The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

While the Obama theme is still "Fairness," the new slogan caught me off guard.  I would have thought it would be more subtile.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-campaign-video-focuses-achievements-ignores-romney-140409923.html
Forward.

It's strong, and will most certainly appeal to his youthful base.  Beyond that, the "Forward." slogan has stood the test of time as a very powerful political slogan dating back to the late 19th century.  

It provides great contrast to the Republican theme. I even remember an oil company using it iirc, "Lean Forward". Someone should copyright the word.

Hmm...I believe a cable news channel uses that...   ;D

Is BACKWARDS available? Or have the Republicans made that their unique marketing product.

This new slogan will be gone in a week.

Aqua,
Not copyrightable.  You would need to be able to establish claim to the slogan as unique or as a marketing construct related to an individual product (or campaign).

"Forward."  exactly as the President is using it, has been used as a political slogan before.  It is also the name of the official publication of the European Socialist party (Vorwärts).  It was the media outlet that Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Georg Weerth and Georg Weber wrote for.

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8003/6986251578_326d3f52b2.jpg)

вперед

Let's assume that the President's re-election team knows the formative history of the Soviet Union, has a grasp of the Revolution, and lionizes Marx, Engels, Lenin et al.  Let's assume that they specifically chose "Forward" to reflect their Communist lineage  Let's assume that all of this is an intentional dogwhistle to summon to their sides all the true believers, the brothers in arms, the fellow travelers.  Will this Red Army of Darkness amount to more than fifteen, twenty people?  Or do all us godless libs have the commie gene, and, when summoned, will find ourselves irresistibly drawn to the collective farms that Obama's sure to build?  I guess I'm trying to understand the threat you're seeing.  Because you specifically seem to think that Obama's going to activate his sleeper cells for the next election, who will sneek through the cul de sacs of your neighborhood in the black of night, and sap you of your precious bodily fluids while you sleep.  With, like, a 32% marginal tax rate or something.  

Romney campaign slogan on his website is "Believe in America"

What a copycat.

http://ibelieveinoklahoma.com/

It doesn't fit well on a bumper sticker, but I'm kinda fond of "Osama Bin Laden is Dead and GM is Still Alive.  Deal With It!"

little understanding of basic economics

and sap you of your precious bodily fluids while you sleep. 

I think you also fail on that count. Basic economics being that which is taught in Econ 101.

It doesn't fit well on a bumper sticker, but I'm kinda fond of "Osama Bin Laden is Dead and GM is Still Alive.  Deal With It!"

Taught by professors that don't believe in Capitalism.

Taught by professors that don't believe in Capitalism.

Salt monster from the original Star Trek series.

Then scroll the logos of all of the pay-for-play campaign donor companies that cost tax payers billions and then billions more in bankruptcy:
Solyndra
SunPower
First Solar
Ener1
Evergreen Solar
SpectraWatt
Beacon Power
Abound Solar
Amonix
Babcock & Brown
A123 Systems
Solar Trust for America
Nevada Geothermal

Every time you think of one of those companies - a billion here, a billion there...

Think Halliburton.  No bid.  $75 billion.

Think bank bailouts.  $1.2 trillion.


It's called perspective.  A refreshing breath of fresh air and sanity from the Murdochian catacombs and caves.

Gaspar's list is rather inaccurate, by the way.

@BarackObama It is a really a shame, that you do not know basic facts: the death camps were build in occupied Poland by Germans during WWII.

Not much "forward" going on in Poland today as far as the U.S. goes.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/obama-polish-death-camps-comment-spurs-polish-ou

Just got done watching today's presidential address on the economy (equivalent to watching Snooki discuss neuroscience).  Besides all blame, there were a few good nuggets.  First, the president said about the crisis in Europe "The problem is with those countries that spend more than they are taking in."  About half way through that phrase, I think he realized what he had just said.  LOL!

"We need to accelerate job creation in the private sector. One of the ways that we can do that is putting teachers and fire fighters and police back to work because those are good middle class jobs," Axelrod said.

Candy then responded, "That's the public sector."

Candy seems not to understand that a teacher's spending is (part of) her income. Yes, Virginia, government jobs increase total private spending, which increases private job growth. I know it's not ideologically popular these days.

Sorry, I forgot the Newspeak. . .public sector is the private sector.  Got it!

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7074/7176512253_399a6cd28a.jpg)

Gaspar, what ever happened to Nancy Pelosi’s idea that unemployment benefits were a boon to the economy?  Haven’t heard much about that lately.

She's busy.  She had a big party last week celebrating her 25th year as a member of the House.  Bono performed, and the party probably cost about a million bucks.  Apparently Bono is the go-to-guy for extravagant Democrat parties.

