American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Matt Psyche;419222]Should voters be blamed for the divided government today, Democratic president, or something else? Unclear to me.[/QUOTE]Hi MP.

Let me clear that up for you.

The voters should be blamed for hiring an inexperienced college professor to be the chief executive officer of the largest organization in the world.

I would also add that the people who hired this guy should themselves be fired for making such a poor management decision, but on reflection I realize that many of them have.

Thanks,

Jackson

OK. What are the indicators suggesting that McCain would have done better than Obama on economy? Thanks.

[QUOTE=Jackson; 419237]Hi MP.

Let me clear that up for you.

The voters should be blamed for hiring an inexperienced college professor to be the chief executive officer of the largest organization in the world.

I would also add that the people who hired this guy should themselves be fired for making such a poor management decision, but on reflection I realize that many of them have.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]

I hate to say it, but it is obvious Obama is a complete fraud. Obama's real calling in life is.

1) drug dealer.

2) evangelist defrauding gullible retirees.

3) selling swampland in the everglades.

4) selling miracle exercise machines which turn gorditos into Charlie Atlas.

5) selling penny stocks which were worthless yesterday, are worthless today and will be worthless tomorrow.

Obama is a fraud. Wake up and smell the roses.

Obama is a disgrace. Supporters of Obama are retards looking at a donkey and trying to call it a racehorse. And these retards put him in the White House.

The least supporters of Obama could do it pony up and admit they elected and imbelcile / moron / idiot

[QUOTE=Matt Psyche;419238]OK. What are the indicators suggesting that McCain would have done better than Obama on economy? Thanks.[/QUOTE]God almighty. How could anyone f* up the economy more than Obama. Unemployment which will not recover, debt downgrades and a dollar which has the value of toilet paper.

If my dog Rocky had been elected President the unemployment rate would be lower than it is today, the US dollar would have some value, and our debt would not have been downgraded and the laughing stock of the world.

However, the real issue is that Obama, no matter how long that idiot is in office, will never address the crisis in unemployemt. Obama is clueless.

How can the supporters of Obama look at this donkey and continue to call him a racehorse.

This is surreal. How much longer can we look at this idiot and think he has a plan.

Do yourself a favor. dump Obama and put up credible Democratic candidate for the presidency.

Don't fret about Obama. Obama's future is in selling street drugs, becoming an evangelist and stealing from gullible retirees, selling penny stocks, selling swamland in the everglades or being the front man for miracle exercise machines and worthless diet pills.

[QUOTE=Matt Psyche;419238]OK. What are the indicators suggesting that McCain would have done better than Obama on economy? Thanks.[/QUOTE]This question is a variation on the theme that the White House and various liberal politicians, commentators and bloggers have started asking. Two years ago, Obama was going to save the country. The Stimulus was essential. ObamaCare was going to reduce the deficit. Obama was going to save us from too-big-to-fail banks. His "smart" policies would soon end the recession and start us growing again. Now, all of this has failed. The Emperor has no clothes. His "smart" policies are revealed for what they truly are: Dumb.

So, now the Left is trying to switch the debate. They implicitly concede that Obama's policies haven't worked, but they either argue that it would have been worse without Obama, or they ask "What could anyone have done differently?"

Of course, there's no way to definitively rebut this. It's impossible to 'prove' a negative. One would have to go back in time, substitute in McCain and legitimate policies, and then demonstrate the effect. Short of that, it's all argument. There have been many responses on what Obama screwed up. But, the proof is in the pudding. Obama's policies have not succeeded. Whether they caused the current malaise (Jimmy Carter's word) or not is open to debate, but the arguments that resonate with the public clearly are not on Obama's side, as evidenced by his abysmal approval ratings.

I'll list my three major failures, each of which McCain would either not have supported or would undoubtedly have done differently:

[b]1. The Stimulus:[/b] Obama used the so-called stimulus as a mechanism to pay back his supporters. He siphoned federal funds and gave it to state and local governments which overwhelmingly consist of unionized workers, green groups, and allocated other portions to supposedly 'shovel-ready' projects. He could have allocated these fund to WPA style projects, but that wouldn't have put money as directly in the hands of his supporters. As a consequence, governments used the funds to prop up their bloated bureaucracies for an an additional 1-2 years. They didn't create any jobs. These funds just let state and local governments kick the can down the road for an additional 12-18 months until the new money ran out. The result? Now that the money's run dry, they've still got to address their problems, but they're a bit worse off because their unfunded liabilities are that much larger. One further irony is that these sectors are now contributing greater to the unemployment rate that Obama is responsible for. Like Cash for Clunkers, he just pushed the consequences further out, but his stimulus did nothing to help. As for 'green jobs, ' they've been an unmitigated disaster. The only benefit is that they exist as just one more example of how government fails when it tries to intervene like this. And, Obama's stimulus also proved that it's one thing to say you're allocating funds to shovel ready projects, and another thing to actually do so. There were many other failure points associated with the Stimulus, but the above is a good start.

