• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Admin to Defense Contractors: No Layoffs until afte elec.

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
In an effort to make the economy look a little rosier than it is, the Obama administration is basically coercing defense contractors so as to prevent news of layoffs hitting voters before the election. With sequestration about to result in some major cuts to the defense budget, contractors will lose government business -- and that means, employees will lose jobs. But to prevent poor numbers ahead of the November election, the Obama administration has made it very, well, fiscally unwise for companies to issue layoff notices too early.

The Labor Department issued guidance in July saying it would be “inappropriate” for contractors to issue notices of potential layoffs tied to sequestration cuts. But a few contractors, most notably Lockheed Martin, said they still were considering whether to issue the notices — which would be sent out just days before the November election.

But the Friday guidance from the Office of Management and Budget raised the stakes in the dispute, telling contractors that they would be compensated for legal costs if layoffs occur due to contract cancellations under sequestration — but only if the contractors follow the Labor guidance.

The guidance said that if plant closings or mass layoffs occur under sequestration, then “employee compensation costs for [Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification] WARN act liability as determined by a court” would be paid for covered by the contracting federal agency.

Senate Republicans, who accused the White House of trying to hide job losses after the first guidance, said Friday that the new OMB statement “puts politics ahead of American workers.”

“The Obama Administration is cynically trying to skirt the WARN Act to keep the American people in the dark about this looming national security and fiscal crisis,” Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) said in a statement. “The president should insist that companies act in accordance with the clearly stated law and move forward with the layoff notices.”

The fight over WARN Act notices began in June when Lockheed Martin CEO Bob Stevens said his company might send the notices to all 123,000 of its employees.

Some companies were hesitant to follow Lockheed, but several others told McCain in letters earlier this month they might send the notices, too, despite the Labor Department guidance.

Basically, the government has tried to circumvent some inevitable bad news in an attempt to give the economy an artificial cushion. It's worth noting the Obama administration's duplicity, as well as the terrible effects of its policies.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katehicks/2012/09/29/obama_administration_to_defense_contractors_no_layoff_notices_until_after_election_please
 

Steve

Well-known member
employee compensation costs for [Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification] WARN act liability as determined by a court” would be paid for covered by the contracting federal agency.

if the company knowingly has to give the employee notice and failure to do so is a violation of the WARN act...

then this is basically offering to cover the legal costs of corporations failing to legally comply with federal law....

doesn't that sound illegal in itself?

how can our government agree to compensate corporations for an illegal act the government is requesting... :?


I would say this is a pretty horrific case of corruption..
 

Tam

Well-known member
They cover up a gun running operation which results in the death of a border agent, then they cover up the terror Attack that killed a US ambassador.

They tell Solyndra in 2010 to hold off in announcing the lay offs and pending bankrupcy until after the election and now they are telling US Military Contractors to BREAK THE LAW to protect Obama's re-election bid.

Is there nothing these corrupt crooks will not do to hold on to power so they can continue to destroy the US.

This is just sick and anyone still supporting this Administration need to be check for brain damage. :mad:
 

Twister Frost

Well-known member
Steve said:
employee compensation costs for [Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification] WARN act liability as determined by a court” would be paid for covered by the contracting federal agency.

if the company knowingly has to give the employee notice and failure to do so is a violation of the WARN act...

then this is basically offering to cover the legal costs of corporations failing to legally comply with federal law....

doesn't that sound illegal in itself?

how can our government agree to compensate corporations for an illegal act the government is requesting... :?


I would say this is a pretty horrific
case of corruption..

Yes, yes it is corruption at its finest, as today Lockheed had this announcement...Why can't we just expect the people who represent the greatest country in the world to uphold what is right and lawful? Yeah, yeah, yeah...it's been done before, I know that comment will follow. Just because it was done before doesn't make it right, and if that is the rule we now live by, can we see where this is headed in the future?

http://michellemalkin.com/2012/10/01/lockheed-obama-layoff/
 

Mike

Well-known member
TSR said:
So all of you believe Congress is going to let sequestration take place???????

Until there is some leadership in the Whitehouse, all anyone will do is kick the can down the road. :roll:
 

TSR

Well-known member
Mike said:
TSR said:
So all of you believe Congress is going to let sequestration take place???????

