- Joined
- Sep 30, 2012
- Messages
- 5,335
- Reaction score
- 3,089
- Location
- Toronto
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
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.
Last edited: