Your opinion on the job that President Obama is doing so far (2 Viewers)

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

America is kicking A at the Olympics under his leadership.

 

[Todd Andrews]

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.

Bankruptcy doesnt necessarily significantly alter operation if there is capital to keep operations going, and there was not. No bank would even consider propping up the auto makers during a bankruptcy. So either the government bailed them out, or their whole chain died with them.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Bankruptcy doesnt necessarily significantly alter operation if there is capital to keep operations going, and there was not. No bank would even consider propping up the auto makers during a bankruptcy. So either the government bailed them out, or their whole chain died with them.

Beat me to it. According to contemporary accounts there were no lenders of last resort at that time.

 

[Ursa M]

Bankruptcy doesnt necessarily significantly alter operation if there is capital to keep operations going, and there was not. No bank would even consider propping up the auto makers during a bankruptcy. So either the government bailed them out, or their whole chain died with them.

Beat me to it. According to contemporary accounts there were no lenders of last resort at that time.

Because they were all begging for government handouts too.

 

[BoneYardDog]

What a mockery of an administration...

Obama adviser: Jobless rate is really 8.254%

 

[BoneYardDog]

Lets kill more offshore drilling obama...Who needs a pipeline or jobs...

Rising gas prices return to haunt obamaGas prices have surged in recent weeks and analysts predict they’ll keep rising, creating fresh openings for GOP attacks against president obama that had waned when prices dropped sharply.The nationwide average for regular gasoline is $3.60-per-gallon, a 24-cent rise over the past four weeks, according to AAA.Prices are well below the peak of nearly $4 in early April, a run-up that fueled constant GOP criticism of White House energy policies and threw Obama on the defensive. The frequency of political clashes over gas prices have tapered off since prices tumbled.But several analysts say that costs at the pump are likely to continue their recent rise through August.Friday brought fresh evidence that pump prices are likely primed for more increases in coming weeks.U.S. oil futures prices jumped by over $4-per-barrel to settle at $91.40 in New York trading. Prices for European Brent crude, which some U.S. refiners use, also rose sharply Friday.A continued rise in oil prices, which had fallen below $78-per-barrel for U.S. crude in June, would fuel what analysts say is already going to be some pump price increases on tap.“I am expecting that over the next couple of weeks, gasoline prices are going to continue to drift up another 10 cents a gallon,” said Andrew Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates. He predicts a peak in the range of $3.70 to $3.80.

 

[BoneYardDog]

The most transparent presidency ever...

WH Press Corps Goes Seven Weeks Without a QuestionPresident Obama has not taken a serious question from the White House press corps in nearly seven weeks, a remarkable string that points to a campaign-style White House operation that is seeking to insulate the candidate from tough cross examination.The last substantive question Obama took from a White House reporter was during a June 20 press conference following the G20 Summit in Los Cabos, Mexico. Obama allowed only six questions during the event, which was nearly guaranteed to keep him out of political hot water as the focus was on foreign policy.Since then, Obama has held no press conferences, given no interviews to White House reporters, and taken no questions at the White House events he has held where reporters have been present.After a July 26 Cabinet meeting, Obama actually laughed off the prospect of taking a serious question about gun laws.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Landed on Mars!

Go go USA!

 

[BoneYardDog]

Landed on Mars! Go go USA!

Good job obama, Mission Accomplished!!!George Bush killed the Space Shuttle...obama killed all of low earth manned space missions... But we can always hitch rides with the Russians at 100M a seat...

 

[roadkill1292]

The president has steered the nation much too far to the right.

 

[Sarnoff]

I don't know how many times the point has been brought up, but people don't seem to get it. "Make the rich pay their fair share" is not a solution. It's a slogan. It does not fix anything.

If Barack Obama gets his way and raises taxes on everyone making $250,000.00 a year or more, the amount of money he brings in will not close his own budget deficit. Nevermind the national debt — he won’t close this year’s budget deficit.

It amounts to a pittance. It'd cover a few weeks of gov't spending. He can make speeches and say "I'll tax other people, not you" as much as he wants, but it's not an answer. It makes people feel better, but it's not an answer.

 

[ren hoek]

The president has steered the nation much too far toward a totalitarian corporatocracy.

Fixed this for you.

 

[ren hoek]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr6357

Dennis Kucinich has introduced a bill outlawing the extrajudicial murder of U.S. citizens. I'm glad there are real progressives out there who care about civil liberties, as opposed to this worthless piece of #### president that doesn't care about basic human rights.

