Obamanomics 101

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,303
144
106
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!

Thanks "L" you certainly have any and all opportunity to refute any of the opposing, intelligent, and rational positions put forth in your threads by other posters...but we all kow thats really not your intention/motive/purpose. You are simply here to entertain yourself, rile your "enemies" and provoke hatred. Sorry, but your attempts to "troll" these boards just don't get the rise that you want from me and probably many others here. You are mostly ignored except for the rare occasions when I am bored and want to press my thumb down on irrational/pathetic arguments.

On that note, whenever I want to see an irrational/fallacious/pathetic argument I turn to you PJABBER...because just like Zendari/Prof John/ and all the others that came before you....you all suffer from the same unintelligent lazy thinking.

yes please do checkout...go do something else for a while. You clearly need to bail out in this thread....

Oh and I need to add Atreus to that VERY SHORT list of intelligent "conservative" thinkers here. Because he/she does try.

you do not make that list PJABBER. You never will.

remember that everytime you click "submit"

thanks.
 
Last edited:

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
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?

Lol, I have been arguing that everyones taxes need to go up for a while now, buuuut we kind of need businesses to start hiring people. Raising their taxes isn't the best way to do that.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,413
54,096
136
Okay guys, here's your chance! As per PJABBER posting 101, now that he's quoted an insane ultra right editorial piece, we're all charged with writing up a cited and sourced paper as to why he's an idiot. When his quoted text says that Obama's a secret Kenyan lesbian Nazi eskimo, you've got to track down a source to refute that claim. When you call him an idiot for posting something so dumb, that's just avoiding the substance.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
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.

Man you are the Phil Spector of Wingnuts with your Wall of Text.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
Okay guys, here's your chance! As per PJABBER posting 101, now that he's quoted an insane ultra right editorial piece, we're all charged with writing up a cited and sourced paper as to why he's an idiot. When his quoted text says that Obama's a secret Kenyan lesbian Nazi eskimo, you've got to track down a source to refute that claim. When you call him an idiot for posting something so dumb, that's just avoiding the substance.

When you cite evidence, he just abandons the thread and spams more opinion pieces.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
I was considering blocking a few of these trollish hack spammers but I'm afraid there would be no threads in P&N.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Only about 7% of Barack Obama’s cabinet appointees ever worked in the private sector!

Nick Schulz published a great graph revealing the private sector experience of the appointees of every president since 1901.

http://blog.american.com/?p=7572

Cabinet Appointments: Prior Private Sector Experience, 1900 - 2009

"(The) chart (comes) from a J.P. Morgan research report. It examines the prior private sector experience of the cabinet officials since 1900 that one might expect a president to turn to in seeking advice about helping the economy. It includes secretaries of State, Commerce, Treasury, Agriculture, Interior, Labor, Transportation, Energy, and Housing & Urban Development, and excludes Postmaster General, Navy, War, Health, Education & Welfare, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security—432 cabinet members in all.

When one considers that public sector employment has ranged since the 1950s at between 15 percent and 19 percent of the population, the makeup of the current cabinet—over 90 percent of its prior experience was in the public sector—is remarkable."
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Only about 7% of Barack Obama’s cabinet appointees ever worked in the private sector!

Nick Schulz published a great graph revealing the private sector experience of the appointees of every president since 1901.

http://blog.american.com/?p=7572

Cabinet Appointments: Prior Private Sector Experience, 1900 - 2009

"(The) chart (comes) from a J.P. Morgan research report. It examines the prior private sector experience of the cabinet officials since 1900 that one might expect a president to turn to in seeking advice about helping the economy. It includes secretaries of State, Commerce, Treasury, Agriculture, Interior, Labor, Transportation, Energy, and Housing & Urban Development, and excludes Postmaster General, Navy, War, Health, Education & Welfare, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security—432 cabinet members in all.

When one considers that public sector employment has ranged since the 1950s at between 15 percent and 19 percent of the population, the makeup of the current cabinet—over 90 percent of its prior experience was in the public sector—is remarkable."

