Obama's Finally Showing What He Stands For

[hblask 1]

I've wondered all along if Obama's popularity is the result of the fact that he hasn't stood for anything yet -- he has no positions. Here's a bit from an article about a bill he supports, and I'm starting to think I am correct. Business owners, do you want the federal government telling you how much an employee is worth to you? Workers, do you want a federal bureaucrat deciding your next raise? Does anyone still believe that the government can repeal the law of supply and demand? Apparently Obama does:

The Fair Pay Act takes a sledgehammer to deal with this gnat-sized differential. Under its provisions, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) would create criteria determining whether a given job is dominated by one sex; employers would have to send the EEOC every year a listing of each job classification, the race and sex of those holding such jobs; how much they are paid; and how such pay was determined. The goal of all this is to ensure that people in "equivalent" jobs are paid similar wages. "The term, 'equivalent jobs', according to the legislation, "means jobs that may be dissimilar, but whose requirements are equivalent, when viewed as a composite of skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions." And who would decide what is equivalent? The federal government, of course. Forget the price signal: Congress is on the job!Barack Obama actually went out of his way to become a co-sponsor of this misguided bill, signing on after it had been introduced. "For too many years, not only have women across America been under-compensated for their hard work, they have been undervalued," went his statement on Equal Pay Day. "Equal work deserves the guarantee of equal pay. We must eliminate the legacy of discrimination that continues to face women in the workplace, by ending penalties for women that choose to have both a career and raise a family and by making it easier for women to organize." There's nothing much to disagree with there, but there is also nothing that effectively addresses the merits (or demerits) of the proposed remedy.

So, according to this bill, that Obama supports, "equivalent" means "dissimilar", and federal bureaucrats get to decide which "dissimilar" equals which " equivalent", and also if your motives are pure when you hire someone. I wish this was a joke. Instead, I'm just sad.

[rsmbox 1]

what's the best thing about doing the same job as your wife?you get paid more.

[HangukMiguk 8]

what's the best thing about doing the same job as your wife?you get paid more.

not if you can't suck cock better than her.sorry, it had to be done.

[Spademan 94]

You quote an obviously slanted, small piece of writing and claim to "know what" a man "stands for"?I know what you stand for, idiocy.

[mk 11]

You quote an obviously slanted, small piece of writing and claim to "know what" a man "stands for"?I know what you stand for, idiocy.

hail spademan, god of teh forum.

[hblask 1]

You quote an obviously slanted, small piece of writing and claim to "know what" a man "stands for"?I know what you stand for, idiocy.

Which part of the article do you consider slanted? And do you consider signing on to a bill as "supporting" it?

[Spademan 94]

Which part of the article do you consider slanted? And do you consider signing on to a bill as "supporting" it?

Nature and tone of the prose. It clearly comes from an angle.Regardless, claiming to know what he stands for, based on that piece, is pretty specious.

[speedz99 145]

Nature and tone of the prose. It clearly comes from an angle.Regardless, claiming to know what he stands for, based on that piece, is pretty specious.

That's what I was thinking. Totally specious. Maybe the most specious speciousification I've ever had the honor of speciousifying.

[hblask 1]

Nature and tone of the prose. It clearly comes from an angle.Regardless, claiming to know what he stands for, based on that piece, is pretty specious.

So you don't think that you can tell what a politician stands for based on the bills that they support? What should we use? A Ouija board? Telepathy? Seriously, this is a bill that would create an immense burden on every employer in the US, and have bureaucrats deciding which two dissimilar things are equivalent. At best, this shows a carelessness in Obama's legislative activity that borders on irresponsible; at worst, it shows a frustrated central planner who believes that bureaucrats know best. Supporting this bill is atrocious.I was hoping Obama would turn out to be a great candidate. He's a minority with outsider credentials and a tainted past that should keep him out of our personal lives. But first he came out in support of socialized medicine, and now with this he's in support of socialized employment. When you want to insert bureaucrats into the private decisions between you and your doctor and then between you and your employer, that's a pretty big 0 for 2.

[speedz99 145]

Exactly what power does that bill give the EEOC?

[digitalmonkey 929]

Dear EEOC,Strippers - female - $10 per hour + tipsThank you.-----------------------------------------------------------Wow, you're right, that would be such a burden.

