Obama '08?

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

I'm going to "shock" some of the conservatives on a2k. I'm against Obama's stimulus package, because it contains too much for health insurance, the arts, unemployment, and other programs that will not help Americans find jobs.

They're also including $200 million for contraception. If they want to add these programs, they should do it after they increase jobs for the American people.

Jobs should be the primary goal; everything else must wait.

Maybe there is hope for sanity yet?

Obama's speech on the package was uninspired, no passion, nothing. And what he said about government not being the engine to prosperity, then the package defies that very priniciple. As Obama tells everybody to drink the koolaid, how many people will be dumb enough to drink it, until a few people begin to say, no, and return to reality, and dig in their heels. The honeymoon is over when ci begins to come to his senses. Just partial senses though, not complete, far from it.

Another wonderful bill out there that Obama will sign, women and minorities or anyone with an axe to grind can sue a company for back pay, going back decades now! Trial lawyers love this, axe grinders love this, business haters love this, the economy does not. This is stupid, stupid, stupid, but no surprise for a stupid congress and administration.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

I'm going to "shock" some of the conservatives on a2k. I'm against Obama's stimulus package, because it contains too much for health insurance, the arts, unemployment, and other programs that will not help Americans find jobs.

They're also including $200 million for contraception. If they want to add these programs, they should do it after they increase jobs for the American people.

Jobs should be the primary goal; everything else must wait.

Maybe there is hope for sanity yet?

Obama's speech on the package was uninspired, no passion, nothing. And what he said about government not being the engine to prosperity, then the package defies that very priniciple. As Obama tells everybody to drink the koolaid, how many people will be dumb enough to drink it, until a few people begin to say, no, and return to reality, and dig in their heels. The honeymoon is over when ci begins to come to his senses. Just partial senses though, not complete, far from it.

We'll pass the bill, and the jobs will increase somewhat. Nothing we are going to do is going to help all that much. But I'm not too worried about the add-ons in the bill, they are chump change compared to the overall total and in many cases represent desperately needed funds for those organizations to be able to continue operation.

Quote:

Another wonderful bill out there that Obama will sign, women and minorities or anyone with an axe to grind can sue a company for back pay, going back decades now! Trial lawyers love this, axe grinders love this, business haters love this, the economy does not. This is stupid, stupid, stupid, but no surprise for a stupid congress and administration.

This is a great bill and you're a jerk if you oppose it. Women and minorities should have a right to sue if they find out they are being discriminated against, and how the hell are they supposed to find out within 180 days, Okie?

What bad business effects will there be out of this? Businesses will be forced to pay people equally no matter their gender or race. Heaven forbid!

Cycloptichorn

3 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

My opposition to the stimulus package has nothing to do with okie's perception of it.

The problems with the current stimulus package is the democrats trying to "save" everything under the sun with one legislation; I feel that should be done in steps as the job market reverses into positive gear, and the tax base starts to increase. Pay as you go is a more sane way to progress during this crisis.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

This is a great bill and you're a jerk if you oppose it. Women and minorities should have a right to sue if they find out they are being discriminated against, and how the hell are they supposed to find out within 180 days, Okie?

What bad business effects will there be out of this? Businesses will be forced to pay people equally no matter their gender or race. Heaven forbid!

Cycloptichorn

If even half of the claims and lawsuits were legitimate, you might have a small point, cyclops, but I don't believe it. A lawyer will try to claim something to make money. I used to work for a corporation, and as a geologist, there were a few women in the field, not many. Well, guess what, at that time most of them had families, children to take care of, so the managers gave them a pass, they went easy on them because they couldn't travel like the men, they couldn't do this, they couldn't do that, for a myriad of reasons, thus they were not worth as much even though they had the same job grade as others, and although their pay was probably very good from what I understand, they may not have been paid as much on average as the men, so now, guess what, any whiner or complainer can go back and claim discrimination. What a crock! What a nanny state! Its all payback to a bunch of whiney lawyers. We need to kick the lawyers out of Washington and things would improve.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I'm not shocked, I'm impressed!
This gargantuan spending bill needs to die a quick death in the senate.

Why is it that when times get a little tough the tax paying private sector suffers with cut backs and layoffs, but government grows larger?