And yet all of the smart MBAs in the GWB administration managed to turn surpluses into deficits and crashed the economy. Maybe we need to quit listening to the MBAs?
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
And yet all of the smart MBAs in the GWB administration managed to turn surpluses into deficits and crashed the economy. Maybe we need to quit listening to the MBAs?

I rather think of MBA's as overpaid staffers, the business equivalents of the Congressional staff that writes those massive tomes of legislative horror. I would like to see real entrepreneurs chosen to run wide swaths of government.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
And yet all of the smart MBAs in the GWB administration managed to turn surpluses into deficits and crashed the economy. Maybe we need to quit listening to the MBAs?
It's all too common to look at what's happening today only in the context of the previous administration. You should really look at the whole chart. It goes back quite a ways.

When you fill your cabinet with people that have only government experience, you get only government solutions. It's all they know.

This is in part why his jobs summit is such a joke. Anyone who thinks that this administration would consider anything other than a government solution to problems is naive. I can just imagine the sour looks and how quickly the attendees will be shown the door when the consensus it to cut taxes and incentivize business.
 
Last edited:

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
13,237
10,633
136
Okay guys, here's your chance! As per PJABBER posting 101, now that he's quoted an insane ultra right editorial piece, we're all charged with writing up a cited and sourced paper as to why he's an idiot. When his quoted text says that Obama's a secret Kenyan lesbian Nazi eskimo, you've got to track down a source to refute that claim. When you call him an idiot for posting something so dumb, that's just avoiding the substance.

I hear Beck still hasn't refuted that whole "raped and murdered a young girl" thing either ...
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
It's all too common to look at what's happening today only in the context of the previous administration. You should really look at the whole chart. It goes back quite a ways.

When you fill your cabinet with people that have only government experience, you get only government solutions. It's all they know.

This is in part why his jobs summit is such a joke. Anyone who thinks that this administration would consider anything other than a government solution to problems is naive. I can just imagine the sour looks and how quickly the attendees will be shown the door when the consensus it to cut taxes and incentivize business.

Liberty University-look it up.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
-snip-
an insane ultra right editorial piece

Fred Barnes writes "insane ultra right editorial piece(s)"?

I suppose Trotsky and Lenin were just centrists (like Scazzafava in NY).

Otherwise, yeah, "Dave" was a great movie. I liked it when brought his CPA/accountant and fixed the national budget.

Fern
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Fred Barnes writes "insane ultra right editorial piece(s)"?

I suppose Trotsky and Lenin were just centrists (like Scazzafava in NY).

Otherwise, yeah, "Dave" was a great movie. I liked it when brought his CPA/accountant and fixed the national budget.

Fern

No, Fred Barnes is justly seriously deranged.

In the days leading up to the 2008 United States election, Barnes was the only political pundit out of 27 catalogued by the Huffington Post (including Karl Rove, Alex Castellanos, Matthew Dowd, Ed Rollins, and George Will) to predict a John McCain victory for U.S President (286 to 252 electoral votes).[3]
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
No, Fred Barnes is justly seriously deranged.

In the days leading up to the 2008 United States election, Barnes was the only political pundit out of 27 catalogued by the Huffington Post (including Karl Rove, Alex Castellanos, Matthew Dowd, Ed Rollins, and George Will) to predict a John McCain victory for U.S President (286 to 252 electoral votes).[3]

Relying on the HuffandPuff Post and Wiki only gets you so far in life. I am finding that those who rely on the HP, DailyKross and MotherJonesy are likely to not comprehend more centered opinions. Simply no input from which to discern reality, much less establish a reasoned perspective.

FYI -

Fred Barnes is co-founder and executive editor of The Weekly Standard. From 1985 to 1995, he served as senior editor and White House correspondent for The New Republic. He covered the Supreme Court and the White House for the Washington Star before moving on to the Baltimore Sun in 1979. He served as the national political correspondent for the Sun and wrote the “Presswatch” media column for the American Spectator.

He is host, along with Mort Kondracke, of the Beltway Boys on FOXNews. Mr. Barnes appears regularly on FOX’s Special Report with Brit Hume. From 1988 to 1998, he was a regular panelist on The McLaughlin Group. He has also appeared on Nightline, Meet the Press, Face the Nation, and The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.

