Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 89

Thread: The Bottom Line: President Barack H. Obama Is Simply Incompetent!

  1. #1
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    2,877
    Post Thanks / Like

    The Bottom Line: President Barack H. Obama Is Simply Incompetent!

    [url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903327904576526611297517664.html[/url]


    [SIZE="4"][B]Obama and the 'Competency Crisis'[/B][/SIZE]

    [SIZE="3"]Like many Americans who supported him, I long for a triple-A president to run a triple-A country.[/SIZE]

    By MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN
    August 25, 2011

    The rising impatience with the leadership of President Obama was epitomized on Aug. 8 in the middle of one of the now-habitual Wall Street roller coasters. His speech on the economy was 53 minutes late. What showed on TV screens was an empty White House podium, an image suggestive of the absence of leadership. When the president did speak, the best he could come up with was "We've always been and always will be a triple-A country." The market's response was a Bronx cheer, a drop of another 300 points.

    [B]Mr. Obama seems unable to get a firm grip on the toughest issue facing his presidency and the country—the economy. He now asserts he is going to "pivot" to jobs. Now we pivot to jobs? When there are already 25 million Americans who are either unemployed or cannot find full-time work? Does this president not appreciate what is going on?[/B]

    Fewer Americans are working full-time today than when Mr. Obama took office. We have lost over 900,000 full-time jobs in the last four months alone, and long-term unemployment is at a post-World War II high. The public's faith in his ability to deal with the economy has plunged. As Doyle McManus of the L.A. Times put it, [B]"Can this president persuade voters to let him keep his job when so many have lost theirs?"[/B] Even Jimmy Carter didn't plumb the depths of national dissatisfaction revealed in the stunning Gallup poll taken Aug. 11-13. The president's approval rating was only 39% with a mere 26% approving of his handling of the economy.

    Meanwhile, everyone in the business world is pleading for some kind of adult supervision to build a national platform for sustained growth that includes a long-term fiscal plan that addresses our ballooning debt. They are desperate for strong leadership and feel that all we are getting out of Washington is a lot of noise as Democrats and Republicans blame one another.

    [B]Since the president is the one who represents all of America and all Americans, the buck stops with him rather than with the Congress. It is the president's job to offer a coherent program for the twin threats of a static economy and an unsustainable explosion of our debts and deficits. But the only core issue on which he took a clear position in the recent debt-ceiling negotiations was that it would have to include new taxes on the wealthy—and he didn't even hold to that.[/B]

    He made the politically tested and calculated statement that if you raise taxes on billionaires and millionaires you could solve the problem. This is not so. Even for those who support higher taxes on the wealthy, as I do, we must remember that we have an income tax system in which fully half the "taxpayers" pay no tax at all, and in which the variety of loopholes cries out for a real reform of the tax code. Even if the government instituted a 100% tax on both corporate profits and personal incomes above $250,000 per year, it would yield enough revenue to run the government for only six months. Why? Because under Mr. Obama's presidency, government spending has swelled to 24% of GDP from 18%.

    We need real reform of the tax code in which everyone is asked to make some contribution, however small. Hardly anyone on either side of the aisle has a good word to say for the present hodgepodge of selective punishment of the middle class—replete with exceptions, loopholes, and special allowances. Worse, there are no serious proposals being canvassed among the White House, the Congress and the Treasury.

    [B]Erskine Bowles, co-chair of the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission appointed by the president in 2010 to devise a plan for dealing with the fiscal crisis, put it well: "It is one that is completely predictable and from which there is no escape." The president said he would stand by his commission, but as of today he's remained silent on its many proposals, seemingly unable to speak honestly on the subject.[/B]

    Everyone recognizes that as populations age, the ratio of worker-to-retiree dependency plummets. Remember that the first baby boomers statistically retired on Jan. 1 of this year. There are now 79 million more of them to be supported in their retirement and with their medical requirements. This has obvious implications for our debts and deficits. How are we to meet this obligation in the face of long-term deficits that stem from approximately $60 trillion of unfunded entitlement liabilities?

