Obama plans to change overtime pay

Bypassing Congress, President Barack Obama intends to order changes in overtime rules so employers would be required to pay millions more workers for the extra time they put in on the job.
Associated Press
Mar 13, 2014

 

The rules, which would not likely take effect until 2015, are aimed at workers currently designated as supervisory employees but who are exempt from overtime because they get paid a salary of more than $455 a week.

Obama plans to order his Labor Department to recommend regulations that would increase that salary threshold and change the definition of what constitutes a supervisor.

The president’s directive, to be announced today, leaves the details of a proposed rule to the Labor Department, which is not expected to come up with a recommendation before the fall. Still, it drew swift protests from Republicans, who complained he was sidestepping Congress and from the business community, who said such rules would increase burdens on employers.

“How does he expect us to work with him?” complained Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. “It’s just a poisonous relationship”

The salary limit separating those who get overtime and those who don’t was increased to $455 in 2004 during the Bush administration. At the time, it hadn’t been increased since the mid-1970s.

Comments

There you go again

Yep, that move will certainly encourage companies to hire more workers. And this helps the unemployed how, Mr. President?

holysee

racist piggy

Dr. Information

Race card pulled early over a question, how typical. Let me guess, you are black?

JudgeMeNot

No, just a racecard puller with nothing intelligent to add to the question.

Commenter

It's stupid comments like this, littered throughout this thread that make me not like to participate on the comments. Too bad you can't hide someone's comments

SamAdams

The Obama solution to higher paying jobs? Why, demand that people get paid more, of course! It's so simple a 5 year-old could have thought of it! And in this case, it's also dumb enough that a 5 year-old probably DID.

holysee

racist piggy

JudgeMeNot

dumb piggy.

coasterfan

Not the only solution. Just one of many things that can and should be done to increase worker wages. Are you saying that workers should not be paid fairly when they work overtime?

Contango

Re: "Not the only solution."

As you wrote:

“Please…provide scientific evidence and/or results from research studies that support your viewpoint.”

- coasterfan, 3/13/14

SamAdams

What is a "fair" wage? I believe a fair wage is the one the employer offered and the employee accepted. (Even if an employer were to offer an UNfair wage, the employee doesn't have to agree to it! This, in turn, encourages employers to offer fair -- or fair-er -- wages since nobody accepts the unfair offers).

Part of the offer and acceptance of a given wage is whether or not the position is exempt or non-exempt. Once offered and accepted and with the full cooperation of both parties, to coerce changes by an outside force is neither fair NOR ethical.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

I'll be jealous of you Sam if you get him to define one of those nebulous, bumper sticker phrases. I've been trying for a while and only gotten no reply or I think Big Dog gave me a "if you have to ask I'm not going to tell you" type responses.

They sound great to say. After all who doesn't want "fair" anything? But unless it is accompanied by a descriptor it is as meaningless as telling the police your assailant was a male and that's it. Are you just going to presume that the police know who it is based on that? After all, you do since you are the one providing the description.

To be fair to coasterfan, maybe he doesn't realize that he is doing it. When you read party emails or only source your info from one biased viewpoint both of those are written to cater to their consumers' expectations. So it is lost in translation what those throwaway phrases mean when he steps outside his bubble to convey those points to people who think differently than he. That also explains his relative lack of sources since he unquestioningly accepts whichever convenient slogan or statistic is placed in his news source.

That is why I am frustrated that he is/was a teacher.

I don't know about you Sam but I would love to have a commentator here that was more "left-leaning" who can articulate points and explain his/her position in-depth. Someone who could challenge my thoughts, inspire new ones, and try to convince me of something instead of tearing away. I'd love an honest, civil discussion that focuses on ideas and not parties.

LadyC

Many times, things change after a job has been accepted. Full time is normally thought of as 40 hours, not 50 or 60. And duties may be added after the person accepts the job. It isn't always as cut and dried as it appears in a job description. And without a contract (as in where the dreaded U word comes in), the employee has no bargaining power at all, and is at the mercy of the employer. Of course, they could always just happily skip to another full time position, there is such an abundance right now. (sarcasm) Much as I despise greed and trickery by higher-ups, I think this will backfire and should probably be left alone.

Donegan

fas·cism
[fash-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
( sometimes initial capital letter ) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2.
( sometimes initial capital letter ) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
3.
( initial capital letter ) a political movement that employs the principles and methods of fascism, especially the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.
Sound familiar?

2cents's picture
2cents

Hey! I got a pen too : )

http://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/q...

Truth2u

The only difference between Obama and Adolf is Obama didn't need a Kaiser hand the presidency to him, the closed minded and selfish who want government to steal from others and give it to them just threw the lever and opened the door for him.

Great post Donegan

SamAdams

Well, and Obama hasn't engaged in in-country mass extermination of a particular group of people. Yet.

holysee

racist piggy

slightthroat212

that isn't a racist comment, Holysee. Not at all.

coasterfan

Dream on, Donegan. It's well documented that Obama has used Executive Action FEWER times than the previous 4 Presidents. That fact is all the more eye-opening when you consider that the current Congress is far far FAR more intransigent than those of the past.

Cracks me up how Republicans vacillate back and forth between calling Obama a weak, ineffective leader and a dictator/tyrant - often in the same week. Do you have any idea just how silly you sound?

Contango

Re: "It's well documented,"

As you wrote:

“Please…provide scientific evidence and/or results from research studies that support your viewpoint.”

- coasterfan, 3/13/14

Donegan

Do you understand how silly you sound trying to argue with a definition of a word that as everyone can see (Except you and other worshipers of Obama) Is playing out in front of us? As far as I know the US government was specially created to stop a dictator from bringing out his pen and phone to dictate to private citizens exactly how to live and run their businesses. Try reading some it may help you, start with a dictionary.

