Obama playing politics with people's jobs???

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by BladesOfSteel, Oct 1, 2012.

  1. BladesOfSteel macrumors regular

    BladesOfSteel

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Location:
    St. Paul
    #1
    Maybe someone more up to speed and lay this out for me, but this is what I see . . .

    Without congress passing a new budget, the defense budget will be cut by BILLIONS of dollars as of 1/1/13.

    Government contractors, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, etc., have estimated that if the budget cuts occur, they will cut thousands of jobs.

    In according to the WARN Act, the contractors have to notify their workers at least 60 days in advance of any mass layoff.

    In this case, the 60 days prior to 1/1/13 is November 2, just days BEFORE the election.

    Now, on Friday afternoon, (funny), The administration issued a memo stating that the contractors didn't need to issue any notices, and it said that contractors would be compensated for legal costs if layoffs occur due to contract cancellations under sequestration — but only if the contractors follow the Labor guidance.

    From what I can tell, there are only three exceptions:

    The exceptions to 60-day notice are:

    (1) Faltering company. This exception, to be narrowly construed, covers situations where a company has sought new capital or business in order to stay open and where giving notice would ruin the opportunity to get the new capital or business, and applies only to plant closings;

    (2) unforeseeable business circumstances. This exception applies to closings and layoffs that are caused by business circumstances that were not reasonably foreseeable at the time notice would otherwise have been required; and

    (3) Natural disaster. This applies where a closing or layoff is the direct result of a natural disaster, such as a flood, earthquake, drought or storm.


    Can someone please explain this to me, because it looks like the administration is playing games with people's jobs, for the sake of his re-election campaign and the people footing the bill are, of course, the taxpayer.

    I know that back in July the administration first said that the contractors would be exempt because the budget cuts, and thus the job loss, was all "speculative." Just seems shady. I mean, if a budget hasn't been passed, wouldn't they have to assume that they'd have layoffs?
     
  2. redshift1 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
  3. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #3
    "Obama playing politics with people's jobs???"


    Yeah, because he was the one who voted against the American jobs act, the more recent bill that would put have put veterans to work, and a bunch of other job creation legislation.

    Oh wait. :rolleyes:


    The Republicans ran in the midterm elections and were elected on the platform of "jobs jobs jobs". Since then, they've done NOTHING to create jobs, and have only sabotaged and voted against democratic efforts to create jobs. 5 million more people would be working right now if these people wouldn't have voted against all these legislations.

    These people are willing to sabotage millions of regular Americans struggling to find work just so they have something to campaign on to try to take back power. That's disgusting.

    Republicans have lost all right to complain about jobs because of this.
     
  4. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #4
    Sounds more like this is an issue that congress needs to address, not Obama.
     
  5. BladesOfSteel thread starter macrumors regular

    BladesOfSteel

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Location:
    St. Paul
    #5
    Oh yes, Obama's Jobs Bill... aka- a third (or is it a forth) stimulus? The price tag per job was what, $200k? Sounds awesome. Heck, even some Dems were against it...

    I'm not a republican, so I can still complain about this. :)
     
  6. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #6
    I'm pretty sure that's because the vast majority of the stimulus was a handout to corporations with no actual strings attached...like hiring people.
     
  7. Coleman2010 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Location:
    NYC
    #7
    Sequestration is the deal the Republican house came up with for raising the debt ceiling. They came up with it, then voted for it. Now they're trying to renege on the deal and attack President Obama for their own deal.
     
  8. anonymouslurker macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 16, 2012
    #8
    And I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of those jobs bills were missing a few things too... like how to pay for them.
     
  9. Coleman2010, Oct 1, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2012

    Coleman2010 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Location:
    NYC
    #9
    1/3rd of the stimulus bill was tax cuts. It was added to entice Republicans to vote for it which they didn't. The tax cuts should have been removed and added additional spending. The stimulus was negotiated before the Dems and President Obama realized the Republicans no strategy. Say no to everything and when the economy tanks blame Obama.
     
  10. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #10
    Sequestration was only the worst case scenario that BOTH sides created that had punishing cuts to things both sides supported. Sequestration was supposed to force Congress to come up with a debt reduction package. The GOP refused to agree to a package because they opposed ANY REVENUE INCREASE. When negotiations failed, sequestration looms and again we try to encourage the GOP to agree to revenue increases, they continue to say no. They demand nothing but cuts from programs they already oppose. Now, with no settlement in sight, they GOP is trying to unwind the affects of sequestration on Military spending, while leaving cuts to Medicare/SS/Other social programs.

    Meanwhile, the GOP continues to blame President Obama for the impass.
     
  11. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #11
    No they want to double down on the Medicare/SS/Other social programs. It typical GOP. Obama is right to tell the contractors not to send layoff notices because it is well known the GOP is playing games and they would want it to go out right before an election.

    Lets face it the GOP is doing its standard lies and try to dodge the fact that this mess is their ****ing fault because they refused to anything but cuts to social programs.
     
