Third Party & Independents Archives

Obama's Meddling Causes Anger and Misstrust

Obama sits in the Oval Office and taps his scepter in his palm, he contemplates the downtrodden worker’s predicament they have endured the last eight years. What does he decide to do? What will be his Decree!?

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration, in a far-reaching effort to improve the lot of workers that has ignited criticism from business groups, announced on Tuesday that it was making millions more employees eligible for overtime pay.

Yada yada yada, Obama has spoken. He has banged his scepter on the President's desk and made it so.

Number one.

I tried to provide a link from the same nytimes website to document the foundation of my next remark, but the NYTimes has not followed up on it's original story from May. I'll have to find an alternative source for my information.


Let's see what Fruit Growers News says about Obama's decree.

A Texas federal court granted a nationwide emergency injunction prohibiting the implementation of the final Fair Labor Standards Act regulations that essentially doubled the current minimum annual salary level for exemption from $23,660 to $47,476 per year effective Dec. 1.

So now we have both sides.

Number Two.

Neither side describes the actual consequences of Obama's Scepter landing on the President's desk.

Back in May, when Obama's Scepter slammed down on the President's desk, I mentioned his decree to a store manager who was a salaried employee. When she finally understood the ramifications of what I was saying, she literally raced off to find her superior for confirmation. Her superior confirmed what I had described.

This store manager anticipated a 12,000 dollar increase in her salary and her employer confirmed it by providing documents to be signed by the SM. She told her family. She made plans, had dreams of what Obama's Scepter had bestowed upon her.

6 months later, Texas finally brings us all back to reality by spelling out how it works in real life. 6 months later a store manager is angry that she had been lied to. She doesn't trust her employer now. She has to tell her children her dreams were misplaced. And...

Obama sits in his chair in the Oval Office, his nose in the air, tapping his Scepter in his palm.


Posted by Weary_Willie at November 29, 2016 7:44 PM
Comments
Comment #410670

Putting aside the silly drama with a fantastical scepter, what exactly is your point? Should Obama not have tried to reverse the drastic changes to Overtime pay rules implemented by the Bush Administration? Adjusted for inflation, the previous threshold was $46,320.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 29, 2016 9:31 PM
Comment #410671
I tried to provide a link from the same nytimes website to document the foundation of my next remark, but the NYTimes has not followed up on it’s original story from May. I’ll have to find an alternative source for my information.

Comlete, unadulterated bullshit. Why do you have to lie, Wearie Willie?

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 29, 2016 9:35 PM
Comment #410673


UPDATE: THANKS TO Warren Porter.

nytimes acknowledges obama rule suspended.

They must be watching WatchBlog, Yes!?


Posted by: Weary Willie at November 29, 2016 10:10 PM
Comment #410680

My point, Warren Porter, is exactly that!

Obama should not have, Bush should not have, FDR should not have tried to control overtime pay.


Not the fed’s business.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 29, 2016 11:47 PM
Comment #410696
They must be watching WatchBlog, Yes!?

The article was published on November 22…

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 30, 2016 2:25 PM
Comment #410704

Wage and price controls seldom work as intended.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 30, 2016 5:02 PM
Comment #410707

Right Royal. What is needed is Trump trade. I.E. fair trade, more companies building plants in the US, weakened EPA, way less immigration until finding workers becomes severe, and burst any bubbles before they get to big.

Do that and the country will hum along, do fine in every sector. We’ve got to get back to where all citizens that want to can work, thereby save a little money and spend a little money.

Posted by: roy ellis at November 30, 2016 6:01 PM
Comment #410708

Correct roy. We have experienced nearly eight years of dampened economic growth by government edict. I predict our economy will roar again and lift the economy of much of the world with it.

Millions of people around the world benefit when the capitalist nations stretch their muscles and put capital and labor to work.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 30, 2016 6:12 PM
Comment #410717

Corporations are sitting on large amounts of capital. There are trillions of dollars sitting offshore. Business is holding back because they don’t know what to expect. We’ve had a stagnant economy for all of Obama’s reign.

Obama’s scepter is a perfect example of how government keeps people from having confidence in the economy. That lack of confidence keeps the growth low and the money in the pockets of business.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 30, 2016 9:32 PM
Comment #410721

And this is how economic bubbles begin to grow. Slow and steady wins the race, but apparently isn’t good enough for fools who’d rather make a quick buck.

