Is Obama really as stupid about economics as his recent statements imply he is?

Don't get too excited. It's very easy to create these sorts of videos. A TV crew from New Zealand set up shop in various spots around the US a few years ago and did man-on-the-street interviews with MOR Americans...

Can you name a country whose name begins with the letter "U"?
......Utopia?

What is the primary religion of Israel?
.......................Muslim?

What city was the Berlin Wall located in?
..............................................................

 

Go ask in hiimjered's automation thread once he starts it.

 

I agree with you somewhat. I am a confirmed capitalist, but like everything in life, it is not a zero sum game. Companies have a responsibility to their employees and to the community in which they operate. For 30 years, corporations have become patently myopic, with only the bottom line as the goal. The only other concern they have is the political correct aspect. Here all they do is pony up to politically correct causes with some funds.

What we see now in medium to large corporations, is a abject failure to be good citizens, and one might argue they fail to be humane. Mass layoffs, outsourcing, age discrimination, reliance on foreign born workers, and a huge list of bureaucratic hurdles for every prospective employee. And years ago, only hard driven TOP managers would spend endless hours at the office to attain the unattainable. Now, rank and file are expected to put aside lives and family for the company. Employees are burned out before they leave their probationary period.

Lastly, something I have given great thought to, is executive compensation. For years we heard that they must offer these insane sums of money to attract the very best talent. Well, I think there's ample evidence to refute that thought. We have seen massive corporate failure, not only in this latest round, but back in the Clinton era. It would seem that money merely attracts clever, scheming, charlatans, and very little real talent. Compensation for meeting benchmarks is great, but not at the expense of long range profitability. Most of these clowns run the business into the ground in a few years, and bail long before the stuff hits the fan. There does not seem to be any serious long term planning anymore. Corporate management are essentially short term magicians, capable of generating profits or obfuscating failure in the short term, but at the expense of long term viability.

Large multinational corporations are the true evil in our capitalist economy. Decades ago there were laws in place to prevent the very thing that has happened today: too big to fail. We need to return to smaller companies who are adept at meeting needs of both customer, employee, and investors alike. We need companies who will invest in business HERE in the US. Who will employ US citizens, who will sell to US customers. Entrepreneurship must be the overriding concern of business minded people in the US, and reliance on huge multinationals should be severely diminished. Anyone who understands economics and the current mess we're in, will have to agree.

 

Great question, Bluesguy!

Obama has all the answers, doesn't he!

Ha-Ha!

 

Certainly more than you or any of these assorted right-wing dunderheads have ever managed to supply.

 

I asked you

Originally Posted by Bluesguy View Post
Are you agreeing with Obama that ATM's and Kiosks have caused a downturn in bank employment particularly at the teller level?

 

Great question, Bluesguy!

Good luck on getting a response from 17th!

 

You are correct Trinnity.

Have you read this post about the latest $38.6 billion GM debacle Obama has foolishly forced us all into?

Are we allowed to say to our progressive friends, we told you so?

"The $23.6 billion represents a 25 percent loss on the feds $60 billion direct “investment” in GM. But that’s not all that taxpayers are on the hook for. As I explained previously, Uncle Sam’s special GM bankruptcy package allowed the company to write off $45 billion in previous losses going forward. This could work out to as much as $15 billion in tax savings that GM wouldn’t have had had it gone through a normal bankruptcy. Why? Because after bankruptcy, the tax liabilities of companies increase since they have no more losses to write off."

"This means that the total hit to taxpayers, who still own about a quarter of the company, could add up to $38.6 billion. That’s even more that the $34 billion on the outside I had predicted in May."

"But the Ostrich-in-Chief Barack Obama, who had assured taxpayers that their GM "investment" would cost them "not a dime," is drawing the opposite lesson, obviously. He has been trumpeting the success of the bailout—repeatedly. He was in Michigan recently claiming that the “investment had paid off.”

It now appears that Obama is by far the most incompetent president we have ever had in our 222 year history! How much above $15 trillion must the U.S. debt increase before the voters say enough is enough and force him out of office?

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...taxpayer-losses-gm-bailout-going-massive.html

 

This part was very good!

'All of this shows why forcing taxpayers to wager their hard-earned dollars on a risky venture was exactly the wrong thing to do. But the Ostrich-in-Chief Barack Obama, who had assured taxpayers that their GM "investment" would cost them "not a dime," is drawing the opposite lesson, obviously. He has been trumpeting the success of the bailout—repeatedly. He was in Michigan recently claiming that the “investment had paid off.” What’s more, he declared, that now that GM is back, it is just a matter of time before Detroit is too:

“Despite all the work that lies ahead, this is a city where a great American industry is coming back to life and the industries of tomorrow are taking root, and a city where people are dreaming up ways to prove all the skeptics wrong and write the next proud chapter in the Motor City's history."

But the “next, proud chapter in Motor City’s history” actually is likely to be bankruptcy. That’s because Detroit is facing a $209 million budget deficit and is going to be completely out of operating cash by April.

Here is a very helpful piece by Detroit Free Press’ editorial page editor, Stephen Henderson, explaining in gory but accurate detail just what a mess the city is in. Perhaps President Obama can glance at it before he returns here and spins some more fairytales?

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...taxpayer-losses-gm-bailout-going-massive.html

 

I dont know its a company wide policy or not but i know at the UPS i work at when an employee from the office leaves they spread that work out to the remaining employees.

We currently have trucks that no one is assigned to load because some genius at corporate decided the items loaded per hour in those trucks didnt merit the payroll to have someone loading them. So now they send someone from other trucks < that are busting #^# to get their own work done> to load the trucks that dont merit the payroll.

I dont imagine UPS is the only company using this logic.

 

Ha-Ha!

Very good, Dan!

Have you noticed that most fat people always say they are liberals!

Michael Moore is one who always comes to mind!

 

Are you telling us that UPS demands that you work all 8 hours they are paying you to work?

 

Yoiu are very correct, hiimjered.

A company that is faced with overproduction must cut their workers to match the lack of demand. If they don't lay off some of their workers, they will lose their shirt, declare bankrupcy when they can't pay their debts and then they willl have to lay off everyone who works for the company!

 

You are indeed correct, Dan40.

This discussion was very good.

It presents a very good analysis of Obama's missteps and significant shortcomings.

"More and more, Mr. Obama looks like a one-trick pony&#8212;a man who is good at giving campaign speeches but very little else."

 

Ha-Ha!

I guess the liberals in our group don't like the idea of doing what they are PAID to do by their employers. THey had rather decide for their employers what work they should do and for how long!

No wonder Chrysler and GM went broke!

"In 1995, With union rules in place, a GM car took 46 hours to make, Chrysler 43 and Toyota 29.4. By 2006, according to Harbour Consulting, GM had moved it to 32.4 hours per vehicle and Chrysler 32.9. Toyota stayed at 29.9."

At Detroit's plants, electricians or mechanics tend to perform certain narrow tasks and often sit idle. That rarely happens outside Michigan. In the nonunionized plants, temporary workers can also be hired, and let go, as market conditions dictate.

"But include benefits, and the picture changes. Hourly labor costs are $44.20 on average for the non-Detroit producers, in line with most manufacturing jobs, but are $73.21 for Detroit."

"As a result, for every UAW member working at a U.S. car maker today, three retirees collect benefits; at GM, the ratio is 4.6 to one."

 

He would love to destroy our free enterprise system and replace it with European-stye socialism!

This would be a big mistake as the following Sweedish study clearly shows.

 

So do I, Serfin' USA.

So do I.

I especially ask this question of comments made by the Obamabots!



Especially the question! .. Ha-Ha!

 

You are correct, 17th.

More Democrats these days neede to study and heed the words of John Kennedy, a REAL Democrat!

"A bill will be presented to the Congress for action next year. It will include an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in both corporate and personal income taxes. It will include long-needed tax reform that logic and equity demand ... The billions of dollars this bill will place in the hands of the consumer and our businessmen will have both immediate and permanent benefits to our economy. Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary. And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries and more and more growth for an expanding American economy."

– John F. Kennedy, Aug. 13, 1962, radio and television report on the state of the national economy

 

You are very correct, Never Left.

Every time Obama screws up and makes a bad decision, the MSM gives him a free pass!

This discussion was very revealing.

 

Dear James,

Your answer is self evident.



Ha ha!

 

Ha-Ha!

Great response, Truth Detector!

"Obama and his economic butt clowns" ... priceless!

 

Dear James,

Thank you for yet another post expressing your opinion and your efforts "bonding" with another member's post.

It adds a lot to the discussion of the topic.

 

ha-Ha!

You are very correct, John1735.

And now Solyndra and Obama's other hand-picked "green energy" projects have gone bust!

You notice how involved Obama was and how he worked with Congress to get his worthless health care legislation passed.

And now we have an opportunity to do something constructive about our enormous national debt, and Obama won’t lift a finger to get the Super Committee to do something positive and move away from its impasse.

What is wrong with this guy anyway! The only leadership Obama is capable of is showing up for photo ops during ribbon cutting ceremonies!



This slogan was a very bad joke!

 

James... have you developed any new technologies or created any jobs?

 

Thanks for asking, Margot.

As a matter of fact, I have.

I have several U.S. invention disclosures to my creidit.

By the way, this review is very good.

"Thirty-one percent of Americans in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll are downright angry at the way the federal government works, a record in polling back to 1992. Add in those who are merely dissatisfied and the total soars to 80 percent, one point from its high 19 years ago."

"Nearly as many, 74 percent, say the country&#8217;s headed seriously off on the wrong track &#8212; not a number that bodes well for incumbent presidents. A year before the 1992 election, during the last downturn anywhere near this severe, 72 percent said the country was on the wrong track; a year before the 1980 election, 77 percent said so; a year before the 1976 vote, 71 percent. Those results presaged the one-term presidencies of George H.W. Bush, Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford."

While liberalism is in retreat, the United States is becoming an increasingly conservative nation, rejecting interventionist solutions to economic problems, from endless bailouts to suffocating business regulations. As I noted in an earlier piece, Barack Obama could end up being America&#8217;s last Big Government president, with future leaders wary of going down the same path of heavy borrowing coupled with excessive spending, that has fuelled spiralling budget deficits."