 

[jamny]

 

[Mr Two Cents]

He is my hero.

"Obama Uses Presidential Seal at Designated Campaign Event

President Obama spoke from behind a podium emblazoned with the official presidential seal during a campaign event Wednesday morning in Las Vegas.

The event, which took place at the Canyon Springs High School, was designated as a “campaign event” on the White House’s official daily schedule for the president.

A backdrop that can be seen behind the president notes that the event was “paid for by Obama for America,” the president’s reelection campaign.

Obama was once against the practice of using the presidential seal, in 2010, then White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told CBS ”that at strictly political events we would not use” the seal."

Seriously his is shameless.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Yeah Middle Class.

"Middle class suffers 'worst decade in modern history,' report says

The middle class is receiving less of America's total income, declining to its smallest share in decades as median wages stagnate in the economic doldrums and wealth concentrates at the top.

A study released Wednesday highlights diminished hopes for the roughly 50 percent of adults defined as middle class, with household incomes ranging from $39,000 to $118,000. The report describes this mid-tier group as suffering its "worst decade in modern history," having fallen backward in income for the first time since the end of World War II.

Three years after the recession technically ended, middle class Americans are still feeling the economic pinch, with most saying they have been forced to reduce spending in the past year. And fewer now believe that hard work will allow them to get ahead in life. Families are now more likely to say their children's economic future will be the same or worse than their own.

In all, 85 percent of middle class Americans say it is more difficult now than a decade ago to maintain their standard of living.

"The job market is changing, our living standards are falling in the middle, and middle-income parents are now afraid that their children will be worse off than they are," says Timothy Smeeding, a University of Wisconsin-Madison economics professor who specializes in income inequality.

He said that many middle-income families have taken a big hit in the past decade as health care costs increase, mid-wage jobs disappear due to automation and outsourcing and college tuition mounts for those seeking to build credentials to get better work. In the meantime, more-affluent families have fared better in net worth because they are less dependent than lower-income groups on home property values, which remain shriveled after the housing bust. Wealthier Americans are more likely to be invested in the stock market, which as a whole has been quicker to recover from the downturn."

 

[BigSteelThrill]

"Middle class suffers 'worst decade in modern history,' report says

Steady build down for 30 years.

 

[DrJ]

"Middle class suffers 'worst decade in modern history,' report says

Steady build down for 30 years.

And counting.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Yeah Middle Class.

"Middle class suffers 'worst decade in modern history,' report says

The middle class is receiving less of America's total income, declining to its smallest share in decades as median wages stagnate in the economic doldrums and wealth concentrates at the top.

A study released Wednesday highlights diminished hopes for the roughly 50 percent of adults defined as middle class, with household incomes ranging from $39,000 to $118,000. The report describes this mid-tier group as suffering its "worst decade in modern history," having fallen backward in income for the first time since the end of World War II.

Three years after the recession technically ended, middle class Americans are still feeling the economic pinch, with most saying they have been forced to reduce spending in the past year. And fewer now believe that hard work will allow them to get ahead in life. Families are now more likely to say their children's economic future will be the same or worse than their own.

In all, 85 percent of middle class Americans say it is more difficult now than a decade ago to maintain their standard of living.

"The job market is changing, our living standards are falling in the middle, and middle-income parents are now afraid that their children will be worse off than they are," says Timothy Smeeding, a University of Wisconsin-Madison economics professor who specializes in income inequality.

He said that many middle-income families have taken a big hit in the past decade as health care costs increase, mid-wage jobs disappear due to automation and outsourcing and college tuition mounts for those seeking to build credentials to get better work. In the meantime, more-affluent families have fared better in net worth because they are less dependent than lower-income groups on home property values, which remain shriveled after the housing bust. Wealthier Americans are more likely to be invested in the stock market, which as a whole has been quicker to recover from the downturn."

Why do you hate George W Bush and the Republicans for the worst decade in modern history from 2000 - 2010 when the census data in this article was gathered?

 

[jamny]

Interesting read

Most of the hazards that confront President Barack Obama’s campaign are external — a Republican super PAC onslaught and laggard economic recovery top the White House worry list.

But surprisingly, many of Obama’s toughest challenges during the slog of his 2012 reelection campaign have turned out to be internal ones, the product of internecine political disagreements, personal rivalries among his high-octane political team and the inevitable difficulties of trying to rekindle the flickering flame of hope-and-change 2008.

