Senator Obama addresses the issues.

BenBurch · 7th September 2008, 08:20 AM

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

XBoxWarrior · 7th September 2008, 08:59 AM

"It's not about the Issues"

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the...lection_i.html

Or so says McCain's mouth piece...

There is NO way the Pubs can win on the "Issues"

Wangler · 7th September 2008, 09:02 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

BenBurch, if "addressing the issues" is the same as saying "my opponent didn't talk about the issues", then you are spot on.

The whole sound bite:

"They're not talking about how heathcare needs fixing,"

"They're not talking about strengthening unions,"

etc., etc.

He is not addressing the issues, he is offering a critique of the RNC.

IMHO, addressing the issues means talking about them, and offering points of action.

liverleef · 7th September 2008, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by Wangler

BenBurch, if "addressing the issues" is the same as saying "my opponent didn't talk about the issues", then you are spot on.

The whole sound bite:

"They're not talking about how heathcare needs fixing,"

"They're not talking about strengthening unions,"

etc., etc.

He is not addressing the issues, he is offering a critique of the RNC.

IMHO, addressing the issues means talking about them, and offering points of action.

I get tired of hearing Obama talk about strengthening unions. This will do nothing to improve the country as a whole, it's just his way of paying the unions back for their enormous contributions to his campaign. Blue collar jobs are going over seas fast and do the unions focus their attention on trying to be more productive and competitive? Nope, they demand more money and benefits for less work. I'm still trying to figure that out.

BenBurch · 7th September 2008, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by liverleef

I get tired of hearing Obama talk about strengthening unions. This will do nothing to improve the country as a whole, it's just his way of paying the unions back for their enormous contributions to his campaign. Blue collar jobs are going over seas fast and do the unions focus their attention on trying to be more productive and competitive? Nope, they demand more money and benefits for less work. I'm still trying to figure that out.

Unions are the core of why we had a working middle class. Period.

You want jobs to stay here, erect tariffs that make it competitive for them to remain here rather than pay Americans .30/hr like they do in China. You want jobs to remain here, create tax incentives for re-shoring manufacturing jobs formerly off-shored. You want jobs for Americans, you make sure Americans ear enough money to buy the goods and services that employ other Americans.

Union Yes.

novice skeptic · 7th September 2008, 10:03 AM

After all the time spent during the DNC calling McCain a Bush #3, I find it more than a little disingenuous for Obama to be complaining the Repubs didn't spend enough time on the issues. The conventions are NEVER about the issues, but about selling a candidate. Did Obama criticize the "I'm John Kerry, reporting for duty" convention? How about the Dukakis Neil Diamond "coming to america" son of immigrants one?

Didn't think so.

Brainster · 7th September 2008, 11:34 AM

With apologies to Art Carney:

"Hello, issues!"

liverleef · 7th September 2008, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Unions are the core of why we had a working middle class. Period.

You want jobs to stay here, erect tariffs that make it competitive for them to remain here rather than pay Americans .30/hr like they do in China. You want jobs to remain here, create tax incentives for re-shoring manufacturing jobs formerly off-shored. You want jobs for Americans, you make sure Americans ear enough money to buy the goods and services that employ other Americans.

Union Yes.

Tariffs create jobs? You're going to have a tough time finding economists that agree with that.

elbe · 7th September 2008, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by liverleef

Tariffs create jobs? You're going to have a tough time finding economists that agree with that.

I don't think he was arguing that tariffs create jobs as much that tarrifs would make it more expensive for existing american jobs to go overseas. Whether it'd work or not, who knows, but clarity is always nice.

Wangler · 7th September 2008, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Union Yes.

Build airplanes to sell in order to regain market share from Airbus? NO.

Axiom_Blade · 7th September 2008, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

You want jobs to stay here, erect tariffs that make it competitive for them to remain here rather than pay Americans .30/hr like they do in China. You want jobs to remain here, create tax incentives for re-shoring manufacturing jobs formerly off-shored. You want jobs for Americans, you make sure Americans ear enough money to buy the goods and services that employ other Americans.

Union Yes.

No, NO. We have to be competitive. If China is paying its workers 30 cents an hour, we have to pay our workers 25 cents an hour to stay competitive. Obviously, these minimum wage laws are destroying our economy.

mhaze · 7th September 2008, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Unions are the core of why we had a working middle class. Period.

You want jobs to stay here, erect tariffs that make it competitive for them to remain here rather than pay Americans .30/hr like they do in China. You want jobs to remain here, create tax incentives for re-shoring manufacturing jobs formerly off-shored. You want jobs for Americans, you make sure Americans ear enough money to buy the goods and services that employ other Americans.

