Five years of Obama and what do we get?

[Scuba]

[edhopper]

1. Unfortunately

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. Let's turn Congress Blue

and those numbers will change in a heart beat.

[bluestate10]

91. You point out a rational path. I find it interesting that NO ONE replied to you before me.

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]

95. I am never surprised when no responds to this message

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]

4. Yes, it's terrible news that unemployment has gone down.

DEMAND UTOPIA NOW!

[edhopper]

5. You really think

.8% during recession level unemployment is something to crow about?
This is anemic and if it was a Repug President would be unacceptable.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

10. I do believe it was repukes that killed PBO's jobs bill.

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]

12. True

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]

17. the REPUKELICAN sequester and REPUKELICAN budget cuts.

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]

20. Agree with your last line

Rmoney would have been a catastrophe.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

23. omg I don't even want to picture what things would be like now

if that had happened.

[okaawhatever]

64. The sequester has very little to do with the deficit reduction. The overwhelming majority of it came

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]

77. I can tell you that things like my retirement plans

are worth an awful lot more these days.

That counts.

[freshwest]

84. IIRC, they did what no other Congress has done; shut down all government spending stimulus, even to

the point that Justice Roberts, no friend of most of us, has said they have created a national crisis. They have turned us over to their friends abroad, as Bush did. It hurts us, and they LOVE it.

[karynnj]

34. In reality those numbers also UNDERSTATE the decrease

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]

47. I seem to remember 2010...

the publicans picked up seats in congress promising more jobs. Olberman lost his job partly for criticizing Mr. Boner every night after night.

[DCBob]

63. Unemployment peaked at 10.2% in Nov 2009.

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]

68. It took FDR over 8 years to bring employment back to pre-Depression levels

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]

90. But FDR gave us more government jobs not wage freezes

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]

97. Brutal, your right Grumpy McCain or Money Bags Romney in hindsight was the clear choice

the kneejerk criticism of our President from so many on this site is truely mortifying.

[fasttense]

110. It's not knee jerk criticism

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]

71. Say hello to Repuke congress.

For job numbers.

[840high]

78. ...

[lonestarnot]

6. Really. 7% is not accurate.

[Demeter]

8. Unemployment is down because people have given up

The % employed is the lowest it's been in generations.

[Shemp Howard]

21. Absolutely correct!

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]

26. Some more info from wiki on the Long term unemployed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discouraged_worker

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]

73. Tangentially related to this is the acronym NEET...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEET

NEET = young person who is "Not in Education, Employment, or Training"

Over the years it has become a growing subculture around the world.

[progressoid]

42. It is if your new job pays half of what the old one did.

[Eddie Haskell]

76. He has a point.

The numbers are great, but the average voter isn't doing that much better. People have short memories.

[TrollBuster9090]

75. Those unemployment numbers and median income numbers are also AMAZING, considering that

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]

83. And the re-inflation of a bubble in the stock market is nothing to celebrate. Also those aren't

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]

2. thanks!!!!

[seabeckind]

7. Wrong things being measured

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]

11. Very well said.

ETA: Lies, damned lies and statistics...

[zeemike]

35. Now you are messing with their figuring.

Why do you hate America?

[woo me with science]

57. Thank you. The 99 percent are being destroyed by corporate policy.

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 America’s 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: I’m 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]

87. Wooed me for sure...

It's great to see all of this archived here. +1

[ctsnowman]

88. Nailed it.

[840high]

79. Good post.

[bluestate10]

93. 80% of the items on the list have a DIRECT bearing on the economy and working people.

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]

9. YAY! wall street!

can't wait for some of those investor class simoleons to trickle on down!

[HughBeaumont]

13. If anything, this can be used as positive proof once and for all . . .

[redqueen]

14. Nice. nt

[BlancheSplanchnik]

22. very good one.

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]

37. Perfect!

[Wounded Bear]

56. Unfortunately, it doesn't work...

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]

94. That would make a wonderful commercial to put on Fox News

[oldandhappy]

15. The answer my friends

is not blowing in the wind. It is in the ballot box. Turn the House blue. Get a jobs bill.
PLEASE!

[BlancheSplanchnik]

24. thank you. exactly!

GOTV!

[Creideiki]

45. Turn the House blue AND

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]

80. You are on to something.

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]

16. I'm reminded of the old song.

Another day older, and deeper in debt.

[UncleYoder]

19. Saint Peter don't you call me.

Cause I can't go.
I owe my soul to the company store.

[sulphurdunn]

18. Five years older and deeper in debt.

[Eleanors38]

89. Channeling Tennessee Ernie Ford?

[sulphurdunn]

96. Yep.

[Eleanors38]

98. Great, tough, cutting-edge song, banned in a few places.

[lobodons]

25. And I was going to say

And I was going to say Kagan and Sotomayor instead of Scalia clones.

[hollowdweller]

27. Getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan

Thought we'd be in there forever

[hollowdweller]

28. Legal Marijuana in 2 states

Without the feds stamping it out.

[hollowdweller]

29. Expansion of protection for gay people

Really other than the health care law and NSA there's a lot of issues the libertarians tout that Obama has delivered on.

[seabeckind]

50. So Obama passed pot legalization in WA?

I did not know that.

I thought it was his justice department that threatened federal intervention to prevent it.

Go figure.

[darkangel218]

61. Thretened, but didnt acttualy act on it.

So yah, POTUS gets some credit here.

[seabeckind]

51. Last I looked

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]

33. Are you also flummoxed by her (Sotomayor) blocking the ACA birth control . . .

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.

[lobodons]

40. I agree

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]

49. This may not be the worst time for the Supreme Court to consider this issue.

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]

55. Sotomayer's stay had nothing to do with Hobby Lobby.

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]

99. How does that case apply to the issue of whether a religious organization has to pay for

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 church’s decision to fire her. The Court expresses no view on whether the exception bars other types of suits. Pp. 20–21.

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]

100. I think in the terms you're looking for Amos is the better case to study.

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]

101. In the Amos case, again, the issue was whether Section 702 of the civil rights law

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]

102. Yes, and I believe a majority will look to expand Amos here based on accomodation.

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]

103. But, as Scalia pointed out in Smith, people who object to war based on religious beliefs must still

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]

104. As I said, I find Scalia's opinion in Smith to be hypocritical at the least.

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]

105. The outcomes in the EEOC and other employment discriminations cases are

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]

106. Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that EEOC was directly implicated in this case.

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]

108. They can always find an excuse to interpret a law as they wish.

[last1standing]

109. Which is exactly what they did in Smith.

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]

30. Yep, the numbers NEVER LIE!

[L0oniX]

38. Compared to Bush? ...that won't be hard.

[Proud Public Servant]

32. So as I understand it

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]

36. More Drone Strikes

In Pakistan from 2004–2013 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]

39. + 100% Dow; -0.8% unemployment

[ffr]

41. I do believe the term used in 2007-2008 was FREEFALL

I would have liked to see that word used in the list as well. Something like:

FREEFALL <==> ENCOURAGING

[Bradical79]

43. Proof that trickle down economics doesn't work

If trickle down economics worked the way its proponents say it should we would be living in a Utopia right now.

[DFW]

44. The Dow at 16000 is not completely meaningless

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]

54. And those brokers and traders

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]

62. Yeah, try again. I live in Europe. I get all that stuff tossed at me X 10

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]

70. My 401K has grown by over 527% during 5 Years of President Obama's Leadership

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]

72. The average 401 is around $85,000

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]

82. I did not buy into anything

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]

46. Would've been better if the House wasn't standing firmly in the way at all times. [nt]

[Mr.Bill]

48. But...but...but...

BENGHAZI!

[last1standing]

52. Nothing in that list shows that the last five years have been any better for the 99%.

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]

58. As pointed out above

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]

53. RW Asshole volume....

2009 100dB......2014 200dB

Just can't seem to win.

[Liberal_in_LA]

59. plus1000

[PeggyKR]

60. After 5 years?

That's it? That's all he's done? We need to impeach him!

[ThomThom]

65. lets not forget

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]

67. oh I forgot free trade

we gave up all our good jobs, we might as well give up our rights to the corporations as well

[mwooldri]

66. Something missing on this list.

% 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]

69. actually the Dow closed even higher than that

[MADem]

74. Why the nerve of that guy...

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]

81. Another day older and deeper in debt :P

OK 5 years older.

[zappaman]

85. Impeach!

Benghaaaaaaaaaaaaazeeeeeeeeeeeee!

[MarcPierre]

86. 5 years

I think that nothing find in within years.

[Romulox]

92. Is that chart supposed to impress? Looks like the banksters got theirs, and nobody else...

[oneshooter]

107. "The most transparent administration ever."