Wage and price controls seldom work as intended.
Which doesn’t bode well for the Trump administration’s attempts to subsidize domestic manufacturing.
more companies building plants in the US
More jobs for robots?
finding workers becomes severe
The labor shortage is already here.
I predict our economy will roar again and lift the economy of much of the world with it.

The cheap dollars from Trump’s deficit spending are only going to last so long. Soon thereafter, the day of reckoning will come and there will be $20T in debt to account for. Depending on Trump’s monetary policy, either a recession or debilitating inflation would result.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 30, 2016 11:47 PM
Comment #410722

He said he would cut corporate taxes in half. That will bring back the trillions of dollars that is currently out of the country.

He is going to cut regulations in half. That will save money in compliance and paperwork.

He’s going to reduce illegal immigration which will boost wages.

He has many ideas that will be beneficial to our economy. With his plan to increase growth to 3-4% a year the 95 million people sitting on the sidelines will get back into the work force.

It sounds a lot better than Obama waving his scepter and demanding employers meet his expectations, expectations that are not his to set.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 1, 2016 12:37 AM
Comment #410726
He said he would cut corporate taxes in half. That will bring back the trillions of dollars that is currently out of the country.

He is going to cut regulations in half. That will save money in compliance and paperwork.

So, in other words, Trump plans to massively subsidize certain corporations, sticking average Americans with the associated costs.

He’s going to reduce illegal immigration which will boost wages.
And raise costs for consumers like me :(
He has many ideas that will be beneficial to our economy. With his plan to increase growth to 3-4% a year the 95 million people sitting on the sidelines will get back into the work force.

And inflation through the nose as a result of all the deficit spending. No thank you.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 1, 2016 2:37 AM
Comment #410728

No, you’ve made up the other words, Warren Porter. It’s their money. Where do you see subsidizing when it’s corporations bringing their own money back into the U.S.?

Who was crying about immigration keeping labor costs lower? Damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t, right?

And who’s crying about deficit spending now that we have a 20 trillion debt? Again, damned if we do and damned if we don’t. That’s a pretty scary political philosophy, Warren Porter.

Are you going to ignore the last 8 years so you can criticize the next 8?

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 1, 2016 9:42 AM
Comment #410735

When any entity consumes government services without paying its proper taxes, it is a subsidy.

When any entity is permitted to externalize the costs of its business onto unwilling citizens, it is a subsidy.

Who was crying about immigration keeping labor costs lower
I was and I still am. Hence my complaint that removing immigrant labor will increase costs for consumers like me.
And who’s crying about deficit spending now that we have a 20 trillion debt? Again, damned if we do and damned if we don’t. That’s a pretty scary political philosophy, Warren Porter.
I believe deficit spending ought to be counter-cyclical. Increasing the debt is justified during a recession and not justified during times of prosperity. While Obama has done a good job decreasing the deficit since the end of the previous recession, it was not good enough for my taste. Hillary Clinton failed to provide a plan to balance the budget, which led me to vote for one of her opponents last month. Posted by: Warren Porter at December 1, 2016 11:49 AM
Comment #410736

If they brought their money back into the country they would be paying taxes, albeit half of what Democratics expect them to pay.

At least you’re committing to a point of view, Warren Porter. I never thought you would fall on the side of big business and suppressed wages.

Obama said he would cut the deficit in half in his first term. You can’t blame his lack of success on Republicans when Democratics controlled the government for 2 of those years. They did, however, successfully pass a massive spending program during those 2 years by promising there would be no tax increase to the middle class. Now that you think of it, it sounds like something the left blames Republicans for doing, yes?

It sounds like the hollow thud of Obama’s scepter slamming down on the fine finish of the President’s desk. All noise and damage, but no solution.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 1, 2016 12:46 PM
Comment #410747
If they brought their money back into the country they would be paying taxes, albeit half of what Democratics expect them to pay.

I think Trump has proposed a 10% rate. This is far below what is proper in a country with a government that spends 20% of national GDP.

Obama said he would cut the deficit in half in his first term

FY 2009 deficit was $1.4 Trillion.
FY 2013 deficit was $.68 Trillion.

Looks like he cut it in half to me. The analysis is similar when the deficit is scaled with respect to GDP.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 1, 2016 3:11 PM
Comment #410752


Yes, Obama cut the deficit it in half — but he doubled it first

In February of 2009, the Democratic Party controlled Congress and rammed through the stimulus bill under President Obama. The entire bill for the stimulus ($830 billion) was spent in the 2009 fiscal year. Thus Bush was assigned the stimulus spending even though it was an Obama bill.

