My own predictions on Obama and his presidency...

[DroppinScience]

Okay, so these last two months of "transition," we've definitely seen some mixed signals. Alternately, from the progressive point of view, we've been disappointed and happy with the signals he's given. Most of what we can go by is his Cabinet picks.

Personally, I'm not having high expectations for Obama to set things right as far as foreign policy goes or even reigning in unlawful, unconstitutional behavior. Cosmetically, he'll get rid of things like Guantanamo, but don't expect secret prisons in Eastern Europe to go away. I'm not optimistic on him fixing health care either. Health care will probably improve, but if you're thinking he's going to change health care to a Canadian or European-style of universal health care, don't get your hopes up. Same goes for gay marriage. No, he won't put forth any hate mongering laws banning gays from public life, but he's not interested in TRUE equality for Of course, he's more than welcome to prove me wrong, and I'll be glad if I turn out wrong here.

But here's where I DO have optimism: labor and the environment. I think he's showing us that he's pro-union, will make it easier for workers in non-union environments to lobby for a union if they so wish. He supported the workers who occupied their shut-down factories. That was excellent. I think those community organizing days were good to him. Also there's good signals with the environment, especially his pick for Secretary of Energy. A Nobel Prize winner can't be a bad idea.

As for the economy, he'll probably find a way to fix that up. Just have no clue if it'll be sooner rather than later. I'm hoping in my heart of hearts, he'll be looked upon the same way as FDR and The New Deal is viewed with respect to the Great Depression.

But even the stuff I'm NOT optimistic over... YOU (i.e. the American people) can have a say in that. If you sit idly by and hope that Obama will fix health care on his own, then you're going to be disappointed. But if there's enormous pressure from below, the President and Congress can and will have a change of heart. In the civil rights days, John Lewis, MLK and others weren't sitting down and hoping that Kennedy or LBJ would grant civil rights to them because they were such nice guys. They shamed them into taking action. The Supreme Court didn't give women the right to vote because they thought it'd be a nice thing to do, they were pressured from below.

My message is this: elect the person who you feel is best suited to deal with your concerns, of course, but don't wait around to see if they're going to do it. It's a two-way street.

Here's to hoping you'll take my advice.

[fucktopgirl]

My prediction is the third world war with Iran!!!!

[yeahwho]

My prediction is the third world war with Iran!!!!
That will go pretty quick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_missile), what will he do on the other 1,460 days he's in office?

[Documad]

I'll just say a couple of things. I have no predictions.

I knew a long time ago that Obama is a centrist democrat. He wasn't my favorite democrat but I would have voted for any democrat against McCain. Anyone who is disappointed at him not being a progressive should have pulled his/her head out of his/her ass 18 months ago. He is on the record as being against many of the things you thought he was going to change. He wasn't the health care guy. He wasn't the gay rights guy. That's okay with me because the truly left wing democrats weren't going to become president and I'm more of a centrist myself. It was super obvious that he would be better at environmental issues than the republicans, so no surprise there. No one could be worse than what we've had in the last 8 years.

Recent american history doesn't make democratic presidents look too good overall. I came to appreciate Clinton but he was unbelievably lucky that he got to ride the dot.com prosperity wave. But remember that he's also the guy who deregulated the banks--which many people think is at the heart of the worldwide shitstorm we're in the middle of now.

I haven't been surprised by anything yet. I'm mostly disappointed that Obama is pulling so many leading democrats in other states for top jobs. I hope that won't weaken democrats in those states. It looks like even where a democrat picks the replacement we're going to get shitty choices like Caroline Kennedy in the senate. That makes me want to throw up.

PS -- I won't be protesting in the street for any kind of health care package. I don't really want one right now -- at least I haven't seen anything that makes me feel positive towards anything this congress will come up with. I also hope that Obama gives up on his middle class tax cut/tax refund. It seems stupid right now. It doesn't matter what I think. I'd still be a republican if the republicans hadn't sold out to the religious nuts.

And I don't know why you're hopeful about labor but maybe I'll see it later. It seemed really silly to me that workers sitting in a closed factory are going to save the US. I understand why that's good TV and it would be political suicide for a Illinois politician to poo poo the workers but it's just a stupid distraction. The labor movement is dead but democrats have to pay lip service to get elected.

I don't mean for my rant to be anti-Obama. So far, he hasn't done anything as stupid as Clinton in the pre-inauguration period. I'm really hoping he will succeed. I'm not sure anyone can fix this mess. I just hope that democrats shut the fuck up instead of taking him down. I've been disappointed at the nitpicking thus far.

[Documad]

And US women got the right to vote because of a constitutional amendment.

