President Obama just gave his jobs speech and now I think the Republicans are in a very strategic position. The GOP has claimed all along that the Democratic response to economic recovery doesn't work. The current speech, which did sound somewhat familiar, laid out the Presidents vision for recovery over the next year and beyond. If the GOP really believes it won't work - they should pass it in it's entirety. If it fails - as they predict - the GOP will be a shoe-in for the next election. If it succeeds - as I think it will - America wins - and the President will likely get a second term as a side effect of success. When America wins - we all win. By passing the bill, the GOP will appear to be cooperative. They need that right now.
Let's try the President's plan. It is a win win for America.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
96 comments:
"If the GOP really believes it won't work - they should pass it in it's entirety. If it fails - as they predict - the GOP will be a shoe-in for the next election."
Wait a minute! Just a few weeks ago you were lambasting the Republicans for allegedly "wanting America to fail".
And now you are encouraging them to vote for policies which they know will do exactly that?
It gets worse: the justification that you offer for them to vote for something that they know will not work is because it might be in their narrow short term political self-interest to do such a thing!
"By passing the bill, the GOP will appear to be cooperative. They need that right now."
No, the President needs that right now. His policies have failed spectacularly, as the Republicans try to tell him they would, and now he desperately needs the GOP to sign off on more of the same, so that he won't have to take all the blame in the next election.
No thank you, Mr. President. We have consistently advocated for the policies we believe will work, and we will continue to work for the implementation of those policies.
Likewise, we have taken a consistent and principled stand against the misguided and failed policies of your administration. It would be a betrayal of those very principles, and of the American people, to abandon them now.
We will not assist you in leading this Nation off an economic cliff.
You made your own bed. We are not interested in climbing into it with you.
I'm still wondering why Andre doesnt start his own blog. This would be the perfect post with which start. Certainly he could reach more people than read this blog.
LOL - Thohea - so right.
"We will not assist you in leading this Nation off an economic cliff."
This is exactly what the failed GOP policies did. Remember?? We do not need to go there again. Let's continue our recovery - already in progress.
Prediction: Whichever Republican candidate is elected President next year, he will not spend the following years constantly complaining about what a mess he inherited from his predecessor.
No comment on my post Andre?
Amnesia. It's a conservative mental health issue. They truly don't remember that the economy fell off the cliff in Sept 08, 2 months before the election. Remember, McCain suspended his campaign for a day and then didn't have any suggestions for keeping it from falling off that cliff?
I'll never forget it. We were in London attending hubby's MBA graduation ceremony and saw the headlines on the subway. The US was losing half a million jobs a month immediately after that.
And not one of those crooks from 2008 are in jail except for Maddoff. Where was the outrage then?
Lisa in Indy
I remember it quite clearly too. I had just been granted approval for my 4 month leave of absence from my job to do my cross country bicycle trip with full support from my employer. That was in the beginning of Sept. 2008 and I had already started buying equipment for the trip. Then - quite suddenly - it all went south at the end of September 2008. Suddenly my employer said they still supported me but couldn't guarantee my job back on my return. I had a tough decision to make and decided to go anyway. The election hadn't occured yet.
I also have a prediction. Americans do remember how we got here and will re-elect President Obama who managed to stop a bus going over a cliff - in mid air - and, with the new Jobs Bill will send it back to safety.
Pay attention, Lisa; we weren't talking about the weak economy which Obama inherited upon becoming President; we were talking about his dismal and completely failed policy attempts to reverse that weak economy.
You seem to be using the same tactic as the President: because all your ideas have completely failed, and you haven't a clue what else to do,you just keep blaming Bush (an oldie but a goodie?)
I don't seem to remember Reagan spending years blaming Carter (or for that matter, W. blaming Clinton!) for inheriting a recession from the previous administration.
I guess that's just the difference between a real leader, and a failed "community organizer".
Sorry Thohea,
Since nothing you said was at all pertinent to the topic, I just assumed it was just some weird venting on your part. It never even occurred to me that a response was expected.
I notice that you have a tendency to indulge in ad hominens, and rarely respond with any substantive rebuttals to any of the actual points that I make (or try to make).
I find that type of thing a big yawn.
If you ever want to engage is a serious discussion of ideas, one with a reasoned back and forth exchange, then I'm your man.
If all you want to do is drop in little snarky comments and then run away, well have at it and enjoy...I've got better things to do.
Dueling predictions! I love it. This is something that we can put to a scientific test.
One of us will be proven right, and one of us will be proven wrong.
There will be no spinning our way out of it!
PS: For the record, Dennis is 0-1: he wrongly predicted that the predicted Republican tsumani in 2010 was a Fox generated myth.
I'm 1-0: In the wake of the 2010 elections I said that Obama had 2 choices: pull a Clinton and move towards the Republican position on some key issues, or double down on failure. I predicted that he probably couldn't resist doubling down. I'm claiming a win on that one.
Sorry Andre, I have nowhere near the intellectual capacity to engage in a conversation you would consider worthy of your time.
Judging by the "snarky" comments you leave for all of us here, I wonder why you bother to waste any of your time at this blog at all.
Aren't you slumming?
Andre - "If you ever want to engage is a serious discussion of ideas, one with a reasoned back and forth exchange, then I'm your man."
Excellent! Start your own blog and I'll visit it almost as much as you visit this one, I promise. I'll engage you there.
Andre - You are attempting to put words in my mouth again. They are clearly written here:
http://denbec.blogspot.com/2010/12/political-tsunami.html
And in that post you will see a point that the GOP wants (and is trying really really hard) to make us forget - we would be in a serious depression right now had it not been for the SUCCESSFUL policies of the Obama Administration.
"Start your own blog..."