[b]2. ObamaCare:[/b] As with the Stimulus, there are many failure points here. But I will cite just two. First, the approach was pathetic. Obama shares blame with his Democratic Congress on this. After promising to have hearings on CSPAN and to be the most open government ever, Democrats used dirty, backroom dealings to ram this through. This was the beginning of the end for Obama and ObamaCare. These dirty dealings ranged from things like the 'cornhusker kickback, ' to the secret deals he cut with pharmaceutical companies and insurers, to the post-enactment waiver process, to the parliamentary reconciliation process used to get this passed after Scott Brown took Kennedy's seat. At the end of the day, this was the filthiest piece of legislation that ever came out of Congress. Then, the way they tried to sell it to the American public was pathetic. They had the CBO score the plan as deficit reducing based on 10 years of revenue and 6 years of costs. As everyone knows, the CBO is supposed to be neutral. That doesn't mean it's competent, however, and previous CBO estimates on the cost of social legislation have been wildly inaccurate, invariably erring on the wrong side of the cost equation. But, Obama gerry-rigged the outcome with a garbage-in, garbage-out methodology. This further contributed to the filthy nature of this garbage dressed up as a social program, and it undermined any confidence the public had that this administration was going to be 'different' in a positive way.

The second biggest problem with ObamaCare is the uncertainty it has created. Leave aside for the moment the obvious fact that this social legislation will impose huge additional costs on businesses. Businesses can deal with that if they know what those costs are. It may represent another millstone around the neck of many small businesses, but there is benefit to knowing whether your company will sink or swim. Aside from that, however, Obama and Democrats included the individual mandate and no savings clause in the legislation. Despite what liberal scholars said early on, it is obvious at this point that the individual mandate is of dubious legitimacy. It may be upheld; it may be struck down. This is the sort of uncertainty that kills businesses, especially for something like this that makes up such a large portion of overhead. Businesses don't know what it will cost or even if they will ever have to deal with ObamaCare. As an example of how this affects business, I'll offer this: My business has to bid on various different contracts each year. They generally last for 3-4 years or longer, and each contract usually represents $30-$40 million or more. The bidding process requires that each bidder assess his costs today, and project costs into the future. I can't do that right now with health care costs. I know that if ObamaCare isn't repealed, there will be no choice but to dump our health plan. That's because the penalties included in ObamaCare – even for employers offering coverage – are prohibitive. My company and many others will find themselves in the same boat. But, that doesn't solve the problem, because there's no way to get a good fix on what it will cost to dump your medical plan, either. The result is uncertainty. It's difficult to bid on anything because you don't know whether you'll be pricing yourself out of the market or driving yourself out of business in three years. If we were talking about the cost of paperclips, it would be a different matter. But, this is a substantial expense that is now totally gray, which is a significant problem for any business that has to price its products or services.

[b]3. Miscellaneous Market Interference Programs:[/b] This includes TARP, Cash for Clunkers, Dodd-Frank, the first-time homebuyer credits, the CIT bailout (followed by bankruptcy) , the GM and Chrysler bailouts, the payroll credit, the unemployment hiring credit, the continued extension of unemployment benefits, and many more. These last three did nothing to revive employment or the economy, yet they formed the cornerstone of Obama's 'jobs' speech. There are many, many more that can be put in this category. Most of Obama's stimulus-lite programs suffer from the same basic flaw: They rely on Keynesian, trickle-up economic theory that just doesn't work. If McCain did nothing, absolutely nothing, we would be far better off today. McCain was certainly not a great candidate, but he did not share Obama's vision (or illusion) that government can solve all problems and should stick it's nose into everyone's business to the greatest extent possible. That's debatable, but it's a fundamental Left-Right difference, so I feel safe in saying that McCain would not have butted in as frequently as Obama, and would not have governed from the ill-founded premise on which Obama purports to govern.

There are many, many other areas that could be highlighted: The favors Obama owes Big Labor, which have stifled job creation; Obama's failure to pass free trade agreements, which he has now larded with more favors for Big Labor; his confidence sapping "millionaires and billionaires" rhetoric, which stifles capital investment; his appointment and reliance of incompetent political advisors, such as Tim Geitner and many others; his crony capitalism; his enshrinement of too-big-to-fail. But, I'm sure there is a character limit here at AP, and anyone who has made it this far will appreciate conclusion, so I'll save all those for another post.

I think Obama had a plan and so far Obama has been pretty successful in putting his plan in place.

Plan #1:

Downgrade American debt. Almost an unthinkable task considering that the USA has had Triple AAA debt rating for centuries. However, Obama almost effortlessly, with grace and style, was able to downgrade america's debt in a matter of months. And, not only that, Obama has put in place further downgrades of america's debt with his job stimulus plan #2 which should be correctly categorized as Obama's debt downgrade plan #2.

Do not underestimate what Obama was able to do. Downgrading america's debt is the equivalent of running a 2 minute mile, swimming the Atlantic Ocean in 12 hours or leaping Mt. Everest in a single bound. Almost unthinkable to us mere mortals but not to "the one"

2) Plan #2.

Reduce america's industrial output to somewhere between the belgium congo and zimbabwe. This is progressing nicely and should be a reality within months.

3) Plan #3.

Increasing hunger, starvation and bloated bellies in the United States to as level that surpasses the Sudan and Somalia. Again, Obama is on top of this.

However, I will always be in awe of Obama because he has been able to move forward with his agenda while maintaining the braindead support of millions of supporters who resemble zombies from 'the night of the living dead'. On second thought, maybe Obama's supporters are the actual cast members of 'the night of the living dead'

[QUOTE=Matt Psyche;419238]OK. What are the indicators suggesting that McCain would have done better than Obama on economy? Thanks.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Stan Da Man;419251]If McCain did nothing, absolutely nothing, we would be far better off today.[/QUOTE]That's your answer.

Mongers-

Why can't somebody pull Colin Powell out of retirement and have him run for the Republican presidential nomination? He is a level-headed middle of the road guy with strong leadership credentials and experience. Yes, I did support Obama v. McCain (PALIN) ; however, it is quite clear that Obama is not doing a competent job at this time and does not deserve to be re-elected. The only good things he has accomplished, IMO, were saving GM and killing OBL; everything else has pretty much been a disaster. If the Republicans nominate George Bush's degenerate twin (Rick Perry) we very well might get stuck with four more years of economic quagmire and poorly timed and executed legislation that is likely in another Obama term. In Obama's defense, the international debt crisis that is about to bring down the house is NOT his fault and the housing crisis that initiated the current downturn is also not of his making. However, with a better chief executive at the helm, the US economy would surely be in a better place than it is today.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Here is a concise summary of what Doppelganger has told us in the discussion about his business, paraphrased:

[i][b]I can't explain how Obama is hurting my business, but he is, and he's going down.[/b][/i]

[QUOTE=Matt Psyche;419238]OK. What are the indicators suggesting that McCain would have done better than Obama on economy? Thanks.[/QUOTE]As a Republican president McCain probably would have passed a smaller stimulus. Not only were economists pushing for a strong stimulus package in January 2009, so was the US Chamber of Commerce, which represents 3 million businesses. USCoC president Tom Donahue said back then,"What we are talking about is a defibrillator. We are trying to shock the economy."

A smaller stimulus would have been very bad for the country. In January 2009 when the details were being hammered out, people knew big layoffs were in progress and would continue. At the time it was predicted the Recovery Act would keep unemployment below 8%. But everybody underestimated just how deep the job slashing would be in 2009. Hindsight is 20-20, and economists now understand the Recovery Act was too small. Still, economists estimate the Recovery Act created or saved 2-3 Million jobs, and lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7%-1.8%.

If McCain had approved a stimulus half the size of the Recovery Act, by the above measures the unemployment rate would now be closer to 10% with up to 1.5 Million more people unemployed.

If McCain had done nothing, which is what would have happened under Tea Party philosophy, not only would there not have been a stimulus, but unspent TARP funds would likely not have been spent either. As a result we would have entered a full-blown Depression.

If you need any further proof about the Stimulus, have a look at the chart in the article below. Every time you hear a conservative say that the Stimulus was a failure, think of this chart.

GOP Derides Obama Jobs Plan As 'Second Stimulus, ' Ignoring Success Of The First
[url]http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/09/09/315347/gop-second-stimulus/[/url]

There is a known psychological technique in which by repeating a lie often enough, people with weak minds start to believe it as fact. When people state the Stimulus was a failure, they are either practicing this psychological technique, or showing they have become a victim to it. Just tonight on TV, Rick Perry said that the Stimulus created zero (0) jobs. You can be sure some people in the audience at this Tea Party debate believed him.

Better than listening to what the politicians say (on either side), listen to what economists say.

1. Esten, your education about business in not my job, but if you insist take a look at Stan's response to your nonsense.

2. What no response to writing a check to "share the sacrifice"?

3. What no response to your trying to push your precieved guilt on to everyone else and using that as a pretense to seprate the working class from their money?

4. Esten, even your boy Obama figured it out, instead of Obama and the Democrats trying to prove a negative. "The economy would have been worse I had not taken the action I took". Attempting to prove it kept eating Obama and the Democrats a new asshole. Now Obama and the Democrats are attempting to turn the tables asking the Republicans to prove a negative, if McCain had been president things would have been different / better / worse. You can not unring the bell.

Esten, no matter how much lipstick you put on a pig, it's still a pig.

Keynesian Economists and their f*cked-up thinking is what led us to this mess.

Trying to make the poor rich by making the rich poor just doesn't work.

Europe is learning that lesson the hard way right now, the Euro's collapsing and the domino effect will follow. Just a matter of time.

The American people have lost faith in Obama as problem solver.

When guys like Rock Harder say [i]'it is quite clear that Obama is not doing a competent job at this time and does not deserve to be re-elected'[/i] Then Obama is in deep shit.

It doesn't matter if Obama is responsible or not for the current situation, he promised the American people he could fix our problems and he has failed big time. He will be held accountable, the voters will be looking for blood. I think a Perry / Rubio ticket would blow Obama out of the water. (I would rather have Chris Christie but I can live with Perry.)

If Obama really cared about the United States and the Demacrat party he would resign, or at least not run for re-election.

Democrat or Republican; either way you're screwed! Its like asking what kind of bread you'd like your shit sandwich served on.

Obama hates America, his wife hates white people. I am doubly screwed because I am both white and American! Like going to Madaho's and paying all that money to the house and chica; Who's really screwing who? I guess at least the chica gets a drink, all I get is a fuckin' 22% increase in my health insurance premiums for Obama Care!

Bend over America, there will be no lube until 2016. Maybe!

You have to love this one:

Oregan State University Athletic Director Bob DeCarolis was runing out of money was about to fire his basketball coach Craig Robinson.

Word gets to Washington about this layoff and Undersecretary of Education Martha Kanter is dispatched to Oregan State with $17 Million in stimulus money and guess what? Coach Robinson keeps his job.

What a heart warming stimulus story.

Now as Paul Harvey would say is the rest of the story.

Who is Craig Robinson to receive such attention from Washington to the tune of $17 Million in stimulus money you may ask? Well he just happens to be Michelle Obama's brother, that's right the brother-in-law of the president.

Don't you just love a success story involving YOUR TAXE MONEY and STIMULUS SPENDING TO SAVE ONE JOB!

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 419263]You have to love this one:

Oregan State University Athletic Director Bob DeCarolis was runing out of money was about to fire his basketball coach Craig Robinson.

Word gets to Washington about this layoff and Undersecretary of Education Martha Kanter is dispatched to Oregan State with $17 Million in stimulus money and guess what? Coach Robinson keeps his job.

What a heart warming stimulus story.

Now as Paul Harvey would say is the rest of the story.

Who is Craig Robinson to receive such attention from Washington to the tune of $17 Million in stimulus money you may ask? Well he just happens to be Michelle Obama's brother, that's right the brother-in-law of the president.

Don't you just love a success story involving YOUR TAXE MONEY and STIMULUS SPENDING TO SAVE ONE JOB![/QUOTE]


There are probably hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of stories like this. It make me sick. These lovers of big government extort money from hardworking people and spend our money like drunken sailors. Then they have the nerve to claim they feel the pain of the little people. These as***** have no shame

But what do you expect from someone like Obama who grew up in the sewers of chicago and has spent a lifetime scamming and deceiving the public.

Another good one is the $500 million dollar loan to a solar energy company run by one of Obama's biggest campaign contributors. Not only was the money completely wasted, the company went bankrupt losing every cent of our $500 million because of mismanagement and producing nonfunctional solar panels.

If that doesn't identify Obama as completely incompetent I don't know what does. I think Obama's check signing priviledges should be revoked.

We frequently see talk here about "shared sacrifice" by the "rich" to help out "the poor," who can't help themselves. As I and others here have said, the term "poor" as applied to anyone in the USA is relative. It's relative to both "the poor" in other countries, as well as to "the poor" of our parents and grandparents age. By any measure, our "poor" today are very well off in relation to these comparisons.

The Left uses census data to label people "poor," and then to argue that the "rich" have to pay their "fair share." When you see these arguments, remember what "poor" really means. This from a fairly good article today on the subject:

[i]According to data compiled by other government agencies, the typical household considered 'poor' by census officials has a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household has cable or satellite TV, two color televisions, a DVD player and a VCR. If children (especially boys) are in the home, they have a video game system such as Xbox or PlayStation. In the kitchen, the household has the ordinary conveniences: refrigerator, oven, stove, microwave.

Half the poor now have a personal computer. A third have a widescreen TV (plasma or LCD) ; a quarter have a digital video recorder such as TiVo.

In all these cases, USA Department of Energy data say so. Consumer items that were luxuries or significant purchases for the middle class a few decades ago have become commonplace in households defined by the Census Bureau as poor. In part, this is a result of the normal downward trend of prices in the years after a product is introduced. Initially, new products tend to be expensive and available only to the affluent; over time prices fall sharply, and the product saturates the entire population.

The Left uses the declining relative prices of many amenities to argue that it's no big deal that poor households have air conditioning, computers, cable TV and widescreen televisions. They argue that even though most poor families have a house full of modern conveniences, the average poor family still suffers from substantial deprivation in basic needs such as food and housing.

Fortunately, that's not the case.

Let's look at housing. The old-stream media usually present America's poor living in real deprivation: a large family crowded into a leaky, rundown trailer, for example. But only a tenth of the poor live in mobile homes, according to government data; half live in single-family houses and the remaining 40 percent live in apartments.

These homes in most cases are in good repair and almost never overcrowded, according to the government's own statistics. Poor Americans, on average, live in larger houses or apartments than does the average, non-poor individual living in Sweden, France, Germany or the United Kingdom.