Union Yes.

That is sooo 19th centuryish.

liverleef · 7th September 2008, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

No, NO. We have to be competitive. If China is paying its workers 30 cents an hour, we have to pay our workers 25 cents an hour to stay competitive. Obviously, these minimum wage laws are destroying our economy.

Wrong again, we need to make the minimum wage 100 dollars an hour that way all Americans will be rich.

volatile · 7th September 2008, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

No, NO. We have to be competitive. If China is paying its workers 30 cents an hour, we have to pay our workers 25 cents an hour to stay competitive. Obviously, these minimum wage laws are destroying our economy.

The terrifying thing is that you'd probably find a fair few posters (and I'm sure you're imagining at least a few of the names I am!) who would agree with you.

*shudder*

leftysergeant · 7th September 2008, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by liverleef

Tariffs create jobs? You're going to have a tough time finding economists that agree with that.

Depends on whether you ask an ecconomist with the ability to read and learn from history or ask a Friedmanite moron who thinks that the Chicago School crap has any relation to this time/space continuum.

Tariffs enable American manufacturers to compete internally with foreign sweat shops. For export, we could subsidize the exporters like the Europeans involved with AirBus do.

Taxing working people's wages at a higher rate than the income of people vested in Walmart's off-shore manufacturers is sure a disincentive to job creation here.

Stop bashing the Unions as though they destroyed America's ecconomy. They built the middle class. It's time for the entrepeneurs to butch up and pay working people what they deserve. The value of a day's labor is a day's decent provisions and anyone who does not pay that is swindling the workers.

Get it straight, capital does not create wealth. Labor and resources do. Capital is just a token for who owes whom how much for which labor or raw materials. Allowing more capital to accumulate into fewer hands does not create wealth. It just convinces a few snot-nosed parasites that they have done so.

Malerin · 7th September 2008, 04:02 PM

As VP of a small teacher's union (130 members), I see both sides: without unions, we would have seen quite a few good teachers fired by incompetent administrators/school boards. And we wouldn't have the good salary and benefits we have now. The flip side is that it's almost impossible to get rid of a bad teacher once they get tenure. We're also small enough so that there's no chance for corruption to get a foothold- my union job is volunteer. Apart from getting free dinners at Denny's once a month, there's no real compensation. With larger unions, like Los Angeles Unified School District, it's a different story.

I don't know if the private sector works the same way, but as long as these guys* (and these guys**) keep getting millions for job performance that would get the average worker fired, I'll side with the unions.

*Forbes listed the top 5 worst performing CEOs in 2007 based on company’s stock performance against CEO compensation in its 5/19/08 issue:

1. Countrywide Finance - Angelo Mozilo

a. 6 year average compensation: $66.4 million

b. 6 year average stock return: -9%

2. IndyMac Bancorp - Michael Perry

a. 6 year average compensation: $6.8 million

b. 6 year average stock return: -23%

3. Amgen - Kevin Sharer

a. 6 year average compensation: $12.3 million

b. 6 year average stock return: -4%

4. GE - Jeffrey Immelt

a. 6 year average compensation: $15.2 million

b. 6 year average stock return: 4%

5. Boston Scientific - James Tobin

a. 6 year average compensation: $8.2 million

b. 6 year average stock return: 1%

http://jbrooks4002.wordpress.com/200...-ceos-in-2007/

**

The worst:
Top honors go to Gary Smith at Ciena (CIEN, news, msgs). His shareholders have been virtually wiped out -- losing 93% in the past four years. His compensation over that period: $41.2 million.

Jure Sola, the CEO and chairman at Sanmina-SCI (SANM, news, msgs) collected $26.4 million during the past four years while Sanmina shares fell 78%. The bulk of Sola's pay came in the form of a performance bonus of $19.9 million, paid for hitting one recent quarter's targets.

Sun Microsystems (SUNW, news, msgs) paid Scott McNealy, its CEO, chairman and founder, $13.1 million a year over the past four years, even as Sun's shareholders lost 76% of their money.

Shares of supermarket chain Albertson's (ABS, news, msgs) fell 39% over the past four years. Despite this dismal record, Albertsons CEO and Chairman Larry Johnston collected a total of $76.2 million in that time.