The Big Dog's back

dummygan, I'm invoking Godwin's law for you.

anthras

Re:"Dream on, Donegan. It's well documented that Obama has used Executive Action FEWER times than the previous 4 Presidents."

I do think that many persons are not alluding to the times he has used executive action however the reasons he is doing it and what he is doing with it.

Executive orders are meant to keep the day to day operations of the government flowing not to get around congress. Someone once told me that the different branches of government are for checks and balances. I do realize that congress has a very low rating however Obama is also sinking fast and the way the people correct that is at the ballot box.

Darwin's choice

Obama/failure....."community organizer"....Hahahaha!!!!!

holysee

racist piggy

bdid.d519

Dear Obama, Please don't "fix" this for us too....

holysee

racist piggy

KnuckleDragger

What...are you like 12?

Commenter

Right?

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

I can only imagine that after only a few short years when he is no longer in office to prop up this decision (and others) they will be "low-hanging fruit/loopholes" that will be closed up first and thus jerking around the lives of everyone even further. Some will call it an unfair "slash" in salaries despite the increase being an unfair "increase". But, just because a leader did this in the twilight of his reign somehow means that it is supposed to be the normal when the move itself is abnormal.

I wonder why he didn't just tell those supervisors to cut their cable and phone bills instead? Bills (relating to the government), of course, that we are told by one particular party that we always must pay no matter what - ironically. No, you can't cut spending to cut the bills. That makes too much sense. You need to keep making bills and paying for them even when you already can't pay the ones you already have.

I'm certainly not against people earning more if they deserve it, but just handing out temporary dictates like this is just ephemeral and disingenuous.

holysee

racist piggy

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Me? Heh, hardly. If anything you can call me a capitalist pig-dog. I'll also accept Horace Greedly from Captain Planet. Big Dog often calls me sappy which seems to be a compliment because it indicates I actually am sentimental and empathetic.

Oink, oink!

coasterfan

Hero: we already HAVE cut spending, and have continued to cut spending. The deficit has dropped in half since Obama took office, but the national debt is still huge, simply because Republicans refuse to address the other half of the equation. Even if you cut spending to ZERO, that won't pay of the debt we incurred during the Bush years. We need revenue.

Here's a simple analogy: Let's say that you make $50 per year and have $50K of expenses. You decide to add 2 wars to your expenses, but don't have the money, so you put it on a credit card. At the same time, you cut your taxes/incoming revenue. So, now you're making $30K per year, and your expenses are $150K per year. Your debt begins to spiral out of control, because you're not paying it off.

Being a Republican, you think "wow, we need to cut spending". You're still making $30K a year, but (thanks to compound interest), you now owe $170K. Oh, and your house, car and roads begin to fall apart because you don't spend any money on maintenance/infrastructure. So, even though you aren't buying any new things, you're still way in debt. Your teaparty friends insist that tax cuts are needed to bring the debt in line, so your revenue/salary is now $20K per year. They also encourage you to not pay any of the bill you owe, and shut down the government in an attempt to make sure that happens.

Everything they do, of course, only makes the problem worse. When you're way WAY in the hole financially, the only thing that will pay off your debts is money. An easy solution is available: raise taxes on the rich.

In the 1950's the top tax rate was above 90%. Now it's in the 30's. Not coincidentally, in the 1950's, America enjoyed time of prosperity.

Contango

Re: "The deficit has dropped in half since Obama took office, but the national debt is still huge,"

Keep those progressive-socialist brand rose colored glasses firmly affixed to your face.

Why has it "dropped"?

Because the rate of increase had been reduced.

In DC a "cut" is not a reduction, but a slowing down in the rate of planned spending.

We're just drowning in debt at a slower rate.

Also, a little over $3T in debt is 'magically' sitting on the Federal Reserve's books.

Warren Buffett didn't call the Fed. Resv. history's greatest hedge fund for nothing.

grumpy

Moved post.

anthras

Cfan, we continue to hear about the 2 wars and Bush did have approval of congress and remember the senate was controlled by the democrats.

This country should have enacted a balanced budget bill many years ago as I have to live by a balanced budget as well as the city, county, townships villages, and state. If I made $50,000 per year I would live on $45,000 and invest $5,000 for the future and if I did need to spend for an auto transmission a furnace for my house or any other unexpected large sum of money I would cut back on my other expenses would give up eating out, my cell phone, cable or what ever it would take to keep my budget balanced and as a result today I have no financial worries. The federal government would have to make some tough decisions as where to cut however it should be done. Awhile back in the SR there was an article about a lady that was the head of a government department and the government paid $40,000 for a portrait of that person courtesy of the tax payers however it was most likely a real necessity.

Awhile back the debt ceiling needed to be raised and many persons thought that if it was not done it would shut down the government and actually the government would still operate as it would still have income however it would only be able to spend the income that it received and no more kind of like a balanced budget.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Coasterfan, you probably imagined I'd have a response and you are correct. Though I appreciate you responding to my comment all the same.

The example you provided is one in which spending was increased when it shouldn't have been, or if so, should have been done in a more responsible manner. I don't contend that, hence my comment above. The fact you turn that point into a petty, partisan nya-nya by indicating that either Democrats are the financially literate master race (or Republicans are the only binging drunkards) is laughable.

Also, if I am earning $X per year and owe $Y, yes I would eventually pay off Y if I was able to put all of X towards it instead of spending it. Cars, to make a parallel example, have other ways to decelerate or come to a stop. For one, you can take your foot off the gas pedal and it will happen naturally through friction. You can also use the emergency break. If you are in a manual you can downshift. Or, you can even Fred Flintstone it and use your feet.

