Obama Clinches Nomination

Non-lacrosse specific topics.

Postby StrykerFSU on Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:39 pm

KnoxVegas wrote:
StrykerFSU wrote:The very fact that we engage in this tit for tat shows that Obama's message of change yada yada yada, fresh face etc. is really just a load of hot air. He's a politician like all of the others, just with less experience.


Using that logic, how did Bush win in 2000? Gore had much more experience being a politician than Bush did.

So what this all comes down to is that McCain is the better candidate in your opinion because all things being equal Obama and McCain are the same, since they are both politicians? That McCain is full of hot air but since he has more practice at it, he is the better candidate?


LOL, nice try though. Just pointing out that perhaps The Chosen One isn't quite as perfect as the Obamamaniacs make him out to be. I thought he was going to be an outsider who cleaned up Washington? It just doesn't appear that he can distance himself from lobbyists after all. I think McCain s the better candidate because of his policies coupled with his proven track record of bipartisan cooperation and experience. The fact that he is a true American hero doesn't hurt either. But that's just my humble opinion.

But I did just listen to an NPR piece on the Johnson issue and it is amazing to me how Obama changed his tune between yesterday and today. Kind of like he changed his tune regarding the Wright situation. At first he defends the person (in this case saying johnson doesn't work for him...that he only has a "discreet" task), then he dismisses those that object, then when he can no longer wish it away he cuts the person loose.
Cliff Stryker Buck, Ph.D.
Department of Oceanography
Florida State University
User avatar
StrykerFSU
Premium
Premium
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:37 pm
Location: Tallahassee, Fl


Postby jayjaciv on Wed Jun 11, 2008 5:53 pm

Just pointing out that perhaps The Chosen One isn't quite as perfect as the Obamamaniacs make him out to be.


And thank you for doing that! Finally, someone has the balls to call this man out. What does this "Osama" jerk think he's doing? Inspiring people? Getting more people involved in politics and the future of our country? Making people care for the first time in 8 years instead of making everything seem hopelessly bleak? Who the hell does he think he is?!
I demand my politicians be ridiculously old men who kowtow to huge corporations and use every public speaking opportunity to frighten the general populace into thinking that some dark people are going to attack Podunk, Alabama!

I am just so sick of this young whippersnapper, but it's okay, because Fox News and I are working hard as hell to tear him down. We'll get him soon. Don't worry.
"The Internet: Where awful people meet."
User avatar
jayjaciv
Recruit
Recruit
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 11:04 am

Postby laxfan25 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 5:55 pm

StrykerFSU wrote: Do illegals get minimum wage? What fraction of whatever they make do they pay tax on? I don't run a business or evil corporation but it's probably pretty tough to put an illegal on salary, they might be a little reluctant to hand over information for their W-2's.

If we bump up min wage to $9.50, what do we do with other people's wages? Doesn't everyone's pay scale have to be increased as well? You can't have a manager only making a couple of bucks more than the fry cook.


I'd say that illegals likely don't get minimum wage, but they DO pay taxes, which is one of the most common misconceptions regarding the illegal immigrant debate. A few interesting statistics...

As the debate over illegal immigration continues to rage, some pundits and policymakers are claiming that unauthorized immigrants do not pay taxes and rely heavily on government benefits. Neither of these claims is borne out by the facts. Undocumented men have work force participation rates that are higher than other workers, and all undocumented immigrants are ineligible for most government services, but pay taxes as workers, consumers, and residents.

Like The Rest of Us, Undocumented Immigrants Pay Taxes
Undocumented immigrants contribute to the U.S. economy not only through the labor they provide, but through the taxes they pay. Between one-half and three-quarters of undocumented immigrants pay federal and state income taxes, Social Security taxes, and Medicare taxes. And all undocumented immigrants pay sales taxes (when they buy anything at a store, for instance) and property taxes (even if they rent housing).
According to the 2005 Economic Report of the President, undocumented immigrants working “‘on the books’…contribute to the tax rolls but are ineligible for almost all Federal public assistance programs and most major Federal-state programs.” The report also notes that immigrants in general “contribute money to public coffers by paying sales and property taxes (the latter are implicit in apartment rents).”

The Undocumented and Social Security: Contributing Yes, Collecting No
The Social Security Administration (SSA) has concluded that undocumented immigrants “account for a major portion” of the billions of dollars paid into the Social Security system under names or social security numbers that don’t match SSA records; payments from which immigrants cannot benefit while undocumented.5 As of October 2005, the reported earnings on which these payments are based—which are tracked through the SSA’s Earnings Suspense File (ESF)—totaled $520 billion.

