Event Calendar
May 2012
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* * 01 02 03 04 05
06 07 08 09 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 * *
<< (add event) >>


User Blox 4
- Put stuff here

Barack Obama
"Lincoln Sells Out Slaves"
by: Rob Kailey - Sep 13
1 Comments
If You Haven't Seen This
by: Rob Kailey - Apr 28
5 Comments
Impeach the President?
by: Rob Kailey - Mar 16
15 Comments
It's the system, stupid!
by: Jay Stevens - Oct 25
7 Comments

Search




Advanced Search


Rob Kailey is a working schmuck with no ties or affiliations to any governmental or political organizations, save those of sympathy.

Obummer: Freezing pay for federal employees

by: Doug Coffin

Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 02:45:18 AM MST


President Obama is at it again. Under the mantle of "centrism" President Obama is proposing a pay freeze for federal employees.

http://www.denverpost.com/news...

A pay freeze for public employees at a time of record corporate profits, expiring unemployment benefits and paying $700 billion for extension of a huge tax cut for wealthy Americans.....is obscene.

In doing so, the President is guilty of a rookie mistake from a collective bargaining perspective i.e. he continually bargains against himself. He did the same thing with health care when he took "single payer" and then the "public option" off the table for nothing in return.

No doubt that he's expecting the GOP to respond in-kind by agreeing to pass the much needed unemployment extension or giving in on extending tax cuts for the wealthy. They won't.... and he'll be stuck screwing his constituents one more time. It looks more and more difficult for him to rebuild the coalition that got him elected. He's angered teachers, labor and now federal employees.

The worst part is that pay freezes run like a virus, no doubt that state government and business leaders will be looking to follow his example. All this in a time when wages for the middle class are stagnant and health care costs are exploding (in spite of "health care reform"). I do hear some folks say "they deserve a pay cut, they make too much money". That is middle class cannibalism. Public employees are the cops, forresters, firemen, teachers, etc. that live next door. They have the same dreams and aspirations as you. The problem is on Wall street, not Main street. Don't point the finger next door, point it at the hedge fund mananger who creates nothing, builds nothing, and then bails out of paying their fair share of taxes by bribing congress to extend their tax cuts.

Obama needs to restock his political corps to get away from corporatism and get back to the populism that got him elected and come to realize that:

AMERICA NEEDS A PAY RAISE!!!

Doug Coffin :: Obummer: Freezing pay for federal employees
Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Bookmark and Share
Print Friendly View Send As Email

AMERICA NEEDS A (0.00 / 0)
HEALTHY ECONOMY!!!  At least that's what the people believe: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Pounding the socialist divisive drum of corporatism vs. populism misses the mark on why Obama is freezing federal salaries to appeal to the body populist.


Geez Craig (0.00 / 0)
Talking about missing the mark on all accounts. If you ask in a poll if America needs a healthy economy, you'll get 100% yes. The Pollster average shows attitudes about Obama on the economy. The economy sucks, and people aren't happy with Obama about it.

NOw ask the question, why aren't people happy with Obama about it? Because the republican/conservative strategy of using economic terrorism and coercion to run him out of office in '12 is working!

Now about this:

"Pounding the socialist divisive drum of corporatism vs. populism misses the mark on why Obama is freezing federal salaries to appeal to the body populist."

Just doesn't make any sense. Why is it socialist to compare corporatism and populism? The tea party is the most active populist movement in the country right now. Comparing the corporate takeover of America with a right wing extremist movement is socialism? You're very confused.

You think Obama's freezing federal pay is an appeal to the populism of the tea party? Or the populism of some other as-of-yet undefined populist movement? That's just not what is happening.

Obama is proposing a pay freeze for federal employees in some misguided attempt to appease republicans into making some concessions with legislation--like tax cuts for the wealthy.

Except, as Doug points out, it is lunacy for Obama to put any concessions on the table unilaterally. It not only makes him look week, it undermines the support of his base.

Obama is well on his way to being a one term president, all on his own. If he keeps up his current strategies, it probably means he isn't going to run again (or knows he can't win), and we are seeing him for what he truly is--which is another Reagan democrat.


[ Parent ]
JC, it depends on how (0.00 / 0)
populism is used.  http://articles.latimes.com/20...

Why populism isn't popular
Most working- and middle-class Americans simply don't care about economic inequality.
November 29, 2010|By William Voegeli

Congressional Democrats adjourned before the midterm election without extending the Bush-era tax cuts beyond this year. President Obama and a legion of liberal columnists had urged that they do so for families making less than $250,000 a year; only families making more would have seen their tax rates revert to pre-2001 levels. The commentariat scorned the Democrats' decision not to decide. "Profiles in Timidity" was the New York Times' editorial verdict.

Pairing tax cuts for 98% of the voters with increases for the richest 2% may sound like a can't-miss electoral proposition. The fact that so many politicians thought otherwise suggests, however, that the plan posed real risks. Their apprehensions looked well founded on election day when Washington state, which Obama carried with 57% of the vote in 2008, rejected a ballot measure to create an income tax applicable only to individuals making more than $200,000 a year and families making more than $400,000. This 1.2% of Washington's population evidently had a lot of less-affluent friends, because 65% of the voters opposed the tax.

As to Montana populism I guess we will have to see how that sorts when Tester comes up for re-election.  He just voted against the earmark ban while favoring the food safety bill which may devastate many Montana family farms.    


[ Parent ]
What does populism have to do with Tester? (0.00 / 0)
You're just feeding a meme that Jon is (was) a populist. He's far from it. He's a very conservative dem.

And if you want to argue semantics over the word "populist" you can do it on your own. I still think you are just playing chicken little with your "socialism" references and "devastate" language. Just trying to generate a little steam for your base--we all get it.


[ Parent ]
If you got it (0.00 / 0)
you would be moving in a different direction instead of endorsing a Pity Party candidate.

[ Parent ]
1) I haven't endorsed anyone; (0.00 / 0)
2) Nor do I have a clue what you mean by "Pity Party;"

And 3)  I have no desire to "get" whatever it is you think I should get, that I haven't.


[ Parent ]
So you are withdrawing (0.00 / 0)
your support for Feingold?

[ Parent ]
I said in the other diary (0.00 / 0)
that having a credible third party with Feingold running would be a comforting thing. I like third party campaigns and candidates. If they are strong enough, they keep the other parties/party a bit more honest. If they have a credible chance of winning, then they really shake things up. People are already analyzing what a Bloomberg Independent victory might look like--that is, a president of neither party in Congress, and how he could/would govern.

I can also give some more support to another candidate:

RUN SARAH, RUN!!!

Again, what do you mean by the "Pity Party"? Referring to the democratic party?

And also, what is it you what me to "get?"


[ Parent ]
JC, (0.00 / 0)
3rd parties tend to be Pity Parties. I can understand Doug missing that nuance, but you???

[ Parent ]
You might look at third parties (0.00 / 0)
as pity parties. But those who are involved in them, at least on the left, do so because it allows them to remain true to their principles in the face of politics as usual in the traditional mono-dualistic party system we currently have.

I see no pity in that. You may pity them, but that's your problem, not mine.


[ Parent ]
Bull pucky (0.00 / 0)
He just voted against the earmark ban while favoring the food safety bill which may devastate many Montana family farms.    

Craig, you couldn't prove that in the thread that was about that very topic.  Yet here you are spreading the same manure as if it's true.  Now, exactly why are we supposed to take you seriously here?


[ Parent ]
Here ya go Rob (0.00 / 0)
Tester's vote on earmarks:  http://politics.nytimes.com/co...

Tester's amendment only applies to farms with less than 500000 in sales.  There are many family farms with far higher sales.  Those Montana family farms will suffer with the cost of those new restrictions when they had nothing to do with the problem.  See Baucus's letter:  http://baucus.senate.gov/?p=pr...

 In a letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, Montana senator Max Baucus today voiced his concern over deep cuts to vital agriculture programs in the President's FY2010 budget.

As proposed, the President's budget would cut direct payments to agriculture producers who gross more than $500,000 a year, cut funds for crop insurance, and doesn't invest in agriculture research.

In his letter, Baucus highlighted how important agriculture is to Montana, and how the budget could hurt modest sized family farms and ranches. From his letter:

"In Montana, agriculture is more than a job, it is a way of life. The farms and ranches of our state not only provide the backbone of our economy, they also make up the building blocks of our heritage. In communities like Geraldine and Glendive, farms and ranches are passed down from generation to generation. And along with this land comes values like family, hard work, and common sense.