Conversations with two dozen current and former Obama associates over the past two months revealed a series of fault lines — dangerous but by no means insurmountable — that add a degree of difficulty to an already tough task of finishing off Mitt Romney.

They also illustrate the paradoxes of Obama as a candidate, a self-described idealist bent on elevating politics who is embracing one of the most negative presidential elections ever.

Here are six campaign fault lines:

 

[FavreCo]

"Middle class suffers 'worst decade in modern history,' report says

Steady build down for 30 years.

All will be well once our wages are brought down to meet the wages of every other country that we have outsourced jobs to. We also must give the rich more tax breaks to create jobs. If you tax them less, they will pour that $ into creating more jobs. That's what I hear.

 

[BoneYardDog]

4 more years, 4 more years...

U.S. Incomes Fell More in Recovery,

American incomes declined more in the three-year expansion that started in June 2009 than during the longest recession since the Great Depression, according an analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data.

Median household income fell 4.8 percent on an inflation- adjusted basis since the recession ended in June 2009, more than the 2.6 percent drop during the 18-month contraction, the research firm’s Gordon Green and John Coder wrote in a report today. Household income is 7.2 percent below the December 2007 level, the former Census Bureau economic statisticians wrote.

“Almost every group is worse off than it was three years ago, and some groups had very large declines in income,” Green, who previously directed work on the Census Bureau’s income and poverty statistics program, said in a phone interview today. “We’re in an unprecedented period of economic stagnation.”

While gains in hourly earnings and average hours worked per week may have had “a minor mitigating effect” on income declines, they couldn’t offset a jobless rate that hasn’t fallen below 8 percent since February 2009 and a record duration of unemployment, according to the Annapolis, Maryland-based firm.

The average duration of unemployment increased to a record 41 weeks in November and remains at 39 weeks, Labor Department data show. Almost 5.2 million Americans have been out of work for at least six months.

No wonder they are talking about taxes and chains...obamas record is setting new heights of stink...

 

[Politician Spock]

"Middle class suffers 'worst decade in modern history,' report says

Steady build down for 30 years.

And counting.

It didn't start in 2008...... it hasn't ended...... and unless the powers that be just let it crash like it naturally wants to do, we will have a slow steady decline for probably another two decades.It doesn't matter who is piloting this plane. Obama... Romney... it doesn't matter. The plane is coming down one way or another.It's the system that's the problem, not who is in the offices of the system. It's no different than an infinite flight in a plane with a finite fuel tank. It's designed to fail eventually.

 

[flapgreen]

Same ####ty thread as the rest of them.

 

[BoneYardDog]

Actually got a letter in the mail today asking for a donation to the obama campaign...

Believe it or not on the return envelope they had a message to use your own stamp so they could save the postage...

Went through the neighborhood collecting as many as I could get and my wife gmailed everyone in her contact list to make sure to send them back if they received them...

I of course will contribute $500 to the cause, it will be Monopoly money but just about as worthwhile as real money soon...

What a moron he is, absolutely shameless and pathetic...

 

[Sarnoff]

Well, now he's bribing private corporations, with taxpayer money, to ignore federal laws solely to help his re-election chances in swing states.

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/the_rumble/2012/10/surprise-obama-ignores-a-law-to-aid-his-reelection

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/industry/259431-lockheed-martin-wont-issue-layoff-notices-this-year

http://theothermccain.com/2012/10/01/federal-law-what-federal-law/

http://battlegroundwatch.com/2012/09/29/federal-government-offers-bribes-to-hide-the-coming-job-losses-until-after-the-election/

 

[jamny]

Well, now he's bribing private corporations, with taxpayer money, to ignore federal laws solely to help his re-election chances in swing states. http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/the_rumble/2012/10/surprise-obama-ignores-a-law-to-aid-his-reelectionhttp://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/industry/259431-lockheed-martin-wont-issue-layoff-notices-this-yearhttp://theothermccain.com/2012/10/01/federal-law-what-federal-law/http://battlegroundwatch.com/2012/09/29/federal-government-offers-bribes-to-hide-the-coming-job-losses-until-after-the-election/

Pretty stupid of him to request this. The actual layoff notices won't sway any votes, it'll be buried in the headlines of election day and sequestration won't happen since they'll find a way to push it further down the road anyway.

