Quit picking on Obama……

[Cliffy]

Well I still have hope.

Hope is nothing more than wishful thinking, but if it helps you get out of bed in the morning.....

Oh! And if the Republicans do take control of the house and senate, expect that there will be even less done to straighten out the mess than was accomplished in the last two years. This just proves that the electorate is stupider than the clowns they vote into office.

 

[mentalfloss]

You forgot the most important reason, they divided the country and that is why were having so many problems now trying to fix things.. I do blame Pelosi and Reid and to a lesser degree Obama for that.

Maybe, but it's clear that the biggest driver for what polarized this country is the virtuously funded, sensational media. And it's gotten to the point that they have the mindless drones running around spouting 'off with his head' without having really done any research for themselves.

 

[EagleSmack]

Hope is nothing more than wishful thinking, but if it helps you get out of bed in the morning.....

Ummm, ok... I guess. (geez)

 

[mentalfloss]

30 years? Embellishing a little?

Check out the documentary "Inside Job". They are able to track down the beginning of this mess to the Reagan years - Reaganomics as it is called.

Me either. But they did. More bailouts, increasing the debt... just a continuation of the policies that got us in the mess to begin with.

Maybe, but at this point that seems like the most reasonable way to invest. The only other solution would be to fire everyone involved and re-hire - and that doesn't seem too appropriate in the short term or long term. The boost will be offset by revoking tax cuts to the wealthy - which is apt considering they are the ones that profited from the mess, and they are the only ones that can help everyone else.

That's weird... unemployment has shot up. It was at what 10% last November? It only got better because of stimulus money for census takers. Once they were laid off it shot up a little again. Check those facts out. They've been posted here before.

Well blame their employers then. It's squarely on their shoulders to be helping the cause as well instead of turning a blind eye. It's difficult to put the blame on anyone else if that's the case.

 

[EagleSmack]

Check out the documentary "Inside Job". They are able to track down the beginning of this mess to the Reagan years - Reaganomics as it is called.

lol. Why am I not surprised.

Maybe, but at this point that seems like the most reasonable way to invest. The only other solution would be to fire everyone involved and re-hire - and that doesn't seem too appropriate in the short term or long term. The boost will be offset by revoking tax cuts to the wealthy - which is apt considering they are the ones that profited from the mess, and they are the only ones that can help everyone else.

So the GOP made an economic disaster... which I agree. But now that the Democrats are in power it seems reasonable to continue the same policies? Taxing the wealthy... come on now. That is NOT going to get us out of this mess.

Spending NEEDS to be cut. Wasteful programs NEED to be cut. Entitlements and Pork NEEDS to be cut. No more bailouts. No more freebies... no more free money.

Well blame their employers then. It's squarely on their shoulders to be helping the cause as well instead of turning a blind eye. It's difficult to put the blame on anyone else if that's the case.

If the company is suffereing from losses how can you blame employers from laying off workers? If the money isn't coming in to pay them how can you blame them?

 

[mentalfloss]

So the GOP made an economic disaster... which I agree. But now that the Democrats are in power it seems reasonable to continue the same policies? Taxing the wealthy... come on now. That is NOT going to get us out of this mess.

Of course it will help. They've already projected that the tax gains will pay off the stimulus right away.
Rich people are rich.

If the company is suffereing from losses how can you blame employers from laying off workers? If the money isn't coming in to pay them how can you blame them?

Why is the only solution to lay off workers? And who says that that is the most economically feasible solution for these companies either? I'm sure they can come up with creative solutions. They were given 'free workers' and they became greedy by laying them off for short term gains. That's their own fault.

Spending NEEDS to be cut. Wasteful programs NEED to be cut. Entitlements and Pork NEEDS to be cut. No more bailouts. No more freebies... no more free money.

Of course. My one real criticism of this administration is that of wasteful military expenditures which is the continuing legacy of administrations of the past. Those wasteful expenditures contribute to the debt more than any other. Get our men the hell out of the middle east and pakistan and we save tons of money every year.

 

[YukonJack]

I hereby declare a "cease-fire" on picking on Obama.

The rational, sober, smart, common-sense, honest, hard-working and decent people will all the picking for me.

Could not happen to a more deserving fellow who was least deserving for the highest office in the land.

 

[EagleSmack]

Of course it will help. They've already projected that the tax gains will pay off the stimulus right away.
Rich people are rich.

Taxing the wealthy, which I am not against, is not going to get us out of this mess.

Why is the only solution to lay off workers? And who says that that is the most economically feasible solution for these companies either?

And who are you to decide how a business owner runs his own business. This is not economics 101. It is common sense. If your company has no business... you need to cut payroll. You can't pay workers when you have no money...unless you're the US Govt.

I'm sure they can come up with creative solutions.

Such as?

They were given 'free workers' and they became greedy by laying them off for short term gains. That's their own fault.

Free Workers? Are you serious? FREE WORKERS?

Of course. My one real criticism of this administration is that of wasteful military expenditures. Those wasteful expenditures contribute to the debt more than any other. Get our men the hell out of the middle east and we save tons of money every year.

Yet another promise that the Democrats and Obama failed to do. More so in Iraq than Afghanistan. He did say he'd pull them out of Iraq as did the Democrats... until they got elected.

 

[JLM]

I hereby declare a "cease-fire" on picking on Obama.

The rational, sober, smart, common-sense, honest, hard-working and decent people will all the picking for me.

Could not happen to a more deserving fellow who was least deserving for the highest office in the land.

Nobody in the world is as bad as you paint Obama. :smile:

 

[YukonJack]

Nobody in the world is as bad as you paint Obama. :smile:

There were far more and far worse depictions of George W. Bush.

If you don't remember that, you must have been among those who did.