    [B]It is no surprise that many have begun to doubt the president's leadership qualities. J.P. Morgan calls it the "competency crisis." The president is not seen fighting for his own concrete goals, nor finding the right allies, especially leaders of business big or small. Instead, his latent hostility to the business community has provoked a mutual response of disrespect. This is lamentable given the unique role that small business especially plays in creating jobs.[/B]

    The president appears to consider himself immune from error and asserts the fault always lies elsewhere—be it in the opposition in Congress or the Japanese tsunami or in the failure of his audience to fully understand the wisdom and benefits of his proposals. But in politics, the failure of communication is invariably the fault of the communicator.

    [B]Many voters who supported him are no longer elated by the historic novelty of his candidacy and presidency. They hoped for a president who would be effective. Remember "Yes We Can"? Now many of his sharpest critics are his former supporters. Witness Bill Broyles, a one-time admirer who recently wrote in Newsweek that "Americans aren't inspired by well-meaning weakness." The president who first inspired with great speeches on red and blue America now seems to lack the ability to communicate any sense of resolve for a program, or any realization of the urgency of what might befall us. [U]The teleprompter he almost always uses symbolizes and compounds his emotional distance from his audience[/U].[/B]

    We lack a coherent and muscular economic strategy, as Mr. Obama and his staff seem almost completely focused on his re-election. He should be spending most of his time on the nitty-gritty of the job instead of on fund raisers, bus tours and visits to diners, which essentially are in service of his political interests. Increasingly his solutions seem to boil down to Vote for Me.

    Clearly the president will have to raise his game to win a second term, especially if the Republicans find a real candidate. Will voters be willing to give him another four years? Like many Americans who supported him, I long for a triple-A president to run a triple-A country.

    Mr. Zuckerman is chairman and editor in chief of U.S. News & World Report. He will discuss this story Thursday at 5 p.m. ET on WSJ.com.

    :jets17

  2. #2
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,159
    Post Thanks / Like
    [I]Increasingly his solutions seem to boil down to Vote for Me.[/I]

    4-year marriage ends with a quickie divorce.

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    I am disappointed with President Obama for his leadership skills (or lack there of). He basically has been running for election (and now reelection) for over 5 years instead of leading. He is more interested in polls and measured responses then fighting for what he was supposed to stand for.

    He is a politician not a president and so I agree with this writer's assessment.

    With all that said, it is an absolute joke to see and hear republicans in congress criticize the president when many of them rubber stamped the wasteful spending during the eight years of the Bush Administration. That includes many of the candidates running for president now. Hypocrisy.
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 08-25-2011 at 10:48 AM.

  4. #4
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,353
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4116154]I am disappointed with President Obama for his leadership skills (or lack there of). He basically has been running for election (and now reelection) for over 5 years instead of leading. He is more interested in polls and measured responses then fighting for what he was supposed to stand for.

    He is a politician not a president and so I agree with this writer's assessment.

    With all that said, it is an absolute joke to see and hear republicans in congress criticize the president when many of them rubber stamped the wasteful spending during the eight years of the Bush Administration. That includes many of the candidates running for president now. Hypocrisy.[/QUOTE]

    Yet you have even harsher criticism for Tea Party candidates that did NOT vote on the BUSH spending. :(


    On your soapbox, we agree in some areas of defense. Did you know we have over 900 military bases OUTSIDE the US???

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    just to summarize, you want the President to create jobs, yet you don't want another stimulus or any increased spending. how are those 2 things compatable?

    unless it's a new deal type of situation the President doesn't actually create jobs or effect the immediate economy.

    If that were true, that a current President can control his current economy/employment sitaution. Bill Clinton would be regarded as the best economic President ever. Right?

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,541
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4116198]just to summarize, you want the President to create jobs, yet you don't want another stimulus or any increased spending. how are those 2 things compatable?[/QUOTE]

    Translation: "Stimulus and increased spending affect the economy and jobs"

    [QUOTE=bitonti;4116198]
    unless it's a new deal type of situation the President doesn't actually create jobs or effect the immediate economy. [/QUOTE]

    Translation: "Stimulus and increased spending DON'T affect the economy and jobs"

    Got it. Keep up the good work.

  7. #7
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,172
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4116198]just to summarize, you want the President to create jobs, yet you don't want another stimulus or any increased spending. how are those 2 things compatable?

    unless it's a new deal type of situation the President doesn't actually create jobs or effect the immediate economy.