 

[Mello]

Well, now he's bribing private corporations, with taxpayer money, to ignore federal laws solely to help his re-election chances in swing states. http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/the_rumble/2012/10/surprise-obama-ignores-a-law-to-aid-his-reelectionhttp://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/industry/259431-lockheed-martin-wont-issue-layoff-notices-this-yearhttp://theothermccain.com/2012/10/01/federal-law-what-federal-law/http://battlegroundwatch.com/2012/09/29/federal-government-offers-bribes-to-hide-the-coming-job-losses-until-after-the-election/

Pretty stupid of him to request this. The actual layoff notices won't sway any votes, it'll be buried in the headlines of election day and sequestration won't happen since they'll find a way to push it further down the road anyway.

You don't think there's a few people that might change their vote from Obama to Romney if they got a notice they might get fired?

 

[jamny]

Well, now he's bribing private corporations, with taxpayer money, to ignore federal laws solely to help his re-election chances in swing states. http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/the_rumble/2012/10/surprise-obama-ignores-a-law-to-aid-his-reelectionhttp://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/industry/259431-lockheed-martin-wont-issue-layoff-notices-this-yearhttp://theothermccain.com/2012/10/01/federal-law-what-federal-law/http://battlegroundwatch.com/2012/09/29/federal-government-offers-bribes-to-hide-the-coming-job-losses-until-after-the-election/

Pretty stupid of him to request this. The actual layoff notices won't sway any votes, it'll be buried in the headlines of election day and sequestration won't happen since they'll find a way to push it further down the road anyway.

You don't think there's a few people that might change their vote from Obama to Romney if they got a notice they might get fired?

OK..."many".I don't think it'll be enough to make a difference and it's worse to call attention to it now in this way.

 

[jamny]

For too long, employers have failed to notify workers that theyre about to lose their jobs due to mass layoffs or plant closings even though notice is required by the WARN Act, then-Sen. Obama said in a July 17, 2007 press release. The least employers can do when theyre anticipating layoffs is to let workers know theyre going to be out of a job and a paycheck with enough time to plan for their future.

Obama was pushing for a 90 day warning

 

[Mello]

“For too long, employers have failed to notify workers that they’re about to lose their jobs due to mass layoffs or plant closings even though notice is required by the WARN Act,” then-Sen. Obama said in a July 17, 2007 press release. “The least employers can do when they’re anticipating layoffs is to let workers know they’re going to be out of a job and a paycheck with enough time to plan for their future.”

Obama was pushing for a 90 day warning

Change you can believe in indeed.I agree with you that it's nothing that would have any major impact on the election either way. Makes it all the more pathetic that he's done this.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

“For too long, employers have failed to notify workers that they’re about to lose their jobs due to mass layoffs or plant closings even though notice is required by the WARN Act,” then-Sen. Obama said in a July 17, 2007 press release. “The least employers can do when they’re anticipating layoffs is to let workers know they’re going to be out of a job and a paycheck with enough time to plan for their future.”

Obama was pushing for a 90 day warning

Change you can believe in indeed.I agree with you that it's nothing that would have any major impact on the election either way. Makes it all the more pathetic that he's done this.

WARN is basically a way for large firms to avoid paying severance. If you meet the 60 day notification requirement you don't have to pay, otherwise you need to make up the difference. What it seems the Admin has done is say that they will cover severance costs, so they aren't ignoring the law just saying that the government will fulfill the requirement if sequestration is enacted. Since the probability of sequestration is essentially zero, this is a good decision all around by the White House. Good for the workers who won't have to go through the Holidays with an impending layoff notice, good for the companies who won't lose people that would find other jobs during that time, and good for the economy as those workers won't go into layoff spending mode.

 

[jamny]

For too long, employers have failed to notify workers that theyre about to lose their jobs due to mass layoffs or plant closings even though notice is required by the WARN Act, then-Sen. Obama said in a July 17, 2007 press release. The least employers can do when theyre anticipating layoffs is to let workers know theyre going to be out of a job and a paycheck with enough time to plan for their future.

Obama was pushing for a 90 day warning

Change you can believe in indeed.I agree with you that it's nothing that would have any major impact on the election either way. Makes it all the more pathetic that he's done this.