[Spademan 94]

So you don't think that you can tell what a politician stands for based on the bills that they support? What should we use? A Ouija board? Telepathy?

Does it go into detail about his reasoning behind his "support"? Or do you just assume he wants to ruin America.You can't know what a man stands for based on support for one or two bills, unless they are bills about making child rape legal or something.I don't agree or disagree with the bill, I don't like or dislike Obama. I am simply pointing out that broad general claims about a man's character or beliefs based on support of a single bill is pretty hyperbolic and reactionary.I can find one bill any politician has supported at some point in his career that has been poorly designed.

[hblask 1]

Exactly what power does that bill give the EEOC?

It appears to give the EEOC the power to determine the "correct" pay rate for certain jobs, based on what they decide is equivalent. The enforcement would likely be similar to the other EEOC laws, where you could file a lawsuit and the EEOC would decide if the employer was being fair. The idea is that women still go into lower paying "women's jobs", such as nursing and teaching. Since the law of supply and demand cannot be repealed by government fiat, and employers are not going to go bankrupt in the name of some misguided notion of "social justice", the only way to equalize pay is to lower the pay rate for "men's work", such as engineering. Curiously, this will make women *less* inclined to go into these potentially higher paying lines of work, such as engineering, because what incentive is there to switch if the pay is the same for an easier job? In fact, why would men take a high-stress, difficult job if the pay is the same as an easier, less-stressful job? (Another side effect would be for the government sector to distort wages for said jobs, making civil service even *more* lucrative, harming the economy even further).The bigger question is, how many times will the government attempt to repeal the laws of supply and demand before it realizes that every previous attempt has led to economic hardship? And why are there any current politicians who haven't realized this after 100 years of experiments?

[SBriand 4]

Have you actually read the bill and not this source's take on the bill? I am just curious. I prefer to read the actual bill rather than read a paraphasing of the bill from some dude at cnn. When I have time I might try to find it, could be an interesting read.

[hblask 1]

Have you actually read the bill and not this source's take on the bill? I am just curious. I prefer to read the actual bill rather than read a paraphasing of the bill from some dude at cnn. When I have time I might try to find it, could be an interesting read.

The Bill in all it's ugly detailsIt is written intentionally vague so that it can get through Congress, leaving most of the details to the actual implementation, but the article was a pretty good summary of it. Basically, it leaves employers with the burden of justifying how much they pay each employee -- the "guilty until proven innocent" standard.If you have an employee who is an obnoxious slob, but you can't find any help in your area, and this person has poor hygiene and an irritating personality, under this law, you are not allowed to pay that person less if that person happens to be a woman, even if that person is marginally employable at your company and unemployable anywhere else. Paying that person less could lead to an expensive lawsuit in which you would have to justify why you pay an obnoxious secretary less than a hard-working, pleasant janitor -- even if the janitor is also a woman.Also, employers are required to document every relevant bit of information on why they pay the amount they do. It doesn't appear that "it was the cheapest person I could find" is a valid defense if some bureaucrat somewhere decides that two non-similar jobs are "equivalent", even if nobody in their right mind would consider them equivalent.

[Scanner313 0]

I am simply pointing out that broad general claims about a man's character or beliefs based on support of a single bill is pretty hyperbolic and reactionary.

Where did he ever make any "broad general claims" about Obama? Here's his original quote..."I've wondered all along if Obama's popularity is the result of the fact that he hasn't stood for anything yet -- he has no positions. Here's a bit from an article about a bill he supports, and I'm starting to think I am correct."He merely stated that he had a feeling about him, and he is "starting to think" he's correct about his assumption. He did not say "See, I was right about him".And the fact that Obama is following true Democratic thinking in his support of socialized medicine and now employment, I don't think there is anything wrong with assuming he's a typical left-wing liberal of the grandest scale. Regardless of his reasons behind his support of a bill, if he's in favor of big government involvement, he's in acting like a true Democrat. Isn't that what he is, and fully claims to be? I've never seen him say he's anything but a Democrat. Maybe we're all missing something.

[Scanner313 0]

The Bill in all it's ugly detailsIt is written intentionally vague so that it can get through Congress, leaving most of the details to the actual implementation, but the article was a pretty good summary of it. Basically, it leaves employers with the burden of justifying how much they pay each employee -- the "guilty until proven innocent" standard.If you have an employee who is an obnoxious slob, but you can't find any help in your area, and this person has poor hygiene and an irritating personality, under this law, you are not allowed to pay that person less if that person happens to be a woman, even if that person is marginally employable at your company and unemployable anywhere else. Paying that person less could lead to an expensive lawsuit in which you would have to justify why you pay an obnoxious secretary less than a hard-working, pleasant janitor -- even if the janitor is also a woman.Also, employers are required to document every relevant bit of information on why they pay the amount they do. It doesn't appear that "it was the cheapest person I could find" is a valid defense if some bureaucrat somewhere decides that two non-similar jobs are "equivalent", even if nobody in their right mind would consider them equivalent.

No matter how you slice it, this is just another bill that would create more government interference. When are the American people going to wake up tot he fact that the government RARELY makes anything better by getting invovled in it? Good lord, it's not like we don't have plenty of examples of why socialism doesn't work. I guess everyone forgot about that little country over in Western Europe. Understandable, considering how insignificant they have always been to us.

[Spademan 94]

Where did he ever make any "broad general claims" about Obama? Here's his original quote...

No.Obama is showing what he stands for. Obama is "apparently" (a retorical word placed in a spun treatise, used only to give the user an "out") for the repeal of supply and demand.It's quite clear, the tone of the post, is far more than just simple "observations". Spin is boring.And words like "apparently" and "feeling", couched in clearly biased speech, are devices of spin.It comes down to this, I could find a bill that any politician you can name has supported at one time or another, if I were so inclined, that had a measure of folly in it.Then I can write a long, biased statement about how they "seem to be" Nazi's or against puppies breathing. I can use words like assumptions and feelings and how they are beginning to show thier real, satanistic selves. It's meaningless.Find more meat to an issue before you talk about a man's character.P.S.I think Obama's teeth are to big, so I'd never vote for him.

[hblask 1]

No.Obama is showing what he stands for. Obama is "apparently" (a retorical word placed in a spun treatise, used only to give the user an "out") for the repeal of supply and demand.It's quite clear, the tone of the post, is far more than just simple "observations". Spin is boring.And words like "apparently" and "feeling", couched in clearly biased speech, are devices of spin.It comes down to this, I could find a bill that any politician you can name has supported at one time or another, if I were so inclined, that had a measure of folly in it.Then I can write a long, biased statement about how they "seem to be" Nazi's or against puppies breathing. I can use words like assumptions and feelings and how they are beginning to show thier real, satanistic selves. It's meaningless.Find more meat to an issue before you talk about a man's character.P.S.I think Obama's teeth are to big, so I'd never vote for him.

This is a funny response. In this thread I'm being accused of jumping to firm conclusions based on slim evidence. AND ALSO using "spin" words such as "apparently" and "feeling" and therefore not committing to a position.For the record, I meant it in the "he hasn't said much of anything yet, but these first early signs look pretty bad" sense. Not that this is final or decisive evidence, but it's a pretty bad sign.And I should mention, he did sponsor a bill that is making earmarks (i.e., Pork) more visible and traceable, and that bill is a plus for him. And yes, most congresscritters have sponsored ridiculous bills at some point, which is why I won't vote for most of them and think they should be thrown out of office.If Obama comes through with all future actions/statements, and says his goal is to cut government spending by 30%, eliminate several useless federal departments, and end corporate welfare, I could still be pursuaded to vote for him. Anyone want to place odds on that happening?

[Matt_Damon 0]

Matt Damon

[ShakeZuma 585]

Matt Damon

I swear to god it never gets old

[SBriand 4]

If Obama comes through with all future actions/statements, and says his goal is to cut government spending by 30%, eliminate several useless federal departments, and end corporate welfare, I could still be pursuaded to vote for him. Anyone want to place odds on that happening?

How about the odds on ANYONE saying it and actually doing it.Our Gov makes a lot of promises but she can't make them happen sinply becaue the state senate shoots her down. Same happens in DC.So if he said he would do all that do you actually believe he could make any of it happen after you vote him in?He won;t be getting my vote regardless of what he says. Maybe ina couple terms, but now, not a chance.