When you go to the voting booth this Tuesday just remember 41.1%. The number of planned layoffs by firms jumped 41.1 percent in October to the highest level in five months. Translation you could be out of work next month. Is that the agenda you want, the next line you maybe standing in the unemployment line.....

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2012/11/01/us-job-cuts-jump-41-5-month-high-report-says/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl3|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D228477/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000058?test=latestnews

Doesn't include the defense cuts due to sequestration (because Obama asked them not to send the legally required 60-day notice - WTF?!?)

gut;1309938 wrote:Doesn't include the defense cuts due to sequestration (because Obama asked them not to send the legally required 60-day notice - WTF?!?)

No contracts will end on January 2, 2013, so there won't be massive layoffs.
Contracts are already funded through March 2013 at FY12 levels as a result of the CR passed back in August.
http://www.ndia.org/Advocacy/LegislativeandFederalIssuesUpdate/Documents/Response to WARN Act Implementation Letter - Sept. 28, 2012.pdf

Any potential layoffs will come down the road as the Government decides which contracts to not pick up option years or not order task orders on contract vehicles.


That assumes Congress doesn't punt the issue like it has done before.
And, all of the blame on Sequestration is on Congress. Thank the Super Committee for failing.

ptown_trojans_1;1309942 wrote: And, all of the blame on Sequestration is on Congress. Thank the Supper Committee for failing.

LMAO, yes, let's not blame Obama. He's never accountable. To be fair, he doesn't do a whole hell of a lot so maybe he should pass all the blame (although most reasonable people would call that a failure of leadership).

gut;1309945 wrote:LMAO, yes, let's not blame Obama. He's never accountable. To be fair, he doesn't do a whole hell of a lot so maybe he should pass all the blame (although most people would call that a lack of leadership).

President was involved in the discussions, but the Committee wanted no part or input of the Executive Branch.
And, the President has little or no say-so on the process anyways. It is all on the budget committees.

ptown_trojans_1;1309947 wrote:President was involved in the discussions, but the Committee wanted no part or input of the Executive Branch.
And, the President has little or no say-so on the process anyways. It is all on the budget committees.

The President leads the party accounting for nearly half of Congress. The Committee wanted no part of the POTUS - according to whom, Obama? Dems? What if, as Repubs tell it, Obama tried to play hardball, bluffed and got called? It's an all-around failure, and only a partisan hack would absolve Obama of any blame.

Why do you continue to give this baffoon a pass for his complete failure of leadership?

What could a community agitator add to such a discussion anyway ...... right?


We're all getting what we paid for .................won't happen again, though.

gut;1309954 wrote:The President leads the party accounting for nearly half of Congress. The Committee wanted no part of the POTUS - according to whom, Obama? Dems? What if, as Repubs tell it, Obama tried to play hardball, bluffed and got called? It's an all-around failure, and only a partisan hack would absolve Obama of any blame.

Why do you continue to give this baffoon a pass for his complete failure of leadership?

According to all the stories related to the Super Committee. It was a Congressional Committee, and wanted to try and solve the issue by itself. The President offered solutions, but the Committee either did not look at them or ignored them.
It was a Congressional Committee, agreed to by both sides, by the Congress, without the help or involvement of the President.
Congress wanted to solve the issue by itself, and it failed.

The President had little or no influence over the Committee.
What was he going to do, schedule the hearings for the White House?
Why would the Committee, which was appointed by Congress from the Budget Control Act, listen to the Executive Branch?

It is like you think the President has influence over everything. He does not. Separation of powers my friend.

ptown_trojans_1;1309966 wrote: It is like you think the President has influence over everything. He does not. Separation of powers my friend.

LMAO, what about his role in the failed "Grand Bargain". If the POTUS doesn't have influence in such a pivotal issue, then WTF is he good for? We all know the answer to that - we've seen the results.

Again, you've so lowered your expectations and ramped-up the excuses to prop-up the empty suit that it's just pathetic. The leader of the Democratic party had no influence on this matter? Wow. Just wow. Pretty obvious that implies he's not a leader, which we know. On that we can agree - he's no leader but rather excels at divide and conquer.

ptown_trojans_1;1309966 wrote:It is like you think the President has influence over everything. He does not.

Just the seas?

gut;1309971 wrote:LMAO, what about his role in the failed "Grand Bargain". If the POTUS doesn't have influence in such a pivotal issue, then WTF is he good for? We all know the answer to that - we've seen the results.

Again, you've so lowered your expectations and ramped-up the excuses to prop-up the empty suit that it's just pathetic. The leader of the Democratic party had no influence on this matter? Wow. Just wow. Pretty obvious that implies he's not a leader, which we know. On that we can agree - he's no leader but rather excels at divide and conquer.

Name the biggest domestic accomplishment by a President that they were able to get through Congress in the last 15 years?
Not many really.

Point is, Congress holds all the cards, and if they do not want to play ball, then nothing gets done.
Look at SS in 2005.
President Bush threw his entire 2005 at reforming SS, but it failed in speculator fashion. Yet, many here do not doubt his leadership. Bush had one thing in Congress that he did right, Medicare Part D. The other is No child left behind, but that is a mess.

ptown_trojans_1;1309983 wrote:Name the biggest domestic accomplishment by a President that they were able to get through Congress in the last 15 years?


...

Obamacare?

ptown_trojans_1;1309983 wrote:Name the biggest domestic accomplishment by a President that they were able to get through Congress in the last 15 years?
Not many really.

Obamakare?

Con_Alma;1309988 wrote:Obamacare?

Damn it!

FatHobbit;1309991 wrote:Damn it!

ONE MINUTE TOO SLOW!!!!

Heretic;1309995 wrote:ONE MINUTE TOO SLOW!!!!

Time to commit hari kari.

ptown_trojans_1;1309983 wrote:Name the biggest domestic accomplishment by a President that they were able to get through Congress in the last 15 years?
Not many really.

Point is, Congress holds all the cards, and if they do not want to play ball, then nothing gets done.
Look at SS in 2005.
President Bush threw his entire 2005 at reforming SS, but it failed in speculator fashion. Yet, many here do not doubt his leadership. Bush had one thing in Congress that he did right, Medicare Part D. The other is No child left behind, but that is a mess.

There are many bi-partisan and partisan initiatives that went thru, many led by or with significant input from the POTUS.

Bush tax cuts, Clinton welfare reform, SOX....and Obamakare as mentioned, just to name a few. Plus, they used to pass these things called budgets.

Reality is Obama is an abject failure as a leader. Why not just admit it and acknowledge that your reasons for voting for him are purely emotional? Why continue to try to justify and rationalize it? You aren't fooling anyone (besides yourself) with this BS and lack of accountability.

Belly35;1309936 wrote:When you go to the voting booth this Tuesday just remember 41.1%. The number of planned layoffs by firms jumped 41.1 percent in October to the highest level in five months. Translation you could be out of work next month. Is that the agenda you want, the next line you maybe standing in the unemployment line.....

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2012/11/01/us-job-cuts-jump-41-5-month-high-report-says/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl3|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D228477/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000058?test=latestnews

gosh a ruddies what do we find when we read the whole article.
some very interesting editing by the bellster.
"The number of planned layoffs by firms jumped 41.1 percent in October to the highest level in five months,(it continues)
although the number includes more than 10,000 jobs in U.S.-owned auto plants in Europe, a report said on Thursday."
later in the article
"U.S. automotive companies said that they will let go of 11,615 workers, though that includes 10,900 Ford layoffs that will affect workers in Belgium and the United Kingdom."


"The planned layoffs were modestly higher than the 42,759 announced in October last year. The total for the year so far stands at 433,725, down from 521,823 for the same period in 2011."