Presidential Debate

[potatopotato]

Denver Presidential Debate Live Blog

President Obama and Mitt Romney square off on Wednesday in the first of three presidential debates.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/debates/presidential/2012-10-03

[Former_Member]

romney still a poopy head

[LocoBead]

BO was stumbling without his teleprompter and couldn't look Romney in the eye when speaking. I predict BO will increase the negative campaign, since he can't run on his record.

[Former_Member]

Surprisingly a disappointing debate by the Pres. He was too polite with Willard. I wish he had been more aggressive. He completely underestimated how well the repubs would coach willard, and how effective willard is at lying.

[Former_Member]

The worst part is that romney still hasn't given a clue as to what any of his "solutions" or "plans" would be. Sadly, that doesn't seem to matter to some people.

[LocoBead]

Sadly, you weren't listening...he gave more specifics than BO. You just don't want to listen to him.

[LocoBead]

http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-denver-debate-declarations/

[MondeDesign]

I've been reading fact checking from all over the net this morning. And I have to be honest, there is not wide swing towards either side. I actually counted through on one site, and Romney had 7 strikes, and Obama had 6 (those range from not quite true, to mostly false), and that seems to be the way of it (Of course I didn't go to very far right, or very far left sites, which would be far too impartial to use). I'm seeing the same things over and over on all the sites. Most of the ones I'm reading say that both men used exaggerations, took info from one analysis that fit their needs, used misleading info, or something like that. I'm not seeing an analysis of lies lies lies.

Historically, a challenger will win the first debate with an incumbent president. Ford lost to Carter, Carter lost to Reagan, Reagan lost to Mondale, GHW Bush lost to Clinton, GW Bush lost to Kerry, and now Obama lost to Romney. (Clinton, of course, won against Dole, since Dole was famously bad at debates.) It will be interesting to see analysis of how this debate stacks up to those. It looked like Obama did very poorly, but do they always do that badly? I don't really remember any of those other debates--I remember watching both the Clinton/Dole debate, and the Bush/Kerry debate, but I don't remember anything really about them.

[LocoBead]

Yes, both candidates had their share of zingers in there...and that's what I like about being able to factcheck. Unfortunately, I believe that relatively few people actually investigate the spin that candidates throw out. Most have their minds solidly wrapped around "their" candidate and they will see no faults. There is an ABC political analyst who fits that bill...she gave Romney a B- and Obama a B+...and I was wondering WTF. Some people will not even attempt to open their minds or admit the truth.

[Former_Member]

Romney doesn't have ANY specifics. Everything is a secret like his tax returns!

From your link....

"Romney sometimes came off as a serial exaggerator."

[Former_Member]

Historically, a challenger will win the first debate with an incumbent president. Ford lost to Carter, Carter lost to Reagan, Reagan lost to Mondale, GHW Bush lost to Clinton, GW Bush lost to Kerry, and now Obama lost to Romney. (Clinton, of course, won against Dole, since Dole was famously bad at debates.) It will be interesting to see analysis of how this debate stacks up to those. It looked like Obama did very poorly, but do they always do that badly? I don't really remember any of those other debates--I remember watching both the Clinton/Dole debate, and the Bush/Kerry debate, but I don't remember anything really about them.

---------

That is interesting Monde. I don't really remember off the top of my head. I would be curious as well.

[LocoBead]

Typical liberal crapola, glass...pick and choose...

Now we have Obama trying to buy the vote with taxpayer dollars...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57525831/white-house-discourages-layoff-warnings/

The Obama administration has sought to quell the fear of mass defense layoffs in presidential battlegrounds like Virginia, where letters sent in early November warning about the possibility of job losses could discourage thousands of defense workers from backing the incumbent.

The government's guarantee to foot the bill for legal problems, as long as contractors heed OMB's advice to refrain from warning about lob losses, is unusual.

"I don't know of any situation where the government has done this in the past," said William Gould, a labor professor at Stanford Law School.

[SerenaSmithLampwork]

please lay out the faults you found with romney's performance, since you are certainly not the kind of person who would engage in "typical conservative crapola" and only pick and choose the negatives of obama's performance.

[Former_Member]

hmmm...

[Former_Member]

http://www.doleta.gov/programs/factsht/warn.htm

The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) was enacted on August 4, 1988 and became effective on February 4, 1989.

General Provisions

WARN offers protection to workers, their families and communities by requiring employers to provide notice 60 days in advance of covered plant closings and covered mass layoffs. This notice must be provided to either affected workers or their representatives (e.g., a labor union); to the State dislocated worker unit; and to the appropriate unit of local government.

Employer Coverage

In general, employers are covered by WARN if they have 100 or more employees, not counting employees who have worked less than 6 months in the last 12 months and not counting employees who work an average of less than 20 hours a week. Private, for-profit employers and private, nonprofit employers are covered, as are public and quasi-public entities which operate in a commercial context and are separately organized from the regular government. Regular Federal, State, and local government entities which provide public services are not covered.

Employee Coverage

Employees entitled to notice under WARN include hourly and salaried workers, as well as managerial and supervisory employees. Business partners are not entitled to notice.


What Triggers Notice

Plant Closing: A covered employer must give notice if an employment site (or one or more facilities or operating units within an employment site) will be shut down, and the shutdown will result in an employment loss (as defined later) for 50 or more employees during any 30-day period. This does not count employees who have worked less than 6 months in the last 12 months or employees who work an average of less than 20 hours a week for that employer. These latter groups, however, are entitled to notice (discussed later).

Mass Layoff: A covered employer must give notice if there is to be a mass layoff which does not result from a plant closing, but which will result in an employment loss at the employment site during any 30-day period for 500 or more employees, or for 50-499 employees if they make up at least 33% of the employer's active workforce. Again, this does not count employees who have worked less than 6 months in the last 12 months or employees who work an average of less than 20 hours a week for that employer. These latter groups, however, are entitled to notice (discussed later).

An employer also must give notice if the number of employment losses which occur during a 30-day period fails to meet the threshold requirements of a plant closing or mass layoff, but the number of employment losses for 2 or more groups of workers, each of which is less than the minimum number needed to trigger notice, reaches the threshold level, during any 90-day period, of either a plant closing or mass layoff. Job losses within any 90-day period will count together toward WARN threshold levels, unless the employer demonstrates that the employment losses during the 90-day period are the result of separate and distinct actions and causes.

Sale of Businesses

In a situation involving the sale of part or all of a business, the following requirements apply. (1) In each situation, there is always an employer responsible for giving notice. (2) If the sale by a covered employer results in a covered plant closing or mass layoff, the required parties (discussed later) must receive at least 60 days notice. (3) The seller is responsible for providing notice of any covered plant closing or mass layoff which occurs up to and including the date/time of the sale. (4) The buyer is responsible for providing notice of any covered plant closing or mass layoff which occurs after the date/time of the sale. (5) No notice is required if the sale does not result in a covered plant closing or mass layoff. (6) Employees of the seller (other than employees who have worked less than 6 months in the last 12 months or employees who work an average of less than 20 hours a week) on the date/time of the sale become, for purposes of WARN, employees of the buyer immediately following the sale. This provision preserves the notice rights of the employees of a business that has been sold.


Employment Loss

The term "employment loss" means:

(1) An employment termination, other than a discharge for cause, voluntary departure, or retirement;

(2) a layoff exceeding 6 months; or

(3) a reduction in an employee's hours of work of more than 50% in each month of any 6-month period.

Exceptions: An employee who refuses a transfer to a different employment site within reasonable commuting distance does not experience an employment loss. An employee who accepts a transfer outside this distance within 30 days after it is offered or within 30 days after the plant closing or mass layoff, whichever is later, does not experience an employment loss. In both cases, the transfer offer must be made before the closing or layoff, there must be no more than a 6 month break in employment, and the new job must not be deemed a constructive discharge. These transfer exceptions from the "employment loss" definition apply only if the closing or layoff results from the relocation or consolidation of part or all of the employer's business.

Exemptions

An employer does not need to give notice if a plant closing is the closing of a temporary facility, or if the closing or mass layoff is the result of the completion of a particular project or undertaking. This exemption applies only if the workers were hired with the understanding that their employment was limited to the duration of the facility, project or undertaking. An employer cannot label an ongoing project "temporary" in order to evade its obligations under WARN.

An employer does not need to provide notice to strikers or to workers who are part of the bargaining unit(s) which are involved in the labor negotiations that led to a lockout when the strike or lockout is equivalent to a plant closing or mass layoff. Non-striking employees who experience an employment loss as a direct or indirect result of a strike and workers who are not part of the bargaining unit(s) which are involved in the labor negotiations that led to a lockout are still entitled to notice.

An employer does not need to give notice when permanently replacing a person who is an "economic striker" as defined under the National Labor Relations Act.