Until there is some leadership in the Whitehouse, all anyone will do is kick the can down the road. :roll:

Well with the Rep. Senator from KY(the senate minority leader) saying his #1 prority was defeating the newly elected president----this makes leading a problem.

But, my question, All you conservatives, liberals for that matter, believe sequestration will take place??? :roll:
 

Mike

Well-known member
TSR said:
Mike said:
TSR said:
So all of you believe Congress is going to let sequestration take place???????

Until there is some leadership in the Whitehouse, all anyone will do is kick the can down the road. :roll:

Well with the Rep. Senator from KY(the senate minority leader) saying his #1 prority was defeating the newly elected president----this makes leading a problem.

But, my question, All you conservatives, liberals for that matter, believe sequestration will take place??? :roll:

Your quote is wrong. Don't start taking up OT's habits........................

McConnell said his #1 priority was defeating Obama in 2012. Not during his term. "For him to be a one term president". After the Stimulus and the other Obama fiasco's, that is a goal worth living for.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
TSR said:
Mike said:
TSR said:
So all of you believe Congress is going to let sequestration take place???????

Until there is some leadership in the Whitehouse, all anyone will do is kick the can down the road. :roll:

Well with the Rep. Senator from KY(the senate minority leader) saying his #1 prority was defeating the newly elected president----this makes leading a problem.

But, my question, All you conservatives, liberals for that matter, believe sequestration will take place??? :roll:

Nope- after the election they will come to an agreement...Dems/Obama will get their raised taxes on millionaires- Repubs will get some more spending cuts on welfare type programs (lot will be in the Farm Bill cuts)- and get back the Defense money... The compromise will be along the lines of the earlier agreement that Boehner backed out of...
 

TSR

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
TSR said:
Mike said:
Until there is some leadership in the Whitehouse, all anyone will do is kick the can down the road. :roll:

Well with the Rep. Senator from KY(the senate minority leader) saying his #1 prority was defeating the newly elected president----this makes leading a problem.

But, my question, All you conservatives, liberals for that matter, believe sequestration will take place??? :roll:

Nope- after the election they will come to an agreement...Dems/Obama will get their raised taxes on millionaires- Repubs will get some more spending cuts on welfare type programs (lot will be in the Farm Bill cuts)- and get back the Defense money... The compromise will be along the lines of the earlier agreement that Boehner backed out of...

I agree.
 

Mike

Well-known member
TSR said:
Oldtimer said:
TSR said:
Well with the Rep. Senator from KY(the senate minority leader) saying his #1 prority was defeating the newly elected president----this makes leading a problem.

But, my question, All you conservatives, liberals for that matter, believe sequestration will take place??? :roll:

Nope- after the election they will come to an agreement...Dems/Obama will get their raised taxes on millionaires- Repubs will get some more spending cuts on welfare type programs (lot will be in the Farm Bill cuts)- and get back the Defense money... The compromise will be along the lines of the earlier agreement that Boehner backed out of...

I agree.

The tax on millionaires will bring in only a paltry sum of money. Not nearly enough to balance the budget..................................

Like I said. Kick the can down the road................. :roll:

According to calculations by FOX News analysts James Farrell and Mitch Kweit, taxing millionaires at 100% would now run the federal government for two and a half to three months.
Specifically, the analysts took a crack at this question: “If you took all the adjusted gross income of all millionaires, how many months of federal spending would this pay for?”
Here’s what Farrell and Kweit found, based on IRS tax return and Treasury Department data:
* 2009: For calendar year 2009, taking all the adjusted gross income of filers making $1 million or higher would have paid for 20.67% of all federal spending during calendar year 2009 – approximately 75 ½ days, or 2 ½ months.
* 2010: For calendar year 2010, taking all the adjusted gross income of filers making $1 million or higher would have paid for 24.11% of all federal spending during calendar year 2010 – approximately 88 days, or nearly three months.

Year Total federal outlays Total AGI of all millionaires
2009 $3.52 trillion $726.91 billion
2010 $3.48 trillion $839.58 billion (preliminary)


Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/government/2012/09/24/taxing-millionaires-at-100-wouldnt-be-enough-to-keep-us-running/#ixzz286YkHqNX
 

Tam

Well-known member
TSR said:
Mike said:
TSR said:
So all of you believe Congress is going to let sequestration take place???????

Until there is some leadership in the Whitehouse, all anyone will do is kick the can down the road. :roll:

Well with the Rep. Senator from KY(the senate minority leader) saying his #1 prority was defeating the newly elected president----this makes leading a problem.

But, my question, All you conservatives, liberals for that matter, believe sequestration will take place??? :roll:


Let's see just how newly elected Obama was shall we TSR. :wink:
When did McConnell say he wanted to make Obama a ‘one-term president’?
Posted by Glenn Kessler at 06:00 AM ET, 09/25/2012 TheWashingtonPost

“When I first came into office, the head of the Senate Republicans said, ‘my number one priority is making sure president Obama’s a one-term president.’ Now, after the election, either he will have succeeded in that goal or he will have failed at that goal.”

— President Obama, interview on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” recorded on Sept. 12, 2012, and aired on Sept. 23

“It was no surprise, because the senator from Kentucky, who just spoke, announced at the beginning, four years ago, exactly what his strategy would be. He said, his number-one goal was to make sure that Barack Obama was a one-term president.”

— Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), on the Senate floor, Sept. 21, 2012

“Ed Rendell, who has criticized the president (objecting, for example, to the Obama campaign's attack on private equity), also argues that Obama has been constrained by an unprecedented obduracy in his Republican opposition. ‘I can't ever recall a newly elected president being faced with the leader of the other party's caucus saying “Our No. 1 priority is to make this president a one-term president,”’ says Rendell, citing the remark made by Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, that exemplified the fierce partisanship that has attended Obama's tenure. ‘That McConnell would say that in the first nine months of Barack Obama's tenure is absolutely stunning, disgraceful, disgusting — you name the term.’”

— Peter J. Boyer, writing in Newsweek, Sept. 10, 2012

Clearly, a theme has emerged among Democrats: Republicans were so determined to thwart President Obama’s agenda that the Senate Minority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, even announced from day one that he was determined to make Obama a one-term president.

The timing of McConnell’s statement obviously makes a difference. In the Democratic narrative, the top GOP senator signaled early on he had no intention of cooperating with the new president.

Is that really the case?


The Facts


McConnell made his remarks in an interview that appeared in the National Journal on Oct. 23, 2010
nearly two years after Obama was elected president. The interview took place on the eve the of the midterm elections. The interview is relatively short, so we will print it in its entirety, with key portions highlighted.

NJ: You’ve been studying the history of presidents who lost part or all of Congress in their first term. Why?
McConnell: In the last 100 years, three presidents suffered big defeats in Congress in their first term and then won reelection: Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, and the most recent example, Bill Clinton. I read a lot of history anyway, but I am trying to apply those lessons to current situations in hopes of not making the same mistakes.
NJ: What have you learned?
McConnell: After 1994, the public had the impression we Republicans overpromised and underdelivered. We suffered from some degree of hubris and acted as if the president was irrelevant and we would roll over him. By the summer of 1995, he was already on the way to being reelected, and we were hanging on for our lives.
NJ: What does this mean now?
McConnell: We need to be honest with the public. This election is about them, not us. And we need to treat this election as the first step in retaking the government. We need to say to everyone on Election Day, “Those of you who helped make this a good day, you need to go out and help us finish the job.”
NJ: What’s the job?
McConnell: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.
NJ: Does that mean endless, or at least frequent, confrontation with the president?
McConnell: If President Obama does a Clintonian backflip, if he’s willing to meet us halfway on some of the biggest issues, it’s not inappropriate for us to do business with him.
NJ: What are the big issues?
McConnell: It is possible the president’s advisers will tell him he has to do something to get right with the public on his levels of spending and [on] lowering the national debt. If he were to heed that advice, he would, I imagine, find more support among our conference than he would among some in the Senate in his own party. I don’t want the president to fail; I want him to change. So, we’ll see. The next move is going to be up to him.
NJ: What will you seek from the president on the tax issue?
McConnell: At the very least, I believe we should extend all of the Bush tax cuts. And I prefer to describe this as keeping current tax policy. It’s been on the books for 10 years. Now, how long that [extension] is, is something we can discuss. It was clear his position was not [favored] among all Senate Democrats. They had their own divisions. I don’t think those divisions are going to be any less in November and December.
When seen in full context, McConnell’s quote is not really as shocking as the snippet that is frequently repeated by Democrats.

