if you support obama, this thread is not for you. all others welcome

[shosh]

Barack Obama:

He voted against banning partial birth abortion.
He voted no on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.
Supports affirmative action in colleges and government.
Admitted marijuana and cocaine use in high school and in college.
His religious convictions are very murky.
First bill he signed that was passed was campaign finance reform.
Voted No on prohibiting law suits against gun manufacturers.
Supports universal health-care.
Supports granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.
Supports extending welfare to illegal immigrants.
Voted yes on comprehensive immigration reform.
Voted yes on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security.
Wants to make the minimum wage a 'living wage'.
Voted with Democratic Party 96 percent of 251 votes.
Opposed to any efforts to privatize Social Security and instead supports increasing the
amount of tax paid.
He voted No on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax
He voted No on repealing the 'Death' Tax
He wants to raise the Capital Gains Tax.
He is ranked as the most liberal Senator in the Senate today and that takes some doing.

(not compiled by me, from an email fwd to me by a libertarian)

EDIT: lol at Obama: "Patriotism means faith in one another as Americans".

[Jenks]

Re: if you support obama, this thread is not for you. all others welcome

^i don't have a problem with most of that list. nice.


oh dang, did i post up in your thread when you told me not to? shucks.

[88Mariner]

Re: if you support obama, this thread is not for you. all others welcome

wow. all that and he's still preferable to mclame.

[day_for_night]

Re: if you support obama, this thread is not for you. all others welcome

Barack Obama:

He voted against banning partial birth abortion.
He voted no on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.

good. there is a direct correlation with the legalization of abortion and a decrease in crime rates. its sounds callous, but the more people who have abortions, the better. the world does NOT need people raising children they're not prepared for.

Barack Obama:

Supports affirmative action in colleges and government.

he's half black...you're shocked by this??

Barack Obama:
Admitted marijuana and cocaine use in high school and in college.

so fucking what. we gonna turn that mirror on ourselves? i am a drug user. most people on this board are. does that make me less qualified to be a productive member of society? i earn six figures, volunteer with chairities, and i dabble responsibly on the weekeneds. guess i should quit my job cause i've been naughty...

Barack Obama:
His religious convictions are very murky.

no one should have any information on a candidates' religious views at all. its called church and state, and the two should have as little to do with each other as humanly possible.

Barack Obama:
First bill he signed that was passed was campaign finance reform.

the US needs campaign finance reofrm BADLY. why would this be a bad thing?

i could go on with these points, but i'm getting lazy. i too don't have a problem with most that list, and i'm right wing (granted...canadian right wing...so somewhat sane relative to my american counterparts).

i'd love to hear some rationale behind most of the list, though.

[toasty]

Re: if you support obama, this thread is not for you. all others welcome

Many of those statements lack sufficient information to form an opinion one way or the other if you don't already know specifically to what it is referring, but even with that caveat (and probably because I know what his position is in more than 5 words on these issues), most of this is OK by me.

For something that looks like it was drafted by someone trying to paint Obama in a negative light though, I think the writer needs to brush up on his or her skills of persuasion. I mean, Obama wanting to make sure the minimum wage is a "living wage" (i.e., a wage people can actually live on) or being in favor of campaign finance reform? What a dick.

[88Mariner]

Re: if you support obama, this thread is not for you. all others welcome

Many of those statements lack sufficient information to form an opinion one way or the other if you don't already know specifically to what it is referring, but even with that caveat (and probably because I know what his position is in more than 5 words on these issues), most of this is OK by me.

For something that looks like it was drafted by someone trying to paint Obama in a negative light though, I think the writer needs to brush up on his or her skills of persuasion. I mean, Obama wanting to make sure the minimum wage is a "living wage" (i.e., a wage people can actually live on) or being in favor of campaign finance reform? What a dick.

Ok. But, why should the government tell a small business how much it must pay employees? Since when does taking out the trash and cleaning toilets require 7-10 dollars an hour? Shouldn't the value of the skills required and properly implemented for a service determine the value, ie dollar amount, that is sufficient for the person performing such tasks? What the living wage does is inflate what employers might have paid for that task. I use 'might have' because when a service task becomes to costly to pay in lieu of the value it is providing (as against adding said responsibility to another employee), jobs are cut as a result. Or, alternatively, the costs are passed on to the consumer, thus inflating the prices of goods. Worse, employers could ship thier jobs overseas, further pulling the rug out from under low-skilled employees.

One word: Detroit.

[toasty]

Re: if you support obama, this thread is not for you. all others welcome

Ok. But, why should the government tell a small business how much it must pay employees? Since when does taking out the trash and cleaning toilets require 7-10 dollars an hour? Shouldn't the value of the skills required and properly implemented for a service determine the value, ie dollar amount, that is sufficient for the person performing such tasks? What the living wage does is inflate what employers might have paid for that task. I use 'might have' because when a service task becomes to costly to pay in lieu of the value it is providing (as against adding said responsibility to another employee), jobs are cut as a result. Or, alternatively, the costs are passed on to the consumer, thus inflating the prices of goods. Worse, employers could ship thier jobs overseas, further pulling the rug out from under low-skilled employees.