EDITORIAL: Obama’s deficit deceit isn’t fooling anyone
Well, almost anyone

Today’s deficit is still higher than it was in George W.’s last year in office. In fact, Mr. Obama’s cumulative deficits add up to $3.5 trillion more than the 2008 level of deficits.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 1, 2016 4:05 PM
Comment #410754

I watched Bernie Sanders being critical of Mr. Trump’s alleged deal with Carrier AC to keep jobs in Indiana. Sanders said the deal included $7 million for Carrier over a 10 year period.

Sanders may or may not be correct about the details, but assuming he is, the deal means that for $700,000 per year ($700 per job) Indiana keeps 1,000 good paying jobs.

Sound like a fair trade-off to me considering how proud obama was for saving jobs for only a million each.

Both Sanders and Pelosi are saying that this deal sets a bad precedence for other American business. They claim other companies could blackmail the government into paying them to keep jobs here.

Perhaps under Obama business could pull such a stunt as he truly is “Mr. Gullible” who knows nothing about business. Mr. Trump will not be easily fooled.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 1, 2016 4:46 PM
Comment #410755

Let me add to my comments regarding Trump and Carrier AC.

There was absolutely nothing to prevent President Obama from picking up the telephone and doing the same deal as Trump has supposedly done.

Mr. Obama either didn’t care about those jobs or couldn’t be bothered to intervene on behalf of American blue collar workers.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 1, 2016 4:49 PM
Comment #410756

Or, Sanders could be talking about how Carrier could benefit from Trump’s 10 year economic plans. Sanders could be paraphrasing it in a way Democratics would look at it. That being, government bribes Carrier to stay.

What are “incentives” if they’re not tax breaks? Democratics say a tax break is giving the person receiving it a hand out or a specific dollar figure to make it sound like government is paying someone to do what they want.

Actually, an incentive simply keeps more money in the person’s pocket. They don’t have to beg for it back because they never give it up in the first place.

I can’t believe anything a Democratic and it’s media says anymore, so it’s really hard to tell what this deal is.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 1, 2016 5:35 PM
Comment #410757
What neither Trump nor the company has announced officially, however, is just what the Indiana government has offered as an inducement to stay. But you can assume, even with the pressure from the President-Elect, that Indiana paid up.

http://fortune.com/2016/11/30/trump-carrier/

Earlier on Wednesday, a source close to the company told Fortune that United Technologies would get $700,000 in state tax breaks for a number of years.

See? It’s not that Trump gave Carrier 700,000 dollars. Tax breaks have been used to attract business to localities for quite a long time!

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 1, 2016 5:44 PM
Comment #410758

Weary, many cities in Texas and elsewhere offer incentives for business to locate in their city. Usually it is in the form of tax abatement for a number of years.

Less tax from a business for a period of years in exchange for the payroll, and the taxes they generate, is almost always a good deal.

The city of Arlington TX voted for bonds totaling multi-billions to build the Cowboy AT&T stadium and the new TX Ranger stadium. It’s paid for by a 1/2 cent increase in the local sales tax.

Cities, counties and states who get the approval of the tax payers affected to lure business is certainly acceptable to me. Taxation with representation is very American.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 1, 2016 5:49 PM
Comment #410759

Yes, it’s common. Yet the media and Sanders and Pelosi want to put it in a bad light. i.e. from the fortune article said “Indiana paid up”. Pelosi and Sanders said it sets a bad precedent and other companies could blackmail government. That kind of rhetoric isn’t about the deal. It’s about casting aspersions onto the deal.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 1, 2016 6:05 PM
Comment #410760

Carrier: Great headline, terrible story.

Carrier- that is, United Technologies (UT)- threatened bad behavior and they were rewarded for it. It is a classic case of moral hazard. The 800 workers threatened with lay-offs benefitted. Trump benefitted. UT benefitted. The taxpayers of Indiana got stuck with the loss.

The underwriting for this did not come from the federal government. It came from Pence, the VP-elect and still the governor of IA. He could do this giveaway without going through any kind of legislative approval.

As for the moral hazard, the problem here is that it sets a terrible precedent, and that is why this is such a bad story. There is nothing to stop other corporations from threatening to do bad things unless they are rewarded with a pay-off. UT took Trump hostage, and Trump paid the ransom.

Posted by: phx8 at December 1, 2016 6:07 PM
Comment #410761

There’s a lot of companies threatening bad behavior for the last 30 years then, yes? And the government didn’t fold? Is that right?

Could you expound on your knowledge of this deal so the rest of the country can know the details? Are you sure Pence, the governor of IN. actually, can do this without approval?

The precedent for tax breaks to industry didn’t start with this deal. I’ve witnessed many of these deals in my own community in the past.

How was he taken hostage when he campaigned on getting
Carrier to stay in Indiana? What was the ransom he paid? Was it foreign currency on pallets on an unmarked plane?

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 1, 2016 6:43 PM
Comment #410762

Quick correction. It is not really accurate to say the workers benefitted. The kidnapper- UT- did not kill the hostage. They released them in exchange for a pay-off. So not killing a hostage or not laying off a worker can not be considered a benefit.

This is a simple case of rewarding bad behavior.

This particular business was very profitable. There was no problem making money. The upper management concluded they could make more for themselves by stiffing American workers, so they decided to move out of country.

This is not a corporation which needs to be rewarded. They need to be punished.

And that didn’t happen.

Posted by: phx8 at December 1, 2016 6:44 PM
Comment #410764

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-utc-idUSKBN13Q55W

I’ve heard of states offering tax incentives to convince companies to relocate. That happens all the time. I have never heard of giving breaks when to convince one not to move.

Btw, 1300 UT jobs from IA are still going to Mexico.

I am all for keeping manufacturing jobs in this country, but giving pay-offs is not the way to do it. Corporations that behave badly should be punished, not rewarded. Assessing a huge tax penalty for relocating would be a start, and penetrating the corporate shield to financially punish irresponsible ownership would be even better. The taxes and fines could then be used to finance a competitive start-up.

Talking tough and then caving doesn’t work. Fight fire with fire.

Posted by: phx8 at December 1, 2016 6:57 PM
Comment #410765


http://www.carrier.com/carrier/en/us/news/statements/statements-article/carrier_to_relocate_indianapolis_manufacturing_operations.aspx

Chris Nelson, President, HVAC Systems and Services North America, said, “This move is intended to address the challenges we continue to face in a rapidly changing HVAC industry, with the continued migration of the HVAC industry to Mexico, including our suppliers and competitors, and ongoing cost and pricing pressures driven, in part, by new regulatory requirements. Relocating our operations to a region where we have existing infrastructure and a strong supplier base will allow us to operate more cost effectively so that we can continue to produce high-quality HVAC products that are competitively positioned while continuing to meet customer needs.

The emphasis is mine so others can actually identify the real reasons Carrier was planning to relocate to their existing facilities in Mexico. It only took a minute or two to find this information. Phew! I’m totally worn out by the work I did during those 2 minutes, but I’m certain someone will eventually realize their comments were WRONG by saying Carrier is immoral and should be punished for considering the move.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 1, 2016 7:06 PM
Comment #410767

https://youtu.be/bqltKKbfgNs

From the Horse’s mouth. Pence and Trump hold press conference concerning Carrier.

Trump mentioned high corporate taxes and regulations. It should be very clear that if some opposition stop these two reforms it will be them who is blamed for the failure, not Trump. But I don’t think he will fail. Any opposition to something like what happened with Carrier will be dealt with swiftly, I hope.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 1, 2016 7:50 PM
Comment #410771

Notice something funny about that article? There are no numbers. Here are some specifics:

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/22/snapshot_of_a_broken_system_how_a_profitable_company_justifies_laying_off_1400_people_moved_their_jobs_to_mexico/


It’s pretty simple. UT is profitable, but expected to generate increasingly higher profits each quarter to satisfy shareholders. US labor costs $20/hour. Mexican labor costs $3/hour. Moving jobs abroad is simply a way to increase earnings per share.

Posted by: phx8 at December 1, 2016 9:01 PM
Comment #410774

Good thing Trump stopped it from happening. I wonder if Hillbilly could have done that.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 1, 2016 10:32 PM
Comment #410775

I’ll bet Hillbilly or Sanders would have wrote laws to “punish” Carrier for moving, and in the mean time would have collaterally “punished” every other company that stayed in the U.S.


Posted by: Weary Willie at December 1, 2016 10:36 PM
Comment #410779

“We certainly don’t want to take as our guide to creating jobs special tax breaks for a company that earned $7.5 billion in profits last year, got $6 billion in defense contracts, paid its top five executives $50 million, in order to preserve 1,000 out of 2,100 jobs.”
Robert Shapiro, “Power Lunch” interview

Giveaways to corporations are the one consistent feature of the GOP and conservatism. In the primary, it was the only issue every single GOP candidate agree upon: big tax cuts for corporations.