  12. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #12
    I'm not sure that I understand exactly what you mean by "playing politics" in this case. However, since in addition to Sequestration, a Continuing Resolution (CR) was passed recently, the CR does seem to imply that the effect on spending of the Sequestration budget cuts will not be instantaneous. It should give the new (Obama or Romney) administration a chance to smoothly shut things down over a period of weeks-- if no further action is taken by Congress. If they drag it out too long, though, it would mean a bigger cut later. But, that is my understanding, based on reading the Sunday Newspapers. I could easily be wrong, and, I don't play an accountant, even on the Internet. Anybody else out there with an opinion on how this would work if it came to pass?

    Here is an article in the CS Monitor:

    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2012/0915/Everything-you-need-to-know-about-budget-sequestration-except-the-consequences/%28page%29/2
     
  13. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #13
    This is sadly the politics of things. The Defense Budget has to be cut. There isn't any good reason why we need such a big defense budget. Cutting the budget does entail people losing jobs. Maybe if the GOP would come to the table, we can cut the budget in such a way to minimize job losses or stretch it out so the people losing their jobs will have enough time to find a new job, etc.

    But because neither side wants to compromise on important issues of their platform, we have these drastic cuts coming up that will shake things up big time.
     
  14. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #14
    Yeah, but it's more then ironic for you to complain about potential job losses when in another post you were advocating tanking the economy even more, throwing more people out of work so we could theoretically somehow recover faster.

    That being said, why does our defense war machine need to be so huge? We should be cutting it a little.
     
  15. BladesOfSteel thread starter macrumors regular

    BladesOfSteel

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Location:
    St. Paul
    #15
    Agreed... Budgets need to be cut across the board.

    Where was I complaining about job loss?

    I just find it curious that the admin is saying these contractors don't need to issue a notice of termination when it seems like they do.
     
  16. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #16
    Unclear. Based on what I have read (See CSMonitor quote below), Jan 1 is not a fixed layoff date, but rather, the date in which the new budget goes into effect. A prudent gov't agency will probably reduce spending somewhat right now, and then, if/when the sequester goes into effect, adjust spending again shortly thereafter. But, some agencies may choose to spend at the CR rate, hoping for no sequester. If they bet wrong, there will be significant cuts afterward.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2012/0915/Everything-you-need-to-know-about-budget-sequestration-except-the-consequences/%28page%29/2
     
  17. Vanilla Ice macrumors 6502

    Vanilla Ice

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2011
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #17
    Why make it smaller than it already is?
     
  18. Coleman2010 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Location:
    NYC
    #18
    Republican's response: Because we built that.
     
  19. thewitt macrumors 68020

    thewitt

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    #19
    Of course they do. The administration is simply warning them not to make this announcement just because they will lose their contracts. They don't want the announcement to occur before the election, since these unions will all vote democrat before their workers are laid off.

    Only once the contractors have been notified that their specific contracts have been cut will they be allowed to send out notifications of pending terminations. This will be in late November, after the elections.

    Anyone who does so ahead of time will surely be penalized in the next award process, so none will dare go against the administration guidance.
     
  20. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #20
    Well the reason why he telling them that is lets face it congress is going to nothing about the cliff until after the election. That is a very safe bet. It will be right after the election they will address it which would push it out a little farther.
     
  21. DakotaGuy macrumors 68040

    DakotaGuy

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    South Dakota, USA
    #21
    The unemployment rate is going to be ugly next year. It's not just the contractors that will be laying off thousands of workers, but many service members will be cut as well. Recruitment will also be dramatically reduced sending more young people into the civilian job market.

    I'm not saying that the defense industry and military's main purpose should be job creation, but if jobs are a problem right now throwing thousands more into that unemployed pool isn't going to help. With that said I think we all agree that some cuts are necessary, but a gutting of the defense budget is not a good idea. The world is a very unstable place at the present time.
     
  22. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #22
    The world has always been an unstable place. It will remain so for a very long time until people learn to get along with one another. We already have the biggest war machine on the planet. How big does it need to be? What war are we preparing for? WW III? Alien invasion? What? It seems like we have been preparing for war for at least 60 years...we never stop. We are usually involved in a war at any given time. At some point you have to stop and think to yourself, that this is ridiculous.
     
  23. Mr_Ed macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Location:
    North and east of Mickeyland
    #23
    If it's "unclear" that layoffs could happen 1/1, why did the administration issue that "memo" the OP is referring to? And why offer to help with potential court costs at all?

    Much of this thread seems to focus on arguments about the merits/origins of sequestration. I thought the OP was pointing out an action by the administration that if true, looks at best, highly suspect.
     
  24. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #24
    That's empire.
     
  25. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #25
    It's small???

    If you're going to advocate cutting every other program, surely you advocate cutting the single biggest chunk of spending outside of social security and medicare??

    I noticed that everyone else ignored this post for probably obvious reasons....not quite sure why I fell into the trap.
     

Share This Page