Even at the State Level, Undocumented Immigrants Still Pay More in Taxes Than They Use in Services
A 2006 study by the Texas State Comptroller found that “the absence of the estimated 1.4 million undocumented immigrants in Texas in fiscal 2005 would have been a loss to our gross state product of $17.7 billion. Undocumented immigrants produced $1.58 billion in state revenues, which exceeded the $1.16 billion in state services they received.”
Similarly, a 2007 study by the Oregon Center for Public Policy estimated that undocumented immigrants in Oregon pay state income, excise, and property taxes, as well as federal Social Security and Medicare taxes, which “total about $134 million to $187 million annually.” In addition, “taxes paid by Oregon employers on behalf of undocumented workers total about $97 million to $136 million annually.” As the report goes on to note, undocumented workers are ineligible for the Oregon Health Plan, food stamps, and temporary cash assistance.
Likewise, a 2007 report from the Iowa Policy Project concluded that “undocumented immigrants pay an estimated aggregate amount of $40 million to $62 million in state taxes each year.” Moreover, “undocumented immigrants working on the books in Iowa and their employers also contribute annually an estimated $50 million to $77.8 million in federal Social Security and Medicare taxes from which they will never benefit. Rather than draining state resources, undocumented immigrants are in some cases subsidizing services that only documented residents can access.”


There was a widely reported I.C.E. raid on a kosher meatpacking plant last month in Postville, IA, with over 300 out of 1,000 employees taken into custody. This in a town with a population of about 2,500. Do you think they were helping the local economy? What is interesting, but not surprising, is that there was a well-organized system to get fake papers for the employees, as well as side benefits for some of the supervisors.

Car registrations, titles included in ICE investigation
By JEFF REINITZ, Waterloo Courier Staff Writer
POSTVILLE — Vehicles with license plates from Des Moines County have caught the eye of federal postal and state transportation authorities.

In fact, two of the things immigration agents sought to seize when they raided Agriprocessors on Monday were titles and registration for vehicles with Des Moines County license plates.

In September 2005, officials with the Iowa Department of Transportation began investigating why so many vehicles registered to Burlington residents were renewing their registration in Allamakee County, according to court records.

Undocumented workers sometimes title vehicles in false identities and fake addresses to avoid detection by police or immigration officials, immigration officials said in court records.

An alert DOT investigator noticed a number of the suspiciously titled vehicles could be found in the Agriprocessors parking lot, records state.

Records allege officials uncovered a connection between the vehicles, a supervisor at Agriprocessors and a Cedar Rapids automobile dealership.
Dealership managers told DOT officials they were good friends with the supervisor, who is referred to in court records only as “C,” and had sold a large number of cars to people in Postville through him. Part of this arrangement allegedly breached Iowa law, which requires all vehicle dealers to be licensed, court records allege.

Dealership managers told DOT investigators that “C” would call them for a specific type of vehicle, which they would buy at auction. “C” would then pick up the vehicle.

The cars were then sold to people in Postville but titled in Chickasaw, Des Moines and other counties. When questioned, one person who applied to register vehicles for Postville residents told DOT officials he was mailed vehicle information and money to do the transactions. He then went to the Des Moines County Treasurer’s Office to register on behalf of the new owner but used addresses of friends in the Burlington and West Burlington area, records state. He then arranged to pick up registrations and titles mailed to his friends and sent them in bulk to Postville.

Investigators also talked with an illegal worker at the plant in 2006 who said a supervisor had approached him about buying a vehicle from him. When the worker declined, the supervisor refused to transfer him to a more favorable job at the plant, records state.


Supposedly this "company store" mentality also extended to rental housing.
So yes, these employers need to be held accountable for violating the law, but you don't hear nearly the level of abuse hurled at them as you do at the workers that are simply trying to provide for their families.
Some type of immigartion reform is needed - the current system is obviously not working, building fences is a waste of money (Maginot Line, anyone?) - some type of guest worker program would be the best for all concerned, but politically risky.

As far as having to raise the pay of managers to stay ahead of the huge increases in the minimum wage, the CEOs of America's corporations were well ahead of you on that point. We don't want them to suffer, nosiree!
Pay for Performance
According to Business Week, the average CEO of a major corporation made 42 times the average hourly worker's pay in 1980. By 1990 that had almost doubled to 85 times. In 2000, the average CEO salary reached an unbelievable 531 times that of the average hourly worker.
User avatar
laxfan25
Scoop, Cradle, & Rock!
Scoop, Cradle, & Rock!
 
