General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsedhopper
(33,639 posts)those unemployment numbers are pathetic and median income for working families (i.e. the 99%) have barely budged.
But hey the top earners have done great, so maybe it will trickle down.
BlueToTheBone
(3,747 posts)and those numbers will change in a heart beat.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)Many here, on the far Left, think that crippling Democrats during the 2014 election is the way forward. I can't imagine why someone would be that fucking foolish, but many here persist in pipe dream that have no chance of coming true during these time. I am not saying those dreams aren't good, because they are - but the reality is that an apples is never eaten in one bite. The path to a brighter future happens in steps, the first of those steps is taking firm control of the US Congress and taking control of most state legislatures and Governor's chairs.
BlueToTheBone
(3,747 posts)It is so much easier to criticize and complain than to do something needed. My mother used to say that this was like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
But here's to working and winning state houses. Our state house went red for the first time since the reconstruction and our party here is lame to say the least.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)DEMAND UTOPIA NOW!
edhopper
(33,639 posts).8% during recession level unemployment is something to crow about?
This is anemic and if it was a Repug President would be unacceptable.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)How much better could that number have been if teahadists hadn't made it into the House and we were rid of boner, mitch the turtle (sorry for the offense to turtles) et al?
edhopper
(33,639 posts)I just don't think it belongs on the list as an accomplishment.
And how has the Dow helped working people? The deficit is due to the sequester and budget cuts for things like Food Stamps and Unemployment Ins.
The list is not that great.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)I don't deny that the dow being up isn't very obviously helpful (though it does keep a good amount of purchasing power going, which is better than if it were down...a lot of people do own stocks)
With the relentless sabotage from assclown, theocrat, ignoramus, xenophobic repukes in power positions they have no business having, elected by brainwashed millions, it's astounding that the figures on that poster are still better than 6 years ago!
That is why those numbers are something to be thankful for (even though they're not as good as they could be).
I sometimes feel like PBO is the only person between us and total meltdown.
edhopper
(33,639 posts)Rmoney would have been a catastrophe.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)if that had happened.
okaawhatever
(9,469 posts)from increases in taxes. Another big chunk came from people coming off of government programs after returning to work. Also, Obama's budgets that were passed have some pretty decent cuts built in. (military, which actually got passed) and of course not paying as much for the wars, since that's in a different category.
These numbers don't take into account the direction the economy was headed and where it went shortly after his taking office. If the GDP were back to Clinton or Bush days the numbers would show how impressive some of these things are.
Clearly minimum wage, benefits for workers and other issues need to be addressed this year, but now that the economy is headed in the right direction there will probably be a stomach for it. I think that issue is really up to us. Obama is willing, we have to get Congress and the Senate to get it passed.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)are worth an awful lot more these days.
That counts.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)karynnj
(59,507 posts)Unemployment is a lagging statistic. The collapse of the economy in fall 2008 led to HUGE monthly layoffs for months afterwards. Though the measurement was 7.8 when Obama took office - it continued to rise for the first few months. By the time Obama (quickly) got a stimulus package to attempt to stop the bleeding and then return to lower levels, the level was way above 7.8%.
However, you are right that many new jobs were not as good as those lost. We are in a new economic situation which we need new policies for - that must be innovative as the core problem is new. The question though is how to pass anything with the House that we have.
freebrew
(1,917 posts)the publicans picked up seats in congress promising more jobs. Olberman lost his job partly for criticizing Mr. Boner every night after night.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)These numbers were a residual effect of the financial/economic collapse in 2008 and there was really nothing the Obama admin could have done to stop that in such a short period of time. So going from 10% to 7% is something to crow about especially with the Rethugs providing resistance every step of the way.
mikekohr
(2,312 posts)and that was with overwhelming Democratic numbers in the House and Senate. Republicans have stopped every jobs bill during the 5 years President Obama has been steadily reversing their economic ineptitude.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)FDR gave us the First National Social Security NOT advocating for cuts to cost of living adjustments to Social Security.
FDR gave us Unemployment insurance NOT a one year payment of unemployment in exchange for billions of dollars in tax give aways to the uber rich and bailouts.
FDR gave us Glass-Steigel NOT watered down crappy controls on criminal banksters.
FDR gave us the FDIC NOT give aways through the Fed to the uber rich called Quantitative easing.
