other state governments are also considering higher taxes on high earners to fix budget problems. President Obama on Monday asked Congress to extend tax cuts for those making $250,000 or less – effectively increasing taxes for the higher earners.Many contend that higher taxes drive out the highly mobile rich, who can simply move to a lower-tax state or even lower-tax country. Recent data shows that a record 1,800 Americans renounces their citizenship last year.
 
'17seconds said:
'BoneYardDog said:
The blood of 6 more American Soldiers in Afghanistan on obama's hands yesterday...
:loco:
I think he's just keeping track like the media did 30 times a day 24/7 before Obama got elected. Once he got elected suddenly we had a total blackout of deaths from Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'17seconds said:
'BoneYardDog said:
The blood of 6 more American Soldiers in Afghanistan on obama's hands yesterday...
:loco:
Enjoy making light of the situation...
DOD Identifies Army CasualtyThe Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom. Cpl. Juan P. Navarro, 23, of Austin, Texas, died July 7, in Kandahar, Afghanistan, when he was attacked with an enemy improvised explosive device. Navarro was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment, 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Wash. For more information related to this release, media may contact the I Corps public affairs office at 253-477-3048 or 253-370-9861.
DOD Identifies Army CasualtyThe Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom. Spc. Jonathan Batista, 22, of Kinnelon, N.J., died July 8, in Zharay, Kandahar province, Afghanistan, when enemy forces attacked his unit with small arms fire. He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 321st Airborne Field Artillery Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, N.C. For more information the media may contact the 82nd Airborne Division public affairs office at 910-432-0661 or 910-813-3891.
DOD Identifies Army CasualtyThe Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom Staff Sgt. Raul M. Guerra, 37, of Union City, N.J., died July 4, in Spin Boldak, Afghanistan.Guerra was assigned to the 502nd Military Intelligence Battalion, 201st Battlefield Surveillance Brigade, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Wash.For more information related to this release, the media may contact the I Corps public affairs office at 253-477-3048 or 253-370-9861.
DOD Identifies Army CasualtyThe Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom. Capt. Bruce A. MacFarlane, 46, of Oviedo, Florida, died July 6, in Kandahar, Afghanistan. MacFarlane was assigned to the 1186th Transportation Company, 831st Transportation Battalion, Jacksonville, Fla. For more information related to this release, contact the U.S. Army Reserve Command Media Relations officer at 910-570-8329 or 910-495-5442.
 
'17seconds said:
'BoneYardDog said:
The blood of 6 more American Soldiers in Afghanistan on obama's hands yesterday...
:loco:
I think he's just keeping track like the media did 30 times a day 24/7 before Obama got elected. Once he got elected suddenly we had a total blackout of deaths from Iraq and Afghanistan.
:confused:
Confused, really???Did you see the body bags on any of the networks or as a lead story in any major media???I didn't think so...
AP- 6 killed in Afghanistan blast were US troops Monday, July 09, 2012 6:00 PMAll six troops killed in a weekend roadside bombing in eastern Afghanistan were Americans, NATO confirmed Monday. German Brig. Gen. Gunter Katz, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition, disclosed their nationalities at a briefing, but said he could not provide other details about the incident because it was still under investigation. He said a seventh NATO service member killed Sunday in a separate insurgent attack in the south also was an American.
 
'17seconds said:
'BoneYardDog said:
The blood of 6 more American Soldiers in Afghanistan on obama's hands yesterday...
:loco:
I think he's just keeping track like the media did 30 times a day 24/7 before Obama got elected. Once he got elected suddenly we had a total blackout of deaths from Iraq and Afghanistan.
:confused:
Confused, really???Did you see the body bags on any of the networks or as a lead story in any major media???I didn't think so...
AP- 6 killed in Afghanistan blast were US troops Monday, July 09, 2012 6:00 PMAll six troops killed in a weekend roadside bombing in eastern Afghanistan were Americans, NATO confirmed Monday. German Brig. Gen. Gunter Katz, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition, disclosed their nationalities at a briefing, but said he could not provide other details about the incident because it was still under investigation. He said a seventh NATO service member killed Sunday in a separate insurgent attack in the south also was an American.
Nope. Instead we get pictures and video of ritzy Hollywood fundraisers day in and day out.
 