One word: Detroit.

In general, I agree that the market should determine what people get paid. I begrudgingly honored a strike by grocery store workers here in St. Louis a few years ago but was pretty irritated to learn that folks were making like $15 to scan my grub and were striking because they thought that was insufficient. Forced scorning of the major grocery stores introduced me to Whole Foods, though, so I'd call the experience a net gain for me. Point is, I understand what you're saying about letting the market decide, and that artificial drivers of price can be a little ridiculous at times.

On the other hand, if someone's working 40 hours a week -- or even 50-60 hours a week -- and can't make ends meet, that's not good for anyone. Society ends up picking up the slack one way or another -- in some obvious ways, and in some non-obvious ways, like increases in crime and unpaid emergency room bills (for people who have no choice but to seek treatment at the one place that can't turn them away) that drive up costs for the rest of us. We're not talking about making it so everyone can buy a Bentley, just making sure that there is some baseline, and that that baseline doesn't stay stagnant for a decade while the price of everything else goes up.

The point is, we've had a minimum wage for a long, long time, and the world has not imploded. Also, that wage has gone up periodically, and the economy has figured out a a way to adjust. Indeed, many states have minimum wages that are higher than the federal level, and they haven't shown the sort of consequences you're envisioning.

It's a balancing. If someone were to tell me that employers needed to pay everyone $20 regardless of what they are doing, I'd say they were half-crocked. There's a number in there somewhere in the middle where employers are not unnecessarily squeezed, and employees are not being taken unfair advantage of. What that number is is a different question, of course, and I don't purport to know the answer to that.

[i!!ustrious]

Re: if you support obama, this thread is not for you. all others welcome

I think what Obummer is TRYING to do is a very noble and tough thing right now. Striking a balanced containment and equilibrium in a time of trainwreck insanity and madness. Shit look at the way even Mclame is conducting himself. A lot of compensation and leniancy as well for a republican. There is no doubting it, the masses need and want change and progress. What we really need is CONTINUITY AND STABILITY. The latter part of the year is going to be hectic forsures.

[88Mariner]

Re: if you support obama, this thread is not for you. all others welcome

In general, I agree that the market should determine what people get paid. I begrudgingly honored a strike by grocery store workers here in St. Louis a few years ago but was pretty irritated to learn that folks were making like $15 to scan my grub and were striking because they thought that was insufficient. Forced scorning of the major grocery stores introduced me to Whole Foods, though, so I'd call the experience a net gain for me. Point is, I understand what you're saying about letting the market decide, and that artificial drivers of price can be a little ridiculous at times.

On the other hand, if someone's working 40 hours a week -- or even 50-60 hours a week -- and can't make ends meet, that's not good for anyone. Society ends up picking up the slack one way or another -- in some obvious ways, and in some non-obvious ways, like increases in crime and unpaid emergency room bills (for people who have no choice but to seek treatment at the one place that can't turn them away) that drive up costs for the rest of us. We're not talking about making it so everyone can buy a Bentley, just making sure that there is some baseline, and that that baseline doesn't stay stagnant for a decade while the price of everything else goes up.

The point is, we've had a minimum wage for a long, long time, and the world has not imploded. Also, that wage has gone up periodically, and the economy has figured out a a way to adjust. Indeed, many states have minimum wages that are higher than the federal level, and they haven't shown the sort of consequences you're envisioning.

It's a balancing. If someone were to tell me that employers needed to pay everyone $20 regardless of what they are doing, I'd say they were half-crocked. There's a number in there somewhere in the middle where employers are not unnecessarily squeezed, and employees are not being taken unfair advantage of. What that number is is a different question, of course, and I don't purport to know the answer to that.

The world may not have imploded? Tell me, what would it take to convince you that it has? And the argument that "we've had it for a long long time" does not mean it is right, nor does it mean that the minimum wage is set appropriately.

And who is to define living wage? Consider that the living wage will fluctuate with the rise and fall of the value of the dollar. And being that we've been on a steadily down-trending dollar value, the cost of 'living' correspondingly increases. And this stands without factoring in the costs of items that increase so that businesses may stay operational.

Imagine, for a moment, that every morning someone sets the minimum wage according to value of the dollar so as to afford the minimum wages workers can 'live'. And, in response, every morning before the gates to the store open, the employer lays off a number of individuals to the extent that it may remain viable in the market. Thus, there will come a point where the business will seek more efficient and affordable forms of labor, or else, choose to close shop. Two problems for the demanding worker arise: find a new job, or, find a new job.

The root of this issue is that individuals are demanding money from other private individuals to subsidize thier living. Instead of the government acting as the middle man alone, it enjoins private business into the mess. But this presupposes that anyone has a right to a job. And that is a right that only exists in the minds of the delusional.

The whole of society is already picking up the slack for these persons. Why should you add yet one more burden to the middle-class? Do you really believe that strangling the last ounce of security out of an already unstable job market will result in a stable livable wage environment?

I guess if a few people refuse to become skilled or accept the value of thier productivity, everyone must suffer.

