Unemployment poses danger for Obama

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/441630

Quote:

---

America already has double-digit unemployment. In fact, the real unemployment rate, as opposed to the official rate, is well over 15 percent.

That's because the official unemployment rate -- which as of Friday stood at at 9.4 percent, following another leap in jobless claims for May -- is not, as economist John Williams has noted, "figured in the way that that the average person thinks of unemployment, meaning figured the way it was estimated back during the Great Depression."

What happens when we include people who have stopped looking for work because they do not believe there are jobs to be found, along with part-time workers who would like to be working full-time? Then, we start looking not at the unsettling 10 percent figure but the far more frightening 20 percent number.

As economist Howard Rosen told NPR after official unemployment topped 8 percent in February: "Today we learned that there are 12.5 million people who are unemployed, and we have another 8.6 million people who are working part-time because they cannot find full-time jobs. Now, you're talking about 20 million people in this country who are either unemployed or underemployed. I don't want to freak out people, but the unemployed number, we start talking about 15, 16 percent." Since February, of course, the official unemployment rate has spiked dramatically, as has the real rate.

These are the numbers that make an urgent social and economic case for the additional stimulus that my wise colleagues and other concerned commentators are suggesting.

But it is the smaller official rate that makes the political case for both more stimulus and a radical rethink of the Obama administration's ill-thought auto bankruptcy and bailout scheme.

When the federal government actually acknowledges that the country has a double-digit unemployment rate, when a figure that is above 10 percent becomes that official number -- something that the trend lines suggest could happen this summer -- the country reaches an emotional and political tipping point.

"Ten is a tangible, very clear reminder that this is a severe recession," explains Ohio State University economics professor Bruce Weinberg. "Ten becomes something psychological. People will say: 'Whoa, we've got a double-digit unemployment rate.'"

Politically, it is the point at which people start looking for someone to blame. Obama and his people will blame the president's predecessor. This is appropriate, as George Bush's economic and regulatory policies were incredibly unsound and destructive.

The problem, of course, is that the blame game gets harder when it becomes possible to link a sitting president's actions to soaring unemployment figures.
States that have been especially hard hit by the current recession -- Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, among others -- and urban areas that have been devastated by it (according to the Labor Department, 93 metropolitan areas registering an unemployment rate of at least 10 percent in April) now face the prospect of significant additional job losses in the coming months as a result of the administration's auto bailout scheme.

As the bankruptcy and bailout projects for Chrysler and General Motors now stand, the companies plan to shutter 25 factories and warehouses across the United States (14 factories and three warehouses for GM, eight factories for Chrysler). That will eliminate the jobs of roughly 30,000 auto workers.
Additionally, the companies plan to shutter roughly 3,000 car dealerships could cost as many as 150,000 additional jobs.

Thus, the administration-backed "restructuring" of the auto companies -- which is to be supported with as much as $65 billion from the U.S. Treasury -- will add significantly to unemployment rates at precisely the time when it hurts the most. A "bailout" that promotes plant and dealership closings and mass layoffs may play well on Wall Street -- where job cutting and offshoring tends to be rewarded, while job creation and long-term planning tends to be punished -- but it is not the right plan for a country (or a president) that would prefer to avoid the highest unemployment rates in decades.

This is something those members of his team who recognize that they were given power with a mandate for change, not putting a "D" label on bad trade and fiscal policies, should be thinking about.

Blaming Bush is legitimate -- as is blaming Bill Clinton, who gave us the job-killing North American Free Trade Agreement and permanent normalization of trade relations with China.

But there comes a time when a president "owns" his recession.

If the country is socked with a double-digit unemployment rate, and if the actions of the administration that is in charge are seen as feeding the increase in joblessness, that's the political point of no return.


Voters, especially in Great Lakes battleground states where Democrats picked up lots of House seats and electoral votes in 2006 and 2008, will start looking for alternatives. And even Republicans who have not come up with much more than a monosyllabic message -- "no" -- could start to look wise, if not particularly articulate.

Obama and his political aides ought to be smart enough to recognize this fact. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be calling the shots.
The current "deciders" appear to be members of Obama's economic team -- led by the likes of Larry Summers, Tim Geithner and rest of the "public servants" formerly known as Wall Street insiders. Their bad calls, especially on the auto bailout, could give America a "jobless recovery" and a politically-vulnerable president.