[saz]

yeah, what doc said.

i think obama will be very good on the environment, climate change, getting the green economy/jobs going, with more electric cars hitting the market in the years to come. i think too he'll repair the damage inflicted upon the justice department over the last eight years, which bush and rove filled to the brim with amoral flunkies.

but otherwise, i think he'll be very bland, mediocre, centrist and conservative in some instances, just like the clinton years.

[Documad]

^^ I forgot to mention the justice department. I agree that signs are positive there. The rumors about who will be getting some of those federal prosecutor jobs are encouraging.

[DroppinScience]

I'll just say a couple of things. I have no predictions.

I knew a long time ago that Obama is a centrist democrat. He wasn't my favorite democrat but I would have voted for any democrat against McCain. Anyone who is disappointed at him not being a progressive should have pulled his/her head out of his/her ass 18 months ago.

Well, Obama has probably deliberately not made himself appear too ideological on the left-right spectrum so he could shore up support among progressives while also getting the support of those among the more conservative. So that opens up a lot of opportunity for people to project their own ideological beliefs on him. Maybe it's the lefties' own fault for not looking closer, BUT he did indeed go on the record and say he wanted to be a Senator in the mold of Russ Feingold, someone who most definitely IS a progressive. I think the Kennedys were masters of this, too.

PS -- I won't be protesting in the street for any kind of health care package. I don't really want one right now -- at least I haven't seen anything that makes me feel positive towards anything this congress will come up with. I also hope that Obama gives up on his middle class tax cut/tax refund. It seems stupid right now. It doesn't matter what I think. I'd still be a republican if the republicans hadn't sold out to the religious nuts.

If you don't like universal health care, that's fine, but I do know millions of Americans would definitely benefit from some kind of coverage rather than losing their own homes to pay their medical bills. As sazi said, the defense budget is SO bloated that even if tiny, tiny fractions of percentages were diverted to education/health care, you'd feel the quality go up.

And I don't know why you're hopeful about labor but maybe I'll see it later. It seemed really silly to me that workers sitting in a closed factory are going to save the US. I understand why that's good TV and it would be political suicide for a Illinois politician to poo poo the workers but it's just a stupid distraction. The labor movement is dead but democrats have to pay lip service to get elected.

As I said, supporting bills that allow non-union workers (Wal-Mart is a good example) the right to vote to form unions can only be a good thing for labor. I understand he's also behind making it easier for employers to sue their companies if they are being exploited/unfairly treated in any manner. Just those two acts alone would revive labor considerably.

And the Chicago glass and window workers occupying the factory that they got laid off from (without proper notice or even any severance package which they ARE entitled to) is very important and it's good the President-elect is supportive of them. Remember, FDR said "If I were in a factory, the first thing I'd do is join a union." I suggest you watch the Canadian documentary The Take (http://www.thetake.org/) about Argentine auto workers occupying the factory and returning to work. I'm a big supporter of people trying to reclaim their dignity in real shitty conditions.

[DroppinScience]

And US women got the right to vote because of a constitutional amendment.

My bad, but even then, that constitutional amendment came from a very strong suffragette movement. There's no amendment or law without the movement.

[DroppinScience]

Since Obama loves everything Lincoln, here's a lesson Obama could learn from Lincoln's inauguration where he alienated abolitionists with his defense of slavery.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-stauffer/what-obama-can-learn-from_b_156997.html

[Documad]

Well, Obama has probably deliberately not made himself appear too ideological on the left-right spectrum so he could shore up support among progressives while also getting the support of those among the more conservative. So that opens up a lot of opportunity for people to project their own ideological beliefs on him. Maybe it's the lefties' own fault for not looking closer, BUT he did indeed go on the record and say he wanted to be a Senator in the mold of Russ Feingold, someone who most definitely IS a progressive. I think the Kennedys were masters of this, too.
So you're saying that Obama is a traditional politician who made promises he never intended on keeping to get elected? That's what I've been thinking all along. This is why I couldn't understand how people thought there was a world of difference between Clinton and Obama.

As I said, supporting bills that allow non-union workers (Wal-Mart is a good example) the right to vote to form unions can only be a good thing for labor. I understand he's also behind making it easier for employers to sue their companies if they are being exploited/unfairly treated in any manner. Just those two acts alone would revive labor considerably.
Unions made sense in the 18th century and the early part of the 20th century. Unions make sense when workers are fungible and there are more jobs than workers to fill the jobs. Unions don't make much sense today in the US. They might make sense in some emerging foreign countries though.

Do you happen to have any details regarding what Obama promised for new labor laws? I hadn't heard about that and I'm a bit nervous now with what you're saying. I agreed with Hillary Clinton in one of the earliest debates--we don't need new labor laws, we have good ones. We need the president to appoint the right person to lead the labor department. The federal labor laws are pretty strong they just need to be enforced. Same with environmental laws. I don't think federal law that is preventing Wal-Mart employees from unionizing. I'm confused.