Way too lazy.
"Way too lazy".
After I posted that it occurred to me that you might possibly mistake my meaning: I was referring to myself, not to you.
"...the SUCCESSFUL policies of the Obama Administration."
Name one.
I just did. Preventing a major - possibly world wide - economic depression.
You didn't really answer the question.
Exactly which policies of the Obama Administration prevented a "world wide economic depression"?
(Remember that TARP was a Bush Administration policy, one which Obama merely continued).
I believe it was called an Economic Stimulus Plan. You know the ones that the GOP was complaining about because they put up signs indicating your tax dollars at work. Did you (conveniently) forget about that?
Oh - and the only raise in my paycheck in the last 4 years was from President Obama. Thanks Pres!
Oh - and I forgot to mention the thousands of jobs that were saved by keeping the auto manufacturers in business.
Shall I go on?
How is it you can claim the policies failed if you don't think there were any??
"How is it you can claim the policies failed if you don't think there were any??"
I didn't say that Obama had no policies...(unfortunately for all of us, he does, and there are all proving to be the dreadful failures that had been predicted)...I asked you which ones you believe "prevented a "world wide economic depression".
The Steal Trillions From Our Children and Grandchildren Plan (dishonestly referred to as the "Stimulus" Plan) succeeded only in raising the National Debt in 2 years by the some amount it took the Bush Administration 8 years to hoist onto us!
(Of course, Bush had lots of help from Congressional Democrats,
whereas almost every single Republican voted against the Obama Debt Explosion).
That is a very strange definition of Success.
(Of course, even by Obama's own definition of success, the Stimulus Plan was a complete failure. He promised that if passed, it would lower the unemployment rate to below 8%. We know how well that worked out.)
I wouldn't expect any Tea Party nut to understand - or perhaps more accurately admit - that where we are today is much better than where we would be if President Obama's plan had actually failed. The party of NO continues their campaign for one term. Thankfully reasonable folks know it has been successful - admittedly not as much as hoped. But the economic disaster left by the Bush Admin was also much larger than predicted by economists.
The Tea Party nuts need to stop complaining about the national debt when they are making no contribution to fix it. The Democrats will have to do that too.
Your stimulus dollars at work:
http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Solyndra-Has-Officially-Turned-Into-A-Scandal
"...the Obama administration restructured the loan so that we (the taxpayers)won't be the first creditors to get paid. That honor goes to two investors who poured in extra cash last January. And one of them is Obama campaign bundler, billionaire George Kaiser."
This raises another interesting possibility; perhaps, in addition to being incompetent, the President might also be a crook?
We've seen it all before Andre. Republicans will do whatever they can to discredit a good Democratic President. They have great fear of success. This one doesn't even sound like a scandal to me - nothing compared to Halliburton. Keep digging.
"...nothing compared to Halliburton"
Excuse me? The taxpayers on the hook for $500 million dollars...I don't remember Haliburton ever defaulting on even one penny of taxpayer guaranteed loans. Ever.
ABC News reported today that in the final two weeks off the Bush administration, the panel charged with evaluating this loan guarantee voted unanimously that it was too risky to approve. The incoming Obama Administration then over-ruled that judgement and cut a sweet-heart deal for this company, whose Chairman just happened to be one of Obama's biggest donors.
Is that, in and of itself, a criminal act? I don't know.
But it's sure looking pretty sleazy.
I heard and read a lot more of this story yesterday. Embarrassing perhaps. Sleazy - no. It's the GOP Machine trying to conjure something up.
Halliburton has "stolen" BILLIONS - wait.....TRILLIONS of American taxpayer dollars under no-bid contracts to the then Vice President's prior company that he still had a major stake in. Sleazy to the max.
And thank you for noting that the deal you are so upset about began under Bush. Everyone else is in the Tea Party is trying to forget that part as usual.
"Halliburton has "stolen" BILLIONS - wait.....TRILLIONS of American taxpayer dollars under no-bid contracts..."
Bullshit. And you know it. Haliburton was contracted to provide services by the Federal Government. They provided those services and then they were paid for them (by the way, all of those payments, as are all Federal outlays, are under the complete budgetary control of the Legislative branch, not the Executive branch. Since the Democrats had control of one or both Houses of Congress during at least some of the Bush years, they would have to have been complicit in any such "theft")
If you are going to define such activity as "stealing" then why stop at Haliburton? Hundreds of thousands of companies and individuals contract with the Federal government every year. By your absurd reasoning, we would have to regard all of them as thieves.
"...thank you for noting that the deal you are so upset about began under Bush."
Yes, as the Washington Pots points out today: "The Energy Department’s loan-guarantee program, enacted in 2005 with bipartisan support, has backed nearly $38 billion in loans for 40 projects around the country. Solyndra represents just 1.3 percent of that portfolio — and, as yet, it’s the only loan that has soured."
The Bush Administration wisely rejected the Solyndra loan-guarantee. If only the Obama Administration had acted as wisely, the taxpapyers wouldn't today be on the hook for the 535 million dollars down a rat hole.
"Everyone else is in the Tea Party is trying to forget that part as usual."
Well, I don't know if he is technically "Tea-Party", but I first learned about this back-story to the Solyndra scandal while listening to Rush Limbuagh unpack all the history in great detail on his radio show a couple of days age. Not much forgetting going on there.
For what it's worth, my personal suspicion is that this whole Solyndra affair has less to do with criminality than it does with just plain incompetence and stupidity.
I don't think there was necessarily any intent on the part of the Obama Administration to commit any crime.
Did one of the President's biggest fundraisers get special treatment? Possibly...it certainly looks likely. While that may technically be illegal, I'm sure that type of thing happens, to a greater and lessor degree, with every Administration that has ever existed, and probably will continue with every single future Presidential Administration
(Democrat or Republican).