[i!!ustrious]

Re: if you support obama, this thread is not for you. all others welcome

The root of this issue is that individuals are demanding money from other private individuals to subsidize thier living. Instead of the government acting as the middle man alone, it enjoins private business into the mess. But this presupposes that anyone has a right to a job. And that is a right that only exists in the minds of the delusional.

The whole of society is already picking up the slack for these persons. Why should you add yet one more burden to the middle-class? Do you really believe that strangling the last ounce of security out of an already unstable job market will result in a stable livable wage environment?

I guess if a few people refuse to become skilled or accept the value of thier productivity, everyone must suffer.

You are right on right here.

[djsethnichols]

Re: if you support obama, this thread is not for you. all others welcome

While there are some negatives to obama, I will agree. He still beats the tar out of the alternative, McCain. While I would like to consider the independant or libertarian. Voting for one of them is like giving my vote to McCain. Both choices suck, one sucks less.

[88Mariner]

Re: if you support obama, this thread is not for you. all others welcome

^ are you kidding? Obama has strong leads practically everywhere. Voting Libertarian is taking a vote away from McCain. Plus you seem open to it. I've seen this mentallity in lots of places, but don't think your vote is special. It would count more for a libertarian ticket, would really take none away from Obama, and deprives mclame of a vote.

How is voting 3rd party not a good idea?

[toasty]

Re: if you support obama, this thread is not for you. all others welcome

The world may not have imploded? Tell me, what would it take to convince you that it has? And the argument that "we've had it for a long long time" does not mean it is right, nor does it mean that the minimum wage is set appropriately.

And who is to define living wage? Consider that the living wage will fluctuate with the rise and fall of the value of the dollar. And being that we've been on a steadily down-trending dollar value, the cost of 'living' correspondingly increases. And this stands without factoring in the costs of items that increase so that businesses may stay operational.

Imagine, for a moment, that every morning someone sets the minimum wage according to value of the dollar so as to afford the minimum wages workers can 'live'. And, in response, every morning before the gates to the store open, the employer lays off a number of individuals to the extent that it may remain viable in the market. Thus, there will come a point where the business will seek more efficient and affordable forms of labor, or else, choose to close shop. Two problems for the demanding worker arise: find a new job, or, find a new job.

The root of this issue is that individuals are demanding money from other private individuals to subsidize thier living. Instead of the government acting as the middle man alone, it enjoins private business into the mess. But this presupposes that anyone has a right to a job. And that is a right that only exists in the minds of the delusional.

The whole of society is already picking up the slack for these persons. Why should you add yet one more burden to the middle-class? Do you really believe that strangling the last ounce of security out of an already unstable job market will result in a stable livable wage environment?

I guess if a few people refuse to become skilled or accept the value of thier productivity, everyone must suffer.

This kinda has a straw man feel to it, because I don't think any rational person would suggest that "living wage" ought to be reset on a daily, weekly, monthly or quarterly basis. Ultimately, I just don't believe that the scenarios you're outlining are likely to occur. Yes, things are in the shitter right now, but I don't trace that back to the existence of a minimum wage, nor do I think that if we were to do away with the MW and allow the market to take over, that the economy would right itself on that alone.

You are correct, though, that as the cost of everything else goes up, the amount of money a person needs to earn goes up as well. That's not necessarily a bad thing, and it is what happens in a healthy economy. The decreased value of the dollar and the skyrocketing cost of good with inelastic demand are the wildcards here, but I don't see the minimum wage as being the culprit.

The bigger question is this: do you believe that if given the opportunity to do so, some employers would pay their employees less than minimum wage? I do. Not really thinking about the small business owners here that have a connection with the people they work with -- I'm talking more about the Walmarts of the world. And assuming that to be the case, does that make the situation better or worse? I just don't see how, with all the other moving parts right now, that would be something we'd want to try.

My opinion, FWIW.

[toasty]

Re: if you support obama, this thread is not for you. all others welcome

^ are you kidding? Obama has strong leads practically everywhere. Voting Libertarian is taking a vote away from McCain. Plus you seem open to it. I've seen this mentallity in lots of places, but don't think your vote is special. It would count more for a libertarian ticket, would really take none away from Obama, and deprives mclame of a vote.

How is voting 3rd party not a good idea?

I've alluded to this in other posts, but let me say this again -- if the Libertarians can get a significant enough chunk of the voting block this year and the Republicans get their asses handed to them up and down the ticket in a serious way, we might just be seeing the beginning of the rise of the Libertarian party and the demise of the GOP. We've had many parties rise and fall over the course of our nation's history, and it isn't really realistic to expect that we're going to have these same two parties in power for eternity, and the change has to start somewhere -- people don't just wake up one day with one party gone and the other in its place.

There are a LOT of disenchanted small-government Republicans right now -- not just people that are underwhelmed by McCain, but who think the party has gone in the wrong direction in a much more fundamental way. A vote for Barr is a vote against the GOP way of thinking and in favor of doing things differently, perhaps permanently. I'd love to see that happen.

Plus, it is a vote that McCain doesn't get, which puts Obama in office, which I think is important right now for a host of different reasons.