FDR gave us foreclosure freezes not minor fines to banks for conning everyone.
FDR pushed for the middle class and poor, Obama pushes for the corporate control of the federal government through the TPP.
There was a whole lot more support for the middle class and poor by FDR than by Obama. Obama could have been another FDR if he had wanted it. He didn't. If he had acted like FDR, congress would have turn almost 100% Democratic like they did under FDR. But Obama seems more concerned about wars and rich people than in a stagnant economy and growing masses of unemployed people.
mikekohr
(2,312 posts)the kneejerk criticism of our President from so many on this site is truely mortifying.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)It's well deserved criticism. Look what he's doing to push through the TPP.
No, voting for the other 2 swindlers was not an option. But then our election system is rigged and we really have no options by the time we get to vote.
The real solution would be to revolt against the current system. Protest in the street until the politician bend to the will of the people.
maced666
(771 posts)For job numbers.
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)Demeter
(85,373 posts)The % employed is the lowest it's been in generations.
Shemp Howard
(889 posts)That unemployment number is garbage data. It says very little about whether or not people are able to support themselves in this economy.
From http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#unemployed
"Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work."
So if a person just cannot find any work and has given up, that person is not counted as unemployed.
Imagine a city where all the factories have been shipped overseas. What's left is a McDonald's and a Dollar store. Unemployment benefits have run out. There is no work to search for. That city would have an official unemployment rate of less than 1%.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)I was curious when the statistic started being tracked, I vaguely recall hearing about it in the context of some CBO change during the 1980's. US Dept. of labor started tracking the long term unemployed in 1967. This wiki article has some interesting comparisons on how other countries track this aspect of the "hidden unemployed"
Locut0s
(6,154 posts)NEET = young person who is "Not in Education, Employment, or Training"
Over the years it has become a growing subculture around the world.
progressoid
(50,000 posts)Eddie Haskell
(1,628 posts)The numbers are great, but the average voter isn't doing that much better. People have short memories.
TrollBuster9090
(5,955 posts)the Democratic Party agenda has been obstructed in every possible way, fair or unfair, clean or dirty since January 2011 by a Republican House and a Republican Supreme Court. And any improvement we see is the result of just two years work, between Jan 2009 and Jan 2011.
Furthermore, the Democratic Party Congress in 2009 was still riddled with 'centrist' Democrats (aka 'Republican Lite'), including those like Nelson, Bauccus and Bayh in the Senate, who were definitely acting as SPOILERS at a time when Obama, despite being President, had no clout. To quote Ted Kennedy, when Obama was first elected President, every time he entered the room the Democratic Senate caucus "Didn't know whether to stand, or send him out for coffee."
Ironically, five years of insane Republican obstructionism, hyperpartisanism, and Obama Derangement Syndrome have made the Democrats into a more cohesive and unified team, committed to the idea of accomplishing just a few important things, rather than hanging on to their nice, cooshy Congressional salaries. If the Democrats re-take the House in 2014 (a long shot, I agree), you'll see a much better show!
pam4water
(2,916 posts)the real unemployment numbers. Those are just the "non-discouraged" workers. And he has done absolutely nothing to recover all the money, the public and the government were defrauded out of by the investment banks. In fact he has let the statute of limitations on prosecuting them defrauders run out. I don't see anything to celebrate unless you are a member of the 1%.
spanone
(135,900 posts)seabeckind
(1,957 posts)The DOW has absolutely no relation to the health of the economy. That's a measure of increased wealth to the wealthy.
Reducing the percentage of unemployed is not a measure of the standard of living of those employed. As demeter points out above, an analogy might be counting the number of people in a bread line. If half of them die waiting for food, ...
GDP growth doesn't necessarily mean the product in a particular area has improved. Nor does it guarantee a measure of those items that improved the quality of life of individuals. Blowing up a field on the other side of the world means we have to create a new product.
Deficit doesn't mean there was an investment in the improvement of quality of life. Most of the reduced deficit was a result of austerity. And that doesn't help the common person.
Consumer confidence? Huh? It's ok to buy food and necessities, not necessarily those which were produced to help the common man ... in this country.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)ETA: Lies, damned lies and statistics...