That doesn't even really bother me that much. No, what I really think is most damning to the Obama Administration in this instance, is that they all probably really did think this was a great idea and a really safe investment for the US taxpayer.
It's just another part of the whole "green job recovery" hoax. That they would sincerely buy into that stupidity, is what really upsets me most about all this.
What upsets me most about it is that a LOT of similar corporations ended up going bankrupt due to the policies of the Bush Administration. Including the one I used to work for. It is not a scandal - it is a sad reality of failed GOP policies.
Can you name a single Government policy that was initiated during the years of the Bush Administration that caused a single corporation to go bankrupt?
Please be specific as to which policy forced which corporation into bankruptcy, and how it allegedly did so.
PS: If by "similar corporations" you mean similar to Solyndra (i.e. a business that made a product that no one wanted to buy) then they SHOULD have gone bankrupt, whether or not any particular Government policy helped or hindered them.
That has to be the most idiotic request you have made so far Andre. And you have made some doozies. The only answer is ALL of the GOP policies caused businesses to collapse. Including the deregulation of banks and Wall Street traders that allowed banks to fail and people to lose their homes, huge deficit spending combined with giant tax cuts, unfunded wars with no exit strategy sucking massive tax dollars into the pockets of Halliburton and throwing us into a deficit spiral that we may never recover from, policies that supported exporting American jobs over seas and on and on and on and on and on.
If you really don't know what caused it - just pay attention to the current GOP Presidential candidates. They are suggesting a repeat of all of those dangerous policies - as if they learned nothing from what happened. They were not job creators - they were job destroyers. And no amount of blaming Obama will make that less true.
Just as I expected, you are unable to name a single specific policy initiated by the Bush Administration that drove a single company to banckruptcy, nor a single corporation that was forced into bankruptcy because of one.
If that was because you suspected that I was laying a trap for you, well, you were correct. The worse and most economically damaging policies from those years have the fingerprints of the Democrats all over them, as I was (and am) ready to demonstrate for any policy you might have offered.
***
What "unfunded" wars could you be referring to? Unless the Bush Administration was engaging in some secret, and as to now completely unrevealed wars (which is certainly possible), the only wars that the United States engaged in during the Bush years were completely supported and funded by a majority of Congressional Democrats as well as Republicans. At not one single time in the Bush years did a single House of Congress, whether controlled by the Democrats or the Republicans, ever fail to provide funds for any hostilities that the United States was then engaged in.
Likewise, any deficits that were incurred during the Bush years, were incurred with the majority support of both Democrat and Republican legislators in Washington (this is not to excuse the failings of the GOP, if anything I am more disappointed with them, since I never would have even expected the Dems to do the right thing, in the first place).
The disastrous Housing Loan policies were initiated by the Clinton Administration,and throughout the Bush years, they were rabidly defended by the most powerful Democrats in Washington, who routinely attacked and vilified anyone who tried to warn of the inherent risk and instability of these polices, or anyone who suggested even the most reasonable of reforms.
It is self-manifestly obvious that the Right, at least, HAS learned from the mistakes of those years; hence the vibrant grass roots reform movement within (but not exclusive to) the Republican Party commonly known as the Tea Party Movement.
I would suggest that it is in reality you who have "learned nothing from what happened" (but of course for that claim to be technically accurate, first you would have to learn what actually DID happen).
***
" They were not job creators - they were job destroyers."
You probably should not go out of your way to draw attention to the job creating records of the two parties in recent years. It's not a winning issue for you guys. So far, Obama is no where near Bush's positive record for creating jobs (and it looks increasingly unlikely that he ever will be now), and of the few jobs that have been created in this country in the last two years, about half of them were created in Perry's Texas, and most of the rest were in the very Red states, the ones with strong Republican leadership(and conversely, the States with the greatest job losses have been in the deep Blue States that have been controlled by the Democrats).
But I have to tip my hat to you for one thing: you managed to quickly move the subject away from the Obama Solyndra scandal!
NOTE: IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW SPIRIT OF HOPE & CHANGE, THESE "HATEFUL" RIGHT-WING COMMENTS HAVE BEEN SELF-REPORTED TO ATTACKWATCH.COM
Nice twisting of logic again there. And there is no scandal. And if there were - it was you who turned the topic as usual. Weren't we talking about the Jobs Bill? What happened to that?
"Weren't we talking about the Jobs Bill? What happened to that?"
Yes. Good question. What DID happen to the "Jobs Bill"?
All we have so far is a "Jobs Speech". No such Bill has yet been introduced either in the House or the Senate.
They don't seem very serious about it...it almost seems like it's just meant to be some kind of prop in someone's political campaign, doesn't it?....nah.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/12/obama-prepares-to-send-congress-his-jobs-bill/
Exactly. That was on Monday, and still no Bill.
Where is it? Isn't it important enough to get on with it?
First he had to go golfing for a few weeks on Martha's Vinyard, before he could give his big over-hyped jobs speech. I guess he doesn't feel that time is of the essence.
If he really thought it was important, you would think he would have had a Bill ready to go right away.
Where is it?
How do you know it wasn't submitted? I haven't heard otherwise.
Did you happen to see the Daily Show bit on Solyndra? Embarrassing for sure.
The Party of NO has said...................................Wait for it...............................NO!
I would like to officially change my position on the "American Jobs Act".
I am now 100% in support of it's passage:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/277501/you-snooze-you-lose-veronique-de-rugy
Blocking job creation is no laughing matter Andre. The GOP is now more concerned with the Solyndra DISTRACTION and playing games with the Presidents plan than actually putting people back to work. SAD!
