Speak Out: Corrected Presidential and Political Paradigms

Replies (30)

• There is no doubt that the economy is in a trough, and it is also true that recovery is underway. Some make the claim that the economic mess is all President Obama's fault. Others go as far as to argue that this is all being done intentionally to make everyone in the nation "dependant" on government. Both of these assertions are juvenile and false. The President's approval ratings are low, but this is because the economy and employment are substandard and distressing. To allege the opposite, that the economy is bad because of the performance of President Obama, is utterly inaccurate. And it is equally true that the poor economy or recession was not caused by President Bush's performance in office. Neither governments nor presidents have the power over the economy that many people give them credit or blame for.

  The economy is by nature cyclic, and it is more than a bit ironic that those having so much confidence in the power of the private sector, seem to feel that the government has the ability to ruin it. Government actions can at most, tinker around the edges of the economy. Republicans claim that all government must do is reduce taxes and eliminate regulation. Were this to happen, it is likely that business would accept the free money as additional profit and continue on. Business expansion and hiring depends on demand, not on tax rates or government regulations. There is similar fiction surrounding businesses sending jobs overseas. Republicans delight in professing that corporate tax rates drive jobs out of America, while the actual cause is wage rates. If fact, corporate taxes only affect 1 or 2% of their total receipts, whereas lower wage rates could influence 30 to 40% of their expenditures.

  Stimulus spending is one thing that can help the economy and unemployment. To have withheld the original stimulus could easily have increased unemployment figures drastically. Whether or not the unemployment rate was reduced by 1% is immaterial, the fact is that it did not go up to 12%. The current stimulus jobs plan includes much needed funding for infrastructure for items such as roads, bridges and schools. Naysayers assert that construction can't be done in winter weather or during the school year. They appear to ignore the fact that over half of the country has mild enough weather to allow year-round construction, bridge construction is almost totally weather independent, and good engineers and contractors can phase building remodeling and repair to allow work on occupied schools.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Sep 12, 2011, at 10:40 AM

• Your arguments are full of errors, half-truths, and fallacies. I do not have time to do the research and write a book at the present time.

  -- Posted by Robert* on Mon, Sep 12, 2011, at 10:53 AM

• Common - where to start. You mix up truthful accusations of the president with hyper accusations as if anyone that believes Obama is inexperienced is also "hates, despises, etc. etc.". He is inexperienced, somewhat incompetent and pompous - from your list.

  "How these judgments are formed and what they are based on is undetermined and remains veiled; most often individuals claim that their injudicious opinions are grounded in dislike for or objection to his policies or performance" - again, a blanket untrue statement.

  Let it be determined and unveiled - he is inexperienced. Even democrats say that when the talk about Marco Rubio as being "inexperienced". He as speaker of the FL house, a long term rep and senator in the state and now has just as much experience as Obama on the Federal level if he were to run. Democrats say "no" - based on their own description of Rubio, Obama is very inexperienced.

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Sep 12, 2011, at 10:58 AM

• http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/presidential-promises-and-unemployment-c...

  Now, you can either say that Mr. Obama was inexperienced and, had he experience to know better he would not have predicted what the unemployment situation would be, or you can say that he lied. Either way, he was wrong about the impact of his stimulus on the unemployment situation.

  Mr. Biden says it is because 'everyone guessed wrong' about unemployment. We generally like to think that there is more than guesswork going into an effort to spend 3/4 of a trillion dollars, but apparently that's the norm in Washington.

  I've never doubted that we need to spend more on infrastructure. But, we need to cut entitlement spending at the same time. Those who live off the dole vote to keep their monies flowing, and we're adding more and more people to the dole every day. We have reached the point where they now want to sacrifice the necessary duties of government in order to ensure that their checques are not sacrificed. This cannot continue.

  We know we have to cut spending, but the Democrats wants you to believe that we can contain spending by only sacrificing 'discretionary' spending, which is where the infrastructure improvements are funded.

  We also need to be smarter with our infrastructure dollar. In the 50s through the 70s, when we were awash with tax dollars, we built willy-nilly, If a politician wanted a road through his district, and we had a road to build, we twisted it through his district to get his vote for an extra few million. The time for that type of planning needs to end - we need to build roads where their needed, and fix roads that need fixing, and not sacrifice necessity to political expendience.

  If we need high-speed rail, we need to do it right, not merely souping-up Amtrak.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Sep 12, 2011, at 11:34 AM

• The fact that some people claim Obama is not inexperienced(meaning he is experienced), is almost laughable. Look at what he did before becoming President. Exactly, he didn't do anything. Facts are facts, this is not debatable.

  -- Posted by Shibney on Mon, Sep 12, 2011, at 12:33 PM

• One more thing- Ask people who own businesses if deregulation and less tax burden would help them in the form of hiring more people. Again- not debatable, I'd say about 80%-90% would say yes. And since they are the ones giving out the jobs I'd say they are the people to ask.

  -- Posted by Shibney on Mon, Sep 12, 2011, at 12:36 PM

• I saw on a recent poll that in excess of 80% of small businesses said regulations and taxes did not keep them from hiring people. IMO demand for product will cause hiring of workers and nothing more. Don't ask me to site the poll because I can't. I think it was a Gallup poll, though. I'm sure other posters on here saw the same poll.

  -- Posted by howdydoody on Mon, Sep 12, 2011, at 12:58 PM

• BCStoned on Mon, Sep 12, 2011, at 1:34 pm

  Well stated.

  -- Posted by Robert* on Mon, Sep 12, 2011, at 2:12 PM

• President Obama "was inexperienced and, had he experience to know better..."

  This extract was in reference to the Romer/Bernstein Report that had been prepared before President Obama was in office. The Romer/Bernstein figure of 8% has now been bandied about as concrete evidence of the President's "inexperience," when in fact it's irrelevant.

  The concept of experience in political office is a topic that is both complex and problematic. For example, when the 2012 election campaign takes place, President Obama will be rightfully able to assert that he has 4 years of presidential experience while none of his potential opponents have any. It is obviously a fact that no first term president has ever had experience as President of the United States.

  Going back to the Constitution, the framers apparently did not see a need to specify any level or type of experience. Even today the requirements only stipulate natural-born citizenship and an age of 35. They apparently envisioned that future presidents would have a variety of experience levels and types. Note that they did not write that presidential candidates had to have CEO experience, or military experience, or even be a lawyer. Some past presidents have had a greater degree of experience that President Obama, some had less.

  Other aspects of experience include duration and quality. A small businessman operating a company for 30 years, may in actuality have 1 year of experience, repeated 30 times. Even a Congressman in office for 20 years may have had 2 years of experience, 10 times over. The quality of experience can also be relatively easily embellished. Governor Perry fondly touts his job creation credentials while conveniently neglecting to mention that a good number of his creations were government jobs, and numerous were imported to Texas from other states. What good would it be for a President to simply move jobs from one state to another?

  Another factor that affects experience is an individual's ability to work with and learn from others. Listening to some, one would think that the "government" was one single person, the President. The bulk of the government is comprised of the same people that worked for President Bush. Advisors in the White House, the Cabinet, and in Congress all provide advice and the benefit of hundreds of years of collective experience, to the President.

  Some may believe the President is receiving bad advice, and they are welcome to their opinion, but it does not make them correct.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Sep 12, 2011, at 9:04 PM

• A long-winded way of saying that perhaps President Obama doesn't know what he is doing but no one else has tried. The problem is that President Obama does not demonstrate the ability to learn from his mistakes; he just makes another speech and repeats that which did not work the first time. I say it is time to give someone else a chance.

  One thing we have definitely proven; a community organizer can get elected President but that does not make him presidential material.

  -- Posted by Robert* on Mon, Sep 12, 2011, at 9:24 PM

• I saw on a recent poll that in excess of 80% of small businesses said regulations and taxes did not keep them from hiring people. IMO demand for product will cause hiring of workers and nothing more. Don't ask me to site the poll because I can't. I think it was a Gallup poll, though. I'm sure other posters on here saw the same poll.

  -- Posted by howdydoody on Mon, Sep 12, 2011, at 12:58 PM

  Howdy,

  If a poll exists you could find it. I think you dreamed it. From having been a small business operator, I assure you it makes a difference how involved government wants to be in your business, when you make your future decisions.

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Sep 12, 2011, at 9:28 PM

• "...but that does not make him presidential material.'

  As I said, you are welcome to your opinion but it is still just your opinion.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Sep 12, 2011, at 9:29 PM

• Howdy,

  One of the big things choking demand in this country is the amount of debt the private sector is burdened with. Approximately 75% of this country's work force is still employed but have seen the value of their homes, investments, and retirement plans shrink since 2008. They are paying down debt and saving, not looking to borrow more money. Their confidence in government and financial institutions is low. Individuals are not consuming as they once were and business sees no reason to hire anyone if they are not able to make a profit from that employee. It is not a good time to take a risk.

  -- Posted by Robert* on Mon, Sep 12, 2011, at 9:43 PM

• "Other aspects of experience include duration and quality. A small businessman operating a company for 30 years, may in actuality have 1 year of experience, repeated 30 times."

  Common,

  That is perhaps the most idiotic statement you have ever made! If you knew anything about business you would know that a small business owner who gathered no business experience past his first year's worth of on the job education... he would not be there for 30 years. You can only continue to operate without learning year after year unless you are working on someone else's money, like government does. To stay in business a small business must turn a profit, and that takes a smart and experienced operator, especially in this era.

  "Even a Congressman in office for 20 years may have had 2 year of experience, 10 times over."

  Common,

  I will give you this one, in government it is possible, you are able to continue on and on and on because you are not required to turn a profit and someone else is paying the bill... the taxpayer.

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Sep 12, 2011, at 10:03 PM

• Commonsense matters wrote:

  "The concept of experience in political office is a topic that is both complex and problematic. For example, when the 2012 election campaign takes place, President Obama will be rightfully able to assert that he has 4 years of presidential experience while none of his potential opponents have any. It is obviously a fact that no first term president has ever had experience as President of the United States."

  No one has ever said they need 'presidential experience'. They have said they need 'executive experience', which is to say they need to have actually run something, hopefully successfully. Not all successful presidents have had executive experience, but many have. Not all failed presidents have lacked it. However, we generally like to think that our presidential candidates have been 'tested by fire' to some extent.

  We often choose ex-governors, because governorships are about the closest thing to the presidency we have in the experience department. Presidents Bush, Clinton, Reagan, and Carter have all come to us with experience as governors. Military command also provides leadership experience, although it often does not require the level of diplomacy that governorships and the presidency require, because the military establishment requires a higher level of obedience from inferiors. Even so, we often choose military men as leaders because of this. Presidents Bush I, Carter, Ford (though President Ford was never elected), Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, and Eisenhower all came to us with varying levels of military experience.

  Mr. Obama came to us with none of these forms of experience. Nor any experience as a corporate executive, a legislator of note, vice-presidential experience, or even the head of a government agency. He came to us with none, zero, nada, zip, experience, and it shows.

  Yes, you might say he now has two and a half years experience as president, but they can hardly be said to be successful years as president.

  I know you are striving hard to defend Mr. Obama's abysmal record, but you are really stretching credulity at this point. Yes, he may still salvage his presidency and have a successful term in the months remaining, but your efforts to point to the past two and half years and try to salvage any evidence of leadership capabilities therefrom is a job for a fiction writer. It is not the stuff of serious commentary.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Sep 12, 2011, at 10:07 PM

• "...that takes a smart and experienced operator, especially in this era."

  Talk about striking a nerve...

  There was nothing derogatory said about small business, but it is by nature parochial provincial.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Sep 13, 2011, at 8:39 AM

• No nerve struck here Common. But when I see a dumb statement, I will not hesitate to point it out.

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Sep 13, 2011, at 9:48 AM

• Claiming that President Obama's record is "abysmal" remains a matter of personal opinion. Many Americans have no problem with his performance, many more equate his record with a poor economy as reflected in opinion polls. Actually if they wanted to lay blame based on polls, the approval rating of the House of Representatives stand at about 15%.

  Were you to limit your information sources to what is posted in many of these Speak Out contributions, or to what opinions were provided last night by "Snow White and the seven dwarfs," and remain "unencumbered by the thought process," you might question President Obama's performance.

  I have no problem defending the President's record and categorically reject the numerous Republican talking points that they are trying to pass off as fact.

  As to President Obama's record, I would include the following:

  The Stimulus -

  The economy did not go into depression, unemployment did not go to 12%, jobs were saved, money went to people. The 8% number was from an economic report prepared before the President was in office and was not any type of ironclad guarantee.

  Health Care Reform --

  It is not and will not be a "nationalization" of health care. There are no new 16,000 IRS agents. Tighter controls were placed on insurance companies, and limits set on their ability to reject or exclude coverage. Insurance co-ops will make policies more affordable for individuals and small business. Requiring coverage for everyone will decrease the cost of insurance.

  Conflicts in the Middle East --

  US forces have drawn down significantly in Iraq and we are getting out. Osama bin Laden was killed. We are also drawing down our forces in Afghanistan, and have put their government on notice that our commitment is not open ended. The deposal of Ghadaffi was accomplished at a cost of less than a billion dollars and zero lives lost to the US. Action taken to close Guantanamo was halted by Congress for purely political reasons.

  Financial Reform --

  Numerous measures were implemented to control financial institutions and protect consumers from credit card abuse.

  Deficit Reduction --

  The Simpson-Boles Report clearly spelled out requirements to control the deficit by reducing spending, reforming the tax code and restructuring Social Security and Medicare.

  Budget Compromise --

  Compromised in several areas including the unwanted and unnecessary extension of the President Bush tax cuts.

  Debt Ceiling Agreement --

  Offered a comprehensive and broad $4 trillion spending reduction as part of raising of the debt ceiling (which by the way had already been necessitated by the Republican approved budget.) Agreed to a smaller spending reduction, which should been unacceptable to Republicans as they had supposedly been the party of smaller government.

  Jobs Program --

  Proposed an extensive jobs initiative that stressed infrastructures jobs and the creation of demand that leads to additional jobs.

  Where the "abysmal" comes from, could only be from some partisan prejudice.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Sep 13, 2011, at 10:01 AM

• The Stimulus -

  The economy did not go into depression, unemployment did not go to 12%, jobs were saved, money went to people. The 8% number was from an economic report prepared before the President was in office and was not any type of ironclad guarantee.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Sep 13, 2011, at 10:01 AM

  You forgot to add........ and the New Madrid fault did not act up in a catastrophic manner, swallowing the town of New Madrid.

  None of the above was the result of anything President B. Hussein Obama did or did not do.

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Sep 13, 2011, at 10:19 AM

• "You forgot to add........"

  Also responsibility for the Krakatoa eruption...

  the demise of the dinosaurs...

  There are lots of things I didn't add.

  What's your point.

  I just mentioned things that President Obama did do or have something to do with.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Sep 13, 2011, at 4:16 PM

• What's your point.

  I just mentioned things that President Obama did do or have something to do with.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Sep 13, 2011, at 4:16 PM

  The point was Common, if you haven't figured it out. He had no more or less to do with those other items that you mentioned than he did with the New Madrid fault or your examples. He didn't help the unemployment problem and he didn't stop a depression happening. To say he did is only trying to give him credit for doing something positive! Which you work at non stop.

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Sep 13, 2011, at 5:33 PM

• Commonsensematters,

  Your list of 'accomplishments' seems to be more a list of non-accomplishments.

  He proposed things that have not been passed into law.

  The Simpson-Boles Report, Like the dozen or so reports that have come before it, recommended cuts in entitlements and a comprehensive tax reform package, such as has been proposed by Rep. Ryan. Mr. Obama has not championed the report. Nor did he author it. So I fail to see how you can include it in his 'accomplishments'. It's just a piece of paper unless something is done with it.

  The wars are continuing more or less on the path set by President Bush. I give him credit for emulating President Bush's successful Iraqi surge stategy in Afghanistan. I'll even give him credit for aiding the rebels in Libya. However, giving him credit for the ouster of Quadhaffi is like giving the French credit for ousting King George from the American Colonies.

  We didn't slip into depression? How can you give him credit for that?

  Budget Compromise: I assume you are talking about the fact that, as leader of his own party, he couldn't get a budget or an appropriation passed, and had to wait for the Republicans to take power to get things done? Hardly the mark of leadership.

  Health care reform: "Requiring coverage for everyone will decrease the cost of insurance."

  Really? How will thise be accomplished? You really think that requiring insurance companies to cover those who are already sick, those who are guaranteed to cost more in payouts than they will pay in premiums, and those who otherwise present a high risk of liability to company will save the companies money? Do you even understand why insurance companies didn't want to cover them before?

  ______

  Yes, calling his record 'abysmal' is an opinion. This is an opinion board. Attempting to defend it, as you have, is also opinion.

  At least my opinion is supported by the evidence.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Sep 13, 2011, at 6:59 PM

• commonsense, this whole thread is irrelevant. Obama's "Jobs" program is not about jobs; it's about his re-election! It's his campaign in full swing.

  He knows his recycled "Job" proposals will never pass Congress. They were never meant to. Therefore, he is going to be able to blame the Republicans for it's failure. Clever campaign strategy but doesn't help those desperately wanting jobs.

  Lets hope the American electorate will be intelligent to see the answer is the removal of Obama from any further responsibility by making him a one termer.

  -- Posted by voyager on Wed, Sep 14, 2011, at 7:26 AM

• Yesterday Senator Reid said it probably wouldn't pass in the form Obama laid out. He said there were parts of it that democrats wouldn't support.

  This guy is clueless how to lead, negotiate and accomplish anything. Think about the entire health care bill. He let lobbyist craft it, Pelosi and Reid push it and all he did was go around and talk about it. I'll bet he doesn't even know 10% of the health care bill. He's an empty suit.

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Sep 14, 2011, at 7:56 AM

• Dug:

  I would venture that 100% of the congress doesn't know 10% of what's in the health bill or any bill for that matter. Staffers advise the leaders and the leaders tell the subordinates how to vote.

  -- Posted by howdydoody on Wed, Sep 14, 2011, at 9:05 AM

• Howdy - very true. I do know that not 100% of congress voted for it because of what they knew was in it. Like a mandate to purchase a product. But you're right - I think only a couple of congress members said they read the whole thing.

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Sep 14, 2011, at 10:13 AM

• Lets hope Obamacare will be repealed by Congress in January 2012 as quickly as they passed that monster.

  -- Posted by voyager on Wed, Sep 14, 2011, at 12:55 PM

• President Obama's "Jobs" program is not about jobs; it's about his re-election!"

  Actually, no, it is about jobs. And why would anyone object to efforts to create jobs. One would think the Republicans would be falling over themselves to help the administration encourage the creation of jobs in the private sector.

  Wait a minute, maybe Republicans are not really concerned about jobs, it's about their re-election.

  It is almost certain that if President Obama had put forth proposals to lower corporate taxes and eliminate regulations, the Republicans would have screamed as to this being the wrong approach, and what should be done is put money in people's pockets and promote infrastructure construction.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 9:56 AM

• "...repealed by Congress in January 2012 as quickly as they passed that monster."

  It is highly unlikely that Health Care Reform will be repealed in less than 4 months. I also have yet to see any honest evaluation on how reform is costing them more money, without receiving better benefits, and independent of past health care inflation.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Sep 16, 2011, at 5:27 AM

• Commonsense, I meant January 2013. Old age is taking its toll on me. Not much of a proofreader either. However, it would be great if it could be done in January 2012. Kill the monster and get the pain over with quickly.

  -- Posted by voyager on Fri, Sep 16, 2011, at 5:04 PM