Now we see cabinet appoints reflecting this philosophy, this massive giveaway to corporations. In exchange, these corporations give big contributions to the politicians, and it is often in the form of dark money.

Trump’s nominee for Treasury is a real piece of work. He is second generation Goldman Sachs. He made a lot of money in the derivatives that eventually crashed the economy in 2008, and then cleaned up foreclosing on houses. That is one truly horrible human being.

Posted by: phx8 at December 1, 2016 11:59 PM
Comment #410780

I said, when it happened, that it was all legal. Obama railed against it, but he didn’t change it when he and the Democratics controlled congress. To complain about it now, and call people names now, is sour grapes. Why didn’t Obama and his Democratic congress change it when they were given the chance?

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 2, 2016 7:32 AM
Comment #410792

Carrier is keeping 800 jobs in IA (300 of the 1100 were never moving in the first place). 1300 are still moving to Mexico. Should Trump punish UT?

Columnist Eugene Robinson made a good point:

“So imagine you’re a CEO who wants to send, say, 5,000 manufacturing jobs overseas. Having learned from the Carrier example, you might begin by announcing that unfortunately you are forced to eliminate 10,000 jobs because of the crushing tax burden. Even if you really want to move the jobs to Vietnam or Kenya, just say you’re looking at possible sites for a new plant in Mexico. That’s sure to get Trump’s attention.

When Trump calls offering tax breaks or enterprise zone incentives or free rounds of golf in Scotland, whatever goodies he tosses in, hold out for a while — then reluctantly, in the spirit of patriotism and Making America Great Again, announce you’ve agreed to cancel half of the 10,000 job cuts. You’d still be meeting your original goal of eliminating 5,000 jobs, only now you’d also have a lower corporate tax bill and a tee time at Turnberry.”

And finally, Jon Steward nailed it:

“He said she was unqualified because she gave a speech to Goldman Sachs. His Secretary of Treasury is someone from Goldman Sachs.”

Remember how Trump and all those surrogates relentless criticized HRC for giving paid speeches to Goldman Sachs? They demanded she release the transcripts, repeatedly. Wikileaks released them, and assuming they were accurate, they were uninteresting and uncontroversial. Now the Secretary of Treasury is a Goldman Sachs guy with a nightmare of a resume, and the Chief Stragetist- the white supremacist Bannon- is also a Goldman Sachs guy.

How long will it take Trump supporters to figure this out?

Posted by: phx8 at December 2, 2016 10:29 AM
Comment #410794

Well, how do you like that!? Stephen Daugherty threatens my participation on WatchBlog for changing the subject:

You will go before he goes, if you keep this up. Now quit clogging up my discussion about Trump’s outlandish claims concerning voter fraud with this meta trash. Let’s get back on topic.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 30, 2016 11:34 AM

And here phx8 is doing the same thing. This post was about Obama and his meddling in the business of others, not Trump’s cabinet choices.

I almost fell for it again. I almost let phx8 deflect away from Obama’s poor performance and unnecessary meddling in people’s lives. I almost let him get away with their standard operating procedure of deflection and obfuscation.

Sorry, phx8. Either stay on topic or start your own post.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 2, 2016 12:05 PM
Comment #410801

WW
I am reminded of the fact that the rules are not the same for all of us.

Some people are more equal than others.

That is one more mantra of the southpaws.

Posted by: tom humes at December 2, 2016 1:16 PM
Comment #410802

WW,
You want to talk about your original post? Ok.

It is really racist. You describe Obama as an uppity, arrogant negro tapping a sceptre because you are a racist.

Do you need more detail on why your original article is so racist? Let’s talk about why your article shows you are a hateful racist. I’m game.

Ever study psychology? Ever hear of Freud? Good. Now, think about why your describe Obama tapping a scepter, and why it is so threatening to you.

Posted by: phx8 at December 2, 2016 1:52 PM
Comment #410803

Off topic? Hah good one. The topic is fillled with BS.

After reading the adoration here I am truly disgusted.

Weird Willie, Royal Toilet and doofus d.a.n. Would tell their mothers, wives and daughters to line up if trump demanded to grope them. He is after all your messiah!

Posted by: gropetrump at December 2, 2016 2:12 PM
Comment #410807

Again, phx8 brings up racism. Where did I call him uppity? Arrogant? Yes, but not uppity. Nor did I call him black, or use the n-word, or refer to his race at all.