Move along, folks...nothing to see...no scandal here.
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/obama-admin-reworked-solyndra-1182334.html
Just your normal, everyday, Chicago-style corruption.
Hope and Change, indeed!
DISTRACTION!!!!
We need to be talking about JOBS.
Have you read that the GOP is opposed to most of the Presidents Jobs Bill and will hold it up or not let it pass? That's the real news. JOBS
News Flash for Dennis: Catch up man, it ain't just Republicans that are critical of the Presidents plan:
"In a further indication just how badly the White House fumbled the jobs bill, The Hill reports that administration officials had to meet with opponents in Congress to convince them to back the plan. Unfortunately for Barack Obama, those opponents weren’t House Republicans. They were Senate Democrats — and so far, it’s still no sale."
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/16/uh-oh-wh-pleading-with-senate-dems-to-back-jobs-bill/
and reporting from the Left:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44528419/ns/politics-the_new_york_times/
and from even further Left:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/16/odonnell_growing_democratic_resistance_to_obamas_jobs_bill.html
Prediction: This thing is such a loser and a non-starter that in less than two months (mark it down on your calender!) no one will even remember this "Plan". All the discussion and debate will be about other jobs/economic related bill proposals, put forward by the Congress. The President will be sitting on the sidelines.
Check back with me about this in two months and see if I didn't call it spot on.
That Stewart piece was funny...the boner joke was hilarious, and it 's looking now like it might also be prescient; we very well may have completely forgotten about the President's Jobs Bill in two months, but it's looking more and more like we will still be discussing Solyndra; this "distraction" may be about to get much more distracting.
It appears that the President may very well have committed an impeachable felony in his May 26 Solyndra speech. By making an intentionally false public misrepresentation of the financial viability of a company that was in the early stages of making a Public Offering, he may be guilty of "securities fraud".
Before you scoff, remember that Martha Stewart went to prison for something very similar.
"Any statement made to deceive the market can be actionable. In 2003, for example, the Justice Department famously charged Martha Stewart with securities fraud. Among other allegations, prosecutors cited public statements she had made in press releases and at a conference for securities analysts — statements in which she withheld damaging information in an effort to inflate the value of her corporation and its stock."
Details:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/277512/solyndra-fraud-andrew-c-mccarthy
I predict the next two months will involve tons of tax payer money spent on another frivolous lawsuit (remember the Clintons?). I also predict we will still be bickering about the Presidents Jobs Bill because of GOP hostage taking and nothing will have been accomplished.
Nothing.
I've set a calendar reminder to check back and see.
You want to hear another "doozie"?
This one is definitely going more out on a limb, but what the hell.
Prediction: Barack Obama will NOT be the Democratic candidate for President in November 2012. Rather than risk the humiliation of a landslide defeat, he will decline to run for a second term.
Instead, Hilary Clinton will be "asked" to step into the role of standard bearer for the Democratic Party in the 2012 Presidential election.
She will loose, but will be credited and widely praised by the MSM for helping keep Democratic losses in the House and Senate lower than they might otherwise have been (the Dems might even possibly retain control of the Senate, though by only one seat).
I'm only half serious about this "Prediction", but serious enough that I wanted to get it on record early.
(Remember, you heard it first here.)
I would GLADLY welcome the chance to vote for a president Hilary Clinton in 2012 or any year.
No - didn't hear it here first - heard it on CNN and various other sources that are doing all sorts of speculation on the election. But there is no way Obama won't run again. I can't find the link but I read a story last week on USA Today where he said he said it will be easier to get re-elected than it was to get elected the first time. I think I believe that.
What will make it much easier will be things like Solyndra. Every GOP candidate is already focused on that and various other "scandals". All the President has to do is show he is focused on JOBS and nothing else. Ask any jobless person - including the unfortunate Solyndra employees if they want the country to focus on Solyndra or jobs. What do you think the answer will be?
BTW - I did vote for Hillary in the primaries. Still think she would have been a great president and might be in 2016!
"What will make it much easier will be things like Solyndra."
Walk away from the cool-aid, dude!
It's bad enough that most of his policies have proven to be complete failures, but now to have the additional smell of criminal complicity added to them?
How does that possibly make his re-election "much easier"? Obama will win or loose based on the votes of Independents. Do you really think that what the Independent voters are clamoring for is for more corruption and incompetence at the highest levels of Government?
That is ridiculous.
President Obama may still win re-election, but that would be in spite of these huge difficulties, not because of them.
I'm having a bunch of "Hilary2012!" bumper stickers printed up. Would you like me to send you some?
(Actually, I hope my prediction does not prove correct, because I think that Hilary could possibly be a more formidable candidate for the Republican to have to run against in 2012, than Obama....on the other hand, she couldn't possibly do a worse job than him, so if I had to have one or the other, I might be tempted to choose Hilary...hmmm, I need to think about that one more).
"..he said it will be easier to get re-elected than it was to get elected the first time."
LOL. I'm sure he said that. Often when people dig themselves into a deep hole, or even when they fall flat on their face, but they are too proud or foolish to admit that they have screwed up, they will claim that they "meant to do that". In those situations it is usually understood by everyone what is really going on, and that the person who makes such a claim either knows it's a crock but wants to try to put up a brave face just to encourage his supporters, or he's completed self-deluded, or he's just out and out lying (I suspect in this case it is the first one).
"I think I believe that."
Yeah, well, you probably believed this guy too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJXU7EVXs2A
"No - didn't hear it here first - heard it on CNN and various other sources..."
Oh, sure...now that I've broken the ice, everyone wants to jump on the band wagon!