---

flashback to dec. 2008.

Politically, Obama is fine so long as the economy recovers by 2011. It's the House & Senate democrats up for re-election in 2010 who might need to start worrying about that unemployment rate.

Quote:

---

Blaming Bush is legitimate -- as is blaming Bill Clinton, who gave us the job-killing North American Free Trade Agreement and permanent normalization of trade relations with China.

But there comes a time when a president "owns" his recession.

---

When Bush 1 left office, the unemploment rate was at 7.4. When Clinton left office, it was down to 4. When W left office, it was back up over 7 again.

I don't recall either Bush owning much of anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

When Bush 1 left office, the unemploment rate was at 7.4. When Clinton left office, it was down to 4. When W left office, it was back up over 7 again.

I don't recall either Bush owning much of anything.

---

Do you recall Bush I getting voted out after 1 term? Voter backlash against W giving Obama and the dems a big victory last November ring a bell? Sure looks like the voters held those two guys accountable for something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Politically, Obama is fine so long as the economy recovers by 2011. It's the House & Senate democrats up for re-election in 2010 who might need to start worrying about that unemployment rate.

---

oh no. didn'y you hear? apparently the makeup of this board has already predicted the future democrat sweep of the 2010 elections. yeah. i'm amazed at that assessment as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Politically, Obama is fine so long as the economy recovers by 2011. It's the House & Senate democrats up for re-election in 2010 who might need to start worrying about that unemployment rate.

---

I concur. republicans will pick up a few.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Do you recall Bush I getting voted out after 1 term? Voter backlash against W giving Obama and the dems a big victory last November ring a bell? Sure looks like the voters held those two guys accountable for something.

---

I recall back in 1990 or so people thinking Bush was a lock to win. There was even an SNL skit about democratic nominees nominating each other so that they wouldn't be the one to get blown out in 92. Then Ross Perot came along.

but I was referring to them owning up the recessions/problems during their tenure themselves.

I agree with CG, Obama is safe for now because a lot can happen in a year and a half. However, the House and Senate are screwed in my opinion. I don't think there is enough time to turn things around.

I blame GWB shitty second term for much of economy's problems. I blame Obama for making it even worse.

If the economy continues to plunge over the next two years, I don't see a 2nd term for Obama. He'll just be a modern-day Jimmy Carter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

I blame GWB shitty second term for much of economy's problems. I blame Obama for making it even worse.

---

I blame the people of the United States who continued to spend money long after they were way over their heads in debt. I blame large corporations for continuing to loan money, and spend money. I blame the government for bailing out failing corporations. I blame Congress more than the president for our economic troubles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sam1617

I blame the people of the United States who continued to spend money long after they were way over their heads in debt.

---

Then you must hate the economic policies of the Obama administration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sam1617

I blame Congress more than the president for our economic troubles.

---

Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

I blame GWB shitty second term for much of economy's problems. I blame Obama for making it even worse.

If the economy continues to plunge over the next two years, I don't see a 2nd term for Obama. He'll just be a modern-day Jimmy Carter.

---

I concur but only if the republicans can come up with a worthy candidate and if Palin is anywhere on the ticket they are doomed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeChalupa

I concur but only if the republicans can come up with a worthy candidate and if Palin is anywhere on the ticket they are doomed.

---

Palin is one of those people that I wish would just go away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

I don't see a 2nd term for Obama. He'll just be a modern-day Jimmy Carter.

---

I dont see a Republican candidate currently out there that can beat Obama.

....but I guess you never know...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

I dont see a Republican candidate currently out there that can beat Obama.

....but I guess you never know...

---

Did you see Obama coming?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sam1617

i blame the people of the united states who continued to spend money long after they were way over their heads in debt. I blame large corporations for continuing to loan money, and spend money. I blame the government for bailing out failing corporations. I blame congress more than the president for our economic troubles.

---

+1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

Did you see Obama coming?

---

At the 1988 DNC, Bill Clinton gave an opening night speech that was booed by many of the attendees and many thought would ruin his career. 4 years later he is the POTUS.


At the 2004 DNC, Barak Obama (relatively unknown at the time), gives the keynote speech. 4 years later he is the POTUS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

Did you see Obama coming?

---

I did. Earlier than I thought but if you watched him speak at the DNC you would have seen him coming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

At the 1988 DNC, Bill Clinton gave an opening night speech that was booed by many of the attendees and many thought would ruin his career. 4 years later he is the POTUS.