'17seconds said:
'BoneYardDog said:
The blood of 6 more American Soldiers in Afghanistan on obama's hands yesterday...
:loco:
I think he's just keeping track like the media did 30 times a day 24/7 before Obama got elected. Once he got elected suddenly we had a total blackout of deaths from Iraq and Afghanistan.
:confused:
Confused, really???Did you see the body bags on any of the networks or as a lead story in any major media???I didn't think so...
AP- 6 killed in Afghanistan blast were US troops Monday, July 09, 2012 6:00 PMAll six troops killed in a weekend roadside bombing in eastern Afghanistan were Americans, NATO confirmed Monday. German Brig. Gen. Gunter Katz, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition, disclosed their nationalities at a briefing, but said he could not provide other details about the incident because it was still under investigation. He said a seventh NATO service member killed Sunday in a separate insurgent attack in the south also was an American.
I feel like this is mentioned on the news most times I have it on. That's mainly NPR though.
 
'Ursa M said:
'BoneYardDog said:
The blood of 6 more American Soldiers in Afghanistan on obama's hands yesterday...
Anyone else see something amiss with this guy trying to play the pacifist?
Please, since you seem to know how I feel on this issue, tell us more...
You trying to make out you're some kind of peacenik now that Obama is the C-in-C is just laughable. I bet you were all gung-ho from your armchair when Iraq was invaded.
 
'17seconds said:
'BoneYardDog said:
The blood of 6 more American Soldiers in Afghanistan on obama's hands yesterday...
:loco:
I think he's just keeping track like the media did 30 times a day 24/7 before Obama got elected. Once he got elected suddenly we had a total blackout of deaths from Iraq and Afghanistan.
:confused:
Confused, really???Did you see the body bags on any of the networks or as a lead story in any major media???I didn't think so...
AP- 6 killed in Afghanistan blast were US troops Monday, July 09, 2012 6:00 PMAll six troops killed in a weekend roadside bombing in eastern Afghanistan were Americans, NATO confirmed Monday. German Brig. Gen. Gunter Katz, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition, disclosed their nationalities at a briefing, but said he could not provide other details about the incident because it was still under investigation. He said a seventh NATO service member killed Sunday in a separate insurgent attack in the south also was an American.
I feel like this is mentioned on the news most times I have it on. That's mainly NPR though.
Seriously dude... Wow...
 
'Ursa M said:
'BoneYardDog said:
The blood of 6 more American Soldiers in Afghanistan on obama's hands yesterday...
Anyone else see something amiss with this guy trying to play the pacifist?
Please, since you seem to know how I feel on this issue, tell us more...
You trying to make out you're some kind of peacenik now that Obama is the C-in-C is just laughable. I bet you were all gung-ho from your armchair when Iraq was invaded.
:hophead: :hophead: :hophead: You don't know squat...
 
'pittstownkiller said:
Right, because Obama decided to actually fight in Afghanistan where Al Qaeda attacked us from, instead of Bush who almost immediately after invading decided to take all the linguists and special forces out of Afghanistan, send them to Iraq, almost lose in Iraq until he was forced kicking and screaming to fire Rumsfeld and actually try to win in Iraq......And now Obama is wrapping up both messes pretty cleanly.
Pretty poor recap here, Todd.
Feel free to correct it then.
C'mon Todd, you seem to be smart enough to know what you wrote is hyperbolic claptrap; if you believe what you wrote, I sure wont be able to explain it to you.
Humor me. Because what I wrote is pretty factually accurate as far as I am concerned.
 