Under CEO Peter Dolans watch at Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMY, news, msgs), shareholders have seen the stock decline by 48% over the past four years. Dolan took home $41 million.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/p125120.asp

leftysergeant · 7th September 2008, 04:13 PM

The unions did not break American industry. The entrepreneurs did by rewarding greed, stupidity and rapaciousness. Reagan hastened the process along by shoving the costs of the infrastructure that the entrepreneurs ran into the ground in bringing about that failure off onto the working class.

Now, the GOP doesn't even want us to tax the fatcats to pay for cleaning up the crap that they have released into the ebvironment.

Their solution, it seems, is to privatize everything, even the military, and let the market sort it all out.

How's private industry doing replacing the air traffic controllers who are retiring now?

Isn't that a big lift for national security.

The GOP only looks good on a spread sheet in your broker's office.

liverleef · 7th September 2008, 04:37 PM

If you're suggesting that the majority of economists (friedman school of thought or otherwise) favor protectionism then I would be interested to learn more about this.

Axiom_Blade · 7th September 2008, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by liverleef

Wrong again, we need to make the minimum wage 100 dollars an hour that way all Americans will be rich.

OR we could adjust the minimum wage to match the actual cost of living.
Crazy!

BenBurch · 7th September 2008, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

OR we could adjust the minimum wage to match the actual cost of living.
Crazy!

And amazing things happen when you do that.

People spend that money.

The economy surges.

Those near survival level spend every dime you give them on things the economy produces.

The well-off frequently spend money on luxury goods that, owing to their antiquity or cost of materials, employ few workers and provide little stimulus to the economy.

In any case it is time we in the middle class realize that we outnumber the rich, and use that fact to our political advantage.

"The working class and the employing class have NOTHING in common."

Wangler · 7th September 2008, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

In any case it is time we in the middle class realize that we outnumber the rich, and use that fact to our political advantage.

The workers' revolution, eh, comrade?

BenBurch · 7th September 2008, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by Wangler

The workers' revolution, eh, comrade?

Except that it is done with the ballot box, not the bullet box, and we have no intention of nationalizing industry. In fact, industry will do better if we have a healthy, well-fed, well-clothed working class with some disposable income. That is called a "market."

7th September 2008, 09:49 AM	#5
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,141	Originally Posted by liverleef I get tired of hearing Obama talk about strengthening unions. This will do nothing to improve the country as a whole, it's just his way of paying the unions back for their enormous contributions to his campaign. Blue collar jobs are going over seas fast and do the unions focus their attention on trying to be more productive and competitive? Nope, they demand more money and benefits for less work. I'm still trying to figure that out. Unions are the core of why we had a working middle class. Period. You want jobs to stay here, erect tariffs that make it competitive for them to remain here rather than pay Americans .30/hr like they do in China. You want jobs to remain here, create tax incentives for re-shoring manufacturing jobs formerly off-shored. You want jobs for Americans, you make sure Americans ear enough money to buy the goods and services that employ other Americans. Union Yes.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

7th September 2008, 11:34 AM	#7
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,426	With apologies to Art Carney: "Hello, issues!"
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

7th September 2008, 03:28 PM	#12
mhaze Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 15,386	Originally Posted by BenBurch Unions are the core of why we had a working middle class. Period. You want jobs to stay here, erect tariffs that make it competitive for them to remain here rather than pay Americans .30/hr like they do in China. You want jobs to remain here, create tax incentives for re-shoring manufacturing jobs formerly off-shored. You want jobs for Americans, you make sure Americans ear enough money to buy the goods and services that employ other Americans. Union Yes. That is sooo 19th centuryish.
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms

7th September 2008, 03:32 PM	#14
volatile Scholar and a Gentleman Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: The Uncanny Valley Posts: 6,730	Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade No, NO. We have to be competitive. If China is paying its workers 30 cents an hour, we have to pay our workers 25 cents an hour to stay competitive. Obviously, these minimum wage laws are destroying our economy. The terrifying thing is that you'd probably find a fair few posters (and I'm sure you're imagining at least a few of the names I am!) who would agree with you. shudder
	__________________ - ""My tribe has a saying: 'If you're bleeding, look for a man with scars'" - Leela, Doctor Who 'Robots of Death'.

7th September 2008, 04:02 PM	#16
Malerin Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,341	As VP of a small teacher's union (130 members), I see both sides: without unions, we would have seen quite a few good teachers fired by incompetent administrators/school boards. And we wouldn't have the good salary and benefits we have now. The flip side is that it's almost impossible to get rid of a bad teacher once they get tenure. We're also small enough so that there's no chance for corruption to get a foothold- my union job is volunteer. Apart from getting free dinners at Denny's once a month, there's no real compensation. With larger unions, like Los Angeles Unified School District, it's a different story. I don't know if the private sector works the same way, but as long as these guys* (and these guys*) keep getting millions for job performance that would get the average worker fired, I'll side with the unions. Forbes listed the top 5 worst performing CEOs in 2007 based on company’s stock performance against CEO compensation in its 5/19/08 issue: 1. Countrywide Finance - Angelo Mozilo a. 6 year average compensation: $66.4 million b. 6 year average stock return: -9% 2. IndyMac Bancorp - Michael Perry a. 6 year average compensation: $6.8 million b. 6 year average stock return: -23% 3. Amgen - Kevin Sharer a. 6 year average compensation: $12.3 million b. 6 year average stock return: -4% 4. GE - Jeffrey Immelt a. 6 year average compensation: $15.2 million b. 6 year average stock return: 4% 5. Boston Scientific - James Tobin a. 6 year average compensation: $8.2 million b. 6 year average stock return: 1% http://jbrooks4002.wordpress.com/200...-ceos-in-2007/ ** The worst: Top honors go to Gary Smith at Ciena (CIEN, news, msgs). His shareholders have been virtually wiped out -- losing 93% in the past four years. His compensation over that period: $41.2 million. Jure Sola, the CEO and chairman at Sanmina-SCI (SANM, news, msgs) collected $26.4 million during the past four years while Sanmina shares fell 78%. The bulk of Sola's pay came in the form of a performance bonus of $19.9 million, paid for hitting one recent quarter's targets. Sun Microsystems (SUNW, news, msgs) paid Scott McNealy, its CEO, chairman and founder, $13.1 million a year over the past four years, even as Sun's shareholders lost 76% of their money. Shares of supermarket chain Albertson's (ABS, news, msgs) fell 39% over the past four years. Despite this dismal record, Albertsons CEO and Chairman Larry Johnston collected a total of $76.2 million in that time. Under CEO Peter Dolans watch at Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMY, news, msgs), shareholders have seen the stock decline by 48% over the past four years. Dolan took home $41 million. http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/p125120.asp
Malerin Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,341

7th September 2008, 08:59 AM	#2
XBoxWarrior Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Down in the Treme... Posts: 1,232	"It's not about the Issues" http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the...lection_i.html Or so says McCain's mouth piece... There is NO way the Pubs can win on the "Issues"

7th September 2008, 09:27 AM	#4
liverleef Thinker Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Kentucky Posts: 137	Originally Posted by Wangler BenBurch, if "addressing the issues" is the same as saying "my opponent didn't talk about the issues", then you are spot on. The whole sound bite: "They're not talking about how heathcare needs fixing," "They're not talking about strengthening unions," etc., etc. He is not addressing the issues, he is offering a critique of the RNC. IMHO, addressing the issues means talking about them, and offering points of action. I get tired of hearing Obama talk about strengthening unions. This will do nothing to improve the country as a whole, it's just his way of paying the unions back for their enormous contributions to his campaign. Blue collar jobs are going over seas fast and do the unions focus their attention on trying to be more productive and competitive? Nope, they demand more money and benefits for less work. I'm still trying to figure that out.

7th September 2008, 10:03 AM	#6
novice skeptic Muse Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 627	After all the time spent during the DNC calling McCain a Bush #3, I find it more than a little disingenuous for Obama to be complaining the Repubs didn't spend enough time on the issues. The conventions are NEVER about the issues, but about selling a candidate. Did Obama criticize the "I'm John Kerry, reporting for duty" convention? How about the Dukakis Neil Diamond "coming to america" son of immigrants one? Didn't think so.

7th September 2008, 11:38 AM	#8
liverleef Thinker Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Kentucky Posts: 137	Originally Posted by BenBurch Unions are the core of why we had a working middle class. Period. You want jobs to stay here, erect tariffs that make it competitive for them to remain here rather than pay Americans .30/hr like they do in China. You want jobs to remain here, create tax incentives for re-shoring manufacturing jobs formerly off-shored. You want jobs for Americans, you make sure Americans ear enough money to buy the goods and services that employ other Americans. Union Yes. Tariffs create jobs? You're going to have a tough time finding economists that agree with that.

7th September 2008, 02:51 PM	#9
elbe Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: near a man named leroy brown Posts: 3,561	Originally Posted by liverleef Tariffs create jobs? You're going to have a tough time finding economists that agree with that. I don't think he was arguing that tariffs create jobs as much that tarrifs would make it more expensive for existing american jobs to go overseas. Whether it'd work or not, who knows, but clarity is always nice.

