开云体育

ctrl + shift + ? for shortcuts
© 2025 开云体育
  1. Ibmpension
  2. Topics

The Inequality President

 

Here is where I have to not attack Obama.
He is not different in my view than any other president with one exception, he makes a very good set of statements about nailing those evil rich, while behind the scenes getting the middle class. His brand of social warfare/division is pitting the rich against the poor with us in the middle sucking it up. No different than any prior administration, just prettier words and he gets to play the Bush excuse card over and over.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "zimowski@..." <zimowski@...> wrote:

The Inequality President
The rich have done fine under Obamanomics, not so the middle class.

I found this WSJ article to be very thought provoking. How exactly does Obama expect to help the middle class if he's unwilling to compromise on his socialistic views and reach across the aisle to work with Republicans? I know he's an intelligent man. What I don't understand is why he thinks speeches filled with partisan tenor will help him achieve his goals any more than they have over the past 4+ years.

Here's the first few paragraphs. You can read the rest at
.

President Obama made his fourth or fifth, or maybe it's the seventh or eighth, pivot to the economy on Wednesday, and a revealing speech it was. We counted four mentions of "growth" but "inequality" got five. This goes a long way to explaining why Mr. Obama is still bemoaning the state of the economy five years into his Presidency.

The President summed up his economic priorities close to the top of his hour-long address. "This growing inequality isn't just morally wrong; it's bad economics," he told his Galesburg, Illinois audience. "When middle-class families have less to spend, businesses have fewer customers. When wealth concentrates at the very top, it can inflate unstable bubbles that threaten the economy. When the rungs on the ladder of opportunity grow farther apart, it undermines the very essence of this country."

Then the heart of the matter: "That's why reversing these trends must be Washington's highest priority. It's certainly my highest priority."

Which is the problem. For four and a half years, Mr. Obama has focused his policies on reducing inequality rather than increasing growth. The predictable result has been more inequality and less growth. As even Mr. Obama conceded in his speech, the rich have done well in the last few years thanks to a rising stock market, but the middle class and poor have not. The President called his speech "A Better Bargain for the Middle Class," but no President has done worse by the middle class in modern times.
[email protected]
 

Without a doubt, Obama knows how to give a speech. But every speech he gives, pits some segment of the U.S. population against another. Rich vs not so rich. Moral vs immoral. Those with common sense vs those that lack it. Those that look like Travon Martin vs those that don't. Never ending - so divisive - so polarizing. Inflames one side and alienates the other side. Even if he is no different and I'm not so sure I agree, what has he done to improve your life in the 4+ years he's been president? In the words of Ronald Reagan, "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?"

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Kevin W" <nowwicked@...> wrote:

Here is where I have to not attack Obama.
He is not different in my view than any other president with one exception, he makes a very good set of statements about nailing those evil rich, while behind the scenes getting the middle class. His brand of social warfare/division is pitting the rich against the poor with us in the middle sucking it up. No different than any prior administration, just prettier words and he gets to play the Bush excuse card over and over.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "zimowski@" <zimowski@> wrote:

The Inequality President
The rich have done fine under Obamanomics, not so the middle class.

I found this WSJ article to be very thought provoking. How exactly does Obama expect to help the middle class if he's unwilling to compromise on his socialistic views and reach across the aisle to work with Republicans? I know he's an intelligent man. What I don't understand is why he thinks speeches filled with partisan tenor will help him achieve his goals any more than they have over the past 4+ years.

Here's the first few paragraphs. You can read the rest at
.

President Obama made his fourth or fifth, or maybe it's the seventh or eighth, pivot to the economy on Wednesday, and a revealing speech it was. We counted four mentions of "growth" but "inequality" got five. This goes a long way to explaining why Mr. Obama is still bemoaning the state of the economy five years into his Presidency.

The President summed up his economic priorities close to the top of his hour-long address. "This growing inequality isn't just morally wrong; it's bad economics," he told his Galesburg, Illinois audience. "When middle-class families have less to spend, businesses have fewer customers. When wealth concentrates at the very top, it can inflate unstable bubbles that threaten the economy. When the rungs on the ladder of opportunity grow farther apart, it undermines the very essence of this country."

Then the heart of the matter: "That's why reversing these trends must be Washington's highest priority. It's certainly my highest priority."

Which is the problem. For four and a half years, Mr. Obama has focused his policies on reducing inequality rather than increasing growth. The predictable result has been more inequality and less growth. As even Mr. Obama conceded in his speech, the rich have done well in the last few years thanks to a rising stock market, but the middle class and poor have not. The President called his speech "A Better Bargain for the Middle Class," but no President has done worse by the middle class in modern times.
 

The middle class has been having issues for 30 years. It didn't suddenly start with Obama.
?
For decades, basically since the Industrial Revolution, as the productivity of workers increased, their wages increased..... until about 1980, and the advent of the PC, and Reagan getting into office, that is.
?
Since that point in time, workers wages have stagnated, while the richest people in America have seen their wealth jump by leaps and bounds. Again, these are FACTS, remember, not my opinion - unlike the OPINION piece you cite below, where the author talks about her opinion about what Obama's has had as his focus.
?
So, when worker's productivity soared as a result of computers being more and more involved in speeding up the way they could accomplish their jobs, their wages didn't go up to keep up with those productivity gains as it has in the past.
?
That's not Obama's fault.
?
And then your comment about Obama not being willing to compromise? That's demonstrably false too - he has compromised a great deal. The FACTS show us that it's the other side of the aisle that's unwilling to compromise - like with the amount of filibusters from Republican Senators, for example. Like with the content of Obamacare being things that the Republicans had proposed and supported in years past, rather than it being a universal care offering that Democrats had long supported. Like the stimulus bill being almost half tax cuts, although tax cuts aren't nearly so stimulative as other ways to spend money to help out when consumer spending gets greatly restricted during a terrible recession. Asserting that he's not willing to compromise, that Democrats aren't willing to compromise, just isn't an honest attempt to discuss this topic.
?
And you act as though Obama is the first politically partisan president ever. He's not. They all are.


-----Original Message-----
From: zimowski
To: ibmpensionissues
Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 12:47 am
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] The Inequality President

?
The Inequality President
The rich have done fine under Obamanomics, not so the middle class.

I found this WSJ article to be very thought provoking. How exactly does Obama expect to help the middle class if he's unwilling to compromise on his socialistic views and reach across the aisle to work with Republicans? I know he's an intelligent man. What I don't understand is why he thinks speeches filled with partisan tenor will help him achieve his goals any more than they have over the past 4+ years.

Here's the first few paragraphs. You can read the rest at


President Obama made his fourth or fifth, or maybe it's the seventh or eighth, pivot to the economy on Wednesday, and a revealing speech it was. We counted four mentions of "growth" but "inequality" got five. This goes a long way to explaining why Mr. Obama is still bemoaning the state of the economy five years into his Presidency.

The President summed up his economic priorities close to the top of his hour-long address. "This growing inequality isn't just morally wrong; it's bad economics," he told his Galesburg, Illinois audience. "When middle-class families have less to spend, businesses have fewer customers. When wealth concentrates at the very top, it can inflate unstable bubbles that threaten the economy. When the rungs on the ladder of opportunity grow farther apart, it undermines the very essence of this country."

Then the heart of the matter: "That's why reversing these trends must be Washington's highest priority. It's certainly my highest priority."

Which is the problem. For four and a half years, Mr. Obama has focused his policies on reducing inequality rather than increasing growth. The predictable result has been more inequality and less growth. As even Mr. Obama conceded in his speech, the rich have done well in the last few years thanks to a rising stock market, but the middle class and poor have not. The President called his speech "A Better Bargain for the Middle Class," but no President has done worse by the middle class in modern times.
[email protected]
 

The purpose of my post was to talk about the here and now. Can you please explain how Obama's Galesburg speech did anything to bring the two opposing sides together to facilitate a discussion that might benefit the middle class?

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., Sue Runyon <Slouise217@...> wrote:


The middle class has been having issues for 30 years. It didn't suddenly start with Obama.

For decades, basically since the Industrial Revolution, as the productivity of workers increased, their wages increased..... until about 1980, and the advent of the PC, and Reagan getting into office, that is.

Since that point in time, workers wages have stagnated, while the richest people in America have seen their wealth jump by leaps and bounds. Again, these are FACTS, remember, not my opinion - unlike the OPINION piece you cite below, where the author talks about her opinion about what Obama's has had as his focus.

So, when worker's productivity soared as a result of computers being more and more involved in speeding up the way they could accomplish their jobs, their wages didn't go up to keep up with those productivity gains as it has in the past.

That's not Obama's fault.

And then your comment about Obama not being willing to compromise? That's demonstrably false too - he has compromised a great deal. The FACTS show us that it's the other side of the aisle that's unwilling to compromise - like with the amount of filibusters from Republican Senators, for example. Like with the content of Obamacare being things that the Republicans had proposed and supported in years past, rather than it being a universal care offering that Democrats had long supported. Like the stimulus bill being almost half tax cuts, although tax cuts aren't nearly so stimulative as other ways to spend money to help out when consumer spending gets greatly restricted during a terrible recession. Asserting that he's not willing to compromise, that Democrats aren't willing to compromise, just isn't an honest attempt to discuss this topic.

And you act as though Obama is the first politically partisan president ever. He's not. They all are.



-----Original Message-----
From: zimowski <zimowski@...>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 12:47 am
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] The Inequality President




The Inequality President
The rich have done fine under Obamanomics, not so the middle class.

I found this WSJ article to be very thought provoking. How exactly does Obama expect to help the middle class if he's unwilling to compromise on his socialistic views and reach across the aisle to work with Republicans? I know he's an intelligent man. What I don't understand is why he thinks speeches filled with partisan tenor will help him achieve his goals any more than they have over the past 4+ years.

Here's the first few paragraphs. You can read the rest at
.

President Obama made his fourth or fifth, or maybe it's the seventh or eighth, pivot to the economy on Wednesday, and a revealing speech it was. We counted four mentions of "growth" but "inequality" got five. This goes a long way to explaining why Mr. Obama is still bemoaning the state of the economy five years into his Presidency.

The President summed up his economic priorities close to the top of his hour-long address. "This growing inequality isn't just morally wrong; it's bad economics," he told his Galesburg, Illinois audience. "When middle-class families have less to spend, businesses have fewer customers. When wealth concentrates at the very top, it can inflate unstable bubbles that threaten the economy. When the rungs on the ladder of opportunity grow farther apart, it undermines the very essence of this country."

Then the heart of the matter: "That's why reversing these trends must be Washington's highest priority. It's certainly my highest priority."

Which is the problem. For four and a half years, Mr. Obama has focused his policies on reducing inequality rather than increasing growth. The predictable result has been more inequality and less growth. As even Mr. Obama conceded in his speech, the rich have done well in the last few years thanks to a rising stock market, but the middle class and poor have not. The President called his speech "A Better Bargain for the Middle Class," but no President has done worse by the middle class in modern times.
weinerisnospitzer
 

quote from: MARK SIMONE &#8207;@MarkSimoneNY

President Obama: "If I had a city, it would look like Detroit"

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., Sue Runyon <Slouise217@...> wrote:
The middle class has been having issues for 30 years. It didn't suddenly start with Obama.
 

There is nothing that I can credit him with that has improved my life in the past 6 years, I haven't seen anything he has done that will after he is gone help improve my life.
You see, this country has spent more money than it has taken in every year since 1957. We have some play numbers out there people use to say Clinton had us on the road to recovery, but no matter where you stand on that issue, if you use the Treasury numbers where the debt has been published/tracked for every year you will see that very few of us here have lived long enough to have seen the debt reduced.
If Obama or any other president wanted to make our lives better they would have focused on one thing and one thing alone, that would have been finding a way to help create jobs. Even if the jobs were on the government debt, rebuilding our infrastructure, failing bridges, roads, the grid, anything that makes the country more efficient and incents business to feel things are better.
Rich people create lots of jobs when they believe they can make more money.
Middle society people create some jobs as they find money to spare for having things done for them and eating out, etc.
Poor people create no jobs.

Making rich people and the middle class poor because somehow being rich is evil does nothing but accelerate us towards the end.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "zimowski@..." <zimowski@...> wrote:

Without a doubt, Obama knows how to give a speech. But every speech he gives, pits some segment of the U.S. population against another. Rich vs not so rich. Moral vs immoral. Those with common sense vs those that lack it. Those that look like Travon Martin vs those that don't. Never ending - so divisive - so polarizing. Inflames one side and alienates the other side. Even if he is no different and I'm not so sure I agree, what has he done to improve your life in the 4+ years he's been president? In the words of Ronald Reagan, "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?"
--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Kevin W" <nowwicked@> wrote:

Here is where I have to not attack Obama.
He is not different in my view than any other president with one exception, he makes a very good set of statements about nailing those evil rich, while behind the scenes getting the middle class. His brand of social warfare/division is pitting the rich against the poor with us in the middle sucking it up. No different than any prior administration, just prettier words and he gets to play the Bush excuse card over and over.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "zimowski@" <zimowski@> wrote:

The Inequality President
The rich have done fine under Obamanomics, not so the middle class.

I found this WSJ article to be very thought provoking. How exactly does Obama expect to help the middle class if he's unwilling to compromise on his socialistic views and reach across the aisle to work with Republicans? I know he's an intelligent man. What I don't understand is why he thinks speeches filled with partisan tenor will help him achieve his goals any more than they have over the past 4+ years.

Here's the first few paragraphs. You can read the rest at
.

President Obama made his fourth or fifth, or maybe it's the seventh or eighth, pivot to the economy on Wednesday, and a revealing speech it was. We counted four mentions of "growth" but "inequality" got five. This goes a long way to explaining why Mr. Obama is still bemoaning the state of the economy five years into his Presidency.

The President summed up his economic priorities close to the top of his hour-long address. "This growing inequality isn't just morally wrong; it's bad economics," he told his Galesburg, Illinois audience. "When middle-class families have less to spend, businesses have fewer customers. When wealth concentrates at the very top, it can inflate unstable bubbles that threaten the economy. When the rungs on the ladder of opportunity grow farther apart, it undermines the very essence of this country."

Then the heart of the matter: "That's why reversing these trends must be Washington's highest priority. It's certainly my highest priority."

Which is the problem. For four and a half years, Mr. Obama has focused his policies on reducing inequality rather than increasing growth. The predictable result has been more inequality and less growth. As even Mr. Obama conceded in his speech, the rich have done well in the last few years thanks to a rising stock market, but the middle class and poor have not. The President called his speech "A Better Bargain for the Middle Class," but no President has done worse by the middle class in modern times.
edward_berkline
 

If Obama or any other president wanted to make our lives better
they would have focused on one thing and one thing alone, that
would have been finding a way to help create jobs. Even if the
jobs were on the government debt, rebuilding our infrastructure,
failing bridges, roads, the grid, anything that makes the country
more efficient and incents business to feel things are better.
Obama proposed a jobs bill nearly 2 years ago. For the most part, it has been blocked by Republicans. And yes, a few Democrats were who were afraid for their chances of getting re-elected opposed parts of it, too.

Poor people create no jobs.
Not true at all. Although poor people may not run huge companies and hire lots of employees, poor people do buy stuff just like anyone else, and that in itself creates jobs. And some of them actually do run small businesses and do hire people.


--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Kevin W" <nowwicked@...> wrote:

There is nothing that I can credit him with that has improved my life in the past 6 years, I haven't seen anything he has done that will after he is gone help improve my life.
You see, this country has spent more money than it has taken in every year since 1957. We have some play numbers out there people use to say Clinton had us on the road to recovery, but no matter where you stand on that issue, if you use the Treasury numbers where the debt has been published/tracked for every year you will see that very few of us here have lived long enough to have seen the debt reduced.
If Obama or any other president wanted to make our lives better they would have focused on one thing and one thing alone, that would have been finding a way to help create jobs. Even if the jobs were on the government debt, rebuilding our infrastructure, failing bridges, roads, the grid, anything that makes the country more efficient and incents business to feel things are better.
Rich people create lots of jobs when they believe they can make more money.
Middle society people create some jobs as they find money to spare for having things done for them and eating out, etc.
Poor people create no jobs.

Making rich people and the middle class poor because somehow being rich is evil does nothing but accelerate us towards the end.
Sheila Beaudry
 

President Bush- If I had a country it would look like the Great Recession.

From: weinerisnospitzer
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 3:21 PM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: The Inequality President
?
quote from: MARK SIMONE ?@MarkSimoneNY

President Obama: "If I had a city, it would look like Detroit"

--- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, Sue Runyon wrote:
> The middle class has been having issues for 30 years. It didn't suddenly start with Obama.

 

Your failure to understand that there's a national debt, which is affected by long term deficits and interest payments, and a yearly deficit or surplus, is your shortcoming, not the problem of people using "play numbers". Clinton did have budget surpluses. Yes, the national debt grew during those years, but his behavior dampened the curve - which is the first step. Then Bush passed tax cuts, while likely unwise on their own, became really tragic when we had a recession after 9/11 and then two unfunded wars and a prescription drug benefit giveaway.
?
Clinton had us headed on the right path. Bush derailed us.
?
These are facts.
?
And Obama wanted to concentrate on creating jobs - but the Republicans have repeatedly stymied him. Remember, he only had a filibuster-proof majority for a couple of months - between when Franken got installed in office and when Kennedy died. Blaming Obama for the lack of progress on jobs growth is ludicrous and unsupportable in any way UNLESS you want to blame him for trying to hard to get buy-in and cooperation from the Republicans!
?
Geesh.
?
Oh, and every consumer in America helps create jobs. It's the people who buy products who create the demand that creates jobs. It does no good to create a job and make a product or provide a service if no one wants to purchase that product or use that service. Our economy is driven by consumer demand. It's demand that creates jobs - so yeah, poor people create jobs too.
?
This back-assward thinking - that wealthy people create jobs, and if you punish them too much they won't create jobs, is crazy talk. They won't create any jobs if there isn't a need to be filled - and that need is created by consumer demand. If there's a demand, someone will fill that demand by making that product or providing that service.
?
Now, rich business owners can create MORE jobs by spending their profits to invest in their business's future, or they can refrain from doing so. They can invest in the future for their children (and everyone else's children)?by using their capital and borrowing money to increase the productivity of their employees. And now would be a great time to do it, especially with interest rates so frickin' low for the past 5 years or so. But many of them haven't done it. But that's not because it's a bad idea to have taken those steps. It's because they've been misled by rightwing media that it'd be a bad idea to do it, or, even worse, because they don't want to help out the economy while Obama is in office. They're willing to cut off their noses to spite their faces. It's like Bill O'Reilly saying that if his taxes get raised, he'd quit - like getting $30 million take-home from his $40 million a year salary is too great a burden to bear, so he'd rather quit and get nothing if he can't have $35 million from his $40 million a year salary. He'd rather quit and get nothing? Really?

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin W
To: ibmpensionissues
Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 7:44 pm
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: The Inequality President

?
There is nothing that I can credit him with that has improved my life in the past 6 years, I haven't seen anything he has done that will after he is gone help improve my life.
You see, this country has spent more money than it has taken in every year since 1957. We have some play numbers out there people use to say Clinton had us on the road to recovery, but no matter where you stand on that issue, if you use the Treasury numbers where the debt has been published/tracked for every year you will see that very few of us here have lived long enough to have seen the debt reduced.
If Obama or any other president wanted to make our lives better they would have focused on one thing and one thing alone, that would have been finding a way to help create jobs. Even if the jobs were on the government debt, rebuilding our infrastructure, failing bridges, roads, the grid, anything that makes the country more efficient and incents business to feel things are better.
Rich people create lots of jobs when they believe they can make more money.
Middle society people create some jobs as they find money to spare for having things done for them and eating out, etc.
Poor people create no jobs.

Making rich people and the middle class poor because somehow being rich is evil does nothing but accelerate us towards the end.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "zimowski@..." wrote:
>
> Without a doubt, Obama knows how to give a speech. But every speech he gives, pits some segment of the U.S. population against another. Rich vs not so rich. Moral vs immoral. Those with common sense vs those that lack it. Those that look like Travon Martin vs those that don't. Never ending - so divisive - so polarizing. Inflames one side and alienates the other side. Even if he is no different and I'm not so sure I agree, what has he done to improve your life in the 4+ years he's been president? In the words of Ronald Reagan, "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?"
> --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Kevin W" wrote:
> >
> > Here is where I have to not attack Obama.
> > He is not different in my view than any other president with one exception, he makes a very good set of statements about nailing those evil rich, while behind the scenes getting the middle class. His brand of social warfare/division is pitting the rich against the poor with us in the middle sucking it up. No different than any prior administration, just prettier words and he gets to play the Bush excuse card over and over.
> >
> > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "zimowski@" wrote:
> > >
> > > The Inequality President
> > > The rich have done fine under Obamanomics, not so the middle class.
> > >
> > > I found this WSJ article to be very thought provoking. How exactly does Obama expect to help the middle class if he's unwilling to compromise on his socialistic views and reach across the aisle to work with Republicans? I know he's an intelligent man. What I don't understand is why he thinks speeches filled with partisan tenor will help him achieve his goals any more than they have over the past 4+ years.
> > >
> > > Here's the first few paragraphs. You can read the rest at
> > >
> > >
> > > President Obama made his fourth or fifth, or maybe it's the seventh or eighth, pivot to the economy on Wednesday, and a revealing speech it was. We counted four mentions of "growth" but "inequality" got five. This goes a long way to explaining why Mr. Obama is still bemoaning the state of the economy five years into his Presidency.
> > >
> > > The President summed up his economic priorities close to the top of his hour-long address. "This growing inequality isn't just morally wrong; it's bad economics," he told his Galesburg, Illinois audience. "When middle-class families have less to spend, businesses have fewer customers. When wealth concentrates at the very top, it can inflate unstable bubbles that threaten the economy. When the rungs on the ladder of opportunity grow farther apart, it undermines the very essence of this country."
> > >
> > > Then the heart of the matter: "That's why reversing these trends must be Washington's highest priority. It's certainly my highest priority."
> > >
> > > Which is the problem. For four and a half years, Mr. Obama has focused his policies on reducing inequality rather than increasing growth. The predictable result has been more inequality and less growth. As even Mr. Obama conceded in his speech, the rich have done well in the last few years thanks to a rising stock market, but the middle class and poor have not. The President called his speech "A Better Bargain for the Middle Class," but no President has done worse by the middle class in modern times.
> > >
> >
>
 

The WSJ used a distortion of historical fact to attack Obama - that's why I discussed historical fact.
?
Attacking Obama for the problems the middle class has currently, and has had for decades, isn't fair.
?
Obama can't bring the opposing side to him if they won't move from their spots. Obama HAS moved from his spot time after time after time. He wanted to close Guantanamo, but the Republicans in Congress haven't allowed him to - so it hasn't been closed. Obama wanted to have much more stimulus in the original stimulus bill, but they allowed the Republicans to insist upon and GET almost half of the stimulus bill to be tax cuts. Obama wanted to get rid of all of?the Bush tax cuts, but in an effort to compromise with Republicans, he gave up on that demand several times. I could cite 20 more instances very easily. The idea that the problem is Obama not reaching out to the other side, that Obama's too politically partisan, that he's too far left, is disproven by every fact we have available. Again, I'm talking about factual information, not opinion.
?
Obama's speech was to the American public. We have to get the American public to put pressure on their Republican representatives to make them understand that the public interest is best served by a Republican party that's willing to compromise, so that we have TWO parties that are both willing to compromise. We already have one party that's willing to compromise - the Democrats.
?
It defies reality to suggest that Obama isn't willing to compromise, and that this speech is a demonstration of that lack of desire.
?
Oh, and I DID talk about "the purpose" of your post in MY post replying to you. Maybe next time you can read my entire post instead of stopping after a couple of paragraphs.

-----Original Message-----
From: zimowski <zimowski@...>
To: ibmpensionissues
Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 11:25 am
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: The Inequality President

?
The purpose of my post was to talk about the here and now. Can you please explain how Obama's Galesburg speech did anything to bring the two opposing sides together to facilitate a discussion that might benefit the middle class?

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., Sue Runyon wrote:
>
>
> The middle class has been having issues for 30 years. It didn't suddenly start with Obama.
>
> For decades, basically since the Industrial Revolution, as the productivity of workers increased, their wages increased..... until about 1980, and the advent of the PC, and Reagan getting into office, that is.
>
> Since that point in time, workers wages have stagnated, while the richest people in America have seen their wealth jump by leaps and bounds. Again, these are FACTS, remember, not my opinion - unlike the OPINION piece you cite below, where the author talks about her opinion about what Obama's has had as his focus.
>
> So, when worker's productivity soared as a result of computers being more and more involved in speeding up the way they could accomplish their jobs, their wages didn't go up to keep up with those productivity gains as it has in the past.
>
> That's not Obama's fault.
>
> And then your comment about Obama not being willing to compromise? That's demonstrably false too - he has compromised a great deal. The FACTS show us that it's the other side of the aisle that's unwilling to compromise - like with the amount of filibusters from Republican Senators, for example. Like with the content of Obamacare being things that the Republicans had proposed and supported in years past, rather than it being a universal care offering that Democrats had long supported. Like the stimulus bill being almost half tax cuts, although tax cuts aren't nearly so stimulative as other ways to spend money to help out when consumer spending gets greatly restricted during a terrible recession. Asserting that he's not willing to compromise, that Democrats aren't willing to compromise, just isn't an honest attempt to discuss this topic.
>
> And you act as though Obama is the first politically partisan president ever. He's not. They all are.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: zimowski
> To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
> Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 12:47 am
> Subject: [ibmpensionissues] The Inequality President
>
>
>
>
> The Inequality President
> The rich have done fine under Obamanomics, not so the middle class.
>
> I found this WSJ article to be very thought provoking. How exactly does Obama expect to help the middle class if he's unwilling to compromise on his socialistic views and reach across the aisle to work with Republicans? I know he's an intelligent man. What I don't understand is why he thinks speeches filled with partisan tenor will help him achieve his goals any more than they have over the past 4+ years.
>
> Here's the first few paragraphs. You can read the rest at
>
>
> President Obama made his fourth or fifth, or maybe it's the seventh or eighth, pivot to the economy on Wednesday, and a revealing speech it was. We counted four mentions of "growth" but "inequality" got five. This goes a long way to explaining why Mr. Obama is still bemoaning the state of the economy five years into his Presidency.
>
> The President summed up his economic priorities close to the top of his hour-long address. "This growing inequality isn't just morally wrong; it's bad economics," he told his Galesburg, Illinois audience. "When middle-class families have less to spend, businesses have fewer customers. When wealth concentrates at the very top, it can inflate unstable bubbles that threaten the economy. When the rungs on the ladder of opportunity grow farther apart, it undermines the very essence of this country."
>
> Then the heart of the matter: "That's why reversing these trends must be Washington's highest priority. It's certainly my highest priority."
>
> Which is the problem. For four and a half years, Mr. Obama has focused his policies on reducing inequality rather than increasing growth. The predictable result has been more inequality and less growth. As even Mr. Obama conceded in his speech, the rich have done well in the last few years thanks to a rising stock market, but the middle class and poor have not. The President called his speech "A Better Bargain for the Middle Class," but no President has done worse by the middle class in modern times.
>
[email protected]
 

If Obama truly wants to work with Republicans, then why does he continue to alienate Republicans in the speeches he gives? And why does he travel across the country doing it, at taxpayer expense, when the people he really needs to talk to are in Washington D.C.? How can he compromise with Republicans from a college campus in Galesburg, IL? What exactly has he done for the middle class since he became president? I'm not blaming Obama for the last few decades, but I think he needs to take responsibility for the last 5 years. He is the most powerful person in the United States. It is his responsibility to figure out how to lead the Executive Branch and to figure out how to work with the Legislative and Judicial Branches to make this country better for all American citizens. No one said it was going to be easy, but alienating the people that you need to work with in nearly every televised speech that you give is not going to help. Rubbing salt in the wounds of your adversaries after every hard fought victory is not going to help. Obama cannot be re-elected, so why is he still giving campaign style speeches? I think the answer is clear. This is one of the few skills that he has. He does not have the skill and experience to work with adversaries, to compromise, to negotiate, to do all the things that successful leaders are good at. He's simply doesn't have the skills to be a successful President. I'm still wondering: What exactly has he done for the middle class since he became president? Bill Clinton is an example of a successful president that had the right skills. Ronald Reagan is another. I'm hoping our next president, whether he be a Democrat or Republican, will have the rights skills to do the job.

I, BTW, could provide my own list of the ways in which Republicans have compromised and attempted to work with Obama and the Democrats in Congress, but I'm not interested in extending this pissing contest. The fact remains that the two sides are further apart than ever. It is the President's job to figure out how to bring them together. He has failed to do so and I believe he's incapable of doing so because he doesn't know how to do it. His primary goal at this point is simply to make a concerted attempt to garner votes for the midterm elections in the hope that Democrats will retain control of the Senate and regain control of the House. But what did he even achieve as President during his first 2 years when the Democrats had control of everything? Not much, aside from ACA. He just doesn't know how to work with people.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., Sue Runyon <Slouise217@...> wrote:


The WSJ used a distortion of historical fact to attack Obama - that's why I discussed historical fact.

Attacking Obama for the problems the middle class has currently, and has had for decades, isn't fair.

Obama can't bring the opposing side to him if they won't move from their spots. Obama HAS moved from his spot time after time after time. He wanted to close Guantanamo, but the Republicans in Congress haven't allowed him to - so it hasn't been closed. Obama wanted to have much more stimulus in the original stimulus bill, but they allowed the Republicans to insist upon and GET almost half of the stimulus bill to be tax cuts. Obama wanted to get rid of all of the Bush tax cuts, but in an effort to compromise with Republicans, he gave up on that demand several times. I could cite 20 more instances very easily. The idea that the problem is Obama not reaching out to the other side, that Obama's too politically partisan, that he's too far left, is disproven by every fact we have available. Again, I'm talking about factual information, not opinion.

Obama's speech was to the American public. We have to get the American public to put pressure on their Republican representatives to make them understand that the public interest is best served by a Republican party that's willing to compromise, so that we have TWO parties that are both willing to compromise. We already have one party that's willing to compromise - the Democrats.

It defies reality to suggest that Obama isn't willing to compromise, and that this speech is a demonstration of that lack of desire.

Oh, and I DID talk about "the purpose" of your post in MY post replying to you. Maybe next time you can read my entire post instead of stopping after a couple of paragraphs.


-----Original Message-----
From: zimowski <zimowski@...>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 11:25 am
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: The Inequality President






The purpose of my post was to talk about the here and now. Can you please explain how Obama's Galesburg speech did anything to bring the two opposing sides together to facilitate a discussion that might benefit the middle class?

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., Sue Runyon <Slouise217@> wrote:


The middle class has been having issues for 30 years. It didn't suddenly start with Obama.

For decades, basically since the Industrial Revolution, as the productivity of workers increased, their wages increased..... until about 1980, and the advent of the PC, and Reagan getting into office, that is.

Since that point in time, workers wages have stagnated, while the richest people in America have seen their wealth jump by leaps and bounds. Again, these are FACTS, remember, not my opinion - unlike the OPINION piece you cite below, where the author talks about her opinion about what Obama's has had as his focus.

So, when worker's productivity soared as a result of computers being more and more involved in speeding up the way they could accomplish their jobs, their wages didn't go up to keep up with those productivity gains as it has in the past.

That's not Obama's fault.

And then your comment about Obama not being willing to compromise? That's demonstrably false too - he has compromised a great deal. The FACTS show us that it's the other side of the aisle that's unwilling to compromise - like with the amount of filibusters from Republican Senators, for example. Like with the content of Obamacare being things that the Republicans had proposed and supported in years past, rather than it being a universal care offering that Democrats had long supported. Like the stimulus bill being almost half tax cuts, although tax cuts aren't nearly so stimulative as other ways to spend money to help out when consumer spending gets greatly restricted during a terrible recession. Asserting that he's not willing to compromise, that Democrats aren't willing to compromise, just isn't an honest attempt to discuss this topic.

And you act as though Obama is the first politically partisan president ever. He's not. They all are.



-----Original Message-----
From: zimowski <zimowski@>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 12:47 am
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] The Inequality President




The Inequality President
The rich have done fine under Obamanomics, not so the middle class.

I found this WSJ article to be very thought provoking. How exactly does Obama expect to help the middle class if he's unwilling to compromise on his socialistic views and reach across the aisle to work with Republicans? I know he's an intelligent man. What I don't understand is why he thinks speeches filled with partisan tenor will help him achieve his goals any more than they have over the past 4+ years.

Here's the first few paragraphs. You can read the rest at
.

President Obama made his fourth or fifth, or maybe it's the seventh or eighth, pivot to the economy on Wednesday, and a revealing speech it was. We counted four mentions of "growth" but "inequality" got five. This goes a long way to explaining why Mr. Obama is still bemoaning the state of the economy five years into his Presidency.

The President summed up his economic priorities close to the top of his hour-long address. "This growing inequality isn't just morally wrong; it's bad economics," he told his Galesburg, Illinois audience. "When middle-class families have less to spend, businesses have fewer customers. When wealth concentrates at the very top, it can inflate unstable bubbles that threaten the economy. When the rungs on the ladder of opportunity grow farther apart, it undermines the very essence of this country."

Then the heart of the matter: "That's why reversing these trends must be Washington's highest priority. It's certainly my highest priority."

Which is the problem. For four and a half years, Mr. Obama has focused his policies on reducing inequality rather than increasing growth. The predictable result has been more inequality and less growth. As even Mr. Obama conceded in his speech, the rich have done well in the last few years thanks to a rising stock market, but the middle class and poor have not. The President called his speech "A Better Bargain for the Middle Class," but no President has done worse by the middle class in modern times.
weinerisnospitzer
 

Zim,
Please, read the comment from Gloves Donahue, Jr. over at:


and feel the love and support for what you are saying!

source:

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "zimowski@..." <zimowski@...> wrote:

If Obama truly wants to work with Republicans, then why does he continue to alienate Republicans in the speeches he gives?
[email protected]
 

When Obama was elected in 2008, he had the unique opportunity as the first black president to make a real difference for black Americans. If the Washington Times is correct (and I suspect they are at least close to being correct), he has completely squandered this opportunity:

The Washington Times reports:
"Under Reagan, adult black unemployment fell by 20 percent, but under Mr. Obama, it has increased by 42 percent.

Black teenage unemployment fell by 16 percent under Reagan, but has risen by 56 percent under Mr. Obama.

The increase in unemployment rates has been far worse for blacks under Mr. Obama than for whites and Hispanics.

Inflation-adjusted real incomes are slightly higher for Hispanics and whites than they were in 2008, but are lower for blacks.

The labor force participation rate has fallen for all groups, but remains far lower for blacks than for whites and Hispanics."

Instead, he has divided the country into opposing camps in every imaginable way: Democrat vs Republican, rich vs not so rich, blacks and people of color vs everyone else, etc. etc. etc.. He has incited racial discord and violence at a time when his success at being elected should have convinced all that anyone from any background and of any color can become the most powerful person in the world. And for what? Just so hard to understand......

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., weinerisnospitzer <no_reply@...> wrote:

Zim,
Please, read the comment from Gloves Donahue, Jr. over at:


and feel the love and support for what you are saying!

source:


--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "zimowski@" <zimowski@> wrote:

If Obama truly wants to work with Republicans, then why does he continue to alienate Republicans in the speeches he gives?
edward_berkline
 

Under Reagan, unemployment for blacks soared to almost 21%, while under Obama, it reached only 16.7%. 16.7% is nothing to be happy about, but Reagan made things much worse for blacks than Obama has.

Under Reagan, the increase in unemployment was worse for blacks than it was for whites, as it is in almost any recession.

Any your statement that "He has incited racial discord and violence" is truly laughable. I know the wackos on Fox make claims like this all the time. But it says a lot about you if you fall for that crap.

Obama has said he is president of all Americans, not just blacks.
I'm sure that if Obama were to do something that focused specifically on Blacks, the right wingnuts would all be screaming bloody murder about it being blatant reverse discrimination and pointing out how Obama is dividing the country.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "zimowski@..." <zimowski@...> wrote:

When Obama was elected in 2008, he had the unique opportunity as the first black president to make a real difference for black Americans. If the Washington Times is correct (and I suspect they are at least close to being correct), he has completely squandered this opportunity:

The Washington Times reports:
"Under Reagan, adult black unemployment fell by 20 percent, but under Mr. Obama, it has increased by 42 percent.

Black teenage unemployment fell by 16 percent under Reagan, but has risen by 56 percent under Mr. Obama.

The increase in unemployment rates has been far worse for blacks under Mr. Obama than for whites and Hispanics.

Inflation-adjusted real incomes are slightly higher for Hispanics and whites than they were in 2008, but are lower for blacks.

The labor force participation rate has fallen for all groups, but remains far lower for blacks than for whites and Hispanics."

Instead, he has divided the country into opposing camps in every imaginable way: Democrat vs Republican, rich vs not so rich, blacks and people of color vs everyone else, etc. etc. etc.. He has incited racial discord and violence at a time when his success at being elected should have convinced all that anyone from any background and of any color can become the most powerful person in the world. And for what? Just so hard to understand......
icarlosdanger
 

Hey Eddie,
That really takes the cake.


Quick, get outside from parent's basement and get some sun & exercise!

Speaking of cakes, Eddie--is this cake racist?

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., edward_berkline <no_reply@...> wrote:

Under Reagan, unemployment for blacks soared to almost 21%, while under Obama, it reached only 16.7%. 16.7% is nothing to be happy about, but Reagan made things much worse for blacks than Obama has.
[email protected]
 

Still not interested in how Obama compares to previous presidents. It's not relevant, because past presidents, especially deceased ones, are no longer in the position that Obama is in to make a difference.

Let me give you an example of how I think Obama has incited racial discord and violence. There are many things he could have said and done following both the shooting of Trayvon Martin and the verdict in the George Zimmerman case. He chose to make comments that energized the racial divide in this country and that I believe incited and emboldened some within the black community (e.g. in Oakland, CA) to break windows and destroy the property of those who had nothing to do with what happened in Florida.

I am so disappointed by what Obama has achieved as president, I view him as the president of no Americans. He has achieved little and I can not point to a single thing he has done that has improved my life. In fact, he has achieved just the opposite. As the recent polls suggest, this is not an isolated view.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., edward_berkline <no_reply@...> wrote:

Under Reagan, unemployment for blacks soared to almost 21%, while under Obama, it reached only 16.7%. 16.7% is nothing to be happy about, but Reagan made things much worse for blacks than Obama has.

Under Reagan, the increase in unemployment was worse for blacks than it was for whites, as it is in almost any recession.

Any your statement that "He has incited racial discord and violence" is truly laughable. I know the wackos on Fox make claims like this all the time. But it says a lot about you if you fall for that crap.

Obama has said he is president of all Americans, not just blacks.
I'm sure that if Obama were to do something that focused specifically on Blacks, the right wingnuts would all be screaming bloody murder about it being blatant reverse discrimination and pointing out how Obama is dividing the country.


--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "zimowski@" <zimowski@> wrote:

When Obama was elected in 2008, he had the unique opportunity as the first black president to make a real difference for black Americans. If the Washington Times is correct (and I suspect they are at least close to being correct), he has completely squandered this opportunity:

The Washington Times reports:
"Under Reagan, adult black unemployment fell by 20 percent, but under Mr. Obama, it has increased by 42 percent.

Black teenage unemployment fell by 16 percent under Reagan, but has risen by 56 percent under Mr. Obama.

The increase in unemployment rates has been far worse for blacks under Mr. Obama than for whites and Hispanics.

Inflation-adjusted real incomes are slightly higher for Hispanics and whites than they were in 2008, but are lower for blacks.

The labor force participation rate has fallen for all groups, but remains far lower for blacks than for whites and Hispanics."

Instead, he has divided the country into opposing camps in every imaginable way: Democrat vs Republican, rich vs not so rich, blacks and people of color vs everyone else, etc. etc. etc.. He has incited racial discord and violence at a time when his success at being elected should have convinced all that anyone from any background and of any color can become the most powerful person in the world. And for what? Just so hard to understand......
edward_berkline
 

Still not interested in how Obama compares to previous presidents.
It's not relevant, ...
And yet, you are the one who brought up the record of previous presidents by quoting the article from the Washington Times that compared Obama to Reagan!

Your better get your story straight, Mel. You're making yourself look foolish.

As to Obama inciting violence, here is a quote from his speech after the Zimmerman verdict:

"Now, the question for me at least, and I think for a lot of folks, is where do we take this? How do we learn some lessons from this and move in a positive direction? I think it's understandable that there have been demonstrations and vigils and protests, and some of that stuff is just going to have to work its way through, as long as it remains nonviolent. If I see any violence, then I will remind folks that that dishonors what happened to Trayvon Martin and his family. But beyond protests or vigils, the question is, are there some concrete things that we might be able to do."

Please explain how you think that this incites violence.

You've told us all what a wonderful life you have. And you're disappointed that Obama has squandered (in your opinion) his opportunity to improve things for blacks. And yet you are complaining that Obama hasn't done anything to improve YOUR life! So, do you want him to focus on improving things for the people who need it most, or just you? Again, you are being very inconsistent.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "zimowski@..." <zimowski@...> wrote:

Still not interested in how Obama compares to previous presidents. It's not relevant, because past presidents, especially deceased ones, are no longer in the position that Obama is in to make a difference.

Let me give you an example of how I think Obama has incited racial discord and violence. There are many things he could have said and done following both the shooting of Trayvon Martin and the verdict in the George Zimmerman case. He chose to make comments that energized the racial divide in this country and that I believe incited and emboldened some within the black community (e.g. in Oakland, CA) to break windows and destroy the property of those who had nothing to do with what happened in Florida.

I am so disappointed by what Obama has achieved as president, I view him as the president of no Americans. He has achieved little and I can not point to a single thing he has done that has improved my life. In fact, he has achieved just the opposite. As the recent polls suggest, this is not an isolated view.
icarlosdanger
 

Eddie, Ladies:



They're harvesting email addresses!

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., edward_berkline


Your better get your story straight, Mel. You're making yourself look foolish.
edward_berkline
 

If you look at the graph, you can see that the black unemployment rate was higher in the 1980's than it has been under Obama. You can read graphs, can't you?

And if you actually read the article you linked to, you will see that it says "Black Unemployment: Highest is 27 years" which only looks at the data back to 1984, and doesn't include 1983, when black unemployment peaked at almost 21%.

You're looking pretty foolish, Carlos.

Is the picture racist? No. But it appears that you are.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., icarlosdanger <no_reply@...> wrote:

Hey Eddie,
That really takes the cake.


Quick, get outside from parent's basement and get some sun & exercise!

Speaking of cakes, Eddie--is this cake racist?
[email protected]
 

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., edward_berkline <no_reply@...> wrote:

Still not interested in how Obama compares to previous presidents.
It's not relevant, ...
And yet, you are the one who brought up the record of previous presidents by quoting the article from the Washington Times that compared Obama to Reagan!

Your better get your story straight, Mel. You're making yourself look foolish.
I just copied a section from the article referenced by the post I was responding to. For me the import of the copied material were the Obama numbers, not the Reagan numbers. I was just too lazy to delete them. Feel free to compare Obama to anyone you choose. Still not relevant because doing so doesn't change his numbers. I'm still looking for some of the "hope and change" we were all promised.


As to Obama inciting violence, here is a quote from his speech after the Zimmerman verdict:

"Now, the question for me at least, and I think for a lot of folks, is where do we take this? How do we learn some lessons from this and move in a positive direction? I think it's understandable that there have been demonstrations and vigils and protests, and some of that stuff is just going to have to work its way through, as long as it remains nonviolent. If I see any violence, then I will remind folks that that dishonors what happened to Trayvon Martin and his family. But beyond protests or vigils, the question is, are there some concrete things that we might be able to do."

Please explain how you think that this incites violence.
What you quote is only part of his speech. Here's the part that just proceeds what you've quoted:

"You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. And when you think about why, in the African American community at least, there's a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it's important to recognize that the African American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn't go away.

There are very few African American men in this country who haven't had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me. There are very few African American men who haven't had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me -- at least before I was a senator. There are very few African Americans who haven't had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often.

And I don't want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences inform how the African American community interprets what happened one night in Florida. And it's inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear. The African American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws -- everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws. And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case.

Now, this isn't to say that the African American community is na?ve about the fact that African American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system; that they're disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence. It's not to make excuses for that fact -- although black folks do interpret the reasons for that in a historical context. They understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history.

And so the fact that sometimes that's unacknowledged adds to the frustration. And the fact that a lot of African American boys are painted with a broad brush and the excuse is given, well, there are these statistics out there that show that African American boys are more violent -- using that as an excuse to then see sons treated differently causes pain.

I think the African American community is also not na?ve in understanding that, statistically, somebody like Trayvon Martin was statistically more likely to be shot by a peer than he was by somebody else. So folks understand the challenges that exist for African American boys. But they get frustrated, I think, if they feel that there's no context for it and that context is being denied. And that all contributes I think to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different."

For emphasis, let me repeat the part that I view as being the most inciting:

"And that all contributes I think to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different."

I don't understand why the President of the United States felt compelled to say anything about this to begin with. He surely must have realized what effect his comments would have on the black community.



You've told us all what a wonderful life you have. And you're disappointed that Obama has squandered (in your opinion) his opportunity to improve things for blacks. And yet you are complaining that Obama hasn't done anything to improve YOUR life! So, do you want him to focus on improving things for the people who need it most, or just you? Again, you are being very inconsistent.
Not being inconsistent. Isn't it possible that he could improve the lives of all Americans? I know that's not his focus, but I think it should be.



--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "zimowski@" <zimowski@> wrote:

Still not interested in how Obama compares to previous presidents. It's not relevant, because past presidents, especially deceased ones, are no longer in the position that Obama is in to make a difference.

Let me give you an example of how I think Obama has incited racial discord and violence. There are many things he could have said and done following both the shooting of Trayvon Martin and the verdict in the George Zimmerman case. He chose to make comments that energized the racial divide in this country and that I believe incited and emboldened some within the black community (e.g. in Oakland, CA) to break windows and destroy the property of those who had nothing to do with what happened in Florida.

I am so disappointed by what Obama has achieved as president, I view him as the president of no Americans. He has achieved little and I can not point to a single thing he has done that has improved my life. In fact, he has achieved just the opposite. As the recent polls suggest, this is not an isolated view.

1 - 20 of 28