'BoneYardDog said:
The blood of 6 more American Soldiers in Afghanistan on obama's hands yesterday... I am sure we will see the flag covered caskets as they are unloaded at Dover Air Force base all over the national media...I am sure Cindy Sheehan will be picketing obama as he goes to meet the caskets as they come back to the country...Oh wait she doesn't protest war anymore, the media doesn't cover it and besides obama has more important campaigning to do that is way more important...What a shining example of leadership he is...
What the MSM focuses on now is stories of campaign financing, big money pouring into campaigns. These stories have a purpose. Its to try to make voters disgusted with the process, to kill turnout. Low turnout means incumbents win. These stories help Obama. The problem is, they have to report at least a little bit on the bad economy, so its not entirely effective.
 
'BoneYardDog said:
The blood of 6 more American Soldiers in Afghanistan on obama's hands yesterday... I am sure we will see the flag covered caskets as they are unloaded at Dover Air Force base all over the national media...I am sure Cindy Sheehan will be picketing obama as he goes to meet the caskets as they come back to the country...Oh wait she doesn't protest war anymore, the media doesn't cover it and besides obama has more important campaigning to do that is way more important...What a shining example of leadership he is...
What the MSM focuses on now is stories of campaign financing, big money pouring into campaigns. These stories have a purpose. Its to try to make voters disgusted with the process, to kill turnout. Low turnout means incumbents win. These stories help Obama. The problem is, they have to report at least a little bit on the bad economy, so its not entirely effective.
Say what you want about the MSM but they are genius. :thumbup:
 
'BoneYardDog said:
The blood of 6 more American Soldiers in Afghanistan on obama's hands yesterday...

I am sure we will see the flag covered caskets as they are unloaded at Dover Air Force base all over the national media...

I am sure Cindy Sheehan will be picketing obama as he goes to meet the caskets as they come back to the country...

Oh wait she doesn't protest war anymore, the media doesn't cover it and besides obama has more important campaigning to do that is way more important...

What a shining example of leadership he is...
She is a vocal critic of President Barack Obama's foreign policy.
 
'BoneYardDog said:
We ought to use a few of our nukes, then threathen to use more as needed...The rest of the world recognizes power and intimidation not flowers and feel good proposals...We are so used and abused by pretty much everyone else in the world becasue we want to be the "nice" guys...We are our own worse enemy...Nuke a few of them and sort them out later...
 
'BoneYardDog said:
The blood of 6 more American Soldiers in Afghanistan on obama's hands yesterday...

I am sure we will see the flag covered caskets as they are unloaded at Dover Air Force base all over the national media...

I am sure Cindy Sheehan will be picketing obama as he goes to meet the caskets as they come back to the country...

Oh wait she doesn't protest war anymore, the media doesn't cover it and besides obama has more important campaigning to do that is way more important...

What a shining example of leadership he is...
She is a vocal critic of President Barack Obama's foreign policy.
Yes, she has been a vocal critic of Obama's war policy but when she is on camera now for the MSM, she is portrayed as a media-hound crackpot. I always felt that Sheehan was unhinged by the death of her son and never should of been brought into the limelight by the press but I don't believe that this is why the press has chosen to ignore her now.
 
Firms Facing Federal Cuts Shouldn’t Send Layoff Notices

The federal law requiring worker notification of mass layoffs doesn’t apply to defense companies and other government contractors affected by the possibility of across-the-board budget cuts beginning early next year, the U.S. Department of Labor said.

In guidance posted today on its website, the Labor Department said it would be “inappropriate” for companies to send 60-day notices to their employees given the uncertainty about whether the reductions will occur or which jobs will be cut.

Legal notice “to employees of federal contractors, including in the defense industry, is not required 60 days in advance of Jan. 2, 2013, and would be inappropriate, given the lack of certainty about how the budget cuts will be implemented and the possibility that the sequester will be avoided before January,” the department said.

