Defense firms may issue layoff warnings despite U.S. guidance

Aug 8, 2012 Full story: Reuters 118

U.S. defense contractors facing automatic budget cuts at the year-end are still considering issuing layoff notices to employees just before the November 6 elections, even though the Obama administration says such warnings are unnecessary.

Full Story

Since: Oct 08

Atlanta, GA

#62 Aug 10, 2012
defense contractors should send the layoff notices, and blame obama, and add that if obama loses, they will rescind the layoffs and everybody will live happily ever after.
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

#63 Aug 10, 2012
Military spending is almost a trillion a year, and most of the federal budget goes to military spending, socialist security and government socialist Medicare and the tea party does not want any cuts to any of those things. So they do not want spending cuts, they want higher taxes to fund those three big things. No, they don't want higher taxes, they lie they want spending cuts, but they don't want any spending cuts on military, SS and Medicare, which is over 80 percent of the budget, but you would have to raise taxes substantially to pay just for those three things if you want to stop borrowing money. So what do you all want to do?? Do you want to cut spending or not?? If not, then do you want to keep borrowing money or do you want to raise taxes?? All the federal tax money goes for SS, Medicare and Medicaid and we borrow all the money to pay for our military - Senator Alan Simpson said this in a one hour discussion at the Panetta Institute. So do you want to make no cuts to military spending and end Social Security and Medicare to balance the budget or end military spending and keep SS and Medicare to balance the budget, or keep both and raise taxes?? Make up your minds.

Unbeknowns to the tea party, you have to actually cut this stuff if you want spending cuts, and if you don't want spending cuts, you have to raise taxes to pay for all of this big, huge spending you want. It's too bad the tea party is so stupid. They can't ever think. Four into the tea party, they have no clue about one real thing and can't even find out where most of the money is being spent. What a mess.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#64 Aug 10, 2012
Your Ex wrote:
<quoted text>
Is there anything you know less about than politics?
President Obama has opened up a 7 point lead over Mitt Romney nationally, according to a CNN-ORC poll released on Thursday.
Obama leads Romney 52 percent to 45, according to the poll.
While Obama is only up by 4 percentage points nationally, according to the Real Clear Politics average of polls, the CNN-ORC survey is the second poll this week to show Obama with a 7 point lead. Obama led Romney 49 percent to 42, according to a Reuters-Ipsos poll released earlier this week.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/243...
CNN or the station that has lost all it's viewers.......what creds.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#65 Aug 10, 2012
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
Rush Limbaughtomy propaganda duly noted and followed by the other nutcase publications.
Someday, you will have the balls to try and prove something other than your stupidity.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#66 Aug 10, 2012
Bluebonnets-Thistle wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't listen to Rush. Got that from a PhD, guess who? LMAo
Michael WEINER

A PhD?

Wow.

A PhD in Witch Doctor.

Oh' darn.
Mothra

Peoria, AZ

#67 Aug 10, 2012
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
"Controversial move"?
Because teabaggers are making it controversial?

[argumentative dodge omitted]
It was reported "controversial" via Reuters.

Yegads, your arguments suck.
Mothra

Peoria, AZ

#68 Aug 10, 2012
Your Ex wrote:
<quoted text>
Defending the WARN act?
Can I see your Union card, Comrade?
The WARN Act was passed by a veto-proof Democratic majority in Congress and became law without President Reagan's signature. The WARN Act became law in August 1988 and took effect in 1989.
The American defense industry has threatened to send out WARN notices just before the 2012 election if CONGRESS fails to overturn the sequestration measures of the Budget Control Act of 2011, but this has given some companies concerns that their best talent may flee, even if sequestration is avoided.
Well gee, here's a big 'duh' for you.

I posted the same info regarding the WARN act. It's the law and it's supposed to be enforced.

Next time try posting something useful.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#69 Aug 10, 2012
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Someday, you will have the balls to try and prove something other than your stupidity.
It doesn't take balls to do that LeDimbulb.

You've proven that with every post.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#70 Aug 10, 2012
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't take balls to do that LeDimbulb.
You've proven that with every post.
oh my a toughy......a real rambo......brings to mind Rambo II with Rambo hanging in the pigchit......you loons are a lot like that with your ads.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#71 Aug 10, 2012
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
It was reported "controversial" via Reuters.
Yegads, your arguments suck.
Amid mounting concerns over $1.2 trillion worth of automatic spending cuts slated to go into effect next January, a handful of Republican senators are launching a multi-state campaign aimed at highlighting to voters the "devastating" impact they say cuts will have on the defense department, and national security in general.

In a series of town hall-style events in four battleground states -- North Carolina, Virginia and New Hampshire - Sens. John McCain, Kelly Ayotte and Lindsey Graham will "sound the alarm" about why they believe the cuts must not be enacted.

McCain, who like Graham and Ayotte is on the Senate Armed Services Committee, voted for the bill last August, along with 18 other Republican senators. Graham and Ayotte opposed the bill, which passed by a vote of 74-26.

There are a number of Republicans in Congress who don't want you to know that most of them voted for these cuts," he said. "Now they're trying to wriggle out of what they agreed to."
1 post removed

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#73 Aug 10, 2012
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
Amid mounting concerns over $1.2 trillion worth of automatic spending cuts slated to go into effect next January, a handful of Republican senators are launching a multi-state campaign aimed at highlighting to voters the "devastating" impact they say cuts will have on the defense department, and national security in general.
In a series of town hall-style events in four battleground states -- North Carolina, Virginia and New Hampshire - Sens. John McCain, Kelly Ayotte and Lindsey Graham will "sound the alarm" about why they believe the cuts must not be enacted.
McCain, who like Graham and Ayotte is on the Senate Armed Services Committee, voted for the bill last August, along with 18 other Republican senators. Graham and Ayotte opposed the bill, which passed by a vote of 74-26.
There are a number of Republicans in Congress who don't want you to know that most of them voted for these cuts," he said. "Now they're trying to wriggle out of what they agreed to."
Obama is just another chicago scum merchant........that breaks the law and constitution.

AUGUST 9, 2012 4:00 A.M.
HHS Can’t Waive Workfare

Here’s why.

By Andrew M. Grossman & Robert Rector

The welfare reform of 1996 stands as perhaps the most important entitlement reform in the nation’s history. Its successes stem from a core requirement that able-bodied parents must work, search for work, or train for work to be eligible for public assistance.

But now, under the guise of providing states greater “flexibility” in operating their welfare programs, the Obama administration claims unjustifiable authority to weaken or waive the work requirements at the heart of the reform law. There’s just one problem: The law is clear that those requirements can’t be waived.

The work requirement was no doubt the most controversial provision of the 1996 welfare reform. Even after President Clinton twice vetoed reform bills, Congress refused to budge on Section 407, which defines “Mandatory Work Requirements.” Clinton reluctantly signed the final “workfare” measure into law.

Fast forward to July 12, when the Obama
administration’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued an “information memorandum” to state welfare-plan administrators regarding “waiver and expenditure authority.” Essentially, HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius contends that a separate provision gives HHS authority to waive the law.

Bear with us. We’ll try to keep the gobbledygook to a minimum.
The HHS memorandum contained a single paragraph of convoluted legal analysis supporting this novel contention. It claims that because that other provision “authorizes waivers concerning Section 402,” and because Section 402 mentions Section 407,“HHS has authority to waive compliance with this 402 requirement and authorize a state to test approaches and methods other than those set forth in Section 407.”
But this claim by HHS is wrong.
conservative crapola

Reading, PA

#74 Aug 10, 2012
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>
dumbo mumbo jumbo deluxe.
1 post removed
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#76 Aug 10, 2012
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Obama is just another chicago scum merchant........that breaks the law and constitution.
AUGUST 9, 2012 4:00 A.M.
HHS Can’t Waive Workfare
Here’s why.
By Andrew M. Grossman & Robert Rector
The welfare reform of 1996 stands as perhaps the most important entitlement reform in the nation’s history. Its successes stem from a core requirement that able-bodied parents must work, search for work, or train for work to be eligible for public assistance.
But now, under the guise of providing states greater “flexibility” in operating their welfare programs, the Obama administration claims unjustifiable authority to weaken or waive the work requirements at the heart of the reform law. There’s just one problem: The law is clear that those requirements can’t be waived.
The work requirement was no doubt the most controversial provision of the 1996 welfare reform. Even after President Clinton twice vetoed reform bills, Congress refused to budge on Section 407, which defines “Mandatory Work Requirements.” Clinton reluctantly signed the final “workfare” measure into law.
Fast forward to July 12, when the Obama
administration’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued an “information memorandum” to state welfare-plan administrators regarding “waiver and expenditure authority.” Essentially, HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius contends that a separate provision gives HHS authority to waive the law.
Bear with us. We’ll try to keep the gobbledygook to a minimum.
The HHS memorandum contained a single paragraph of convoluted legal analysis supporting this novel contention. It claims that because that other provision “authorizes waivers concerning Section 402,” and because Section 402 mentions Section 407,“HHS has authority to waive compliance with this 402 requirement and authorize a state to test approaches and methods other than those set forth in Section 407.”
But this claim by HHS is wrong.
Le Dimbulb SPAM.

Works better than Abien.

Works better than Propofol.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#77 Aug 10, 2012
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
Le Dimbulb SPAM.
Works better than Abien.
Works better than Propofol.
guess you loons have no fight left in you. Don't blame you, you get chit on by your Ignorant in Chief daily....the gift that keeps on giving.
dont buy the hype

Albuquerque, NM

#78 Aug 10, 2012
any one of these contractors that lays off an employee without the prior notice required by law which the govt is telling them now it's ok not to provide notice will have obama/holder justice dept climbing up their tailpipe suing and fining them for breaking the notification law.
conservative crapola

Reading, PA

#79 Aug 10, 2012
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>guess you loons have no fight left in you. Don't blame you, you get chit on by your Ignorant in Chief daily....the gift that keeps on giving.
Your limp-wristed attempts to protect the severely con lib from MA exemplifies 'no fight left'.

hahahahahahahahahaha
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#80 Aug 10, 2012
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>guess you loons have no fight left in you. Don't blame you, you get chit on by your Ignorant in Chief daily....the gift that keeps on giving.
So give us a rundown of sections 402 and 407, that should explain it all.

Oh' darn, not in the article?

Try FOX.com
Mothra

Peoria, AZ

#81 Aug 10, 2012
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
Amid mounting concerns over $1.2 trillion worth of automatic spending cuts slated to go into effect next January, a handful of Republican senators are launching a multi-state campaign aimed at highlighting to voters the "devastating" impact they say cuts will have on the defense department, and national security in general.
In a series of town hall-style events in four battleground states -- North Carolina, Virginia and New Hampshire - Sens. John McCain, Kelly Ayotte and Lindsey Graham will "sound the alarm" about why they believe the cuts must not be enacted.
McCain, who like Graham and Ayotte is on the Senate Armed Services Committee, voted for the bill last August, along with 18 other Republican senators. Graham and Ayotte opposed the bill, which passed by a vote of 74-26.
There are a number of Republicans in Congress who don't want you to know that most of them voted for these cuts," he said. "Now they're trying to wriggle out of what they agreed to."
So those Senate Republicans are doing the job the president wants to hide.

Good for them.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#82 Aug 10, 2012
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
So give us a rundown of sections 402 and 407, that should explain it all.
Oh' darn, not in the article?
Try FOX.com
poor baby, you pretend to be smart but when it requires a little research........you get stupid. Typical liberal, always wanting others to do their work.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#83 Aug 10, 2012
conservative crapola wrote:
<quoted text>
Your limp-wristed attempts to protect the severely con lib from MA exemplifies 'no fight left'.
hahahahahahahahahaha
GALLUP: OBAMA APPROVE SLIPS TO 43%...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Obama's plan: 'Deport felons, not families' 3 min spocko 649
Body cameras for cops could be the biggest chan... 4 min Isaiah 29-13 1,440
Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 5 min Sunshine 33,476
Obama: Racism, bias in US will take time to tackle 6 min Ambivalent 304
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 6 min Blitzking 132,798
How Should the US Government Respond to ISIS? 8 min Doctor Chrome 1,956
Obama struggles despite economic success 8 min spocko 135
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 18 min Katrina Roxx 293,212
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 30 min red and right 1,154,189
Ben Carson: Race Relations Have 'Gotten Worse' ... 58 min serfs up 727
After CIA torture report: rebuilding a culture ... 3 hr dollarsbill 136
More from around the web