Happy birthday to our President.
Tonight the Aragon Ballroom in Chicago will host our President's birthday party. The room rents for $40,000 an evening. But don't book a flight to Chicago just yet. . .Birthday events are also scheduled in other cities across the country. Robert Gibbs will be in Boston, David Plouffe in Tampa, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo will be in New York City, David Axelrod in Los Angeles and Donna Brazille in Oakland as MC's of the "satellite events." If you cannot afford to travel to these cities you can attend one of 1,167 house parties across the nation, where the president will make a plea for donations via closed circuit.
It's not to late to get a ticket to the main event. You can attend for $35,800 per person. If you would like to attend the entertainment function, you can throw in an extra $50 - $1,000 depending on where you would like to be seated.
If you would like to have a picture shaking President Obama's hand, or giving Michelle a peck on the cheek, be sure to have an additional check for $10,000.
Contact the White House Ticket Office for details.
Happy 50th Mr. President.
I guess you thought this would be offensive or indicative of some kind of aristocratic, political over kill. Perhaps you aren't aware of how politics work? Or, perhaps you weren't around for the Reagan parties. Makes you seem like someone who is resentful of others' wealth and power. Nah, that can't be.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 03, 2011, 01:48:09 PM
Happy birthday to our President.
Tonight the Aragon Ballroom in Chicago will host our President's birthday party. The room rents for $40,000 an evening. But don't book a flight to Chicago just yet. . .Birthday events are also scheduled in other cities across the country. Robert Gibbs will be in Boston, David Plouffe in Tampa, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo will be in New York City, David Axelrod in Los Angeles and Donna Brazille in Oakland as MC's of the "satellite events." If you cannot afford to travel to these cities you can attend one of 1,167 house parties across the nation, where the president will make a plea for donations via closed circuit.
It's not to late to get a ticket to the main event. You can attend for $35,800 per person. If you would like to attend the entertainment function, you can throw in an extra $50 - $1,000 depending on where you would like to be seated.
If you would like to have a picture shaking President Obama's hand, or giving Michelle a peck on the cheek, be sure to have an additional check for $10,000.
Contact the White House Ticket Office for details.
Happy 50th Mr. President.
Aw. That's sweet of you.
Quote from: AquaMan on August 03, 2011, 02:08:35 PM
I guess you thought this would be offensive or indicative of some kind of aristocratic, political over kill. Perhaps you aren't aware of how politics work? Or, perhaps you weren't around for the Reagan parties. Makes you seem like someone who is resentful of others' wealth and power. Nah, that can't be.
It's just another one of his things.
Quote from: AquaMan on August 03, 2011, 02:08:35 PM
I guess you thought this would be offensive or indicative of some kind of aristocratic, political over kill. Perhaps you aren't aware of how politics work? Or, perhaps you weren't around for the Reagan parties. Makes you seem like someone who is resentful of others' wealth and power. Nah, that can't be.
Nope! Happy for him. If it weren't so hot, I'd suggest he go play a round.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 03, 2011, 02:38:24 PM
Nope! Happy for him. If it weren't so hot, I'd suggest he go play a round.
I think we've seen all we need to see here, boys. Whaddaya say we close this thread up and start again fresh tomorrow?
Quote from: AquaMan on August 03, 2011, 02:08:35 PM
I guess you thought this would be offensive or indicative of some kind of aristocratic, political over kill. Perhaps you aren't aware of how politics work? Or, perhaps you weren't around for the Reagan parties. Makes you seem like someone who is resentful of others' wealth and power. Nah, that can't be.
Funny you mention that. Facing a tough re-election, President Reagan spent his 72nd birthday on Feburary 6, 1983 entertaining a group of 400 college students in the White House. Joking, eating birthday cookies and answering pointed questions about the recession and his reasoning behind passing sweeping tax cuts, when the liberal theories these kids were fed indicated otherwise.
He was supposed to spend just an hour with the students, and aids kept giving him gentle nudges to move on, but he said he was having too much fun. The press ridiculed him for wearing a cowboy hat that one of the kids had brought, saying it was a staged political stunt to bolster his image as the "cowboy president."
It seems quite a contrast. No selling of access or staged photo ops. He was experiencing about the same level of pressure because his policies had just taken affect and people were not yet aware that they were getting ready to experience 96 months of straight growth.