That's why I am concerned that President Obama's Department of Agriculture Budget aimed at cutting subsidies...the President's proposal to eliminate direct payments to farmers with sales above $500,000 does not successfully distinguish between struggling farmers and wealthy landowners. For example, this proposal would eliminate payments to a farmer who loses money if the farmer sells his wheat for $500,000 but has already spent $600,000 on expenses such as fertilizer, seed, and fuel."

Baucus also emphasized the need for investment into agriculture

"Investing in research is vital to making sure that agriculture remains strong and vibrant in Montana, and across the nation. Any plan to transform agriculture must include adequate funding for research.... I know that as we move forward we can work together on common-sense policies that are good for farmers and ranchers, good for Montana, and good for America."

As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and a senior member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Baucus was one of the lead authors of the 2008 Farm Bill.  

 Baucus gets how hollow the 500000 limit is, why can't Tester?

[ Parent ]
Chewbacca defense. (0.00 / 0)
That makes no sense.  Come on, Craig.  Those farms, family or not, will not suffer from governmental regulation.  You haven't shown jack-all to the contrary, but you keep "ramming it down our throats" (isn't that your favorite wingnut phrase of the day?)  

And then, as if you really believe that readers here are that stupid, you post a completely unrelated article about farm subsidies in the 2010 budget.

Here's a hint, Craig.  Next time the short straw leaves you with wingnut duty, just hide like the rest of the righties do.  Your effort is admirable, but it does you no service to post such drivel.


[ Parent ]
I here I thought (0.00 / 0)
you wanted to rise above silly ad homs.  That's ok, it's all good.

Apparently you are swimming in the shallow end of pool today.  Baucus was talking about the detrimental effects of a 500000 discriminator to Montana family farms.  It makes no difference that it was for another purpose as the point is the same.  That discriminator, now used by Tester to demonize family farms with higher gross sales, has no logical basis, and is hurtful to farmers who have done nothing wrong, and is without any real purpose.  


[ Parent ]
I'm done here (0.00 / 0)
Craig, no one here is going to buy your BS.

1)  Baucus' opinion isn't well favored here.  And it also doesn't apply to the argument at hand, either to pay freezes or to Tester's amendment to the clean produce bill.

2)  Whether or not $500,000 is arbitrary or not, the only one claiming "discrimination" is you.

3)  You haven't shown any harm at all that you claim will take place.  That makes you a wingnut in search of anger.  That's the biggy at which you fail.  Your argument is irrelevant.

4)  That isn't Ad Hominem, Craig.  It's your weak attempt at supporting the indefensible.

No one has "demonized" anything, except you; and you seem incapable of accomplishing the goal.  Don't chide me.  You failed, not me.  


[ Parent ]
Rob (0.00 / 0)
call me any names you like. Just don't be a hypocrite about ad homs like you hurled at Aaron Flint.

Montana family farmers will register their opinions on the food safety travesty.  As I said on the other thread, "same sword over all necks."  Everyone exempt until proven otherwise.  This pre-emptive attack on family farmers above the discriminator line is unsupportable. As Baucus said, "...sales above $500,000 does not successfully distinguish between struggling farmers and wealthy landowners."


[ Parent ]
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Bookmark and Share

Poll
Voting. Useful or not?
Yes!
No!
Maybe, but only if you vote my way.
There are theories that ...
Meh ...

Results

Blog Roll
  • A Secular Franciscan Life
  • Big Sky Blog
  • David Crisp's Billings Blog
  • Discovering Urbanism
  • Ecorover
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Intelligent Discontent
  • Intermountain Energy
  • Lesley's Podcast
  • Livingston, I Presume
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Montana Cowgirl
  • Montana Main St.
  • Montana Maven
  • Montana With kids
  • Patia Stephens
  • Prairie Mary
  • Speedkill
  • Sporky
  • The Alberton Papers
  • The Fighting Liberal
  • The Montana Capitol Blog
  • The Montana Misanthrope
  • Thoughts From the Middle of Nowhere
  • Treasure State Judaism
  • Writing and the West
  • Wrong Dog's Life Chest
  • Wulfgar!

  • Powered by: SoapBlox