Companies led by Lockheed Martin Corp., the world’s largest defense contractor, have said federal and state laws may require them to issue notifications of potential job cuts days before the Nov. 6 election unless President Barack Obama and Congress act to avert automatic defense reductions of $500 billion over a decade that would start on Jan. 2.

The department was clarifying requirements under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, also known as the WARN Act.

Partisan Fight Brewing

The Labor Department guidance, prepared for state agencies that aid laid-off workers under the law, comes as a partisan fight is building over the defense reductions, with Democrats insisting that Republicans agree to some tax increases to avert the cuts. The cuts stem from last year’s clash over raising the debt limit, with the automatic cuts employed as a fallback if both parties couldn’t agree on a broad debt-reduction package.

Companies and industry groups, such as the Aerospace Industries Association, are also demanding more clarity from the White House and Pentagon over how the cuts will be implemented. The defense cuts amount to about a 10 percent reduction.

In a statement, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard P. “Buck” McKeon accused Labor Secretary Hilda Solis of participating in a political gambit, and said Obama should focus on ending the budget impasse with Congress.

‘Politically Motivated’

“As it stands, the only certainty we are dealing with is that dramatic cuts will force huge job losses,” McKeon said in a statement. “And as a result of Secretary Solis’ politically motivated guidance, people will still get laid off because of the president’s irresponsibility, but they won’t have the notice to protect themselves and their families.”

Republican Senators John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, in a joint statement, likewise criticized the Labor Department’s action as a “deliberate political effort from the White House to skirt the law” and use national security as “a partisan bargaining chip.”

Disputing that, Representative Adam Smith of Washington, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, commended the Labor Department for “an important and correct interpretation of the law” that avoids actions that would “needlessly alarm hundreds of thousands of workers when there is no way to know what will happen with sequestration.”

The Labor Department’s move could boost prospects the cuts will occur, Byron Callan, a defense industry analyst with Capital Alpha Partners LLC, said in a note to clients.

“The guidance could marginally increase the probability of sequestration as an absence of layoff notices might entail less constituent pressure for Congress to act,” he said.

WARN Act

The federal WARN Act, which became law in 1988, requires most employers with 100 or more workers to give 60 days’ notice of plant closings or “mass layoffs” -- labor cutbacks affecting 500 or more workers, or at least 33 percent of the workforce for companies with fewer than 500 employees.

Industry trade groups have predicted the automatic cuts may cost 1 million U.S. jobs, and Robert Stevens, chairman and chief executive officer of Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed, has led the way in discussing the possibility of mass WARN Act notices.

“It is quite possible that we will need to notify employees in the September and October time frame that they may or may not have a job in January depending upon whether sequestration does or does not take effect,” Stevens said at an investor’s conference in New York on May 31. “Because the level of planning detail really isn’t available, we may have to notify every one of our employees, and all of our suppliers and subcontractors that they may or may not have a subcontract.”

10,000 Jobs

Stevens on July 18 testified before the House Armed Services Committee that his “back of the envelope” estimate is that Lockheed would have to cut 10,000 jobs if the spending reductions go forward.

Other defense firms, including Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC) and United Technologies Corp. (UTX), have not indicated they may send notices widely. Top officials at the aerospace trade group, which represents them and other firms, have raised the possibility that member companies may have to send the notices due to the uncertainty of the so-called sequestration.

Cord Sterling, the top lobbyist for the AIA, said the guidance appears at odds with a Labor Department fact sheet about the law stating that the agency can’t provide “specific advice or guidance with respect to individual situations” because it doesn’t have enforcement responsibility for the law. It will be up to each contractor and its lawyers to decide how to proceed, he said.

Help for States

Elizabeth Alexander, a Labor Department spokeswoman, said the guidance today didn’t relate to any “individual situation” but was intended generally to help state workforce agencies.

A spokesman for Lockheed Martin, Christopher Williams, said the company is “reviewing today’s Department of Labor guidance to assess its impacts on our obligations with respect to the WARN Act and potential sequestration.”