Perhaps we are getting ready to experience similar growth from President Obama's philosophically contrary policies. That is my birthday prayer for him.
You mean the Ronald Reagan who raised $100 million for his private foundation while President? You mean the Ronald Reagan who is now selling naming rights to his house and monuments around DC?
Vhttps://www.reaganfoundation.org/naming-opportunity.aspx
NAMING OPPORTUNITIES FOR GIFTS TO THE RONALD REAGAN CENTENNIAL ENDOWMENT CAMPAIGN
Gift range from $500,000 to $5 million
President and Mrs. Reagan's Private Quarters
The Executive Boardroom at the Reagan Library
Nancy Reagan Boardroom (in the Air Force One Pavilion)
The Peace Plaza
Library Museum Store
Future Presidents Park
Foundation Atrium
Foundation Office Suites
Air Force One Stars and Stripes Plaza (Courtyard Turnaround)
Air Force One Pavilion Lobby
Air Force One Plaza
Library Courtyard Plaza
Library Admissions Lobby
Thatcher Theater
Gorbachev Theater
Peace Plaza Flags
The Freedom Garden (Circle of Flowers) – South Lawn
Your continuing campaign against Obama will be your downfall. Stop it before your other posts are all marginalized.
That is my birthday prayer for you.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 03, 2011, 03:30:31 PM
You mean the Ronald Reagan who raised $100 million for his private foundation while President? You mean the Ronald Reagan who is now selling naming rights to his house and monuments around DC?
Vhttps://www.reaganfoundation.org/naming-opportunity.aspx
NAMING OPPORTUNITIES FOR GIFTS TO THE RONALD REAGAN CENTENNIAL ENDOWMENT CAMPAIGN
Gift range from $500,000 to $5 million
President and Mrs. Reagan's Private Quarters
The Executive Boardroom at the Reagan Library
Nancy Reagan Boardroom (in the Air Force One Pavilion)
The Peace Plaza
Library Museum Store
Future Presidents Park
Foundation Atrium
Foundation Office Suites
Air Force One Stars and Stripes Plaza (Courtyard Turnaround)
Air Force One Pavilion Lobby
Air Force One Plaza
Library Courtyard Plaza
Library Admissions Lobby
Thatcher Theater
Gorbachev Theater
Peace Plaza Flags
The Freedom Garden (Circle of Flowers) – South Lawn
Really? While he was president?
Yes... By the way, The Reagan Foundation spends $4 million a year on fundraising (over 25%) of its budget and over 10% of its budget on administration. It only gets two stars from charity navigator.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4410
In comparison, the William J. Clinton Foundation spent less than 2% of its budget on fundraising and 3.2% of its budget on administration. It has a four star rating by the same group.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6903
Gas couldn't have been more than 5 years old when the Reagan's reinstituted pomp and circumstance to the White House. He's getting spoonfed.
Speaking of tasteless politics, did anybody ever notice that our last two Nimitz-class aircraft carriers were named after living Presidents? Crass, IMO.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 03, 2011, 04:10:11 PM
Yes... By the way, The Reagan Foundation spends $4 million a year on fundraising (over 25%) of its budget and over 10% of its budget on administration. It only gets two stars from charity navigator.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4410
In comparison, the William J. Clinton Foundation spent less than 2% of its budget on fundraising and 3.2% of its budget on administration. It has a four star rating by the same group.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6903
You see, even in death President Reagan is still doing more for the economy with their spending on fundraising than President Clinton could ever do ;)
Such an over-achiever!
Quote from: AquaMan on August 03, 2011, 04:26:01 PM
Gas couldn't have been more than 5 years old when the Reagan's reinstituted pomp and circumstance to the White House. He's getting spoonfed.
You still believe the Reagan years were some of the worst economically and you are old enough to know better.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 03, 2011, 04:46:01 PM
You still believe the Reagan years were some of the worst economically and you are old enough to know better.
A man who raised the debt ceiling 17 times. You humper....
First videos from that B-day are in....It was themed Hedonism..... ???
Quote from: Conan71 on August 03, 2011, 04:46:01 PM
You still believe the Reagan years were some of the worst economically and you are old enough to know better.
That depends entirely on who you ask. If you ask poor folks, the Reagan years were pretty bad. Ask Wall Street and the newly-deregulated banks that had yet to implode? Those guys were living high on the hog. (coke?)