The actions that are done now are certainly making things worse especially because we ARE in a hole. Even leaving out his frequent, multi-million dollar vacations/golf trips let's look at just our President's actions alone. $200M on "My Brother's Keeper"? Mandated pay increases for certain employees? $70M+ on these "hubs"? Of course what is $500M to Solyndra, etc.? Apparently these new bills are more important to create (and self-evidently cause the loop of "need to be paid" so keep that in mind the next time you argue with thinkagain about circular logic regarding the Bible/truth) than paying the old. I guess there was no better use of that money to be put to work somewhere else or...NOT SPENT AT ALL.

In conclusion I find your comparison to the top tax rate of the '50s to "prosperity" amusing. Not only does correlation NOT equal causation I often hear you and others bemoan that blighted decade as one being backwards in history and a corrupt, uncultured age.

For those/your reasons how do we know that it wasn't suppression of women that caused the prosperity? Oh, oh! I know. It was the discrimination of blacks that brought prosperity. After all, having a homogeneous population of workers seems quite efficient. Especially if companies know their audience is made exclusively of WASPs it is easier to accommodate them.

Nope, it was the tax rates alone and nothing to do with the baby boom or technological innovations/needs of the society spurred after World War II.

Here, let's continue the thinking:

Eating carrots will cause you to die because everyone who ate a carrot eventually died.

The teen pregnancy rate actually falls to 0% after the age of 20.

The decrease in global piracy can be attributed to the rise in global temperatures. As you invoked the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may you be touched by his Noodly Appendage) in an earlier comment you should well be aware of this. Just in case, here's the link to Pastafarian canon doctrine:

http://www.venganza.org/about/op...

The Big Dog's back

Gee, why would I know you wouldn't get what Coasterfan fan was getting at.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

"The example you provided is one in which spending was increased when it shouldn't have been, or if so, should have been done in a more responsible manner. I don't contend that, hence my comment above."

The point he made, if alone, stood and was generally agreed upon by me. Spending went out of control in the last Presidency and continues into this one. But then dragging petty party arguments into it and making a partisan and somewhat faulty example prompted me to write more than what I did above.

Dr. Information

If you are going to still blame Bush coaster, then you have to blame Obama. He put moved us from Iraq to Afghanistan (still there). Of course, in your world this is justified and doesn't cost a dime to this nation.

As I see it, when Obama is done, he will of ran up just as much of a war bill as Bush did.

So sorry, you lose again.

Darwin's choice

" Please also provide scientific evidence and/or results from research studies that support your viewpoint."

More fairy tales by coasterfail!

holysee

keep drinking the koolaid

Fordman

People that work to get to that level know what to expect, more hours less pay. Fine, but we WANT to get there for more reasons than just money. He needs to leave everything alone, I don't want him to take my job away too.

Contango

Comrade Pres. Obama uses his "pen and phone" again!

One size fits all central planning doesn't work and will NEVER work.

Employers now have three options:

* Reduce number of employee hours worked.

* Lay off employees.

* Increase the price of the products or services to consumers.

FORWARD SOVIET!

coasterfan

Meh...typical GOP-speak. Worker productivity is up 90% since 1980, but wages have only increased 8%. It's time for the CEOs to step up to the plate and do their part. Instead of creating jobs and fostering economic recovery, they have instead hoarded their millions.

Henry Ford was smart enough to know that if he paid his workers a fair wage, they would have money to purchase his product. It's pretty simple: middle-class and the poor don't have enough money left over to save for a rainy day. They instead spend everything, thus putting their $$ right back into the economy.

Not sure why you're sticking up for the greedy 1%, since they have continually piddled upon the rest of us - yourself included. The only thing that I know to "never work" are Republican economic policies/ strategies.

Contango

Re: "Worker productivity is up 90% since 1980,"

Due to capital expenditures for: automation, computerization and mechanization.

-----------------

Re: "Republican economic policies/ strategies."

Never heard of those, but historically progressive-socialist Soviet-style economic fantasies have most certainly ALWAYS imploded with disastrous results.

bnjjad

CapEx for "automation, computerization and mechanization" will always be there, its part of the cost of doing business at this point. If you have a well run company there is NO reason to not pay your employees fair wages while still moving forward. You can even operate Debt Free as long as your C Level employees act in good faith torwards their employees.

The several companies that I have worked for, the best has always been the company where the "upper" management treated their employees with respect and treated them right. They also invested in their company in the form of new systems/technology to move the company forward while also keeping the company as close to or debt free as they can.

I am all for Free enterprise with very little government control in business, however when those businesses are not acting in good faith towards their own employees and ultimately their own country of origin but to shareholders then something needs to be done to police that activity. 200 years ago this would be called a revolution against big business greedy tactics. It is clear by now that Big Business cannot police them selves for the good of their country and people, keep this rate up and the global economy is going to completely flip and we will be the third world with cheap manufacturing and employee dorms.

Contango

Re: "we will be the third world with cheap manufacturing and employee dorms."

IMO, closer to the dystopia portrayed in "Player Piano."

Automation, some well compensated employees and a permanent "entitled" underclass.

http://www.amazon.com/Player-Pia...

Contango

Re: "Henry Ford was smart enough to know that if he paid his workers a fair wage,"

Only less than half of the story.

In return, he required that workers be punctual and sober.

Do you actually have a BA?

Pete

Ahh automation. I love it! We go in these factories and eliminate the drags on a company. It is amazing what we can do with a few well placed machines and some quality programming.

I sit with the owners or managers and listen to them as they describe how the Brutus's of their company are bleeding them dry. While the vast majority honestly don't like the fact that they are eliminating jobs, they cannot wait to rid themselves of the problems they endure day after day from these people. It is amazing how much time and money the constant complaining and bad attitudes consume.