In its guidance, the Labor Department said it would be “inconsistent” with the purpose of the WARN Act to send the notices as the sequestration looms. The purpose is to help workers who will lose their jobs get training or find other jobs, and the notices are very specific about exactly which jobs and plants are affected, the guidance said. Which contracts might be affected and where cutbacks might occur is “speculative and unforeseeable” at this time, it said.

The preamble of the WARN Act regulations state outright that “it is not appropriate for an employer to provide blanket notice to workers,” the Labor Department said.
more political games.
 
It's not really 'another' crisis as it is a continuation of the deleveraging process that started in 2008.

Obama did part of what needed to be done in the short term -- keep the economy from entering a self-reinforcing depression -- but failed, mostly for political reasons, to do what would have helped solve the long-term problem (massive stimulus aimed at improving infrastructure and energy efficiency, prosecuting fraud and criminality, breaking up the TBTF banks and reinstating the regulations that had been gutted over the last generation).

Romney is on record as favoring policies that would have yielded a full on depression in the short run, and opposes all of the necessary reforms for ideological reasons.

Neither guy caused the crisis and neither of them seem especially inclined to do what needs to be done. Pick your poison.

 
It's not really 'another' crisis as it is a continuation of the deleveraging process that started in 2008.Obama did part of what needed to be done in the short term -- keep the economy from entering a self-reinforcing depression -- but failed, mostly for political reasons, to do what would have helped solve the long-term problem (massive stimulus aimed at improving infrastructure and energy efficiency, prosecuting fraud and criminality, breaking up the TBTF banks and reinstating the regulations that had been gutted over the last generation).Romney is on record as favoring policies that would have yielded a full on depression in the short run, and opposes all of the necessary reforms for ideological reasons.Neither guy caused the crisis and neither of them seem especially inclined to do what needs to be done. Pick your poison.
Same difference. I'll just point out that there is no "right" answer as to "what needs to be done".
 
'wdcrob said:
It's not really 'another' crisis as it is a continuation of the deleveraging process that started in 2008.Obama did part of what needed to be done in the short term -- keep the economy from entering a self-reinforcing depression -- but failed, mostly for political reasons, to do what would have helped solve the long-term problem (massive stimulus aimed at improving infrastructure and energy efficiency, prosecuting fraud and criminality, breaking up the TBTF banks and reinstating the regulations that had been gutted over the last generation).Romney is on record as favoring policies that would have yielded a full on depression in the short run, and opposes all of the necessary reforms for ideological reasons.Neither guy caused the crisis and neither of them seem especially inclined to do what needs to be done. Pick your poison.
Do you really think Obama did anything else except for what he was told? This is a guy who proves on a daily basis to be two cents short of a nickle and rivals Palin in airheadness with his statements.At least with Romney, you get somebody who actually has an opinion and acts using calculation of personal thought, not a dolt who reads the tea leaves and then randomly picks which way he thinks the wind is blowing.STRONGLY DISAPPROVE.
 
'wdcrob said:
Romney is on record as favoring policies that would have yielded a full on depression in the short run, and opposes all of the necessary reforms for ideological reasons.
I doubt he's on record as saying all of that. ;)He probably said that he favors certain policies and opposes others. The rest sounds like somebody else's characterization, not Romney's.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think this election is really one for the legacy of Obama. If he's a single term president, he goes out with a lot of haters, but the odds improve greatly of him being remembered much more fondly if he gets re-elected, especially if he can preserve healthcare reform, and govern during the economic recovery.

 
Another good job obamma...

