The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promises | PolitiFact

 

 

45% promises kept and 25% compromised equals 70% issues acted on.

 

8% are still in the works.

 

Democrat platform is different than campaign promises.

The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promises | PolitiFact

 

 

45% promises kept and 25% compromised equals 70% issues acted on.

 

8% are still in the works.

 

iF YOU BUY THAT LINE OF CRAP i HAVE A BRIDGE for sale you might be interested in . ( sorry for the caps )

Democrat platform is different than campaign promises.

 

There were 500 issues between the two elections. My guess is they were pretty close.

iF YOU BUY THAT LINE OF CRAP i HAVE A BRIDGE for sale you might be interested in . ( sorry for the caps )

 

Click it up. 22% were broken promises like I said 8% were still in the works so 30% of the platform/promises have not been met in some fashion.

Click it up. 22% were broken promises like I said 8% were still in the works so 30% of the platform/promises have not been met in some fashion.

 

Which is about dead even with the GOP promise tracker which was at 68%. Not sure how that happens.

$15 minimum wage: Buy stock in Robotics companies

Abolish the death penalty: Buy stock in Glock, S&W, Ruger

Legalize Weed: Buy stock in video game manufacturers and Cheetos

$15 minimum wage: Buy stock in Robotics companies

Abolish the death penalty: Buy stock in Glock, S&W, Ruger

Legalize Weed: Buy stock in video game manufacturers and Cheetos

 

I hope you do well. If I had money on those stupid "Make America Great Again" hats I'd get it out by October. :lol2:

"Extremely careless" leadership for America.

 

Yep. At least the donkeys and elephants have this in common. Let's hope it's a galvanizing platform position that causes the American electorate to seek other options.

There are places the $15 wage is needed: in Kentucky no.

 

I'll have to say I'm intrigued on the abolition of the death penalty. The fiscal argument is a new angle.

 

Legalization of marijuana is overdue, but it is interesting that we have the democrats and libertarians on the same page.

 

That would be in places where other liberal government policies have driven the cost of living up out of this world. Get the government out of fixing economic costs, etc. and everyone will be far better off.

 

And if there is a $15/min wage, that would have to be further adjusted in places it might be warranted. So what would minimum wage be in Seattle or San Fransisco (two cities that passed $15/min wages)? $20/hour + ??

 

If adding to the minimum wage is such a good idea and puts money in the pocket of poor people who will spend it locally thus strengthening the economy why not raise it to $50K a year? The economy should really be smokin' then.

 

That automation is coming, high minimum wage or not. That being said, a $15 minimum wage in most areas isn't a good idea. Set it at a decent level, and let the employers determine what it is worth to them to hire and retain employees.

 

That being said, entry level jobs are important and necessary. We really shouldn't spend so much time demeaning those folks and the work they do. When we constantly tell folks those jobs aren't worth very much, it's no surprise that people aren't rushing out to fill them. When you can't get your Big Mac quickly, that drive through worker suddenly becomes pretty important.

 

I'm all for getting rid of the Death penalty.

 

Lean towards legalizing Marijauna, but really don't care one way or the other.

 

How about let's have the government stop making the decisions and allow the employer AND the employee to come to their own terms. This is really showing people respect. The other is elitists who think they know better than me what is good for my life.

 

You and I agree that entry level jobs are important and necessary but we disagree on what that means. When you raise the cost of labor beyond the value that labor puts back into the company you eliminate a job. The higher the minimum wage, the more unemployment there will be among the unskilled, lack-of-experience worker. Who does this hurt? Young people the most. Their labor is not worth a whole lot. They have to be taught everything and supervised. Historically, this has especially hurt young, African-American males. What's their current unemployment rate? And you want increase the hurdle to hiring them even more? Bad policy.

 

Again...I'm not for a crazy high minimum wage. But I can also tell you, that fast food worker probably physically works harder, in worse conditions than what I do in my position as a Sales Director, and I likely wouldn't last a day on the Front Lines of a busy fast food joint. It's easy to say that it's a low level, unskilled job, and while it doesn't require a college degree to do that job, but it does require specific skills in order to be successful. And we certainly complain endlessly and lose our minds when we feel the job isn't done well and affects us. As I said, I don't feel the government should dictate a high minimum wage, but employers need to recognize what it takes to hire and retain good people. And the places that don't do so, won't succeed regardless of what the minimum wage is. It's really disingenuous to say what a job is "worth". It's insulting to the folks that hold those jobs, especially the ones that are good at it and rely on those jobs to make a living. The way you constantly hear about how bad service is in fast food joints, maybe we need to realize these aren't easy jobs, and should be valued more than they are.

 

Again, I agree with the first sentence in the bolded area. But you have it exactly backwards about what is disingenuous. It is disingenuous for the government to say what a job is worth. Let the employer offer what she thinks a job is worth. If a worker agrees with that assessment, she takes the offer and becomes an employee for that wage. She may negotiate it or refuse it. This is the only way that it isn't "insulting". Both parties making free decisions. Coersion by the government is what is insulting and, I might add, ineffective.

 

Why should the government artificially determine the cost of labor thereby artificially affecting the cost of providing goods and services. The cost of labor should be determined by the value it adds to the goods or service.

 

Again, you do have something correct, employers do "realize what it takes to hire and retain good people." They don't need the government to do that for them. If people don't want to work for a given wage, they don't have to take the job or if they take the job to gain experience and some skills, they can ask for more money later, or ask for a higher position, or shop their services around to another employer. If an employer is paying low wages, the good workers will not go there and it will adversely effect his ability to produce his goods or service and he will be forced to raise his wages to a competitive level.

 

What we have lost sight of is that not every job and its wage is supposed to be able to support a family of four. There are entry level jobs that should not have to pay a wage high-enough on which to raise a family. Low paying jobs are necessary and serve a purpose and are therefore honorable. They allow young, unskilled workers to get some job experience, learn how to work with others and submit to supervisors, and gain some skills so they may take another, higher paying job later. If we price these kinds of jobs out of the market, the people who will suffer the most are the unskilled, young, minority worker. Let's don;t do that. Give them the opportunity to learn and develop a work ethis, so they may advance on their own and make their own choices.

 

This is the most respectful process to everyone involved. Everyone makes their own decisions. It is what a free society is all about. It is the healthiest way to build an economy.

14 executions so far this year in the US.

28 executions last year.

 

Roughly one person getting executed every two weeks over the last 18 months. Not quite a de facto ban.

 

Over 2900 people on Death Row in the US, less than .01% being executed each year...pretty close to a defacto ban.

That's a little hyperbole. Most reports say about 30 cents added to your Big Mac meal. What McDonald's or Walmart offers insurance?

Walmart does...even for Part Time Employees

Walmart does...even for Part Time Employees

 

Thought I had read somewhere where they dropped it for part-timers. I stand corrected.

Walmart does...even for Part Time Employees

In Oct of '14, Walmart cut off health insurance benefits to 30,000 part-timers (less than 30 hours a week). Has the company backtracked on this in the past couple years?

 

 

Wal-Mart to End Health Insurance for Some Part-Time Employees - WSJ

In Oct of '14, Walmart cut off health insurance benefits to 30,000 part-timers (less than 30 hours a week). Has the company backtracked on this in the past couple years?

Wal-Mart to End Health Insurance for Some Part-Time Employees - WSJ

Key word "Some", very few were actually eliminated compared to the number covered.

 

That was less than .025% of total employees (less than 5% of part time employees) that were eliminated for various reasons...99.00%+ of all employees are still eligible to get insurance through Walmart.

 

1.2 million associates out of 1.3 million associates in the US chose to have coverage through Walmart. Most of those choosing not to, from my experience, are retirees that have coverage through retirement coverage, coverage through a spouse or are still covered by their parents.

That would be in places where other liberal government policies have driven the cost of living up out of this world. Get the government out of fixing economic costs, etc. and everyone will be far better off.

 

 

 

If adding to the minimum wage is such a good idea and puts money in the pocket of poor people who will spend it locally thus strengthening the economy why not raise it to $50K a year? The economy should really be smokin' then.

 

 

 

How about let's have the government stop making the decisions and allow the employer AND the employee to come to their own terms. This is really showing people respect. The other is elitists who think they know better than me what is good for my life.

 

You and I agree that entry level jobs are important and necessary but we disagree on what that means. When you raise the cost of labor beyond the value that labor puts back into the company you eliminate a job. The higher the minimum wage, the more unemployment there will be among the unskilled, lack-of-experience worker. Who does this hurt? Young people the most. Their labor is not worth a whole lot. They have to be taught everything and supervised. Historically, this has especially hurt young, African-American males. What's their current unemployment rate? And you want increase the hurdle to hiring them even more? Bad policy.

 

 

 

Again, I agree with the first sentence in the bolded area. But you have it exactly backwards about what is disingenuous. It is disingenuous for the government to say what a job is worth. Let the employer offer what she thinks a job is worth. If a worker agrees with that assessment, she takes the offer and becomes an employee for that wage. She may negotiate it or refuse it. This is the only way that it isn't "insulting". Both parties making free decisions. Coersion by the government is what is insulting and, I might add, ineffective.

 

Why should the government artificially determine the cost of labor thereby artificially affecting the cost of providing goods and services. The cost of labor should be determined by the value it adds to the goods or service.

 

Again, you do have something correct, employers do "realize what it takes to hire and retain good people." They don't need the government to do that for them. If people don't want to work for a given wage, they don't have to take the job or if they take the job to gain experience and some skills, they can ask for more money later, or ask for a higher position, or shop their services around to another employer. If an employer is paying low wages, the good workers will not go there and it will adversely effect his ability to produce his goods or service and he will be forced to raise his wages to a competitive level.

 

What we have lost sight of is that not every job and its wage is supposed to be able to support a family of four. There are entry level jobs that should not have to pay a wage high-enough on which to raise a family. Low paying jobs are necessary and serve a purpose and are therefore honorable. They allow young, unskilled workers to get some job experience, learn how to work with others and submit to supervisors, and gain some skills so they may take another, higher paying job later. If we price these kinds of jobs out of the market, the people who will suffer the most are the unskilled, young, minority worker. Let's don;t do that. Give them the opportunity to learn and develop a work ethis, so they may advance on their own and make their own choices.

 

This is the most respectful process to everyone involved. Everyone makes their own decisions. It is what a free society is all about. It is the healthiest way to build an economy.

Great post. Again, I ask........how many of the $15 min wage enthusiasts on this board, have ever owned/operated a business or met a payroll?