The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Last year at this time. . .President Barack Obama, in an Aug. 29, 2010 interview with NBC's Brian Williams, said he would propose a plan for jobs and economic growth when he returned from his summer vacation.

Will he truly be a "green president" and recycle last year's ideas?

"Next week, I will be laying out a series of steps that Congress can take immediately to put more money in the pockets of working families and middle-class families, to make it easier for small businesses to hire people, to put construction crews to work rebuilding our nation's roads and railways and airports, and all the other measures that can help to grow this economy."

I am hopeful that he can propose some real ideas this time.  Last year after VA-CA he had a tub of fluff, with two good ideas.  He proposed the elimination of capital gains taxes on small business, this did not pass, because it already existed as part of the Bush Tax Cuts that were extended.  The second idea was easier access to credit, which did pass, but because the Fed was still paying banks NOT to loan, it did nothing (and businesses were browning their trousers over Obamacare). 

Last years "Jobs Speech" did nothing because, again, it avoided the real issue of economic confidence swirling around this administration, and did nothing to quell concerns over the looming fuzzy-math that makes up Obamacare and the host of new regulations to be set as a yolk on business in 2012 and 2013.

So, unless he strikes at the heart of the issues this time (I prey he will), we will receive another "No Magic Bullet" speech, even though the gun is in his hand and pointed squarely at small businesses.

He can't do much of anything at this point.  He'll have no money to advance new proposals (the deficit supercommittee will see to that) and the GOP doesn't like his version of tax cuts.

At this point in his Presidency he seems to prefer small-bore solutions anyway, but there're additional constraints on him were he to be inclined to go big or go long. 

Shorter wevus:  welcome to your new lost decade.

He can't do hasn't done much of anything at this point.  He's ll have no money to advance new presented no proposals (the deficit supercommittee will see to that) and the GOP doesn't like his version of tax cuts. that will get Americans back to work because in his utopian world, he doesn't understand how jobs are created.

At this point in his Presidency he's seems to prefer small-bore solutions anyway, but there're additional constraints on him were he to be inclined to go big or go long.  still reaching for any excuse he can to keep up the illusion that his presidency has been anything other than a complete bust.

Shorter Conan:  Let's hope he fires his advisory staff and brings in some people who understand how jobs are created.

Quote from: Conan71 on August 31, 2011, 10:07:06 AM
He can't do hasn't done much of anything at this point.  He's ll have no money to advance new presented no proposals (the deficit supercommittee will see to that) and the GOP doesn't like his version of tax cuts. that will get Americans back to work because in his utopian world, he doesn't understand how jobs are created.

At this point in his Presidency he's seems to prefer small-bore solutions anyway, but there're additional constraints on him were he to be inclined to go big or go long.  still reaching for any excuse he can to keep up the illusion that his presidency has been anything other than a complete bust.

Shorter Conan:  Let's hope he fires his advisory staff and brings in some people who understand how jobs are created.

You've really got to listen to some different radio stations.

Sure he could.  He could again propose to extend the current tax structure, that would flush billions of future dollars back into the economy.  He could propose a suspension of the Obamacare program.  That would temporarily quell some of the discomfort businesses are facing.  If he wanted to permanently cure it he would call for the repeal of Obamacare and then legislation granting insurance companies the right to compete over state lines. He could also eliminate all incentives for banks to sit on extra funds (the 0.25% guaranteed rate).

If he really wanted the economy to boom, he could propose a 6 month income tax holiday.  This would cost about $700-$800Billion (the cost of the stimulus), and cause every business to jump into high gear.  It would also give consumers 15% to 20% more income to kick start the engine.  GDP would jump as businesses rush to hire and make as much money as possible before the window closes.

Of course none of these will have lasting effect unless government goes on a diet.

Sorry gaspar. Those tax cuts for the wealthy have proved to no longer work.

But keep shouting it over and over. Many republicans will agree with you.

He's not back from vacation yet...Give the dude a break....!!!

Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 31, 2011, 10:28:32 AM
Sorry gaspar. Those tax cuts for the wealthy have proved to no longer work.

But keep shouting it over and over. Many republicans will agree with you.

People try to point to the late 1990's as an example of economic growth due to higher tax rates.  That's a completely inaccurate assessment.  That period presented a major growth opportunity which would have happened in just about any taxing environment as there was an explosion in the internet, communications, biotechnology, and massive retail and construction growth all coupled with easy access to cheap money all at once.  There's a good probability that lowering taxes as well as an overall business-friendly environment along with easy access to money helped ward off the recession we were facing in 2001.

You are right, tax cuts by themselves do not create jobs.  Tax cuts are part of a number of things which create a commerce-friendly environment.  A chief executive who spouts off phrases like: "They make enough already", and "Spread the wealth around" is doing nothing more than creating resentment amongst those he intends to raise taxes on.  If it were communicated in a far different manner like: "What we are doing is unsustainable, we need everyone to contribute a little more" small business as well as people in a position to create jobs in small business wouldn't feel like they were under attack.

The tax cuts won't work so long as payroll costs go up.  More and more, I'm hearing from people in a position to make hiring decisions that the unknown costs of Obamacare are curbing hiring plans in HR departments in larger businesses and with business owners in smaller businesses.  If costs were known and fixed, we might see unemployment drop by as much as a percent or two.  Most businesses were not in favor of Obamacare to start with.  You can't pass a mandate which will affect many businesses which is unpopular with those businesses and expect them to respond with more jobs.

There is an immutable fact that businesses will favor a lower tax environment.  Think about situations where Tulsa has been in competition with other cities around the country for an opportunity to land a new employer.  What is one of the major incentives thrown out there?  Tax breaks.  Whether it's a break on corporate taxes to the state or city or some sort of credit for creating quality jobs.  The companies almost always go to a lower taxing environment.

And finally, probably the biggest road block to entrepreneurship and it's attendant job creation is lack of access to money.  Gaspar makes a great point: banks can sit there and earn .25% with zero risk.  Why loan money if the risk is deemed too high and there is an incentive to hoard it?

Quote from: Gaspar on August 31, 2011, 10:21:48 AM
Sure he could.  He could again propose to extend the current tax structure, that would flush billions of future dollars back into the economy.  He could propose a suspension of the Obamacare program.  That would temporarily quell some of the discomfort businesses are facing.  If he wanted to permanently cure it he would call for the repeal of Obamacare and then legislation granting insurance companies the right to compete over state lines. He could also eliminate all incentives for banks to sit on extra funds (the 0.25% guaranteed rate).

If he really wanted the economy to boom, he could propose a 6 month income tax holiday.  This would cost about $700-$800Billion (the cost of the stimulus), and cause every business to jump into high gear.  It would also give consumers 15% to 20% more income to kick start the engine.  GDP would jump as businesses rush to hire and make as much money as possible before the window closes.

Of course none of these will have lasting effect unless government goes on a diet.

He's not going to repeal or delay his signature accomplishment.  It's just not going to happen.  It's also not the reason people aren't hiring, so while it may be on the top of your list, you might as well wish for everyone to get a pretty pony for Christmas.  

Aside from that, though, I can definitely see him agreeing to delaying or killing more regulations (since he just announced $10B in savings from his first round of reg cuts, he's already down that road); and I see him trying to match or top the GOP's "stimulative" tax cut demands.  So you'll get a payroll tax holiday of some sort, maybe an income tax give-back or reduction, something like that. I also think he might very well be open to continuing the Bush tax cuts through 2013 or 14.  As we've discussed here, that would be -- from a deficit standpoint -- one of the worst things he could do, but I don't know if it will matter. It's one of the few tools he has left.

The question will be to what degree Cantor's Crue can allow themselves to be seen compromising or agreeing with the President.  The debt ceiling debate, I think, solidified the only political path forward for the Tea Partiers, which is to say that can come to an agreement with the Admin but only after a protracted and public negotiating session, where it becomes obvious how badly they're taking him to the woodshed.  They can only agree to compromise if it includes a level of public humiliation for the President (and specifically the President -- the Dems in Congress don't really matter to them).  

If you want to talk about economic uncertainty, consider every budgetary debate from here to eternity yolked to the Tea Party's need to publicly humiliate the president.  Good times.

I love how people automatically respond with their party mantras without reading, analyzing or considering their response.

Wevsus's point was that "there is nothing President Obama can do" so he should just throw up his hands.  

My response was a series of points that would generate economic stimulus.  I know they would never happen or be popular with most of you.

I think it would be nice to hear some good liberal alternatives.  Surely there are some thoughts out there on appropriate measures that can be taken by government to positively affect the growth of the private sector.

Anyone?

EDIT:  Thanks Wevus for responding logically above ^^

Quote from: we vs us on August 31, 2011, 12:11:44 PM
If you want to talk about economic uncertainty, consider every budgetary debate from here to eternity yolked to the Tea Party's need to publicly humiliate the president.  Good times.

Please contrast that to the eight years of humiliation the Democrats subjected President Bush to.

Interesting.. we have Republican's on here mentioning an income tax holiday while the Republican's in washington want to raise their payroll taxes.  So raise your taxes by the same amount as you lower them?

Quote from: Conan71 on August 31, 2011, 12:19:12 PM
Please contrast that to the eight years of humiliation the Democrats subjected President Bush to.

You keep forgetting that Bush deserved that humiliation.

Quote from: Conan71 on August 31, 2011, 12:19:12 PM
Please contrast that to the eight years of humiliation the Democrats subjected President Bush to.

Much of that was self-inflicted.  Chew your pretzels completely, look at the enormous banners behind you on the aircraft carriers before allowing pictures to be taken, practice pronunciation an hour a day before giving speeches, etc.

Kudos for quick shoe duck reflexes though.

Quote from: we vs us on August 31, 2011, 12:11:44 PM
He's not going to repeal or delay his signature accomplishment.  It's just not going to happen.  It's also not the reason people aren't hiring, so while it may be on the top of your list, you might as well wish for everyone to get a pretty pony for Christmas.  

Aside from that, though, I can definitely see him agreeing to delaying or killing more regulations (since he just announced $10B in savings from his first round of reg cuts, he's already down that road); and I see him trying to match or top the GOP's "stimulative" tax cut demands.  So you'll get a payroll tax holiday of some sort, maybe an income tax give-back or reduction, something like that. I also think he might very well be open to continuing the Bush tax cuts through 2013 or 14.  As we've discussed here, that would be -- from a deficit standpoint -- one of the worst things he could do, but I don't know if it will matter. It's one of the few tools he has left.

The question will be to what degree Cantor's Crue can allow themselves to be seen compromising or agreeing with the President.  The debt ceiling debate, I think, solidified the only political path forward for the Tea Partiers, which is to say that can come to an agreement with the Admin but only after a protracted and public negotiating session, where it becomes obvious how badly they're taking him to the woodshed.  They can only agree to compromise if it includes a level of public humiliation for the President (and specifically the President -- the Dems in Congress don't really matter to them).  

If you want to talk about economic uncertainty, consider every budgetary debate from here to eternity yolked to the Tea Party's need to publicly humiliate the president.  Good times.

I agree. Obamacare is here to stay, but that does not take it off the table as an option (just one he would never choose).  I disagree on the impact on the economy but that's my opinion based only on what every business I have talked too or read about says.

As for the other points, you are correct, I am sure he is going to expand the time on the Bush tax cuts, I am also sure he may propose to ease some regulation, but all indications point to (from the language used by his mouthpieces during vacation) that these regulations will only affect unionized industries related to RRs and heavy construction.  So basically he is going to propose some happy vote-buying pacifiers to his donation base.

I would anticipate the proposal of another extension of the payroll tax break, and then the rest of the speech will be a shift of blame speech.  He needs to use this opportunity not to address jobs as much as lay blame on a new set of hobgoblins.  The Tea Party is obviously going to be the new BUSH, and that's a good idea for him because they really have no way of defending themselves.  Tea Party ideas are not new, they are fundamental constitutional ideas, and this gives him the advantage, because he can position their philosophy as antiquated and uncompromising.

Quote from: CharlieSheen on August 31, 2011, 12:19:51 PM
Interesting.. we have Republican's on here mentioning an income tax holiday while the Republican's in washington want to raise their payroll taxes.  So raise your taxes by the same amount as you lower them?

I don't think you will find any Republicans here.  ;)

Quote from: Conan71 on August 31, 2011, 12:19:12 PM
Please contrast that to the eight years of humiliation the Democrats subjected President Bush to.

Actually Conan, I think this is worse.  President Obama started with high hopes and broad independent support, now those with the scratches on their bumpers where they scratched their stickers off are forced to constantly defend failure after failure without any means of reasonable defense. 

Bush was a poor president, but he had no problem taking the reigns and charging (even without a map).  Obama is the other extreme.  It seems that he despises leadership except through rhetoric. He's a CEO that demands to know why the company is failing, but all of the workers are afraid to say "It's you sir."

Quote from: Gaspar on August 31, 2011, 12:39:00 PM
Actually Conan, I think this is worse.  President Obama started with high hopes and broad independent support, now those with the scratches on their bumpers where they scratched their stickers off are forced to constantly defend failure after failure without any means of reasonable defense. 

Bush was a poor president, but he had no problem taking the reigns and charging (even without a map).  Obama is the other extreme.  It seems that he despises leadership except through rhetoric. He's a CEO that demands to know why the company is failing, but all of the workers are afraid to say "It's you sir."

Oh, you mean these Obama stickers?
(http://images4.cpcache.com/product/wheelchair-traffic+sign-traffic/414758914v4_225x225_Front.jpg)

Quote from: Gaspar on August 31, 2011, 12:39:00 PM
Actually Conan, I think this is worse.  President Obama started with high hopes and broad independent support, now those with the scratches on their bumpers where they scratched their stickers off are forced to constantly defend failure after failure without any means of reasonable defense. 

Bush was a poor president, but he had no problem taking the reigns and charging (even without a map).  Obama is the other extreme.  It seems that he despises leadership except through rhetoric. He's a CEO that demands to know why the company is failing, but all of the workers are afraid to say "It's you sir."

pancakes are you talking about?   ::)

Quote from: JeffM on August 31, 2011, 12:50:55 PM
pancakes are you talking about?   ::)

(http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/3/31/TPM-CGYoda.JPG)
Pancakes I like.

Haven't seen any scratched out Obama stickers--- if Obama supporters have any problems with his admin, it's that he hasn't gone far enough..... you remind me of Eddie Gaylord's Daily Oklahoman.... you give both sides of the story, the conservative side, and the ravingly off-base conservative critique of "what liberals think"....  ::)

Yoda... you are not.

More like this.... (http://nerdythings.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/lk_cheney_vader_5001.jpg?w=500&h=357)

Obama gets points for playing effective street ball.  He scheduled his address to joint session of Congress overtop Rick Perry's first GOP debate.

Quote from: we vs us on August 31, 2011, 02:58:30 PM
Obama gets points for playing effective street ball.  He scheduled his address to joint session of Congress overtop Rick Perry's first GOP debate.

He defiantly gets points for going Chicago.

Even though most of you libs are doubters about how taxes help retard job growth, it's rumored one of the cornerstones to his jobs plan may well be some sort of serious payroll tax break for employers who hire new workers.  Let's hope that's not limited to just unions, construction trades, and burger stands.

Quote from: Conan71 on August 31, 2011, 03:35:03 PM
Let's hope that's not limited to just unions, construction trades, and burger stands.

Then Texas would get them all !

QuoteQuote from: Conan71  Let's hope that's not limited to just unions, construction trades, and burger stands.

Quote from: CharlieSheen on August 31, 2011, 04:08:02 PM
Then Texas would get them all !

ABLE'd freak out and shut 'em all down if we had any in Oklahoma.

Quote from: we vs us on August 31, 2011, 02:58:30 PM
Obama gets points for playing effective street ball. 

I have to admit that Obama is better at basketball than I am.

Quote from: JeffM on August 31, 2011, 01:27:25 PM
Haven't seen any scratched out Obama stickers---

Of course not, they've been scratched out/off.

I retract that streetball comment.  He caved.

Quote from: we vs us on August 31, 2011, 09:10:08 PM
I retract that streetball comment.  He caved.

Did he really cave, or just fail to please you?

http://www.ktul.com/story/15367769/obama-to-address-congress-next-week-on-jobs?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook (http://www.ktul.com/story/15367769/obama-to-address-congress-next-week-on-jobs?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook)

I think the perception is either he caved or he didn't have control over the whole process.  Either way it doesn't look good.

Also:  I'm disappointed.  He needs to do some of this stuff to re-establish cred, even if it's penny ante jockeying.  He's got to start throwing his weight around.  I thought this was a first step towards that but obviously not.

One would think that asking for a joint session of congress and developing this grand jobs plan would involve some serious strategic planning.  That would include date and time planning.

At first I thought this was a strategic move too, and when Carney alluded to the president being "unaware" of the conflict, I thought that was a brilliant move to show that President Obama is not concerned with the Republican candidates.  Now that I understand that a joint session requires a resolution and invitation by congress, I think Carney was actually being very frank.

That's a bit disturbing, that he wouldn't have a single adviser with the simple foresight to tell him that congress would not allow that date. 

It seems he may have simply checked his golf schedule and squeezed it in between Andrews on September 6th with Richard Trumka and Fairmont on September 8th with Ben Finkenbinder.  Of course he can play with Ben any day so it shouldn't be too much of a chore if he needs to shuffle the tee time.  Should be off the course and showered in time to rehearse anyway.

Quote from: we vs us on September 01, 2011, 06:43:20 AM
I think the perception is either he caved or he didn't have control over the whole process.  Either way it doesn't look good.

Also:  I'm disappointed.  He needs to do some of this stuff to re-establish cred, even if it's penny ante jockeying.  He's got to start throwing his weight around.  I thought this was a first step towards that but obviously not.

He doesn't need to jockey. He doesn't need to throw his weight around.  He needs to come up with a way to instill some confidence in the business community and consumers alike.  It's the same thing over and over out of this President.  Does he have Aspergers?

So what we get out of this:

1. The President is too weak to say "my way" and stick with it. 

2. The Republicans find their group of jesters babbling the main 3 tea party talking points all evening more important than jobs creation.

3. All of us lose.

Quote from: Townsend on September 01, 2011, 08:39:35 AM
So what we get out of this:

1. The President is too weak to say "my way" and stick with it. 

2. The Republicans find their group of jesters babbling the main 3 tea party talking points all evening more important than jobs creation.

3. All of us lose.

What's wrong with giving the speech tomorrow from the Oval Office? 

In fact he could give it on the 5th in front of a joint session and on national TV if he wants.

No, he has chosen to compete with the NFL season opener game between Green Bay and New Orleans, which will garner far more viewers than a presidential address, or a debate.

It seems that they are either trying to downplay this speech, or just really really stupid.

Quote from: Gaspar on September 01, 2011, 08:49:04 AM

really really stupid.

Damn Gaspar, where've you been?  Have you watched US politics for the last 20 years?

Quote from: Townsend on September 01, 2011, 08:51:16 AM
Damn Gaspar, where've you been?  Have you watched US politics for the last 20 years?

Good point!

Quote from: Conan71 on September 01, 2011, 08:26:57 AM
He doesn't need to jockey. He doesn't need to throw his weight around.  He needs to come up with a way to instill some confidence in the business community and consumers alike.  It's the same thing over and over out of this President.  Does he have Aspergers?

He absolutely needs to jockey and throw his weight around.  The problem is that no one is seen to be leading, and Congress's factions are warring.  He has to start being front and center and tamping down the weirdness.  Not limiting debate, but making sure it's orderly and constructive.  Right now it's decidedly not.

Quote from: we vs us on September 01, 2011, 09:15:53 AM
He absolutely needs to jockey and throw his weight around.  The problem is that no one is seen to be leading, and Congress's factions are warring.  He has to start being front and center and tamping down the weirdness.  Not limiting debate, but making sure it's orderly and constructive.  Right now it's decidedly not.

He has needed to do this from day one.  I think that is the primary problem that many of his followers have had with him.  It's hard to follow when your leader refuses to lead.  I'll say it again, he seems to despise being in a control or leadership position.  He wants others to take the reigns for him and that simply does not work for a president.  It's really hurting him now.

I'm not sure if this is because he has never held a position of leadership in the private sector where he was expected to act as an executive, or if it is because he fears that if he leads that opens him up to the blame for failure, but either way, it shows him as weak.

To his credit, by simply throwing out ideas and relying on others for leadership and execution, he is able to reserve the right to blame others for failure.  This has been his primary strategy over the past three years, but unfortunately that has worn thin, and will not serve him as well in this campaign as in his original run.

Quote from: Gaspar on September 01, 2011, 10:05:53 AM
He has needed to do this from day one.  I think that is the primary problem that many of his followers have had with him.  It's hard to follow when your leader refuses to lead.  I'll say it again, he seems to despise being in a control or leadership position.  He wants others to take the reigns for him and that simply does not work for a president.  It's really hurting him now.

I'm not sure if this is because he has never held a position of leadership in the private sector where he was expected to act as an executive, or if it is because he fears that if he leads that opens him up to the blame for failure, but either way, it shows him as weak.

To his credit, by simply throwing out ideas and relying on others for leadership and execution, he is able to reserve the right to blame others for failure.  This has been his primary strategy over the past three years, but unfortunately that has worn thin, and will not serve him as well in this campaign as in his original run.

I can feel a JeffM post coming on and I bet it contains the following:

-Partisan Republican hack
-Reagan raised SS taxes in the 1980s
-Chattering class
-Empty suit
-You don't know Obama like he did when he was living in Chicago and Obama was a community organizer...

IMO- the way in which I interpreted wevus' point of throwing weight around and jockeying was more politics, not real leadership.  Maybe I read him wrong.

I agree with your assessment of his weak or at least negligent leadership style.  We saw this as far back as the Obamacare debates when members of the Democratic leadership in both houses were complaining that they were being forced to lead on the issue with little direction from the president.  It's almost as if he thinks leadership is giving great speeches and taking credit for other's work when things go well and blaming others when it goes to smile.  I loved how Biden was quoted at his Tulsa money grab stop saying the president's decision to go after and kill OBL showed he had a ram-rod straight spine, or something along that nature.  Really? Which president wouldn't have green-lighted an operation like that?  Oh wait, Clinton passed on a similar opportunity, didn't he?  :o

Quote from: Conan71 on September 01, 2011, 10:17:10 AM
I agree with your assessment of his weak or at least negligent leadership style.  We saw this as far back as the Obamacare debates when members of the Democratic leadership in both houses were complaining that they were being forced to lead on the issue with little direction from the president.  It's almost as if he thinks leadership is giving great speeches and taking credit for other's work when things go well and blaming others when it goes to smile.  I loved how Biden was quoted at his Tulsa money grab stop saying the president's decision to go after and kill OBL showed he had a ram-rod straight spine, or something along that nature.  Really? Which president wouldn't have green-lighted an operation like that?  Oh wait, Clinton passed on a similar opportunity, didn't he?

...and that we can't win with any of the republicans running either.  Their talking points make me regurge.  Someone please move on from the Tea Party/conservative Christian BS.   Nauseating.

Quote from: Gaspar on September 01, 2011, 10:05:53 AM
He has needed to do this from day one.  I think that is the primary problem that many of his followers have had with him.  It's hard to follow when your leader refuses to lead.  I'll say it again, he seems to despise being in a control or leadership position.  He wants others to take the reigns for him and that simply does not work for a president.  It's really hurting him now.

I'm not sure if this is because he has never held a position of leadership in the private sector where he was expected to act as an executive, or if it is because he fears that if he leads that opens him up to the blame for failure, but either way, it shows him as weak.

To his credit, by simply throwing out ideas and relying on others for leadership and execution, he is able to reserve the right to blame others for failure.  This has been his primary strategy over the past three years, but unfortunately that has worn thin, and will not serve him as well in this campaign as in his original run.

The "not a leader" is malarkey, because he ran one of the most successful campaigns in modern history.  By every account he wasn't simply a bystander:  he controlled the whole thing.  He planned strategically, hired and fired, raised record amounts of capital and then allocated those resources -- the whole enchilada.  Being in charge of a modern campaign is very much like running a business, and he did it really well.  That's indisputable. As a product launch it was one of the best in modern history.

In office he's been much more of a consensus builder (or attempter).  He actually said he was going to do this during the campaign -- and said it even as far back as his speech to Democratic convention in 2004, during Kerry's campaign.  As critical of Bush as he was and has been, he's tried very hard to offer concessions over and over and over again to the GOP.  The problem is that he's put the value of compromise entirely above everything else -- including governing rationally.  

One article I read suggested that we elected a CEO but have been governed by a Constitutional Law professor.  As a scholar he knows and understands how government is supposed to work, but instead of using the machinery to advance an agenda -- which is exactly what the GOP knows how to do -- he's spent his first term keeping the machinery sacrosanct and pristine and bending over backwards to provide some sort of balance to what the GOP is becoming. The Con-Law prof idea works when thinking about his scheduling of his speech to Congress.  Of course he'd want to follow protocol to get Congress back together!  That's how it's done, that's how the institution runs!  But in this context what he needs to do is break into the institution's normal flow and bring it back to a semblance of order.  

Quote from: Conan71 on September 01, 2011, 10:17:10 AM


IMO- the way in which I interpreted wevus' point of throwing weight around and jockeying was more politics, not real leadership.  Maybe I read him wrong.

Politics is the way you express leadership.  They're not separate things.

Quote from: we vs us on September 01, 2011, 10:33:31 AM
The "not a leader" is malarkey, because he ran one of the most successful campaigns in modern history.  By every account he wasn't simply a bystander:  he controlled the whole thing.  He planned strategically, hired and fired, raised record amounts of capital and then allocated those resources -- the whole enchilada.  Being in charge of a modern campaign is very much like running a business, and he did it really well.  That's indisputable. As a product launch it was one of the best in modern history.

In office he's been much more of a consensus builder (or attempter).  He actually said he was going to do this during the campaign -- and said it even as far back as his speech to Democratic convention in 2004, during Kerry's campaign.  As critical of Bush as he was and has been, he's tried very hard to offer concessions over and over and over again to the GOP.  The problem is that he's put the value of compromise entirely above everything else -- including governing rationally.  

One article I read suggested that we elected a CEO but have been governed by a Constitutional Law professor.  As a scholar he knows and understands how government is supposed to work, but instead of using the machinery to advance an agenda -- which is exactly what the GOP knows how to do -- he's spent his first term keeping the machinery sacrosanct and pristine and bending over backwards to provide some sort of balance to what the GOP is becoming. The Con-Law prof idea works when thinking about his scheduling of his speech to Congress.  Of course he'd want to follow protocol to get Congress back together!  That's how it's done, that's how the institution runs!  But in this context what he needs to do is break into the institution's normal flow and bring it back to a semblance of order.  

Interesting.  It seems that you are at battle with yourself on your view of President Obama as a leader.

People don't need an academic to explane and qualify what "leadership" is.  There has been this huge rush qualify this president in the media and academia, and somehow find a way to package his performance in a positive light.  Unfortunately leadership is simple, visceral, and easy to spot.  People naturally seek it either first hand or second. 

Quote from: Gaspar on September 01, 2011, 11:03:43 AM
There has been this huge rush qualify this president in the media and academia, and somehow find a way to package his performance in a positive light. 

Reminds me of trying to polish a turd.

I made an analogy the other day discussing what I thought about how Obama has done, and I said, "He and most everybody else in DC need to quit acting like Veruca Salt and more like Sheriff Bart, and come up with a plan to get things on track."

Quote from: we vs us on September 01, 2011, 10:33:31 AM
The "not a leader" is malarkey, because he ran one of the most successful campaigns in modern history.  By every account he wasn't simply a bystander:  he controlled the whole thing.  He planned strategically, hired and fired, raised record amounts of capital and then allocated those resources -- the whole enchilada.  Being in charge of a modern campaign is very much like running a business, and he did it really well.  That's indisputable. As a product launch it was one of the best in modern history.

Anecdotally, I've read accounts which give David Axlerod far more credit in the efficient operation of the campaign.  Let's run with the assumption Obama really was very hands-on as you say. Running a campaign and finding favor with voters is one thing, being faced with the difficult decisions as well as strong political opposition that POTUS is required to deal with is entirely another.  Being popular isn't leadership.  Being effective is.

In Nov. 2012, his job performance will be evaluated by the people he works for.  If they agree he's been a great leader, he will get the opportunity to lead for another four years.  If not, he will be sent home to work on his memoirs and start planning his presidential library.

Quote from: dbacks fan on September 01, 2011, 11:16:12 AM
Reminds me of trying to polish a turd.

Myth Busters tried that.  I believe they met with minimal success.

Quote from: Conan71 on September 01, 2011, 11:33:48 AM
In Nov. 2012, his job performance will be evaluated by the people he works for.  If they agree he's been a great leader or the Republicans put up someone unelectable, he will get the opportunity to lead for another four years.  If not, he will be sent home to work on his memoirs and start planning his presidential library.

NICE!  According to MSNBC's Richard Wolffe all of this hubub about the timing and substance of President Obama's Accelerated Job Creation Initiative is due to racism.

"let's face it, the color of his skin. This is an extraordinary reaction to a normal sequence of events."

Quote from: Gaspar on September 01, 2011, 01:51:02 PM
NICE!  According to MSNBC's Richard Wolffe all of this hubub about the timing and substance of President Obama's Accelerated Job Creation Initiative is due to racism.

"let's face it, the color of his skin. This is an extraordinary reaction to a normal sequence of events."

I've never been able to brush off charges of incompetence due to the color of my skin.  Have you Gaspar?

Quote from: Conan71 on September 01, 2011, 04:22:35 PM
I've never been able to brush off charges of incompetence due to the color of my skin.  Have you Gaspar?

I've never tried.

Quote from: Gaspar on September 01, 2011, 04:28:22 PM
I've never tried.

Oh, wait, that's not how it works.  You have to have others credit your bumbling and incompetence to racism.  That's it.  Of course I wouldn't know since I've never been incompetent.  Incontinent, yes.  ;)

Today President Obama flies off to Camp David after his vacation to spend a weekend in seclusion writing his much anticipated Jobs Speech.  Though he packed his clubs, the weather may not permit much relaxation on Camp David's Robert Trent Jones designed golf facility.  Last May, the single green was updated and new bent-grass installed.  It will be a shame if the expected thunderstorms on Saturday keep him from enjoying the four unique approaches designed after such famous courses as Augusta and Burning Tree.

The presidential chopper is anticipated to touch down on the driving range by noon today.  Currently the winds at the retreat are reported at about 8mph, so if he hurries he may get some range time.

I think this will be good for him.  Give him an opportunity to solidify some of his job creation ideas into a singular cohesive package that he can communicate to the American public.

Quote from: Gaspar on September 02, 2011, 09:57:03 AM
I think this will be good for him.  Give him an opportunity to solidify some of his job creation ideas into a singular cohesive package that he can communicate to the American public.

You'd think it'd help but with the party of "do anything possible including harm to the USA to get one of us elected" in front of him, we have little hope of anything.

Quote from: Townsend on September 02, 2011, 10:00:25 AM
You'd think it'd help but with the party of "do anything possible including harm to the USA to get one of us elected" in front of him, we have little hope of anything.

I still have hope.  I think if he writes up a real dandy speech, and promises to sign the measures necessary to invigorate the economy, he can pull out of this 3 year funk.

Quote from: Gaspar on September 02, 2011, 10:03:09 AM
I still have hope.  I think if he writes up a real dandy speech, and promises to sign the measures necessary to invigorate the economy, he can pull out of this 3 year funk.

The special Eds leading the  "do anything possible including harm to the USA to get one of us elected" party won't let anything positive happen until after 2012.  Good luck getting your pony.

Quote from: Gaspar on September 02, 2011, 10:03:09 AM
I still have hope.  I think if he writes up a real dandy speech, and promises to sign the measures necessary to invigorate the economy, he can pull out of this 3 year funk.

I never took you for a hopey changey sorta guy.  Perhaps I was wrong.

The economy will remain in the crapper through 2012 without significant government action to address it.  There is virtually no chance that the GOP, at this late date, will allow any sort of stability measures to pass.  Instead, Cantor will continue to insist that we have to offset disaster relief with spending cuts.  As a for instance.  This is patently ridiculous but keeps the austerity drumbeat pounding steadily.

We're way past hopey changey and have planted ourselves in the land of totally screwed.

Quote from: we vs us on September 02, 2011, 10:53:06 AM
I never took you for a hopey changey sorta guy.  Perhaps I was wrong.

The economy will remain in the crapper through 2012 without significant government action to address it.  There is virtually no chance that the GOP, at this late date, will allow any sort of stability measures to pass.  Instead, Cantor will continue to insist that we have to offset disaster relief with spending cuts.  As a for instance.  This is patently ridiculous but keeps the austerity drumbeat pounding steadily.

We're way past hopey changey and have planted ourselves in the land of totally screwed.

Based on his avatar, I think he's more of a Hopi/Navajo kind of guy.

Quote from: we vs us on September 02, 2011, 10:53:06 AM
We're way past hopey changey and have planted ourselves in the land of totally screwed.

I saw a placard in a racing plane:

Hope is not a strategy

Quote from: Red Arrow on September 02, 2011, 12:23:36 PM
I saw a placard in a racing plane:

Of all the placards you see in racing planes, which one is your favorite?

Quote from: Townsend on September 02, 2011, 12:25:02 PM
Of all the placards you see in racing planes, which one is your favorite?

Difficult to say.  Most are just boring things like landing gear up or down, water ballast dump, spoilers up or down, circuit breaker labels etc.

Quote from: Red Arrow on September 02, 2011, 12:39:34 PM
Difficult to say.  Most are just boring things like landing gear up or down, water ballast dump, spoilers up or down, circuit breaker labels etc.

So "Dump" then?

Quote from: Red Arrow on September 02, 2011, 12:39:34 PM
Difficult to say.  Most are just boring things like landing gear up or down, water ballast dump, spoilers up or down, circuit breaker labels etc.

Here's some funny stuff that I'm sure RA and Conan will appreciate.  Some of you other non-pilots might not get it... ;D  Well, some of it is obvious.

(http://www.tulsatrafficcirclewx.com/images/squawk.png)

Just a little more serious: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/09/01/122865/regulations-taxes-arent-killing.html

Perhaps we can focus on the real problems, rather than the problems that are made up in the heads of certain people desperate to push their no-government agenda.

Quote from: nathanm on September 06, 2011, 01:46:52 PM
Just a little more serious: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/09/01/122865/regulations-taxes-arent-killing.html

Perhaps we can focus on the real problems, rather than the problems that are made up in the heads of certain people desperate to push their no-government agenda.

Whistle.

Nothing to see here.

Quote from: nathanm on September 06, 2011, 01:46:52 PM
Just a little more serious: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/09/01/122865/regulations-taxes-arent-killing.html

Perhaps we can focus on the real problems, rather than the problems that are made up in the heads of certain people desperate to push their no-government agenda.

If the intent was to show that taxes and regulations don't impact business, naturally the author isn't going to cite quotes from business owners they talked to who believe taxes and regulations are deterrents to growing their business. 

Of course there are business owners out there who don't see taxes and regulation as being the biggest hurdles to business.  I don't think anyone expects 100% agreement on the issue.

Quote from: Conan71 on September 06, 2011, 02:14:53 PM
If the intent was to show that taxes and regulations don't impact business, naturally the author isn't going to cite quotes from business owners they talked to who believe taxes and regulations are deterrents to growing their business. 

Of course there are business owners out there who don't see taxes and regulation as being the biggest hurdles to business.  I don't think anyone expects 100% agreement on the issue.

The business man mentioned in the article is Rip Daniels.  He owns tons of beachfront property in Mississippi, a hotel,  The Almanett Guest House, and a blues radio station that he uses as his mouthpiece. 

He has had a spectacular year!  Though none of the oil from the BP Spill actually made it to his properties, he was awarded millions in payment from BP and has been lobbying congress to require BP to pay millions more in 2012.

Mr. Daniels seems to thrive on crisis.

Quote from: Conan71 on September 06, 2011, 02:14:53 PM
Of course there are business owners out there who don't see taxes and regulation as being the biggest hurdles to business.  I don't think anyone expects 100% agreement on the issue.

The Tea Partyists and the "job killing regulations" brigade seems to think there is/should be 100% agreement.

And Gassy, no. Daniels is but one of seven people quoted in the article. There was absolutely no need to misrepresent the article, but you decided to do so anyway. Stay classy.

Quote from: nathanm on September 06, 2011, 10:47:30 PM
The Tea Partyists and the "job killing regulations" brigade seems to think there is/should be 100% agreement.

And Gassy, no. Daniels is but one of seven people quoted in the article. There was absolutely no need to misrepresent the article, but you decided to do so anyway. Stay classy.

And you're surprised at that?

Quote from: nathanm on September 06, 2011, 10:47:30 PM
The Tea Partyists and the "job killing regulations" brigade seems to think there is/should be 100% agreement.

And Gassy, no. Daniels is but one of seven people quoted in the article. There was absolutely no need to misrepresent the article, but you decided to do so anyway. Stay classy.

Nope, just wanted to give an example of the "business owners" they scouted out for the article.

Romney released his jobs plan.  Very common sense, with several "Day One" initiatives that no one can really argue will launch job growth.

FIVE BILLS FOR DAY ONE

The American Competitiveness Act
• Reduces the corporate income tax rate to 25 percent

The Open Markets Act
• Implements the Colombia, Panama, and South Korea Free Trade Agreements

The Domestic Energy Act
• Directs the Department of the Interior to undertake a comprehensive survey of American energy reserves in partnership with exploration companies and initiates leasing in all areas currently approved for exploration

The Retraining Reform Act
• Consolidates the sprawl of federal retraining programs and returns funding and responsibility for these programs to the states

The Down Payment on Fiscal Sanity Act
• Immediately cuts non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent, reducing the annual federal budget by $20 billion


FIVE EXECUTIVE ORDERS FOR DAY ONE

An Order to Pave the Way to End Obamacare
• Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services and all relevant federal officials to return the maximum possible authority to the states to innovate and design health care solutions that work best for them

An Order to Cut Red Tape
• Directs all agencies to immediately initiate the elimination of Obama-era  regulations that unduly burden the economy or job creation, and then caps annual increases in regulatory costs at zero dollars

An Order to Boost Domestic Energy Production
• Directs the Department of the Interior to implement a process for rapid issuance of drilling permits to developers with established safety records seeking to use pre-approved techniques in pre-approved areas

An Order to Sanction China for Unfair Trade Practices
• Directs the Department of the Treasury to list China as a currency manipulator in its biannual report and directs the Department of Commerce to assess countervailing duties on Chinese imports if China does not quickly move to float its currency

An Order to Empower American Businesses and Workers
• Reverses the executive orders issued by President Obama that tilt the playing held in favor of organized labor, including the one encouraging the use of union labor on major government construction projects

TAX POLICY
Mitt Romney will push or a fundamental redesign of  our tax system.  He recognizes the need to simplify the system. He also recognizes the need both to lower rates and to broaden the tax base so that taxation becomes an instrument or promoting economic growth.  As president, Romney will hold the line on individual income tax rates and eliminate taxes on interest, dividends, and capital gains or low- and middle-income taxpayers.

He will eliminate the estate tax. And he will pursue a conservative overhaul that applies lower and  flatter rates to a broader tax base. Romney will also reform the corporate tax system. He will immediately lower the corporate income tax rate, and then explore opportunities to further lower the marginal rate while broadening the tax base. He will also begin the process of  transitioning to a territorial corporate tax system. A territorial system must be designed to encourage multinational companies to bring their profits back into the U.S. and it must avoid the creation of  incentives or outsourcing.

You can read more here http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2011/09/believe-america-day-one-job-one

Quote from: Gaspar on September 07, 2011, 08:16:21 AM
... with several "Day One" initiatives that no one can really argue will launch job growth.

I bet many people with find arguments, including other republicans.

Quote from: Gaspar on September 07, 2011, 08:16:21 AM
Romney released his jobs plan.  Very common sense, with several "Day One" initiatives that no one can really argue will launch job growth.

FIVE BILLS FOR DAY ONE

The American Competitiveness Act
• Reduces the corporate income tax rate to 25 percent

Fine.  Does it close all the accounting loopholes that make for an uneven collection of taxes between companies who do most of their business on-shore and those who have vast overseas operations?

The Open Markets Act
• Implements the Colombia, Panama, and South Korea Free Trade Agreements

Anyone know why the Obama Administration has sat on these?  Heritage Foundation claims U.S. GDP could gain $11 bln and 70,000 U.S. jobs would be created almost immediately with the So. Korean FTA being implemented.  Am I missing something or is it concern for abuse by our trading partners which could ensure cheap goods flowing into the U.S. much like we have with China right now?

The Domestic Energy Act
• Directs the Department of the Interior to undertake a comprehensive survey of American energy reserves in partnership with exploration companies and initiates leasing in all areas currently approved for exploration

I don't see much innovation here, they already do this today.

The Retraining Reform Act
• Consolidates the sprawl of federal retraining programs and returns funding and responsibility for these programs to the states

What sort of re-training?  Job Corps?  Most states are broke, so you could probably wave goodbye to these programs

The Down Payment on Fiscal Sanity Act
• Immediately cuts non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent, reducing the annual federal budget by $20 billion

Can't disagree with that move.  How about additional cuts on foreign aid and international policing?

FIVE EXECUTIVE ORDERS FOR DAY ONE

An Order to Pave the Way to End Obamacare
• Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services and all relevant federal officials to return the maximum possible authority to the states to innovate and design health care solutions that work best for them

Far better way to manage health care if the government must be involved.  This is where Romney gets improperly lambasted by the left.  Obamacare is too big to administer properly and efficiently.  It doesn't allow for enough competition nor choices for consumers.  State based is far preferable.  No one seems to understand that as well as he does.


An Order to Cut Red Tape
• Directs all agencies to immediately initiate the elimination of Obama-era  regulations that unduly burden the economy or job creation, and then caps annual increases in regulatory costs at zero dollars

Somewhere between platitudes and political meme's.  Meh


An Order to Boost Domestic Energy Production
• Directs the Department of the Interior to implement a process for rapid issuance of drilling permits to developers with established safety records seeking to use pre-approved techniques in pre-approved areas

We are actually drilling at a pretty rapid pace.  About as much as the drilling and production infrastructure will allow.  It would be great if we could get some more refineries built.  We also need to look for alt energy which does not require so much (or any) subsidy to be practical and feasible

An Order to Sanction China for Unfair Trade Practices
• Directs the Department of the Treasury to list China as a currency manipulator in its biannual report and directs the Department of Commerce to assess countervailing duties on Chinese imports if China does not quickly move to float its currency

Don't stop there, start erecting tariff walls to balance the advantage of their cheap labor, deplorable labor conditions, and lack of environmental initiatives.  Either that or roll back compliance issues which make it more attractive for U.S. corporations to send jobs overseas

An Order to Empower American Businesses and Workers
• Reverses the executive orders issued by President Obama that tilt the playing held in favor of organized labor, including the one encouraging the use of union labor on major government construction projects

On the one hand, non-union labor saves the government money so it looks good on the surface.  On the other, directly confronting unions and antagonizing them seems unwise to me as they are a pretty significant voting bloc.  As a political strategy, I think this one is full of FAIL.  There are a lot of union members who might vote for a moderate, unless they think a candidate is all about dismantling unions.  I may be wrong, but I don't recall any other POTUS candidate ever blatantly coming out essentially against unions in the past.  Reality is, even with such a move, I'd be willing to bet it would not significantly change the amount of work winding up in union hands  

TAX POLICY
Mitt Romney will push or a fundamental redesign of  our tax system.  He recognizes the need to simplify the system. He also recognizes the need both to lower rates and to broaden the tax base so that taxation becomes an instrument or promoting economic growth.  As president, Romney will hold the line on individual income tax rates and eliminate taxes on interest, dividends, and capital gains or low- and middle-income taxpayers.

He will eliminate the estate tax. And he will pursue a conservative overhaul that applies lower and  flatter rates to a broader tax base. Romney will also reform the corporate tax system. He will immediately lower the corporate income tax rate, and then explore opportunities to further lower the marginal rate while broadening the tax base. He will also begin the process of  transitioning to a territorial corporate tax system. A territorial system must be designed to encourage multinational companies to bring their profits back into the U.S. and it must avoid the creation of  incentives or outsourcing.

Interested to see more specifics on what broadening the tax base entails.  I honestly don't think you can come in and immediately start cutting taxes in light of the debt and deficit issues we have right now.  It's got to be done with a lot of foresight and planning, otherwise this sounds like pandering to the Tea Party base and nothing more.  If a Republican is to win, they simply can't count on distaste for Obama's job performance to win the White House.  They need to build consensus with moderates.

You can read more here http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2011/09/believe-america-day-one-job-one

Overall, I give him a "B" or "B minus".  I don't see a lot of innovation here, looks like he's exploiting the most obvious Tea Party/GOP mantras.

I like that he wants to give back even more to the wealthy and major corporate interests.  And he wants to do it IMMEDIATELY.  

In other words, continue doing what hasn't worked to spur job creation.  That's the definition of insanity, right?  

Good stuff, Mitt.  

Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 07, 2011, 08:41:02 AM
I bet many people with find arguments, including other republicans.

Lithping thith morning?

?

My point is that gaspar when says "initiatives that no one can really argue will launch job growth", I laugh. These are failed policies that have been proven to not work and because his "plan" comes during a primary campaign, other republicans will probably argue with it.

Just because gaspar says "no one can really argue" doesn't make it so.

I did not know that Lou Holtz posted here.....

It should be called "the Romney Blood-letting Initiative".

What a bunch of non-sense. Its designed to whip up frenzy among the native Tea Partiers isn't it? He can't be serious about things like bullying China for doing stuff that we taught them to do while we killed off our manufacturing in favor of theirs at lower labor and cheap financing. Yeah, Throw Mama From the Train!!

"LAST DAYS" BILLS:

Reduce corporate tax rate to 25%? Immediately? Cause that will just do wonders for our deficit. Corporates have already realized they can make more money with less risk by just holding on to their already handsome profits or setting up more offices in Ireland where its 12%. Genius! Food fight!!

Move retraining to the near bankrupt states that spend most of their time figuring out how to give tax receipts to pet industries? Is that because they are also so good at underfunding education? Yeah, let them do what they do best...nothing.

DRILL BABY DRILL!! You don't think there is already an industry wide understanding of what reserves there are and where they are? You have to partner with the evil gubmint to figure it out? Save some money, just cut to the chase and let them drill in Disneyland if they want to.

Fiscal Sanity? You mean continuuing defense spending while arbitrarily cutting everything else>>>to save a mere twenty billion? Pave paradise to put up a parking lot....

EXECUTIVE ORDERS...Indeed....Translation:

STATES RIGHTS! STATES RIGHTS!

FIGHT SOCIALISM IN ALL ITS OBAMA FORMS!! IGNORE THE LAST 3 YEARS. ENABLE STATES TO REMOVE OBAMA PICS FROM ALL TEXTBOOKS REPLACING THEM WITH THE WORDS "THE TIME OF OUR GREAT SORROW!"

DRILL BABY DRILL! FRACK 'EM--FRACK 'EM ALL!

GET TOUGH WITH CHINA! SHOW EM WHO'S BOSS! WATCH THEM SMILE AND CALL IN DEBT! WOO HOO WE'RE ALL (WELL SOME OF US) GONNA BE RICH!

LABOR BAD! GET RID OF LABOR DAY WEEKEND...PUNISH THOSE WHO REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE EVIL UNION MENACE...get rid of overtime and pesky minimum wage requirements. Lower legal working age to 10 in co-operation with states education programs of course. Use Texas school boards to include pictures in their textbooks showing the barbed tails on Union leadership. Enable all states to do same.

TAX POLICY:

Refer to previous 90 years of Republican dogma. Use words "Reform", "Overhaul", "Simplify" and "Reduced Corporate Tax" as much as possible in all discussions of policy. Heck, just cut to the chase again and ELIMINATE ALL TAXATION! Utilize late 1800's business practices as guidelines wherever possible. Enable states to re-educate population by inserting in all textbooks that the phrase "Robber Barons" is a positive label that refers to the overhaul of tax reform efforts to simplify a reduced corporate tax policy. Texas will have no problem leading the way.

read more at www.crazybatsmile.com. Make sure you're stoned.

I knew this would be fun.  ;) Nothing like baiting you guys to tear something apart!

Romney's proposal is far to light to make any impact.  It's standard middle-of-the-road Romney stuff.  RM, you are right, this is going to alienate him with much of the conservative base.

Now that everyone has taken a stance, what if many of these same ideas pop up in President Obama's address?

I love how the conservatives find it too light, and the liberals find it draconian.

Romney has just handed much of his base over to Rick Perry.

It also sets several traps for President Obama, and keynesian lords like Paul Krugman are ready to pounce.

I think this is the string that will either undo Romney.  He is betting it will deliver him a wealth of moderate, independent, indecisive Americans, but we have become a nation of strong division, and the politically meek are dwindling in numbers.  he will have a hard time building support for this on either side.

Quote from: Gaspar on September 07, 2011, 09:39:51 AM
I knew this would be fun.  ;) Nothing like bating you guys to tear something apart!

Romney's proposal is far to light to make any impact.  It's standard middle-of-the-road Romney stuff.  RM, you are right, this is going to alienate him with much of the conservative base.

Now that everyone has taken a stance, what if many of these same ideas pop up in President Obama's address?

I love how the conservatives find it too light, and the liberals find it draconian.

sp. Baiting.

You are danged right. It is rehashed hash. If we can pick it apart what will real intellects do with it? ;)

I wouldn't be surprised if some of this stuff shows up in every candidates plans. Its like recurring stories of one armed ax wielding cemetery groundskeepers.
Even though I rail at the insipid nature of the solutions being offered, I know that draconian measures are probably due. I just can't help but feel that most of these are driven by envy and hatred for Obama.

Huntsman. Literate, deliberate, able to cross lines and with a background most American's can identify with. Thank goodness the republicans can't figure this one out.

Quote from: Gaspar on September 07, 2011, 09:52:03 AM
Romney has just handed much of his base over to Rick Perry.

It also sets several traps for President Obama, and keynesian lords like Paul Krugman are ready to pounce.

I think this is the string that will either undo Romney.  He is betting it will deliver him a wealth of moderate, independent, indecisive Americans, but we have become a nation of strong division, and the politically meek are dwindling in numbers.  he will have a hard time building support for this on either side.

I agree with you on this.  Romney isn't swimming, he's drowning -- but doesn't know it yet and just doesn't possess the tools to right himself.  That doesn't mean he loses the GOP nom, but it means he'll constantly be playing to the hardliners (rather than to the moderates) and will always do it with a bit of a tin ear.  It won't feel particularly genuine and he will always have to look over his right shoulder for someone more angry and more Tea Party-affiliated.

The sad part about this election season -- and maybe every other election season for the foreseeable future:  the field consists of no one able to generate national consensus.  I don't know whether that has to do with the candidates or the fact that consensus is impossible.  But I don't see anything improving this situation at all any time soon.

Quote from: AquaMan on September 07, 2011, 09:56:10 AM
sp. Baiting.

You are danged right. It is rehashed hash. If we can pick it apart what will real intellects do with it? ;)

I wouldn't be surprised if some of this stuff shows up in every candidates plans. Its like recurring stories of one armed ax wielding cemetery groundskeepers.
Even though I rail at the insipid nature of the solutions being offered, I know that draconian measures are probably due. I just can't help but feel that most of these are driven by envy and hatred for Obama.

Huntsman. Literate, deliberate, able to cross lines and with a background most American's can identify with. Thank goodness the republicans can't figure this one out.

I can't believe he put it out right before the debate.  I don't know how well Perry is at debating, but he now has plenty of ammo, and Cain is going to tear him apart on this.  If I were the moderator, I would simply use every bullet point as the basis of my questions.

Depending on how Perry does tonight (he has a lot of momentum), I think we may see Cain gain some traction, and I would love that.

The "party agin' the science" debate will be cringe worthy.

"We all hate the guy from TX almost as much as we hate the guy in the white house now."

"Here's our three talking points repeated over and over no matter what the question is."

(under their breath) "Why isn't he in his own state looking after it while it burns?"

From Perry's point of view:  "No federal assistance for anyone unless we can cut spending elsewhere."...(under his breath) "Why isn't FEMA helping my state?"

Quote from: Townsend on September 07, 2011, 10:31:00 AM
The "party agin' the science" debate will be cringe worthy.

"We all hate the guy from TX almost as much as we hate the guy in the white house now."

"Here's our three talking points repeated over and over no matter what the question is."

(under their breath) "Why isn't he in his own state looking after it while it burns?"

From Perry's point of view:  "No federal assistance for anyone unless we can cut spending elsewhere."...(under his breath) "Why isn't FEMA helping my state?"

I think the debate may be an opportunity for someone else to shine.  The election is a long ways off.

Quote from: Gaspar on September 07, 2011, 10:49:39 AM
I think the debate may be an opportunity for someone else to shine.  The election is a long ways off.

Opportunity? Yes.

Opportunity taken?  Doubts abound.

If anyone speaks off the main talking points they'll be crucified.  "That's crazy talk."  "He's too liberal for Oklahoma."  etc.

What would happen if President Obama's Jobs Initiative included $187 billion in new tax cuts to the wealthy?

How would his base react after years of demanding that tax cuts don't create jobs?

Why on earth would he propose any tax cuts?  Isn't that just throwing money out the window?

Quote from: Gaspar on September 07, 2011, 09:52:03 AM
Romney has just handed much of his base over to Rick Perry.

It also sets several traps for President Obama, and keynesian lords like Paul Krugman are ready to pounce.

I think this is the string that will either undo Romney.  He is betting it will deliver him a wealth of moderate, independent, indecisive Americans, but we have become a nation of strong division, and the politically meek are dwindling in numbers.  he will have a hard time building support for this on either side.

You and I have completely different reads on this.  It sounds more like something Sarah Palin would have cobbled together.  Other than FTA's with Colombia, Panama, and SK what did he say?

Cut taxes!
Cut non-military discretionary spending!
Drill baby, drill!
Kill Obamacare!
Cut regulation!
Face down the unions!

That's not really moderate talk.  It's more like the bullet list of Tea Party talking points to try and attract potential Perry supporters.  I suspect he's worried about the large gap Perry is opening on him.  With less than six months to the first primaries, all serious candidates are in at this point so it's time for the front runners to start building consensus.  Romney is rightfully worried about Perry and he's come up with a bullet list designed to attract the more conservative of the lot.

Quote from: Conan71 on September 07, 2011, 11:13:22 AM
  It's more like the bullet list of Tea Party talking points to try and attract potential Perry supporters.  I suspect he's worried about the large gap Perry is opening on him.  With less than six months to the first primaries, all serious candidates are in at this point so it's time for the front runners to start building consensus.  Romney is rightfully worried about Perry and he's come up with a bullet list designed to attract the more conservative of the lot.

...and so will go the debate.

It won't get s good read by either side. I see it as moderate in a landscape where moderate won't fly.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk

Quote from: Gaspar on September 07, 2011, 11:26:07 AM
It won't get s good read by either side. I see it as moderate in a landscape where moderate won't fly.

The Vatican is moderate in this landscape.

Quote from: Conan71 on September 07, 2011, 11:13:22 AM
You and I have completely different reads on this.  It sounds more like something Sarah Palin would have cobbled together.  Other than FTA's with Colombia, Panama, and SK what did he say?

Cut taxes!
Cut non-military discretionary spending!
Drill baby, drill!
Kill Obamacare!
Cut regulation!
Face down the unions!

That's not really moderate talk.  It's more like the bullet list of Tea Party talking points to try and attract potential Perry supporters.  I suspect he's worried about the large gap Perry is opening on him.  With less than six months to the first primaries, all serious candidates are in at this point so it's time for the front runners to start building consensus.  Romney is rightfully worried about Perry and he's come up with a bullet list designed to attract the more conservative of the lot.

I have to go with Conan on this. Romney isn't going to let this Texan go home with the drunken girl. He's flashing some trash to get her attention. It just seems to me that Romney doesn't seem genuine.

Primaries on the republican side used to be so predictable and not much fun. This one has drama. Unfortunately, I get the feeling that its one of those "the operation was a success... but the patient died" kind of dramas.

Quote from: AquaMan on September 07, 2011, 11:31:57 AM
I have to go with Conan on this. Romney isn't going to let this Texan go home with the drunken girl. He's flashing some trash to get her attention. It just seems to me that Romney doesn't seem genuine.

Primaries on the republican side used to be so predictable and not much fun. This one has drama. Unfortunately, I get the feeling that its one of those "the operation was a success... but the patient died" kind of dramas.

I see Perry mis-identifying Bachman and saying "Why don't you go get the boys some coffee, Darlin'."

Then she'll have to since she's "subservient"

Quote from: Gaspar on September 07, 2011, 08:16:21 AM
An Order to Empower American Businesses and Workers
• Reverses the executive orders issued by President Obama that tilt the playing held in favor of organized labor, including the one encouraging the use of union labor on major government construction projects

I assume the EO you are referencing is 13502?  To quote a movie that I hold near and dear... "I do not think that means what you think it means".  While the Pres may have signed the EO, it has a little bit further to go in the process before it is fully implemented on my side of the fence.  The intent of 13502 was to require a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) on projects that involve a lot of different players.  Basically a "come to Jesus" agreement for that job, only.  The Contracting Officer would be responsible for determining what would be included in that agreement.  Additionally, the Contracting Officer of an Agency would be responsible for deciding if requiring a PLA was even necessary (regardless if the project exceeded 25m).

Additionally, the FAR council did address the concerns raised about non-union contractors bidding on a job with the PLA requirement and this is the response- With respect to the general concern raised regarding the participation of nonunion contractors, GSA, DoD, and NASA note that E.O. 13502 expressly states that all project labor agreements must allow all contractors and subcontractors to compete for contracts and subcontracts without regard to whether they are otherwise parties to collective bargaining agreements and this requirement is repeated in the final rule. Any contractor may compete for—and win—a Federal contract requiring a project labor agreement, whether or not the contractor's employees are represented by a labor union. The same principle of open competition would protect subcontractors as well.

Quote from: JCnOwasso on September 07, 2011, 11:46:37 AM
I assume the EO you are referencing is 13502?  To quote a movie that I hold near and dear... "I do not think that means what you think it means".  While the Pres may have signed the EO, it has a little bit further to go in the process before it is fully implemented on my side of the fence.  The intent of 13502 was to require a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) on projects that involve a lot of different players.  Basically a "come to Jesus" agreement for that job, only.  The Contracting Officer would be responsible for determining what would be included in that agreement.  Additionally, the Contracting Officer of an Agency would be responsible for deciding if requiring a PLA was even necessary (regardless if the project exceeded 25m).

Additionally, the FAR council did address the concerns raised about non-union contractors bidding on a job with the PLA requirement and this is the response- With respect to the general concern raised regarding the participation of nonunion contractors, GSA, DoD, and NASA note that E.O. 13502 expressly states that all project labor agreements must allow all contractors and subcontractors to compete for contracts and subcontracts without regard to whether they are otherwise parties to collective bargaining agreements and this requirement is repeated in the final rule. Any contractor may compete for—and win—a Federal contract requiring a project labor agreement, whether or not the contractor's employees are represented by a labor union. The same principle of open competition would protect subcontractors as well.

So basically they've made a meme over E.O. 13502 that makes it sound as if non-union contractors were squeezed out.

Quote from: Townsend on September 07, 2011, 11:42:00 AM
I see Perry mis-identifying Bachman and saying "Why don't you go get the boys some coffee, Darlin'."

Then she'll have to since she's "subservient"

That makes me laugh! There are so many potential SNL skits going on right now. They must be delirious with the choices.

I could hear Cain's response...."Boys? You talkin' about me Aggie?"

Quote from: Conan71 on September 07, 2011, 11:54:13 AM
So basically they've made a meme over E.O. 13502 that makes it sound as if non-union contractors were squeezed out.

Not sure I completely understand who "they've" are, but I think the correct answer is yes, someone has made it look like non-union contractors were squeezed out when, in fact, they were not.  If anyone is interested in the "edge of your seat" read, you can google FAC 2005-41 and grab some popcorn and a comfortable place to slee.. err read.

Quote from: Townsend on September 07, 2011, 10:31:00 AM
The "party agin' the science" debate will be cringe worthy.

"We all hate the guy from TX almost as much as we hate the guy in the white house now."

"Here's our three talking points repeated over and over no matter what the question is."

(under their breath) "Why isn't he in his own state looking after it while it burns?"

From Perry's point of view:  "No federal assistance for anyone unless we can cut spending elsewhere."...(under his breath) "Why isn't FEMA helping my state?"

And why did he cut the funding to volunteer firefighters by 75%?

Quote from: CharlieSheen on September 07, 2011, 12:50:54 PM
And why did he cut the funding to volunteer firefighters by 75%?

I'm sorry, that just sounds funny.  I can hear that getting spun incorrectly by someone like Debbie Wassermann-Schultz:

"Rick Perry cut volunteer firefighter wages by 75%"

Quote from: Conan71 on September 07, 2011, 01:05:13 PM
I'm sorry, that just sounds funny.  I can hear that getting spun incorrectly by someone like Debbie Wassermann-Schultz:

"Rick Perry cut volunteer firefighter wages by 75%"

Well done.  Now he's screwed.

Quote from: Townsend on September 07, 2011, 01:06:05 PM
Well done.  Now he's screwed.

So, what you're saying is, Rick Perry is cutting funding for volunteerism at a time when the state is on fire?... He doesn't support volunteerism? ...He screwed with volunteers during firefighting efforts?

Quote from: AquaMan on September 07, 2011, 01:11:05 PM
So, what you're saying is, Rick Perry is cutting funding for volunteerism at a time when the state is on fire?... He doesn't support volunteerism? ...He screwed with volunteers during firefighting efforts?

What?  Rick Perry started wild fires then told the volunteers to go get screwed?

Quote from: Conan71 on September 07, 2011, 01:13:10 PM
What?  Rick Perry started wild fires then told the volunteers to go get screwed?

What?  Rick Perry lit volunteers on fire and shoved them out of his publically funded helicopter thus starting wildfires?

Quote from: Conan71 on September 07, 2011, 01:05:13 PM
I'm sorry, that just sounds funny.  I can hear that getting spun incorrectly by someone like Debbie Wassermann-Schultz:

"Rick Perry cut volunteer firefighter wages by 75%"

I thought volunteer firefighters were like. . . volunteers?

Quote from: Gaspar on September 07, 2011, 01:18:50 PM
I thought volunteer firefighters were like. . . volunteers?

Re-read and come back.

Quote from: Townsend on September 07, 2011, 01:14:28 PM
What?  Rick Perry lit volunteers on fire and shoved them out of his publically funded helicopter thus starting wildfires?

Only the black ones is what I heard.

People are morons

Quote from: CharlieSheen on September 07, 2011, 01:31:26 PM
People are morons

In general? Or just around here?

Its easy to see a group of people banded together for a cause and see them as morons or cultists etc. I often fall into that trap but I work hard to remember that every one of them is a real human being with a mother, a father, a wife, a child or a pet. It keeps me from going postal on the world.

Quote from: Gaspar on September 07, 2011, 01:18:50 PM
I thought volunteer firefighters were like. . . volunteers?

Sssshhhh!

What do you think a volunteer fire department needs besides people?  You guys think they have fire hydrants out in fields I guess.

Damn!  I thought I was being funny.

Quote from: Gaspar on September 07, 2011, 11:06:10 AM
What would happen if President Obama's Jobs Initiative included $187 billion in new tax cuts to the wealthy?

How would his base react after years of demanding that tax cuts don't create jobs?

Why on earth would he propose any tax cuts?  Isn't that just throwing money out the window?

They are really gearing up for this thing.  All of a sudden, no mater where you look Democrats are suddenly touting the value of tax cuts.  Yesterday my absolute favorite Democrat, Debbie Wasserman-Shultz danced across the networks talking about how the tax cuts (not the spending) in President Obama's first stimulus saved the universe.

50% of it was tax breaks to small businesses and to the middle class. So every economist you would talk to that is worth their salt acknowledges that without the Recovery Act we would not be continuing on the upswing. We would still be either stuck or spiraling downward.

(http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Debbie_Wasserman-Schultz_251.jpg)

Quote from: Gaspar on September 07, 2011, 03:02:09 PM
They are really gearing up for this thing.  All of a sudden, no mater where you look Democrats are suddenly touting the value of tax cuts.  Yesterday my absolute favorite Democrat, Debbie Wasserman-Shultz danced across the networks talking about how the tax cuts (not the spending) in President Obama's first stimulus saved the universe.

50% of it was tax breaks to small businesses and to the middle class. So every economist you would talk to that is worth their salt acknowledges that without the Recovery Act we would not be continuing on the upswing. We would still be either stuck or spiraling downward.

(http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Debbie_Wasserman-Schultz_251.jpg) = (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_nsOtFMtxYDQ/TS161K_xgmI/AAAAAAAAAX4/Cx1HrGftmg4/s320/Bag%2Bof%2BHammers.jpg)

You spinner you. The difference is that Democrats have not favored continued tax cuts for those at the top. They just haven't worked that well if at all. Especially combined with increases in spending due to wars. Suddenly? Tax cuts for middle class and small businesses have always been part of political promises on both sides. Promised, but rarely effected.

Of course now that the middle class is dang near dissipated into upper lower class status...who cares?

Quote from: AquaMan on September 07, 2011, 03:14:13 PM
You spinner you. The difference is that Democrats have not favored continued tax cuts for those at the top. They just haven't worked that well if at all. Especially combined with increases in spending due to wars. Suddenly? Tax cuts for middle class and small businesses have always been part of political promises on both sides. Promised, but rarely effected.

Of course now that the middle class is dang near dissipated into upper lower class status...who cares?

Yeah, but they're talking about tax cuts for small businesses, not the middle class.

Quote from: Conan71 on September 07, 2011, 03:08:44 PM
(http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Debbie_Wasserman-Schultz_251.jpg) = (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_nsOtFMtxYDQ/TS161K_xgmI/AAAAAAAAAX4/Cx1HrGftmg4/s320/Bag%2Bof%2BHammers.jpg)

If she were any more perfect for that position she would have to be watered twice a week.

Quote from: Gaspar on September 07, 2011, 03:24:06 PM
Yeah, but they're talking about tax cuts for small businesses, not the middle class.

Didn't you post that she said this? 50% of it was tax breaks to small businesses and to the middle class. So every economist you would talk to that is worth their salt acknowledges that without the Recovery Act we would not be continuing on the upswing. We would still be either stuck or spiraling downward.

I haven't heard his speech yet so I don't know if it specifically excludes middle class, but I would caution that the definition of small business owners would probably include that middle class. Defining exactly what is middle class or rich is always a hornets nest.

Quote from: AquaMan on September 07, 2011, 03:51:56 PM


Defining exactly what is middle class or rich is always a hornets nest.

Best thing you have ever said.

Taxing the poor or the middle class is actually a tax, because they don't have the ability to pass that expense on to anyone.  Taxing the small business owner or the wealthy becomes a tax on the poor and the middle class because they are the ones consuming the majority of goods and services and occupying the majority of elastic workforce positions.

Long and the short of it, taxation is not stimulative.

Quote from: Gaspar on September 07, 2011, 05:23:45 AM
Nope, just wanted to give an example of the "business owners" they scouted out for the article.

It seemed more like you wanted to imply that people who aren't concerned with regulation or taxes are sleazebags.

Quote from: nathanm on September 07, 2011, 04:15:16 PM
It seemed more like you wanted to imply that people who aren't concerned with regulation or taxes are sleazebags.

No I simply wanted to demonstrate that these are people with dependencies on current policies, that is all.  I'm sure there are many businesses out there that have profited from many of the crisis situations developed recently.

Quote from: Gaspar on September 07, 2011, 04:05:50 PM
Best thing you have ever said.

Taxing the poor or the middle class is actually a tax, because they don't have the ability to pass that expense on to anyone.  Taxing the small business owner or the wealthy becomes a tax on the poor and the middle class because they are the ones consuming the majority of goods and services and occupying the majority of elastic workforce positions.

Factor in that consumption decreases as age increases. I'll never buy another rake, another shovel, another hand saw etc. So the bulk of cost of living increases falls on under 35 and over 60. The former as they set up housekeeping and the latter as they suffer reduced income. Leaves very little in the middle unaffected.

At least those under 35, college educated or skilled, are at the growing stages of their income. Over the years I have heard varying excuses for why the burgeoning middle class could not keep moving up; low productivity, inflation, stagflation, technology changes, trickle down failure, oil dependency, debt, war, ad nauseum. Blah, blah, blah. Truth is you better make as much money as you can and invest long term before marriage and age 35 because after that everything and everyone conspires to take it away from you. My generation is currently learning that the hard way.

Quote from: AquaMan on September 07, 2011, 04:24:24 PM
Factor in that consumption decreases as age increases. I'll never buy another rake, another shovel, another hand saw etc. So the bulk of cost of living increases falls on under 35 and over 60. The former as they set up housekeeping and the latter as they suffer reduced income. Leaves very little in the middle unaffected.

At least those under 35, college educated or skilled, are at the growing stages of their income. Over the years I have heard varying excuses for why the burgeoning middle class could not keep moving up; low productivity, inflation, stagflation, technology changes, trickle down failure, oil dependency, debt, war, ad nauseum. Blah, blah, blah. Truth is you better make as much money as you can and invest long term before marriage and age 35 because after that everything and everyone conspires to take it away from you. My generation is currently learning that the hard way.

You make it sound as if someone's destiny occurs in a vacuum and there's nothing they can do to alter or manipulate their lot in life (or their fortunes).

Quote from: AquaMan on September 07, 2011, 04:24:24 PM
Factor in that consumption decreases as age increases. I'll never buy another rake, another shovel, another hand saw etc. So the bulk of cost of living increases falls on under 35 and over 60. The former as they set up housekeeping and the latter as they suffer reduced income. Leaves very little in the middle unaffected.

At least those under 35, college educated or skilled, are at the growing stages of their income. Over the years I have heard varying excuses for why the burgeoning middle class could not keep moving up; low productivity, inflation, stagflation, technology changes, trickle down failure, oil dependency, debt, war, ad nauseum. Blah, blah, blah. Truth is you better make as much money as you can and invest long term before marriage and age 35 because after that everything and everyone conspires to take it away from you. My generation is currently learning that the hard way.

I would disagree with that.  While it is very important to start to save and wealth for the future when you are young, being innovative, creative, and ambitious are the most important traits.  People that feel like the world is conspiring against them usually manifest that destiny. This may be the schism between those who grow up dependent on others (bosses, the government, unions, family, charity) and those who succeed, though they may fail a hundred times on the way.

It's true government and economic environment offers heaver burdens today, but they can be overcome, voted away, or borne on more muscular shoulders.

Quote from: AquaMan on September 07, 2011, 04:24:24 PM
Truth is you better make as much money as you can and invest long term before marriage and age 35 because after that everything and everyone conspires to take it away from you. My generation is currently learning that the hard way.

Marriage is the leading cause of divorce.

;D

So.... you guys are probably in that middle stripe category. Between 35 and 60 with family obligations. Didn't mean to scare you. Some things just never change but appear to be new and different to each generation as they pass through. Plus ca change, plus ca changere? Excuse my poor French philosophy quotes please.

I agree with what you have said, especially you Red. Most murderers actually preferred ice cream as a youth. ;)

Each person has to draw their own conclusions based on life experience and the advice and wisdom of those preceding whether in text or in person. Of course one's potential is only limited by their imagination. I don't mean to sound defeatist or depressive. Just real. My point is that it is folly to consider small parts of the picture. That is why choosing just one term, like middle class, is not the real picture. Its complicated by age, region, race, religion, sexuality, education and family history. To just say middle class is most effected by a tax hike is like saying mid-size cars get bad mileage. What does that mean?

I feel and act distinctly middle class yet my taxes indicate otherwise.

Quote from: AquaMan on September 07, 2011, 05:26:21 PM
I feel and act distinctly middle class yet my taxes indicate otherwise.

Not paying enough tax?

Quote from: Gaspar on September 07, 2011, 04:18:23 PM
No I simply wanted to demonstrate that these are people with dependencies on current policies, that is all.  I'm sure there are many businesses out there that have profited from many of the crisis situations developed recently.

All of them, really? You might want to invest in a smaller brush.

Edited to add: Success is a function of time. Look at a guy today and he might be on top of the world. Look at him tomorrow and he may have nothing. Measure again three days from now and lo and behold, he may just be successful.

Quote from: Red Arrow on September 07, 2011, 07:11:33 PM
Not paying enough tax?

I would relish having to pay more tax if it meant more income. I'm not one to volunteer like Warren Buffett.

Quote from: nathanm on September 07, 2011, 08:08:41 PM
All of them, really? You might want to invest in a smaller brush.

Edited to add: Success is a function of time. Look at a guy today and he might be on top of the world. Look at him tomorrow and he may have nothing. Measure again three days from now and lo and behold, he may just be successful.

I see you still embrace the liberal concept that success and wealth is a game of chance.  Successful people are "the fortunate," or the "lucky."  Well that's not true, and the longer you believe that the less you will be able to seize your own opportunities.

Success is a function of hard work, innovation, and creativity. 

Quote from: Gaspar on September 08, 2011, 07:07:52 AM
Success is a function of hard work, innovation, and creativity. 

..and luck, and timing, and external circumstances.

You seem to be unable to shake the false belief that hard work inevitably pays off. It often does, but it's not as simple as you'd like to make it seem. It's more akin to quantum mechanics than Newtonian physics. The best one can do is make solid plans and be prepared to implement them when the opportunity presents itself. And, of course, be watchful for ways in which you can help that opportunity to present itself.

Quote from: nathanm on September 08, 2011, 07:40:01 AM
..and luck, and timing, and external circumstances.

You seem to be unable to shake the false belief that hard work inevitably pays off.

Yes!  And I always will.  I will also instill this horrible false belief in my children.

You can consider me a liberal failure.

Quote from: Gaspar on September 08, 2011, 07:07:52 AM
I see you still embrace the liberal concept that success and wealth is a game of chance.  Successful people are "the fortunate," or the "lucky."  Well that's not true, and the longer you believe that the less you will be able to seize your own opportunities.

Success is a function of hard work, innovation, and creativity. 

Yeah, well Tesla might disagree with that though Edison would say you're a genius.

Why is everything you disagree with have to be framed in terms of "liberal concepts"? This either/or, takeitorleaveit, mindset forces you into contradictory beliefs.

Wealth may be measurable to some degree but success is totally subjective. So, I am poor as dirt but still successful as I have accomplished many of the goals I set as a young man and have persevered through hardship and largesse. Sometimes I was lucky, sometimes fortunate and sometimes I seized opportunities. When all three crossed at the same time I was a freaking genius. When I failed to achieve I had to recognize that in spite of my best efforts, it just wasn't to be. Timing was often the uncontrollable variable.

Those who only believe motivational posters and who deny that luck has little to do with success simply haven't played much baseball. Those who believe that success is ONLY a function of hard work, innovation and creativity don't know the story of Tesla and Edison.

Quote from: Gaspar on September 08, 2011, 07:07:52 AM
I see you still embrace the liberal concept that success and wealth is a game of chance.  Successful people are "the fortunate," or the "lucky."  Well that's not true, and the longer you believe that the less you will be able to seize your own opportunities.

Success is a function of hard work, innovation, and creativity.  

Chance leads to opportunities or lack of opportunity.  The game is rigged towards one way or the other based on who your parents are, how much money you have access to, where you live, how involved your parents are, etc.  Just the elementary school you go to can make a difference.  You don't control that.

If only the starving people in (name the country) would just work harder they would be rich.

Quote from: Gaspar on September 08, 2011, 07:42:40 AM
Yes!  And I always will.  I will also instill this horrible false belief in my children.

You can consider me a liberal failure.

Just because it isn't true doesn't mean you shouldn't teach it to your children.

Quote from: AquaMan on September 08, 2011, 07:50:37 AM
Yeah, well Tesla might disagree with that though Edison would say you're a genius.

Why is everything you disagree with have to be framed in terms of "liberal concepts"? This either/or, takeitorleaveit, mindset forces you into contradictory beliefs.

It's because liberals embody all that is despicable and wrong with America.  They undermine all the values that make our country great, and seek to sap our precious bodily fluids.

Wealth and success always and ever have been a combo of luck, externalities, hard work, innovation, and being able to exploit a situation to its fullest.  The mix of these things will change with the times, but it's more obvious now than in any recent American era that hard work may not pay off, that our classic American values of entrepreneurship, risk-taking, and nose-to-the-grindstone may not get you anywhere at all.

The "liberal" view of this -- such as it is -- is that we should make it easier for your hard work and entrepreneurship to pay off, not harder.  We should minimize the negative effect of externalities so that the hard work and risk taking has a better chance of succeeding.  The GOP is hell bent on making it impossible for success, all the while repeating mindlessly that if you just worked harder, or smarter, or were more innovative -- if you just tried to be a better American, dang it! -- wealth would be yours.  It's the worst sort of pollyanna viewpoint, because it masks the increasing impossibility of reaching that wealth for most people.

Wait a minute.. So you are saying that Bill Gates skillset of computer programing wouldn't have made him rich if he was born before computers were invented?  This is crazy talk.

Quote from: CharlieSheen on September 08, 2011, 09:28:31 AM
Wait a minute.. So you are saying that Bill Gates skillset of computer programing wouldn't have made him rich if he was born before computers were invented?  This is crazy talk.

If you're trying to suggest that time and space aren't subject to good old American hard work and entrepreneurship, I'm going to have to call bullcrap. 

Its not that Gates wouldn't have been successful. He may have used his particular mental skills in a different manner. Its the simplistic notion that he achieved great wealth through his own hard work, innovation and creativity alone. That ignores so many other strongly contributing factors like timing, family, education, availability of funding, location, current structures etc.  

It also leads to this: Bernie Madoff was a hard working, innovative, creative businessman who achieved great wealth and success.

Quote from: we vs us on September 08, 2011, 09:22:28 AM

The "liberal" view of this -- such as it is -- is that we should make it easier for your hard work and entrepreneurship to pay off, not harder.  We should minimize the negative effect of externalities so that the hard work and risk taking has a better chance of succeeding.  The GOP is hell bent on making it impossible for success, all the while repeating mindlessly that if you just worked harder, or smarter, or were more innovative -- if you just tried to be a better American, dang it! -- wealth would be yours.  It's the worst sort of pollyanna viewpoint, because it masks the increasing impossibility of reaching that wealth for most people.

When has the liberal viewpoint ever been to make it easier for entrepreneurship other than sapping the treasury to funnel money into well-connected political allies pockets?  More mandates, like Obamacare, are viewed as more of a risk for the risk-takers.  The liberal view is always that people are not capable of succeeding without the government getting involved at every turn.

Republicans hold the view that limited government intervention helps spur creativity, entrepreneurship, and helps hard work pay off.

Aqua,
You are becoming nauseating.  Who are you trying to convince?  Yourself?

Quote from: Gaspar on September 08, 2011, 10:12:06 AM
Aqua,
You are becoming nauseating.  Who are you trying to convince?  Yourself?

Hah! Like an artist, I'm just glad to have created an emotional response, even if it is nausea.

Quote from: Conan71 on September 08, 2011, 10:11:00 AM
When has the liberal viewpoint ever been to make it easier for entrepreneurship other than sapping the treasury to funnel money into well-connected political allies pockets?  More mandates, like Obamacare, are viewed as more of a risk for the risk-takers.  The liberal view is always that people are not capable of succeeding without the government getting involved at every turn.

Republicans hold the view that limited government intervention helps spur creativity, entrepreneurship, and helps hard work pay off.

Liberal viewpoints on everything are based on groups and dependencies.  Your future is dictated by what race, sex, and affiliation.  Your ability to succeed is dominated by external dependencies and access to wealth or market timing.  Original ideas are regulated by chance.

For a liberal to acknowledge to someone that they have the potential to succeed without the aid of others is blasphemous. In fact, to even recognize individual success is blasphemous.  It is rooted in the need to blame others for personal circumstances.  The perception is, that life is easy when nothing is your fault.  This is a lie.  Life is very hard and depressing when you don't own your own achievements, and your failures are someone else's fault. You end up in a dark place waiting and waiting.  You live that life of quiet desperation.

I choose another path.  In the immortal words of the profit:

Will you succeed?
Yes you will indeed!
(98 and 3/4 percent guaranteed.)
kid you'll move mountains so...be your name buxbaum or bixby or bray or mordecai ale van allen o'shea, you're off to great places! today is your day! your mountain is waiting. so...get on your way.

Now whose nauseating?

The demonizing of Liberals is a full time avocation apparently.

Quote from: AquaMan on September 08, 2011, 10:54:47 AM
Now whose nauseating?

The demonizing of Liberals is a full time avocation apparently.

You should point out where I'm wrong. 

Quote from: Gaspar on September 08, 2011, 10:58:52 AM
You should point out where I'm wrong. 

Pointing out fallacies in someone's opinions is generally looked on as argumentative.

Quote from: Gaspar on September 08, 2011, 10:58:52 AM
You should point out where I'm wrong. 

To turn this around, make a case as to why you're right and not just blame liberals or liberalism ad-hoc.

Quote from: Gaspar on September 08, 2011, 10:58:52 AM
You should point out where I'm wrong. 

Right back at you.

Quote from: CharlieSheen on September 08, 2011, 09:28:31 AM
Wait a minute.. So you are saying that Bill Gates skillset of computer programing wouldn't have made him rich if he was born before computers were invented?  This is crazy talk.

If he had been born a couple of years later he wouldn't have struck it rich, either (at least not his mega-riches). Or if CP/M had been rewritten to support 16 bit CPUs just a little bit sooner.

Gaspar, please continue to erecting this strawman "liberal" and knocking him down over and over again. It's pretty amusing to watch, in the same way watching my dog chase its tail is amusing.

Conan, ironically enough, France now leads us in entrepreneurship. Yes, France.

Quote from: Gaspar on September 08, 2011, 10:52:26 AM
Liberal viewpoints on everything are based on groups and dependencies.  Your future is dictated by what race, sex, and affiliation.  Your ability to succeed is dominated by external dependencies and access to wealth or market timing.  Original ideas are regulated by chance.

For a liberal to acknowledge to someone that they have the potential to succeed without the aid of others is blasphemous. In fact, to even recognize individual success is blasphemous.  It is rooted in the need to blame others for personal circumstances.  The perception is, that life is easy when nothing is your fault.  This is a lie.  Life is very hard and depressing when you don't own your own achievements, and your failures are someone else's fault. You end up in a dark place waiting and waiting.  You live that life of quiet desperation.

Why do you feel the need to define others? What possible pleasure can you arrive in posting what you think other people than yourself believe and why?

Are you some sort of combination of nostradamus/Dr. Phil/actuarial scientist?

Quote from: Conan71 on September 08, 2011, 10:11:00 AM
When has the liberal viewpoint ever been to make it easier for entrepreneurship other than sapping the treasury to funnel money into well-connected political allies pockets?  More mandates, like Obamacare, are viewed as more of a risk for the risk-takers.  The liberal view is always that people are not capable of succeeding without the government getting involved at every turn.

Republicans hold the view that limited government intervention helps spur creativity, entrepreneurship, and helps hard work pay off.

You should also add to that statement that limited government ensures that limited oversight will help hide the illegal activities that made them successful.  We can review the long list of happenings over the last decade to show that.

I should say that I am all for creativity and innovation, but I do not believe that you should forego oversight to ensure that happens.  A majority of the big technological acheivements of recent years were funded by Government activities, heck just look at DARPA's resume to find out.  Government funding of the Space program aided in the development and subsequent lowering in price of technologies we utilize on a daily basis today.   

Quote from: nathanm on September 08, 2011, 12:19:26 PM

Conan, ironically enough, France now leads us in entrepreneurship. Yes, France.

M'kay