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Why do you hate America?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Wealth of world's billionaires has doubled since 2009.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024041209
Top 1% get 121% of income gains since 2009 (100% of new income + 21% from your old income)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022384139
Wages have fallen to a record low as a share of Americas gross domestic product.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022183930
U.S. corporate profits stronger than ever, workers' wages fallen to lowest-ever share of GDP (CNN)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021922334
U.S. Income Inequality Now Worse Than Many Latin American Countries
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022268073
Ranks of working poor increasing
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022200197
Inequality Rages as Dwindling Wages Lock Millions in Poverty
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022198286
The Middle Class In America Is Being Wiped Out Here Are 60 Facts That Prove It
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022144851
Child poverty rates increase unabated
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022268450
40 Percent of Americans Now Make Less than 1968 Minimum Wage
http://www.democraticunderground.com/111631016
Corporate Profits Have Grown By 171 Percent Under Anti-Business Obama
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014372334
US poverty on track to reach 46-year high; suburbs, underemployed workers, children hit hard
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002998131
Poverty, hunger among retirees increasing
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002748342
The Economy is "Recovering" By Creating More Low-Wage Jobs... Increasingly Filled By Graduates
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022602162
"Recovery" in US is lifting profits, but not adding jobs
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014414149
Obama to use pension funds of ordinary Americans to pay for bank mortgage settlements
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002205218
What Recovery? Across America, People in Distressed Cities and Small Towns Face Economic Catastrophe
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022545596
Real wages decline; literally no one notices
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11172387
Wall Street Soars with Wealth as Wages Stagnate, Jobs Remain in a Slump
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12526154
Wages for bottom 90% declined 1.2% during 2009-2011 recovery, top 1% income grew 8.2%
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022271466
Three Minimum Wage Jobs Needed To Afford Two-Bedroom Apartment
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022578738
The Real Numbers: Half of America in Poverty -- and It's Creeping toward 75%
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002290698
Incomes Flat in Recovery, but Not for the 1%
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014400736
THIS is the economy in which our "moderate" President is working to fast-track the TPP, impose more austerity, and cut Social Security and Medicare:
http://m.
Study: "Trade" Deal Would Mean a Pay Cut for 90% of U.S. Workers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023661805
Obama To GOP: Im Serious About Cutting The Social Safety Net - TPMDC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022507004
President Obama explains the need for a Grand Bargain
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022507426
Obama seeks to fast-track secret Trans-Pacific Free Trade Agreement
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/10/23-5
How Wall Street Killed Financial Reform
It's bad enough that the banks strangled the Dodd-Frank law. Even worse is the way they did it - with a big assist from Congress and the White House.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-wall-street-killed-financial-reform-20120510
Obama's Top Economic Adviser Tells Democrats They'll Have to Swallow Entitlement Cuts
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023930278
The Untouchables: How the Obama administration protected Wall Street from prosecutions
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022246632
Obama Appoints Bain Capital Consultant Jeff Ziets to Top Post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023662209
Obama selects former Monsanto lobbyist to be his TPP chief agriculture negotiator
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023662210
Wall Street Deregulation Garners Bipartisan Support Despite Devastating JPMorgan Report
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/19/wall-street-deregulation-_n_2910168.html
This is a complete list of Wall Street CEOs prosecuted for their role in the financial crisis
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3653154
Wall Street will get away with massive wave of criminality of 2008 - Statute of Limitations
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022516719Obama seeks longer PATRIOT Act extension than Republicans (December 2013)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x380450
intersectionality
(106 posts)It's great to see all of this archived here. +1
ctsnowman
(1,903 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)bluestate10
(10,942 posts)And all of those 80% of items showed vast improvement under President Obama's leadership. You pick out the only fucking one that don't. What does that say about your state of mind?
FatBuddy
(376 posts)can't wait for some of those investor class simoleons to trickle on down!
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)redqueen
(115,103 posts)BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)I was just saying above that a good dow is better than a bad one, because a lot of people do own stocks. So at least that does keep some money flowing.
But the re-distribution of wealth begun with raygun has continued unchecked. Repukes have systematically been destroying all checks and regulations meant to protect people, the planet and workers from corporate greed.
After building up for decades and really going through the roof during the dark chimpy era, it's at critical mass now.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Wounded Bear
(58,743 posts)The indoctrination is nearly complete. All problems are still the fault of us evil liberals and all those lazy, greedy assholes on welfare and unemployment.
classykaren
(769 posts)oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)is not blowing in the wind. It is in the ballot box. Turn the House blue. Get a jobs bill.
