Hoffa Makes Announcement Following Texas Meeting With Obama

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by moodaddy247, Feb 23, 2008.

  1. moodaddy247

    moodaddy247 I can't drive 55

    >(Washington, D.C.) – Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa announced today the union’s endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama for president. The endorsement is the first step in mobilizing the union’s 1.4 million members and their families to elect Obama.<

    Its a shame 'ol general prez. Hoffa didn't inquire of my opinion about endorsing B. Hussein Obama. Obbie doesn't share hardly any of my view points... 'course, thats jus me...

    I could not get used to hearing "pres. obama".... What is America putting in thier kool-aid to make them believe that this guys 'the man'? No..don't want Billary either...had enuff of her bac in the 90's... And McCain's a liberal in Conservative wool....
    Three Lib.'s to choose from.... What a cryin' SHAME !!!</SPAN>
  2. toonertoo

    toonertoo Most Awesome Dog Staff Member

    Really shouldnt we get to vote on this?
  3. traveler

    traveler Where next? Venice

    Apparently you were under the impression that the Teamsters was a democracy? :rofl:
  4. cwmaxxout

    cwmaxxout Member

    Its a shame 'ol general prez. Hoffa didn't inquire of my opinion about endorsing B. Hussein Obama. Obbie doesn't share hardly any of my view points... 'course, thats jus me...

    I could not get used to hearing "pres. obama".... What is America putting in thier kool-aid to make them believe that this guys 'the man'? No..don't want Billary either...had enuff of her bac in the 90's... And McCain's a liberal in Conservative wool....

    Three Lib.'s to choose from.... What a cryin' SHAME !!!</SPAN>

    Next time you post state your middle name since it's that important, mine is Maxximillian. Funny how a person who is working, not like so many other American's wanting more of the same Conservative polices that has bankruptied our nation. Yes Prez. Hoffa endorsed Sentor Obama so that american's could get back too work. Maybe if you lose your job, if your a driver probably make over 28.00hr. was to have replace that with the same wages, unable to replace it. Stateing your middle name be disquailfied because it related with something stupid or connected be rejected cry foul. Stick with the real issues, when people don't work UPS numbers go down. What a cryin' SHAME !!!!!!! MAXXOUT!!!!! :peaceful:

  5. traveler

    traveler Where next? Venice

    First, my middle name is Frank after my father who was a Jersey City, NJ police lieutenant.

    Second, exactly how does Senator Obama propose getting people "back to work". I've heard that said but never heard any details. Perhaps you could enlighten us all on his policy that would make this happen. By the way when I took economics in college, 5% unemployment was considered full employment. Yes, there are many minimum wage jobs included in that present number but that is and has always always been that way.

    Third, the real issues, I have heard little from the candidate about the rampant illegal immigrant issue. What is his proposal on that issue? I have heard how he will work in a bi-partisan fashion but his record in the Senate belies that on all the important issues with which he has been involved.

    PS: American's is capitalized in this country and in polite society around the world.
  6. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    bankrupted our nation? In 10 years our current social entitlement programs are going to become 70% of our governments total yearly budget, and none of those are traditional conservative policies. It's also hard to ignore the fact that obama supports more social entitlement programs. Programs that promise to be much more expensive then the social entitilement programs in place today. If you want to see the nation go bankrupt, vote for obama.
  7. brazenbrown

    brazenbrown New Member

    More fear mongering??

    Zell interview

    Speaking on "Squawk Box" this morning, Zell attributed much of the current economic troubles to fear-mongering and politicking by Democratic presidential contenders Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.
    "Obviously what we have going on is an attempt to create a self-fulfilling prophecy," said Zell, chairman of Equity Investments Group and owner of the Chicago Cubs, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times and other companies. "We have two Democratic candidates who are vying with each other to describe the economic situation worse.
    "The reality is that if you live on Wall Street and you're in the credit markets the world couldn't be worse. If you're a farmer and you're getting $25 for your wheat, you're having a great time. If you're a CEO and you've got a balance sheet that's bullet-proof, you're in a great position.
    "This whole thing is way out of control, way out of hand." :slap:
  8. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    I don't know where your coming up with your figures or if your personal definition of social entitlements include basic infrastructure services not to mention the previous administrations unaccounted for baby boomer facter inflateting that statement? But do you realize how much we could have cut into that already by investing 1/2 a trillon dollars to our baby boomers instead of IRAQ ? Between Reagon, Bush I, and Bush II budget deficits have uncontrollably skyrocketed and according to the US top accountant we are well on our way to bankruptcy. You can call basic social programs what you want with your "entitlement" spin but I'll be haul off in a paddy wagon on 1600 penn. ave if another Iraq supporting Republican gets elected in Nov. and spends another 1/2 a trillion of my tax dollars in that sandlot. Stop ignoring the fact that we are well on our way to bankruptcy, and your already looking for a scapegoat in Obama or Clinton.
  9. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    OK, first before I address the issues Brett and D raise, let me address the point of the thread. I think Hoffa going democrat is more out of political need that actual belief. Remember, there was a time the IBT voted republican but if you look at the specific moment, the repubs. ran the show, especially the beraucratic branch which at the time had the IBT under it's thumb fro pass wrongs. Greasing those skids was believed to key the hounds of pedition at bay so to speak.

    Now it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know the democrats will retain Congress and could even grow those numbers as many longtime repubs. are even heading for the doors knowingthe handwriting is on the wall. When you look at raw numbers of actual voter counts voting democrat verses republican in this primary season, it doesn't take much to do the math that more people are voting democrat than republican. This is one reason McCain IMO has gotten the party poo-bah's behind him because he is so much like the 2 leading ladies on the other sides. Independent voters in the general might lean McCain over Hill/Obama when the choice comes down it and that's the repub. party's only shot of keeping the top spot. Looks as it the IBT doesn't see the numbers working to that plan and the trends sure seem to show Obama to be the beauty picked for the finals.

    This is nothing more than the IBT hedging it's bets IMO. Had the demographics and dynamics been in reverse, you can bet McCain would have gotten the nod. JMO.

    As to what D said above in response to Brett. Brett, look at the record my friend as Bush as been the best friend of big gov't and big programs that this element could have. You want Universal single payer healthcare? Well what is the Federal Presription Drug plan that was barreled through by Bush and the Republican leadership? A universal single payer plan. The only reason is the "Compassionate Conservative" and his ilk as phasing in this type of health coverage on the piecemeal plan. We already had such for the senior segement of our society as medicare upon age 65 "BY FEDERAL LAW" becomes your primary coverage of medical insurance. Now we have drug coverage to go with it. What about the youngsters? SCHIPS and Bush continued that program as well. Just a matter of time before the frontend (youngsters) and the backend (oldsters) are completely covered by universal, single payer plans like the ones you guys scream about coming from the so-called communist, liberal democrat ranks! Only thing left is the working class in the middle and both parties have palns to get that started but they just differ in speed. One wants to boil the pot immediately so to speak and the other wants to bring it up by slow boil!

    What about education? "No Child Left Behind" is to borrow words from your playbook, the biggest "liberal, Marxist. Communist" federal grab this side of the Bolshvek Revolution and it was all the product of Bush and the republican party. Fiscal responsibility? I think you even understand that one so I've just leave it a that. Funny, Bush just submitted a 2009' $3 plus trillion budget with a $407 bil deficit. Is that the makngs of a conservative? If Bush was the limited gov't, fiscal responsibility type you illusion yourself to think he and the republicans are, then in his final budget where no recourse can come his way, why not slash the size and scope of gov't to the bone, pay for the War on Teror upfront with money on hand and have a budget surplus for a change?

    And let's consider a minute the Republican Congress who ran in 94' on a pleadge to gut gov't waste and excess power and abuse among other things. One could look in many areas but let's focus just on one and that is Congressman Jeff Flake, Republican from Arizona. You might think I'm about to show Flake as a poster boy for bad gov't but it's just the opposite. Flake has been a maneating tiger when it comes to killing earmarks and exposing them for waht they are. Here are just 2 pieces from the Wall Street Journal on Cong. Flake and his efforts and I highly recommend you read both. I honsetly believe you also will like Flake and what he is doing and will cheer his efforts.



    But now as Paul Harvey would say, "Here's the rest of the story!" Recently, Congressman Flake had risen in seniority to the point that he was up for a position on the Appropiations Committee caused by a Senate appointment of another repub. member. This could have been a great move for the republicans but what happened? Not only did he not get that slot but he got canned from other positions as well for speaking out.


    Good ole "REPUBLICAN" "CONSERVATIVE" Boehner in fact acted more like a "DEMOCRAT" LIBERAL" "COMMIE" in protecting turf. And you want me to believe these are the guys of limited gov't, less spending, etc. etc.? Sorry, saw that song and dance all but destroyed the first 4 years of Reagan when they pass the TEFRA Tax Act in 82' to go along with the fact that nothing on the side of hard backing of our money which by the way controls gov't overspending and inflation almost by itself got thrown to the 4 winds. Sure he appointed the Randian/Libertarian/Lil Austrian School Greenspan to the Fed. only to lull us back to sleep and it seems to have worked BTW but the outcome was the same. Gov't got bigger and we got screwed juat as it's happening again! The day Reagan announced Bush as VP I should have walked then but the rest is history as they say!

    Brett, the republicans really aren't what you think they are. In fact, pull the War on Terror completely off the map and you'd be screaming for a rope to lynch the whole lot of them. It's only using the War on Terror as a linchpin that they have been able to retain power and if one looks not real hard at that, serious questions begin to arise. In fact, for me a year ago I would not have listened to any talk of impeachment but now having read so much I'm completely behind the idea and having in writting enouraged some democrat leaders to in fact persue the process. Bush is not the real evil demon here and I know that but I do think (and not just Cheney either) that the Bush Presidency was used bigtime. And guess what, the democrat leadership won't procede because they know the dirty laundry on them will come out too and that's another reason I want this to go forward. It's time to open the book completely on this entire dirty mess.

    I'll leave you with this from an old issue of Look Magazine which was republished into booklet form by General Motors Corp. My how times have changed.

  10. Bad Gas!

    Bad Gas! Active Member

    I think for yourself and vote for who you want.2pts.:The immagration problem actually costs more to taxpayers than the Iraq war due to all the costs that come with the illegal invasion....pt 2:The war sucks and everybody knows it but you can't just up and dump it like a highschool fling...Ok so let's set the stage. Barack Obama and John McCain had a little back and forth yesterday over al Qaeda's presence in Iraq. Here's how it went:
    Obama made this statement during the debate two nights ago: "Now, I always reserve the right for the president -- as commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad."
    John McCain fired back with this comment: "I have some news. Al Qaeda is in Iraq. It's called Al Qaeda in Iraq. My friends, if we left, they wouldn't be establishing a base. They'd be taking a country, and I'm not going to allow that to happen, my friends."
    Then Obama decided to respond to McCain's comments: "I have some news for John McCain ... There was no such thing as Al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq."
    Say what you will about your beliefs of al Qaeda in Iraq before the war. Dick Cheney asserts that al Qaeda was operating in Iraq before March 2003 and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was leading the branch. But the fact of the matter is ... in Obama's statement during the debate, he seemed completely unaware that not only has al Qaeda "formed a base" in Iraq, but it is responsible for much of the unfortunate bloodshed in Iraq and in many other countries. That will make for a great commander and chief.
    One of the more ridiculous rhetorical gimmicks the left likes to use to slam Bush's attempts to protect our country from Islamic terrorism is this "The war in Afghanistan was OK, but not in Iraq." The premise there is that we're fighting countries. We're not. We're fighting Islamists. In this war against Islamic fanaticism you fight where you find the fanatics. Clearly they were in Afghanistan. Just as clearly they were in Iraq. Somehow the MoveOn Democrats want us to believe that fighting Islamic terrorists is only OK if they're in Afghanistan. If they're found somewhere else ... you have to leave them alone.
  11. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    Diesel- My figures come straight from David Walker, United States Comptroller. According to what he says we need $8 trillion dollars invested at today's treasury rates in order to meet tomorrow's social program entitlement needs. Social programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. We can't afford the programs that we have, yet you wish to add universal healthcare to that list? Social entitlements are any program devised by the government which gives free hand outs in the form of retirement, healthcare, and other basic necessities. I will concede a few people in this country are completely unable to provide these things for themselves, but the vast majority of the people of this nation are not. On the surface these programs appear benevolent, but ultimately they are programs designed to control the people. Allow them to get used to the idea of more government in their lives, and they become easier to control. Thomas Paine once said "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." The more government we allow into our lives the less freedoms we have, and the weaker we become as both a people and a nation. If you want to suck off the teet of the government fine, go move to a socialist country so that you can live your life knowing big brother(government) will always be there for you. I want no part of it.

    wkmack- you always try to inject yourself into these debates as though you are providing some kind of new information. I am well aware of the republican's flaws, and you are not needed to point them out. I will never vote for a third party because I may as well not vote at all. I stick with the side that best supports my views and has a real chance at winning an actual election. Once a third party, whose views better reflect my own, win a majority in congress or even show a good shot at the white house I will switch. Until then I cannot stand by and not allow my true voice to be heard by throwing my vote away to a third party candidate who has no chance at winning a major election in this country.
  12. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    I don't see you posting stuff like this but tell you what, I'll leave it you to do so in whatever manner you see fit. Good luck with it!
  13. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    You're forgetting (or ignoring) the elephant in the room:

    The $2 Trillion Nightmare

    We’ve been hearing a lot about “Saturday Night Live” and the fun it has been having with the presidential race. But hardly a whisper has been heard about a Congressional hearing in Washington last week on a topic that could have been drawn, in all its tragic monstrosity, from the theater of the absurd.
    The war in Iraq will ultimately cost U.S. taxpayers not hundreds of billions of dollars, but an astonishing $2 trillion, and perhaps more. There has been very little in the way of public conversation, even in the presidential campaigns, about the consequences of these costs, which are like a cancer inside the American economy.
    On Thursday, the Joint Economic Committee, chaired by Senator Chuck Schumer, conducted a public examination of the costs of the war. The witnesses included the Nobel Prize-winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz (who believes the overall costs of the war — not just the cost to taxpayers — will reach $3 trillion), and Robert Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International.
    Both men talked about large opportunities lost because of the money poured into the war. “For a fraction of the cost of this war,” said Mr. Stiglitz, “we could have put Social Security on a sound footing for the next half-century or more.”
    Mr. Hormats mentioned Social Security and Medicare, saying that both could have been put “on a more sustainable basis.” And he cited the committee’s own calculations from last fall that showed that the money spent on the war each day is enough to enroll an additional 58,000 children in Head Start for a year, or make a year of college affordable for 160,000 low-income students through Pell Grants, or pay the annual salaries of nearly 11,000 additional border patrol agents or 14,000 more police officers.
    What we’re getting instead is the stuff of nightmares. Mr. Stiglitz, a professor at Columbia, has been working with a colleague at Harvard, Linda Bilmes, to document, among other things, some of the less obvious costs of the war. These include the obligation to provide health care and disability benefits for returning veterans. Those costs will be with us for decades.
    Mr. Stiglitz noted that nearly 40 percent of the 700,000 troops from the first gulf war, which lasted just a month, have become eligible for disability benefits. The current war is approaching five years in duration.
    “Imagine then,” said Mr. Stiglitz, “what a war — that will almost surely involve more than 2 million troops and will almost surely last more than six or seven years — will cost. Already we are seeing large numbers of returning veterans showing up at V.A. hospitals for treatment, large numbers applying for disability and large numbers with severe psychological problems.”
    The Bush administration has tried its best to conceal the horrendous costs of the war. It has bypassed the normal budgetary process, financing the war almost entirely through “emergency” appropriations that get far less scrutiny.
    Even the most basic wartime information is difficult to come by. Mr. Stiglitz, who has written a new book with Ms. Bilmes called “The Three Trillion Dollar War,” said they had to go to veterans’ groups, who in turn had to resort to the Freedom of Information Act, just to find out how many Americans had been injured in Iraq.
    Mr. Stiglitz and Mr. Hormats both addressed the foolhardiness of waging war at the same time that the government is cutting taxes and sharply increasing non-war-related expenditures.
    Mr. Hormats told the committee:
    “Normally, when America goes to war, nonessential spending programs are reduced to make room in the budget for the higher costs of the war. Individual programs that benefit specific constituencies are sacrificed for the common good ... And taxes have never been cut during a major American war. For example, President Eisenhower adamantly resisted pressure from Senate Republicans for a tax cut during the Korean War.”
    Said Mr. Stiglitz: “Because the administration actually cut taxes as we went to war, when we were already running huge deficits, this war has, effectively, been entirely financed by deficits. The national debt has increased by some $2.5 trillion since the beginning of the war, and of this, almost $1 trillion is due directly to the war itself ... By 2017, we estimate that the national debt will have increased, just because of the war, by some $2 trillion.”
    Some former presidents — Washington, Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower — were quoted at the hearing on the need for accountability and shared sacrifice during wartime. But this is the 21st century. That ancient rhetoric can hardly be expected to compete for media attention, even in a time of war, with the giddy fun of S.N.L.
    It’s a new era.
  14. hdkappler

    hdkappler Member

    if obama can get the us out of iraq with in a year he has my vote.american people me as one are getting damn tired of feeding the world.and not taking care of the us.i would like to see the us for one year not give a dime to any country except isarel,and the usa.
  15. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    You call $2 trillion an elephant? I call that a mouse in the corner. The real elephant is the $53 trillion in future promised social security and medicare benefits our government is currently locked into. We need to make some tough choices now, and both Obama and Clinton are not prepared nor interested in making the choices to sustain our government for the long haul. Read this to learn more

  16. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    Yea, your right. Lets just give Iraq over to the insurgents and Al Quaeda just as we are about to run them out of the country. Iraq has been, and is continuing to come around. We are gaining ground over there everyday and real progress continues to this day. Pulling out will leave the job unfinished and will come back to haunt us in the future. Obama is very naive when it comes to how foriegn policy actually works. The hildebeast is not much better. Vote for the next president wisely. Our future depends on it.