Barack Obama, our next President

Full story: Hampton Roads Daily Press

"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep," Obama cautioned. Young and charismatic but with little experience on the national level, Obama smashed through racial barriers and easily defeated ...
Comments
903,061 - 903,080 of 1,082,144 Comments Last updated 2 min ago
John Galt

Temecula, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#983207
Sep 15, 2013
 

Judged:

7

6

6

TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you miss that blurb about places like Sea World, cutting staff/hours, due to Obirdcarelinerworthybillagecar e?
Posted September 11, 2013 at 1:27 PM
Sea World parks released a statement that was reported by the ORLANDO SENTINEL newspaper that confirms that their part time employee work force of about 18,000 will soon have their hours cut. Currently, their part time workers top off at 32 hours scheduled a week. The new cut off will be 28 hours in order to not comply with the offering of healthcare benefits which the Affordable Care Law, or Obamacare as it is known in the vernacular, requires as of this October 1st.
Its sad to see these theme park employees (of the parks' total 22k employees, 18K are part time or seasonal)get this treatment. I remember when I was younger and worked part time a 4 hour cut in hours really could sting...I can't imagine how badly it would be for an unskilled worker with two part time jobs and a couple of kids.
Catlett, J., "Part Time Sea World Employees". ThemeParkInsider. 9/11/2013.
Not toooo gooDuh there Duh A Vey, when rather LARGE employers start jumping the sinking ship.
Obama and the DemoKKKrats do not care about people losing income and/or their jobs as long as they gain more control over people's lives.
Whatever

Scottsbluff, NE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#983208
Sep 15, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
folks if you lack reading and comprehension skills, maybe you shouldn't be posting...it just confirms what everyone knows,
the subject was income gains of blacks and women since the 80's as compared to under President Obama.
According to the other poster the reading comprehension issue lies with you.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#983209
Sep 15, 2013
 

Judged:

7

6

6

flack wrote:
You see worse. The ones suffering the most are the ones who voted for him.
Marginal employees, those that companies can survive without, will always be hurt the most by a rotten economy....the unskilled and uneducated...

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#983210
Sep 15, 2013
 

Judged:

7

6

6

Joe wrote:
We need a new president that will lessen our debt, so our citizens can have a better way of living for theirself and their familys and future generations.
we already have one

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?/ 5/24/2012 / http://tinyurl.com/c6b2acy
It’s enough to make even the most ardent Obama cynic scratch his head in confusion.
Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.
In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion. In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion. In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August. Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05 ...

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#983211
Sep 15, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Whatever wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, you did ask him to prove his conclusion false-re-read your post.
The income of blacks and women were showing gains some 18% in the recent two decades but has stopped and reversed itself during the Obama admin are backed by census data.
where did I ask him to prove his conclusion was false?????

just go back and point it out.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#983212
Sep 15, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

6

Whatever wrote:
Obama, in an ABC interview airing now, is blaming ATMs again for the bad job market.
are you serious?

time to ban those racist machines...

Since: May 11

Shippensburg, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#983213
Sep 15, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

flack wrote:
<quoted text> y
STEPHEN MOORE
For better or worse, a truism of American politics is that voters vote their pocketbooks. Yet according to a new report on median household incomes by Sentier Research, in 2012 millions of American voters apparently cast ballots contrary to their economic self-interest.
Each month the consultants at Sentier analyze the numbers from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey and estimate the trend in median annual household income adjusted for inflation. On Aug. 21, Sentier released "Household Income on the Fourth Anniversary of the Economic Recovery: June 2009 to June 2013." The finding that grabbed headlines was that real median household income "has fallen by 4.4 percent since the 'economic recovery' began in June 2009." In dollar terms, median household income fell to $52,098 from $54,478, a loss of $2,380.
What was largely overlooked, however, is that those who were most likely to vote for Barack Obama in 2012 were members of demographic groups most likely to have suffered the steepest income declines. Mr. Obama was re-elected with 51% of the vote. Five demographic groups were crucial to his victory: young voters, single women, those with only a high-school diploma or less, blacks and Hispanics. He cleaned up with 60% of the youth vote, 67% of single women, 93% of blacks, 71% of Hispanics, and 64% of those without a high-school diploma, according to exit polls.
According to the Sentier research, households headed by single women, with and without children present, saw their incomes fall by roughly 7%. Those under age 25 experienced an income decline of 9.6%. Black heads of households saw their income tumble by 10.9%, while Hispanic heads-of-households' income fell 4.5%, slightly more than the national average. The incomes of workers with a high-school diploma or less fell by about 8%(-6.9% for those with less than a high-school diploma and -9.3% for those with only a high-school diploma).
Blaming Obama yet again for the effects of the Bush recession.
Whatever

Scottsbluff, NE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#983214
Sep 15, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
folks if you lack reading and comprehension skills, maybe you shouldn't be posting...it just confirms what everyone knows,
the subject was income gains of blacks and women since the 80's as compared to under President Obama.
Don't point fingers when you were the one to change the topic and failing to notice this.

The discussion was documented gains that blacks and women were making in income prior to Obama.

Your attempt to obfuscate this and claim the figures wrong by using income inequality data is mixing apple and oranges.

Ergos isn't a magic word that overcomes this mixing of stats.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#983215
Sep 15, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
actually, from everything I've read, real earnings of the middle class and poor have been shrinking since the 80's
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/i...
http://www.npr.org/2013/09/12/221425582/tired...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/us-income-i...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/15/inco...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/12/ineq...
http://www.reuters.com/subjects/income-inequa...
http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/201...
The income gap between the richest 1 percent and the rest of America widened to a record last year.
The top 1 percent of U.S. earners collected 19.3 percent of household income in 2012, their largest share in Internal Revenue Service figures going back a century.
U.S. income inequality has been growing for almost three decades. But until last year, the top 1 percent's share of pre-tax income had not yet surpassed the 18.7 percent it reached in 1927, according to an analysis of IRS figures dating to 1913 by economists at the University of California, Berkeley, the Paris School of Economics and Oxford University.
One of them, Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley, said the incomes of the richest Americans might have surged last year in part because they cashed in stock holdings to avoid higher capital gains taxes that took effect in January.
Last year, the incomes of the top 1 percent rose 19.6 percent compared with a 1 percent increase for the remaining 99 percent.
The more that society depends on advanced technology instead of manual labor, the more income will be skewed to those with superior intellect and technical skills.

Since: Sep 08

Santa Barbara, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#983216
Sep 15, 2013
 

Judged:

7

6

6

Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! They used to take shifts!!!
LOL. Yes. I can think of one screen name in particular that several people post under. Sometimes they don't get their lies straight which makes them scramble with more lies in an attempt to explain themselves. It's laughable.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#983217
Sep 15, 2013
 

Judged:

7

6

6

Whatever wrote:
<quoted text>
Karma and Yeah this is for you -
Definition of war is a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.
An authorization for use of military force is a euphemism for war.
No constitutional scholar, that I am aware of, has ever claimed that a POTUS went illegally to war using "authorization for use of force..."
lol! Son, why do you insist on dodging the point?

No one care what the denotative definition is.

It's as prescribed in the Constitution and how you used it.

Still trying to slither away from your point I see. It's funny how you claim I was beginning to make sense when you're trying to run from it!
Yeah

Mililani, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#983218
Sep 15, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

6

John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
Islam is an international terrorist conspiracy, not a religion.
Then by your definition, so must Christianity since they're of from the same tree.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#983219
Sep 15, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
1. my post was a reply to your post, so it should be "That isn't what "I" was talking about"
2. I was pointing out that since blacks and women are part of the middle class and poor, for their incomes to have been going up since the 80's and during the Bush administration doesn't make sense, as those two groups have seen their income and wealth go down.
here's part of your post
"This is a stunning reversal of the progress for these groups during the expansions of the 1980s and 1990s, and even through the start of the 2008 recession. Census data reveal that from 1981-2008 the biggest income gains were for black women, 81%; followed by white women, 67%; followed by black men, 31%; and white males at 8%.
In other words, the gender and racial income gaps shrank by more than in any period in American history during the Reagan boom of the 1980s and the Clinton boom of the 1990s. Women and blacks continued to make economic progress during the mini-Bush expansion from 2002-07. "Income inequality" has been exacerbated during the Obama era. "
Just provided evidence that your conclusion is false.
"Middle class" is a set of values, not an income level.

Make your arguments by referring to specific income levels.

Most people with middle class values are doing very well, or at least do not continually blame others for their problems.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#983220
Sep 15, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>OMG OMG OMG cut 4 hours a week. The cheapsass b*astard were already using PT help to avoid paying certain benefits.
So, Dumbass Dave would be happy to take a 12.5% income reduction for the glory of ObamaKKKare.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#983221
Sep 15, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Whatever wrote:
Obama, in an ABC interview airing now, is blaming ATMs again for the bad job market.
lol! I bet you write for those supermarket tabloids?
John Galt

Temecula, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#983222
Sep 15, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
folks if you lack reading and comprehension skills, maybe you shouldn't be posting...it just confirms what everyone knows,
the subject was income gains of blacks and women since the 80's as compared to under President Obama.
Why are you people consumed with envy based on gender and race instead of building an economy with growth for all?

Try baking a bigger pie instead of slicing a shrinking pie differently.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#983223
Sep 15, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
we already have one
Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?/ 5/24/2012 / http://tinyurl.com/c6b2acy
It’s enough to make even the most ardent Obama cynic scratch his head in confusion.
Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.
In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion. In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion. In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August. Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05 ...
Any statistics that charge Bush for Porkulus are bogus and unworthy of further discussion.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#983224
Sep 15, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Whatever wrote:
1. my post was a reply to your post, so it should be "That isn't what "I" was talking about"
Folks, if you are changing the topic, the original poster has the right to challenge you for obfuscating the issue.
lol! And yet, you have no declaration of wars you claim exist.

Son, you clearly aren't making any sense.

You're only trying to escape!

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#983225
Sep 15, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
1. my post was a reply to your post, so it should be "That isn't what "I" was talking about"
2. I was pointing out that since blacks and women are part of the middle class and poor, for their incomes to have been going up since the 80's and during the Bush administration doesn't make sense, as those two groups have seen their income and wealth go down.
here's part of your post
"This is a stunning reversal of the progress for these groups during the expansions of the 1980s and 1990s, and even through the start of the 2008 recession. Census data reveal that from 1981-2008 the biggest income gains were for black women, 81%; followed by white women, 67%; followed by black men, 31%; and white males at 8%.
In other words, the gender and racial income gaps shrank by more than in any period in American history during the Reagan boom of the 1980s and the Clinton boom of the 1990s. Women and blacks continued to make economic progress during the mini-Bush expansion from 2002-07. "Income inequality" has been exacerbated during the Obama era. "
Just provided evidence that your conclusion is false.
You're hopeless get like the rest.
Whatever

Scottsbluff, NE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#983226
Sep 15, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
where did I ask him to prove his conclusion was false?????
just go back and point it out.
Why don't you make your case how income inequality changes the data that blacks and women were making income gains during 90s on.

The data is accurate and cannot be changed based on another set of unrelated data.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

100 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 6 min Terry rigsby 48,944
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 10 min Jacques from Ottawa 174,916
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 12 min truth-facts 45,824
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 23 min Uzi 68,045
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 25 min HughBe 68,395
last post wins! (Apr '13) 32 min Concerned_American 299
Amy 7-28 52 min Kuuipo 11
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 4 hr Mister Tonka 97,562
•••

Beach Hazards Statement for Cook County was issued at July 28 at 2:52PM CDT

•••
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••