PLEASE!
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)GOTV!
Creideiki
(2,567 posts)Turn the states blue. And then redistrict everything mid-decade so that the House reflects the population. Hey, it's okay, the Republicans in Texas proved that.
Keep away at the top, push for change at the bottom.
oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)We need to separate redistricting from the census. Hmmm Do not know how to do that. I do believe we need a national standard for redistricting and maybe a computer model. Keep thinking!!
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Another day older, and deeper in debt.
UncleYoder
(233 posts)Cause I can't go.
I owe my soul to the company store.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)lobodons
(1,290 posts)And I was going to say Kagan and Sotomayor instead of Scalia clones.
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)Thought we'd be in there forever
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)Without the feds stamping it out.
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)Really other than the health care law and NSA there's a lot of issues the libertarians tout that Obama has delivered on.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)I did not know that.
I thought it was his justice department that threatened federal intervention to prevent it.
Go figure.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)So yah, POTUS gets some credit here.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)we're still in both places.
In Afghan with our active, for real military.
In Iraq with our mercs.
So your thought might still come true.
brush
(53,924 posts)Last edited Wed Jan 1, 2014, 02:03 PM - Edit history (1)
requirement for religious group employers?
What is up with that? I guess she's Catholic but I still don't get it.
Religious groups should not be able to impose their beliefs unto their employees.
I agree, but its only a stay till Friday for a small group of Nuns. She'll probably also move the Utah SS marriage to full SCOTUS. But nonetheless, overall, heads and tails better than a McCain appointee. (I shudder to think of that)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Hobby-Lobby's arguments parallel those of draftees who claimed conscientious objection, parents who refuse court-ordered medical care for their children, Native Americans who used peyote in religious rites and people who refused to pay a portion of their taxes in protest against the Viet Nam war. None of those objectors were simply permitted to flaunt the general law that applied to everyone. There is a provision in the ACA as I understand it that permits a person to opt out if their religion does not permit insurance.
Here are the exemptions:
Members of certain religious sects. Also sometimes called the "religious conscience" exemption, these religious sects must be recognized by the Social Security Administration as being "conscientiously opposed to accepting any insurance benefits," the IRS explains. As described in Section 1402 of the tax code, these sects must have been in existence since at least December 31, 1950.
Members of a health care sharing ministry. Qualified nonprofit health care sharing ministries must meet the tax code's definition of such a group, and must have been in existence since at least December 31, 1999.
http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2013/09/who-is-exempt-from-obamacares-mandate.html
The problem for Hobby Lobby is that they want their cake -- federal protection, Social Security for employees, etc. and they want to eat it too. They want insurance for their employees under ACA, but they want to be able to dictate the details of the insurance. Generally, everyone who does not fit within an exemption has to comply with a law that is written with specific exemptions.
That Sotomayor placed a stay until the full Court can consider Hobby Lobby's case is normal. I would not be surprised if the Court finds some procedural ground to push Hobby Lobby's case tack into a lower court. Is Hobby Lobby really damaged in some way simply because it is required to pay for full insurance that covers birth control. After all, women in their 50s have to pay for the birth control provision although they are not likely to need it. On the other hand, a 30-year-old man has to buy insurance that covers ovarian cancer although he does not have ovaries, and a 30-year-old woman has to buy insurance that covers testicular cancer even though she does not have testicles. It's always been like that. That is the point of insurance. Everyone pays into a common fund that can be used for different needs.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)It deals with a religious organization (versus a for-profit company with religious owners) that claims a faith based exemption from the contraceptive provisions of the ACA. They have precedent on their side and Sotomayer was pretty much obligated to issue a stay based on the likelihood that the org will win.
For the cases that set this precedent see Hosanna-Tabor and Amos:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosanna-Tabor_Evangelical_Lutheran_Church_and_School_v._Equal_Employment_Opportunity_Commission
http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-stone/the-constitution-and-religion/corporation-of-presiding-bishop-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints-v-amos/
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)health insurance that covers birth control?
It's about discrimination against EMPLOYEES in the workplace.
SEC. 702. This title shall not apply to an employer with respect to the employment of aliens outside any State, or to a religious corporation, association, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, or society of its religious activities or to an educational institution with respect to the employment of individuals to perform work connected with the educational activities of such institution.
http://employment.findlaw.com/employment-discrimination/title-vii-of-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964-equal-employment.html
Today the Court holds only that the ministerial exception bars an employment discrimination suit brought on behalf of a minister, challenging her churchs decision to fire her. The Court expresses no view on whether the exception bars other types of suits. Pp. 2021.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-553.pdf
What does that case have to do with the ACA issue? Is the religious organization in it planning to fire employees?
last1standing
(11,709 posts)In Amos, the Court held that a religious organization, the Mormon Church, could fire an employee who did not follow the tenets of the Church. The plaintiff wasn't employed in a religious capacity, in fact he was a janitor for a gym owned by the Latter Day Saints. However, some on the Court used the Lemon Test to decide that the Church could fire an employee on religious grounds, which of course a for-profit corporation could not do.
The Little Sisters of the Poor will likely use this argument to suggest that if the Constitution affords religious organizations accommodation to hire and fire based on religious grounds, surly it allows them to dictate the terms of employment when there is a legitimate religious purpose for doing so.
Personally, I believe Amos was incorrectly decided. Once a religious organization hires an employee, it is acting in the position of employer, not preacher. Unfortunately, the Court didn't see it that way and they're not calling me for my incredible legal expertise in the matter. Of course since the decision was 9 to 0 in favor of the Church, I don't see it as a stretch to believe that a majority will see this expansion as a simple accommodation in line with earlier precedent such as Hossana-Tabor and Amos.
And then I could be wrong.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)exempted churches from compliance with the civil rights law in the hiring and firing of employees.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=483&invol=327
How would that apply to exempt organized churches from complying with the law requiring them to include birth control in the insurance packages they buy for their employees?
No employeewill be discriminated agains in the case before the Supreme Court now. Surely Amos will not be decided as a discrimination case.
Here, from Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith 494 U.S. 872 (Scalia opinion):
As a textual matter, we do not think the words must be given that meaning. It is no more necessary to regard the collection of a general tax, for example, as "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" by those citizens who believe support of organized government to be sinful than it is to regard the same tax as "abridging the freedom . . . of the press" of those publishing companies that must pay the tax as a condition of staying in business. It is a permissible reading of the text, in the one case as in the other, to say that, if prohibiting the exercise of religion (or burdening the activity of printing) is not the object of the tax, but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended.
....
Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.
(Footnote omitted.) We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. "Laws," we said, are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.
, , ,
If, for example, a religious adherent believes war is a sin, and if a certain percentage of the federal budget can be identified as devoted to war-related activities, such individuals would have a similarly valid claim to be exempt from paying that percentage of the income tax. The tax system could not function if denominations were allowed to challenge the tax system because tax payments were spent in a manner that violates their religious belief.
Lots more at
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/494/872
Of course, you never know with the Supreme Court.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)I'm glad you brought up Oregon v. Smith because it points out the hypocrisy of Amos and Hosanna-Tabor. In Smith, as you pointed out, Scalia harkens back to Reynolds to make the claim that the state cannot infringe on religious beliefs but may infringe on religious actions when those actions are subversive to good order or in violation of social duties. However, he ignores the long line of cases since Reynolds was decided in 1879 such as Sherbert v. Verner and Wisconsin v. Yoder that have made the state seek to accommodate religion when possible so long as it does not become an establishment and can be done without great disruption.
In Sherbert, a woman was allowed to claim unemployment after she was fired for refusing to work on her Sabbath. In Yoder, the Court ruled that children in Amish communities were not required to send their children to school after the age of 14 although state law made it compulsory for all children till 16. These are two prime accommodation cases that fly in the face of Reynolds on which the majority decided Smith.
These cases also point out arguments that will probably be made by Little Sisters. I can definitely see them claiming that this is a simple accommodation for a legitimate religious objection, not an establishment, and that it will not cause any great disruption to the government. At least I would make those arguments and I have to assume their attorney is much better versed in these matters than myself.
Again, I think Smith was incorrectly decided as it would have been a simple religious accommodation in line with Sherbert and Yoder but I doubt very much that the Court (especially that disgusting hypocrite, Scalia) will mention Smith if they can help it.