WARN is basically a way for large firms to avoid paying severance. If you meet the 60 day notification requirement you don't have to pay, otherwise you need to make up the difference. What it seems the Admin has done is say that taxpayers will cover severance costs, so they aren't ignoring the law just saying that the government will fulfill the requirement if sequestration is enacted. Since the probability of sequestration is essentially zero, this is a good decision all around by the White House. Good for the workers who won't have to go through the Holidays with an impending layoff notice, good for the companies who won't lose people that would find other jobs during that time, and good for the economy as those workers won't go into layoff spending mode.

fixed...and any lawsuits that might result from not notifying.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

“For too long, employers have failed to notify workers that they’re about to lose their jobs due to mass layoffs or plant closings even though notice is required by the WARN Act,” then-Sen. Obama said in a July 17, 2007 press release. “The least employers can do when they’re anticipating layoffs is to let workers know they’re going to be out of a job and a paycheck with enough time to plan for their future.”

Obama was pushing for a 90 day warning

Change you can believe in indeed.I agree with you that it's nothing that would have any major impact on the election either way. Makes it all the more pathetic that he's done this.

WARN is basically a way for large firms to avoid paying severance. If you meet the 60 day notification requirement you don't have to pay, otherwise you need to make up the difference. What it seems the Admin has done is say that taxpayers will cover severance costs, so they aren't ignoring the law just saying that the government will fulfill the requirement if sequestration is enacted. Since the probability of sequestration is essentially zero, this is a good decision all around by the White House. Good for the workers who won't have to go through the Holidays with an impending layoff notice, good for the companies who won't lose people that would find other jobs during that time, and good for the economy as those workers won't go into layoff spending mode.

fixed...and any lawsuits that might result from not notifying.

No, they won't. Companies are just required to pay for 60 days if the layoffs exceed a certain % of the total workforce, the notice is in lieu of compensation. Again, zero percent chance sequestration happens and even if it did we'd be looking at a drop in the bucket of saving from the automatic cuts. This is an unambiguously good, and largely apolitical decision as far as I can tell. I don't see much political influence one way or the other, since both sides are equally accountable for the sequestration mess to begin with.

 

[jamny]

“For too long, employers have failed to notify workers that they’re about to lose their jobs due to mass layoffs or plant closings even though notice is required by the WARN Act,” then-Sen. Obama said in a July 17, 2007 press release. “The least employers can do when they’re anticipating layoffs is to let workers know they’re going to be out of a job and a paycheck with enough time to plan for their future.”

Obama was pushing for a 90 day warning

Change you can believe in indeed.I agree with you that it's nothing that would have any major impact on the election either way. Makes it all the more pathetic that he's done this.

WARN is basically a way for large firms to avoid paying severance. If you meet the 60 day notification requirement you don't have to pay, otherwise you need to make up the difference. What it seems the Admin has done is say that taxpayers will cover severance costs, so they aren't ignoring the law just saying that the government will fulfill the requirement if sequestration is enacted. Since the probability of sequestration is essentially zero, this is a good decision all around by the White House. Good for the workers who won't have to go through the Holidays with an impending layoff notice, good for the companies who won't lose people that would find other jobs during that time, and good for the economy as those workers won't go into layoff spending mode.

fixed...and any lawsuits that might result from not notifying.

No, they won't. Companies are just required to pay for 60 days if the layoffs exceed a certain % of the total workforce, the notice is in lieu of compensation. Again, zero percent chance sequestration happens and even if it did we'd be looking at a drop in the bucket of saving from the automatic cuts. This is an unambiguously good, and largely apolitical decision as far as I can tell. I don't see much political influence one way or the other, since both sides are equally accountable for the sequestration mess to begin with.

As I said, I agree that sequestration won't happen but to believe this is anything but a political call based on the proximity to election day is naive, imo.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

“For too long, employers have failed to notify workers that they’re about to lose their jobs due to mass layoffs or plant closings even though notice is required by the WARN Act,” then-Sen. Obama said in a July 17, 2007 press release. “The least employers can do when they’re anticipating layoffs is to let workers know they’re going to be out of a job and a paycheck with enough time to plan for their future.”

Obama was pushing for a 90 day warning

Change you can believe in indeed.I agree with you that it's nothing that would have any major impact on the election either way. Makes it all the more pathetic that he's done this.