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-chapman-obama-reelection,0,622512.column
The President meant it was very difficult to be elected the first African American President. Now that we know he can do the job - even under extreme circumstances - it should be easier. Remember Andre - most Democrats still feel that even though we had hoped for a bit more - we are basically pleased with the Presidents performance so far. No matter how often you and the Tea Party say "failed policies" we still know they worked. That is they worked up until the time when the Tea Party obstructionists obtained influence. Since then things have taken a turn for the worst.
"The President meant it was very difficult to be elected the first African American President."
I think that will remain his single most enduring achievement; he put the lie to leftist myth of America as an irredeemably racist country that would never elect a black man President. That achievement will rightfully insure his place in the history books.
But was it really all that "difficult"? On the contrary, I think that there were many white people in this country who voted for him ONLY because he was black. I think that there were lots of people who completely looked the other way in regards to all sorts of issues and questions about Barack Obama's actual qualifications, because they were so excited about electing a black man President. I can completely understand that motivation (I would have been tempted in that direction myself if only he had struck me as a little more qualified and not so beholden to the Left wing of his party).
That being said, I think that there are lots of white voters who can now say to themselves "Hey, I've proven that I'm not a racist by voting for him the first time, and that I "judge a man by the content of his character, and not by the color of his skin" and I can now vote for someone more qualified and know in my heart that it has everything to do with merit, and nothing to do with race."
" Now that we know he can do the job..."
I'm sorry, but that is just laugh out loud hilarious. I think that a large majority of Americans are by now fairly convinced that he can't do the job (at least not very well), and I think there are even lots of folks who still plan to vote for him next year who know that too, but are going to vote for him anyway because they just could never vote for a Republican for any reason.
The big question will be how many of those previous supporters just sit out the election next year completely.
"..most Democrats still feel that even though we had hoped for a bit more - we are basically pleased with the Presidents performance so far."
I'm pretty sure you are mistaken about that, but I'm not going to even bother trying to prove it to you, because I think you are so committed to believing in the reality you want to believe in, that any evidence to the contrary would just be completely ignored (indeed, it HAS to be ignored).
Which, of course, it is your right to do...I would just like to suggest that a little more sober and realistic appraisal of the situation right now might save you a little anguish later, if things turn out differently than you hope.
Andre - sadly having our first African American President has also proven that racism is alive and well in this country - especially withing the Tea Party. No other president has faced such total rejection. I am not a "stand by your man" constituent. I just wrote an article on my opposition to the Patent Reform Bill. However this President has made some amazing accomplishments especially when faced with the monumental challenges - not the least of which is racist opposition from the GOP. If the GOP, or specifically the Tea Party party can't find a single thing they like about this President - not a single thing - then there isn't another word to describe it.
I had fierce opposition to President Bush - but if you look - real hard - you will find several positive articles in this blog I wrote about him. However, don't expect me to say anything positive about Cheney - that is just an evil man.
"...this President has made some amazing accomplishments.."
Really? I can't think of a single one...there must be at least one...can you help me out here?
Exactly Andre. I wouldn't expect you to.
Oh-oh...I get a little worried when I find myself actually agreeing with Michaell Moore about something:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/19/moore_people_that_voted_for_obama_not_going_to_be_excited_about_voting_again.html
Well, apparently, you can't name any either.
"No other president has faced such total rejection."
You are merely displaying your ignorance of American Presidential history.
(That's not a slam at you...most people don't know much about it)
"Well, apparently, you can't name any either."
Totally STUPID answer Andre - I have listed them several times for you.
Now, are you trying to tell us that you do not approve of President Obama's recent relaxing of EPA rules? Or his willingness to open offshore drilling (before the spill), or the recent patent changes that will benefit wealthy investors at the expense of inventors? Or the extension of the Bush tax cuts? These are all things I am opposed to - but the Tea Party has been asking for. You can't find ANYTHING you agree with?
Zzzzz...
Those are what you consider to be "amazing accomplishments"?
Setting the bar pretty low, aren't we?
Any empty suit could have done those things (hell, either one of us could have done those things). No wonder I couldn't remember that you had already listed them "several times"....I think I've forgotten about them again already.
Andre - from now on your "name one..." or "provide a link...." requests will be met with an "Ignored" reply. If you have a counter argument I'm glad to hear it - but you need to do your own research. I won't be jumping through hoops for your entertainment or, as you mentioned in a previous comment, as a trap.
Accomplishments that show compassion for those less fortunate, strive for equality for all, or keep the economy from total collapse are big in my opinion. Sorry you find them so boring.
"..show compassion for those less fortunate, strive for equality for all, or keep the economy from total collapse.."
The examples you gave do NONE of those things.
Is that all ya got?
Ignored. :)
I'll take that as a "Yes".
You are very irritating Andre. A decision not to play your word games isn't an agreement. In fact for the record - you can assume whenever I choose not to comment on your "name one" or "show me a link" comments it is, in fact, a silent disagreement with you. Please keep that in mind for the future. You and your Tea Party friends use this irritating game to make it look like people agree with your stupidity when we are really just trying to ignore it. It is a childish game and I won't play along anymore.
This post has 70 comments on it - hardly any of which deal with the subject of the Presidents Jobs Bill. Can we please try to stay on topic. Thank you.
Moving on........
I am sorry if you find it irritating to have your outrageously false claims challenged. I am also sorry that you feel so put upon when asked to provide the slightest bit of evidence for those claims.
You are, of course, completely free to totally ignore my questions, but it should not surprise you if the logical conclusion that I would draw from such behavior was that it just demonstrates that you did not know what you were talking about, and that you had just been caught out blowing smoke; indulging in some thoughtlessly knee-jerk, hyper-partisan rhetoric.
Of course, you have every right to indulge in whatever form of rhetoric that you wish, but I reserve the right to point out to you that is all that it is, and that it does not represent anything factual or true.
You have the right to be irritated by having that pointed out to you.
While we are on the subject of "irritating", let me just conclude with the observation that what I find somewhat irritating is when you make a bold claim such as "...this President has made some amazing accomplishments.." , and then when simply asked to provide some representative examples, all you can point to is a few mundane,completely run of the mill executive decisions, which any doofus with a pulse and half a brain could have made in their sleep. They simply do not support your claim.
Either this President has made some "amazing accomplishments" or he hasn't.
I am unaware of any.
Apparently you are not aware of any either.
I am perfectly content to consider the matter settled on that point.
You have proven my point (again).
Apparently President Bush was a duffus with a pulse that was unable to stop the economic collapse.
Forgive me for being off topic but since Andre doesn't have a blog of his own, this is the only place I can post these fact for him.
If you would need a link Andre, just let me know. Have a blessed day.
* Seventy-one percent of current U.S. debt was accumulated during Republican presidential terms.
* Two-thirds of debt-ceiling elevations since 1960 have been signed into law by Republican presidents.
* In 1961 the percentage of corporate profits paid in taxes was nearly forty-one; now it is less than eleven.
* Seventy-five percent of the increase in corportate profit margins since 2001 has come from depressed wages.
* The value of government subsidies that will go to oil and gas industries between now and 2015is estimated at $78,155,000,000.
"Seventy-one percent of current U.S. debt was accumulated during Republican presidential terms."
Since under our system of Government, it is the Legislative Branch and not the Executive Branch that controls the purse strings and actually spends money and incurs debt, the more relevant statistic would be what percentage of current U.S. debt accumulated under Democrat controlled Houses of Congress as under Republican controlled.
If you take the time to review the statistics linked below, you will see that, for the last twenty years at least, that Democrats in control of Congress have incurred nearly three times the debt than Republicans had incurred (averaged on a monthly basis per each respective Parties control of Congress)..
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeef1s7/richardpersingcom22/id15.html
However, I must say, that it is very encouraging to see you so concerned about these issues.
Welcome to the Tea Party, Thohea.
We're glad to have you onboard!
(maybe you can talk some sense into your buddy, Dennis)
Only stopping at fact #1 Andre?
Ah, yes, the famous Liberal Double Standard; Conservatives must answer to every single objection,no matter how irrelevant and off-point, while Liberals are free to ignore 99% of the relevant facts that are ever put before them. I suppose it is a form of flattery actually: when Liberals hold Conservatives to a higher standard than they would ever dream of applying to themselves, they are implicitly acknowledging that Conservatives HAVE a higher standard to be held to.
Which is true enough,I suppose, so tedious as it may be:
"Claim" #2 is just another flavor of Claim #1, and for Commbox purposes is adequately covered in my response to Claim #1 (i.e. the lesson to be drawn from it is not what you think it is...dig deeper into the details and you will find that it undermines the Liberal position, rather than supporting it).
Claim #3 completely misses the point about the job killing effects of corporate tax rates in a global economy. What matters right now is not what the current US Corporate tax rate is compared to what it was at any time in the past. What matters right now is the FACT that it is currently the highest (or 2nd highest)rate in the industrialized world, and thus is a job killer for the American worker.
Claim #4: Highly unlikely. First, while real wages have only grown by 4% over the last ten years (the lowest rate since the Great Depression), one key reason for that is that the cost of non-wage compensation, especially health insurance, has replaced actual wage growth, but that doesn't mean that the labor cost to corporations has been going down, it means the opposite. Thus, any increases in Corporate profitability during this period could not be from any non-existent savings in labor cost (beyond savings from automation and increased efficiency), but is far more likely to be attributable to other factors, such as increased productivity, technological advances, emerging markets, etc, etc.
Claim #5: Whether or not that number is accurate (what is being defined as a "government subsidy"?), I have no idea what point you are trying to make in citing it, nor what direct relevance it has to anything we have discussed on this thread (although, in fairness, you did preface your presentation with the admission that these claims were "off-topic"). You will have to elaborate, for me too provide you with an meaningful response.
Good boy Andre!
Andre - your response to #4 is very interesting, if not sadly horrifying. Corporations have taken advantage of this (planned?) recession to downsize their payroll while increasing productivity by using fear of layoffs as a motivating tool. It's worked very well for them as economists show profits have grown considerably and corporations don't even know what to do with their excess cash. As a victim of this "procedure" I can say all of this with an inside view.
The company I work for is growing fast - yet they continue to hire people at reduced rates every month. I was hired almost 2 years ago at a $10,000 pay cut from my previous position and I haven't had a raise since. They have hired others for my same position since then at drastically reduced rates as indicated by the Career Search ads. I have no hope of ever getting a raise now as they already see me as over-priced. Meanwhile I struggle to pay basic bills in my very low key life here in S. Florida.
If you truly believe that corporations have not seized this moment to lower their labor costs even as they report huge profits, then you are truly out of touch with what is going on in this country. They won't stop where we are either. The goal is to have American employees work for wages competitive with the global market. The leaders in the global market are countries like China or India. How much do those typical employees make? Exactly.
THIS IS THE GOP AGENDA - and they use topics like abortion gays and God to get the minions to vote for it.