At the 2004 DNC, Barak Obama (relatively unknown at the time), gives the keynote speech. 4 years later he is the POTUS.

---

+1 :tu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeChalupa

I concur but only if the republicans can come up with a worthy candidate and if Palin is anywhere on the ticket they are doomed.

---

The problem the republicans have is they need to make up their minds whether or not they want to hang out with the evangelicals or the libertarians. Until they do that they're not capable of winning a presidential election.

I think Newt is going to make a run at it but he has too much baggage. Everyone will be reminded of how he lost majority leader.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sam1617

I blame the people of the United States who continued to spend money long after they were way over their heads in debt. I blame large corporations for continuing to loan money, and spend money. I blame the government for bailing out failing corporations. I blame Congress more than the president for our economic troubles.

---

All true, but when you have a prez pushing deregulation, ala lax oversight on the lending industry, at the same time he is promoting activities that need to be heavily regulated, ala pusing the housing for all Americans program started in the late 70's, you can see that he was not innocent in the matter...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeChalupa

I think Newt is going to make a run at it but he has too much baggage. Everyone will be reminded of how he lost majority leader.

---

I don't think he has broad appeal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

I don't think he has broad appeal.

---

Agreed. But then there isn't a Republican who does. At least not one that we know of today.

Obama is not going to have a problem unless the unemployment numbers remain high well into his 3rd year in office. Most people with an ounce of integrity knows that Obama is not the cause for the increase in unemployment numbers . His stimulus funds, whether you agree with the concept or not, have not been fully relased so to say it has failed is also intellectually dishonest. Now in the end this stimulus/spending bill may not work and could theoretically cause more damage than good but we won't know for a couple of years. So to state "It's working", or "It's a failure" at this point is not an honest assessment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Agreed. But then there isn't a Republican who does. At least not one that we know of today.

---

I see Mitt making another run if the polls looks good. I think I saw that Huckabee is still popular. Gov. Pawlenty may run too I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jacobdrj

All true, but when you have a prez pushing deregulation, ala lax oversight on the lending industry, at the same time he is promoting activities that need to be heavily regulated, ala pusing the housing for all Americans program started in the late 70's, you can see that he was not innocent in the matter...

---

Yes, I would agree that the Executive branch plays a role in the economy, but to me, the only people we can truly control is ourselves, and making bad business decisions is something that the individual making the decision can control, thus the majority of blame for their mistake lies on them. Just because something gets deregulated doesn't mean that people should act irresponsibly. The buck doesn't stop with the President, while he may play a factor, the buck stops with the individual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

Obama is not going to have a problem unless the unemployment numbers remain high well into his 3rd year in office. Most people with an ounce of integrity knows that Obama is not the cause for the increase in unemployment numbers . His stimulus funds, whether you agree with the concept or not, have not been fully relased so to say it has failed is also intellectually dishonest. Now in the end this stimulus/spending bill may not work and could theoretically cause more damage than good but we won't know for a couple of years. So to state "It's working", or "It's a failure" at this point is not an honest assessment.

---

I think the deficit number is going to be THE attack strategy from the republicans although I don't think it will work and Obama will get a second term.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeChalupa

I think the deficit number is going to be THE attack strategy from the republicans although I don't think it will work and Obama will get a second term.

---

If he does, hopefully conservatives can control Congress, that way we don't get one party unilaterally deciding the course of our nation, like what happened during Bush's tenure.

Huckabee, Palin, and Newt are unelectable.

This is gonna sound retarded, but I think Bush is actually a pretty good choice for them... especially if he could somehow find a way to change his last name. His view points on things are more moderate and easier to stomach.

I have no problem voting for a moderate Republican come 2012.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

Obama is not going to have a problem unless the unemployment numbers remain high well into his 3rd year in office. Most people with an ounce of integrity knows that Obama is not the cause for the increase in unemployment numbers . His stimulus funds, whether you agree with the concept or not, have not been fully relased so to say it has failed is also intellectually dishonest. Now in the end this stimulus/spending bill may not work and could theoretically cause more damage than good but we won't know for a couple of years. So to state "It's working", or "It's a failure" at this point is not an honest assessment.

---

if and when that time comes, whenever it's popular, if this thing fails i highly doubt you would put down your pom poms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

I don't think he has broad appeal.

