***State Of The Union 2015***

[cremebrulee]

Originally Posted by Hellion1999

what is the name of the worldwide company that just hires women with the policy women get pay less than men for doing the SAME amount of work?


I have work for multiple big companies and local businesses and I have never sat down with management and heard of a policy of paying women less for doing the SAME amount of work as men just because they hate women and the democrats have to come to the rescue with salary control laws.....that is B.S.

yanno what, sometimes, wild as it may seem, you don't have all the answers....I've tried talking to you before about this, but you refuse to listen, you come into threads, and run away with them, acting like some god awful know it all....sometimes buddy, your wrong....period. I refuse to engage in any one sided -conversation with you anymore cuz, YOUR ALWAYS right!!!!! And I really tried. Your always right and you always have to have the last say...so, come on baby hit me with your last shot.

[Hellion1999]

Originally Posted by cremebrulee

yanno what, sometimes, wild as it may seem, you don't have all the answers....I've tried talking to you before about this, but you refuse to listen, you come into threads, and run away with them, acting like some god awful know it all....sometimes buddy, your wrong....period. I refuse to engage in any one sided -conversation with you anymore cuz, YOUR ALWAYS right!!!!! And I really tried. Your always right and you always have to have the last say...so, come on baby hit me with your last shot.

now you get personal and attack me.


I only asked you what is the name of worldwide company doing business on U.S. soil that just hires women with the policy women get pay less than men for doing the SAME amount of work? ....You stated here you work for the company.


simple question and you get all personal and defensive here. ............if you going to make a bold statement at least back it up.....what is the name of the worldwide company on U.S. soil that you work for that ONLY hires women because they get paid less?......simple question.....can you handle that or continue of getting personal here?....is that the way you debate here, attack a person if you are asked a valid question about a statement you made here? LOL!

[nononsenseguy]

Originally Posted by jojajn

The ones who have not felt it are people, like yourself, who fight for the top 1% even though it is against your own self interest and those who need an increase in minimum wage.

Well, that's your opinion.

I don't "fight for the 1%." I fight for the freedom to create wealth, and to not have the government confiscate 50% or more of it only to give it to someone who isn't willing to work to take care of themselves.That is not against my self interest. As a freedom loving American, it absolutely is in my best interest. The government taxes the rich heavily to feed it's own insatiable appetite. Taking money out of the private sector is not in anybody's best interest.

When you take money out of the private sector, it isn't being invested. That's what wealthy people do with their money. What do you think they do, stuff it in a mattress?

When money is invested, it's putting other people to work.

[arjay57]

I don't agree with Obama on everything but I will have to give the man credit for a good speech.

[TheCityTheBridge]

Originally Posted by cpg35223

Here's my question as a political agnostic. I would really like for a Democrat to answer this.

During the SOTU last night, Obama gave us a sweeping vision things that need to be done in this country. Relief for the middle class. Minimum wage hikes. Child care. You name it, it was in there. Kind of grab bag of programs to help the poor and the disenfranchised in this country.

So here's my question. In 2009, Obama had strong majorities in Congress. Why didn't he introduce these programs then? Why has he waited until 2015, when his programs don't have a snowball's chance in hell of prevailing?

And here's my next question. Why are you Democrats standing up and giving this guy such orgasmic praise? Why aren't you asking, "That's nice Mr. President, but you're about six years too late"?

I mean, don't you feel you're being used and manipulated? I mean, don't you realize that these are straw man proposals, visions he's never really serious about introducing into Congress and getting passed? Don't you see how cynical this really is?

I'll hang up and listen.

It may seem odd to revive this old thread given what's going on in the 2016 election, but hear me out: remember Obama's sweeping vision in the 2015 State of the Union? Let's talk about Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton:

The Democratic Primary was essentially a campaign about who would better fulfill the vision Obama laid out. Middle class tax relief, minimum wage hikes, infrastructure, improving child care, sick leave--all were domestic policies Obama laid out that both Democratic candidates supported.

The 2015 State of the Union was about shifting the debate. On the Democratic side, that debate is now shifted. The 2016 nominee supports that vision.

And let's talk about Trump:

For all of his yuge flaws, he promises to improve child care, build infrastructure, help the middle class, even minimum wage: while he wouldn't increase it at the federal level, the Republican platform has to reckon with the recommended minimum wage hike (and make the states responsible for it).

In short, the political center moved a little bit to the left under Obama.

Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge

I have no doubt that most of Obama's vision from SOTU will be incomplete in 2016. I do not think that the speech was meant to be about measures that this Congress will pass. This was about setting up the next Democratic President--with a (more) Democratic Congress--to lay in some of these policies after his pass. He is going to pressure Republicans by making them fight for tax breaks to the rich while he pushes for middle class tax breaks and credits. While he slogs through the political process, the Republican nominees can either distance themselves from the Republican Congress (and risk alienating the base) or tie themselves to the increasingly unpopular Republican congressional majorities.

It's the long game.

As for what Obama did with his majorities:

1) Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act--shrinking the gender gap
2) Nominate 2 women to the Supreme Court--speaking of the gender gap
3) Obamacare--it is certainly about the health insurance and health care of all Americans, agree with it or no
4) Repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell--one among many achievements of the Obama Administration on gay rights
5) Dodd-Frank--new rules of the road for finance intended to reduce the likelihood of the sort of disaster we saw with Lehman, et al.
6) Stimulus and the economy--in a cratering economy with private money on the sidelines, the stimulus put real money on the playing field to limit the damage. I remember the DOW collapse to 6547 and the foreclosures. It was indicative of widespread economic destruction, and today we are turning the corner. To borrow the White House's metaphor, in 2009, the urgent matter was stabilizing the patient. As the patient gets ready to leave the hospital, the question turns to what long-term treatment plan will best maintain its health--SOTU lays out a democratic vision of that plan and puts it on the table for 2016.
7) Don't forget the Detroit bailout. Those were a lot of middle class jobs.

I think that Obama weathered a series of storms, and he's getting hot just as the playoffs (2016 elections) approach (take a look at the most recent poll numbers). If the next two years go well economically, and we have no new land war, then the Democratic and the Republican nominees will be running towards Obama, and that is the kind of political transformation that builds a multi-decade legacy. That's what happened with Reagan, and FDR before him (well, except for that land war thing--that's relatively new).

Obama's poll numbers continued to rise after this. Watching the 2016 election, I think a lot of Americans think we've had it pretty good these last 8 years in comparison.

The economy has continued its gradual rise, and unemployment is now very low (we are at full employment). Real income has even started to rise.

We still have no new land war--Obama has approached conflict in a much more measured & sustainable way than his predecessor. In spite of VP Pence's assertions about Syria, both nominees oppose "boots on the ground" in Syria. That's another big shift. In 2008 and 2012, the Republican candidates wanted more US troops in Iraq. Romney also proposed "regime change" in Iran. And he proposed more troops for a longer period in Afghanistan. Today, neither party is looking to add ground forces anywhere.

So I stand by my prediction (which will need longer for more confirmation): there is an Obama political transformation, akin to the Reagan Revolution, that is underway before our eyes.