I couldn't agree more denbec. My company benefits started erroding away in 2009. 401k contributions, bonuses, raises, then the layoffs. I could even understand some of it if the company had made smart cutbacks but its like some executive took a look at a spreadsheet and said "this department is costing too much, anyone making over X amount must go". Nevermind the people being laid off were faithful employees who knew more about the company as a whole than the temp employees making half as much hired to replace them. Then there's the cost and labor of training that temp employee who can't do the job half as well, only to leave a month later so the company has to invest more time and money training someone new. It was a hard lesson. That's when my faith in corporate america crumbled. I was just a number on a spreadsheet. Now, after months of being unemployed, i've found a job making 45% less than i was 18 months ago. I wont see a raise this year and since my job field is mostly outsourced now, i'll have to either accept my current lifestyle of barely living above the poverty line or return to school and make a career change. A change that will undoubtedly end with me being saddled with student loan debt from inflated tuition costs.
Even still i can accept my situation and the state of the ecomony, if only i thought that the executives that run these corperations were having to make the similar sacrifices. They aren't, and neither are their families. They won't have to make the decision of whether to be late on their phone bill or their electric bill this month. They won't care that i have to make that decision either. So i don't want to give them a tax break or open loop holes or deregulate. I don't trust that they will share their profits with me - not any more
Dennis, I know that I have asked you this question before, but please tell me again: why is it that when you go shopping at the grocery store (or the clothes store, or the gas station, etc, etc)you always only pay the cashier exactly the asking price for the items you are purchasing?
We all are aware that these are difficult economic times, and whether you were tp put an extra 5%, 10%, or even 20% into the cash register (or just slide it "under the table" for the cashier to keep directly for themselves), I'm sure that either the business or it's employee would be happy for the additional money. After all, there are market limits to what any particular merchant can charge for his wares. If one store charges significantly more than the others for the same items, they will probably loose most of their customers and eventually go out of business. So even if they can't charge an extra 20%, I'm sure they would love to accept the premium from you if you were to offer it.
And yet you never do.
Don't feel too bad about it though, I don't either, and I'm pretty sure Thohea also doesn't. As a matter of fact, I doubt there is hardly anyone anywhere who does.
Happily, most merchants don't seem very upset that we never think to voluntarily over-pay in that way. As much as thy would love to be getting more money, they seem to understand how markets work, and they probably don't mutter under their breath, after you leave their store, about what a greedy, stingy asshole you are because you always just pay the asking price of $3 for a dozen eggs (organic, of course)and never even offer to pay, say, $12, or $14, instead.
And yet, although you, quite rationally, do not choose to indulge in such an unusual behavior, you seem to get rather upset when your employers also choose to act in an equally rational way by declining to pay you more than the market rate for your "eggs".
That strikes me as rather hypocritical of you.
Andre, an egg is a product not a service. Bad analogy.
Now, i pay my barber more than he charges because i like his service. I don't have to, he doesn't ask me too but i appreciate him. If he raised his price from $12 to $15 a haircut i would STILL pay him more because i believe good service should be rewarded. I would even go as far a to follow him to another location if he moved because we have build a relationship of respect and appreciation.
I would expect the same from my employer if i provided excellent service and demonstrated loyalty. It doesnt have to come in the form of money; respect would be just as valuable. Small businesses may practice this but not larger corporations. There i'm just a number and treated as cattle and expendable if my employment interfers with their multi-million dollar salary.
I'm reminds of a scene in Broadcast News when in the midst of massive layoffs, Jack Nicolson's top anchorman character looks around at people packing up their desks and sobbing, and says, "this layoff is really brutal" to which the managing editor replies, "well, you could make it less brutal by knocking off a million or two from your salary", which was met by an icy stare from Jack.
Thank you Thohea - I couldn't have said it better. Andre has used that ridiculous analogy before. Good employees are hard to find. Small businesses know that and will strive to keep a good one with benefits and pay increases. Corporations assume there are unlimited number of employees out there waiting to work. Possibly true - especially right now - but finding the GOOD ones is still difficult. Plus it is expensive to train new employees - but I guess that doesn't matter if you plan to hire at a much lower wage.
No Thohea, you miss the point...service or product, there is a market price for everything.
There is even a commonly accepted market price range for tipping (if you disagree, then next time you get a haircut, even a really good one, why don't you tip your barber 4 or 5 times what you tipped him last time?).
You and Dennis accept the market price for most things in your life, but you balk at the idea that the value of your own labor might also be ruled by similar market dynamics. That is unreasonable on your part.
***
Dennis, rather than calling my question "ridiculous", why don't you just try to provide an honest answer to it? Why do you not pay more for any good or service than the going market rate (and that includes the going market rate for tips)?
***
"Good employees are hard to find. Small businesses know that and will strive to keep a good one with benefits and pay increases."
I work as a part-time office manager for a small business and yes, good employees are hard to find, but we are severely restrained by the realities of the marketplace as to how much additional wages and benefits we can afford to pay and still survive as a business at all. If we were to offer twice what all our competitors offer for the same workers, I'm sure we could attract and hold the best employees in town. Of course, we wouldn't be able to employee them for long, for we would also very quickly price ourselves out of the marketplace altogether.
***
Basically, you guys just sound like a bunch of disgruntled cry-babies, envious of anyone who has more than you do, and upset because the world isn't catering to your personal desires to the extent that you would wish it do. You are unhappy about your circumstances, and are always looking for someone else to blame.
Instead of sitting around griping about it, why don't you two go out and create your own corporations, which you can then attempt to run by the enlightened principles that you are calling for; the same principles which all of these other successful large business's somehow appear to be too stupid to be able to grasp?
Actually, it would be extremely amusing to observe your true behavior if either of you ever started and ran a business large enough to require a number of employees. I suspect that you would quickly change your tune and not be bending over backwards to pay them above the going rate for their services.
***
" I have no hope of ever getting a raise now as they already see me as over-priced."
Maybe, in this market, you ARE over-priced. Some years from now, when (hopefully)the economy has fully recovered and there are less available unemployed workers, you may be under-priced.
The Law of Supply and Demand is just that: a natural Law. It does not change just to suit our personal wishes that it would.
So i guess the record profits and salaries of these corp execs are immune to the fair market value?
No Andre, YOU missed the point!
And another thing....It pisses me off when republicans spout off about how much they love this country, then take jobs away from Americans so they can give themselves a raise. When they yell about how patriotic they are, then boo an active serviceman during a live republican debate for being gay. When they say how this country is build on faith in God and the teachings of Christ, then applaud the death penalty.
No Andre, YOU miss the point.
Why don't i start my own corporation? The same reason you don't start your own blog - too lazy.
"So i guess the record profits and salaries of these corp execs are immune to the fair market value?"
No, they also are subject to what the market will allow...as a matter of fact, they are defined by what the market will allow: you're services are worth exactly what someone is willing to pay you.
***
"When they say how this country is build on faith in God and the teachings of Christ, then applaud the death penalty."
Huh? Ever read the Bible? As an observant Jew, Christ would have taken the death penalty, appropriately applied, as a given.
***
"...republicans spout off about how much they love this country, then take jobs away from Americans so they can give themselves a raise."
The free-enterprise system is one of the core values that made this an great and exceptional country in the first place. To "love America" is, to a great extent, to love the free enterprise system. Just ask the millions of immigrants who left everything they had ever known behind to come here, to struggle, and to prosper.
***
"Why don't i start my own corporation? The same reason you don't start your own blog - too lazy."
That's fine, and I appreciate your honesty...but you certainly seem to expend a considerable amount of your energy trashing those who aren't too lazy to go out and build successful business's, generate wealth, and create most of the jobs that exist in the first place.
Mr. Smith is the CEO of company X. Company X may not show a profit next quarter. Mr. Smith is faced with the dilema of whether to layoff 100 employees (and have the remaining workers pick up the slack) or take a reduced salary of 14 million, rather than his usual 15 million. Mr. Smith chooses to layoff workers and never even considers cutting his salary.
Yes Andre, that scenerio is full of holes, economically speaking, but you get the idea. Or, maybe you just don't get the idea.
"Christ would have taken the death penalty, appropriately applied, as a given."
Sorry Andre, I didn't read the fine print under "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Then again, I don't answer to the God of the Republicans...or the one characterized in bible. But since you do, that strikes me as rather hypocritical of YOU.
"Just ask the millions of immigrants who left everything they had ever known behind to come here, to struggle, and to prosper."
Guess what Andre, they don't even have to leave home anymore to prosper from an American job. American Corps are employing them right from their own homes overseas. Free Enterprise for all! God Bless America!
"you certainly seem to expend a considerable amount of your energy trashing those who aren't too lazy to go out and build successful business's"
And may i point out again Andre, you seem to spend much more energy and time than I on this blog, trashing the thoughts and opinions of those who actually do own a piece of the blogasphere.
I said, GODD DAY SIR!
Andre says " I do not fabricate..."
In fact - this is all you do! You cannot just wright a simple opinion or state a fact - you need to write a twisted lengthy tirade where at the end the reader is left thinking "well, that's not really the way it happened". Go back to that comment you posted that I said I liked because of the way it twisted words to fit your point - rather than stating want was really true. In fact you don't even need to go back to that article - just read this one. Very twisted indeed. Truth is easy. Facts are easy. fiction takes some work. I would say you are a master of word manipulation but you aren't even very good at it.
In all your twisted commentary describing the perfect world of Capitalism you like to imagine, you leave out one extremely crucial word - GREED. Greed is real - everywhere - and must be dealt with.
"Truth is easy. Facts are easy."
Maybe...but why then do you seem to have such a difficult time with them?
My guess is our favorite old stand-by: laziness.
I'll have the last word here.
O...K...,here you go,Thohea...tossing you the soft ball...hit it out of the park!
(Don't ever say I never did anything for you).
I've never claimed to be lazy.
I know...that was just my speculation...actually, you sound like a very hard working guy...always burning the candle at both ends...I admire that.
You deserve a raise!
True dat!
It took a while but here's the last word....
Thohea: "So i guess the record profits and salaries of these corp execs are immune to the fair market value?"
Andre: "No, they also are subject to what the market will allow...as a matter of fact, they are defined by what the market will allow: you're services are worth exactly what someone is willing to pay you."
From 1990 to 2005, CEOs' pay increased almost 300% (adjusted for inflation), while production workers gained a 4.3%. The purchasing power of the federal minimum wage actually declined by 9.3%, when inflation is taken into account. (www.aflcio.org)
According to retired CEO of DuPont, Edgar S. Woolard, Jr... the notion that CEO salaries are being set by the competition for their services in the executive labor market is "bull." One way CEO's can set their own salaries is by hiring outside experts, called "compensation consultants". The board of directors (which the CEO helps select and may include other fellow CEOs) buys into what the CEO asks for because the outside consultant is an "expert" on such matters. Handing out only modest salary increases might give the wrong impression about how highly the board values the CEO. And if someone on the board should object, there are the three or four CEOs from other companies who will make sure it happens.
If hiring a consulting firm doesn't lead to an increase in pay, then it may be possible for the CEO to have the board change the way in which the success of the company is determined. For example, Walmart Stores, Inc. used to link the CEO's salary to sales figures at established stores. But when declining sales no longer led to big pay raises, the board simply changed the magic formula to use total companywide sales instead. By that measure, the CEO could still receive a pay hike (NYT,Morgenson,5/8/2011).
Andre: "The Law of Supply and Demand is just that: a natural Law. It does not change just to suit our personal wishes that it would."
Apparently it does for CEOs and Corp. exectutives.
Post a Comment