The nice thing for us about the constant costs added by the Obama administration is it makes the payback time for automation rather quick.

Keep up the good work liberals. My bonuses are getting ever larger!

bnjjad

4th Option - Remove Overtime options from payroll. If your work day is 8-5 that is what you get paid for, If you stay over, then that is your own fault. My company does it.

The Big Dog's back

pooh, 4th choice. Reduce CEO pay and upper management pay.

slightthroat212

All this is doing is raising prices until everything is out of control even more than it is already. Where does Obama think the money will come from to pay this OT? It will come from the money taken in by the services and products of the employers. That money comes from US. So in raising OVERTIME PAY, PRICES must go up. It is so simple.

Would it not have been more simple to FREEZE the prices of products like gasoline (put a ceiling cap on it) and other products that are out of control and let the salaries alone?

To me it seems that every time gas goes up, so do products and goods. The oil producers and gasoline suppliers seem to control everything else. Oour groceries go up every time gas goes up. So start controlling that. The heck with messing with salaries and OT.

As for Obama's need to circumvent congress...this has been a tug of war between Republicans and Democrats since his second term elections and everyone knows it. The congress has made this nothing more than a sour grapes problem from day one and hasn't let up since. The time to work together has come and gone without anything happening to the good. We have three more years of this going on and it sucks.

To the so called "powers that be" it will continue on because they act like children instead of acting like they are running a nation. ALL OF THEM, not just the congress as a whole but also the President. This is nothing more than a game to them while we pay the price for their stupidity and silly game playing. What this country needs is to get rid of the entire group of them and start over with people who WANT to get it right and who care about this country....not say one thing and do another. I, for one, am tired of the rhetoric.

coasterfan

You know what? America doesn't need any more advice from conservatives on anything related to the economy. Over the past 34 years, history has shown that Republicans really, really stink at it. Every time a GOP president has been in office, the deficit has gone up, and every time a Democrat has been in office, the deficit has gone down.

If you want the economy to get worse, call the GOP, they'll "take care of you". They'll help you through your home foreclosure and the loss of your retirement savings, and then they'll cut your unemployment benefits and food stamps when you lose your job due to the recession they caused.

Nearly every economic prediction made by conservatives over the past several years has been wrong, but that doesn't stop them. You'll never hear an apology or an "oops, we were wrong" on Fox News. I, too, am tired of the rhetoric.

The key: are you able to discern the difference between NEWS and OPINION? If you watch Fox regularly, I would say not...

bleushell4

You know what the biggest problem with our society today really is? Its people like you coasterfan. People that are constantly pointing fingers and trying to keep such a division in politics. Get over yourself and this "it's all the republicans/conservatives fault.

slightthroat212

costerfan: I am not a Republican, that is for sure. I would say, if I had to pick a party....of which I am not a great fan, it would fall more toward the Democrats. I hate the party system and would much rather vote on the strenght of a person and their ideas rather than a party platform. But that's me and my family. I will admit that I am leaning more and more toward giving Hillary Clinton a chance this time. We are the one of the few countries on earth that has never given a woman a chance to try her hand at running things. Perhaps with her knowledge of foreign affairs, she can do better at getting things done. I don't think she would back down from a fight either.

I am anxious to hear more of what she has to say at any rate. I know what the Republican's think and I am not impressed. Each and every time they are in control, our econmoy goes south. It is a proven fact. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. History proves that.

I do know the difference between News and Opinion and I am not a fan of Fox News. In fact, I don't watch it at all. I like my news straight without comment or innuendo....and I make up my own mind, thank you. I agree with most all of your comments. But I do maintain what I said. As goes the oil prices in this country so goes the rest of our economy. If the prices were government regulated we wouldn't need to regulate much else.

KnuckleDragger

"We are the one of the few countries on earth that has never given a woman a chance to try her hand at running things."

That statement shows me all I need to know about you...low information voter.

This is how the current failure in chief was put in office. "We have never had a black President." Yup, we got a black President, who is clueless.

slightthroat212

@knuckledragger...if you bothered to read the rest...which I doubt you did...you would see that I said I want to vote for the person with the best ideas and credentials, not based solely on their "sex or racial profile". The comment on a woman being elected was based on pure fact!!! We have never elected a woman because we haven't. And the reason is, this male chauvenistic driven society in which we live has never allowed it. Yes, I am one of them. Now we have a strong chance at the potential, again, of having Hillary Clinton running and already the Republicans are throwing as much mud as they can before 2016 in case you haven't noticed. My fear is they will run out of mud before their actual fight begins, poor guys. Their party never learns. If the Republicans ever learned a new way to fight it would be a miracle, like on actual meaningful items. I am a very informed voter and hope you are the same. I make no judgements as I do not know you or anything about you.

But sticking to the subject here, every Presidential election should be based on the PERSON running, not their gender, racial profile, sexual orientation or religious conviction. To me it is what they bring to the table that makes them the best candidate. I am anxious to see what each "party" has to offer as I hate this party make up to begin with. Someday I hope to see just a person run and not a party backing them up. To me that would be the ideal candidate.

Contango

Re: "are you able to discern the difference between NEWS and OPINION?"

And this from a guy who watches "comedian" Bill Maher and treats it as gospel? lol

Do you ACTUALLY have a BA degree?

Contango

Re: "every time a Democrat has been in office, the deficit has gone down."

Really? What about FDR & LBJ as but two examples?

FYI: The last time the federal budget was balanced was in the Eisenhower admin.