Posts: 1952
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:06 pm

Postby StrykerFSU on Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:39 pm

laxfan25 wrote:So yes, these employers need to be held accountable for violating the law, but you don't hear nearly the level of abuse hurled at them as you do at the workers that are simply trying to provide for their families.
Some type of immigartion reform is needed - the current system is obviously not working, building fences is a waste of money (Maginot Line, anyone?) - some type of guest worker program would be the best for all concerned, but politically risky.

As far as having to raise the pay of managers to stay ahead of the huge increases in the minimum wage, the CEOs of America's corporations were well ahead of you on that point. We don't want them to suffer, nosiree!
Pay for Performance
According to Business Week, the average CEO of a major corporation made 42 times the average hourly worker's pay in 1980. By 1990 that had almost doubled to 85 times. In 2000, the average CEO salary reached an unbelievable 531 times that of the average hourly worker.


Good points laxfan25. I agree that we need meaningful immigration reform that includes holding employers accountable. But we did get taken down this road a little tangentially. For the record, I happen to be rather sympathetic to illegals already in this country but would like them all to be registered so that we could determine who we want and don't want. We also need to stem the tide of new illegals. Zeuslax quoted 20 million illegals but not all of those earn wages. So in reality we are talking about a miniscule percentage of our population. I don't think we should move down a path that is potentially dangerous for the economy as a whole to benefit such a small group of people, especially when we don't know who these people are. Are the risks of raising the minimum wage by 30%-40% worth it?

As to the salaries of CEOs...well, that wasn't exactly what I was talking about but you knew that already. CEOs are highly educated individuals who take on enormous responsibility in their jobs as they seek to grow their companies and earn money for shareholders as well as provide for the employment of thousands of employees. I'd say that the market dictates their pay. Few people are qualified to hold such positions. I was talking about the manager at your local McDonalds or Starbucks...wouldn't these people need raises commensurate with the increase in the min wage?

jayjaciv....huh? I guess no one can criticize Sen. Obama for anything at all. Not his associations, not his voting record, not his proposed policies. I guess the rest of us should just shut up and stay home on election day. And please don't lump me in with the Obama, Muslim, Osama crowd. I have written absolutely nothing like that and condemn it. I don't even watch FoxNews! Unfortunately for Sen. Obama, I'm not the only one bringing up these points:

[Johnson's] resignation highlights the difficulties for Mr. Obama’s campaign in trying to live up to his promises to remain independent of the Washington establishment and the special interests that populate it.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/us/politics/12veep.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1213244934-ugeEYvlD5f5mleLQvSHaag
Oops. The NYTimes...that den of the GOP.
Cliff Stryker Buck, Ph.D.
Department of Oceanography
Florida State University
User avatar
StrykerFSU
Premium
Premium
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:37 pm
Location: Tallahassee, Fl

Postby Zeuslax on Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:20 am

Lots of good comments on here. I've never really enjoyed this site outside of the water cooler political debates. :D

Laxfan alluded to the fact that many if not most illegals have paper work. They are paying taxes and most "appear" legal. However, they are doing jobs at suppressed wages in many cases - see restaurant and construction industries.

I didn't respond to Jac's email because I understood his point. I think mine may have been missed though. There is a giant misconception that only Republicans (McCain currently) are going to be tough on the war on terror because of our current stance in Iraq. This is a bunch of hog wash, because it's really about strategy and approach. I don't think anyone listened to Al Queda, that's the point! Their messages and video releases were fodder for the larger conversation regarding our countries position and strategy to combat extreme, Islamic fundamentalist. These communications were also used as fuel on the fire to paint a picture that the Dem's are weak on national security and will be weak in the future. "Ohh look, even Al Queda doesn't want Bush in office." "They know he'll keep on the offensive and come and get us, they want John Kerry to win".

Time mag just did an interesting piece on all of the evil lobbyists....like the ones that work for the Alzhiemers education foundation, child after school lobby, ETC........Over half the registered lobbyist are educationally based. They educated Congress about very important topics that a vast majority of us would agree upon. Granted that leaves about 10,000 additional lobbyists left over, but lets not generalize or lump all of them.

I hope to get time later to comment on the home loan piece of this conversation........
Anthony
Zeuslax
Premium
Premium
 
Posts: 1144
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 2:36 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Postby StrykerFSU on Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:34 am

Zeuslax wrote:Lots of good comments on here. I've never really enjoyed this site outside of the water cooler political debates. :D

I agree...Reasonable people can disagree on issues intelligently without turning into jerks.
Cliff Stryker Buck, Ph.D.
Department of Oceanography
Florida State University
User avatar
StrykerFSU
Premium
Premium
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:37 pm
Location: Tallahassee, Fl

Postby laxfan25 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 12:49 pm

StrykerFSU wrote: Are the risks of raising the minimum wage by 30%-40% worth it?