    If that were true, that a current President can control his current economy/employment sitaution. Bill Clinton would be regarded as the best economic President ever. Right?[/QUOTE]

    It is also possible to remove impediments to business such as restrictive regulation, taxes and rules that small businesses can't comply with while staying in business. That doesn't cost money.

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Trades;4116239]It is also possible to remove impediments to business such as restrictive regulation, taxes and rules that small businesses can't comply with while staying in business. That doesn't cost money.[/QUOTE]

    What regulations are restricting businesses? it was a lack of regulation that led to the 2008 collapse, we need more regulation not less.

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4116232]Translation: "Stimulus and increased spending affect the economy and jobs"



    Translation: "Stimulus and increased spending DON'T affect the economy and jobs"

    Got it. Keep up the good work.[/QUOTE]

    I dont think you actually read the post. Not like it would change anything. I'll give you a hint the key word was UNLESS

  10. #10
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,172
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4116241]What regulations are restricting businesses? it was a lack of regulation that led to the 2008 collapse, we need more regulation not less.[/QUOTE]

    I know you only see in the black/white all or nothing world but I never said ALL REGULATIONS.

    [URL]http://smallbiztrends.com/2011/02/small-business-news-regulation-roundup.html[/URL]

    [URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0shKxoyhRc&feature=player_embedded[/URL]

    [URL]http://www.businessinsider.com/over-regulating-small-businesses-who-does-it-really-hurt-employers-or-employees-2011-2[/URL]

    [QUOTE]
    [LEFT][COLOR=#000000]Example 1: Nearly impossible obstacles of entry created by regulatory agencies.
If you see yourself as a masochist, feel free to attempt to open an eating and drinking establishment in New York City. First, there’s the community board process, a minimum three to four month process to simply let you know if the community will give you the thumbs up or down when it comes to recommending you to receive a liquor license from the State Liquor Authority (SLA).
    Although only a recommendation and not law, usually the SLA stands by the side of community boards so if they recommend denial, chances are no matter whom the operator- you will be denied a license. Most owners quit after being denied by a community board because it’s not worth the risk of going through the lengthy and expensive process of building your space and renting it from the landlord.
    Along with the community board process, you have over 10 city agencies to deal with and you need to secure about 30 permits with over 20 inspections. Those dreams so many have about being in the corner of the bar, high fiving their friends and passing out free drinks as the powerful bar owner turn into a nightmare before you even open the door. This whole process usually takes about a year to open which means not $1 of revenue for a year.
    Back to the reason I’m writing this. During this first year before opening your doors- do you know how many people get employed full time… zero. Tax dollars… zero. If the time it takes to open would be cut down by two thirds, how much faster would people find jobs in these tough times?
    Example 2: Labor Regulations: Minimum Wage/Overtime and Spread of Hours
In my business, we continue to see rises in minimum wage and overtime rates for service employees – going up around 20% in recent years.
    This blanket policy, which doesn’t even factor in the amount of tips an employee makes (the average front of house employee in my company makes over $25 an hour in tips) hurts the employee because as the rates go higher, I find myself staffing only my best employees who can cover the most ground on the floor. I now watch their hours like a hawk because we simply cannot afford overtime. In NYC, service employees need 50-60 hours of work per week to be able to survive day to day life. Now I cannot give them the hours they need.
    There is another labor law that is hurting my employees more than the employer, which is the spread of hours law- also known as “working a double.” The law was just changed to state that a mandatory additional hour at minimum wage ($7.25) must be paid to any employee who works one second over a 10 hour shift- not taking into account what the employee was being paid for the double shift. So before, if a person made enough in the government’s eyes, they did not receive an additional hour of pay.
    Now, no matter how much money they make for this double shift, you must pay the extra $7.25 to the employee. Double shifts in the service industry are usually the most profitable for employees. They want these shifts to exist. However, with spread of hours, I cannot allow any employees to go over a 10 hour shift because of the penalty of having to pay the extra hour, thereby preventing qualified employees from working the hours they want, need and deserve.
    Example 3: Obamacare
Health Care for all is amazing. I’d like to shake the guy’s hand who’s going to foot the bill for this… oh wait, how can I shake a money printing machine’s hand?
    Last year, I was allowed to offer my employees two types of health care packages: one option for managers (approximately 40 of them in my company) which I would subsidize and the other for everyone else which was a group plan with a lower cost than a normal person would pay- no subsidy so both types of employees would be benefitting. Subsidized for managers and reduced costs for everyone else (approximately 250 of these types of lower level employees) who wanted to take part.
    However this year, due to new health care regulations, we were told everyone must be offered the same package from the employer- all must be treated equally. So if I wanted to subsidize, I would have to do it for ALL my employees- approximately 300 people vs. 40. My business would go bankrupt if this was the case so who got screwed, the employer or the employee? Then when they make it mandatory for all to be covered or pay a $2,000 penalty per employee, I’ll go out of business and the employees won’t be able to pay rent let alone have health care provided by me.