Do you ACTUALLY have a BA degree?

grumpy

Did you forget obama's favorite president? Carter, obama's last hope for not having the worst economy of all presidents. Problem is the economy is worse now than when even Carter was in office. Carter was only in for one term.

grumpy

Did you forget obama's favorite president? Carter, obama's last hope for not having the worst economy of all presidents. Problem is the economy is worse now than when even Carter was in office. Carter was only in for one term.

The Big Dog's back

Why do you always double post things pooh? Do you think if you repeat a lie enough it will eventually come true?

slightthroat212

Contago...that isn't true. The last balanced budget was during the Clinton/Gore administratrion.

Contango

Re: "Clinton/Gore administration"

How did they do it?

KnuckleDragger

Then please explain why poverty is higher for working age people than at any other time in history? We are 6 years in, you can't blame Bush anymore. Fact is the Dems economic policies are also a failure.

anthras

Re. " We are 6 years in, you can't blame Bush anymore. Fact is the Dems economic policies are also a failure."

Amen if we are still going to blame Bush for this economy then I think we would have to credit Bush 41 for the success of the economy during the Clinton years. They can' have it both ways

The Big Dog's back

Can't blame bush anymore? Really? So what was/is the Repub plan to prosperity?

Darwin's choice

Coasterfan...

"America doesn't need any more advice from coasterfan on anything"

There you go obamabot, fixed it for you....!

grumpy

Re: "Hero: we already HAVE cut spending, and have continued to cut spending."

NO. We have cut the rate of increased spending, we still spend more on each part of gov't, except maybe defense spending. Everything else the ACTUAL spending has gone up from the year before... just not as much as it has for the last decade or so. WE have NOT cut spending. This is the problem when progressives talk about gov't spending, they factor in a 5% increase every year and if it is only increased 4% they call it a cut. They consider a less thasn normal raise in spending to be a cut.

Gov't uses baseline budgeting to hide the increases in spending from fools like some on here to hide increases. Corporations and individuals all use zero base budgets.

Link to baseline budgets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bas...(budgeting)

Baseline budget projections increasingly became the subject of political debate and controversy during the late 1980s and early 1990s, and more recently during the 2011 debt limit debate. Some critics contend that baseline projections create a bias in favor of spending by assuming that federal spending keeps pace with inflation and other factors driving the growth of entitlement programs. Changes that merely slow the growth of federal spending programs have often been described as cuts in spending, when in reality they are actually reductions in the rate of spending gro

Contango

High five brother grumpy!

deertracker

Brother grumpy! That's cute!

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

While he is entitled to his opinion for sure (I'll have to ask him where I can buy a "Democrat Master Race" pin, flag, or armband and wear it ironically - I'm so hipster), the fact that he is/was a teacher is upsetting. I know a good handful of teachers. I respect teachers. I believe teachers are in the middle of a poo-storm over which they have no control. That is why I respect them, especially because their job is to explain things logically and be able to convey complex points in understandable, related terms.

I hold no doctorate nor even masters in economics, politics, or medicine but I seem to do a better job of the above than he who has been trained to do so. It's upsetting that someone who holds/once held a venerable position of educating young people just expects blatant and blanket statements to be accepted as truth. No support. No rationale. OBVIOUS bias to boot.

But what can you do other than continue to make points, back them up, and go about spreading the word yourself in hopes that people will understand you and eschew partisan bombards?

But that is the symptom of the disease that is spread by party-first die-hards. It happens in the Republican Party, too. You are told to just believe the message and spread it (allusions to religion aside, which coasterfan has disavowed). There is no effort in explanation, just attention-getting. It's insulting, especially in today's world OF information. Someone who wants to win my mind, heart, wallet, and support will take the time to actually engage with me in communication and thought. When my walls come down that person would then see a flood of said support as well as a population of others who look for the same as I do.

grumpy

Tis why I back up what I write with links. I don't expect people to blindly believe what I write. Besides others write much better than I do.

The Big Dog's back

Opinion pieces are not facts.

grumpy

Sorry Piddle Puppy, I don't use the comedy channel, comedians, and left wingnut blogs as backup for what I write. Which is what you use the few times you link to, or more often copy and paste from... after we search out where the copy and paste job came from, you tend to just copy and paste and not link to the original work... for good reason...

SamAdams

THANK you, Big Dog! You're right.

P.S. Hallelujah, Brother, for having finally seen the light!

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

I about spit my drink on my monitor containing a laugh, thanks. No doubt Contango will have a field day with that quote in future posts.

deertracker

Yet you BLINDLY believe what others write. I guess if it is on the internet it HAS to be true?

donutshopguy

Why is the President sticking his nose into a private business issue?

Doesn't the employee have the power to discuss this issue with his or her employee? Don't they have the right to leave that employer if they don't believe they are being treated correctly? Are they chained to that job or employer forever ?

Can anyone be responsible for themselves?

slightthroat212

@ donutshopguy...the basic amount of money ones makes has ALWAYS been set by the federal government. Raised and lowered (which to my knowledge has never happened), the fed has been responsible for setting the minimum wage for all of us, just as they have set the amount of Social security and IRS taxes they take out and Medicare that is deducted. So it isn't just the President who makes this decision. It is just that this president has decided to do something about the minimum wage that has not been done in this particular area for these particular wage earners for some time now. Not all bosses and employees have unions nor can they sit down and reach a decision between them as amicably as you describe. Don't we all wish it were so. So that is why the federal government stepped in to this in the first place and set down guidelines for us all to live with.

You make this sound like this is the first and only president who has ever done this and he isn't. No, and yes, any employee is free to leave but they would be going right back into the same type of job if they got one just like where they were coming from. Nothing would change.

