Obamanomics 101

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
President Obama and the White House staff are still diligently working, working, working on the invitation list for the recently announced “Forum on Jobs and Economic Growth” to occur on Dec. 3.

While it is likely that neither you nor I are going to be invited, it might be time for us to reflect on how the White House has treated business and business leaders since the beginning of the year.

It isn't just that there seems an inordinate hostility toward those who actually make up the economy, but that hostility seems to go hand in hand with a considerable ignorance as to how capitalism works at all.

There are some Wall Street types at the Treasury, some more Wall Street guys at the Fed (one or two good guys there, actually, like Kevin Warsh.) Commerce Secretary Gary Locke is a lawyer and former governor. The number two guy at Commerce, Deputy Secretary Dennis Hightower has quite a good background in international business, but his job is to run the internal workings of the agency and not to make policy. I wish he were in the policy job. The rest are almost 100% politicians or bureaucrats and, of course, law degrees dominate their resumes, not MBAs.

Strikingly absent, with the exception of Hightower, is anyone who has run a business. Small business or large business, that experience is not in found in the resumes of those holding senior policy making positions advising the White House on what business needs.

Perhaps President Obama gets advice from the private sector? Nope, only a couple of weeks ago the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Black Chamber of Commerce were broadly attacked as being too... pro-business.

Maybe it is not surprising that a President that made his chops supporting organizations that ran extortion rackets against business, was an anti-business champion exclusively, always supported unions over management, doesn't consider that an economic turnaround is not predicated on hiring more SEIU government workers but on clearing the way for business to grow and hire productive employees is... anti-business.

The Jobs Conference will occur, there will be lots of photo ops, lots of positive (non-business) press (of course) but in the end, will anyone be listening?

Some years back, there was a movie called "Dave."

Kevin Kline played a temp agency manager that looked just like the President and was tapped to take the President's place when he fell into a coma. Well, Dave actually started being President and went on to do quite a few things that were very good in that fictional place and time. He also chose to bow out when he realized he was out of his depth.

An interesting movie, worth seeing if you missed it.

I wonder if Obama has a twin running a temp agency somewhere?

*********************************

Obamanomics 101
No cheers for capitalism.

by Fred Barnes
The Weekly Standard
11/30/2009, Volume 015, Issue 11

Back in February, President Obama met with a group of CEOs in the White House, seeking their support for his economic stimulus package. One of his chief targets was Jim Owens, the head of Caterpillar in Peoria, Illinois. The day after the session in Washington, the president flew to Peoria to speak at the Caterpillar factory and took Owens and newly elected Republican representative Aaron Schock, the youngest member of Congress at 28, with him.

Aboard Air Force One, Obama chatted amiably with Owens and Schock. Owens showed Obama two pages of a PowerPoint presentation. The first gave the details of China's stimulus, devoted mostly to infrastructure. The second was Obama's stimulus (drafted by congressional Democrats), with far less money going to building and repairing roads, bridges, and other projects. That was the problem, Owens told Obama: too little for infrastructure and thus too little to engage companies like Caterpillar, which had just furloughed 20,000 workers.

When Obama delivered his speech in Peoria, he either hadn't understood what Owens told him or simply refused to accept it. The stimulus package, he said, would be "a major step forward on our path to economic recovery. And I'm not the only one who thinks so." Owens, the president said, had told him that "if Congress passes our plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off."

This was not only untrue, but proved to be embarrassing for Obama. After the speech, Owens talked to reporters at the foot of the podium. No, he wouldn't be bringing back any workers. (Later, Caterpillar announced that 2,500 of the layoffs would be permanent.) Owens and Schock flew back to Washington on Air Force One. This time, Obama ignored them. There was a chill. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and adviser David Axelrod walked past Owens and Schock repeatedly to speak to the press pool in the rear of the plane. They didn't stop to chat either.

I bring up Obama's Peoria adventure because it bears on the Jobs Summit for which he has summoned business leaders to the White House on December 3. In February, the president and Owens were not on the same wavelength. That's likely to be the case with Obama and the business community at the summit as well--unless Obama has changed his economic tune significantly. There's no reason to believe he has. Nor have congressional Democrats.

Obama has his own theory of our current economic situation. His "first job," he told Chuck Todd of NBC News, was to stave off another "Great Depression," save government jobs (police, firefighters, teachers), and "make sure certain sectors of the economy were supported," such as "construction and infrastructure." "We've gotten that job done," he said.

"Our next job is to make sure we can accelerate the job growth," he said. "   So what we're seeing now is businesses are starting to invest again, they are starting to be profitable again, but they haven't started hiring again."