ICE Agents: Morale is in the ToiletMorale among Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents is at an all-time low more than a month after the Obama administration announced major changes to the nation’s immigration enforcement policy, according to the head of a national agency representing thousands of agents.“Morale is in the toilet right now,” said Chris Crane, president of the National ICE Council. “Most of the guys out in the field are just in an uproar.” President Obama’s policy allows the federal government to use “prosecutorial discretion” to allow younger illegal immigrants to stay in the country and get work permits. Critics called it backdoor amnesty, but the administration said it stops short of granting illegals citizenship.“They call it discretion but it’s not our discretion,” Crane told Fox News. “We have no discretion.”Crane said a case involving a veteran ICE agent is a perfect illustration. The agent arrested an illegal who was not a “primary target.” The agent’s superior officers ordered the illegal released – even though he did not meet the criteria listed by the Dept. of Homeland Security.The officer refused to follow orders and is now facing a three day suspension. The 35-year-old illegal immigrant with ten traffic violations was released.
 
'wdcrob said:
Romney is on record as favoring policies that would have yielded a full on depression in the short run, and opposes all of the necessary reforms for ideological reasons.
I doubt he's on record as saying all of that. ;)He probably said that he favors certain policies and opposes others. The rest sounds like somebody else's characterization, not Romney's.
Well, yes. I take editorial liberties from time to time. ;)Though letting the big auto makers go bankrupt and killing off all the supply chain partners in the midwest would have been economically devastating. As would imposing austerity today.
 
'BoneYardDog said:
Another good job obamma...

ICE Agents: Morale is in the ToiletMorale among Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents is at an all-time low more than a month after the Obama administration announced major changes to the nation’s immigration enforcement policy, according to the head of a national agency representing thousands of agents.“Morale is in the toilet right now,” said Chris Crane, president of the National ICE Council. “Most of the guys out in the field are just in an uproar.” President Obama’s policy allows the federal government to use “prosecutorial discretion” to allow younger illegal immigrants to stay in the country and get work permits. Critics called it backdoor amnesty, but the administration said it stops short of granting illegals citizenship.“They call it discretion but it’s not our discretion,” Crane told Fox News. “We have no discretion.”Crane said a case involving a veteran ICE agent is a perfect illustration. The agent arrested an illegal who was not a “primary target.” The agent’s superior officers ordered the illegal released – even though he did not meet the criteria listed by the Dept. of Homeland Security.The officer refused to follow orders and is now facing a three day suspension. The 35-year-old illegal immigrant with ten traffic violations was released.
cool story, bro...
 
Romney is on record as favoring policies that would have yielded a full on depression in the short run, and opposes all of the necessary reforms for ideological reasons.
I doubt he's on record as saying all of that. ;)He probably said that he favors certain policies and opposes others. The rest sounds like somebody else's characterization, not Romney's.
Well, yes. I take editorial liberties from time to time. ;)Though letting the big auto makers go bankrupt and killing off all the supply chain partners in the midwest would have been economically devastating. As would imposing austerity today.
I don't see why having the big-auto makers go bankrupt would have affected their supply-chain partners. (Going bankrupt doesn't mean going out of business, or even significantly altering operations, necessarily.)I also think "austerity" has become a fairly useless term because it means such different things to different people.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Romney is on record as favoring policies that would have yielded a full on depression in the short run, and opposes all of the necessary reforms for ideological reasons.
I doubt he's on record as saying all of that. ;)He probably said that he favors certain policies and opposes others. The rest sounds like somebody else's characterization, not Romney's.
Well, yes. I take editorial liberties from time to time. ;)Though letting the big auto makers go bankrupt and killing off all the supply chain partners in the midwest would have been economically devastating. As would imposing austerity today.
I don't see why having the big-auto makers go bankrupt would have affected their supply-chain partners. (Going bankrupt doesn't mean going out of business, or even significantly altering operations, necessarily.)I also think "austerity" has become a fairly useless term because it means such different things to different people.
In concept I see what you are saying, in reality if they would have gone bankrupt - sales would have collapsed. Psychologically no one would by a car from a "bankrupt" company - they might have been able to work out some guarantees to help, but a straight bankruptcy through the court system would have taken forever. With some "doubt" there would have been damage for sure.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top