---

It's easy to say that, but should he run, when he starts talking policy people are going to listen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

Obama is not going to have a problem unless the unemployment numbers remain high well into his 3rd year in office. Most people with an ounce of integrity knows that Obama is not the cause for the increase in unemployment numbers . His stimulus funds, whether you agree with the concept or not, have not been fully relased so to say it has failed is also intellectually dishonest. Now in the end this stimulus/spending bill may not work and could theoretically cause more damage than good but we won't know for a couple of years. So to state "It's working", or "It's a failure" at this point is not an honest assessment.

---

That's some good hash you're smoking.

Corporations continue to trim their payrolls due to what's going at the federal level with respect to banking and oversight. No one wants to get caught needing a handout and all the strings that the administration tie on to it.

Obama's auto bailout is going to put tens of thousands more on the streets due to shuttered dealerships and auto plants, but that's not his fault, when he's just paying back the unions for their vote?

And just wait... with the decision to push through the structured bailout and piss on nearly 200 years of contractual law with respect to secured debt holders (i.e., Obama taking care of the unsecure ones - union - first ahead of secure ones), it's going to cost more for any union affiliated business/industry to do business because that risk of getting hosed by an administration with no respect for contractual law is going to be priced into any future financing offered.

And as a result, you're going to see more businesses go under when they can't find financing. Eh, Team Obama will probably bail their asses out too, but it will be more picking winners and losers by the admin. and more job losses that go along with it.

But I'm sure we'll still be hearing about jobs 'saved or created', even as the unemployment rate continues to climb :lol

Quote:

---

Corporations continue to trim their payrolls due to what's going at the federal level with respect to banking and oversight. No one wants to get caught needing a handout and all the strings that the administration tie on to it.

---

Is this the only reason they are trimming back their payrolls? or could it be that the economy is suffering? Would you provide some documetation to that notes this is the reason why they (whomever your talking about) taking their respective actions?

Quote:

---

Obama's auto bailout is going to put tens of thousands more on the streets due to shuttered dealerships and auto plants, but that's not his fault, when he's just paying back the unions for their vote?

---

Or maybe jumping in to save a complete meltdown so that other industries ,such as auto parts manufacturers, don't cave as well? Using your logic he should have let GM fail which would have put 50,000, 60,000 people out of work? Throw in the trickle effect of such a failure which would have surely caused many more people to lose their jobs. So in effect he made the decision to eliminate 10,000 jobs in order to save 40,000 or 50,000. He saved jobs! Of course your so locked into your political talking points this move was to shore up votes.. :rolleyes

Quote:

---

And just wait... with the decision to push through the structured bailout and piss on nearly 200 years of contractual law with respect to secured debt holders (i.e., Obama taking care of the unsecure ones - union - first ahead of secure ones), it's going to cost more for any union affiliated business/industry to do business because that risk of getting hosed by an administration with no respect for contractual law is going to be priced into any future financing offered.

---

Didn't the conservative leaning Supreme Court just disagree with you?

Quote:

---

And as a result, you're going to see more businesses go under when they can't find financing. Eh, Team Obama will probably bail their asses out too, but it will be more picking winners and losers by the admin. and more job losses that go along with it.

---

So are you blaimg Obama for the lack of financing now? You think the administration will pick winners and losers (whatever that means)? can you prove that? or is this just an opinion of a pissed off conservative who does nothing but bitch about Obama?

Quote:

---

But I'm sure we'll still be hearing about jobs 'saved or created', even as the unemployment rate continues to climb

---

When the unemployment rate starts to come down( it will) I suppose you are not going to give Obama any credit, correct? So in essence you blame him for the high rate and when it goes up you will find many other reasons other than Obama as to why it is recovering?

Do you have any intellectual integrity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman3000

This is gonna sound retarded, but I think Bush is actually a pretty good choice for them... especially if he could somehow find a way to change his last name. His view points on things are more moderate and easier to stomach.

I have no problem voting for a moderate Republican come 2012.

---

I thought something similar about GWB in 2000. Boy was I wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan

Obama's auto bailout is going to put tens of thousands more on the streets due to shuttered dealerships and auto plants, but that's not his fault, when he's just paying back the unions for their vote?