What's the matter with these business guys? The suggestion here is they ought to be hiring. But they're "sitting on the sidelines," the president told Major Garrett of Fox News. He regards them as not-very-conscientious objectors, avoiding the struggle to revive the economy and put people back to work. They're not doing their part, their duty.

Stronger words from Obama may follow. During the Depression, President Roosevelt demonized business and the wealthy ("economic royalists") and raised their taxes. When they declined to invest and stir economic growth, he accused them of staging a "capital strike." The Obama equivalent, if it comes to that, would be a "hiring strike."

We haven't gotten there yet. But Obama has made clear in his 10-month presidency that he has minimal respect for business or the profit motive. Ambitious, talented young people should work for nonprofits. Last summer, he criticized doctors who gouged by insisting on expensive tonsillectomies to cure simple sore throats. They reflected a "business mentality," he said.

And what the president doesn't understand--or, to be more charitable, refuses to acknowledge--about free markets, the economy, and competition could fill a book, or at least an Obama speech. The economic growth he sees was produced, in part, by cash-for-clunkers and the first-time homebuyers tax credit. It foreshadowed an unusually weak recovery. And the profits came largely from cost-cutting, not a flood of new revenue.

Obama told Garrett that spending cuts or tax increases would jeopardize the recovery. But what do businesses, small and large, see staring them in the face? Tax increases--President Obama's tax increases. He backs an increase in tax rates on income, dividends, and capital gains that will go into effect in 2011. Obama-care, should it pass, is loaded with tax hikes. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants a Value Added Tax.

The president is looking at "tax provisions" to spur hiring, but he's done that before. Last winter, he spoke fondly of a two-year tax credit to boost small business hiring, but congressional Democrats declined to put it in the stimulus. Instead, they produced a measure that bailed out profligate state and local governments and rewarded liberal interest groups.

That stimulus has failed to stimulate, and the administration's claims of jobs it has supposedly created or saved have been discredited and become a national scandal. Obama's excuse: Calculating a jobs number is an "inexact science."

Small, targeted tax cuts like the one aimed at small business won't do much for hiring. "This is an anti-risk-taking climate," says Republican representative Paul Ryan. "You have to give them [businesses and investors] incentives to lower the price of risk." Ryan recommends cutting the business income tax to 25 percent from 35 percent, eliminating the tax on capital gains for two years, and providing a 100 percent tax writeoff for equipment, plant construction, and other expenses the first year. Hiring would follow.

Presidents from Calvin Coolidge to John Kennedy to Ronald Reagan to George Bush understood that strong incentives are necessary to trigger rapid growth and hiring. Strong incentives, plus more investment in infrastructure, would no doubt have won the endorsement of Jim Owens of Caterpillar. He didn't get them from Obama, and my guess is he never will.
 
Last edited:

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
"When Obama delivered his speech in Peoria, he either hadn't understood what Owens told him or simply refused to accept it. "

your writer presents a fallacious false choice...then proceeds to logically argue from that position.

Nice.

"In February, the president and Owens were not on the same wavelength. That's likely to be the case with Obama and the business community at the summit as well--unless Obama has changed his economic tune significantly. There's no reason to believe he has. Nor have congressional Democrats."

based on his false premise...his logical conclusion is false as well.

Of course the boss at Catapillar is going to tell Obama that not enough stimulus money went to T&I. Just like the Education Chancellors at UC are going to say not enough Stim money went to education and teacher jobs.

your article sucks. It is also full of fantasy and conjecture.

"Owens and Schock flew back to Washington on Air Force One. This time, Obama ignored them. There was a chill. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and adviser David Axelrod walked past Owens and Schock repeatedly to speak to the press pool in the rear of the plane. They didn't stop to chat either."

I pretty much gave up after that....

just doing my part to fight 'OP idiocy' and 'creating dumbass threadery'...
 
Last edited:

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
70,201
28,899
136
Imagine that, a conservative who wants tax breaks for businesses and investors in the face of the largest deficits in history. Who would have thunk it?
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
I read every word and enjoyed it immensely. I believe I was even able to comprehend and retain nearly all of it. (No test though, please)

Not my post but here's the Cliffs. Obama likes workers but hates business. He seems to have no grasp that both are needed. He ignores history and is repeating mistakes of his predecessors. In addition, whomever he's receiving his guidance from, is even more clueless than he is. He also appears to be living in a different U.S. than many of us because he thinks he's doing a wonderful job.

Now on the history part, I guess we'll have to be understanding to a degree. I don't imagine American history was taught in Indonesia. If it was taught, I'm nearly certain that America was not presented in a favorable light. Personally, I think that this is why Obama hates America.