Just a thought. Most people try to be responsible for themselves but not all employers play by the rules either and need to be shown they cannot cheat their employees. Its a two way street. That is one of the reason's we have the federal guidelines to begin with.

deertracker

Agreed!!!!

ohioengineer

We are making this issue much more difficult and complex than it has to be. Whether the issue is overtime, minimum wage or benefits, as an employee I "sell" my services to an employer. The size of the payment that I receive in return for these services is dependent upon how valuable those services are to the employer. If I am not satisfied with the payment that I am receiving, I have two choices: I can find an employer who considers my services more valuable; or I can make my services more valuable by such things as education, experience or just plain old hard work.

SamAdams

+10

Dr. Information

Did you see the new one out from the dictator?
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration is proposing new rules designed to protect students at for-profit colleges from amassing huge debt they can't pay off -- and still pass judicial muster after a previous version was thrown out by a federal judge.
The proposed rules drew a sharp reaction from Steve Gunderson, president and CEO of the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, who said in a statement that the regulations would "deny millions of students the opportunity for higher earnings."

"The government should be in the business protecting opportunity not restricting it," Gunderson said.

More government control.

deertracker

Some supervisors/managers are required to work 50 to 60 hours per week because they are salaried employees but when you do the math it is not that much hourly. I like this idea.

wasthere

You like this idea? That's not a surprise, because you seem to like everything your boy does. I was a salaried worker for fourty years and there is much more to the pay structure than wages. I accepted the job for many reasons including the extra benefits that went with it. I knew going in that it included more hours. Obama and his dwindling supporters seem to think it's a pay issue. Anyone can certainly see it's a political move. This is just another place that government needs to stay out of and leave this between employers and staff.

slightthroat212

@ deertracker.....For YEARS, the middle management has been worked to death by upper management requiring them to do sixty to eighty hours a week or more and live on the SALRARIED take home they get without OT. It is unfair to expect the middle management person to continueally do that much work for no more money than you get on salary without the OT. You think your salaried position is a 40 hour work week.....WRONG and no one says it will be 50 to 90 hours. It doesn't start that way, they just add the hours as you go along. No need to complain, because it is EXPECTED of you. Suddenly you are working 60 to 80 hours a week with no pay increase and your boss goes home at 5 pm while you work the midnight oil burner. You hate it, you mention a raise, they say no and if you complain too ofter or too much, your prize is the pink slip or a tongue lashing. Bye bye job. That is true as true can be. Been there, done that. I, too, LOVE this idea. Its been a long time coming and I hope it works. Watch how fast the low life uppper management takes before they increase the middle guy's salary or mention you don't work more than 40 hours per week. either way you win.

amazedeveryday

And automation, robots, computerization, etc spend how much on the products they produce? ZERO!!!! Interesting fact is the stock market continues to make money; where does that come from? THE WORKER, what there is left of them.

Contango

Re: " the stock market continues to make money; where does that come from?"

Answer: The Federal Reserve's ZIRP and QE monetary policies.

slightthroat212

@contango....off the backs of hard working men and women in this country who put in a long days work for their bosses who then take the money that is made by those men and women. Not the Fed, etc that you listed. It comes from the big shots who own the companies and from those who have workers to pay off the boards of directors who are screaming for their dividends....that is where the money comes from. Oh, yes, tell them to work harder...just what they need to hear. So the boards of directors and the investors can get more money because they are greedy and want bigger dividends off their investments and they want them now....just like everyone wants everything right now. This is what computers gave us. INSTANT GRATIFICATION. PUSH A BUTTON>>>YOU HAVE IT.

Contango

Re: "the big shots who own the companies,"

You mean the stockholders?

How could workers have jobs without capital (risk) investment?

Do you have any retirement investments, e.g. mutual funds, stocks, bonds, et. al?

If so, how are you not hypocritical?

pntbutterandjelly

You may (or may not) want to give Contango some slack. You need to understand that his contorted remarks are caused by having too much time on his hands with too few genuine thoughts (have you ever noticed he has to always "snip" as novel thoughts are too strenuous or copy and paste some other contrived "facts"?) (I no longer rebut his comments as my time is too valuable and...I'm positive it angers him to no end.)

Contango

See response below Paul.

KURTje

I like what you told your daughter pooh, "work harder."

Contango

Re: "work harder."

Yep! It's cross-generational theft, kookie.

pntbutterandjelly

Ah yes. Capitalism without restraints. THAT'S what we need! NO government intrusion! NO restraints! NO mandates! NO laws, rules, regulations, principles or intervention!

Some of you are, sadly, under the mistaken idea that this nation doesn't already operate under a "socialized" system of governance. Likewise some of you have forgotten this nation was built under "we the people". That "we" means "together". THE facts are, "We are all taxed and those proceeds are spent with little direct input on our parts." (That is...until of late.) Now...once you get (if you can)your heads wrapped around that very simple reality of American life...we can move forward. From that point we next get to where most all political arguments actually emanate from. That is, "I want all of my tax money I can get back and in some people's minds...more than their fair share." And...they'll go to any lengths to accomplish that outcome. People of ALL ethnics, religious backgrounds, income strata and political temperaments are guilty of this very innate and human weakness.

Now the problem is that money (the great American remedy of all woes inclusive of self-professed "morality")has infiltrated our nomination processes, election processes and their consequential guidance (government!!) processes. Money. Those with more get more representation. Those with more have more influence. Those with more have more control. Money.

"Free enterprise" and "capitalization" have now become dirty words meaning greed. (Is it any wonder the Europeans have for 4 decades called us, "Dirty Americans"?)

"United we stand and divided we fall" has been replaced by another more sinister dogma of, "I'll get all I can as soon as I can by any means possible". "Skrew everybody else." "I'll buy my way into control." "I'll spread malice, division,lies and hatred if I must but...I'll get MINE." "All I need is more money." Money.