7th September 2008, 02:54 PM	#10
Wangler Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: OH State Posts: 2,230	Originally Posted by BenBurch Union Yes. Build airplanes to sell in order to regain market share from Airbus? NO.

7th September 2008, 03:25 PM	#11
Axiom_Blade Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,741	Originally Posted by BenBurch You want jobs to stay here, erect tariffs that make it competitive for them to remain here rather than pay Americans .30/hr like they do in China. You want jobs to remain here, create tax incentives for re-shoring manufacturing jobs formerly off-shored. You want jobs for Americans, you make sure Americans ear enough money to buy the goods and services that employ other Americans. Union Yes. No, NO. We have to be competitive. If China is paying its workers 30 cents an hour, we have to pay our workers 25 cents an hour to stay competitive. Obviously, these minimum wage laws are destroying our economy.

7th September 2008, 03:30 PM	#13
liverleef Thinker Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Kentucky Posts: 137	Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade No, NO. We have to be competitive. If China is paying its workers 30 cents an hour, we have to pay our workers 25 cents an hour to stay competitive. Obviously, these minimum wage laws are destroying our economy. Wrong again, we need to make the minimum wage 100 dollars an hour that way all Americans will be rich.

7th September 2008, 03:37 PM	#15
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	Originally Posted by liverleef Tariffs create jobs? You're going to have a tough time finding economists that agree with that. Depends on whether you ask an ecconomist with the ability to read and learn from history or ask a Friedmanite moron who thinks that the Chicago School crap has any relation to this time/space continuum. Tariffs enable American manufacturers to compete internally with foreign sweat shops. For export, we could subsidize the exporters like the Europeans involved with AirBus do. Taxing working people's wages at a higher rate than the income of people vested in Walmart's off-shore manufacturers is sure a disincentive to job creation here. Stop bashing the Unions as though they destroyed America's ecconomy. They built the middle class. It's time for the entrepeneurs to butch up and pay working people what they deserve. The value of a day's labor is a day's decent provisions and anyone who does not pay that is swindling the workers. Get it straight, capital does not create wealth. Labor and resources do. Capital is just a token for who owes whom how much for which labor or raw materials. Allowing more capital to accumulate into fewer hands does not create wealth. It just convinces a few snot-nosed parasites that they have done so.

7th September 2008, 04:13 PM	#17
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	The unions did not break American industry. The entrepreneurs did by rewarding greed, stupidity and rapaciousness. Reagan hastened the process along by shoving the costs of the infrastructure that the entrepreneurs ran into the ground in bringing about that failure off onto the working class. Now, the GOP doesn't even want us to tax the fatcats to pay for cleaning up the crap that they have released into the ebvironment. Their solution, it seems, is to privatize everything, even the military, and let the market sort it all out. How's private industry doing replacing the air traffic controllers who are retiring now? Isn't that a big lift for national security. The GOP only looks good on a spread sheet in your broker's office.

7th September 2008, 04:37 PM	#18
liverleef Thinker Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Kentucky Posts: 137	If you're suggesting that the majority of economists (friedman school of thought or otherwise) favor protectionism then I would be interested to learn more about this.

7th September 2008, 04:44 PM	#19
Axiom_Blade Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,741	Originally Posted by liverleef Wrong again, we need to make the minimum wage 100 dollars an hour that way all Americans will be rich. OR we could adjust the minimum wage to match the actual cost of living. Crazy!

7th September 2008, 05:08 PM	#20
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,141	Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade OR we could adjust the minimum wage to match the actual cost of living. Crazy! And amazing things happen when you do that. People spend that money. The economy surges. Those near survival level spend every dime you give them on things the economy produces. The well-off frequently spend money on luxury goods that, owing to their antiquity or cost of materials, employ few workers and provide little stimulus to the economy. In any case it is time we in the middle class realize that we outnumber the rich, and use that fact to our political advantage. "The working class and the employing class have NOTHING in common."
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

7th September 2008, 05:47 PM	#21
Wangler Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: OH State Posts: 2,230	Originally Posted by BenBurch In any case it is time we in the middle class realize that we outnumber the rich, and use that fact to our political advantage. The workers' revolution, eh, comrade?

7th September 2008, 06:51 PM	#22
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,141	Originally Posted by Wangler The workers' revolution, eh, comrade? Except that it is done with the ballot box, not the bullet box, and we have no intention of nationalizing industry. In fact, industry will do better if we have a healthy, well-fed, well-clothed working class with some disposable income. That is called a "market."
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!