 

[mentalfloss]

Taxing the wealthy, which I am not against, is not going to get us out of this mess.

Of course it's not the end result here, but it helps.

And who are you to decide how a business owner runs his own business. This is not economics 101. It is common sense. If your company has no business... you need to cut payroll. You can't pay workers when you have no money...unless you're the US Govt.

Firstly, there are other methods of cost cutting. Pick any of them along the business value-chain from logistics to marketing. You can also put more emphasis on either end of that value chain to pick up your business. Cutting jobs, while cutting salaries, also cuts production. It's a band-aid short term fix that doesn't save your business.

Free Workers? Are you serious? FREE WORKERS?

Yes. They received stimulus money which could go toward any aspect of the business - including salaries. It's not a difficult concept to grasp here.

Yet another promise that the Democrats and Obama failed to do. More so in Iraq than Afghanistan. He did say he'd pull them out of Iraq as did the Democrats... until they got elected.

"As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html

I know we still have troops in there now, but he was explicit in saying the 'combat brigades' would be removed this summer and they were.

 

[EagleSmack]

Of course it's not the end result here, but it helps.



Firstly, there are other methods of cost cutting. Pick any of them along the business value-chain from logistics to marketing. You can also put more emphasis on either end of that value chain to pick up your business. Cutting jobs, while cutting salaries, also cuts production. It's a band-aid short term fix that doesn't save your business.

Cutting the size of your work force most certainly can save your business. Just look at Wonder Bread for a model.

If you are a contractor and have no work... you lay men off. When you get work you hire more men...or women.

Production is cut when the demand is not there. When you are not getting new orders to produce it is economic suicide to produce. You can't sell when you do not have buyers.

Yes. They received stimulus money which could go toward any aspect of the business - including salaries. It's not a difficult concept to grasp here.

Oh well that is a different animal. Another failure of this Congress and the Administration. Giving companies BILLIONS and they still cut workers while maintaing their high salaries and bonuses. Yet the Administration did nothing. If they had I'd probably be singing a different tune. Obama complained, but nevertheless, the bonuses went out and they still go out to this day. he is unable to stop them.

"As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html

I know we still have troops in there now, but he was explicit in saying the 'combat brigades' would be removed this summer and they were.

Well about a month ago US Troops were involved in Combat Operations to support the Iraqi Army in a stiff fight they were having. I am pretty sure they weren't using the cooks and admin guys.

 

[mentalfloss]

Yes, yes, but now you're spinning a bit.

Firstly, the U.S. has no real control over silly spending by corporations even if they wanted to. Oh, unless, that corp is also somehow supporting the party as well, but that's another matter entirely.

Secondly, the brigades are out. That's what was promised, and while troops are helping with training sessions or other ops, that wasn't part of the Admin plan.

I think these are issues that would plague any overseer here. You can't have a firm control over everything even if you are Prez. And in today's corporate climate, there are other parties causing collateral damage from years ago that no capable administration could handle any better.

 

[EagleSmack]

Yes, yes, but now you're spinning a bit.

How am I spinning?

Firstly, the U.S. has no real control over silly spending by corporations even if they wanted to. Oh, unless, that corp is also somehow supporting the party as well, but that's another matter entirely.

Well you said a mouthfull as the corporations basically did what they wanted with the bailouts. The Administration set no restrictions and they did what they wanted. Greed. Absolutely...100%.

Corporate Welfare and Greed.

The Democrat Congress and the Obama Administration gave them BILLIONS and these corps basically told them to F-Off and they will spend it the way they want. IF Congress and the Administration set some rules to the Bailouts I would not be so critical of them in this case.

Secondly, the brigades are out. That's what was promised, and while troops are helping with training sessions or other ops, that wasn't part of the Admin plan.

So they are called "Training Brigades" (or something along those lines, not trying to put words in your mouth) instead of "Combat Brigades". Ok. I would bet there are still Infantry Units in Iraq.

I think these are issues that would plague any overseer here. You can't have a firm control over everything even if you are Prez. And in today's corporate climate, there are other parties causing collateral damage from years ago that no capable administration could handle any better.

I agree. The same goes for ALL PRESIDENTS... all of them. Presidents (Including GW Bush) can only do so much. However they bear the burden and take the credit or blame.

 

[JLM]

There were far more and far worse depictions of George W. Bush.

If you don't remember that, you must have been among those who did.

I was generally of two minds about George, He didn't put up with any sh*t from anyone, even the useless U.N. on the other hand he did have an impetuous nature about him.

 

[gopher]

''McCain should have won.''

He would have bombed Iran and started World War III so that your grandchildren would be dead by now. Is that what you really want?

 

[ironsides]

The U.S. economy was usually was pretty good when we had a Democratic President and a Republican Congress. (So they said on the radio today) A more qualified Democrat in the Presidency would make it perfect.

Well, the Republicans are the enemy of Latinos and any other group of poor people. But that is not politically correct. Politically correct for Republicans is to call the President an empty suit, communist Nazi traitor. That is fine but telling the truth is breaking the rules of engagement.

Republicans support legal anybody's. Hispanics down here have pretty much supported Republican candidates. Not sure what will happen today, but based upon the past. You never have seen me call Obama a Nazi, illegal alien, traitor etc. He is an empty suite though. (good term)

 

[EagleSmack]

''McCain should have won.''

He would have bombed Iran and started World War III so that your grandchildren would be dead by now. Is that what you really want?

I thought you said Bush was going to do that before he left?

 

[Cliffy]

I thought you said Bush was going to do that before he left?

he couldn't get the Democrat house to back him up.

 

[EagleSmack]

he couldn't get the Democrat house to back him up.

He didn't need the Democrat House to launch an attack. Besides, of the 8 years that Bush held office the GOP owned Congress the first 6.

Try again.

Don't make it so easy next time.