---

I agree with you the bailouts suck, but it's not like if Obama hadn't bailed out GM & Chrysler that those dealership jobs would have been saved. Can't put those jobs on him. Those jobs were going to be lost regardless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

I thought something similar about GWB in 2000. Boy was I wrong.

---

+1 :depressed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

I thought something similar about GWB in 2000. Boy was I wrong.

---

Considering I wasn't old enough to vote during the 2000 election I don't remember that. I just remember I wanted him to win because he was from Texas. That's about as far as that went.

I know Bush the youngest has been criticized by his own party. Did Bush 43 have that same problem coming up?

I'd much rather have a fiscal conservative in the WH than Obama, but a lot of the names they're throwing around aren't going to cut it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

I agree with you the bailouts suck, but it's not like if Obama hadn't bailed out GM & Chrysler that those dealership jobs would have been saved. Can't put those jobs on him. Those jobs were going to be lost regardless.

---

Not necessarily. If they would have been allowed to go into bankruptcy, the company could have restructured on its own. I doubt it would have closed so many dealerships, and it would have had the opportunity to renegotiate its labor contracts so guys weren't getting paid $60K a year for putting a couple of lug nuts on a tire.

Maybe it's just that I'm from Texas and haven't been raised with unions being prominent... but I can't understand why unions are needed now other than exploiting the companies.

I understand how they came to be... workers were being exploited. It's just that nowadays it's in the best interest of company to treat their workers well. Mass media has forced that.

It's kind of like affirmative action. It was needed in the infancy of a movement, but as time went on, society (for the most part) outgrew the policy.
(there are some places where that isn't the case though)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

Is this the only reason they are trimming back their payrolls? or could it be that the economy is suffering? Would you provide some documetation to that notes this is the reason why they (whomever your talking about) taking their respective actions?

---

I'm in middle management at my company. I also know several other folks in mid to high management at various companies here in Dallas (friends, family, etc.). It's more word of mouth than anything, but it's happening. Sorry I don't have a press release from Robert Gibbs to verify this is happening.

Quote:

---

Or maybe jumping in to save a complete meltdown so that other industries ,such as auto parts manufacturers, don't cave as well? Using your logic he should have let GM fail which would have put 50,000, 60,000 people out of work? Throw in the trickle effect of such a failure which would have surely caused many more people to lose their jobs. So in effect he made the decision to eliminate 10,000 jobs in order to save 40,000 or 50,000. He saved jobs! Of course your so locked into your political talking points this move was to shore up votes.. :rolleyes

---

When the airline companies went into bankruptcy several years ago, did everyone they employ end up out on the street? Nope, they reworked their contracts, re-worked their debt, and moved on.

Of course you're so locked into your political talking points the only way a company like GM or Chrysler can survive is to have the government prop them up. And spare me the condescension, everyone can see what happened in Detroit was to the benefit of the UAW, which contributed significantly to Team Obama. Don't be so fucking naive.

Quote:

---

So are you blaimg Obama for the lack of financing now? You think the administration will pick winners and losers (whatever that means)? can you prove that? or is this just an opinion of a pissed off conservative who does nothing but bitch about Obama?

---

It's already picking winners and losers. It made senior debtholders at GM and Chrysler the losers, while making the unions the winners. Fuck, wake up. It's in the damn papers. I'm sorry, I guess you have your head too far up Obama's ass to read a fucking newspaper.

Quote:

---

When the unemployment rate starts to come down( it will) I suppose you are not going to give Obama any credit, correct? So in essence you blame him for the high rate and when it goes up you will find many other reasons other than Obama as to why it is recovering?

---

Unemployment won't race back down. It might slowly trickle back down. If you can prove it's because of any Obama policy, I will give him credit. But to pretend the stimulus package is somehow the end all cure all is hilarious. But I expect that from Obama's sheeple.

Quote:

---

Do you have any intellectual integrity?

---

Yep, feel pretty good about that actually. Are you capable of having an intelligent discussion without labeling anyone who criticizes Obama some pissed off conservative? That shit gets old in a hurry, and shows you aren't capable of holding an intelligent conversation. I'd have to say you're the one lacking intellectual integrity.

It's funny that you challenge my intellectual integrity. I don't see you questioning Obama's bullshit statistics about jobs 'saved or created'. Talk about intellectual dishonesty, but you Obamaniacs lap it up. It's sad to watch really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman3000

Maybe it's just that I'm from Texas and haven't been raised with unions being prominent... but I can't understand why unions are needed now other than exploiting the companies.

I understand how they came to be... workers were being exploited. It's just that nowadays it's in the best interest of company to treat their workers well. Mass media has forced that.

---

I take it you don't know many people that work for Wal Mart.

Quote:

---

Didn't the conservative leaning Supreme Court just disagree with you?

---

I suspect we'll get to see what they really think with the GM bankruptcy. Some of its bondholders are planning to actually file a court case, as opposed to the petition by the pension funds, etc. that was shot down by Chrysler.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman3000

Maybe it's just that I'm from Texas and haven't been raised with unions being prominent... but I can't understand why unions are needed now other than exploiting the companies.

I understand how they came to be... workers were being exploited. It's just that nowadays it's in the best interest of company to treat their workers well. Mass media has forced that.

It's kind of like affirmative action. It was needed in the infancy of a movement, but as time went on, society (for the most part) outgrew the policy.
(there are some places where that isn't the case though)

---

I'll give you a good example of union work at its finest.

We have a client in another state that is a union shop. This is government workers too. Anyway, we are implementing new software for them. The project, which would normally take about a year to implement fully, is taking three.

Why? Because they show up for training, sit there for 2-3 hours, then say they don't feel like training any more and call it a day. They still get to punch eight hours on their time card and our client can't do anything because it's a union shop and they all stand together. So it's costing the taxpayers for this entity three times as much money for this project as we have to be out there three times as long.

But hey, they're union right? Fuck everyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan

I don't see you questioning Obama's bullshit statistics about jobs 'saved or created'. Talk about intellectual dishonesty, but you Obamaniacs lap it up. It's sad to watch really.

---

Discussed here, starting at #58: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=mankiw&page=2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainwreck2100

I take it you don't know many people that work for Wal Mart.

---

The only people I know that work at Wal Mart are in their high teens - low 20's. They really don't have anything to complain about other than the fact they work at a shit hole like Wal Mart.

I'm going to pretend to know what older people at Wal Mart feel because I don't know any. I'd like to know what you think a person putting a box on a shelf, or broom an aisle deserve to be paid. Seriously.

and I know there are other variables at play like health care, but I don't know/understand the situation so I'm not gonna make assumptions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman3000

Maybe it's just that I'm from Texas and haven't been raised with unions being prominent... but I can't understand why unions are needed now other than exploiting the companies.

I understand how they came to be... workers were being exploited. It's just that nowadays it's in the best interest of company to treat their workers well. Mass media has forced that.

It's kind of like affirmative action. It was needed in the infancy of a movement, but as time went on, society (for the most part) outgrew the policy.
(there are some places where that isn't the case though)

---

I don't see anything wrong with a group of workers banding together to exploit a company.

Granted, I don't know all the legalities of unions, but can't businesses hire scabs if the union guys walk?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan

I'll give you a good example of union work at its finest.

We have a client in another state that is a union shop. This is government workers too. Anyway, we are implementing new software for them. The project, which would normally take about a year to implement fully, is taking three.

Why? Because they show up for training, sit there for 2-3 hours, then say they don't feel like training any more and call it a day. They still get to punch eight hours on their time card and our client can't do anything because it's a union shop and they all stand together. So it's costing the taxpayers for this entity three times as much money for this project as we have to be out there three times as long.

But hey, they're union right? Fuck everyone else.

---

My father said he was fired from CPS when he was in his early 20's because he worked too fast/efficiently at repairing electricity lines and the other guys only wanted him to meet the bare minimum requirements. Something along the lines of they had a set amount of time to do a set amount of repairs and they'd want to milk it the length of the deadline in order to get more money. If he had continued to work they would have come in under budget and ahead of time.

:lol what a joke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

I don't see anything wrong with a group of workers banding together to exploit a company.

Granted, I don't know all the legalities of unions, but can't businesses hire scabs if the union guys walk?

---

I guess there is nothing wrong with it... but then they shouldn't cry like bitches when they get fired and somebody who is willing to work for that price gets hired.

I think scabs are really really taboo up north, but I'm not sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan

I'm in middle management at my company. I also know several other folks in mid to high management at various companies here in Dallas (friends, family, etc.). It's more word of mouth than anything, but it's happening. Sorry I don't have a press release from Robert Gibbs to verify this is happening.