That’s your racism talking, phx8. It’s your racism showing because you needed to inject it into the conversation.

I wonder why Stephen Daugherty can’t find it in himself to condemn your racist comments, phx8?

Nice name calling, gropetrump. Did you think of that all by your lonesome?
Question: Why would you use a moniker like that? You do know it is supposed to identify you, right?

Sounds like gropetrump wants to get handzy with the big guy!

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 2, 2016 2:45 PM
Comment #410817

Weird Willie, my monicker identifies you and some others here.

Looking through the archives I can see you are all to familiar with name calling you racist POS.

Why don’t you go hide under your bed until January 17. That big bad scary Obama might try to come and get you and put you into a re-education camp. You’re a perfect candidate. Mysoginist, racist and dumb.

Posted by: gropetrump at December 2, 2016 5:01 PM
Comment #410820

Well, David, the moniker is used to identify the person using it. Notice it’s at the bottom of your comment, not at the beginning.

How’s the recount in Pennsylvania coming, David? Or, did Trump win by too big a margin to bother?

Hey! Stephen Daugherty! Where are you? Are you going to let this guy puke all over WatchBlog or are you going to stop this? Are you for equality or hypocrisy?

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 2, 2016 6:34 PM
Comment #410821

gropetrump is actually Speak4all.

What’s it going to be, Stephen Daugherty? Speak4all knows the rules. He’s viciously and purposely violating them. Are you going to allow this to happen? Is it ok for thee, but not for me?

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 2, 2016 6:46 PM
Comment #410846

There you have it, folks. Over in the red column if you tell someone their comments are false you’re threatened with expulsion, but if someone, who claims to be from the tolerant and considerate left, personally and viciously attacks someone they disagree with, well, it’s fine. Just ignore it and it will all go away, right?

Hypocritical, that’s the least you can say for it.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 3, 2016 2:57 PM
Comment #410847

phx8 wrote; “As for the moral hazard, the problem here is that it sets a terrible precedent, and that is why this is such a bad story.”

Apparently he believes we are writing about Obama’s deal with Iran.

Over a period of time it has become obvious to me that phx8 can’t chew gum and write comments at the same time without a “brownout”.

Tax abatement for industry and individuals is well known and greatly used. Hell, even the IRS has a penalty abatement.

Anyone filing income taxes using deductions and exemptions to reduce their tax liability is receiving a form of tax abatement. When phx8 and his wife had subsidized Obamacare they were receiving an abatement.

Are people coercing the government by building a home and consequently qualifying for home mortgage interest deduction (abatement)?

What the Hell is wrong with you phx8?

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 3, 2016 3:41 PM
Comment #410861

“The 800 workers threatened with lay-offs benefitted. Trump benefitted. UT benefitted. The taxpayers of Indiana got stuck with the loss.”

How so ?

Posted by: dbs at December 4, 2016 2:37 PM
Comment #411107

Weary Willie-
I’m strictly Democrats and Liberals Column. I can’t edit the Red or Green column. Ask the management, if you have a problem. But really, you set the tone. You can’t expect peace when you don’t cultivate it, when you don’t even bother to try and find common ground. If you make an ideological war out of everything, and insist that you have to be on the opposite side.

That’s not a recipe for success. That’s a recipe for psychosis. Because reality gives everybody common ground, even if that common ground is a source of conflict rather than its resolution.

What you got here is, in essence, a piece that describes Obama trying to give people more money for being worked past their regular forty hour work-week as an act of monarchical elitism.

I see it as somebody recognizing that if an employer wants to take up worker’s time beyond the normal 40 hours, time that could be spent with children, with their spouse, with their friends, they should have to pay extra for the privilege. That would both enrich a worker if they decided to make the sacrifice, and caution the employer, so they don’t feel so free to do that, rather than hire another employee.

Yet you would paint yourself as the populist for taking the employer’s position instead.

It’s all crazy from my point of view. When you get into the weeds on any political ideology, you often find these seeds of counterfactual thinking, threatening to grow.

Obama is doing the genuinely worker-friendly thing. The constant excuse that any restriction on what employers do would cost job, that any additional improvements in compensation would cost jobs fails to account for the fact that it’s more than just rich people who can contribute to the economy, and with their numbers, workers can stimulate the economy more strongly and consistently.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 11, 2016 5:10 PM
Post a comment