Oboma .. another term

[ButtermilkBuoy]

Why do you quote the taxing and spending clause? Has someone argued in this thread that our federal government cannot legally tax and spend?

[NateS]

Why do you quote the taxing and spending clause? Has someone argued in this thread that our federal government cannot legally tax and spend?

I think you will find the answer to your question already appears above, but in case you missed it:

But it is easy to get that impression from So Well's post, because he asked:

"Where in the Hebrew Bible or in the New Testament are we commanded to form governments to tax some to do the charitable work that is expected of each of us individually?"


which could be read as implying that citizens require authority from the Bible in order to have their representatives enact tax laws and spending laws, whereas I believe it is pretty clear that those powers are derived from the Constitution and do not need any Biblical authority, as I agree with you that the USA is not a theocracy.

Nate

[ButtermilkBuoy]

which could be read as implying

Just as well as "snowing in the hills" could be read as implying "mama fell out of the loft and broke her hip".

Seems that you like to build strawmen.

Have fun with that!

[ButtermilkBuoy]

Four years and this was not on Obama's radar. Now we cut Medicaid for the elderly and feed the corporate farmers money.

[NateS]

Four years and this was not on Obama's radar. Now we cut Medicaid for the elderly and feed the corporate farmers money.

Nor did any of the Presidents before him. Unlike that other guy running against him ("On Day One I will blah blah blah blah"), Obama never claimed to have the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution. Only that other guy - a grand poseur - idiotically pretended that if elected he would have all the powers of the three branches of government rolled into himself sitting in the Oval Office!

If you want to eliminate corporate welfare, you've got my vote. Hope it helps.

Talk about creating straw men!

Nate

[idamtnboy]

Having your income taken and redistributed leads to citizens that feel no further responsibility to the poor. The morally uplifting act of cheerfully giving is undermined.

Income redistribution occurs all the time, especially in corporations. Many people, like my son, work in a factory producing goods for corporate America, and others produce food for all us. Yet, as important as those jobs are the employers pay wages that won't support a respectable lifestyle for a small family. The guys at the top are skimming the income to themselves and not passing it down to the workers, who by the way, are the REAL makers in this society. There is no unfairness in asking those who are the richest at the expense of the working poor to pay more of that ill gotten gain in taxes.

[ButtermilkBuoy]

Penalize success. Reward those who lack drive to better themselves.

[MidnightOwl]

Penalize success. Reward those who lack drive to better themselves.

When did having more money than everyone else become the sole measure of having bettered yourself?

[Therapist]

Many people, like my son, work in a factory producing goods for corporate America, and others produce food for all us. Yet, as important as those jobs are the employers pay wages that won't support a respectable lifestyle for a small family.

My family stuck to the professional field except for one grandson who went into manufacturing. We were concerned about his choice but our fears have been allayed. He is doing great - loves his work and his bosses and coworkers and is making a great salary. He has a longterm career plan laid out and even put it in writing.

He will be with us at Thanksgiving and we will hear his enthusiasm for manufacturing. Apparently there are plenty of high-paying open jobs in manufacturing for those with a little technical skill and the willingness to relocate. He has been out of college and working one year and has just purchased a nice two-bedroom condo.

Has your son considered what he needs to do to get promoted? If his company is not doing well has he considered moving on? Is he doing anything to improve his technical skills?

There is still lots of opportunity in manufacturing apparently.

[idamtnboy]

Has your son considered what he needs to do to get promoted? If his company is not doing well has he considered moving on? Is he doing anything to improve his technical skills?

There is still lots of opportunity in manufacturing apparently.

That is the common response whenever the issue of wages in manufacturing comes up. It misses the point completely. In my son's case he has operated tube forming machines, welding systems, and paint booths, all for companies like Hon Furniture. These jobs pay around $10/hr. Now, these are jobs that have to be done if you and I and business employees all over this country are going have office chairs and desks, and filing cabinets, and racks to hold all the computer equipment the modern company utilizes. And yet, as vital as these jobs are to American society, American society refuses to pay a respectable wage to the person doing them.

Recently, I watched a video from CBS News, I think it was, about manufacturing jobs and the problem of finding qualified workers. The focus was on getting workers trained, and the role a local community college was playing in meeting that need that the owner of a small manufacturing business in Las Vegas needed. In the interview he said he could not afford to pay to train the workers himself, that the cost of doing so would drive his work overseas. Guess what he offered for a starting wage for high tech skilled workers - $12/hr. That's $24,000 per year. It is shameful that the wage of highly skilled worker operating a multi-hundred thousand machine isn't double that.

There are millions of jobs that MUST be performed if American society is to function, jobs that require a strong will to work, a common sense mind, and not a high level of education. Why should the people doing those jobs not be able to afford a decent home and car? I'm not talking luxurious, I'm talking basic safe houses and cars.

[ButtermilkBuoy]

In my son's case he has operated tube forming machines, welding systems, and paint booths, all for companies like Hon Furniture. These jobs pay around $10/hr. Now, these are jobs that have to be done if you and I and business employees all over this country are going have office chairs and desks, and filing cabinets, and racks to hold all the computer equipment the modern company utilizes. And yet, as vital as these jobs are to American society, American society refuses to pay a respectable wage to the person doing them.

Just my opinion and I know you may hate the idea of him moving away, but he needs to upgrade his skills and find another employer. The customers who buy that type of product are looking for basic functionality and will never pay much for it. It's dead end unless your son can move into management or sales.

He needs to aggressively consider other industries whose product sales are driven by technology and consumer ego and pride of ownership or he will stay at $12/hour.