Quote from: Conan71 on August 03, 2011, 04:46:01 PM
You still believe the Reagan years were some of the worst economically and you are old enough to know better.
Where did that come from? For me the Reagan years were fine. Had a good job, started a family, added central air, bought a new car. Did even better during the Clinton years. Got screwed with Bush II.
Quote from: nathanm on August 03, 2011, 07:17:26 PM
That depends entirely on who you ask. If you ask poor folks, the Reagan years were pretty bad. Ask Wall Street and the newly-deregulated banks that had yet to implode? Those guys were living high on the hog. (coke?)
It sucked for the poor folks prior to Reagan and it still sucks for the poor folks 30 years later. In fact, if they are still poor, the reason they are has nothing to do with who is in the White House.
Aqua Man I thought I recalled your adolescent incarnation talking about how bad the Reagan years were at one point. If that wasn't you, I apologize for confusing you with someone else. ;)
Quote from: Conan71 on August 03, 2011, 07:57:18 PM
It sucked for the poor folks prior to Reagan and it still sucks for the poor folks 30 years later. In fact, if they are still poor, the reason they are has nothing to do with who is in the White House.
Aqua Man I thought I recalled your adolescent incarnation talking about how bad the Reagan years were at one point. If that wasn't you, I apologize for confusing you with someone else. ;)
No problem. It wasn't bad for me economically. It was for others. It was the change in politics I was uncomfortable with. Guys like Meese and the education secretary whose name I forget. They were goons.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 03, 2011, 07:57:18 PM
It sucked for the poor folks prior to Reagan and it still sucks for the poor folks 30 years later. In fact, if they are still poor, the reason they are has nothing to do with who is in the White House.
They had a pretty good run in the 90s and part of the 2000s, until they were fleeced by predatory lenders and unceremoniously laid off. They were also doing fairly well in the 70s, oddly enough, at least according to official poverty rates.
Quote from: nathanm on August 03, 2011, 08:23:12 PM
They were also doing fairly well in the 70s, oddly enough, at least according to official poverty rates.
Including double digit inflation? More $ but not much more, if any, spending power.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 03, 2011, 08:49:24 PM
Including double digit inflation? More $ but not much more, if any, spending power.
Inflation was mainly killing the banks and people with savings, as wage growth mostly kept up thanks largely to a heavily unionized workforce. Only in 1974 or 75 (I'm looking at a graph, not the raw numbers) did real wages decline, and even then only slightly.
Yeah, happy birthday. Got the debt crisis averted for six months and then POTUS and the rest left DC like rats leaving a sinking ship, meanwhile they couldn't even take care of funding for the FAA employees, and contractors that are working on airports around the country doing improvements both small and large, and furloughed how many workers? Sorry, I just have a problem with the DC Bunch taking forever on the debt situation, and they can't take care of the basic infrastructure. Jeez, what are they going to do in the event of a true emergency?
Quote from: dbacks fan on August 03, 2011, 11:05:17 PM
Yeah, happy birthday. Got the debt crisis averted for six months and then POTUS and the rest left DC like rats leaving a sinking ship, meanwhile they couldn't even take care of funding for the FAA employees, and contractors that are working on airports around the country doing improvements both small and large, and furloughed how many workers? Sorry, I just have a problem with the DC Bunch taking forever on the debt situation, and they can't take care of the basic infrastructure. Jeez, what are they going to do in the event of a true emergency?
To borrow a classic quote from Gaspar, they simply re-arranged the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Quote from: Teatownclown on August 03, 2011, 05:41:09 PM
A man who raised the debt ceiling 17 times. You humper....
It's always fun to invoke Reagan. I'm surprised no one invoked the name of any other dead presidents in rebuttal.
President Obama's first 3 debt limit increases over 2.5 years are more than all 17 increases signed by Reagan over 8 years.
Every president has raised the debt limit, that's not the problem. It's the reason behind the raise that matters. Reagan raised the debt limit in small increments to manage the initial shortfall of revenue caused by recession. The main difference is that his primary focus was on private sector growth.
There was a shortage of labor by the time he was done. Anyone willing to work, could find a job, and anyone willing to take risk and open a business had a far better chance of success than any other time in our history. Interest rates were still as high as 12% as a hangover from the recession, but people were still buying and building like crazy, and that forced inflation to drop at a steady rate. He was a super-charger strapped onto the economy, the fuel was nitro, and the tires had grip.
Everything that came out of Reagan's mouth, during a deep dark recession, every speech, every joke, every sound bite, gave confidence to the American Public. His words today are diabolically opposite of what we hear from President Obama.
Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty.
Each generation goes further than the generation preceding it because it stands on the shoulders of that generation. You will have opportunities beyond anything we've ever known.
Entrepreneurs and their small enterprises are responsible for almost all the economic growth in the United States.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.
Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.
Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.
Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
Governments tend not to solve problems, only to rearrange them.
History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap.
I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself.
I have wondered at times what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the US Congress.
I've never been able to understand why a Republican contributor is a 'fat cat' and a Democratic contributor of the same amount of money is a 'public-spirited philanthropist'.
If the federal government had been around when the Creator was putting His hand to this state, Indiana wouldn't be here. It'd still be waiting for an environmental impact statement.
If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under.
Inflation is as violent as a mugger, as frightening as an armed robber and as deadly as a hit man.
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.
Man is not free unless government is limited.
My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you I just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes.
My philosophy of life is that if we make up our mind what we are going to make of our lives, then work hard toward that goal, we never lose - somehow we win out.
No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!
No matter what time it is, wake me, even if it's in the middle of a Cabinet meeting.
One picture is worth 1,000 denials.
One way to make sure crime doesn't pay would be to let the government run it.
Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed there are many rewards, if you disgrace yourself you can always write a book.
Protecting the rights of even the least individual among us is basically the only excuse the government has for even existing.
Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the democrats believe every day is April 15.
Some people wonder all their lives if they've made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem.
The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would steal them away.The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much.
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination.
There are no great limits to growth because there are no limits of human intelligence, imagination, and wonder.
They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong.
Thomas Jefferson once said, 'We should never judge a president by his age, only by his works.' And ever since he told me that, I stopped worrying.
To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last - but eat you he will.
Today, if you invent a better mousetrap, the government comes along with a better mouse.
We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.
We should measure welfare's success by how many people leave welfare, not by how many are added.
Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence.
Manifest destiny. As a leader, when all you acknowledge is crisis and faith in government, you get more crisis and more government. If however you profess hope and confidence in individual prosperity, you get more individual prosperity.
Reagan was an evangelist of individual prosperity. We need one of those.
You forgot to mention that Reagan was a saint.
What about the Iran/Contra arms deal and the Nicaraguan drug deals where we gave millions to terrorists that had taken Americans hostage?
Remember that he gave chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein?
How about destroying social programs that dramatically increased the homeless including hundreds of thousands of the mentally ill?
He labeled ketchup a vegetable so schools could claim they were giving kids a nutritious lunch. He attacked the Beach Boys for attracting the "wrong kind of crowd".
He set the all time record for having the most appointees indicted and convicted of crimes.
We don't need another President Ronald Reagan.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 04, 2011, 08:20:35 AM
You forgot to mention that Reagan was a saint.
What about the Iran/Contra arms deal and the Nicaraguan drug deals where we gave millions to terrorists that had taken Americans hostage?
Remember that he gave chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein?
How about destroying social programs that dramatically increased the homeless including hundreds of thousands of the mentally ill?
He labeled ketchup a vegetable so schools could claim they were giving kids a nutritious lunch. He attacked the Beach Boys for attracting the "wrong kind of crowd".
He set the all time record for having the most appointees indicted and convicted of crimes.
We don't need another President Ronald Reagan.
Name a president who hasn't armed or aided terrorists, Michael.
The de-institutionalization of the mentally ill started under President Carter and it was considered to be preferable to the horrible conditions in mental hospitals. As well, it was the Democrat-controlled Congress which cut funding to HUD which helped cause a loss in low income rental properties.
President Reagan never labeled ketchup a vegetable, I can't believe you dragged out that tired old liberal meme. It was some wonk in the Ag Department who came up with the idea to classify ketchup and pickle relish as vegetables so they could save about $1bln on school lunch programs. Reagan withdrew that proposal in short order.
Mean ol' President Reagan hated the homeless so much he signed the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act in 1987
which is still the only piece of federal legislation that allocates funding to the direct service of homeless people.QuoteThe McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-77, July 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 482, 42 U.S.C. § 11301 et seq.) is a United States federal law that provides federal money for homeless shelter programs.[1][2] It was the first significant federal legislative response to homelessness,[citation needed] and was passed and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan on July 22, 1987. The act has been reauthorized several times over the years.[3]
The McKinney Act originally had fifteen programs providing a spectrum of services to homeless people, including the Continuum of Care Programs: the Supportive Housing Program, the Shelter Plus Care Program, and the Single Room Occupancy Program, as well as the Emergency Shelter Grant Program.[2][4]
It established the Interagency Council on the Homeless (later called the Interagency Council on Homelessness) [5]. The legislation has been amended several times since it was first written and enacted.
Sponsored by Representative Tom Foley (Democrat of Washington), the bill was named after Representatives Stewart McKinney (Republican of Connecticut) and Bruce Vento (Democrat of Minnesota).
So in short, President Reagan hated the poor, the mentally ill, school kids, and he drank blood with Noriega, Hussein and other despots.
Every president has had his foibles and mistakes. His list of failures is short, his list of successes is long and his legacy resides amongst the greatest of our presidents. Only severely revised history would suggest otherwise.
Hey... I liked lots of what Reagan did. For example, I would love his leadership today on immigration. From his very last speech as President...
And that's about all I have to say tonight, except for one thing. The past few days when I've been at that window upstairs, I've thought a bit of the "shining city upon a hill." The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man. He journeyed here on what today we'd call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free. I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.
I also loved his tax rates...for seven of Reagan's eight years as President the tax rates were higher than they are currently.
I guess that didn't kill the economy. But somehow under a democrat President it is today.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 04, 2011, 10:40:17 AM
I also loved his tax rates...for seven of Reagan's eight years as President the tax rates were higher than they are currently.
I guess that didn't kill the economy. But somehow under a democrat President it is today.
A lot of people who claim to be "Reagan conservatives" these days aren't. Reagan realized the value of a compromise. Being a conservative does not mean continuing to rack up huge debt while keeping tax rates incredibly low as some sort of panacea for the economy, at all cost. There's more than lower taxes to a great economy.
His greatest gift was his personality, his directness, his vision, and his ability to convey those in to his speeches which inspired millions of Americans to believe they weren't bound by class for the rest of their life, they could start their own business and succeed, there could be jobs for every American who wanted one. He spoke of prosperity for everyone. As a result, we experienced the greatest period of peacetime expansion in American history. That's indisputable. The means by which that happened are debatable, but sound leadership had a lot to do with it, IMO.
He was a fantastic unifier which explains why he beat Mondale so badly in 1984 even though the economic recovery at the time was still somewhat shaky and there were people who were not happy with his tax policies as well as his borrowing to cover shortfalls in the treasury. We finally had a proud moment in history after the social unrest of Viet Nam, political scandal with Watergate, and a general malaise under Ford and Carter.
I had just started my freshman year at OSU in the fall of 1984. I think most people my age were inspired by him as someone they would have loved to have for a grandfather. I really didn't understand nor care in the difference between liberals and conservatives. My dad was a Democrat and my mother was a Republican. I registered as a Republican because I liked the direction President Reagan had the country moving in.
His political opponents and enemies may have disagreed with him or his policies, but at least they respected him. I'm still embarrassed that Newt Gingrich slammed the door on respect between opposition leaders and sitting presidents. I can't believe he's got the audacity to run for office again, not because of his blatant personal hypocrisy, but what he did to ruin respect between political foes.
That's the difference I see today. No doubt President Obama faces a much more hostile political environment than Reagan could have ever imagined and that makes his job more difficult. However, President Obama could look to President Reagan's speeches to see what made the difference in the economy. It wasn't so much his tax policy, job programs, or any legislation, it was the confidence he inspired in the country and the economy. President Obama talks about the prosperity of a few coming on the backs of others. That creates hopelessness and creates a rift of class envy as well as conveying a message of hostility toward those who can best create private sector jobs right now. Going back to the OP, it's interesting he takes up the cause of the poor but doesn't ever seem to associate with them. It's as if he's always campaigning: put the sound bites out which keep the left happy as if he's still advancing their causes, but constantly appearing with and associating with the wealthy while getting them to plunk down tens of thousands of dollars to hang out with him.
If Obama intends to win the 2012 election he needs to change the message and change it quickly to a message that we are
all in this together, there's opportunity for everyone, and that he believes in American business and those who own American businesses. Perhaps you could say it's due to a bias, but I honestly cannot think of when I've ever really heard a unifying message out of Barack Obama's mouth.
/Requisite Reagan gushing.
Its good to see, that in some ways, you are as conflicted with Reagan, republicans, dems and politics in general as the rest of us.
I keep humming a song that's popular right now, "Tonight, Tonight". I think it represents the feeling that politics imparts to those behind us.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 04, 2011, 11:04:42 AM
President Obama talks about the prosperity of a few coming on the backs of others. That creates hopelessness and creates a rift of class envy as well as conveying a message of hostility toward those who can best create private sector jobs right now.
Ironic that Sarah Palin's Obama catchphrase became "hopey changey." It's also ironic that we constantly grumble about politicians being pathological liars, but as soon as one of them comes out and tells it how it is they get slammed for not being optimistic enough. It really is a game that can't be won.
I mean, like it or not, he's 100% right about the usual job creators not creating any jobs. The prosperity of Wall Street is in fact being made on the backs of the rest of us. It's not polite to say, but it is 100% true at the present time.
Quote from: nathanm on August 04, 2011, 05:01:32 PM
Ironic that Sarah Palin's Obama catchphrase became "hopey changey." It's also ironic that we constantly grumble about politicians being pathological liars, but as soon as one of them comes out and tells it how it is they get slammed for not being optimistic enough. It really is a game that can't be won.
I mean, like it or not, he's 100% right about the usual job creators not creating any jobs. The prosperity of Wall Street is in fact being made on the backs of the rest of us. It's not polite to say, but it is 100% true at the present time.
It's as if he doesn't care why they aren't creating jobs and he doesn't realize that his very words are making CEO's very reticent about creating new jobs within our borders these days. You can't sit around and demonize potential employers and expect them to feel very optimistic about expanding their business. A big part of leadership is inspiration.
I'm not making this up, this is what people who are in a position to hire other people are saying. I wish it weren't so, but it is.
It's sort of like someone who beats their dog constantly then they are shocked when the dog takes a huge hunk out of their donkey.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 04, 2011, 07:47:31 PM
I'm not making this up, this is what people who are in a position to hire other people are saying.
That is indeed their excuse. Well, more like a talking point that distracts from the real issue: demand.
Quote from: nathanm on August 04, 2011, 05:01:32 PM
It's also ironic that we constantly grumble about politicians being pathological liars, but as soon as one of them comes out and tells it how it is they get slammed for not being optimistic enough. It really is a game that can't be won.
Who are you talking about? Certainly not Obama who's administration never lied when it announced that passing stimulus would prevent 8% or more unemployment. And if you are talking about Obama's optimism, his entire campaign was this "Hope and Change" crap, which of course led to this:
and this:
Now that he is in charge and failing, its time to eat our peas or whatever other insipid excuse for his absolute failed economic policies.
Obama and Julio.
Now, who here feels old after hearing that song. ;D
Quote from: nathanm on August 04, 2011, 07:57:04 PM
That is indeed their excuse. Well, more like a talking point that distracts from the real issue: demand.
I'd believe that if GDP were shrinking, but it's not. It's still weak, but it's not retracting. But that's fine, you don't have to believe what these people are saying, I'm willing to take it on face value.
I know plenty of industries which aren't suffering from a lack of demand right now and their job growth simply is not exploding for several reasons. There's still enough lack of confidence in a sustained recovery. Talk of a double dip right now has a lot of people loathe to spend on expansion or to hire new people they might be letting go in six months to a year. And out of pure ignorance of what all costs will be associated with Obamacare, it's making employers hesitant to add to their payrolls.
Instead, their customers are now used to the idea that production times are longer, in many cases doubled for the same output as a few years bad, and sustained inventories are lower.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 04, 2011, 08:28:54 PM
I'd believe that if GDP were shrinking, but it's not. It's still weak, but it's not retracting. But that's fine, you don't have to believe what these people are saying, I'm willing to take it on face value.
I generally hold statements of self-interest to a higher standard of proof.