    Read more: [URL]http://www.businessinsider.com/over-regulating-small-businesses-who-does-it-really-hurt-employers-or-employees-2011-2#ixzz1W3dCe0xp[/URL][/QUOTE][/COLOR][/LEFT]

  11. #11
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,159
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4116198]just to summarize, you want the President to create jobs, yet you don't want another stimulus or any increased spending.[/QUOTE]
    Geez.

    How about fostering a business friendly environment?

    I mean, have you investigated the net effect of Dodd-Frank? It's an amazing wet blanket that protects no one, decreases competition, and further empowers regulatory committees (as if "Dodd" and "Frank" didn't give this away already).

    NOT GOOD, Bitonti.

    Analyze Obamacare's net effect on jobs/job growth, bit - disastrous.

    Look at the Boeing union issue, Bitonti - how on earth can you defend the Obama administration on that one.

    Want to move jobs overseas? Fine. But to create jobs in another state without the blessings of the union? Oh, that's bad. And the federal government will step in and stop you from doing so.

    What a f'ing joke this administration is.

    And you think the answer is ... more spending? Give more control and power to these people who've already netted disastrous results?

    NO.

  12. #12
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,159
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=southparkcpa;4116168]Yet you have even harsher criticism for Tea Party candidates that did NOT vote on the BUSH spending. :(
    [/QUOTE]
    Toe that line: Tea Party is to blame for any/all current woes.

    I think even the most dunderheaded of Democrats realizes you can't net results blaming Bush anymore.

    2012 will be the second 1980. I think the in-your-face Martha's Vineyard vacation pretty much seals the deal.

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,675
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=southparkcpa;4116168][B]Yet you have even harsher criticism for Tea Party candidates that did NOT vote on the BUSH spending.[/B] :(


    On your soapbox, we agree in some areas of defense. Did you know we have over 900 military bases OUTSIDE the US???[/QUOTE]

    If the Tea Party was out there protesting the Bush Era 8 years of wasteful spending in their silly powdered wigs and funny outfits....perhaps they would be more credible.

  14. #14
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,172
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;4116318]If the Tea Party was out there protesting the Bush Era 8 years of wasteful spending in their silly powdered wigs and funny outfits....perhaps they would be more credible.[/QUOTE]

    So the only thing that would make them credible is if they invent a time machine? No one is ever allowed to change their minds, no one is allowed to realize that things are not working today? Totally disregard the fact the many Tea Party candidates pushed/competed against out incumbent Rs in 2010.

  15. #15
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,172
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;4116318]If the Tea Party was out there protesting the Bush Era 8 years of wasteful spending in their silly powdered wigs and funny outfits....perhaps they would be more credible.[/QUOTE]

    Plus there is the original "Tea Party" true fiscal conservative guy named Ron Paul who has been railing against big government for over 10 years.

  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=sackdance;4116283]
    I mean, have you investigated the net effect of Dodd-Frank? It's an amazing wet blanket that protects no one, decreases competition, and further empowers regulatory committees (as if "Dodd" and "Frank" didn't give this away already).[/quote]

    what is the net effect exactly? Markets up. what's the problem? I think it's a good thing that banks have enough capital on hand to cover their bets, or that they shouldn't prop trade with grandma's savings account. these are good things.

    [QUOTE=sackdance;4116283]
    Analyze Obamacare's net effect on jobs/job growth, bit - disastrous.
    [/quote]

    ya mean the law that doesn't take effect until 2014? kind of a stretch to say it has any effect. It's all imagined. If prices go down in the long term due to the "Affordable Care Act" that will help jobs and growth. I know real people who appreciate being able to include their college aged children on their healthcare. Getting refused for Pre-existing conditions was an outrage. The act does alot of good, it covers alot of ground, and something needed to be done. GOP had 8 years to do something on healthcare they did nothing.

    [QUOTE=sackdance;4116283]

    Look at the Boeing union issue, Bitonti - how on earth can you defend the Obama administration on that one.
    [/QUOTE]

    I don't see the White house doing anything on this issue. NTSB appointees are not the same as the white house. The way I see it, Obama administration is not directly involved.

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,541
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4116241]What regulations are restricting businesses? it was a lack of regulation that led to the 2008 collapse, we need more regulation not less.[/QUOTE]

    I comprehend what you said just fine. You fail. Again.

  18. #18
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4116407]I comprehend what you said just fine. You fail. Again.[/QUOTE]

    saying something over and over doesn't make it so. the thread title for example. Obama is competent. Very competent compared to some.

    [quote]
    [url]http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/62038.html[/url]

    [B]Poll: 51% blame Bush for economy[/B]
    By: Jennifer Epstein

    August 25, 2011 07:06 AM EDT

    Though more Americans see the economy in bad shape than did at the beginning of the summer, their views of whether to reelect President Barack Obama have barely changed — and a majority blame George Bush for the problems, a new poll says.

    Eighty-six percent of those surveyed for an Associated Press-GfK poll released Thursday say the economy is in “poor” condition, up from 80 percent in June. And, according to 49 percent of those surveyed, things have gotten worse in the past month.

    With the economy struggling, Obama continues to get low marks for his handling of it. Sixty-three percent of Americans say they disapprove of his handling of the economy, including 48 percent who say they “strongly” disapprove. Just 36 percent say they approve of Obama’s handling of the economy, the lowest it’s ever been in this poll.

    While Republicans have pushed to cast the sputtering economy as Obama’s fault, Americans place their blame elsewhere. Fifty-one percent say George W. Bush deserves “almost all,” or “a lot but not all” of the blame, while 31 percent said the same of Obama.

    On a similar note, 44 percent of those polled said that “almost all” or “a lot but not all” of the blame should be put on the shoulders of congressional Republicans, while 36 percent responded that way about congressional Democrats.

    Still, Obama’s reelection prospects have remained constant in the poll. In June, 48 percent of those surveyed said he deserves a second term, compared with 47 percent in the latest poll.

    Nonetheless, other ratings for the president have sputtered this summer. Fifty-one percent of participants said Obama is a strong leader, down from 60 percent in June and 65 percent in early May following the killing of Osama bin Laden.

    Even among Democrats, his leadership marks have suffered, with 76 percent calling him a strong leader, down from 85 percent two months ago. Democrats have also waned in their approval of the Obama’s handling of the economy — 65 percent approved in June, but 58 percent say the same now.

    The poll was conducted Aug. 18-22 and wasa telephone survey of 1,000 adults. It has an error margin of plus or minus 4.1 percentage points.[/quote]

  19. #19
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE]Erskine Bowles, co-chair of the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission appointed by the president in 2010 to devise a plan for dealing with the fiscal crisis, put it well: "It is one that is completely predictable and from which there is no escape." The president said he would stand by his commission, but as of today he's remained silent on its many proposals, seemingly unable to speak honestly on the subject.
    [/QUOTE]

    This to me was his biggest failure but to be fair Paul Ryan had as much to do with sabatogaging Erskine Bowles as Nancy and Harry and the left.

    If Ryan and the republicans had actually supported Erskine Bowles instead of putting up a plan that sabotaged it the President probably could have got it passed with a big bipartisan majority.

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,541
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4116415]saying something over and over doesn't make it so. the thread title for example. Obama is competent. Very competent compared to some.[/QUOTE]

    Being blind to your own hypocrisy doesn't make it not so, either.

    You're a partisan schill, and nothing more. Give it a rest.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us