As to the salaries of CEOs...well, that wasn't exactly what I was talking about but you knew that already. CEOs are highly educated individuals who take on enormous responsibility in their jobs as they seek to grow their companies and earn money for shareholders as well as provide for the employment of thousands of employees. I'd say that the market dictates their pay.


Just a clarification - Obama proposed increasing the minimum wage to $9.50 by 2011. Based on the increases already scheduled to take effect in '08 and '09, it would be a 31% increase in 2011 over 2009, or an average of 15% a year. It doesn't necessarily follow that managerial rates would go up in lock-step, but if that's what the market calls for...
As far as CEO pay packages, they are most often set by boards of directors, often populated by other CEO's, so you could say that it is a cozy little club. To go from 42 tines the average worker (which would seem to have been pretty good compensation in 1980) to over 10 times that rate just seems unconscionable. Besides, they get some pretty nice perks along with that - paid country-club memberships, etc. It's also been shown that these pay packages are often not tied to performance at all, the company can be tanking but the CEO is still taking in "bonuses".
No doubt it's not an easy job, but if that was the governing factor I'd say the the CEO of these United States is woefully undercompensated - that's the toughest job out there.
The demands of running for office and the microscopic examination of one's life that it entails kind of leads to self-selecting of weird personalities for the job. I know I'd never make it through the process, and I'm a pretty dull guy!
I echo Zeuslax and Stryker's comments on the intelligent banter on here. I think it is a testament to the strict guidelines that Sonny has put in place, and people are not as anonymous as on other online forums. I think it'd be interesting to see how things would change if you had to identify yourself and also have a camera turned on you when posting. It might restore some courtesy, as well as show how many people work in various stages of undress! :lol:

As for Obama changing strategy based on the flow of events, I guess it might be a refreshing change from being so rigid that you never admit mistake or change course, even when driving off a cliff. (no pun intended, Stryker! :D )
Last edited by laxfan25 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 7:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
laxfan25
Scoop, Cradle, & Rock!
Scoop, Cradle, & Rock!
 
Posts: 1952
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:06 pm

Postby jayjaciv on Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:40 pm

Stryker, just being childish. But I think I had a point in there.
Sarcastically referring to The Chosen One and Obamamaniacs is funny, but I think it also encourages more of the apathy that we have seen become so rampant recently. I personally think everyone should try to put every political figure (especially the two presidential candidates) through the ringer as much as possible, but making fun of ordinary citizens for being enthusiastic is bad for the political process as a whole. I would rather you make fun of Obama than his...maniacs.
"The Internet: Where awful people meet."
User avatar
jayjaciv
Recruit
Recruit
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 11:04 am

Postby Jac Coyne on Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:38 pm

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11168.html

Two Muslim women at Barack Obama's rally in Detroit on Monday were barred from sitting behind the podium by campaign volunteers seeking to prevent the women's headscarves from appearing in photographs or on television with the candidate.


How odd. I wonder why they did that?
Jac Coyne
Premium
Premium
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:53 pm

Postby Beta on Wed Jun 18, 2008 1:15 pm

Jac Coyne wrote:How odd. I wonder why they did that?


Haha because they're scared more email chain letters calling Barrack a muslim would surface (and of course, end up in my work email).
Barry Badrinath: Oh man, that's the most disgusting thing I've ever drank.
Landfill: I doubt that very much, playboy
User avatar
Beta
Big Fan of Curves
 
Posts: 1581
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:00 pm
Location: A-Town Stay Down, GA

Postby Adam Gamradt on Wed Jun 18, 2008 2:37 pm

Jac, did you even read the article? I know you're just trying to be funny and sarcastic, but really this is a non issue. As someone who's debated folks who believe the rumors about Obama, I think the pattern of slander and "swift boating" used by the Republican party is a much bigger concern than a decision made by a campaign volunteer.

"The candidate has vigorously denied a false, viral rumor that he himself is Muslim."

So there's your answer. False, viral rumors about his religious background by the right wing. A campaign volunteer made a bad decision, and apologized for it.

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow ... a_economy/

"Photographs from a Seattle rally earlier this year also clearly show a couple in Muslim garb behind the candidate.