WARN is basically a way for large firms to avoid paying severance. If you meet the 60 day notification requirement you don't have to pay, otherwise you need to make up the difference. What it seems the Admin has done is say that taxpayers will cover severance costs, so they aren't ignoring the law just saying that the government will fulfill the requirement if sequestration is enacted. Since the probability of sequestration is essentially zero, this is a good decision all around by the White House. Good for the workers who won't have to go through the Holidays with an impending layoff notice, good for the companies who won't lose people that would find other jobs during that time, and good for the economy as those workers won't go into layoff spending mode.

fixed...and any lawsuits that might result from not notifying.

No, they won't. Companies are just required to pay for 60 days if the layoffs exceed a certain % of the total workforce, the notice is in lieu of compensation. Again, zero percent chance sequestration happens and even if it did we'd be looking at a drop in the bucket of saving from the automatic cuts. This is an unambiguously good, and largely apolitical decision as far as I can tell. I don't see much political influence one way or the other, since both sides are equally accountable for the sequestration mess to begin with.

As I said, I agree that sequestration won't happen but to believe this is anything but a political call based on the proximity to election day is naive, imo.

So you think it would have been better to just issue speculative layoff notices to employees, who may not even be affected by sequestration at all as no one knows at this stage what specific contracts would be cut? So their lives get thrown up in the air, the companies risk losing them, and have them stop spending money right before the holidays? All because congress can't do their jobs.

 

[StrikeS2k]

So you think it would have been better to just issue speculative layoff notices to employees, who may not even be affected by sequestration at all as no one knows at this stage what specific contracts would be cut? So their lives get thrown up in the air, the companies risk losing them, and have them stop spending money right before the holidays? All because congress can't do their jobs.

School districts across this country do this EVERY year. And it's the law. So yeah, I expect companies to follow the law and not be swayed by the President's political aspirations.

 

[jamny]

“For too long, employers have failed to notify workers that they’re about to lose their jobs due to mass layoffs or plant closings even though notice is required by the WARN Act,” then-Sen. Obama said in a July 17, 2007 press release. “The least employers can do when they’re anticipating layoffs is to let workers know they’re going to be out of a job and a paycheck with enough time to plan for their future.”

Obama was pushing for a 90 day warning

Change you can believe in indeed.I agree with you that it's nothing that would have any major impact on the election either way. Makes it all the more pathetic that he's done this.

WARN is basically a way for large firms to avoid paying severance. If you meet the 60 day notification requirement you don't have to pay, otherwise you need to make up the difference. What it seems the Admin has done is say that taxpayers will cover severance costs, so they aren't ignoring the law just saying that the government will fulfill the requirement if sequestration is enacted. Since the probability of sequestration is essentially zero, this is a good decision all around by the White House. Good for the workers who won't have to go through the Holidays with an impending layoff notice, good for the companies who won't lose people that would find other jobs during that time, and good for the economy as those workers won't go into layoff spending mode.

fixed...and any lawsuits that might result from not notifying.

No, they won't. Companies are just required to pay for 60 days if the layoffs exceed a certain % of the total workforce, the notice is in lieu of compensation. Again, zero percent chance sequestration happens and even if it did we'd be looking at a drop in the bucket of saving from the automatic cuts. This is an unambiguously good, and largely apolitical decision as far as I can tell. I don't see much political influence one way or the other, since both sides are equally accountable for the sequestration mess to begin with.

As I said, I agree that sequestration won't happen but to believe this is anything but a political call based on the proximity to election day is naive, imo.

So you think it would have been better to just issue speculative layoff notices to employees, who may not even be affected by sequestration at all as no one knows at this stage what specific contracts would be cut? So their lives get thrown up in the air, the companies risk losing them, and have them stop spending money right before the holidays? All because congress can't do their jobs.

No, I think you stick to the laws that are on the books and give people notice that they might be laid off, no matter how miniscule the chance might be. They deserve the truth. If it turns out that they don't get laid off, good for them. If it was me, I'd like to know if my job was on the line if sequestration goes through. I wouldn't want to be surprised on Jan 2nd.

 

[Mello]

“For too long, employers have failed to notify workers that they’re about to lose their jobs due to mass layoffs or plant closings even though notice is required by the WARN Act,” then-Sen. Obama said in a July 17, 2007 press release. “The least employers can do when they’re anticipating layoffs is to let workers know they’re going to be out of a job and a paycheck with enough time to plan for their future.”

Obama was pushing for a 90 day warning

Change you can believe in indeed.I agree with you that it's nothing that would have any major impact on the election either way. Makes it all the more pathetic that he's done this.

WARN is basically a way for large firms to avoid paying severance. If you meet the 60 day notification requirement you don't have to pay, otherwise you need to make up the difference. What it seems the Admin has done is say that taxpayers will cover severance costs, so they aren't ignoring the law just saying that the government will fulfill the requirement if sequestration is enacted. Since the probability of sequestration is essentially zero, this is a good decision all around by the White House. Good for the workers who won't have to go through the Holidays with an impending layoff notice, good for the companies who won't lose people that would find other jobs during that time, and good for the economy as those workers won't go into layoff spending mode.

fixed...and any lawsuits that might result from not notifying.

No, they won't. Companies are just required to pay for 60 days if the layoffs exceed a certain % of the total workforce, the notice is in lieu of compensation. Again, zero percent chance sequestration happens and even if it did we'd be looking at a drop in the bucket of saving from the automatic cuts. This is an unambiguously good, and largely apolitical decision as far as I can tell. I don't see much political influence one way or the other, since both sides are equally accountable for the sequestration mess to begin with.

As I said, I agree that sequestration won't happen but to believe this is anything but a political call based on the proximity to election day is naive, imo.

So you think it would have been better to just issue speculative layoff notices to employees, who may not even be affected by sequestration at all as no one knows at this stage what specific contracts would be cut? So their lives get thrown up in the air, the companies risk losing them, and have them stop spending money right before the holidays? All because congress can't do their jobs.

I know if there was any plans at all to get rid of me after the holidays, I would want to know so I could plan my finances around it. Even if I wasn't likely to end up being released.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

The courts have weighed in on this and speculation does not equate to the obligation to notify. The notification requirements apply when specific worksites are known to be affected by an impending layoff. Dept. of Labor has given guidance that sequestration does not meet that threshold.

 

[jamny]

The courts have weighed in on this and speculation does not equate to the obligation to notify. The notification requirements apply when specific worksites are known to be affected by an impending layoff. Dept. of Labor has given guidance that sequestration does not meet that threshold.

I guess some of us are just a bit more skeptical of our government's motives than you are.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

The courts have weighed in on this and speculation does not equate to the obligation to notify. The notification requirements apply when specific worksites are known to be affected by an impending layoff. Dept. of Labor has given guidance that sequestration does not meet that threshold.

I guess some of us are just a bit more skeptical of our government's motives than you are.

I honesty hadn't heard about this at all until I clicked on this link, but I have dealt with WARN frequently (on the employer side) in my career. From what I can tell a handful of conservative talking heads are driving this story by claiming that the Admin is misapplying the law, and the vast majority of employment layers and legal scholars who have looked at it are crushing them.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Oh, and it seems that the Dept. of Labor issued their guidance that 60 day notification would be inappropriate for contracts potentially affected by sequestration back on July 30th. So it's not like this is being dragged up by the Admin right now before the election for any political reasons. The conservative bloggers trying to make this a story now might have other motivations.

 

[jamny]

Oh, and it seems that the Dept. of Labor issued their guidance that 60 day notification would be inappropriate for contracts potentially affected by sequestration back on July 30th. So it's not like this is being dragged up by the Admin right now before the election for any political reasons. The conservative bloggers trying to make this a story now might have other motivations.

Ooooh, a whole month ago. Makes no difference in the motive. Yes, Republicans are making an issue out of it. That's politics. Obama was stupid to even bring it up. He should have just let the notices go through.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Oh, and it seems that the Dept. of Labor issued their guidance that 60 day notification would be inappropriate for contracts potentially affected by sequestration back on July 30th. So it's not like this is being dragged up by the Admin right now before the election for any political reasons. The conservative bloggers trying to make this a story now might have other motivations.

Ooooh, a whole month ago. Makes no difference in the motive. Yes, Republicans are making an issue out of it. That's politics. Obama was stupid to even bring it up. He should have just let the notices go through.

Two things:#1 - have you looked a calendar recently?#2 - So you freely admit that this only an issue now because conservatives are trying to dig it up, yet the supposed problem is that Obama is playing politics with it?

 

[jamny]

Oh, and it seems that the Dept. of Labor issued their guidance that 60 day notification would be inappropriate for contracts potentially affected by sequestration back on July 30th. So it's not like this is being dragged up by the Admin right now before the election for any political reasons. The conservative bloggers trying to make this a story now might have other motivations.

Ooooh, a whole month ago. Makes no difference in the motive. Yes, Republicans are making an issue out of it. That's politics. Obama was stupid to even bring it up. He should have just let the notices go through.

Two things:#1 - have you looked a calendar recently?#2 - So you freely admit that this only an issue now because conservatives are trying to dig it up, yet the supposed problem is that Obama is playing politics with it?

#1 - two months...big deal. No difference again.#2 - no it's an issue, period, and the Republicans are right to call Obama on it. We clearly differ on our opinions here and neither of us will change. You continue to go and believe that this was done in the best interests of workers and I'll believe that it was done so Obama doesn't look bad on the days leading up to the election.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Oh, and it seems that the Dept. of Labor issued their guidance that 60 day notification would be inappropriate for contracts potentially affected by sequestration back on July 30th. So it's not like this is being dragged up by the Admin right now before the election for any political reasons. The conservative bloggers trying to make this a story now might have other motivations.

Ooooh, a whole month ago. Makes no difference in the motive. Yes, Republicans are making an issue out of it. That's politics. Obama was stupid to even bring it up. He should have just let the notices go through.

Two things:#1 - have you looked a calendar recently?#2 - So you freely admit that this only an issue now because conservatives are trying to dig it up, yet the supposed problem is that Obama is playing politics with it?

#1 - two months...big deal. No difference again.#2 - no it's an issue, period, and the Republicans are right to call Obama on it. We clearly differ on our opinions here and neither of us will change. You continue to go and believe that this was done in the best interests of workers and I'll believe that it was done so Obama doesn't look bad on the days leading up to the election.

Well, good luck with that pro-layoff for no reason, stance. Let me know how that works out.

 

[jamny]

Oh, and it seems that the Dept. of Labor issued their guidance that 60 day notification would be inappropriate for contracts potentially affected by sequestration back on July 30th. So it's not like this is being dragged up by the Admin right now before the election for any political reasons. The conservative bloggers trying to make this a story now might have other motivations.

Ooooh, a whole month ago. Makes no difference in the motive. Yes, Republicans are making an issue out of it. That's politics. Obama was stupid to even bring it up. He should have just let the notices go through.

Two things:#1 - have you looked a calendar recently?#2 - So you freely admit that this only an issue now because conservatives are trying to dig it up, yet the supposed problem is that Obama is playing politics with it?

#1 - two months...big deal. No difference again.#2 - no it's an issue, period, and the Republicans are right to call Obama on it. We clearly differ on our opinions here and neither of us will change. You continue to go and believe that this was done in the best interests of workers and I'll believe that it was done so Obama doesn't look bad on the days leading up to the election.

Well, good luck with that pro-layoff for no reason, stance. Let me know how that works out.

 

[jamny]

Just because we think that sequestration won't go through doesn't mean it won't. There is no telling what is in store. People should know that their jobs might be on the line.

 

[BoneYardDog]

“For too long, employers have failed to notify workers that they’re about to lose their jobs due to mass layoffs or plant closings even though notice is required by the WARN Act,” then-Sen. Obama said in a July 17, 2007 press release. “The least employers can do when they’re anticipating layoffs is to let workers know they’re going to be out of a job and a paycheck with enough time to plan for their future.”

Obama was pushing for a 90 day warning

Change you can believe in indeed.I agree with you that it's nothing that would have any major impact on the election either way. Makes it all the more pathetic that he's done this.

WARN is basically a way for large firms to avoid paying severance. If you meet the 60 day notification requirement you don't have to pay, otherwise you need to make up the difference. What it seems the Admin has done is say that they will cover severance costs, so they aren't ignoring the law just saying that the government will fulfill the requirement if sequestration is enacted. Since the probability of sequestration is essentially zero, this is a good decision all around by the White House. Good for the workers who won't have to go through the Holidays with an impending layoff notice, good for the companies who won't lose people that would find other jobs during that time, and good for the economy as those workers won't go into layoff spending mode.

Your a liar, I have received two WARN notices over the last year and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with severance pay, ZERO. It is the law and had I been laid off I would still have gotten my 26 weeks of severance pay... Again your post is a total lie and it is the law to provide WARN notices even if in the end you do not get laid off... We just had 52 people and they were all given WARN notices and all got severance pay...You are either ignorant or a liar, I tend to believe with your history, a liar...What he did was illegal and put the taxpayers on notice to pick up the tab, it was a totally political move by an unethical politician...I begin working for Lockheed on January 2nd...