The media cry with alarm that 'nearly one in four kids' in the nation are hungry. Again, government data show otherwise. Fully 96 percent of poor parents stated that their children were never hungry at any time during 2009, despite the severity of the recession, according to data from the USA Department of Agriculture. [/i]

Source: [url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/09/13/understanding_poverty_in_the_us.html[/url]

The article notes earlier that so many people are labeled "poor" because the government doesn't consider means-tested welfare assistance when running the numbers.

My point? The rich already are sacrificing enough. Where's the "shared" sacrifice from these folks? I'm not arguing that they should be taxed to any great degree. But, clearly if you can afford all the do-dads despite a poverty-level income, you're not really being asked to sacrifice at all. Especially when compared with our forebears and "the poor" in other countries, our "poor" have nothing to complain about. That won't stop the Left from bleating. But, when you hear their blather, don't immediately envision someone starving or wanting for food. Envision someone pining away for the latest X-Box game on your dime, or saving your money for a 46" LCD. That's certainly a generalization. But, it's also more true than the images the Left would have you believe.

Yeah. This came out in March 2010. Was debunked almost immediately by ESPN.

Analysis: While it's true that Oregon State University head basketball coach Craig Robinson is Michelle Obama's brother, virtually everything else in this message is false.

Far from having his job on the chopping block, Robinson's six-year coaching contract with OSU was recently extended through 2016 (an additional two years) , and it had nothing to do with federal stimulus grants, according to Assistant OSU Athletic Director Steve Fenk."For the record," he said in an email,"Craig Robinson has coached Oregon State to its best back-to-back seasons since the early 1990s."

Furthermore, though Oregon State has received a total of over $26, 000, 000 in federal stimulus grants to date — at least half of it in 2009 — there is no record of Department of Education Under Secretary Martha Kanter (or any other government official) being "dispatched to Corvallis with $17, 000, 000 in stimulus money."

Another Oregon school, University of Oregon, has received even more federal stimulus funds to date: at least $40, 000, 000, according to the Eugene Register-Guard. No Obama family members work there, so far as I know.

When I asked OSU Director of Athletics Bob De Carolis to comment on this rumor — which is as much a smear against him as it is against Coach Robinson and the Obama administration — his response was succinct: "There is absolutely no truth to any of this, period."

Jughead, glad you are on a first name bias with the athletic director at Oregon State University and can call him up for a comment on the spur of the moment, but buddy you need to get your facts straight.

Oregon State University received $17. 8 Million Dollars from the state, which got it from the Federal Stimulus package, and I am quite sure that the fact Craig Johnson was the President's brother in law had nothing to do with the funds being channeled to OSU and the subsequent extension of his contract. He does not have a winning record and what would you expect the athletic director to say – yea we got a direct pipeline to Michelle and the cash?

Here is the link to the article, OSU got the lion's share of the state / federal money and I sure Craig's relationship with the Pres had nothing to do with it. Right!

[url]http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2009/10/most_stimulus_jobs_in_educatio.html[/url]

"But I was wrong. According to the state's figures, Oregon State University has preserved or created the equivalent of 394 full-time jobs by spending $17. 8 million of state fiscal stabilization"

Quoted from your article.

394 Jobs does not equal one coaching position. While your author admits her error she fails to mention U of O's funding.

And yes, I am on a first name basis with the AD at OSU.

[QUOTE=Jughead; 419274]"But I was wrong. According to the state's figures, Oregon State University has preserved or created the equivalent of 394 full-time jobs by spending $17. 8 million of state fiscal stabilization"

Quoted from your article.

394 Jobs does not equal one coaching position.[/QUOTE]Glad you are on a first name basis with the AD, but the key to your quote above is "preserved or created the EQUIVALENT of 394 full time jobs" the slippery way to alude to creating jobs while not creating any jobs at all. Never had an equivalent job, but have played the word games to make things seem something they are not, just double speak. I would suggest you go check on what the defination of "preserved or created the equivalent" means and I am sure you will be shocked. Also the article clearly states OSU did receive $17. 8 million in funding. Go check how much Stumulus money Oregon received from the Fed for education and how much went to Oregon State vs all the other schools in the state including grade 12 and below where the money was really needed. I'm sure having the Pre's brother in law there had nothing to do with it.

[quote]A record 46 million Americans were living in poverty in 2010, pushing the US poverty rate to its highest level since 1993, according to a government report on Tuesday on the grim effects of stubbornly high unemployment.

Underscoring the economic challenges that face President Barack Obama and Congress, the US census Bureau said the poverty rate rose for a third consecutive year to hit 15. 1% in 2010. The number in poverty was the largest since the government first began publishing estimates in 1959.[/QUOTE]How's that for 'Change You Can Believe in'?

[quote]A record 46 million Americans were living in poverty in 2010, pushing the US poverty rate to its highest level since 1993, according to a government report on Tuesday on the grim effects of stubbornly high unemployment.

Underscoring the economic challenges that face President Barack Obama and Congress, the US census Bureau said the poverty rate rose for a third consecutive year to hit 15. 1% in 2010. The number in poverty was the largest since the government first began publishing estimates in 1959.[/QUOTE]It's George Bush's fault!

All hucksters have their Waterloo.

It is completely clear that Obama looks upon the Presidency as a hobby/joke rather than a responsibility.

Bad for us, amusing for Obama.

Obama is probably astonished that someone who cannot speak in complete sentences without a telepromptor was elected President of the USA.

The roman empire had similar problems. Rome had mentally ill, childlike emperors prior to its demise.

Now we know why rome fell.

I predict Obama will spend his remaining time in office camped out at golf courses while attending rap concerts at night. It goes without saying that Obama's family, with an entourage of thousands, will be enjoying non stop vacations. Gladiator contests are also a possibility.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;419251]The second biggest problem with ObamaCare is the uncertainty it has created. Leave aside for the moment the obvious fact that this social legislation will impose huge additional costs on businesses. Businesses can deal with that if they know what those costs are. It may represent another millstone around the neck of many small businesses, but there is benefit to knowing whether your company will sink or swim. Aside from that, however, Obama and Democrats included the individual mandate and no savings clause in the legislation. Despite what liberal scholars said early on, it is obvious at this point that the individual mandate is of dubious legitimacy. It may be upheld; it may be struck down. This is the sort of uncertainty that kills businesses, especially for something like this that makes up such a large portion of overhead. Businesses don't know what it will cost or even if they will ever have to deal with ObamaCare. As an example of how this affects business, I'll offer this: My business has to bid on various different contracts each year. They generally last for 3-4 years or longer, and each contract usually represents $30-$40 million or more. The bidding process requires that each bidder assess his costs today, and project costs into the future. I can't do that right now with health care costs. I know that if ObamaCare isn't repealed, there will be no choice but to dump our health plan. That's because the penalties included in ObamaCare – even for employers offering coverage – are prohibitive. My company and many others will find themselves in the same boat. But, that doesn't solve the problem, because there's no way to get a good fix on what it will cost to dump your medical plan, either. The result is uncertainty. It's difficult to bid on anything because you don't know whether you'll be pricing yourself out of the market or driving yourself out of business in three years. If we were talking about the cost of paperclips, it would be a different matter. But, this is a substantial expense that is now totally gray, which is a significant problem for any business that has to price its products or services.[/QUOTE]Stan continues to be the best at attempting reasoned arguments from the right, though his bias and spin are clear. Many others here appear to be driven by emotion and shallow analysis.

Right wing media / politicians often mention that business uncertainty is holding the economy back, especially uncertainty about the costs of the new health care law (PPACA). But like everything they say, it needs to be questioned, backed up and put in context.

Looking at Stan's argument, there are several key omissions.

First, uncertainty is not new, [u]businesses deal with many types of uncertainty on a regular basis[/u]. This includes uncertainty on a wide range of factors, depending on the business: results of contract negotiations (price of raw materials, supplies, labor, etc) , price of oil, inflation, interest rates, exchange rates, consumer sentiment, housing prices, etc. Stan points out that heathcare is a substantial business expense, but the uncertainty only applies to the delta, the change. Some of these other factors are equally if not more impactful to the cost of doing business than the delta on a health care reform. And yet somehow, businesses have always managed to navigate these uncertainties.

Second, Stan fails to mention that it's a level playing field. To the extent that a business is dealing with uncertainty on PPACA, so are their comparable competitors.

Third, and perhaps most telling, is that Stan makes no mention of how uncertainty over PPACA has impacted the profits and hiring decisions of his business. If there had been significant impact, it seems unlikely Stan would have failed to tell us.

As in the article below, which I've mentioned before but bears repeating, business owners report many other reasons they are not hiring beyond 'uncertainty about PPACA'. And other businesses are hiring and growing, so clearly they weren't held back. It seems DEMAND is much more of a factor than anything else.

What this all points to, is that the impact of any uncertainty of PPACA on businesses is likely limited in scope, and manageable. I'm open to Stan elaborating on how PPACA is harming his business, but so far his case is underwhelming.

Regulations, taxes aren't killing small business, owners say
[url]http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/09/01/122865/regulations-taxes-arent-killing.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Esten;419285]Stan continues to be the best at attempting reasoned arguments from the right, though his bias and spin are clear. Many others here appear to be driven by emotion and shallow analysis.[/QUOTE]Congratulations Stan

[quote][b]Mortgage Default Notices Surge 33% Nationwide, 55% in California, 200% by Bank of America; Corresponding Jump in Foreclosures Will Follow[/quote][/b][url]Http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Mortgage-default-warnings-apf-157937671.html?x=0[/url]

More [i][b]'shallow analysis'[/i][/b] I guess, just like the voters in New York and Nevada appear to have been [i][b]'driven by emotion'[/i][/b] Yesterday. LOL

The special elections were just a preview of things to come.

I am astonished that Obama gives lip service to increasing the quality of education in the United States. It appears that Obama has a genuine concern about the quality of education in our country. But, who know, maybe Obama is just mouthing what was put on his telepromptor.

Obama's concern for education is astonishing because it is obvious Obama would do better with a less educated populace. As people become more educated and encounter more life experiences they readily recognize how shallow Obama is and how braindead his supporters are.

Better for Obama to cut off funding for education at about the second grade. Furthermore, anyone with more than a 4th grade education should have their voting rights eliminated. But even this might not be enough. I think even a marshmallow, mushroom or chipmunk is capable of recognizing Obama's incompetence.

[QUOTE=El Alamo; 419291]I am astonished that Obama gives lip service to increasing the quality of education in the United States. It appears that Obama has a genuine concern about the quality of education in our country. But, who know, maybe Obama is just mouthing what was put on his telepromptor.

Obama's concern for education is astonishing because it is obvious Obama would do better with a less educated populace. As people become more educated and encounter more life experiences they readily recognize how shallow Obama is and how braindead his supporters are.

Better for Obama to cut off funding for education at about the second grade. Furthermore, anyone with more than a 4th grade education should have their voting rights eliminated. But even this might not be enough. I think even a marshmallow, mushroom or chipmunk is capable of recognizing Obama's incompetence.[/QUOTE]Perhaps it's because he plans to use government schools as Socialist Indoctrination Centers.

Oh wait they're already doing that, I think Esten went to one of those schools.

I hope all mongers, are not thinking this thread is a Independent News Thread.

This is a Republican Business Man Thread.

They are not for the Workers, they are for taking away your Dreams of a House, Home, and a Living wage, Away.

Democrats are not much better, but they are the only Working Man's Hopes.

P.S.
If they were good business men they would have reopened TL's restaurant, "Under New Management". But all they can do is Blow Smoke on this thread.

Hey Esten, I noticed that magic $4 Trillion cut from the budget number came up again. You know the one the ratings services said was necessary to indicate the United States was serious about getting our runaway spending under control.

A group of 36 Senators comprised of both Democrats and Republicans pushing the 'Super Committee' to not cut just $1. 2 Trillion but to cut $4 Trillion from the budget. What is laughable is most of the Democrats pushing this new spending limit voted against such cuts back in August.

You think maybe after what happened in New York's special election is causing these Democrats to cease being 'good soldiers' for Obama and start worrying about their own sorry butts?

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 419300]I hope all mongers, are not thinking this thread is a Independent News Thread.

This is a Republican Business Man Thread.

They are not for the Workers, the are for taking away your Dreams of a House, Home, and a Living wage, Away.

Democrats are not much better, but they the only Working Man's Hopes.[/QUOTE]WT, did you ever stop to think that without the "evil business men" organizing and managing the businesses where the workers are employed, that the workers would instead be standing around with their thumbs up their collective asses?

I know your answer: The workers would just organize themselves and start their own businesses, [u]but then they would become the evil business men[/u] you so despise.

Employees are employees because the don't have the guts to take the risk, put their money where their mouth is and start a business, so instead they prefer to let somebody else take the risk so they then band together and monopolistically mass-extort money from the guy who did take the risk.

I've got a simply solution to anybody who feels his employer isn't paying them enough: Quit, and go start your own business, that is assuming you have the guts!

BTW, I've never met a business person who advocated taking away any employee's dreams of owning a house. What a propagandist's joke! I can see the employment interview now: The evil business person is talking to the prospective employee, telling him "[i]We want to hire you, but you must agree that as a condition of your employment you are no longer permitted to dream of owning your own house.[/i]"

Keep drinking the kool-aid, comrade.

Thanks,

Jackson

FYI: This may come as a revelation to you, but there are lots of "evil business men" who are also Democrats.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 419300]I hope all mongers, are not thinking this thread is a Independent News Thread.

This is a Republican Business Man Thread.

They are not for the Workers, they are for taking away your Dreams of a House, Home, and a Living wage, Away.

Democrats are not much better, but they are the only Working Man's Hopes.[/QUOTE]What you're for is eventually going to bankrupt the country. We're going to end up like Greece.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 419300]I hope all mongers, are not thinking this thread is a Independent News Thread.

This is a Republican Business Man Thread.

They are not for the Workers, they are for taking away your Dreams of a House, Home, and a Living wage, Away.

Democrats are not much better, but they are the only Working Man's Hopes.

P. S.

If they were good business men they would have reopened TL's restaurant,"Under New Management". But all they can do is Blow Smoke on this thread.[/QUOTE]I'm starting understand [b][i]'driven by emotion and shallow analysis'[/b][/i]

Surly you jest, you don't really think the Democrat party or labor unions have the 'working Man's' best interest at heart, do you?

[QUOTE=Punter 127; 419307]I'm starting understand [b][i]'driven by emotion and shallow analysis'[/b][/i]

Surly you jest, you don't really think the Democrat party or labor unions have the 'working Man's' best interest at heart, do you?[/QUOTE]WT69 is a nice fellow. Sadly, when it comes to america and politics, just plain "rode hard and put up wet". LOL. Too many breakfast meetings with Pelosi the last couple of years. One minute he wants this thread taken down, the next he is posting on it! Stupid is as stupid does! Nice but just plain dumb is no way to go though life brother. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;419300]If they were good business men they would have reopened TL's restaurant, "Under New Management". But all they can do is Blow Smoke on this thread.[/QUOTE]Here's an idea: If you think that it's such a good investment, why don't [u]YOU[/u] cash in your retirement assets and use [u]YOUR[/u] money to reopen TL's restaurant?

[deafening silence here]

Yea, that's what I thought.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Punter 127; 419307]I'm starting understand [b][i]'driven by emotion and shallow analysis'[/b][/i]

Surly you jest, you don't really think the Democrat party or labor unions have the 'working Man's' best interest at heart, do you?[/QUOTE]At the moment, perhaps not. But why did unions evolve in the first place? Why did Communism appeal to the masses? The rich and powerful will always try to control and maintain their domination. That is the natural order of "caveman" thinking" until you have been able to develop a higher sense of decency and social responsibility.

Power corrupts, and money is power. And right now, the unions are corrupt. But we need to share. It is not socialism.

I would, but my retirement funds equal about two months of your Membership fees.

[QUOTE=Jackson; 419312]Here's an idea: If you think that it's such a good investment, why don't [u]YOU[/u] Cash in your retirement assets and use [u]YOUR[/u] Money to reopen TL's restaurant?

[deafening silence here]

Yea, that's what I thought.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]

Why did the company in Maryland that made the best buggy whips in the entire United States go out of business? Their product was obsolete.

Same with Unions, there was a time when unions preformed a useful function to the benefit of their workers, but those days have passed. Today unions exist to perpetuate their own existence, deal in political influence and cronyism with the dues they collect from their members and not for the benefit of their members.

Proof you say, look to the South where states have 'right to work' laws, the unions can never get traction in these states and companies are increasingly leaving the unionized North for the right to work states. Unions continually price their employer's right out of the market with their continuing demands for higher wages and greater benefit packages.
The auto industry is a good example.

The only place the unions are gaining ground is in the governmental sector, the one that devoirs cash and produces no product.

Take a look at the union action up in Washington state, something the liberal news media seems to be ignoring for the most part. A private company builds a facility with private funds and decides to not use union labor, which is their right.

The union demands the 'right' to work at the facility and when they are told the owners will not use the union, union workers literally storm the gates of the facility, assault the security guards, destroy equipment and spill grain out of the storage bins. A Federal judge found the union in contempt for the actions and the sheriff is reviewing security video to make arrests in the matter. What does the union do, they march on the courthouse and dare the sheriff to arrest anyone.

The unions are more like the Mafia today with their strong arm tactics. While the Labor Relations Board tries to shutter Boeing's plant in South Carolina, an "at will" state, to benefit the union in Washington state but takes on action with the hooligans on the docks?

[QUOTE=Black Shirt; 419313]At the moment, perhaps not. But why did unions evolve in the first place? Why did Communism appeal to the masses? The rich and powerful will always try to control and maintain their domination. That is the natural order of "caveman" thinking" until you have been able to develop a higher sense of decency and social responsibility.

Power corrupts, and money is power. And right now, the unions are corrupt. But we need to share. It is not socialism.[/QUOTE]Caveman thinking? It's not the 1850's any longer. Stan dug this up a few days ago: [url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/09/13/understanding_poverty_in_the_us.html[/url]

During many years, my standard of living was below that of many people who receive government benefit payments, even though I was paying lots and lots in income tax. And working very hard. 10-12 hours a day. 7 days a week. If your sense of decency and social responsibility entails me paying for other peoples' wide screen televisions and I-phones, it's warped. A substantial part of my taxes is squandered by the government. I believe a much smaller part of donations I make, for vaccines and disaster relief, is squandered.

You can take most of what the "Republican businessmen"* make in this country, and you're still not going to be able to fund Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programs. In fact, when you do that, you'll succeed in making the country, including the poor, less prosperous than they are now. What this country needs, as you've rightfully pointed out several times here, is thrift among the populace and efficiency in government.

*WT69's words, not yours

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;419313]At the moment, perhaps not. But why did unions evolve in the first place?[/QUOTE]They were a necessary evil at one time.

[QUOTE]Why did Communism appeal to the masses?[/QUOTE]I don't know that it does or has?

[QUOTE]The rich and powerful will always try to control and maintain their domination.[/QUOTE]As do the unions which are now rich and powerful.

[QUOTE]That is the natural order of "caveman" thinking" until you have been able to develop a higher sense of decency and social responsibility.[/QUOTE]Not likely to happen in our lifetime.

[QUOTE]Power corrupts, and money is power. And right now, the unions are corrupt.[/QUOTE]I could not agree more.

[QUOTE]But we need to share.[/QUOTE]How about we all need to contribute our fair share and earn what we receive?

[QUOTE]It is not socialism.[/QUOTE]Really, then what is it?