In addition, Barnes hosts the weekly radio show, Issues in the News on Voice of America. Formerly, he was chief correspondent on the PBS series National Desk.

Mr. Barnes authored the book Rebel in Chief: Inside the Bold and Controversial Presidency of George W. Bush (2006) based on his exclusive interviews with top administration officials – as well as President Bush.

Mr. Barnes graduated from the University of Virginia and was a Neiman Fellow at Harvard University (horrors!).
 

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robor
I was considering blocking a few of these trollish hack spammers but I'm afraid there would be no threads in P&N.

I was thinking the same thing.

I too am tried of PJabba the Hut's incessant trolling. If we all put h9m on our ignore list maybe he'll just get tired oif trying to be such an attention whore? Hey it's worth a try.

Bye bye Jabba
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
I too am tried of PJabba the Hut's incessant trolling. If we all put h9m on our ignore list maybe he'll just get tired oif trying to be such an attention whore? Hey it's worth a try.

Bye bye Jabba

As I can't for the life of me remember any opinion or factoid you might have posted on any topic, I can sincerely say, with scant sorrow, "AMF!"
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
I too am tried of PJabba the Hut's incessant trolling. If we all put h9m on our ignore list maybe he'll just get tired oif trying to be such an attention whore? Hey it's worth a try.

Bye bye Jabba
So, would that fall under the guise of "Chicago Politics"? Or, is it just a Dem trait? You know, silence all those who oppose you?

But hey, if it makes your world more tranquil, do it. Running from reality actually works for some people.

P.S. I've got some folks on the ignore list myself.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
This is silly. While "business owners" are among the "hero" groups for certain people, and while running a successful business does indeed take skill and dedication, it confers no magic qualities upon the individual holding that title. Just like every other are of expertise, being good at running a business does NOT give you special insight into other fields.

Running a national economy is not running a business on a larger scale. The factors involved in managing the largest economy in the world are things that don't exist for the guy running the local software company. There is a reason micro- and macro- are two completely different areas of economic study. Having an MBA doesn't make you any more qualified to craft macro-economic policy than does a law degree.

If I need to know how many pencils to order, or what to pay my employees, or how to motivate the marketing department, I'll ask a business owner. If I want to successfully run a national economy, I won't.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
This is silly. While "business owners" are among the "hero" groups for certain people, and while running a successful business does indeed take skill and dedication, it confers no magic qualities upon the individual holding that title. Just like every other are of expertise, being good at running a business does NOT give you special insight into other fields.

Running a national economy is not running a business on a larger scale. The factors involved in managing the largest economy in the world are things that don't exist for the guy running the local software company. There is a reason micro- and macro- are two completely different areas of economic study. Having an MBA doesn't make you any more qualified to craft macro-economic policy than does a law degree.

If I need to know how many pencils to order, or what to pay my employees, or how to motivate the marketing department, I'll ask a business owner. If I want to successfully run a national economy, I won't.

Ahh, but the President is not going to appoint a small business owner to run, say, a 20,000 person agency, is he? While we can fantasize about "Dave," the most skilled people will have experience leading and managing large enterprises.

Different skill sets for different agencies. How about "Chainsaw Al" Dunlap for the Department of Education? Jack Rowe at HHS? Jamie Dimon for Treasury? Mark Pigott for Transportation? Charlie Ergen at the FCC? John Martin at NIH? Hector Ruiz for international trade? Fred Hassan and Ed Breen can get corner offices in the West Wing.

If you don't think these guys have transferable skills you need to see what they did in the private sector and how. Magical!

(OK, Chainsaw Al was mentioned solely for that certain savoir-faire he demonstrated!)
 
Last edited:

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
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.

This is what is so scary about Obama. He thinks businesses are monocle & top-hat wearing tycoons that fire/not hire workers for their own amusement or something. He doesn't have the slightest clue about even elementary economics. Obama thinks that the purpose of a business is to create jobs for workers, like they are some sort of welfare system.
 
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/    |