When the airline companies went into bankruptcy several years ago, did everyone they employ end up out on the street? Nope, they reworked their contracts, re-worked their debt, and moved on.

Of course you're so locked into your political talking points the only way a company like GM or Chrysler can survive is to have the government prop them up. And spare me the condescension, everyone can see what happened in Detroit was to the benefit of the UAW, which contributed significantly to Team Obama. Don't be so fucking naive.




It's already picking winners and losers. It made senior debtholders at GM and Chrysler the losers, while making the unions the winners. Fuck, wake up. It's in the damn papers. I'm sorry, I guess you have your head too far up Obama's ass to read a fucking newspaper.



Unemployment won't race back down. It might slowly trickle back down. If you can prove it's because of any Obama policy, I will give him credit. But to pretend the stimulus package is somehow the end all cure all is hilarious. But I expect that from Obama's sheeple.




Yep, feel pretty good about that actually. Are you capable of having an intelligent discussion without labeling anyone who criticizes Obama some pissed off conservative? That shit gets old in a hurry, and shows you aren't capable of holding an intelligent conversation. I'd have to say you're the one lacking intellectual integrity.

It's funny that you challenge my intellectual integrity. I don't see you questioning Obama's bullshit statistics about jobs 'saved or created'. Talk about intellectual dishonesty, but you Obamaniacs lap it up. It's sad to watch really.

---

You nor I know the long term effects of the bailout. So why don't you stop talking like you know the end result? I choose to wait a bit see what happens before I rush off and blame Obama for everything unlike you. Blame Obama for the negative and give him no credit for the positive.. I got it,but,but,but you want an intellectual conversation...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

Did you see Obama coming?

---

no, I thought for a long while that Hilary would be our next pres

Quote:

---

We believe a strong public option is key to achieving universal health care and lowering costs. The plan will:


Finally provide relief to small businesses and families. The public health insurance plan will drive costs down across the board, helping everyone who is struggling in this economy.

Give Americans a choice. So many Americans don't like their private insurance—or don't have it at all. With this plan, they'd be able to choose a plan that's not run by insurance companies. But if they're happy with their current coverage, they can keep it.

Make universal health care a reality. The public health insurance option will be available to everyone, regardless of job status or pre-existing conditions.

---

This was just sent to me in email blast...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman3000

Considering I wasn't old enough to vote during the 2000 election I don't remember that. I just remember I wanted him to win because he was from Texas. That's about as far as that went.

I know Bush the youngest has been criticized by his own party. Did Bush 43 have that same problem coming up?

I'd much rather have a fiscal conservative in the WH than Obama, but a lot of the names they're throwing around aren't going to cut it.

---

The problem with the Bush's is they are moderate on the economy and extreme on war.

It should be the other way around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman3000

This is gonna sound retarded, but I think Bush is actually a pretty good choice for them... especially if he could somehow find a way to change his last name. His view points on things are more moderate and easier to stomach.

---

you could be right, but I think keeping his name still helps him more than hurts. He would just have to show that he is more like his dad rather than his idiot brother.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

you could be right, but I think keeping his name still helps him more than hurts. He would just have to show that he is more like his dad rather than his idiot brother.

---

I would have problems with that too. I hope he resembles neither and loses.

I'm hoping hard the Bush/Clinton dynastic alternation gets broken, just on the principle of the thing. It's not supposed to go Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman3000

I'd much rather have a fiscal conservative in the WH than Obama, but a lot of the names they're throwing around aren't going to cut it.

---

A fiscal what?

Doesn't exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman3000

I have no problem voting for a moderate Republican come 2012.

---

Well maybe John McCain will get the nomination.

That's why it's hard to vote for conservatives.

I'd rather have a social liberal / fiscal liberal in office than a social conservative / fiscal liberal in office.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

I would have problems with that too. I hope he resembles neither and loses.

I'm hoping hard the Bush/Clinton dynastic alternation gets broken, just on the principle of the thing. It's not supposed to go Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush.

---

absolutely +1

just trying to play strategy coach for the repubs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

absolutely +1

just trying to play strategy coach for the repubs

---

That's mighty generous of you, but they sure do need one. Somebody playing coach on a bulletin board might actually be better than the guy they're paying to do it now.

http://spectator.org/assets/mc/350_3...ele-706272.jpg

Well, as unemployment continues to rise, they will probably need more people to process unemployment benefits. So, this is resulting in the creation of "new" jobs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

http://spectator.org/assets/mc/350_3...ele-706272.jpg

---

Oh Dear Lord, No.