ETA: I want to be clear that my opinion on this is only for Little Sisters of Hope which is the case that Sotomayer issued the stay for. Little Sisters is a religious organization and has a better chance making these arguments. If you're talking about Hobby Lobby, it's an entirely different story. Hobby Lobby is a privately owned, for-profit corporation that exists to make money. The owners of the company should have no real claim as they are not exempted by Sec. 702 and cannot discriminate based on religious beliefs.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)pay the taxes that fund wars.
In Yoder, the families had a superior right to raise their children as they saw fit.
Sherbert again is a question of whether firing a person for following her religion is discrimination based on religion.
The Little Sisters case is not related to unemployment benefits or discrimination in the workplace. The Little Sisters cannot claim that it is against their religion to comply with OSHA regulations on religious grounds. They should not be able to claim that they won't cover insurance for care for women related to birth control.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)It would be an impossibly disruptive accommodation to allow religious objectors the ability to have their tax dollars directed toward non-military agencies or to cut out a portion of their tax bill in the amount in question. However, it would have not been any more of a disruption to allow the plaintiff in Smith to collect unemployment for his religious use of peyote than it was for the plaintiff in Sherbert. Very bad law based on an ignorance of native religion and an ignorant fear of drugs. As far as I can tell, there is no legal difference between Sherbert and Smith except that they were decided differently.
As for Little Sisters, I don't know that a majority on this Court wouldn't let religious orgs override OSHA, or ACA, as they have allowed them to override EEOC. I completely agree with you that they shouldn't allow it, I merely think there's a good chance they will.
As a law student I find the case fascinating; as a human being, I'm disgusted that the Court might allow one person's religion to dictate the rights of another. If I had decided Smith, Amos, Hosanna-Tabor, or now Little Sisters, that is the frame I would use. Unfortunately, too often this Court seems to rarely look at the rights of the individual.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)based on the Court's interpretation of the civil rights statutes.
I don't see how the Little Sisters case involves interpreting and implementing a provision in the ACA.
SEC. 702. This title shall not apply to an employer with respect to the employment of aliens outside any State, or to a religious corporation, association, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, or society of its religious activities or to an educational institution with respect to the employment of individuals to perform work connected with the educational activities of such institution.
http://employment.findlaw.com/employment-discrimination/title-vii-of-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964-equal-employment.html
Why do you think that the statute prohibiting employment discrimination would be relevant to the Little Sisters case?
last1standing
(11,709 posts)It was just an example of a statute that the SCOTUS has subverted when it suits them as they did in Amos. If they will subvert EEOC I see no reason why they wouldn't subvert OSHA or ACA.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)last1standing
(11,709 posts)I very much hope you're right and I'm wrong about Little Sisters. I guess I have very little faith in Kennedy to swing this the right way and even if he does, I still worry about some of the "liberal" justices in cases like these.
democratisphere
(17,235 posts)Response to Scuba (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)Last edited Wed Jan 1, 2014, 02:38 PM - Edit history (1)
GDP: 200% better
The Dow: 100% better
Unemployment: 10% better
Median household income: 8% worse
As a guy with a decent-size 401k, I got a lot. As for what America got, well...
Ezlivin
(8,153 posts)In Pakistan from 20042013 there were 381 CIA drone strikes.
330 of these strikes came on Obama's watch.
Total killed: 2,537-3,646
Civilians killed: 416-951
Children killed: 168-200
Injured: 1,128-1,557
I voted twice for Obama. He was much better than the alternatives. With that said I hope we can do better next time. You know, maybe a Dennis Kucinich or a Bernie Sanders.
rug
(82,333 posts)ffr
(22,674 posts)I would have liked to see that word used in the list as well. Something like:
FREEFALL <==> ENCOURAGING
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)If trickle down economics worked the way its proponents say it should we would be living in a Utopia right now.
DFW
(54,448 posts)Many baby boomers have money invested in the stock market, either directly or in the form of stocks in their retirement account portfolios. Some will need to start taking that money out as they retire. Many will need to be spending it. People who had to liquidate retirement accounts invested in the stock market didn't do so well. People who did it in 2013 (2014 is an open book as yet), did a lot better, especially if they did a Roth conversion 4 to 6 years ago.
More money being spent will boost consumer confidence. It may not result in a huge jump in the sales of Cadillacs but restaurants, hotels, mom and pop stores in areas populated by boomers should definitely feel the squeeze lessen as a result.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)and bankers who use that money to make gobs of money for themselves sure do thank you.
As do the corporations who convinced you that it was much better for you to build your own pension rather than burden them with deferred compensations also thank you. It made it so much easier to sell the company to people like Bain who could then borrow against its inherent worth.
The dow at 16000 is pennies to the little guy with a piece of a fund. It's billions to the investment class.
The best sting is one where the mark doesn't know he's been stung.
DFW
(54,448 posts)The little shops we go to in Düsseldorf, Prague, Budapest, Dallas, South Carolina and Massachusetts thank us more because we dump our money with them, and not with British Petroleum.
I don't buy into slogans, whether from Fox Noise or their mirror images on the other side. I just got done with a four day gathering with such diverse people as Richard Viguerie, Gerry Nadler and Rush Holt. Richard had his tired old slogans and fell flat. Gerry and Rush had coherent ideas and rational arguments to back them up. Three guesses as to who won those discussions.
Jedem das Seine, as we say in our neck of the Rheinland.
mikekohr
(2,312 posts)During 8 years of President Bush it shrank 67%. If this continues I stand an outside chance of being able to retire when I'm 67.
Under Republican economic leadership, my retirement plans consisted of me dropping dead on the job.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)Just what kind of return is needed to have a decent early retirement with that amount?
Outside chance of retiring at 67?
I retired with a half pay pension at 49. It's not a lot but it's enough to be comfortable. During the years between my retirement and SS I could work doing the things I liked and not be worried about paying the rent.
That's what you gave up when you bought into the 401 scheme. There are people who made quite a bit of money on the 401 idea. The guy with $85,000 in it wasn't one of them.
I firmly believe the whole idea of the 401 was to allow companies to divest themselves from loyalty to their workers.
<added on edit> Only a small percentage of the workforce takes advantage of the 401 at all. If you're barely getting by every penny you have is going to survval today. That means the company doesn't have to contribute much at all. In the past they had to set money aside into a special fund no matter how little the employee was making. Under the 401? They get more in their already really full pockets.
mikekohr
(2,312 posts)I have a small defined pension from a former union employer that I will draw on when I retire.
My present non-union employer only offers 401K. They match my contibution up to 4% of my salary ( I put in 10%). They also put in a yearly profit sharing contibution.
I'd rather have another defined pension. But the point of the original post is that the economy is no longer in a free-fall. President Obama like every other Democratic president took a floundering economy and fixed it. Just think what he can do if he gets a Democratic House and comprehensive fillibuster reform in 2014.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)Mr.Bill
(24,334 posts)BENGHAZI!
last1standing
(11,709 posts)Which is likely why average real income isn't listed. I'm not against stocks rising or GDP growing but how about wages growing at a higher rate than productivity for once? Or maybe we could see a slight dip in the percentage of wealth owned by the 1% in comparison with the rest of the nation.
We need real improvements, not slick numbers.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)that list represents metrics which were developed to make the first Reagan admin look like it was working. They are fudged trickledown, supply side numbers.
Like defining making hamburgers as manufacturing. Consumer confidence is some bullshit term to justify supply side thinking.
It's all crap...part of that policy that tries to telling us that nobody's pissing on our leg, that's rain.
Wounded Bear
(58,743 posts)2009 100dB......2014 200dB
Just can't seem to win.
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)PeggyKR
(177 posts)That's it? That's all he's done? We need to impeach him!
ThomThom
(1,486 posts)more war and drones
increased oil and gas production
free ride for bankers and investment bankers
no carbon tax
tax cut and subsidies for big business
cut to unemployment insurance
we did get health insurance but not single payer
Bring on Hilary we need more of this
ThomThom
(1,486 posts)we gave up all our good jobs, we might as well give up our rights to the corporations as well
mwooldri
(10,303 posts)% increase as of Jan 2014 who now have health insurance. But then I'm guessing that number isn't fully known yet. Not perfect... a step in the right direction... still not finished (darned red states not expanding medicaid despite funding being provided!) but we'll get there.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)How dare he improve the country as he's done!
But imagine what he could have done with more D's in the Congress!
pam4water
(2,916 posts)OK 5 years older.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Benghaaaaaaaaaaaaazeeeeeeeeeeeee!
I think that nothing find in within years.