This new American dog-eat-dog society has become a hideous remnant of a former well-oiled economic machine that had once been envied even by the aforementioned other nations. Now it is becoming a vile monstrosity bathed in its own putrefied stench of attaining more and more and more...money. Money.

This isn't the country I knew before. This isn't the country of my father or grandfather. This isn't the country our founding fathers envisioned. This isn't the country of equal rights. This isn't the country of economic opportunity. This isn't the country of equal education. This isn't the country of "all for one and one for all". This is the country of those who control the money, who control the power and who want more than their fair share.

So if you are the type who want to eliminate "government intervention" and therefore favor eliminating social security, social equality rights for everyone, equal pay regardless of gender, equal educational opportunities, environmental impacts, workplace safety standards, food and medical safety standards and ever other program that has been instituted "by government" in the last 200 years for our health, safety and MUTUAL benefit ....then I must say, "You are part of the problem". You are part of the greater problem due to wearing blinders caused by shallow and selfish thinking.

I know there are those of you here who post daily and who will relish in dissecting, criticizing, chastising and twist my words into something you feel gratification in and in order to put your own bias on...that's okay because I also know you won't change and don't care to change your thinking.

Before you do though I sincerely suggest you look yourself in the mirror. Look deeply into your eyes and see where YOU are at fault. If then you find you have absolutely no fault...

Pterocarya frax...

Thank you for taking the time and effort to articulate so well, what many of us know in our hearts, but don't have the time or rhetorical skills to lay it out so well.

Well done PBJ.

pntbutterandjelly

Pterocanya frax; Thank you for your kind words. It infuriates and saddens me a great deal to see the direction our country has and is taking. There is far too much money concentrated in too few hands. And with this money they are wrenching voters with divisive propaganda that further entraps those same voters.

* Keep on posting your thoughts. It gets easier and easier with time. And...don't pay any attention to those who try to drag you into an argument. Okay?

Contango

Re: "There is far too much money concentrated in too few hands."

Yep! The Washington/Wall St. revolving door of corporatism.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/k-...

Contango

Re: "don't pay any attention to those who try to drag you into an argument."

i.e. you've made up your mind, it's settled and no reason for debate?

Reeks of dogmatism.

Contango

Re: "Capitalism without restraints."

In a free-market, capitalist society, govt. would act as the mediator and arbitrator, NOT as the judge, jury and owner of the means of production.

Do you have any retirement investments, e.g. mutual funds, stocks, bonds, et. al?

If so, how is what you have written not hypocritical?

LadyC

Excellent---In reference to PB & J's observations

pntbutterandjelly

Thank my Lady.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

I have no comments regarding the example of being unrestrained as I don't see anyone professing that here including myself. In the case of all-or-nothing deregulation I am with you as it is nonsensical that anyone would profess or even think at some point we had a completely free market. Even in the case of "the invisible hand", there are still regulatory forces at work. So don't take that as criticism, take it as hope that the wild, wild west of economics could never truly exist. Especially when coupled with the notion Adam Smith continues in another work essentially stating that everyone wants to be seen as someone who warrants respect in their community especially when their wealth places them at the focus of attention.

Now regarding said wealth playing a role in politics, I can presume you would then stand with me when it comes to the issue of Congressional term limits? If you want to limit the role money can play then this would be a huge next step. It is blind to parties, favors fresh ideas, and sheds "war coffers" of ancient incumbents.

I'll disregard you presuming I am part of the problem because I want to eliminate (specifically) Social Security because many who may seem to feel that way add on the words "and make it better". Social Security is a lumbering dinosaur and is inefficient and abused. We can do better as a society, though admittedly after one of our more recent "we can do better" policies the desire for further reformation seems to have dwindled. That doesn't mean it should be done, but we must be aware of history - recent or otherwise.

As for the other notions of equality, they are good to say and I agree a correct notion we should strive to reach. But human beings themselves are not equal in outcome and no founding document nor recent social movement or trending hashtag can ever make that possible. We are flawed, biased, and emotional. Your vision of equality and mine may actually not align and even looking outside ourselves we see that like in Animal Farm "all animals are equal, some are just more equal than others". That's a perception that only the beholder can address but it takes an open mind to do so. Equality outside the sterile numbers of math or the cold hand of science is never equal when humans are involved.

It appears that posting this was rather cathartic for you and I appreciate you having done that as I hope you felt better in doing it yourself. You'll find that while I did reply, my mind is quite open. But I can only speak for myself here and offer you assurances that many of the things you warned about aren't viable in real life nor called for by a visible majority.

This succor and discourse is brought to you by a flawed human being who is overweight, has slightly crooked eyes (at least I think they aren't evened up when I look in the mirror), has been a scumbag to people before, but strives every day he has left in his life to be better himself and help better those around him.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Not quite an edit, but an addendum. Talking about things is a good start. It's now up to us to do something about it. Here's a few suggestions:

= = = = = = = = = =

AMENDMENT XXVIII: An Amendment to Establish Term Limits for Members of Congress

SECTION 1: No person may serve more than twelve years as a member of Congress, whether such service is exclusively in the House or the Senate or combined in both Houses.

SECTION 2: Upon retification of this Article, any incumbent member of Congress whose term exceeds the twelve-year limit shall complete the current term, but thereafter shall be ineligible for further service as a member of Congress.

AMENDMENT XXVIX: An Amendment to Restore the Senate

SECTION 1: The Seventeenth Amendment is hereby repealed. All Senators shall be chosen by their state legislatures as prescribed by Article I.

SECTION 2: This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as a part of the Constitution.

