Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can only offer my opinion because your questions aren't fair. Then, if you will please, cite where the candidate of your choice is on these issues.
Why aren't my questions fair? Obama has this as part of his platform -- which is the answer to your second question. I don't believe the other candidates have made any mention of these things.
One of my problems with Obama is that he seems to be trying to offer everyone everything. Here again, he is overreaching on his platform. This is not "substance" -- it's talk. This is what this thread seemed to be trying to prove -- that Obama is substance, not talk. I am merely asking you to quantify how much "substance" Obama is and how much "talk" he is -- and I think you are doing a fine job of that.
a. What sort of subsidies does Obama want to give to the U.S. auto industry, what good will it do for the auto industry, how much will it cost, and will it hurt American consumers?
The good it will do would be to help American companies continue to compete with foreign car makers, thus, reducing lay-offs (saving jobs).
Obama plans to require American auto makers to reinvest the health care incentives he wants to give them for retirees of the auto industry, into R&D of more fuel efficient cars. Here’s the link Auto Industry (http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/374329,obama050707.stng - broken link)
I do not support this idea. I don't want my tax dollars routed to the US Auto companies. If I want to support the Big 3, I'll buy their cars.
I challenge you to find a successful example, anywhere in the world, of government propping up an inefficient and failing industry with subsidies, and this resulting in a net benefit for the country.
Quote:
b. Obama supports banning the permanent replacement of striking workers.
How will this affect American firms' ability to compete globally, without the ability to liquidate unprofitable assets?
The need for American firms to compete globally has less to do with their workers’ striking and more to do with their profitability within their headquartered states.
If your workers are striking, where your headquarters are located is irrelevant. If your workers are striking, your firm stands to lose money. If you can't liquidate those assets which are costing you money, your entire firm is in danger. If this happens on a wide enough scale, many firms will be in danger. Your solution of "hiring more skilled workers" would drive firms out of business in many cases, by creating supply that doesn't match demand.
Quote:
For example, companies frequently incorporate in states that are “business/corporation friendly” so that they see more of their profits at the end of their fiscal year.
Providing workers the security to strike against employers, who fail to meet their demands by avoiding negotiations, only strengthens the workforce of certain industries that rely on skilled laborers whose trade isn’t easily transferable to other careers.
Whoa there cowboy. You're operating under the assumption that workers always strike because firms always fail to meet their demands. Workers can strike for an unlimited number of reasons, and in Obamaland, workers can even strike for the sole purpose of job security!
Quote:
Allowing companies to replace these skilled workers with less skilled ones, not only creates a potential hazard to consumers, but exploits those who takeover the jobs of the strikers. Their pay isn’t nearly as high, and their benefits aren’t as good either.
Hold up there again. You're operating under the assumption that workers would always be replaced with less skilled workers, and that isn't true. You're also operating under the assumption that, even if the workers were less skilled, they would produce hazards to consumers. That isn't true either, nor is it in the best interests of the firm. You're also assuming that their pay and benefits would be lower. That isn't true either.
Quote:
Thus, the unprofitability of a company’s workforce asset is essentially solved when they know that negotiating better terms will benefit their bottom line in the long run as opposed to the short term solution of replacing skilled workers with not-so-skilled ones.
Another false assumption, which you built upon an earlier assumption. Negotiating with striking workers will not always result in a stronger bottom line, and increased profits. In many cases it will lead to bankruptcy.
Quote:
Won't this spur companies to move jobs offshore even faster?
IMO, no. NAFTA did this. As the decrease/removal of tariffs spread outside of the original three countries NAFTA was set up with, companies discovered that India’s educational system was in some cases superior to America’s and made customer service level jobs appealing in that country; with the time difference, companies realized it was far less expensive to pay an Indian workforce in India, then pay a 24/7 American workforce in the states. Both political parties are responsible for this.
Restrictive labor regulations won't cause offshoring because NAFTA already causes offshoring?? Oh Yeah!
That makes perfect sense! It won't be a problem, because it already is a problem! Brilliant!
Quote:
Doesn't this make Brazil or India look like a much more attractive option? See above answer.
You mean the answer about NAFTA? The one that didn't answer my question?
Quote:
d. When his website says, "He will put an end to the ideological litmus tests used to fill positions within the Civil Rights Division," what does this mean?
it means that many minorities and non-minorities have been dubbed into believing someone is for Civil Rights just because they meet certain predefined criteria.