[Documad]

By the way, I'm a big Russ Feingold fan. That man has balls. You would have be delusional to think that Obama was in the Feingold mold. This goes back to the old arguments regarding Obama and Clinton when they were running for the nomination. I've never seen much difference between the two of them beyond style. Which is good because Obama's style has been absolutely flawless thus far.

[DroppinScience]

Unions made sense in the 18th century and the early part of the 20th century. Unions make sense when workers are fungible and there are more jobs than workers to fill the jobs. Unions don't make much sense today in the US. They might make sense in some emerging foreign countries though.

I'm confused. You're arguing that workers' rights today are safe and thus unions need to disband since they've outlived their usefulness? :confused:

Do you happen to have any details regarding what Obama promised for new labor laws? I hadn't heard about that and I'm a bit nervous now with what you're saying. I agreed with Hillary Clinton in one of the earliest debates--we don't need new labor laws, we have good ones. We need the president to appoint the right person to lead the labor department. The federal labor laws are pretty strong they just need to be enforced. Same with environmental laws. I don't think federal law that is preventing Wal-Mart employees from unionizing. I'm confused.

I think I remember Colbert discussing something about these proposals not too long ago.

Anyways, I found a piece from "The Nation" that talks about bills (which Obama does indeed sponsor) that address wage discrimination among women, age, race, etc. Didn't expressly state lawsuits but I imagine this would allow you to sue your employer if they're not paying you what you're entitled to.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut/189595

And an extra pieces on Supreme Court decisions that erode workers rights. The case I was originally thinking about was a Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Supreme Court case that made it difficult to sure employers. If I got my facts straight, Obama and co. would like a reversal. If I got more, I'll share.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080526/pollitt

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081103/schnapper

[Documad]

Thanks DS. I'll read more tomorrow because it's late.

My comment re unions is that they have no power because workers have no power. Workers have no power when there aren't enough low-skilled jobs to go around. In recent years, unions just keep negotiating worse and worse deals for employees and they only preserve jobs for the oldest employees. The US economy has changed since the unions were at their zenith.

[Documad]

I skimmed the first equal pay article and the legislation that was linked to in the article. It says that you can't discriminate against women, minorities, etc. in employment re wages. That's already illegal. It says that you can pay people different wage rates based on seniority and merit. That's already the law. What's weird is the part where it says that you can't pay a different wage rate to workers in a job class where say women dominate than say where men dominate, if the jobs are equivalent. And a government agency will come up with rules to help decide whether the jobs are equivalent but the agency can't come up with a list of jobs. It sounds really confusing to me and I'm missing the improvement upon the current laws. Again, we need to enforce the current laws. Can we think of an example where the new law would apply? That might help. Nursing is a female-dominated field but is there an equivalent male-dominated field? We need to think of equivalent male and female dominated fields to figure out how the proposed legislation would work.


I am all for equal pay for women (believe me!!!!), but there's a problem that lurks below the surface. When it comes to professional jobs (which is what I'm used to), do you pay a female worker the same wage if she is going to take two or three maternity leaves that last six months each and when she comes back from maternity leave she is going to come in late and leave early fairly often because she's the primary caregiver for her family's kids? If the women in that situation is paid less than the guy who started on the same day she started, is it okay to pay her less if she has billed her clients say 40% less than the male over the course of the last 5 years? Until men and women have equal responsibility for children it's going to be difficult to argue that wage disparity is always a function of discrimination. It's just a fact that professional women tend to take more time away from their careers for personal reasons. They also tend to take off time to care for aging parents, for instance. When an aging parent has a medical emergency, it's more likely to be the daughter (or daughter-in-law) who misses her important business meeting to run to the hospital. So I'm skeptical of raw statistics like those mentioned in the Nation article. It's easier to say that men and women should never have pay disparity in unskilled jobs where it only matters whether you do your work once you punch the time clock.


I have no problem with legislation that clears up the statute of limitations issue in EEOC cases. That's the Ledbetter issue as I understand it. But you're not going to get toooo far with that one. There's a reason why the statute of limitations on human rights cases is probably the shortest statute of limitations there is. It has to be because businesses that contribute to both parties like it that way. If you have a car accident in the US, you probably have six years to sue the person who hit you. If your employer discriminated against you for an illegal reason, you probably have less than a year to sue. That's fucked up but I doubt that's going to change dramatically.

[yeahwho]

I have no problem with legislation that clears up the statute of limitations issue in EEOC cases. That's the Ledbetter issue as I understand it. But you're not going to get toooo far with that one. There's a reason why the statute of limitations on human rights cases is probably the shortest statute of limitations there is. It has to be because businesses that contribute to both parties like it that way. If you have a car accident in the US, you probably have six years to sue the person who hit you. If your employer discriminated against you for an illegal reason, you probably have less than a year to sue. That's fucked up but I doubt that's going to change dramatically.
I'm not sure, but you must not have collective bargaining between your employees as a whole, like a Union. I rarely think about some of the above issues you bring up because they are so clearly written in our Collective Bargaining Agreement with our employer. Our Union is as cheesy as can be at times but they really make it perfectly clear that equality works both ways. A male can take paternity leave (providing that dude has the sick leave, same as that child bearer) and we all get the exact same pay, working conditions and hours.

It is so true about workplace resolution though, I've seen a change in the short time I've been at work where it's gone from fake injuries to now the big pay outs are "hostile workplace" the employer is terrified of that. It can be trumped up pretty easily... and I think it will continue to be as economic insecurity, time away from family and "no raises" due to this financial crisis overwhelms the average American as they watch their buying power dwindle away.

I work in that male dominated industry, there are at best 5 females to each 100 males and so far it's been great, I have no qualms and I haven't heard any disparaging words from the females I've encountered and worked with the past few years, we're all here because this is the line of work we want to be in. Like any job it can be a drag, but when things are going good, it's an amazing job.

My point, I don't know... I guess it is that our Union is the major reason I and all the others stick around, without it... none of us would work here. I've made more outside the company and have had offers that were very lucrative, but I like my set hours and fellow union brothers and sisters. So does the company, they want people who know the system and that takes time, many years. They don't want to retrain or lose experience and having a CBA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_bargaining) is the best way for this to workout.

[fucktopgirl]

That will go pretty quick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_missile), what will he do on the other 1,460 days he's in office?



CHANGE. he said so much time during his campaign, but what this change will be about, it's a surprise.

[yeahwho]

He slowly steamrolled the opposition, he will be a very different President than any we've experienced here in the US. Just having ideas and a firm grasp of how to implement them will be nice. I'm banking that he very well may become a great president. His heart, attitude, brains and speed of work is so far impressive. He will hit the White House running.

I've watched this man for over the past year and he has brought his "A" game to everything he does. He amazed me during the campaign, smart, witty and active. We're going to be impressed. Of that I am sure.

He is definitely on track to be one of the finest speakers to live in the White House and his administrative picks have blanketed Washington with political capitol. It's going to be better than the naysayers say and much more detailed oriented, with action, than many may think.

Dudes got game I'm sure of that.

[Documad]

yeahwho, I'm glad that you have a good union and that it's doing its job for you. I tend to hear from union employees who are having trouble with their unions so I have a slanted perspective. You get things in your CBA but you also give up a lot. You usually give up the right to press your own case in court for instance. If you don't like the process you get from the union you're out of luck.

[yeahwho]

yeahwho, I'm glad that you have a good union and that it's doing its job for you. I tend to hear from union employees who are having trouble with their unions so I have a slanted perspective. You get things in your CBA but you also give up a lot. You usually give up the right to press your own case in court for instance. If you don't like the process you get from the union you're out of luck.

Yeah... sometimes but their have been awards of up $2.5 million dollars to employees here where I work (one recently, this past year), actually one case an employee re'vd. $4 million dollars in one of the first Fibromyalgia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibromyalgia) settlements seen in this country, over 10 years ago. This is not uncommon in my industry, the Union is not the end all.

The thing that really strikes me as odd is people thought that Obama would usher in some sort of "Free Weed" sort of government, because he is Black he happens to be ultra liberal. I supported him early on because of one issue, Brains. He is extremely literate and his speaking points have thoughtful insight to each side of a problem. He seems to be less concerned with restricting our personal rights and more concerned about opening up new working solutions to get our Country back in the 21st Century.

I bet he is just as Lucky as he is smart and I'm looking forward to an extremely long overdue change.

[DroppinScience]

Told ya Obama would be good for labor. (y)

http://www.commondreams.org/further/good-news-always-worthy-note-and-thanks-0

[checkyourprez]

one of the main things he needs to do is up americas soft power around the world again. that neocon bullshit has done serious damage to americas image. people really under estimate what strong soft power can do for a nation.

[Dorothy Wood]

THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID

[jennyb]

Sigh - he has neither cured cancer nor walked on water yet... but I really like what he's done thus far for our image in the world. I hope this stimulus proves to be quite stimulating cuz my property value is tanking.

[yeahwho]

I just want to be able to legally marry my dog, that is the type of change I'm hoping for. Stimulus all you want America, I'm just want mans best friend to become my wife.

Isn't that what we're all doing here anyway? Here on the beastiality boys message board.