:lol @ Michael Steele. Watching him act all hip and cool is literally painful. I couldn't even watch the entire video of him giving his "crooked/backwards Republican hat" routine to a bunch of high schoolers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

That's mighty generous of you, but they sure do need one. Somebody playing coach on a bulletin board might actually be better than the guy they're paying to do it now.

---

they're paying somebody for that?

If they are paying him $75k, I am going to go jack sommerset up in here.

RNC is a private organization. They can choose to waste money on ridiculously entertaining chairmen if they want to.

By entertaining I meant depressing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

they're paying somebody for that?

---

A lot of somebodies, in fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman3000

RNC is a private organization. They can choose to waste money on ridiculously entertaining chairmen if they want to.

By entertaining I meant depressing.

---

yeah
http://www.southdacola.com/blog/wp-c...ard-dean-8.jpg

i hear ya, yo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

I don't see anything wrong with a group of workers banding together to exploit a company.

Granted, I don't know all the legalities of unions, but can't businesses hire scabs if the union guys walk?

---

I believe the rule is that if a union goes on strike, they are protected by the government for three months, after which the company has the right to fire them all and replace them with whoever they want.

The company I intern with almost had a strike about eight months back, and it was a very eye opening experience to see how it all played out. Long story short, I've lost a lot of respect for unions and find them, atleast in their present form, to be pretty archaic.

I see $317,000 out there, but have not verified. Mr. Steele's predecessor made 1/3 as much.

This old thing?

(Unemployment poses danger to Obama. The RNC does not.)

Another "God, I hope things get worse" thread from the America-hating opposition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Another "God, I hope things get worse" thread from the America-hating opposition.

---

Yeah, The Nation is a hardcore conservative think tank.

The Nation started this thread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Another "God, I hope things get worse" thread from the America-hating opposition.

---

People consult headlines as if they were horoscopes and statistics as if they were curses and spells. Witch doctor forum.

Quote:

---

Collective doom is inevitable.

---

Quote:

---

Listen to me! I predict the future!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

People consult headlines as if they were horoscopes and statistics as if they were curses and spells. Witch doctor forum.

---

It was a blog. I thought it was interesting. If you don't, that's ok.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

It was a blog. I thought it was interesting. If you don't, that's ok.

---

I usually get my info elsewhere, but thanks just the same.

En serio, D. :-)

the only predictions i care about are whottts. if he makes'em, you know the outcome.

The drumbeat of doom has been a plodding consistency in this forum ever since the election, so maybe you can forgive a few people for getting tired of it. Not everybody is wedded to things getting worse, much much worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman3000

I guess there is nothing wrong with it... but then they shouldn't cry like bitches when they get fired and somebody who is willing to work for that price gets hired.

I think scabs are really really taboo up north, but I'm not sure.

---

They are taboo, but that's mainly because you have these guys trying to hold out for more money, and someone else is willing to work for less. No wonder why the scabs aren't liked. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas

yeah
http://www.southdacola.com/blog/wp-c...ard-dean-8.jpg

i hear ya, yo.

---

Can't deny his 50 state strategy. Worked pretty well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stump

I believe the rule is that if a union goes on strike, they are protected by the government for three months, after which the company has the right to fire them all and replace them with whoever they want.

The company I intern with almost had a strike about eight months back, and it was a very eye opening experience to see how it all played out. Long story short, I've lost a lot of respect for unions and find them, atleast in their present form, to be pretty archaic.

---

See, I think it's stupid that workers on strike are protected. If they want to go on strike, let them. Let them do their union line in front of the business, and make consumers aware of the horrible working conditions. But I don't think they should be paid for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Can't deny his 50 state strategy. Worked pretty well.

---

No. Don't you remember? He made a really strange sound when he yelled that one time. We were all owned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

See, I think it's stupid that workers on strike are protected. If they want to go on strike, let them. Let them do their union line in front of the business, and make consumers aware of the horrible working conditions. But I don't think they should be paid for it.

---

It's just a hold out from a time when things like that were necessary. It should be gone, but it persists because the special interests involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

no, I thought for a long while that Hilary would be our next pres

---

In the summer of 2007, it was still common knowledge. HRC was the heir apparent.