You'll have to repeat that in language that I can better understand. Also, it is "duped", not "dubbed", but I still don't understand the main idea.
Quote:
e. Why do we need stronger federal hate crime legislation? What is wrong with the current legislation? Why should a white supremacist murderer be subject to harsher penalties than any other murderer?
Okay, well, if you must ask…hate crimes are separated specifically because they are crimes committed against those who are targeted based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.
I know what they are. That doesn't answer the question: Why do we need them?
Quote:
The current legislation has failed to make an impact on crimes such as these, so, tougher laws should be made to curtail them. Essentially, a murderer is a murderer, but new, tougher legislation, would make it harder for certain defenses to be used in “hate crime” cases (i.e., The “Twinkie defense”).
The twinkie defense can be used in any case, from murder to jaywalking. Its existence does not justify hate crime legislation.
And the current legislation has failed to make an impact because hate crime laws, as a concept, are fundamentally flawed. Crime is crime, and if we really lived in a society where the government treated us as equals, we wouldn't have hate crime laws.
Quote:
f. What incentives does Obama plan on providing to end racial profiling at the local level?
Don’t know. I’m not sure if he has ever spoke of such incentives…you can check his website though.
All my questions refer to items straight off Obama's website.
Quote:
g. Barack Obama believes that people who work full time should not live in poverty. How does Obama plan on supporting the people who work full-time but are still in poverty? Where will that money come from?
I think a lot of people believe he wants some sort of “welfare” for the working poor. Not so. This is a direct attack on the Federal Minimum Wage (FMW) that has been insidiously suppressed since Bush took office. There is no reason why the FMW cannot keep up the cost of living. By creating a more effective system of increasing the FMW; working poor who only earn minimum wage would at least be able to live off of such earnings and thus use fewer social support systems…I will elaborate on this by answering your next question.
I am not a socialist. I believe socialism is morally wrong. How does this differ from socialism?
Quote:
h. Obama will invest $1 billion over five years in transitional jobs and career pathway programs that implement proven methods of helping low-income Americans succeed in the workforce. What proven methods is he referring to?
Thank goodness! This is just one of my beefs with the Clinton Administration and the Welfare Reform Act of the ‘90s. Basically, Clinton’s failed initiative moved non-skilled and low-skilled workers off of welfare and into low paying and non-progressive jobs. Yes, this is true. What used to be teenage jobs at fast-food restaurants soon became the mother-of-two-just-off-welfare jobs. This was done without any thought to actual job/life training. There is a reason for the term “generational welfare.”
Proven methods: Having a mentor; excelling in school; obtaining a college degree and/or a solid trade skill; understanding goals and learning how to achieve them (no, everyone’s parents don’t teach this); understanding the importance of “delayed gratification” and “sacrificing for your future”; speaking correct English and not being ashamed of it; finding your niche and excelling at it; embracing diversity – meaning, appreciating others’ opinions and accepting them as just that and not a threat; becoming responsible fathers; avoiding teenage pregnancy; and last but not least, taking responsibility for your own success in life.
So, government-sponsored life lessons for the less fortunate. I think I'd prefer this to occur at the state level, but as long as we don't waste too much money on it, I'm fine with forcing an arbitrary value system on the people who live off the American taxpayers.
Quote:
i. Obama supports guaranteeing workers seven paid sick days per year. Who will pay for this? Employers? Taxpayers? Employers. Again, this is more directed at those workers who are marginalized and often don’t receive these types of benefits from their employers. I mean, think about it. Most major companies provide this and some. So, it’s truly only targeting a segment of the population.
Most major companies compensate in this way because their employees have value. I believe that only one entity should have the authority to determine an employee's compensation, and that is the entity that writes the paychecks. (Hint: It isn't the federal government)
Quote:
j. On the Internet, Obama will require that parents have the option of receiving parental controls software that not only blocks objectionable Internet content but also prevents children from revealing personal information through their home computer. How? How does he plan on mandating software across America? Who will make this software? What if my OS doesn't run this software, will I be subject to penalty? Do I not have a right to choose the software that runs on my PC?
What?? You said he said “require that parents have the option” operative word is OPTION. If you don’t want it, don’t buy it.
No, the operative word is REQUIRE. If I am REQUIRED to have OPTIONS, then that means I am forced to have whatever apparatus that enables these options. In this case, I'd be forced to have software.