The administrator of the Muslims4Obama group on Obama’s website, which is not a formal part of the campaign, also said she had “not heard anything regarding Muslim supporters being steered away from sitting behind Sen. Obama at the event” and noted that he had Muslim supporters present at events in Minnesota, including one at which he stood with a Muslim member of Congress, Keith Ellison."
Adam Gamradt | www.minnesotalacrosse.org | "It's better to have a part interest in the Hope Diamond than to own all of a rhinestone." -Warren Buffet
User avatar
Adam Gamradt
All-Conference
All-Conference
 
Posts: 457
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:25 am

Postby Jac Coyne on Wed Jun 18, 2008 3:38 pm

Sorry, but if you have campaign staffers profiling who is in your publicity shots, it's far from a "non-issue." If it makes you feel better calling this a right-wing smear tactic, fine, but the Obama campaign is clearly running scared on this issue.
Jac Coyne
Premium
Premium
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:53 pm

Postby Adam Gamradt on Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:23 pm

Ugh. This isn't about me feeling better about myself. It seems you didn't even read the article.

"Building a human backdrop to a political candidate, a set of faces to appear on television and in photographs, is always a delicate exercise in demographics and political correctness. Advance staffers typically pick supporters out of a crowd to reflect the candidate’s message.

When Obama won the North Carolina primary amid questions about his ability to connect with white voters, for instance, he stood in front of a group of middle-aged white women waving small American flags.

On the Republican side, a Hispanic New Hampshire Democrat, Roberto Fuentes, told Politico that he was recently asked, and declined, to contribute to the “diversity” of the crowd behind Sen. John McCain at a Nashua event."

A mistake by a campaign staffer is a non issue. Given the sad state of political discourse, is it really surprising that people overreact and make stupid decisions from time to time?

I'm not excusing the behavior of the staffers, but it's hardly a reflection on Senator Obama.

I mean Jac, you can't honestly believe campaigns picking out which people should be included in the background is unethical?

The mass emails and perpetuation of false information about Senator Obama is the issue. You would have actual credibility as a party if you spoke out against such strategies.

Swiftboating John Kerry, the Whisper Campaign against McCain in South Carolina in 2000, the continued attacks on Senator Obama, the smearing of Jack Murtha, the list is nearly endless. Until you folks speak up against such unethical behavior, you have no credibility, zero.
Adam Gamradt | www.minnesotalacrosse.org | "It's better to have a part interest in the Hope Diamond than to own all of a rhinestone." -Warren Buffet
User avatar
Adam Gamradt
All-Conference
All-Conference
 
Posts: 457
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:25 am

Postby FLALAX on Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:49 pm

Adam, you use the words "unethical behavior" loosely. Individuals can interpret what a candidates actions, words, history, race, religion, whatever, through their points of reference. To say that the discussion and analysis of a candidates history and past actions is "unethical" does not ring true.

Campaigns are not only about issues but perceptions, stereotypes and this strange thing called trust. Obama and McCain both have work to do in this area. Young voters look at McCain as old and out of touch; white and Hispanic working class voters see Obama as an elitist, intellectual do nothing.

Nothing unethical going on here, just groups reiterating valid points about the candidates. If John McCain had attended a muslim school and Clinton was the democratic nominee would her campaign not raise it as a difference between the two candidates? A differnece to be debated and analyzed. Obama feels if he denounces it then it must be so, wrong, keep it open for debate.

I do not know who I am voting for yet, but your clouded statements and blind support of Obama scare me.

As the first pillar of Islam explains: ašhadu 'al-lā ilāha illā-llāhu wa 'ašhadu 'anna muħammadan rasūlu-llāh

May the best candidate win.
FLALAX
Veteran
Veteran
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:38 pm
Location: Florida

Postby laxfan25 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 5:29 pm

Setting up the visuals for photo-ops is s time-honored tradition of campaign staffs. Most of you probably don't remember the "kitchen debate" between Vice-President Nixon and Nikita Krushchev, staged in a model U.S. home with a nice plug for Pepsi-Cola.
Another, more recent photo-op was one to commemorate the end of a mission by the carrier Abraham Lincoln. The Commander in Chief arrived via fighter jet (one of the ones he couldn't seem to find his way to in Alabama) in full flight suit, beneath a banner hailing Mission Accomplished. Of course, four years later the participants claimed that the banner wasn't ordered by anyone connected with the White House.
Who can forget the tearful fly-by as the President cruised over the disaster in New Orleans - giving the hi-dee-ho from 30,000 feet as the camera clicked him staring out the window.
While hand-picking the background scenery is one thing - the continual pre-selection of the entire audience for Bush's "town meetings" is one of the constants of current stagecraft.
User avatar
laxfan25
Scoop, Cradle, & Rock!
Scoop, Cradle, & Rock!
 
Posts: 1952
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:06 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Water Cooler

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests