Your opinion on the job that President Obama is doing so far (1 Viewer)

[TobiasFunke]

Sharon Tate is to Manson as xxxxx is to Obama. I am sure there is a point. Hey he could open up a thread on each article and have you all try to defend each one individually. Consider it easier on yourself you don't have to open this one up at all and try to defend anything. I kind of wish he would as a matter of fact, I would love to see see how you could defend the worst president in our history.

People who are interested in a real dialogue open up threads individually about particular issues related to the president around here all the time. Myself and many others around here frequently have interesting conversations with intelligent people with whom we disagree on various issues. If you'd like I'd be happy to direct you to some of them, but they're really not that difficult to find.

Right on. Open communication and sharing of thoughts is the roadmap to education. I take people's silence as an admission that the opinion presented is factual and no longer warrants further discussion.

I can only speak for myself, but my silence is an indication that you have proven time and time again to be not worth engaging in discussion. You don't seem to have any interest in open communication and sharing of thoughts, as you either completely ignore any points made contrary to your point of view, or you shout them down with only marginally relevant counterpoints in an effort to "win." It's juvenile and annoying.

 

[Statorama]

I can only speak for myself, but my silence is an indication that you have proven time and time again to be not worth engaging in discussion. You don't seem to have any interest in open communication and sharing of thoughts, as you either completely ignore any points made contrary to your point of view, or you shout them down with only marginally relevant counterpoints in an effort to "win." It's juvenile and annoying.

That's your misunderstanding, not mine. I've changed my opinions on several issues based on arguments presented from the other side. That's why I love open and honest debates on the issues.You seem to confuse lively debate with "shouting someone down". Maybe you're one of those guys that hangs around with people of a similar mindset, and isn't used to being told a different side of things.

 

[Statorama]

The opinion piece you cited mentions nothing about Obama. Is there any evidence of a change of direction in the FDA's policies since he took office?

It's his FDA. He appointed anti-business people like Margaret Hamburg, and that's a huge reason why a lot of this is happening.

 

[Statorama]

Before this goes too far, I know a lot of people would like to make this thread about me instead of Obama. I'd prefer it stay on the track of being the historical thread of record on Obama's presidency.

Can we stop making this about me and get back to reporting on Obama's presidency?

 

[TobiasFunke]

I can only speak for myself, but my silence is an indication that you have proven time and time again to be not worth engaging in discussion. You don't seem to have any interest in open communication and sharing of thoughts, as you either completely ignore any points made contrary to your point of view, or you shout them down with only marginally relevant counterpoints in an effort to "win." It's juvenile and annoying.

That's your misunderstanding, not mine. I've changed my opinions on several issues based on arguments presented from the other side. That's why I love open and honest debates on the issues.You seem to confuse lively debate with "shouting someone down". Maybe you're one of those guys that hangs around with people of a similar mindset, and isn't used to being told a different side of things.

You're welcome to think that. I feel like I've given you the benefit of the doubt many times, and every time I regret it because you seem more intent on making outrageous statements and pissing people off than actually discussing anything of substance. One example- when I countered your trashing of Wisconsin teachers with data about rising test scores across the board and rather than accept that you came back with anecdotes and declared that you "won." A second example- the fact that you keep an obviously sarcastic comment from me in your sig line for reasons I'm not sure of but I assume are supposed to get my goat somehow. And there are many many examples where I have pointed out something I consider inaccurate, unfair or just plain wrong in an article you link, and you just move on to the next misleading article instead of acknowledging the error.I spend plenty of time with people of different mindsets hearing a different side of things. I enjoy it so much that I gave you the benefit of the doubt time and time again after virtually everyone else around here had learned to ignore you, as witnessed by this thread. And time and again you make me regret doing so.

 

[Statorama]

Hopefully now that you have gotten that off your chest we can get back to the topic at hand.

I don't wish you any ill will. I'm just here to educate and inform. Some people like the safety of their opinions and aren't open to new data. If you're not like that, then I look forward to continuing to educate and inform you.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Hopefully now that you have gotten that off your chest we can get back to the topic at hand.I don't wish you any ill will. I'm just here to educate and inform. Some people like the safety of their opinions and aren't open to new data. If you're not like that, then I look forward to continuing to educate and inform you.

The fact that you consider the lack of responses to your posts here to be an acknowledgement of their truth rather than drawing the more obvious and likely conclusion (that people don't think you're worth the time and effort of a response) makes me skeptical. But if you really do seek to educate and inform, best of luck with it, and I hope you're also open to being educated and receiving information while you're at it. Cheers.

 

[saintfool]

The opinion piece you cited mentions nothing about Obama. Is there any evidence of a change of direction in the FDA's policies since he took office?

It's his FDA. He appointed anti-business people like Margaret Hamburg, and that's a huge reason why a lot of this is happening.

And it was someone else's FDA before Obama took office.

My colleagues and I at Wyeth watched helplessly as one company after another shed employees in huge numbers -- 300,000 since 2000. When Pfizer -- facing the looming expiration of its Lipitor patent and a poor research pipeline -- bought Wyeth for its portfolio of products in 2009, it cut about 25,000 jobs, with more to come.

So maybe 275,000 jobs were cut before Obama's first full year in office, amidst the global economic crisis mind you, and Obama is anti-pharma? Nevermind that cutting employees is pretty much standard operating procedure for any M & A, much less one from Pfizer. From Businessweek:

Kindler told a news conference that the Wyeth merger is not about "a single product or cost-cutting," as with past deals. Instead, "it's about creating a broad, diversified portfolio."

Nevertheless, cost-cutting there will be. Pfizer expects to achieve about $4 billion in "synergies" by 2012, enabling it to reduce the combined workforce of the two companies by 15%, or some 20,000 jobs. As part of those synergies, Pfizer announced Monday that it will eliminate 8,000 jobs, 10% of its workforce. It is closing five of its 46 manufacturing plants.

The company went through similar rounds of cost-cutting when it acquired Warner-Lambert in a deal worth $90 billion, and when it bought Pharmacia for $60 billion. Those acquisitions sparked criticism in the pharmaceutical industry because of the brutal staff cutbacks and—at least in the case of Pharmacia—because there was no big performance gain. Pfizer acquired Warner-Lambert mainly for the cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor, which went on to become the world's best-selling drug. The company targeted Pharmacia primarily to acquire Celebrex, a top-selling pain pill. But Celebrex was in the same drug class as Merck's (MRK) troubled Vioxx, and when that drug was pulled from the market in 2004 for safety reasons, Celebrex sales fell off a cliff. Pfizer's stock has slid more than 50% since the Warner-Lambert deal

.

It wasn't always this way. The mid-1990s saw a shortage of chemists, with drug companies hiring like crazy. Bristol-Meyers Squibb, for one, offered cars as signing bonuses. But the company has fired over 10,000 employees since 2000; one wonders if any of them are now living in those cars.

I wonder how many of those layoffs were done in the previous administration?This is a pretty terrible opinion piece from a pretty terrible industry advocacy groups that is pretty much in the pocket of the industry it serves.

 

[Statorama]

But if you really do seek to educate and inform, best of luck with it, and I hope you're also open to being educated and receiving information while you're at it. Cheers.

Absolutely. This thread is open to both sides of the coin. This thread is the de facto history of the Obama presidency, so I would hope there would be a few positive Obama stories to put in here during his term.

 

[Statorama]

I wonder how many of those layoffs were done in the previous administration?

The story didn't really flesh that out, but it did have some specific numbers from a specific company during Obama's reign.

 

[timschochet]

I wonder how many of those layoffs were done in the previous administration?

The story didn't really flesh that out, but it did have some specific numbers from a specific company during Obama's reign.

But see, that's the problem I have, Stat. I GENERALLY agree with the proposition that government restrictions are too strict and hurting businesses here, and contributing to the outsourcing. But I really have no idea what specific restrictions we're talking about here- perhaps some of them make sense to enforce, I just don't know. I also don't know how much Obama is involved in this, and how different his administration is on this subject than the administration before it. I'm betting you don't know any of this either, but that you're making assumptions in order to help prove your overall argument that Obama is an awful president. It would be very easy to simply assume that Obama's administration, which is liberal, is much more restrictive than a conservative administration would be, and that therefore if we had a conservative president more jobs would be produced. But the truth is usually much more complicated.

 

[Statorama]

It would be very easy to simply assume that Obama's administration, which is liberal, is much more restrictive than a conservative administration would be, and that therefore if we had a conservative president more jobs would be produced. But the truth is usually much more complicated.

Can we at least agree that his appointees lean 'anti-business'? (unless it's THEIR business, like the GE guy)This is not the right climate to make such appointments. One of the things that bothers me about Obama is that he has a playbook of how he wants to run his presidency without considering any outside factors. He wants to run his presidency like he has a Clinton surplus and the economy is booming.

 

[timschochet]

It would be very easy to simply assume that Obama's administration, which is liberal, is much more restrictive than a conservative administration would be, and that therefore if we had a conservative president more jobs would be produced. But the truth is usually much more complicated.

Can we at least agree that his appointees lean 'anti-business'? (unless it's THEIR business, like the GE guy)This is not the right climate to make such appointments. One of the things that bothers me about Obama is that he has a playbook of how he wants to run his presidency without considering any outside factors. He wants to run his presidency like he has a Clinton surplus and the economy is booming.

Based on your expressed political philosophy, I can't imagine you would ever believe it was the "right climate" for excessive restrictions. But I agree with you, which is the main reason I will be supporting Mitt Romney if he is the GOP nominee. However, while I want to be pro-business, we need to be aware that there are good, necessary restrictions that make sense, and all too often conservatives are willing to eliminate these right along with the excessive ones.

 

[Statorama]

However, while I want to be pro-business, we need to be aware that there are good, necessary restrictions that make sense

With you 100% there

 

[TobiasFunke]

It would be very easy to simply assume that Obama's administration, which is liberal, is much more restrictive than a conservative administration would be, and that therefore if we had a conservative president more jobs would be produced. But the truth is usually much more complicated.

Can we at least agree that his appointees lean 'anti-business'?

(unless it's THEIR business, like the GE guy)This is not the right climate to make such appointments. One of the things that bothers me about Obama is that he has a playbook of how he wants to run his presidency without considering any outside factors. He wants to run his presidency like he has a Clinton surplus and the economy is booming.

There are 1,125 presidential appointments that require Senate confirmation. How many of them are you familiar with?See, this is kind of what I was talking about. Tim and saintfool pointed out very obvious and well-reasoned problems with a specific article you cited in support of your proposition that the "Obama Administration responsible for thousands of lost jobs in the scientific community." And rather than admit that your proposition was totally unfair- which I think has been shown very clearly- you've moved on to a more general point. It's fine that you want to discuss that more general point- although I doubt you know anything at all about the majority of Obama's appointments- but it would be nice if you would at least acknowledge that this particular criticism of Obama in this respect was misguided before you moved on to the next one.

 

[matuski]

Before this goes too far, I know a lot of people would like to make this thread about me instead of Obama. I'd prefer it stay on the track of being the historical thread of record on Obama's presidency.Can we stop making this about me and get back to reporting on Obama's presidency?

You play as big a role in this as anyone.

 

[Statorama]

It would be very easy to simply assume that Obama's administration, which is liberal, is much more restrictive than a conservative administration would be, and that therefore if we had a conservative president more jobs would be produced. But the truth is usually much more complicated.

Can we at least agree that his appointees lean 'anti-business'?

(unless it's THEIR business, like the GE guy)This is not the right climate to make such appointments. One of the things that bothers me about Obama is that he has a playbook of how he wants to run his presidency without considering any outside factors. He wants to run his presidency like he has a Clinton surplus and the economy is booming.

There are 1,125 presidential appointments that require Senate confirmation. How many of them are you familiar with?See, this is kind of what I was talking about. Tim and saintfool pointed out very obvious and well-reasoned problems with a specific article you cited in support of your proposition that the "Obama Administration responsible for thousands of lost jobs in the scientific community." And rather than admit that your proposition was totally unfair- which I think has been shown very clearly- you've moved on to a more general point. It's fine that you want to discuss that more general point- although I doubt you know anything at all about the majority of Obama's appointments- but it would be nice if you would at least acknowledge that this particular criticism of Obama in this respect was misguided before you moved on to the next one.

This is also the kind of thing that I was talking about. You and your ilk like to blow off the fact that 25,000 scientists at a single institution were laid off during Obama's tenure.Instead of acknowledging that, you want me to go through some kind of 'Jeopardy' process where I give a thumbnail sketch of every Obama appointment. Obama is anti-business and anti-capitalism. It only figures that his appointments would share that view. I get that. The Facts: Obama's overly restrictive FDA has scientific jobs being moved overseas or eliminated completely. Those are the kind of things we need to consider when voting Obama out of office in 2012.

 

[Johnny Mathis]

Stat, I for one appreciate your work in this thread. Just brush off the petty attacks against you and keep doing what you do.

 

[TobiasFunke]

This is also the kind of thing that I was talking about. You and your ilk like to blow off the fact that 25,000 scientists at a single institution were laid off during Obama's tenure.Instead of acknowledging that, you want me to go through some kind of 'Jeopardy' process where I give a thumbnail sketch of every Obama appointment. Obama is anti-business and anti-capitalism. It only figures that his appointments would share that view. I get that. The Facts: Obama's overly restrictive FDA has scientific jobs being moved overseas or eliminated completely. Those are the kind of things we need to consider when voting Obama out of office in 2012.

I disagree. I would never blow off the loss of 25,000 jobs. I just ask whether it is fair to blame Obama for this loss. What you assert as "The Facts" has not been shown to be true, or at least hasn't been shown to be particularly true w/r/t Obama. Saintfool pointed out job losses in the hundreds of thousands since 2000. Why are these losses particular to Obama, or Obama's fault? Were you similarly outraged during the Bush Administration when the industry was shedding hundreds of thousands of jobs? If so, where's your post on that? Despite what you say, I don't want you go to through any sort of "Jeopardy process" or give "a thumbnail sketch of every Obama appointment." What I would like you do to do so I could take you seriously is for you to stop making unsupported negative comments that you can't back up. For example, saying that "Obama is anti-business and anti-capitalism," two statements that you assume as fact and then use as a building block for your argument about his appointments. While I disagree personally for reasons we don't need to get into, I assume you can see that these negative statements are, at the very least, subjective, yes? And that you've failed to provide any evidence in support of them? If you want to educate me, I'm all ears. But subjective statements offered without support and then used as building blocks for a subsequent assumption about political appointments aren't what I consider education.

 

[Phil Elliott]

"Lead from the rear" pretty much sums up Obama's actions.

 

[Statorama]

If you want to educate me, I'm all ears.

I wish you would be all eyes, because this thread is filled with post after post backing my assertions.The proof is also in the pudding. This is the longest recession outside of the Depression. This is due in large part to Obama's anti-capitalism approach to things. You keep asking for proof, and it's right there in front of you. It's called the economy slick. It sucks and there's nothing on the horizon that pokes any sunlight on it. What I'd like to know from you is when does this become Obama's economy in your eyes? At what point does he get any criticism from you on how he's handling things? At what point do you hold his feet to the fire?This can only be "Bush's economy" for so long. At some point that clown you voted for has to actually do something presidential besides hit the golf course.

 

[saintfool]

I wonder how many of those layoffs were done in the previous administration?

The story didn't really flesh that out, but it did have some specific numbers from a specific company during Obama's reign.

causation does not equal correlation. i have a really good friend that works in pharma. she's talked about the industry with me many time over the years. those losses are expected considering the consolidation of the industry. it's the cost of M & A as much as it is the industry's inability to get new products to market.

 

[Statorama]

Stat, I for one appreciate your work in this thread. Just brush off the petty attacks against you and keep doing what you do.

Thanks. When the response to shedding some light on Obama's failures is to just attack me, then I know I'm winning.

 

[Statorama]

I wonder how many of those layoffs were done in the previous administration?

The story didn't really flesh that out, but it did have some specific numbers from a specific company during Obama's reign.

causation does not equal correlation. i have a really good friend that works in pharma. she's talked about the industry with me many time over the years. those losses are expected considering the consolidation of the industry. it's the cost of M & A as much as it is the industry's inability to get new products to market.

This is what I'm looking for. No personal attacks, just a straightforward viewpoint that sheds some light on the other side of the issue.Thanks for presenting a counter argument in such a reasonable manner. I appreciate it.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I wonder how many of those layoffs were done in the previous administration?

The story didn't really flesh that out, but it did have some specific numbers from a specific company during Obama's reign.

causation does not equal correlation. i have a really good friend that works in pharma. she's talked about the industry with me many time over the years. those losses are expected considering the consolidation of the industry. it's the cost of M & A as much as it is the industry's inability to get new products to market.

This is what I'm looking for. No personal attacks, just a straightforward viewpoint that sheds some light on the other side of the issue.Thanks for presenting a counter argument in such a reasonable manner. I appreciate it.

Do you stand by the statement that the "Obama Administration [is] responsible for thousands of lost jobs in the scientific community"?I'm not attacking you personally here. Just asking whether you still think what you said a few hours ago is true. If so, why? If not, why not?

 

[Statorama]

Do you stand by the statement that the "Obama Administration [is] responsible for thousands of lost jobs in the scientific community"?I'm not attacking you personally here. Just asking whether you still think what you said a few hours ago is true. If so, why? If not, why not?

Saintfool definitely gave me something to think about there. I'm still leaning toward blaming the anti-business antics of this administration, but at least now I have a reasonable counter balance that might get me to change my stance once I sleep on it.Edit to add: As a side note to your question, I feel the Obama Administration has done nothing to curtail job loss in the scientific community.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Do you stand by the statement that the "Obama Administration [is] responsible for thousands of lost jobs in the scientific community"?I'm not attacking you personally here. Just asking whether you still think what you said a few hours ago is true. If so, why? If not, why not?

Saintfool definitely gave me something to think about there. I'm still leaning toward blaming the anti-business antics of this administration, but at least now I have a reasonable counter balance that might get me to change my stance once I sleep on it.Edit to add: As a side note to your question, I feel the Obama Administration has done nothing to curtail job loss in the scientific community.

Glad to hear it. I hope that if you sleep on it and determine that he was correct you will come back and correct your previous statement. Obviously there is a huge difference between "doing nothing to curtail job loss" and being responsible for that job loss.

 

[Statorama]

Welcome to the recovery

Judged against other recession presidents, Obama is a disaster of epic proportions.

In a report entitled "Unchartered Depths," the Committee finds that "employment is now 5.0% below what it was at the start of the recession, 38 months ago. This compares to an average rise in employment of 3.7% over the same period in prior post-WWII recessions."

On economic growth, real GDP has risen 0.8% over the 13 quarters since the recession began, compared to an average increase of 9.9% in past recoveries. From the beginning of the recession to April 2011, real personal income has grown just .9% compared to 9.4% for the same period in previous post 1960 recessions.

The standard response from Obama apologists is that recession of 2008 and 2009 was different because, as former Clinton administration economist Robert Shapiro puts it, "this was a financial crisis, and these take longer to recover from." In fact, in most cases, the deeper the recession, the stronger the recovery to make up for lost ground.

That was what Ronald Reagan's critics said when the U.S. economy soared during 1983 and 1984 with quarterly growth numbers exceeding 7%. At the time, liberal Keynesians yawned and declared the good times nothing more than a normal snapback from the deep recession.

 

[Statorama]

 

[Phil Elliott]

However, while I want to be pro-business, we need to be aware that there are good, necessary restrictions that make sense

With you 100% there

 

[Orange Crush]

I can only speak for myself, but my silence is an indication that you have proven time and time again to be not worth engaging in discussion. You don't seem to have any interest in open communication and sharing of thoughts, as you either completely ignore any points made contrary to your point of view, or you shout them down with only marginally relevant counterpoints in an effort to "win." It's juvenile and annoying.

That's your misunderstanding, not mine. I've changed my opinions on several issues based on arguments presented from the other side. That's why I love open and honest debates on the issues.You seem to confuse lively debate with "shouting someone down". Maybe you're one of those guys that hangs around with people of a similar mindset, and isn't used to being told a different side of things.

You're welcome to think that. I feel like I've given you the benefit of the doubt many times, and every time I regret it because you seem more intent on making outrageous statements and pissing people off than actually discussing anything of substance. One example- when I countered your trashing of Wisconsin teachers with data about rising test scores across the board and rather than accept that you came back with anecdotes and declared that you "won." A second example- the fact that you keep an obviously sarcastic comment from me in your sig line for reasons I'm not sure of but I assume are supposed to get my goat somehow. And there are many many examples where I have pointed out something I consider inaccurate, unfair or just plain wrong in an article you link, and you just move on to the next misleading article instead of acknowledging the error.I spend plenty of time with people of different mindsets hearing a different side of things. I enjoy it so much that I gave you the benefit of the doubt time and time again after virtually everyone else around here had learned to ignore you, as witnessed by this thread. And time and again you make me regret doing so.

I spent a couple months in the lead up to the 2008 election trying to counteract every piece of partisan hackery Stat regurgitated onto this board, under the fear that if left unchallenged someone (anyone) might actually consider it factual. Like your experience, Stat would never respond. At the time he was going for sheer quantity in an attempt to create an avalanche of mostly Pro-Palin propaganda and anti-Obama hysteria. Several months later I realized that, since I was doing research to present factual evidence about why each of his posts was misleading, if not blatantly wrong, I was actually spending much, much more time than his mere copying and pasting whatever he found from whatever other sites he visits. Occasionally I enjoy calling him out, just to show how ridiculous and ill-conceived most of his positions are (e.g. the START Treaty thread).

I'll admit, though, that he has some entertainment value to me, similar to that of the Fool to a medieval King's court.

 

[urbanhack]

Do you stand by the statement that the "Obama Administration [is] responsible for thousands of lost jobs in the scientific community"?

I'm not attacking you personally here. Just asking whether you still think what you said a few hours ago is true. If so, why? If not, why not?

Saintfool definitely gave me something to think about there. I'm still leaning toward blaming the anti-business antics of this administration,

LOL. Can you please list these out in detail for us???

 

[Statorama]

Like your experience, Stat would never respond.

You know what, I'll leave this up to the readers to decide. Do I simply make a point and scurry off without responding if it's called into question? That's rhetorical. Of course not. I sometimes get too deep into the mud with you pigs for my own good.And I really take issue with your START treaty comments. I was all over that. If you consider that hiding in a corner and not responding, then you don't have a firm grasp of reality or what "not responding" means.

 

[Statorama]

Like your experience, Stat would never respond.

One other thing. This is a classic liberal trick, trying to define me as someone that doesn't respond to criticism. I don't know if it's possible to count the number of "RE:" posts I've made, but I would bet that I'm in the top 10.As to "countering" my posts, it's you non-thinkers that have kept this country in the worst non-depression era recession this country has ever seen with your voting for Obama in 2008. You Obama zombies just need to shut the F up and let the adults have the floor for a while.I'm sorry I can't pay more attention to you. I have a whole lot of zombie Obama supporters to try and educate. Now shut up and take notes.

 

[Statorama]

Do you stand by the statement that the "Obama Administration [is] responsible for thousands of lost jobs in the scientific community"?

I'm not attacking you personally here. Just asking whether you still think what you said a few hours ago is true. If so, why? If not, why not?

Saintfool definitely gave me something to think about there. I'm still leaning toward blaming the anti-business antics of this administration,

LOL. Can you please list these out in detail for us???

The overt anti-business policies are FAR too numerous to mention. The latest one in my inbox is the new cafe standards for automobiles

Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations have a huge impact on the cars we buy. Two years ago, the nation’s fuel economy standards went through the first major overhaul since 1985; new rules required the U.S. car fleet to reach the mid-thirties in miles per gallon by 2016. Now, policy makers are working on the next round of regulations for 2017 through 2025. They’re talking about much more stringent numbers—and, automakers argue, much more expensive cars.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Like your experience, Stat would never respond.

One other thing. This is a classic liberal trick, trying to define me as someone that doesn't respond to criticism. I don't know if it's possible to count the number of "RE:" posts I've made, but I would bet that I'm in the top 10.As to "countering" my posts, it's you non-thinkers that have kept this country in the worst non-depression era recession this country has ever seen with your voting for Obama in 2008. You Obama zombies just need to shut the F up and let the adults have the floor for a while.I'm sorry I can't pay more attention to you. I have a whole lot of zombie Obama supporters to try and educate. Now shut up and take notes.

Personal insults and attacks ... the last refuge of the defeated. Sorry to see you go there, Stat.

 

[urbanhack]

Do you stand by the statement that the "Obama Administration [is] responsible for thousands of lost jobs in the scientific community"?

I'm not attacking you personally here. Just asking whether you still think what you said a few hours ago is true. If so, why? If not, why not?

Saintfool definitely gave me something to think about there. I'm still leaning toward blaming the anti-business antics of this administration,

LOL. Can you please list these out in detail for us???

The overt anti-business policies are FAR too numerous to mention. The latest one in my inbox is the new cafe standards for automobiles

Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations have a huge impact on the cars we buy. Two years ago, the nation’s fuel economy standards went through the first major overhaul since 1985; new rules required the U.S. car fleet to reach the mid-thirties in miles per gallon by 2016. Now, policy makers are working on the next round of regulations for 2017 through 2025. They’re talking about much more stringent numbers—and, automakers argue, much more expensive cars.

Wow. great example.

 

[Statorama]

Like your experience, Stat would never respond.

One other thing. This is a classic liberal trick, trying to define me as someone that doesn't respond to criticism. I don't know if it's possible to count the number of "RE:" posts I've made, but I would bet that I'm in the top 10.As to "countering" my posts, it's you non-thinkers that have kept this country in the worst non-depression era recession this country has ever seen with your voting for Obama in 2008. You Obama zombies just need to shut the F up and let the adults have the floor for a while.I'm sorry I can't pay more attention to you. I have a whole lot of zombie Obama supporters to try and educate. Now shut up and take notes.

Personal insults and attacks ... the last refuge of the defeated. Sorry to see you go there, Stat.

The zombie thing was too much?

 

[Statorama]

Wow. great example.

Story after story paints Obama as anti-business and anti-capitalism. I'm sorry I can't cherry pick the one that will make you suddenly wake up to Obama's disasterous policies.

 

[Orange Crush]

Like your experience, Stat would never respond.

You know what, I'll leave this up to the readers to decide. Do I simply make a point and scurry off without responding if it's called into question? That's rhetorical. Of course not. I sometimes get too deep into the mud with you pigs for my own good.And I really take issue with your START treaty comments. I was all over that. If you consider that hiding in a corner and not responding, then you don't have a firm grasp of reality or what "not responding" means.

Your not responding was meant to be in regards to the 2008 election spamming that you were doing.You most definitely responded in the START treaty thread. You responded way more than you should have, actually. And with every post you stepped in it more than you previously had. It was great fun.

 

[Statorama]

Your not responding was meant to be in regards to the 2008 election spamming that you were doing.You most definitely responded in the START treaty thread. You responded way more than you should have, actually. And with every post you stepped in it more than you previously had. It was great fun.

Dang, you actually took the high road. Well played.Crush 1Stat 0

 

[bostonfred]

Can't wait to vote for Obama after I missed out on the chance to do so last time. This guy is the goods.

 

[saintfool]

Wow. great example.

Story after story paints Obama as anti-business and anti-capitalism. I'm sorry I can't cherry pick the one that will make you suddenly wake up to Obama's disasterous policies.

I would hardly call TARP and the bailout of Wall Street as "anti-bsuiness" and "anti-cpaitalism". there was considerable outrage from the public in the wake of the near catastrophic collapse of the global economy. who knew that wall street was so thin-skinned?

 

[Statorama]

Wow. great example.

Story after story paints Obama as anti-business and anti-capitalism. I'm sorry I can't cherry pick the one that will make you suddenly wake up to Obama's disasterous policies.

I would hardly call TARP and the bailout of Wall Street as "anti-bsuiness" and "anti-cpaitalism". there was considerable outrage from the public in the wake of the near catastrophic collapse of the global economy. who knew that wall street was so thin-skinned?

Wasn't TARP a Bush initiative?

 

[Statorama]

Deficit is worse than we realize

Washington is struggling to make a deal that will couple an increase in the debt ceiling with a long-term reduction in spending. There is no reason for the players to make their task seem even more Herculean than it already is. But we should be prepared for upward revisions in official deficit projections in the years ahead—even if a deal is struck. There are at least three major reasons for concern.

First, a normalization of interest rates would upend any budgetary deal if and when one should occur. At present, the average cost of Treasury borrowing is 2.5%. The average over the last two decades was 5.7%. Should we ramp up to the higher number, annual interest expenses would be roughly $420 billion higher in 2014 and $700 billion higher in 2020.

The 10-year rise in interest expense would be $4.9 trillion higher under "normalized" rates than under the current cost of borrowing. Compare that to the $2 trillion estimate of what the current talks about long-term deficit reduction may produce, and it becomes obvious that the gains from the current deficit-reduction efforts could be wiped out by normalization in the bond market.

To some extent this is a controllable risk. The Federal Reserve could act aggressively by purchasing even more bonds, or targeting rates further out on the yield curve, to slow any rise in the cost of Treasury borrowing. Of course, this carries its own set of risks, not the least among them an adverse reaction by our lenders. Suffice it to say, though, that given all that is at stake, Fed interest-rate policy will increasingly have to factor in the effects of any rate hike on the fiscal position of the Treasury.

The second reason for concern is that official growth forecasts are much higher than what the academic consensus believes we should expect after a financial crisis. That consensus holds that economies tend to return to trend growth of about 2.5%, without ever recapturing what was lost in the downturn.

But the president's budget of February 2011 projects economic growth of 4% in 2012, 4.5% in 2013, and 4.2% in 2014. That budget also estimates that the 10-year budget cost of missing the growth estimate by just one point for one year is $750 billion. So, if we just grow at trend those three years, we will miss the president's forecast by a cumulative 5.2 percentage points and—using the numbers provided in his budget—incur additional debt of $4 trillion. That is the equivalent of all of the 10-year savings in Congressman Paul Ryan's budget, passed by the House in April, or in the Bowles-Simpson budget plan.

Third, it is increasingly clear that the long-run cost estimates of ObamaCare were well short of the mark because of the incentive that employers will have under that plan to end private coverage and put employees on the public system. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has already issued 1,400 waivers from the act's regulations for employers as large as McDonald's to stop them from dumping their employees' coverage.

But a recent McKinsey survey, for example, found that 30% of employers with plans will likely take advantage of the system, with half of the more knowledgeable ones planning to do so. If this survey proves correct, the extra bill for taxpayers would be roughly $74 billion in 2014 rising to $85 billion in 2019, thanks to the subsidies provided to individuals and families purchasing coverage in the government's insurance exchanges.

Underestimating the long-term budget situation is an old game in Washington. But never have the numbers been this large.

There is no way to raise taxes enough to cover these problems. The tax-the-rich proposals of the Obama administration raise about $700 billion, less than a fifth of the budgetary consequences of the excess economic growth projected in their forecast. The whole $700 billion collected over 10 years would not even cover the difference in interest costs in any one year at the end of the decade between current rates and the average cost of Treasury borrowing over the last 20 years.

Only serious long-term spending reduction in the entitlement area can begin to address the nation's deficit and debt problems. It should no longer be credible for our elected officials to hide the need for entitlement reforms behind rosy economic and budgetary assumptions. And while we should all hope for a deal that cuts spending and raises the debt ceiling to avoid a possible default, bondholders should be under no illusions.

Under current government policies and economic projections, they should be far more concerned about a return of their principal in 10 years than about any short-term delay in a coupon payment in August.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Like your experience, Stat would never respond.

One other thing. This is a classic liberal trick, trying to define me as someone that doesn't respond to criticism. I don't know if it's possible to count the number of "RE:" posts I've made, but I would bet that I'm in the top 10.As to "countering" my posts, it's you non-thinkers that have kept this country in the worst non-depression era recession this country has ever seen with your voting for Obama in 2008. You Obama zombies just need to shut the F up and let the adults have the floor for a while.I'm sorry I can't pay more attention to you. I have a whole lot of zombie Obama supporters to try and educate. Now shut up and take notes.

Personal insults and attacks ... the last refuge of the defeated. Sorry to see you go there, Stat.

The zombie thing was too much?

Well, I'd say the "shut the F up and let the adults talk" was a little beneath you. The zombie analogy is old news. Plus it doesn't bother me because I empathize with zombies, as I also want to feast on Emma Stone.

 

[urbanhack]

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/23/110523fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all

When President Barack Obama took office, in 2009, he championed the cause of government transparency, and spoke admiringly of whistle-blowers, whom he described as “often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government.” But the Obama Administration has pursued leak prosecutions with a surprising relentlessness. Including the Drake case, it has been using the Espionage Act to press criminal charges in five alleged instances of national-security leaks—more such prosecutions than have occurred in all previous Administrations combined. The Drake case is one of two that Obama’s Justice Department has carried over from the Bush years.

Gabriel Schoenfeld, a conservative political scientist at the Hudson Institute, who, in his book “Necessary Secrets” (2010), argues for more stringent protection of classified information, says, “Ironically, Obama has presided over the most draconian crackdown on leaks in our history—even more so than Nixon.”

I'd be curious on your take on this Stat.

 

[fightingillini]

Like your experience, Stat would never respond.

One other thing. This is a classic liberal trick, trying to define me as someone that doesn't respond to criticism. I don't know if it's possible to count the number of "RE:" posts I've made, but I would bet that I'm in the top 10.As to "countering" my posts, it's you non-thinkers that have kept this country in the worst non-depression era recession this country has ever seen with your voting for Obama in 2008. You Obama zombies just need to shut the F up and let the adults have the floor for a while.I'm sorry I can't pay more attention to you. I have a whole lot of zombie Obama supporters to try and educate. Now shut up and take notes.

Don't even go there, Stat. Liberals will NEVER see it your way.....ever. They see the world from a different ideological lens.

 

[Joe T]

Can't wait to vote for Obama after I missed out on the chance to do so last time. This guy is the goods.

Good schtick developing here.

 

[urbanhack]

Like your experience, Stat would never respond.

One other thing. This is a classic liberal trick, trying to define me as someone that doesn't respond to criticism. I don't know if it's possible to count the number of "RE:" posts I've made, but I would bet that I'm in the top 10.As to "countering" my posts, it's you non-thinkers that have kept this country in the worst non-depression era recession this country has ever seen with your voting for Obama in 2008. You Obama zombies just need to shut the F up and let the adults have the floor for a while.I'm sorry I can't pay more attention to you. I have a whole lot of zombie Obama supporters to try and educate. Now shut up and take notes.

Don't even go there, Stat. Liberals will NEVER see it your way.....ever. They see the world from a different ideological lens.

What do you mean?