Quote:
Microsoft will make it I gather…does it matter?
You bet your ass it matters! You must not be familiar with the competitive practices of Microsoft, their cozy history with the federal government, or their penchant for breaking things that used to work fine. That's another story for another time.
Quote:
There are predators out there!! Children are unknowing targets all day, every day. Who would oppose this?
Who would oppose this? People who think that parents know how to protect their children better than the federal government. People who don't think it is the federal government's role to mandate software and internet usage. People who think that this is a technically impossible goal to achieve. People who think that this is a HUUUUGE PC security liability. People who think the federal government consistently abuses citizens' privacy. People who believe they have the right to run whatever software they choose.
Quote:
k. Barack Obama supports a trade policy that ensures our goods and services are treated fairly in foreign markets. At the same time, trade policy must stay consistent with our commitment to demand improved labor and environmental practices worldwide. How does he plan on doing either of these things, since they are the domain of other sovereign nations?
This is SUPPOSED TO BE an active policy already. The agencies are already in place. The problem is our government has failed to hold them accountable…e.g. FEMA.
You missed the point.
We can't enforce these pie-in-the-sky regulations that we impose on other countries. FEMA is a U.S. agency, not a joint Chinese-Mexican-Brazilian-Guatemalan-American regulatory body. We can't dictate Chinese environmental policy any more than we can dictate Chinese economic policy.
Quote:
The sovereignty you speak of is in danger of becoming extinct because of the current Administration and the belief that experience trumps leadership. This is why I support Obama, nepotism may be okay for the family business, but our government should never be run as a family business, which is how it has been for the past 20 years!
Totally irrelevant to the question. Our soverignity is not in jeapordy, and I challenge you to demonstrate that it is. You just wanted to get your two cents in, whether you addressed the question or not, which describes most of the answers you gave.
I only answered your "substance" questions because they were being ignored...now I know why.
I am not trying to convince you to vote for Obama...I don't care for whom you want to vote.
If you think your responses bother me, then you are sadly mistaken. I agree with Obama on most of the issues, hence he is getting my vote.
You've already stated you don't agree with his stance on issues...so I don't expect your position to change just because I answered your questions.
I'm sorry but you waisted your time responding to my post because it was done in spite of your questions being spiteful; they were not written to actually engage you.
Too many Obama supporters don't want to be engaged by a discussion of policy issues, they just want to go with what translates well into phrases and slogans.
Too many Obama supporters don't want to be engaged by a discussion of policy issues, they just want to go with what translates well into phrases and slogans.
There are many willing to rationally discuss policy. But, if you take a quick scan of the thread topics on this board, you know that it is quite hard to do.
Obama sure doesn't "get it" and neither does Hillary when it comes to health insurance.
First of all, it is important to understand that few if any politicians or business people for that matter, realize that you CAN'T LEGISLATE HEALTH INSURANCE without driving up costs and reducing availability. They all think that the answer is to FORCE the big bad insurance companies with deep pockets to cover everyone.
The disasterous state of the health insurance industry in states like New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont and Rhode Island, who have done it prove that it has the EXACT OPPOSITE result that legislators want. These states who are the most heavy handed with carriers are the states with the fewest carriers with the fewest health plans at the most OUTRAGEOUSLY EXPENSIVE rates--- all DIRECTLY AS A RESULT of OVER-REGULATION of the health insurance industry. If you live in one of these states you (or you and your employer) pay 2 to 3 times what most of the rest of the country pays.
Implement a national plan like Hillary and Obama have in store and don't expect a pretty picture. Universal healthcare is NOT a panacea.
To really get a grasp on a real healthcare crisis, and gain an understanding of how much worse the good states might get under OBAMA or HILLARY study those states.
Obama sure doesn't "get it" and neither does Hillary when it comes to health insurance.
First of all, it is important to understand that few if any politicians or business people for that matter, realize that you CAN'T LEGISLATE HEALTH INSURANCE without driving up costs and reducing availability. They all think that the answer is to FORCE the big bad insurance companies with deep pockets to cover everyone.
The disasterous state of the health insurance industry in states like New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont and Rhode Island, who have done it prove that it has the EXACT OPPOSITE result that legislators want. These states who are the most heavy handed with carriers are the states with the fewest carriers with the fewest health plans at the most OUTRAGEOUSLY EXPENSIVE rates--- all DIRECTLY AS A RESULT of OVER-REGULATION of the health insurance industry. If you live in one of these states you (or you and your employer) pay 2 to 3 times what most of the rest of the country pays.
Implement a national plan like Hillary and Obama have in store and don't expect a pretty picture. Universal healthcare is NOT a panacea.
To really get a grasp on a real healthcare crisis, and gain an understanding of how much worse the good states might get under OBAMA or HILLARY study those states.
As someone who sells health insurance in these states, do you think that a government funded health care system will help or hurt your business? How is business now?
Create Automatic Workplace Pensions: Currently, 75 million working Americans – roughly half the workforce – lack employer-based retirement plans. Even when workers are given the option of joining employer-based plans, many do not take up the option because it requires considerable work to research plans and investment portfolios, and enroll in the plan. Barack Obama’s retirement security plan will automatically enroll workers in a workplace pension plan. Under his plan, employers who do not currently offer a retirement plan, will be required to enroll their employees in a direct-deposit IRA account that is compatible to existing direct-deposit payroll systems. Employees may opt-out by signing a written waiver. Even after enrollment, employees will retain the right to change their savings levels, reallocate investment portfolios or end contributions to the account. Obama’s plan will give options to the self-employed and new small businesses to access new easy-to-enroll savings plans and direct the IRS to deposit tax refunds into those savings plans for people who choose to save some of their refunds. Under the Obama plan when employees change jobs, their savings will be automatically rolled over into the new employer’s system to ensure continued savings. Experts estimate that this program will increase the savings participation rate for low and middle-income workers fromits current 15 percent level to around 80 percent.
Expand Retirement Savings Incentives for Working Families: Barack Obama will ensure savings incentives are fair to all workers by creating a generous savings match for low and middle-income Americans. Obama will expand the existing Savers Credit to match 50 percent of the first $1,000 of savings for families that earn under $75,000, and he will make the tax credit refundable. To help ensure that this proposal actually strengthens retirement investments, the savings match will be automatically deposited into designated personal accounts by using the account information listed on IRS tax filings. Coupled with the automatic workplace pension plan, this proposal will stimulate tens of millions of new Americans to invest for retirement. Over 80 percent of the savings incentives will go to new savers, and 75 percent of people eligible for the incentives who are expected to participate in the new program do not currently save.
" Even when workers are given the option of joining employer-based plans, many do not take up the option because it requires considerable work to research plans and investment portfolios, and enroll in the plan." Could you please point me towards the research that proves this? From my own experience, many people do not join employer-based plans because THEY CAN NOT AFFORD TO DO SO. They need every dime that comes out of their check just to pay their bills. Where is the proof otherwise?
"Under his plan, employers who do not currently offer a retirement plan, will be required to enroll their employees in a direct-deposit IRA account that is compatible to existing direct-deposit payroll systems." This will create additional work for businesses. Who is going to pay for that? Where will the money be invested? Is the rate of return guaranteed? Is the money guaranteed by the government? What difference is there between this and our current Social Security program? Current 401K programs? Current IRA programs? What happens if an employer doesn't offer "direct-deposit payroll"? Will the government force businesses to offer it? Who will pay that expense?
" Even after enrollment, employees will retain the right to change their savings levels, reallocate investment portfolios or end contributions to the account."
How is this different from current 401K programs?
"Obama’s plan will give options to the self-employed and new small businesses to access new easy-to-enroll savings plans and direct the IRS to deposit tax refunds into those savings plans for people who choose to save some of their refunds. Under the Obama plan when employees change jobs, their savings will be automatically rolled over into the new employer’s system to ensure continued savings." Other than the tax refund proposal, what is new about this?
" Experts estimate that this program will increase the savings participation rate for low and middle-income workers fromits current 15 percent level to around 80 percent." How? As I said above, the reason I've seen for people not participating is that they can't afford it. Until someone shows me something that proves otherwise, I'm going to continue to believe that low income workers are barely getting by and can't afford to contribute to retirement savings programs.
" Obama will expand the existing Savers Credit to match 50 percent of the first $1,000 of savings for families that earn under $75,000, and he will make the tax credit refundable." Who is going to pay for this?
There seems to be a lot of spending proposed with no mention of how it is going to be paid for. You can't pay for everything by rolling back the Bush tax cuts (which expire in 2010 anyway) and pulling the troops out of Iraq (which I don't think he'll be able to do).
I still would like someone to answer these questions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