SECTION 3: When vacancies occur in the representation of any State in the Senate for more than ninety days, the governor of the State shall appoint an individual to fill the vacancy for the remainder of the term.

SECTION 4: A Senator may be removed from office by a two-thirds vote of the state legislature.

AMENDMENT XXX: An Amendment to Limit the Federal Bureaucracy

SECTION 1: All federal departments and agencies shall expire if said departments and agencies are not individually reauthorized in stand-alone reauthorization bills every three years by a majority vote of the House of Representatives and Senate.

SECTION 2: All Executive Branch regulations exceeding economic burden of $100 million, as determined jointly by the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office, shall be submitted to a permanent Joint Committee of Congress, hereafter the Congressional Delegation Oversight Committee, for review and approval prior to their implementation.

SECTION 3: The Committee shall consist of seven members of the House of Representatives, four chosen by the Speaker and three chosen by the Minority Leader; and seven members of the Senate, four chosen by the Majority Leader and three chosen by the Minority Leader. No member shall serve on the Committee beyond a single three-year term.

SECTION 4: The Committee shall vote no later than six months from the date of the submission of the regulation to the Committee. The Committee shall make no change to the regulation, either approving or disapproving the regulation by majority vote as submitted.

SECTION 5: If the Committee does not act within six months from the date of the submission of the regulation to the Committee, the regulation shall be considered disapproved and must not be implemented by the Executive Branch.

= = = = = = = = = =

There you go. Taking the money out of politics, inserting the voice of the people on a freshly rotated basis, and ensuring essential regulations stay while those outdated, defunct, under the radar, etc. are not continued at a waste of valuable resources.

There are more amendments I can post if you wish, but I figured this would be a good start.

Contango

"Here's What Bill Gates Thinks When People Say He Should Feel Bad About His Wealth":

"He thinks the government could encourage businesses to hire workers if it stopped taxing people on their wages. Instead, he thinks that it should tax them on how much they spend, an idea called the 'progressive consumption tax.'"

Reads like an idea worthy of discussion.

http://www.businessinsider.com/b...

Dr. Information

Obama is the worst president this country has had. Non existent foreign policy, wants amnesty for all the illegals, implemented a new healthcare law that will bankrupt this country quicker and hurt more than it helps.

His numbers are at the bottom of the tank as they should be. He is horrible in every aspect except executive orders and vacations and late night TV shows.

Contango

Re: "Obama is the worst president,"

Unfortunately he and others of his extremist progressive-socialist ilk are merely the symptoms and not the disease.

Our ancestors founded this country in order to avoid the mistakes of Europe & not to replicate their wrongheaded policies and in turn follow them into bureaucratic socio-economic stagnation.

pntbutterandjelly

(snip & clip): "to avoid the mistakes of Europe" is exactly why we do NOT want to be ruled by Monarchs! Thanks Contango.

Contango

Re: "Monarchs!"

"Meet the new boss, Same as the old boss."

- The Who, "Won't Get Fooled Again"

Just the same freedom stifling 'rule of man' bureaucracy in different packaging.

KURTje

Take action then. Do more than just talk.

Contango

Re: "Take,"

More nonsensical blather from loonie.

KURTje

Winnie you display constantly your lack of intellect.

Contango

"you display,"

And your repeated off-topic blather just pegs you as a loon.

JudgeMeNot

0-bama's greatest acheivment is failure.

JudgeMeNot

coaster loves failure.

pntbutterandjelly

The new Republican party is a shadow operation for those attempting to wrest power from the people and democracy through whatever diabolical means they can formulate. The former Grand Old Party (of which I was a long-term member) has become nothing more than a table-thumping mechanism of the power-laden few to abolish all vestiges of human rights, dignity and freedom. Little do they care for fair play, honest and open dialogue let alone a sense of purpose "for the people". Their laser-like focus has already split their party into one radicalized party and another even more rabidly-radical party. With time...there will be few of them standing as they eat away at even themselves until one day...they, like the dinosaurs, become an extinct albatross. To facilitate their quicker demise we must all do as much as we can as soon as we can and with as much fervor as we can. This is made possible by us and for us by becoming active.
It is therefore minimally and absolutely IMPERATIVE to vote. An even better activity is to use your frustrations, anger and sense of unity in a more consolidated and productive method. This is accomplished by contacting your local Independent (the fastest growing party) or Democratic representatives to see what more you can do to beat back this attack. It can be an exciting, fruitful and extremely enjoyable experience. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain. To do nothing will mean losing our nation to the Money Mongers.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

"The new Republican party is a shadow operation for those attempting to wrest power from the people and democracy through whatever diabolical means they can formulate."

If by that you mean "the establishment/GOBs" then yes. I agree with the sentiment. Which is why forces are acting within the party to remove those people.

"This is accomplished by contacting your local Independent..." YUP! Right on, sandwich man (or woman)!

"...or Democratic representatives..." NOPE! Seriosuly? You paint the case above against the Republicans and then just presume that the other major party doesn't do the same? I don't want this sandwich any more.

You really had me until you make a senseless presumption that we can't just replace "Republican" with "Democratic" in your opening statement. If you think that the Democrats aren't fraught with GOBs, pay-to-play, social ladders, societal engineering, "Money Mongers", tax cheats, societal hypocrites, and divisive discourse then perhaps I can direct you to...anything, really.

I'll grant you the point that by talking to people of another political affiliation with you can be enjoyable and exciting. I have done that myself. But I can't let your comment slide that the other side of the coin is as pure as the wind-driven snow while its opposite is worn out and greasy.

Contango

pntbutterandjelly writes: "I no longer rebut his comments,"

But you'll do it in the third person?

How does that not smack of insincerity Paul?