Edit: For some insight into the mind of our Chairman, click the second link in my sig. For those interested in more opinion, read http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/is_obama_a_narcissist.html

We really need to be understanding towards him. After all he's just a product of his upbringing.
 
Last edited:

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
"When Obama delivered his speech in Peoria, he either hadn't understood what Owens told him or simply refused to accept it. "

your writer presents a fallacious false choice...then proceeds to logically argue from that position.

Nice.

"In February, the president and Owens were not on the same wavelength. That's likely to be the case with Obama and the business community at the summit as well--unless Obama has changed his economic tune significantly. There's no reason to believe he has. Nor have congressional Democrats."

based on his false premise...his logical conclusion is false as well.

Of course the boss at Catapillar is going to tell Obama that not enough stimulus money went to T&I. Just like the Education Chancellors at UC are going to say not enough Stim money went to education and teacher jobs.

your article sucks. It is also full of fantasy and conjecture.

"Owens and Schock flew back to Washington on Air Force One. This time, Obama ignored them. There was a chill. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and adviser David Axelrod walked past Owens and Schock repeatedly to speak to the press pool in the rear of the plane. They didn't stop to chat either."

I pretty much gave up after that....

just doing my part to fight 'OP idiocy' and 'creating dumbass threadery'...

A clue for the clueless -

"Dave" is the fictional story, Barnes' article is not.
 

brblx

Diamond Member
Mar 23, 2009
5,499
2
0
republican circle jerk itt. don't forget your lube.

edit- by 'reading' bills, do you mean actually reading them, or just listening to what bill o reilly and glen beck told you they read?
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
A clue for the clueless -

"Dave" is the fictional story, Barnes' article is not.

wow...that makes no sense.

talk about clueless.

I didn't even mention "Dave"

As for Barnes article...it is full of fallacy. No wonder you liked it so much

Edit: and dont bother addressing the points I made earlier...we wouldn't want rational, intelligent thinking to seep into that cob web of a brain of yours.
 
Last edited:

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
wow...that makes no sense.

talk about clueless.

I didn't even mention "Dave"

As for Barnes article...it is full of fallacy. No wonder you liked it so much

Edit: and dont bother addressing the points I made earlier...we wouldn't want rational, intelligent thinking to seep into that cob web of a brain of yours.

That's the extent of your contribution? Another ad hominem attack?

Easy to make statements that you never back up with any verifiable third party confirmation, isn't it?

L. Know what that stands for? Loser.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
As usual PJABBER misses the Forest for the trees while failing to realize that much of Obamanomics is shaped by a need to bail out our entire capitalistic system that nearly collapsed under the disastrous policies of GWB&co.

At least the somewhat similar to GWB policy called Reagonomic allowed Reagan to get out of office before the whole mess unwound under the GHB watch.

GWB was not as lucky and he too adopted similar Obamanomic policies that spent a trillion bailing out the banking system BEFORE he left office.

And its now time to ask, does anyone on this forum really think, if McCain had been elected, that he would be able to do as well as Obama? In a very similar time, a clueless President Hoover saw unemployment soar to 25%, as big and small business had no answer to the loss of the consumer that could no longer buy the output of small and big business.

As we learn once again, that the Republican answer of only feeding the top of the food chain hurts everyone, because when the base of the food chain collapses, the only right answer lies in restoring the bottom of the food chain.

Nor can we hold up business leaders as a shining example of prudent wisdom, as GWB policies gave them almost everything they had been asking for, and the greedy bastards then went wild and succeeded in bankrupting themselves in an orgy of stupidity. And once they went broke they have the unmitigated gall to demand government financed bonuses?????????
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
As usual PJABBER misses the Forest for the trees while failing to realize that much of Obamanomics is shaped by a need to bail out our entire capitalistic system that nearly collapsed under the disastrous policies of GWB&co.

At least the somewhat similar to GWB policy called Reagonomic allowed Reagan to get out of office before the whole mess unwound under the GHB watch.

GWB was not as lucky and he too adopted similar Obamanomic policies that spent a trillion bailing out the banking system BEFORE he left office.

And its now time to ask, does anyone on this forum really think, if McCain had been elected, that he would be able to do as well as Obama? In a very similar time, a clueless President Hoover saw unemployment soar to 25%, as big and small business had no answer to the loss of the consumer that could no longer buy the output of small and big business.

As we learn once again, that the Republican answer of only feeding the top of the food chain hurts everyone, because when the base of the food chain collapses, the only right answer lies in restoring the bottom of the food chain.

Nor can we hold up business leaders as a shining example of prudent wisdom, as GWB policies gave them almost everything they had been asking for, and the greedy bastards then went wild and succeeded in bankrupting themselves in an orgy of stupidity. And once they went broke they have the unmitigated gall to demand government financed bonuses?????????

Notwithstanding the gratuitous ad hominem insulting which always accompanies a LemonyFizz post -

Revolution! Overthrow The Capitalists! To The Barricades! Workers Of The World, Unite! Wobblies Wobble Now!

(have I got the tone right?) ;-)
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
As usual PJABBER misses the Forest for the trees while failing to realize that much of Obamanomics is shaped by a need to bail out our entire capitalistic system that nearly collapsed under the disastrous policies of GWB&co.

Therein lies the rub.

PJ and the rest of his minions will never admit their hero and company wrecked the country.
 

spittledip

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2005
4,480
1
81
OP, did you forget how much money Obama gave to the banks? I think that speaks enough for itself. If he really hated businesses, he would have let them fail. Absurd idea there OP.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Therein lies the rub.

PJ and the rest of his minions will never admit their hero and company wrecked the country.

And there you have it from the leading contender for the Chairmanship of both the Freedom Socialist Party (USA) AND the Party of Socialism & Liberation (PSL)

Thanks guys for your struggle to overthrow the ruling classes!
 

PELarson

Platinum Member
Mar 27, 2001
2,289
0
0
Well Prof John, excuse me you are now using the monicker PJabber, we at least know your real name OR did you quote someone and not provide a link to their article?
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
That's the extent of your contribution? Another ad hominem attack?

Easy to make statements that you never back up with any verifiable third party confirmation, isn't it?

L. Know what that stands for? Loser.

no it is not me that is making statements without backing it up that would be the "L" author you quoted in your OP.

Is this the extent of that "rational, intelligent, alternative thinking" you crowed about the "conservative" thinkers on this board?

Because I so far have found nothing rational, or intelligent from you in this thread. Just a buch of fallacious reasoning.

You didn't read my first post in this thread, wherein I made statements...calling out the fallacies in the authors argument...backed up my statements with the "L" authors very own words....and you never addressed it. Maybe reason just simply flies right over your head?

Continue to make these "rational, intelligent, alternative thinking" type posts PJABBER.

But remember, everytime you are about to click "Submit" on your latest bullshit, thoughtless, and irrational thread...that NO ONE takes you seriously, and that you are the PRIME example of why no "liburruls" in AT P&N take any of the "conservative" posters in this forum seriously.

Except for maybe Fern and Blackangst (some of the time)

thank you for your pathetic contribution...good day.

and you can count as many ad hominem attacks as you want...you deserve them
 
Last edited:

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
no it is not me that is making statements without backing it up that would be the "L" author you quoted in your OP.

Is this the extent of that "rational, intelligent, alternative thinking" you crowed about the "conservative" thinkers on this board?

Because I so far have found nothing rational, or intelligent from you in this post. Just a buch of fallacious reasoning.

You didn't read my first post in this thread, wherein I made statements...calling out the fallacies in the authors argument...backed up my statements with the "L" authors very own words....and you never addressed it. Maybe reason just simply flies right over your head?

Continue to make these "rational, intelligent, alternative thinking" type posts PJABBER.

But remember, everytime you are about to click "Submit" on your latest bullshit, thoughtless, and irrational thread...that NO ONE takes you seriously, and that you are the PRIME example of why no "liburruls" in AT P&N take any of the "conservative" posters in this forum seriously.

Except for maybe Fern and Blackangst (some of the time)

thank you for your pathetic contribution...good day.

and you can count as many ad hominem attacks as you want...you deserve them

No, it is not YOU that makes wild ass statements, certainly not YOU!(snicker)

I have to check out as I have to go play a set of those ol' Chicago style blues with my alternative ego, Professor John.

But before I go, I hope both Fern and Blackangst visit this thread to thank you for your kind thoughts. (snicker)

LLLLLLLLLLLater, LLLLLLLLLLLadies!
 

brblx

Diamond Member
Mar 23, 2009
5,499
2
0
And its now time to ask, does anyone on this forum really think, if McCain had been elected, that he would be able to do as well as Obama? In a very similar time, a clueless President Hoover saw unemployment soar to 25%, as big and small business had no answer to the loss of the consumer that could no longer buy the output of small and big business.

despite what people seem to think, hoover wasn't exactly apathetic and he certainly wasn't clueless.

the most interesting thing about hoover is his political views in comparison to today's party lines. he was a republican who believed in curbing government waste and keeping federal bureaucracy out of economics- yet he still instituted or proposed many programs that would be called 'socialist' by current republicans.

i'd much rather have herbert hoover as president than some empty shell whose strings are being pulled by the currently lobotomized republican party.
 
Last edited:
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |