The 5 reasons whi -I- am voting for The Obama

Jonsa · Oct 21, 2012

Conservative said:
For someone who claims they worked in the business world I find it quite telling how poorly you understand leadership and the responsibilities of leadership. There is no way that any business would keep an employee employed with the record of Obama and to claim that because he inherited a mess that he shouldn't be responsible for the poor recovery doesn't give your claim of being an executive much credibility.

I think this is the third or fourth time you have coughed up this argument. Like I said the last time and hopefully you can assign this stale and totally incorrect argument to the trash heap.

All executives have performance goals and objectives, correct? As the senior executive, you are responsible for determining strategy, correct? In determining a strategic plan, you always enumerate the critical success factors - stuff that has go right that is outwith of your organizations control, correct? (if you look a an ipo prospectus, there's always the what could go wrong section which I believe is mandated by law.) When turning the strategic plan into a tactical plan, all goals and objectives are prioritized, correct? As an experienced executive, you also know that too many objectives/goals is counter productive, so you emphasize the super important ones and then the important ones and then need to haves and then the like to haves and then if there's any left over the wish to haves. then you throw away all the stuff below need to haves, and ruthlessly chop down those objectives down to a number where the executive and his team can focus on and bring all of their resources to bear in accomplishing same.

unfortunately its not quite like that in politics and running a government, but it will do.
So what would your short list of super important objectives, important objectives and need to have objectives for Obama look like? And then, we can judge the execs performance based on those.

You need to stop reading DNC talking points and look at the Romney record in the public and private sector. That record is good enough for me and trumps anything Obama has done. The attempts to demonize a good man is what liberals alwayd do to divert from a terrible record.

I'm not quoting any talking points. I am dealing with romney's observed, document policy shifts on the fly. I am not attempting to demonize the man, It is his words and his actions. I could provide you with a very comprehenisve list including video of the fliip flops, the etchasketch "pivots", and the campaign walkbacks prompted by his impromptu remarks. So if you choose to ignore reality and dismiss the truth as merely talking points and demonization, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see how ideologically rooted your perspective is.

Your opinion is noted as are your projections. You have been wrong about Obama so you need to be right at least once before having any credibility. He will inherit a mess on day one and will probably be blamed for the recession that this country will be in when he takes office but I am convinced that he has the leadership skills that Obama can only dream about. This country cannot afford four more years of Obama but then again what does a Candadian care?

I've been right more often than wrong as witnessed by your lame rebuttals, retreats and dismissals. However, notwithstanding, have you read the plan? have you taken the time to consider the implications? to examine or devine the assumptions? to examine the threat points to the plan? what of the critical success factors? don't merely reply with lamness and yet another failed attempt to dismiss my opinion because of my nationality. It would appear I am a much keener observer of the US political and economic situation than you are, even given my "liberal" bias.

He will grant waivers recognzing that healthcare is a state and local responsibility not a Federal Responsibility. We don't need a massive Federal Program to handle individual responsibility issues.

Grant waivers for what exactly? so, it seems its right back to 30 or 40 million uninsured. Ah regression. those good ol days when if you were poor and had a chronic illness you died waiting in a hospital Emergency. think it thru for a moment. If you are the experienced business hand you claim, then you know bureaucratic dynamics, how hard it is to change internal culture, how difficult it is to motivate employees if they don't know what destination is or how to get there or who is in charge - error rates go up, miscommunication is off the scale and productivity plunges. But let's not consider the implications of bumpersticker policy - its just too hard, and somebody might remember.

There is no job creation under Obama other than part time jobs as indicated by the under employed. You give Obama way too much credit for anything you perceive as possitive and no blame for the terrible results generated. You continue to buy what you are told and ignore history in that it was Obama's ties to the Wall Street community that you want to blame on Bush. Where do you think Geithner and Summers came from? Where did Obama get most of his money from in the last election?

There has been the creation of 4.5 million private sector jobs. As for too much credit or too little criticism, I'll continue to expound the credit when debating with people who continue to expound the blame - ying and yang - balance in the universe and all that.

Now explain to me how trashing all of the obama era regulations is a positive and not regressive? Explain to me what the real costs of such would be? why would romney think that trashing wall street regulations on banks, mutual funds etc. is positive for the middle class? explain to me how reduced liquidity, free reins on financial instrument invention, uncontrolled dirivative markets, uncontrolled credit default swap markets, the total banning of future too big to fail bailouts. Tell me how that is good for the american people.

No business person would have hired Obama in the first place based upon his resume. Obama's record today is a reflection on that resume so there is no way he would ever have the record that warrants any business person's vote.

Wrong again. Lots of business people would have hired him, because no executive worth his salt hires anyone based solely on their resume. It plays its part, but the good executives look at lots of other attributes in accessing any hire. The lazy ones dismiss based on resume, because they are more interested in covering their own asses than trusting their people judgement.

Your logic is flawed. Your generalization is flawed. Your apparent simplistic understanding of senior business management is on display. If you want to discuss any other business issues in detail, I'd be happy to oblige. Amongst other things in my checkered career, I made a very nice living for a number of years as an executive consultant dealing from VP to C levels.

Eighty Deuce · Oct 21, 2012

Jonsa said:
Nobody ever questioned Bush's legitimacy as president, and still despite all evidence to the contrary, 35% of all registered republicans think hes' a muslim. The birthers were a vocal high profile group that was led by the teapublican caucus. they vowed not to compromise. Hell republican leadership thinks he's an enemy sympathizer - essentially a traitor. (romney, ryan, priebus, and a bunch of talking heads all use the same talking points).

The democratic senate as you say had to contend with a record number of filibusters and since they din't have a super majority not much got thru the senate. Sure the dems voted against the republican budgets - but the republicans knew that even before they tabled their budgets in congress - nothing like wasting time and not attending to the financial crisis, just jerking off trying to score political points but not accomplishing a damn thing.

This is pure rubbish. Obama did have a supermajority for a time, but even so, it was his incompetence and inability to lead that ended up with monstrosities like Obamacare and Stimulus being passed, while he remianed clueless on actually fomenting job creation.

He's an incompetent jackass.

Conservative · Oct 21, 2012

Jonsa said:
I think this is the third or fourth time you have coughed up this argument. Like I said the last times and hopefully you can assign this stale and totally incorrect argument to the trash heap.

All executives have performance goals and objectives, correct? As the senior executive, you are responsible for determining strategy, correct? In determining a strategic plan, you always enumerate the critical success factors - stuff that has go right that is outwith of your organizations control, correct? (if you look a an ipo prospectus, there's always the what could go wrong section which I beleive is mandated by law.) When turning the strategic plan into a tactical plan, all goals and objectives are prioritized, correct? As an experienced executive, you also know that too many objectives/goals is counter productive, so you emphasize the super important ones and then the important ones and then need to haves and then the like to haves and then if there's any left over the wish to haves. then you throw away all the stuff below need to haves, and ruthlessly chop down those objectives down to a number where the executive and his team can focus on and bring all of their resources to bear in accomplishing same.

unfortunately its not quite like that in politics and running a government, but it will do.
So what would your short list of most important objectives, important objectives and need to have objectives for Obama look like? And then, we can judge the execs performance based on those.

I'm not quoting any talking points. I am dealing with romney's observed, document policy shifts on the fly. I am not attempting to demonize the man, It is his words and his actions. I could provide you with a very comprehenisve list including video of the fliip flops, the etchasketch "pivots", and the campaign walkbacks prompted by his impromptu remarks. So if you choose to ignore reality adn dismiss the truth as merely talking points and demonization, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see how ideologically rooted your perspective is.

I've been right more often than wrong as witnessed by your lame rebuttals, retreats and dismissals. However, notwithstanding, have you read the plan? have you taken the time to consider the implications? to examine or devine the assumptions? to examine the threat points to the plan? what of the critical success factors? don't merely reply with lamness and yet another failed attempt to dismiss my opinion because of my nationality. I would appear I am a much keener observer of the US political and economic situation than you are, even given my "liberal" bias.

Grant waivers for what exactly? so, it seems its right back to 30 or 40 million uninsured. Ah regression. those good ol days when if you were poor and had a chronic illness you died waiting in a hospital Emergency. think it thru for a moment. If you are the experienced business hand you claim, then you know bureaucratic dynamics, how hard it is to change internal culture, how difficult it is to motivate employees if they don't know what destination or how to get there or who is in charge, error rates go up, miscommunication is off the scale and productivity plunges. But let's not consider the implications of bumpersticker policy - its just too hard, and somebody might remember.

A there has been the creation of 4.5 million private sector jobs. As for too much credit or too little criticism, I'll continue to expound the credit when debating with people continue to expound the blame - ying and yang - balance in the universe and all that.

Now explain to me how trashing all of the obama era regulations is a positive and not regressive? Explain to me what the real costs of such would be? why would romney think that trashing wall street regulations on banks, mutual funds etc. is positive for the middle class? explain to me how reduced liquidity, free reins on financial instrument invention, uncontrolled dirivative markets, uncontrolled credit default swap markets, the total banning of future too big to fail bailouts. Tell me how that is good for the american people.

Wrong again. Lots of business people would have hired him, because no executive on the planet hires anyone based on their resume. It plays its part, but the good executives look at lots of other attributes in accessing any hire. The lazy ones dismiss based on resume, because they are more interested in covering their own asses than trusting their people judgement.

Your logic is flawed. Your generalization is flawed. Your apparent simplistic understanding of senior business management is on display. If you want to discuss any other business issues in detail, I'd be happy to oblige. Amongst other things in my checkered career, I made a very nice living for a number of years as an executive consultant dealing from VP to C levels.

Your opinion noted but I have seen no evidence that someone who admits to be a consultant actually has any real life on the job business experience just like Obama. You were swayed and continue to be swayed by rhetoric. Obama was hired to unite, not divide, to bring about a new tone in Washington and to represent all Americans. He failed. He was given the challenge of growing the economy, cutting the debt, and creating jobs for the American people. He failed.

Every executive has bottomline responsibility and know that you cannot delegate responsibility. Obama hasn't grasped that concept as that is all he does, delegate responsibility and blame. You won't seem Romney blaming Obama for what Romney inherits even though in many areas it is worse than what Obama inherited.

Obama inherited a terrible economy but the results he has generated show poor leadership and created the worst recovery in history. Rather than meet with Congress or his Jobs' council he attended fund raisers, played golf, and took vacations. Rather than focus on what could unite people he focused on what would divide people.

Five reasons not to vote for Obama

Top 5 reasons - YouTube

The financial results show

Poor economic growth and dismal economy, http://finance.yahoo.com/news/dismal-hiring-shows-economy-stuck-010706331.html

More people unemployed than when Obama took office, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

15 House bills not considered by Senate
Senate and House in a Blame Game Over Stalled Jobs Legislation - ABC News

22.7 million unemployed/discouraged/under employed Americans, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

5.6 trillion added to the debt and trillion dollar deficits, Government - Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Hundreds of thousands discouraged workers, Bush average 477k Obama 900k

U.S. Treasury showing line item expenses and budget. Notice tax cuts aren't an expense and further notice that debt service is, debt service only paid for by those actually paying taxes

Current Report: Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government (Combined Statement): Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service

Worst recovery since the Great Depression

The Worst Economic Recovery Since The Great Depression - Forbes

Class warfare, forced wealth redistribution, Carter style economic malaise including gridlock in Congress,

Senate and House in a Blame Game Over Stalled Jobs Legislation - ABC News

Crony Capitalism

Green energy companies going bankrupt, Solar company that Obama visited will shut down | Reuters
Government Motors and Obamacare

Chrysler sold to an Italian firm

GDP Growth- U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
2010-2.4%
2011-1.8%
2012-1.3%
-
Debt exceeding our yearly GDP and downgrade of credit rating

Rhetoric trumping substance, repeat, rinse, and repeat again, Familiar Rhetoric, Failed Record - YouTube

Poverty at record levels, Report: Poverty hits record level - MJ Lee - POLITICO.com

"Fast and Furious" and "Wide Receiver"

Jonsa · Oct 21, 2012

Conservative said:
Your opinion noted but I have seen no evidence that someone who admits to be a consultant actually has any real life on the job business experience just like Obama. You were swayed and continue to be swayed by rhetoric. Obama was hired to unite, not divide, to bring about a new tone in Washington and to represent all Americans. He failed. He was given the challenge of growing the economy, cutting the debt, and creating jobs for the American people. He failed.

My evidence is in the expertise I demonstrate and that you can't rebut.
I am not swayed by rhetoric -another incorrect analysis.

Yep, he didn't get the job done. Fact is nobody could have gotten the job done, but that is hindsight as it took another 10 months or so from his taking over to plumb the depths of the recession as the dominos started to fall around the world.

YOur ability to objectively analyse a complex situation is certainly not up to my executive standards. I'd throw you outta my office with a demand you re-evaluate cause and effect and critical success factors and avoid the obvious 30 second superficial analysis you seem to be so in love with. Why didn't he succeed is an enormous part of the equation and certainly absolutely required to determine how to proceed, but all I ever seem to get from you is because he isn't a leader and he's dumb and arrogant and a divideer - nothing but rhetoric. NO analysis of the various actors and their roles, no situational analysis, no timeline, no analysis of resource allocation, political processes, etc etc etc. just empty rhetoric.

If in your career you provided your collegues with the quality of analysis you have demonstrated here, you couldn't have been that highly regarded, unless you were working with brown nosers and yes men.

Every executive has bottomline responsibility and know that you cannot delegate responsibility. Obama hasn't grasped that concept as that is all he does, delegate responsibility and blame. You won't seem Romney blaming Obama for what Romney inherits even though in many areas it is worse than what Obama inherited.

Of course you can and if your a good executive you delegate responsiblity. Its called empowerment.

The same old tropes. Obama inherits the biggest pile of horseshyte in 70 years and no blame accrues to the republican president and his cronies who shat it out, because after all that was then and this is the new grand old party, who amazingly is simpliy dressing up the tired old benefit the rich, screw the middle class and forget about the poor/needy policies in brand new snappy clothes.

Is the president ultimately responsible for all of the sins of the nation under his watch - theortically yes, practically no.

Obama inherited a terrible economy but the results he has generated show poor leadership and created the worst recovery in history. Rather than meet with Congress or his Jobs' council he attended fund raisers, played golf, and took vacations. Rather than focus on what could unite people he focused on what would divide people.

It was made plain to him in 2010 that compromise with republicans was going to be my way or the highway. I'd say that is about as divisive as can be. He was called a liar, his legitimacy questions to this very day.

How long exactly did it take for america to pull itself out of the depression? seem to me that was kind of a long time requiring really drastic measures and ended only because of ww2. do you recall how the depression came about? unregulated wall street, excessive bank speculation, concentration of wealth. Nah you'd never examine the policies that caused it, because they are too similar to the policies proposed today by Mitt. the same policies that ultimately failed Bush.

Conservative · Oct 21, 2012

Jonsa;1061050177]My evidence is in the expertise I demonstrate and that you can't rebut.
I am not swayed by rhetoric -another incorrect analysis.

Yep, he didn't get the job done. Fact is nobody could have gotten the job done, but that is hindsight as it took another 10 months or so from his taking over to plumb the depths of the recession as the dominos started to fall around the world.

That is your opinion and one that indicates to me what kind of executive you were. It is really hard generating results when you implement a stimulus program that failed and then instead of focusing on the economy he shifted to healthcare. Further if you don't meet with your Jobs' Council or the Congress, the results are going to be a disaster which they are. Doesn't appear to me like you really managed anything

YOur ability to objectively analyse a complex situation is certainly not up to my executive standards. I'd throw you outta my office with a demand you re-evaluate cause and effect and critical success factors and avoid the obvious 30 second superficial analysis you seem to be so in love with. Why didn't he succeed is an enormous part of the equation and certainly absolutely required to determine how to proceed, but all I ever seem to get from you is because he isn't a leader and he's dumb and arrogant and a divideer - nothing but rhetoric. NO analysis of the various actors and their roles, no situational analysis, no timeline, no analysis of resource allocation, political processes, etc etc etc. just empty rhetoric.

Don't think I would be talking about high standards and this President. The results speak for themselves as well as the effort to generate those results. Why he didn't succeed is the same reason you aren't succeeding, you managed nothing, hired and fired no one, had no payroll to administer, or really had little affect on anyone else's lives. Obama and you apparently have no concept of leadership and the responsibilities of leadership.

If in your career you provided your collegues with the quality of analysis you have demonstrated here, you couldn't have been that highly regarded, unless you were working with brown nosers and yes men.

LOL, ok, thanks for your expert opinion. I was results oriented, managed over 1200 people and a 200 million dollar a year business. To me results mattered and I could put up with failure one year, maybe two years but certainly not three and then four. You have such low standards that you wouldn't survive in the business world with your own money invested.

Of course you can and if your a good executive you delegate responsiblity. Its called empowerment.

Wrong, you delegate authority, never responsibility which a good manager would understand. You empower people enough authority to do the job and then learn the difference between an honest mistake and a dishonest mistake. Honest mistakes never cost any employee in my company their job, but dishonest mistakes always did. Obama makes dishonest mistakes almost daily.

The same old tropes. Obama inherits the biggest pile of horseshyte in 70 years and no blame accrues to the republican president and his cronies who shat it out, because after all that was then and this is the new grand old party, who amazingly is simpliy dressing up the tired old benefit the rich, screw the middle class and forget about the poor/needy policies in brand new snappy clothes.

Amazing, isn't it, Bush created this mess all by himself but Obama has no responsibility to get us out of it including hiring Geithner and Summers who were part of the group that got us into this mess. Your standards are very low as were probably your results.

Is the president ultimately responsible for all of the sins of the nation under his watch - theortically yes, practically no.

What is Obama going to do differently the next term to generate better results than the last four years?

It was made plain to him in 2010 that compromise with republicans was going to be my way or the highway. I'd say that is about as divisive as can be. He was called a liar, his legitimacy questions to this very day.

Right, the standard was set the first two years in office when he said "elections have consequences and I won" What Obama has shown is he has zero leadership skills and doesn't have a clue how to work with people. He is a community agitator.

How long exactly did it take for america to pull itself out of the depression? seem to me that was kind of a long time requiring really drastic measures and ended only because of ww2. do you recall how the depression came about? unregulated wall street, excessive bank speculation, concentration of wealth. Nah you'd never examine the policies that caused it, because they are too similar to the policies proposed today by Mitt. the same policies that ultimately failed Bush.

This was hardly a depression and we got out of a worse one in the early 80's and that was done with leadership including getting the American people on the side of the President.

It will take leadership now to clean up the Obama mess and Romney will do that.

Jonsa · Oct 21, 2012

Eighty Deuce said:
This is pure rubbish. Obama did have a supermajority for a time, but even so, it was his incompetence and inability to lead that ended up with monstrosities like Obamacare and Stimulus being passed, while he remianed clueless on actually fomenting job creation.

He's an incompetent jackass.

No he did not have a super majority. the democrats had 58 seats and there were 2 independents.

Wll isn't it lucky for the rest of the world that the incompetent jackass managed to avoid the complete financial collapse of wall street, stem the hemorraging of 800,000 jobs a month, implement a successful stimulus program, save GM, support the downfall of three dictators, kill bin ladin, kill 1600 of binnies closest friends, get china to increase the value of its currency by 11%, increase exports to china by 40% since 2008get rid of don't ask dont' tell, deported over a million of illegal aliens.

I surely do luv your definition of incompetent.

Jonsa · Oct 22, 2012

Conservative said:
That is your opinion and one that indicates to me what kind of executive you were. It is really hard generating results when you implement a stimulus program that failed and then instead of focusing on the economy he shifted to healthcare. Further if you don't meet with your Jobs' Council or the Congress, the results are going to be a disaster which they are. Doesn't appear to me like you really managed anything

The stimulus did not fail. Your contention that it failed is based on some party hack saying it would bring the UI rate below 8%. Remember, he didnt' get all he asked for. However, if you think that 350 billion in additional tax breaks was a failure, then why on earth would you be supporting even more tax breaks under romney when obviously obamas tax breaks were a failure? You think creating or saving a few million jobs, stopping the hemmoraging job losses is a failure okay. And if you think that investing $300 billion in infrastrucuture investments is a failure despite some states lying about how shovel ready some of their projects were is a failure I certainly dont see it.

No, the stimulus was not a failure despite the best bumpersticker attempts by republicans to brand it so, (although while screeching about it, they quietly had their hands out for the funds)

yes he decided to spend his political capital on healtcare and achieving a deal for universal coverage that had eluded every president since medicare was first introduced. A damn he did it. Of course, neither you nor I would have set it as the top priority, but we weren't making that decision. Not meeting with the jobs council is not the same as not talking to them.

As for talking to congress, what do you mean? talking to the democratic caucus or talking to republican opposition leaders?

You are consistently failing in regard to demonstrating your executive management skills. No doubt you were a successful businessman, but I suspect you did not manage a large enterprise.

Don't think I would be talking about high standards and this President. The results speak for themselves as well as the effort to generate those results. Why he didn't succeed is the same reason you aren't succeeding, you managed nothing, hired and fired no one, had no payroll to administer, or really had little affect on anyone else's lives. Obama and you apparently have no concept of leadership and the responsibilities of leadership.

What are you talking about? I said I was an successful executive consultant for a few years in my career. Prior to that AND after that I was a senior executive in a couple of large multinationals, as well as a founding partner in several high tech start ups and one leveraged MBO. I have also participated in taking two of those start ups public. I have hired at least 200 people in my career, mentored dozens, and have managed a division of 400 people generating $250 million in sales (although that gig was 25 years ago). I have authored numerous articles on the high tech industry and marketing. I have spoken at at least 75 business conferences. (the numbers add up when you've been operating at a certain level for 30 years or so). OKAY! point for you, you managed to get under my skin. Sore spot with me, I don't like having my experience or expertise challenged by people with no idea of what I have accomplished or who I am.

the reason I am not getting thru to you is simply because you are entrenched in your viewpoint. I noticed you completely ignored my critique of your analysis, gee, I wonder why. Oh yes because I was right on.

LOL, ok, thanks for your expert opinion. I was results oriented, managed over 1200 people and a 200 million dollar a year business. To me results mattered and I could put up with failure one year, maybe two years but certainly not three and then four. You have such low standards that you wouldn't survive in the business world with your own money invested.

Well, results oriented is a good thing, but $166K per head aint' the cats pajamas by any means. At least I got my division up over $600k per head. Probably not a fair comparision tho, I'm sure we were in totally different industries. As to my standards, you have once again for some odd reason mistaken my approach to executive management for low standards. That is simply not the case, I have never implied a lowering of standards, I have laid out the breadth and depth of my evaluation criteria, which is substantively different that yours. BTW I've used my own money plenty in a number of businesses. I've even gone flat broke doing it twice. fortunately I also have made a pile four times so I'm up two.

Wrong, you delegate authority, never responsibility which a good manager would understand. You empower people enough authority to do the job and then learn the difference between an honest mistake and a dishonest mistake. Honest mistakes never cost any employee in my company their job, but dishonest mistakes always did. Obama makes dishonest mistakes almost daily.

Ah I see. authority without responsibility, well, that certainly is the opposite of most managers problems of delegating responsibility without the authority to meet those responsibilties. Regardless, I always delegated both responsibility and the requisite authority to all my staff, with clear agreement on his/her objectives, priorities, functions and of course measurement criteria.

I totally agree about honest mistakes, and encouraged my staff to not be afraid to make mistakes. First mistake, learn and move on, Same mistake second time - called to task, learn, move on, same mistake third time, grounds for dismissal. You were obviously a fair boss, with clearly communicated business principles.

Dishonest mistakes to me implies a lack of integrity. Am I correct in your meaning? Please explain as oddly enough I use the term honest mistake all the time, but never use the corrollary hmmmm.

Amazing, isn't it, Bush created this mess all by himself but Obama has no responsibility to get us out of it including hiring Geithner and Summers who were part of the group that got us into this mess. Your standards are very low as were probably your results.[/qutoe]

AS obama is soley responsible, so to was bush. Obviously it is ludicrous to place the blame for everything on the leader. Ergo, my contention that in theory the leader is responsible for everything, but in practice he delegates that reponsiblity along with appropriate authority - until such time that something so egregious transpires that the leader is forced to fall on his sword, or get his ass fired. Okay I'll tell you what, you don't speculate about my career and I wont speculate about yours. that way neither of us will be wrong about the other in this regard.

Of course obama has responsibility to get the country out of the economic mess, and he is doing it steadily. You can argue about the speed of recovery, but you can't argue that the country is much better off than it was 4 years ago. A clusterf*** of such magnitude takes a whole bunch of people screwing up their jobs, being corrupt, being greedy, being incompetant, being wrong, being ignorant and being incredibly stupid. Unfortunately not a single perpetrator of the biggest financial scam in history has been brought to justice. compared to the financial meltdown, bernie madoff was a dime store crook.

What is Obama going to do differently the next term to generate better results than the last four years?

Click to expand...

Not much, he' continue to address the tax code, lowering taxes for the middle class, raising them for the high income earners, initiate efforts to streamline the tax code closing corporate loopholes and reducing tax rates (gee what a plan, eh?), continue to push for a balanced approach to deficit reduction, continue to provide incentives for new energy technology development and commercialization, reduce dependency on coal, increase drilling, assess the impact studies on keystone to ensure it meets all saftey and environmental standards and make a call on proceding, continue to invest in education, continue to implement appropriate wall street regulations, push to accelerate AHCA implentation and savings, continue to apply pressure to china to continue to increase currency valuation and continue to increase US imports, ......... and tons more. YOu should go to the website and read up on what he plans to do. Before you do, he tends to lack a lot of detail too.

Right, the standard was set the first two years in office when he said "elections have consequences and I won" What Obama has shown is he has zero leadership skills and doesn't have a clue how to work with people. He is a community agitator.

Click to expand...

Yes sometimes, a rookie can get frustrated. He doesn't have the typical washington style, that does not mean he isn't a leader. I have know many leaders who were aloof, who never let their guard down, who basically were two dimensional, but they set the course, they prioritized, they empowered and they sure as hell didn't micromanage. We shall simply have to diagree about his capabililties, we come at it from two entirely different perspectives.

This was hardly a depression and we got out of a worse one in the early 80's and that was done with leadership including getting the American people on the side of the President.

Click to expand...

It was pretty damn close to a depression or perhaps you weren't aware that if Obama had not followed with TARP etc, the foundations of american capitalism (wall street firms) would nearly all have gone under and a couple trillion in equity evaporated. The recession of the 80's wasnt' even remotely close. It was caused by runaway inflation. Reagan did the right things to stem it (very keynsian of him) and corrected the problem withn 36 months. It was a cake walk in comparison to the underlying causes of this rescession. This notion that ie was worse in the 80's is just wrong from every perspective.

It will take leadership now to clean up the Obama mess and Romney will do that.

Click to expand...

I hope he doesn't get the chance. Either way, I am confident that america will get the government they deserve.

Eighty Deuce · Oct 22, 2012

Jonsa said:
No he did not have a super majority. the democrats had 58 seats and there were 2 independents.............

The Independents both caucused with the Dems ............... :roll:

Look it up.

Conservative · Oct 22, 2012

Jonsa said:
The stimulus did not fail. Your contention that it failed is based on some party hack saying it would bring the UI rate below 8%. Remember, he didnt' get all he asked for. However, if you think that 350 billion in additional tax breaks was a failure, then why on earth would you be supporting even more tax breaks under romney when obviously obamas tax breaks were a failure? You think creating or saving a few million jobs, stopping the hemmoraging job losses is a failure okay. And if you think that investing $300 billion in infrastrucuture investments is a failure despite some states lying about how shovel ready some of their projects were is a failure I certainly dont see it.

No, the stimulus was not a failure despite the best bumpersticker attempts by republicans to brand it so, (although while screeching about it, they quietly had their hands out for the funds)

yes he decided to spend his political capital on healtcare and achieving a deal for universal coverage that had eluded every president since medicare was first introduced. A damn he did it. Of course, neither you nor I would have set it as the top priority, but we weren't making that decision. Not meeting with the jobs council is not the same as not talking to them.

As for talking to congress, what do you mean? talking to the democratic caucus or talking to republican opposition leaders?

You are consistently failing in regard to demonstrating your executive management skills. No doubt you were a successful businessman, but I suspect you did not manage a large enterprise.

What are you talking about? I said I was an successful executive consultant for a few years in my career. Prior to that AND after that I was a senior executive in a couple of large multinationals, as well as a founding partner in several high tech start ups and one leveraged MBO. I have also participated in taking two of those start ups public. I have hired at least 200 people in my career, mentored dozens, and have managed a division of 400 people generating $250 million in sales (although that gig was 25 years ago). I have authored numerous articles on the high tech industry and marketing. I have spoken at at least 75 business conferences. (the numbers add up when you've been operating at a certain level for 30 years or so). OKAY! point for you, you managed to get under my skin. Sore spot with me, I don't like having my experience or expertise challenged by people with no idea of what I have accomplished or who I am.

the reason I am not getting thru to you is simply because you are entrenched in your viewpoint. I noticed you completely ignored my critique of your analysis, gee, I wonder why. Oh yes because I was right on.

Well, results oriented is a good thing, but $166K per head aint' the cats pajamas by any means. At least I got my division up over $600k per head. Probably not a fair comparision tho, I'm sure we were in totally different industries. As to my standards, you have once again for some odd reason mistaken my approach to executive management for low standards. That is simply not the case, I have never implied a lowering of standards, I have laid out the breadth and depth of my evaluation criteria, which is substantively different that yours. BTW I've used my own money plenty in a number of businesses. I've even gone flat broke doing it twice. fortunately I also have made a pile four times so I'm up two.

Ah I see. authority without responsibility, well, that certainly is the opposite of most managers problems of delegating responsibility without the authority to meet those responsibilties. Regardless, I always delegated both responsibility and the requisite authority to all my staff, with clear agreement on his/her objectives, priorities, functions and of course measurement criteria.

I totally agree about honest mistakes, and encouraged my staff to not be afraid to make mistakes. First mistake, learn and move on, Same mistake second time - called to task, learn, move on, same mistake third time, grounds for dismissal. You were obviously a fair boss, with clearly communicated business principles.

Dishonest mistakes to me implies a lack of integrity. Am I correct in your meaning? Please explain as oddly enough I use the term honest mistake all the time, but never use the corrollary hmmmm.

Not much, he' continue to address the tax code, lowering taxes for the middle class, raising them for the high income earners, initiate efforts to streamline the tax code closing corporate loopholes and reducing tax rates (gee what a plan, eh?), continue to push for a balanced approach to deficit reduction, continue to provide incentives for new energy technology development and commercialization, reduce dependency on coal, increase drilling, assess the impact studies on keystone to ensure it meets all saftey and environmental standards and make a call on proceding, continue to invest in education, continue to implement appropriate wall street regulations, push to accelerate AHCA implentation and savings, continue to apply pressure to china to continue to increase currency valuation and continue to increase US imports, ......... and tons more. YOu should go to the website and read up on what he plans to do. Before you do, he tends to lack a lot of detail too.

Yes sometimes, a rookie can get frustrated. He doesn't have the typical washington style, that does not mean he isn't a leader. I have know many leaders who were aloof, who never let their guard down, who basically were two dimensional, but they set the course, they prioritized, they empowered and they sure as hell didn't micromanage. We shall simply have to diagree about his capabililties, we come at it from two entirely different perspectives.

It was pretty damn close to a depression or perhaps you weren't aware that if Obama had not followed with TARP etc, the foundations of american capitalism (wall street firms) would nearly all have gone under and a couple trillion in equity evaporated. The recession of the 80's wasnt' even remotely close. It was caused by runaway inflation. Reagan did the right things to stem it (very keynsian of him) and corrected the problem withn 36 months. It was a cake walk in comparison to the underlying causes of this rescession. This notion that ie was worse in the 80's is just wrong from every perspective.

I hope he doesn't get the chance. Either way, I am confident that america will get the government they deserve.

These are the Obama results that apparently you aren't aware of in Canada. It really doesn't appear that you are getting the accurate news in Canada. Obama didn't implement TARP by the way, he did however recycle the money and didn't use the repayment to lower the deficit.

Which of these do you most closely relate to?

http://times247.com/articles/obama-receives-endorsements-from-three-dictators

Five reasons not to vote for Obama
Top 5 reasons - YouTube
The financial results show

Poor economic growth and dismal economy, http://finance.yahoo.com/news/dismal-hiring-shows-economy-stuck-010706331.html

More people unemployed than when Obama took office, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

15 House bills not considered by Senate
Senate and House in a Blame Game Over Stalled Jobs Legislation - ABC News

22.7 million unemployed/discouraged/under employed Americans, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

5.6 trillion added to the debt and trillion dollar deficits, Government - Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Hundreds of thousands discouraged workers, Bush average 477k Obama 900k

U.S. Treasury showing line item expenses and budget. Notice tax cuts aren't an expense and further notice that debt service is, debt service only paid for by those actually paying taxes

Current Report: Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government (Combined Statement): Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service

Worst recovery since the Great Depression

The Worst Economic Recovery Since The Great Depression - Forbes

Class warfare, forced wealth redistribution, Carter style economic malaise including gridlock in Congress,
Senate and House in a Blame Game Over Stalled Jobs Legislation - ABC News

Crony Capitalism

Green energy companies going bankrupt, Solar company that Obama visited will shut down | Reuters
Government Motors and Obamacare

Chrysler sold to an Italian firm

GDP Growth- U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
2010-2.4%
2011-1.8%
2012-1.3%
-
Debt exceeding our yearly GDP and downgrade of credit rating

Rhetoric trumping substance, repeat, rinse, and repeat again, Familiar Rhetoric, Failed Record - YouTube

Poverty at record levels, Report: Poverty hits record level - MJ Lee - POLITICO.com

"Fast and Furious" and "Wide Receiver"

Why the Stimulus failed

Review & Outlook:Why the Stimulus Failed - WSJ.com

Travis007 · Oct 22, 2012

Jonsa said:
Of course 5 broken promises is enough to switch your vote. considering the circumstances he did pretty good with a lot of other promises tho.

1. economic circumstances and events overtook delivering on the promise and was exacerbated by obstructionism
2. signed an executive order to close gitmo as one of his first acts in office. Got way more complicated as opposition from all sides heated up. He attempted to bring terrorists to trial in the US but that was blocked, he bought a prison to dump the prisoners in and that was blocked. finally he gave up. He tried, but the president can only do so much as you well know, because he is president, not dictator.
3. Obviously got a earful about how important to national security it was. I gotta go along with you on that one, created by a republican, attempted to be repealed by democrat, and now you'll vote for a republican who has no problem with it.
4. He's been trying to do just that, in case you haven't noticed. Can you say republican instransigence and legislative obstructionism.
5. Again, circumstances and events overtook the ability to fulfil such a promise.

Look at all the promises bush broke when circumstances overtook his promised agenda.

If Obama winse he will inherit the worst economy since the great depressionof Obama... and will have to clean up the mess of the Obama years...nobody will to have had to inherit such a mess as Obama will have to since he will be havign to correct the disaster of BHO...

Jonsa · Oct 22, 2012

Conservative said:
These are the Obama results that apparently you aren't aware of in Canada. It really doesn't appear that you are getting the accurate news in Canada. Obama didn't implement TARP by the way, he did however recycle the money and didn't use the repayment to lower the deficit.

He approved continuing the TARP program. If you recall it was rather controversial at the time. Republicans had a hard time with their criticism of OBama carrying thru wtih it since Bush initiated it. Yes, I do get very american news "up here".. Fox, CNN, MSNBC,ABC,NBC,CBS,HLN,BBC,AlJezeerah, - CBC, CTV, Global (canadian sources). And then, there is this wonderful new invention called the interweb or some such.

I am aware he took the repayments into general funds.

Which of these do you most closely relate to?

Chavez, Castro, Putin: Four more years! | Times 247

seriously?

Grant · Oct 22, 2012

Eighty Deuce said:
This is pure rubbish. Obama did have a supermajority for a time, but even so, it was his incompetence and inability to lead that ended up with monstrosities like Obamacare and Stimulus being passed, while he remianed clueless on actually fomenting job creation.

He's an incompetent jackass.

Correction, please.

He is an incompetent lying jackass.

Grant · Oct 22, 2012

Travis007 said:
If Obama winse he will inherit the worst economy since the great depressionof Obama... and will have to clean up the mess of the Obama years...nobody will to have had to inherit such a mess as Obama will have to since he will be havign to correct the disaster of BHO...

One thing is certain.

When Romney is President he will not be constantly blaming his predecessor, or the weather, for any problems there might be. He will man up.

Travis007 · Oct 22, 2012

Grant said:
One thing is certain.

When Romney is President he will not be constantly blaming his predecessor, or the weather, for any problems there might be. He will man up.

I agree... in the private sector its about solving the problem not blaming..

Conservative · Oct 22, 2012

Jonsa said:
He approved continuing the TARP program. If you recall it was rather controversial at the time. Republicans had a hard time with their criticism of OBama carrying thru wtih it since Bush initiated it. Yes, I do get very american news "up here".. Fox, CNN, MSNBC,ABC,NBC,CBS,HLN,BBC,AlJezeerah, - CBC, CTV, Global (canadian sources). And then, there is this wonderful new invention called the interweb or some such.

I am aware he took the repayments into general funds.

seriously?

Seriously, what does it tell you about the people who support Obama when we get radical dictators in that group? Have you paid any attention to an Obama rally? Street thugs, union thugs, radicals? Guess you have no problem being associated with those groups.

VanceMack · Oct 22, 2012

specklebang said:
I don't see any reason you would have deliberately misunderstood what I said so it must be something in my phraseology.

I didn't offer an attack or a defense, just an analysis. I had hoped that my first sentence, a disclaimer and my last paragraph, a disclaimer would have prevented this type of response.

It's not my job to defend anything. Was my analysis not correct? I made 5 points in response to the original 5 points. I welcome a point by point analysis of these 5 points. I think you'll find that you agree with me.

2 and 4. It wasnt HIS fault. Excpet of course not only did he NOT close GITMO he expanded black ops prison useage. thats on him. Period. As for the Bush era tax cuts...sorry. They dont exist anymore. They are now the Obama tax cuts for the rich. He signed it. He had a democrat majority in the house and senate. You sign it, you own it and you dont get to blame it on the other guys...especially when you took absolutely no action on ANY of it until just before it was about to expire.

AdamT · Oct 22, 2012

VanceMack said:
2 and 4. It wasnt HIS fault. Excpet of course not only did he NOT close GITMO he expanded black ops prison useage.

Oh my, another minute, another VanceMack lie.

The End of the 'Black' Prisons
POSTED: 03:00 PM ET, 01/22/2009 by The Editors

In the three years since Post reporter Dana Priest revealed the existence of an international system of "black" prisons set up by the CIA after the 9/11 attacks, the roiling worldwide debate over how to treat suspected terrorists has grown to overshadow most other aspects of U.S. counterterrorism.

President Barack Obama today took a major step toward closing that chapter of history by prohibiting the CIA from holding detainees in such prisons. He also addressed the question of torture, ordering that interrogation standards in U.S. facilities worldwide be limited to those outlined in the Army Field manual.

The End of the 'Black' Prisons - Washington Post Investigations

VanceMack · Oct 22, 2012

AdamT said:
Oh my, another minute, another VanceMack lie.

Your source is from 2009 and what they SAID. These are from 2012 and what they DID. I know it stings...but...take it like a man...

Updated: Sept. 20, 2012

"There are at least 3,000 people detained at Bagram, compared to about 170 at Guantánamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. Many of the same legal issues apply to both populations."

The "Black Jail": Obama's Afghan Torture Center and the American Psychological Association - internationalnews
BBC News - Red Cross confirms 'second jail' at Bagram, Afghanistan
Bagram Detention Center (Afghanistan) News - The New York Times

AdamT · Oct 22, 2012

VanceMack said:
Your source is from 2009 and what they SAID. These are from 2012 and what they DID. I know it stings...but...take it like a man...

Updated: Sept. 20, 2012

"There are at least 3,000 people detained at Bagram, compared to about 170 at Guantánamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. Many of the same legal issues apply to both populations."

The "Black Jail": Obama's Afghan Torture Center and the American Psychological Association - internationalnews
BBC News - Red Cross confirms 'second jail' at Bagram, Afghanistan
Bagram Detention Center (Afghanistan) News - The New York Times

Your links do not support your claim, which is that Obama expanded black prisons. The fact is that Obama signed an EO ordering the CIA to close its black prison program. That did not affect Bagram, which is a DoD program. Nonetheless, Obama cut the use of black sites -- he did not expand them, as you falsely claimed.

What's more, your "recent" links are out of date. Obama has transferred the Bagram prison to the Afghanees. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/10/us-hands-over-bagram-prison-afghanistan_n_1869671.html

VanceMack · Oct 22, 2012

AdamT said:
Your links do not support your claim, which is that Obama expanded black prisons. The fact is that Obama signed an EO ordering the CIA to close its black prison program. That did not affect Bagram, which is a DoD program. Nonetheless, Obama cut the use of black sites -- he did not expand them, as you falsely claimed.

What's more, your "recent" links are out of date. Obama has transferred the Bagram prison to the Afghanees. U.S. Completes Formal Handover Of Bagram Prison To Afghans

Say hello to Somalia. And Columbia. And...just for the record...the prison at Bagram which still exists and hold more now than during the Bush administration is OK because it is being 'run' by the Afghanistan government? Does that mean we arent still there...dont still put people there...dont still interrogate people there? :roll:

Now...dont get me wrong...I actually APPLAUD that Obama has done these things. But lets not pretend he is some humanist that really really really really really really by gosh WANTED to shut down these places. Candidate Obama could say anything he wanted. President Obama followed and expanded Bush policies and programs across the board. And BTW...I have given him credit for that.

Jeremy Scahill Reveals CIA Facility, Prison in Somalia as U.S. Expands Covert Ops in Stricken Nation

Oh...and Poland too...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/08/13/162137/poland-peels-back-layers-on-secret.html#storylink=cpy

Amigo · Oct 22, 2012

1. He "saved" GM, even though Bush started that.
2. He passed Obamacare, the Government takeover of healthcare, so wonderful when liberty is gone!
3. He ended the war well after he said he would, just to put it closer to the election.
4. He ordered the so hard choice that NOBODY ELSE, NOT EVEN CLINTON would make, killing Osama Bin Laden.
5. He is going against the evil 1%er Mitt Romney who wants to defend Planned Parenthood, which provides mammograms, but in truth all they do is train kids to be sluts, and kill babies. Mitt would cut PBS, which is so evil of him to try

Jonsa · Oct 22, 2012

Conservative said:
Seriously, what does it tell you about the people who support Obama when we get radical dictators in that group? Have you paid any attention to an Obama rally? Street thugs, union thugs, radicals? Guess you have no problem being associated with those groups.

things are gettin desperate......

thats as lame a strawman as you have ever posted.

The 5 reasons whi -I- am voting for The Obama

More options

Jonsa

Eighty Deuce

Conservative

Jonsa

Conservative

Jonsa

Jonsa

Eighty Deuce

Conservative

Travis007

Jonsa

Grant

Grant

Travis007

Conservative

VanceMack

Less like the tiger...more like the lion.

AdamT

VanceMack

Less like the tiger...more like the lion.

AdamT

VanceMack

Less like the tiger...more like the lion.

Amigo

Jonsa