Generally, Democrats suggest that McConnell believed that no problem is bigger than getting rid of Obama, but it is clear that he is speaking in a political context — that the goals of Republicans could not be achieved unless Obama is defeated in his race for reelection. A case in point: the health care law could not be overturned unless Obama is defeated.

Moreover, McConnell goes on to say that he does “not want the president to fail” and cooperation was possible “if he’s willing to meet us halfway on some of the biggest issues.” McConnell in fact cited an extension of the Bush tax cuts — and Obama did strike such a deal shortly after the midterm elections.

Here’s how McConnell explained his remarks in a speech after the election, when Republicans had taken over the House of Representatives and made huge gains in the Senate:

“Let’s start with the big picture. Over the past week, some have said it was indelicate of me to suggest that our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term in office. But the fact is, if our primary legislative goals are to repeal and replace the health spending bill; to end the bailouts; cut spending; and shrink the size and scope of government, the only way to do all these things it is to put someone in the White House who won’t veto any of these things. We can hope the President will start listening to the electorate after Tuesday’s election. But we can’t plan on it. And it would be foolish to expect that Republicans will be able to completely reverse the damage Democrats have done as long as a Democrat holds the veto pen.”

The Pinocchio Test


There is no doubt that McConnell said he wanted to make Obama a one-term president. But he did not say it at the start of Obama’s term; instead, he made his comments at the midpoint, after Obama had enacted many of his preferred policies.

Perhaps, in Obama’s memory, McConnell was always uncooperative. But that does not give him and other Democrats the license to rearrange the chronology to suit the party’s talking points.

Sucks when the facts prove your hero LIED TO YOU DOESN'T IT. Question now is what else has he LIED to you about?
Fast and Furious,
Libyan attack,
His qualifications to be President,
want to add to the list TSR? :roll:
 

TSR

Well-known member
Mike said:
TSR said:
Oldtimer said:
Nope- after the election they will come to an agreement...Dems/Obama will get their raised taxes on millionaires- Repubs will get some more spending cuts on welfare type programs (lot will be in the Farm Bill cuts)- and get back the Defense money... The compromise will be along the lines of the earlier agreement that Boehner backed out of...

I agree.

The tax on millionaires will bring in only a paltry sum of money. Not nearly enough to balance the budget..................................

Like I said. Kick the can down the road................. :roll:

According to calculations by FOX News analysts James Farrell and Mitch Kweit, taxing millionaires at 100% would now run the federal government for two and a half to three months.
Specifically, the analysts took a crack at this question: “If you took all the adjusted gross income of all millionaires, how many months of federal spending would this pay for?”
Here’s what Farrell and Kweit found, based on IRS tax return and Treasury Department data:
* 2009: For calendar year 2009, taking all the adjusted gross income of filers making $1 million or higher would have paid for 20.67% of all federal spending during calendar year 2009 – approximately 75 ½ days, or 2 ½ months.
* 2010: For calendar year 2010, taking all the adjusted gross income of filers making $1 million or higher would have paid for 24.11% of all federal spending during calendar year 2010 – approximately 88 days, or nearly three months.

Year Total federal outlays Total AGI of all millionaires
2009 $3.52 trillion $726.91 billion
2010 $3.48 trillion $839.58 billion (preliminary)


Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/government/2012/09/24/taxing-millionaires-at-100-wouldnt-be-enough-to-keep-us-running/#ixzz286YkHqNX


Who said it would? But saying it won't help is also wrong. Its kinda like I said earlier about the guy drawing disability and working for cash every day, he needs to lose his disability if he is able to work! Will it solve all of the problems involved with disability payments????? Oh heck no! But imo its the right thing to do. Consider the fact that the rich's take has increased dramatically (in the neighborhood of 2-300%) while the middle class's % has been basically stagnant.
 
Top