Who Must Receive Notice

The employer must give written notice to the chief elected officer of the exclusive representative(s) or bargaining agency(s) of affected employees and to unrepresented individual workers who may reasonably be expected to experience an employment loss. This includes employees who may lose their employment due to "bumping," or displacement by other workers, to the extent that the employer can identify those employees when notice is given. If an employer cannot identify employees who may lose their jobs through bumping procedures, the employer must provide notice to the incumbents in the jobs which are being eliminated. Employees who have worked less than 6 months in the last 12 months and employees who work an average of less than 20 hours a week are due notice, even though they are not counted when determining the trigger levels.

The employer must also provide notice to the State dislocated worker unit and to the chief elected official of the unit of local government in which the employment site is located.

Notification Period

With three exceptions, notice must be timed to reach the required parties at least 60 days before a closing or layoff. When the individual employment separations for a closing or layoff occur on more than one day, the notices are due to the representative(s), State dislocated worker unit and local government at least 60 days before each separation. If the workers are not represented, each worker's notice is due at least 60 days before that worker's separation.

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.

If an employer provides less than 60 days advance notice of a closing or layoff and relies on one of these three exceptions, the employer bears the burden of proof that the conditions for the exception have been met. The employer also must give as much notice as is practicable. When the notices are given, they must include a brief statement of the reason for reducing the notice period in addition to the items required in notices.

Form and Content of Notice

No particular form of notice is required. However, all notices must be in writing. Any reasonable method of delivery designed to ensure receipt 60 days before a closing or layoff is acceptable.

Notice must be specific. Notice may be given conditionally upon the occurrence or non-occurrence of an event only when the event is definite and its occurrence or nonoccurrence will result in a covered employment action less than 60 days after the event.

The content of the notices to the required parties is listed in section 639.7 of the WARN final regulations. Additional notice is required when the date(s) or 14-day period(s) for a planned plant closing or mass layoff are extended beyond the date(s) or 14-day period(s) announced in the original notice.

Record

No particular form of record is required. The information employers will use to determine whether, to whom, and when they must give notice is information that employers usually keep in ordinary business practices and in complying with other laws and regulations.

Penalties

An employer who violates the WARN provisions by ordering a plant closing or mass layoff without providing appropriate notice is liable to each aggrieved employee for an amount including back pay and benefits for the period of violation, up to 60 days. The employer's liability may be reduced by such items as wages paid by the employer to the employee during the period of the violation and voluntary and unconditional payments made by the employer to the employee.

An employer who fails to provide notice as required to a unit of local government is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $500 for each day of violation. This penalty may be avoided if the employer satisfies the liability to each aggrieved employee within 3 weeks after the closing or layoff is ordered by the employer.

Enforcement

Enforcement of WARN requirements is through the United States district courts. Workers, representatives of employees and units of local government may bring individual or class action suits. In any suit, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs.

Information

Specific requirements of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act may be found in the Act itself, Public Law 100-379 (29 U.S.C. 210l, et seq.) The Department of Labor published final regulations on April 20, 1989 in the Federal Register (Vol. 54, No. 75). The regulations appear at 20 CFR Part 639.

General questions on the regulations may be addressed to:

U.S. Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration
Office of Work-Based Learning
Room N-5426
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210
(202) 219-5577
The Department of Labor, since it has no administrative or enforcement responsibility under WARN, cannot provide specific advice or guidance with respect to individual situations.

This is one of a series of fact sheets highlighting U.S. Department of Labor programs. It is intended as a general description only and does not carry the force of legal opinion.

and http://govwin.com/anthonycritelli_blog/sequestration-layoffs-does-warn-act/706689

so, if i understand this correctly - to keep the contractors from taking on potential legal issues if, due to fed budget changes, they don't meet the legal requirement regarding layoff notification timelines - possibly as early as January (just 3 months away - only a month shy of the legal 2 month notification) which then can put the company at risk for legal action.

asshole government trying to help cover the defense contractors! evil bastards!

[Former_Member]

and gee - trying to also cover the employees who would then have to fight for any backpay if layed off without notice...


again - nasty nasty government!

[Former_Member]

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/09/cny_defense_contractors_fear_i.html

Washington -- Central New York defense companies — one of the growing sectors of the local economy — say they have delayed hiring new workers and might resort to layoffs because of deep federal spending cuts due to begin Jan. 2.
The companies say it is difficult to make any long-term plans because a gridlocked Congress has failed to stop $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts that would begin next year and continue over the next decade.
The first round of cuts — totaling $110 billion equally split between defense and domestic programs — will begin next year unless Congress acts to replace them with other deficit reduction plans.
The cutbacks could hit especially hard in Central New York, where defense contractors employ more than 5,000 people in positions that tend to offer better pay for highly skilled work.
Last fiscal year alone, the Department of Defense spent more than $616 million through 3,074 contracts with businesses in Central New York’s 25th Congressional District, federal records show. This fiscal year to date, the total is $657 million.
The nation’s three largest defense contractors — including Lockheed Martin Corp., which employs more than 1,900 people in Central New York — confirmed last week they will send layoff warnings to tens of thousands of employees shortly before Election Day.
Lockheed officials declined to say how many employees at its plant at Electronics Park, in Salina, might receive the layoff warnings. Other local executives are openly talking about their frustrations with Congress and the potential fallout from political gridlock.
Marc Viggiano — president and chief executive officer of Saab Sensis Corp., in DeWitt — said the looming cutbacks and Congressional inaction have affected his business decisions. The company employs 463 people, including 404 in Central New York, in a business that makes military radars and air traffic management systems.
“We are closely monitoring developments in Washington and have been working with our elected officials, customers and industry colleagues to encourage government leaders to work together and negotiate a budget solution which avoids long-term damage to the U.S. economy, our national security and our infrastructure,” Viggiano said in a statement.
“In the meantime, we are being far more cautious with hiring and discretionary spending than we would be otherwise,” Viggiano said. “You don’t need much of an imagination to predict the chilling effect this caution has on job creation and economic growth.”

Viggiano said the across-the-board federal budget cuts could set back his company, which returned to profitability and began hiring again in the summer after laying off 72 workers last year.

[Former_Member]

and to try to keep a panic reaction of mass layoffs from occurring in case the gov can pull it's head out of it's collective bum and figure something out...

http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2012/09/14/white-house-details-automatic-budget...

The $110 billion in cuts would touch everything you can imagine in the budget, and that is clear in the 394 pages of details of this report.

* The Executive Office of the President at the White House would lose $5 million
* Senators' Official Personnel and Office Expense Account would be cut $32 million; House members would lose $101 million
* The Judiciary Office Building Development and Operations Fund would lose $1 million
* The National Agricultural Statistics Service would lose $13 million
* Land Acquisition programs at the Forest Service would be cut $4 million
* Aircraft Procurement in the Army would lose $843 million
* Low Income Home Energy aid rograms would be cut by $283 million
* The Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis Program would be cut $8 million

And the list goes on an on and on.

But some areas are exempt, like money for the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, the Open World Leadership Center Trust Fund and the John C. Stennis Center for Public Service Training and Development.

You can read the report for yourself at this link. (http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2012/09/14/dupree-stareport.pdf)

Congress has several choices - lawmakers can leave the automatic cuts in place, or they can come up with a plan to replace the $110 billion in spending reductions.

Or, lawmakers could simply postpone the cuts for a year or more - or get rid of them entirely.

All of that will be addressed after the November elections.

[LocoBead]

*cut taxes
*close loopholes (which translates to the wealthy paying more taxes in previously protected income)
*get more people working...and paying their share of taxes

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/03/us/politics/transcript-of-the-first-presidential-debate-in-denver....

[LocoBead]

Serena from SerenaSmithLampwork says
please lay out the faults you found with romney's performance, since you are certainly not the kind of person who would engage in "typical conservative crapola" and only pick and choose the negatives of obama's performance.

***********
go to pg. 1...the factcheck link details both...have a blast

[Former_Member]

LocoBeadfromLocoBead says

*cut taxes
*close loopholes (which translates to the wealthy paying more taxes in previously protected income)
*get more people working...and paying their share of taxes

-----------------------

cut taxes... he hasn't spelled out specifics of that.

close loopholes.... which ones?He won't say. Besides, even if he closed all possible loopholes, it wouldn't be enough to counter all the increased military spending he wants to do.

get more people working... yeah right! more right wing trickle down "crapola"!! We all know how well that works.

[Former_Member]

and as a man very familiar with loopholes - he should be well versed and able to detail at least a few he would close...but he doesn't want to piss off his big dollar donors by getting specific...and then have it on record where folks might be able to hold him accountable for it...

[Former_Member]

LocoBeadfromLocoBead says

Typical liberal crapola, glass...pick and choose...

-------------------------------

Actually I didn't pick and choose at all. Like monde pointed out, the article was pretty balanced with exaggerations on both sides. 7 for romney, 6 for obama. factcheck does make a real effort to be balanced.

However their words exactly were: "Romney sometimes came off as a SERIAL EXAGGERATOR." I was just pointing that out since they don't use any similar descriptions at all for Obama.

[Former_Member]

What I don't understand is why Obama wasn't more aggressive? There is so much he could go after Romney for....especially that 47% comment that showed Romney for who he really is, instead of the trained performer we saw on stage last night.

[Former_Member]

class above trash is my theory...you don't get in the mud with the pigs?