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/11/17/Web-Resampled/2011-11-17/506882184--606x404.jpg)

Gaspar, what ever happened to Nancy Pelosi’s idea that unemployment benefits were a boon to the economy?  Haven’t heard much about that lately.

boon? don't think she said that...support, maybe. Why do you think we haven't heard this lately? Could it be due to recent legislation or because it is an election season? I'm amazed how you think the demise of the middle class is in your best interest. But then again, you never support giving a hand up because you think it's a hand out. :-*

There you go wandering around in my mind again making smile up.  Careful, it’s a dangerous neighborhood.  8)

Hand ups and temporary assistance are great.  When I hear people bragging about not needing to “find a job just yet” because they can suckle the teat for 99 weeks, that pisses me off...

Sorry I can’t help it if I despise free-loaders.

Just wow. So, you don't think an individual's freedom allows them the right to patiently await the right opportunity to choose their right course? Instead, they should save the government the cost (how much does a single bomb cost?) and just hop onto the first job available. That strategy might work for some of the unemployed but a great number in our workforce that are unemployed are highly educated and highly skilled.

So, you don't think an individual's freedom allows them the right to patiently await the right opportunity to choose their right course?

There is a difference in someone waiting for the right opportunity and simply refusing to go back to work because they can skate awhile.  Do you not realize that?  I personally know of a few people doing or who have done that exact thing- skated because there was no incentive for them to take jobs offered to them rather than take free money from the government.  

I certainly appreciate someone would want a job or career opportunity in line with their skills or knowledge.  That said, there’s nothing to keep someone from taking temp or PT work while they interview for whatever their education or training best suits them for.  Prospecting and interviewing isn’t a 40 hour a week occupation.

Good Dawg....you tend to generalize because you know some lazy dwarfs and assume everyone's the same. I too have known a few who fell back on subsidization, but you seem to overlook those that hide their cash flow while awaiting a better day making ends meet in the meantime with their family needs. A better day not being trickle down but building up. :P

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/599262_10151818773740010_1088475680_n.jpg)

Saw on Drudge family net worth has dropped 40% in the last three years  Here's a new slogan for ya:

(http://i.blogads.com/601000058284/img.gif?guid=0936941c4ca07be5354219880f1db7e2)


link to source.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/fed-americans-wealth-dropped-40-percent/2012/06/11/gJQAlIsCVV_story.html

Where is TTAC to decry Obama’s war on the middle class?

Where is TTAC to decry Obama’s war on the middle class?

Graph tiem!

Looks more like 5% since the peak, with significant post Bush recovery.

(http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=7Wq)

Just wow. So, you don't think an individual's freedom allows them the right to patiently await the right opportunity to choose their right course? Instead, they should save the government the cost (how much does a single bomb cost?) and just hop onto the first job available. That strategy might work for some of the unemployed but a great number in our workforce that are unemployed are highly educated and highly skilled.

There is a difference in someone waiting for the right opportunity and simply refusing to go back to work because they can skate awhile.  Do you not realize that?  I personally know of a few people doing or who have done that exact thing- skated because there was no incentive for them to take jobs offered to them rather than take free money from the government. 

I certainly appreciate someone would want a job or career opportunity in line with their skills or knowledge.  That said, there’s nothing to keep someone from taking temp or PT work while they interview for whatever their education or training best suits them for.  Prospecting and interviewing isn’t a 40 hour a week occupation.

For 2012, the maximum weekly benefit is $368. 

For the standard 40 hr week, that is $9.20/hr.  I certainly hope you can find a LOT better paying job than that as an Engineer. (Even if you are electrical  ;D)

For someone a bit lower on the financial ladder, $9.20/hr might be attractive. I don't know offhand the qualifications for Maximum or reduced benefits but the principal is there.  Say your reduced benefits were $7.00/hr.  The job you can find is $8.00/hr.  In effect, you would be working for $1.00/hr.  I wouldn't want to work for $1.00/hr.


My dad actually ran into this perspective in the 70s.  He needed some manual labor for a few days and went to the labor pool.  The company was willing to pay a little more than the going rate and certainly more than minimum wage at the time.  (I don't remember the actual numbers though.)  Nobody wanted to operate a rake or shovel for the differential between unemployment (or maybe welfare at the time) and what the pay would have been.

Actually, not quite exactly.  The highly educated and highly skilled unemployment nationwide is about 4% and has been fairly constant throughout.  The big area where that DOES absolutely apply is in the over 50 group.  When you get old in this country, MUCH of corporate America does get rid of you.  Like the northeast Oklahoma company where the VP of HR got in front of a group of about 400 and told them the average age in the company was 42.  And they had to get that down....

And then the layoffs began....

Poetic justice - he was early 40's - and about 8 months later, was gone.

Family Net Worth Drops to Level of Early ’90s, Fed Says
By BINYAMIN APPELBAUM
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/business/economy/family-net-worth-drops-to-level-of-early-90s-fed-says.html?_r=1&hp
Published: June 11, 2012
WASHINGTON — The recent economic crisis left the median American family in 2010 with no more wealth than in the early 1990s, erasing almost two decades of accumulated prosperity, the Federal Reserve said Monday.
A hypothetical family richer than half the nation’s families and poorer than the other half had a net worth of $77,300 in 2010, compared with $126,400 in 2007, the Fed said. The crash of housing prices directly accounted for three-quarters of the loss.

Families’ income also continued to decline, a trend that predated the crisis but accelerated over the same period. Median family income fell to $45,800 in 2010 from $49,600 in 2007. All figures were adjusted for inflation.

The new data comes from the Fed’s much-anticipated release on Monday of its Survey of Consumer Finances, a report issued every three years that is one of the broadest and deepest sources of information about the financial health of American families.

While the numbers are already 18 months old, the survey illuminates problems that continue to slow the pace of the economic recovery. The Fed found that middle-class families had sustained the largest percentage losses in both wealth and income during the crisis, limiting their ability and willingness to spend.

“It fills in details to a picture that we already knew was quite ugly, and these details very much underscore that,” said Jared Bernstein, an economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities who served as an adviser to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. “It makes clear how devastating this has been for the middle class.”

Given the scale of those losses, consumer spending has remained surprisingly resilient. The survey also illuminates where the money is coming from: American families saved less and only slowly repaid debts.

The share of families saving anything over the previous year fell to 52 percent in 2010 from 56.4 percent in 2007. Other government statistics show that total savings have increased since 2007, suggesting that a smaller group of families is saving more money, while a growing number manage to save nothing.

The survey also found a shift in the reasons that families set aside money, underscoring the lack of confidence that is weighing on the economy. More families said they were saving money as a precautionary measure, to make sure they had enough liquidity to meet short-term needs. Fewer said they were saving for retirement, or for education, or for a down payment on a home.

The report underscored the limited progress that households had made in reducing the amounts that they owed to lenders. The share of households reporting any debt declined by 2.1 percentage points over the last three years, but 74.9 percent of households still owed something, and the median amount did not change.

The decline in reported incomes could have increased the weight of those debts, tying up a larger share of families’ take-home pay. But one of the rare benefits of the crisis, historically lower interest rates, has helped to offset that effect. Families also have been able to reduce debt payments by refinancing into mortgages with longer terms and deferring repayment of student loans and other obligations.

The survey also confirmed that Americans are shifting the kinds of debts they carry. The share of families with credit card debt declined by 6.7 percentage points to 39.4 percent, and the median balance fell 16.1 percent to $2,600.

Families also reduced the number of credit cards that they carried, and 32 percent of families said they had no cards, up from 27 percent in 2007.

Conversely, the share of families with education-related debt rose to 19.2 percent in 2010 from 15.2 percent in 2007. The Fed noted that education loans made up a larger share of the average family’s obligations than loans to buy automobiles for the first time in the history of the survey.

The cumulative statistics concealed large disparities in the impact of the crisis.

Families with incomes in the middle 60 percent of the population lost a larger share of their wealth over the three-year period than the wealthiest and poorest families.

One basic reason for this disproportion is that the wealth of the middle class is mostly in housing, and the median amount of home equity dropped to $75,000 in 2010 from $110,000 in 2007. And while other forms of wealth have recovered much of the value lost in the crisis, housing prices have hardly budged.

Those middle-income families also lost a larger share of their income. The earnings of the median family in the bottom 20 percent of the income distribution actually increased from 2007 to 2010, in part because of the expansion of government aid programs during the recession. Wealthier families, which derive more income from investments, were also cushioned against the recession.

The data does provide the latest indication, however, that the recession reduced income inequality in the United States, at least temporarily. The average income of the wealthiest families fell much more sharply than the median, indicating that some of those at the very top of the ladder slipped down at least a few rungs.

Ranking American families by income, the top 10 percent of households still earned an average of $349,000 in 2010.

The average net worth of the same families was $2.9 million.

Overall standard of living in this country has been going down for 30 years.

Well, only for the bottom 80%. The 10-20% cohort has stayed basically even, while the 10 percenters have been slowly gaining, although much of that is due to the 1 percenters and the .01 percenters.

I wish it were a Bush thing, then maybe we could get agreement it's an actual problem.

President Obama confuses me.  First he touts his record for sliming the federal government

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dgTvhK7O-aw/T6moA20W7NI/AAAAAAAADaY/iYQJwdyrHi8/s1600/he-slimed-me.jpg)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCW9-MglCsw&feature=colike[/youtube]

That is the maximum - people making half what you make would probably only get half that.  About $4.50 per hour equivalent.  Actually, I am not sure where the max kicks in, but from people I know who have been there recently makes me think that someone who made about $50k per year gets max.  Anyone know for sure??

And one who was at about $34k per year - this was with overtime - only got about $145 a week.  That was about 4 years ago, and I don' t know how that is all calculated.  Needless to say, he wasn't sitting around waiting for that to end.  Calculated on base without overtime??

Made just over $40k last year, lost job end of May... Weekly Benefit Amount $368.00... Maximum Benefit Amount $7700.00