All the companies who buy Hon furniture have their core competencies elsewhere. Office furniture is not a strategic purchase so they will never value it highly. Go with an industry whose product is a key raw material or component for their customers. That is where valuable people will make more money. (I would never take a sales job where you called on someone in purchasing. All my sales jobs we called on the General Manager and the President. You bring some value to the table and you get paid accordingly. People who buy office furniture are in the purchasing department and even at that they are on the low level of the purchasing department.)

If he has a little math aptitude, can express himself verbally and in brief writings, and has a good work ethic he should be making $18/hour plus decent benefits. $100,000 per year is still attainable if he finds the right path like a machinist or oil/natural gas field worker.

Personally I would look for a technology company that has to offer technical service to sell the product. Start out at any job in manufacturing and be determine to learn the technology and what satisfies the customer. Make a path for regular promotions in manufacturing with the longterm goal in customer technical service and eventually field technical service. If you can get the customers to like you and respect your technical help you will get paid more by your company or one of their competitors. Heck, if you can do this you can be President of the company in 25 years!

Why should the people doing those jobs not be able to afford a decent home and car? I'm not talking luxurious, I'm talking basic safe houses and cars.

What are your expectations? Do you expect him at a young age to be living the lifestyle of someone who has worked 30 years? I remember the days of driving a tiny Honda CVCC with a manual choke and no A/C and when I got married it took two incomes to live decently. I remember being down to one car, having it breakdown and getting rides from my friend in the trailer park across the street from our apartment. One of the accountants from my wife's office transported her temporarily.

But I don't regret those days for one minute. We were enjoying life in the moment and planning for the future. I could still live like that again today and be very happy if I had to.

So maybe your son is having a great time and it is only you who is bitter? We parents "want it all" for our children and they often don't want it all.

[ButtermilkBuoy]

BTW, whether you are elated or discouraged by Obama's reelection it is good to remember that there is little difference between Obama and Romney. Stolen from a friend's FB page:

- Both support increased economic sanctions on Iran.
- Neither wants to end the war in Afganistan.
- Both favour continuing to support Israel.
- Both support US contribution to a NATO intervention in Sudan.
- Both have similar attitudes towards US military intervention in other countries (Only in matters of national security, and the president does not need congressional approval. Obama also allows for intervention at the request of the international community).
- Both support the Patriot act (although Obama favours limiting the scope of govt. powers)
- Neither are interested in increasing gun control, although Obama would limit access to assault weapons.
- Neither is in favour of blanket drug decriminalisation.
- Neither favour government regulation of the internet, but both support government prosecution of copyright violation.
- Both support the funding of political advertisements by political action committees (Super PACS).
- Both support federal government subsidies for U.S. farmers.
- Neither seeks to raise the federal minimum wage (Romney suggests the states should decide).
- Both say that able-bodied, mentally capable adults should be required to work in order to receive welfare.
- Both are in favour of allowing the death penalty.
- Both support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ie., "Obamacare"), although Romney has some reservations.
- Neither are in favour of legalising marijuana.
- Both think that the US should expand offshore oil drilling.
- Both are against government-subsidised healthcare for illegal immigrants, although Obama feels that their children should have access.
- Both are open to stem-cell research, although Obama is in favour of federal funding whereas Romney feels that funding for research should be in the private sector.
- Both think that the George W Bush tax cuts should be extended (although Obama says only for those making under $250 000).

Heck, they both even say that they believe in evolution, though Romney says that he believes it is "part of Creation".

[ButtermilkBuoy]

You think Obama is a socially concerned liberal? Hell no! If he were he would speak out against this government treachery against the citizens that is going on right under his nose:

Leahy's rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies -- including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission -- to access Americans' e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57552 ... &tag=title

You think this won't affect you? You or a family member could have your life ruined by it.

[PST]

You think Obama is a socially concerned liberal? Hell no! If he were he would speak out against this government treachery against the citizens that is going on right under his nose:

Leahy's rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies -- including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission -- to access Americans' e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57552 ... &tag=title

You think this won't affect you? You or a family member could have your life ruined by it.

This story came out today from one source, based on anonymous leaks, claiming that Senator Leahy was going to support the version described by CNET. As far as I can see, every source repeating the story relies on the same CNET report. Senator Leahy has denied it. (http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valle ... l-searches) Other reporters have doubted the story from the start, and think that the draft is actually something proposed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill ... is-flawed/) I don't think that it is very significant that the President, who happens to be at an East Asian summit in Cambodia, hasn't spoken out against a rumor that emerged only today. I should add that most liberals in this day and age worry about security as well as civil liberties. Like most important and difficult issues, there are substantial considerations on both sides and uncomfortable choices to be made. I thought the CNET reporter was trying for maximum inflammatory effect rather than helping readers understand the issues.

[ButtermilkBuoy]

This story came out today from one source, based on anonymous leaks, claiming that Senator Leahy was going to support the version described by CNET. As far as I can see, every source repeating the story relies on the same CNET report. Senator Leahy has denied it. (http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valle ... l-searches) Other reporters have doubted the story from the start, and think that the draft is actually something proposed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill ... is-flawed/) I don't think that it is very significant that the President, who happens to be at an East Asian summit in Cambodia, hasn't spoken out against a rumor that emerged only today. I should add that most liberals in this day and age worry about security as well as civil liberties. Like most important and difficult issues, there are substantial considerations on both sides and uncomfortable choices to be made. I thought the CNET reporter was trying for maximum inflammatory effect rather than helping readers understand the issues.

Well if you are right, that is a good thing. I will check the story in a couple of weeks and see where it stands. I am not familiar with CNET and will start watching what comes out of them. Maybe after some checking they get put on my "bad boy" list.