Why doesn't the government set the example by cutting back and laying off federal services and employees? It's our money and they work for us!

http://www.athenswater.com/images/PrezBO.jpg

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

We'll pass the bill, and the jobs will increase somewhat.
Nothing we are going to do is going to help all that much.

Bullshit!

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Never again will it ever make sense to pay decent salaried to human beings to do the kinds of things most human beings are capable of doing.

Our technology speaks to that.

Back in the 50's, the breadwinner with marginal skills was able to go to a job, often in manufacturing, and earn enough to tend to the family's mortgage, the food and clothing, the car, the medical expenses, the kid's education, and many of the frills people want...and still have money to salt away for holidays and retirement.

That simply cannot happen anymore. By the addition of our advanced computers, robots, and other machines, we have essentially incorporated the equivalent of trillions upon trillions of slaves into our work force doing the kind of grunt work that use to produce decent paying jobs for people.

Oh, we'll do some federal projects for a while...spruce up the infrastructure that has been ignored for so long. But the days where people have to “earn a living” are over.

We gotta get our minds wrapped around that.

Obama ain't gonna produce those kinds of jobs; the congress ain't gonna; the private sector ain't gonna"because it simply does not make sense to pay humans big salaries to do those kinds of jobs.

We've been crabbing because of the jobs taken away by third world laborers. Hell...compared with machines, robots and computers...third world labor costs are soon gonna be prohibitively expensive.

We gotta wake up to this, folks.

2 Replies

@H2O MAN,

water man, It's not only the federal government who has the tendency to spend more than they take in, but most of us understand there's a limit to how much debt any organization is able to support with creative financing. Time is always their enemy, but they never learn that simple lesson; live within your means.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

This is a great bill and you're a jerk if you oppose it. Women and minorities should have a right to sue if they find out they are being discriminated against, and how the hell are they supposed to find out within 180 days, Okie?

What bad business effects will there be out of this? Businesses will be forced to pay people equally no matter their gender or race. Heaven forbid!

Cycloptichorn

If even half of the claims and lawsuits were legitimate, you might have a small point, cyclops, but I don't believe it.

So what? Nobody's asking you to believe it, and your 'belief' is immaterial to the law.

A lawyer will try to claim something to make money. I used to work for a corporation, and as a geologist, there were a few women in the field, not many. Well, guess what, at that time most of them had families, children to take care of, so the managers gave them a pass, they went easy on them because they couldn't travel like the men, they couldn't do this, they couldn't do that, for a myriad of reasons, thus they were not worth as much even though they had the same job grade as others, and although their pay was probably very good from what I understand, they may not have been paid as much on average as the men, so now, guess what, any whiner or complainer can go back and claim discrimination. What a crock! What a nanny state! Its all payback to a bunch of whiney lawyers. We need to kick the lawyers out of Washington and things would improve.
[/quote]

Can you be more sexist, Okie? I think you could if you tried.

If the women couldn't perform the requirements of the job, they shouldn't have the job. If they had the same grade as the men, they should be getting paid the same. Period. There's no real room for discussion on this.

Even the Supreme Court agrees with that. The only question was one of the statute of limitations, which was set unreasonably low at 180 days. It's quite difficult to find out that you are being discriminated against, you expect people to have no recourse if they find out on day 181?

Nice piece of legislation, will lead to more equality for all, and folks who think women don't deserve as much pay - such as yourself - are just going to have to suck it up.

In fact, you're going to have to do a lot of that in the next few years. Hope you're ready for it. And remember that you have nobody to blame but the Republican party itself, which suffered it's greatest losses in 70 years thanks to Bush and the idiocy of your leaders in Congress.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If the women couldn't perform the requirements of the job, they shouldn't have the job. If they had the same grade as the men, they should be getting paid the same. Period. There's no real room for discussion on this.

You are so naive, cyclops. It happens all the time, because of lawyers.

They could perform some aspects of the jobs, so people made allowances. I am not against women holding these jobs, but I am against forcing equal pay for jobs where equal ability is not always there. But any whiner can figure out how to game the system and claim discrimination, that is the game and how it is played. If the discrimination was so bad, it could be recognized within the 18 months. Going back decades is stupid, stupid, stupid, it is changing the rules, which digs up old dirt, alot of which is fictitious and manufactured to make a dime.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

CI, it's the private sector and taxpayers that produce things and keep the economy healthy.

The government produces nothing and has no concept of operating within their means because we allow them to do whatever they want.

Government is our enemy and we must hold them accountable by laying off large numbers of them.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

You are so naive, cyclops.

Hear, hear!

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If the women couldn't perform the requirements of the job, they shouldn't have the job. If they had the same grade as the men, they should be getting paid the same. Period. There's no real room for discussion on this.

You are so naive, cyclops. It happens all the time, because of lawyers.

They could perform some aspects of the jobs, so people made allowances. I am not against women holding these jobs, but I am against forcing equal pay for jobs where equal ability is not always there. But any whiner can figure out how to game the system and claim discrimination, that is the game and how it is played. If the discrimination was so bad, it could be recognized within the 18 months. Going back decades is stupid, stupid, stupid, it is changing the rules, which digs up old dirt, alot of which is fictitious and manufactured to make a dime.

180 days isn't 18 months, Okie. It's 6 months. Most people are barely getting adjusted to their new job in that period, let alone figuring out that they are being discriminated against.

One would think you would bother to do the math before trying to call someone else stupid or naive.

Just more 'TRIAL LAWYERS BOOO" bitching from Republicans. Do you have any actual evidence that this will lead to a bunch of new lawsuits from decades ago? No? Just making it up as usual? Yeah, that's what we thought.

Also, you don't think it's wrong to sue when you find out you were discriminated against for years, Okie, even if you've already quit the job? Why not?

I suspect the answer is because you don't believe discrimination is wrong. And we have a word for that - bigot. You proud of that?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Bi-Polar Bear,

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

the feds called citi and put the kabosh on the jet. the feds....they regulated. Refreshing, eh?

O boy tapped into a justified populist anger against the greed, privilege, stupidity and sense of entitlement projected by Citi bank,
but PrezBO has yet to realize taxpayer anger against the greed, privilege, stupidity and sense of entitlement of our own government.

This groundswell of taxpayer anger will slap O boy in the face very soon.

0 Replies

Ha ha, Rush is repeating what I said right after Obama's speech on the stimulus package. I said some of his statements were "reaganesque." Rush is now saying the same thing, but as I said, his package is just the opposite.

I am going to start calling Obama Mr. Contradiction. President Contradiction Obama. How does that sound? Everything he does is contradictory. Now that I think of it, his book, Audacity of Hope, was full of discussing contradictions.

1 Reply

@okie,

Good grief...I sure hope he doesn't do what Reagan did.

Reagan, as everybody knows, tripled the national debt during his eight years in office. If Obama does that...we'll all be in a sea of trouble.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, I agree with your thesis. Our biggest challenge now is how to reduce the pay and benefits of government workers. They not only have health insurance for themselves and their families while actively employed, but after they retire.

All this while many commercial enterprises are cutting back on health insurance and retirement benefits. There has to be some balance and equality, or taxpayers who never enjoyed the same benefits will be footing the bill for folks just because they were employed by our governments.

To become competitive in the world marketplace, we just cannot continue to pay our CEOs those atrocious pays and benefits while the average workers's pay remains stagnant with reduced benefits.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

But the days where people have to “earn a living” are over.

We gotta get our minds wrapped around that.

Luddite Frank. Do you mean that those who don't work need to increase rapidly? That's heavy metal stuff Frank. You would need to prevent conspicuous consumption I think. The logic of Bernard Shaw's communism is right there.

Take it easy old chap.

1 Reply

We are in for an extended period of misery if PrezBO's administration
refuses to reduce the size of government and reduce federal spending.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Spendius...the communists were even more insistent that everyone “earn their living” than we. We have always had much more tolerance for people who inherit wealth, steal wealth, marry into wealth...and in general, use the toil of others to accumulate wealth.

My comment that it no longer makes sense to pay humans to do jobs that robots, computers, and other machines can do is simply recognition of a fundamental capitalistic principle: If a factor of production like labor can be obtained in an expensive way or in a cheaper way...chose the cheaper way.

Not sure what the communism remark was about.

With each passing year...it becomes less and less reasonable to pay humans to do most of the jobs that need doing.

2 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know