Altruism is Obama's new jobs plan

[Whovian]

Altruism is Obama's new jobs plan | detnews.com | The Detroit News

Speaking this week to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the president assured the nation's business leaders that he "gets it," that he understands the pressure cooker they've lived in during this deep recession and snail's pace recovery.

And then he made a strange plea for a guy who "gets it." He asked them to stop knocking themselves out to keep their enterprises afloat and just go out and hire someone.

Yes. Businesses should just go hire people because Obama told them to. Great jobs policy Barry.

Invoking JFK, the president urged executives to "ask yourself what you can do for America." His ask: Take the $2 trillion sitting on their sidelines and add workers to their payrolls.

The response was described as polite, which is a nice way of saying they thought him clueless.

They aren't the only one who think that.

You don't need an MBA to know business doesn't work that way. Companies that add workers ahead of demand are soon out of business.

And investors don't invest in an economy still vulnerable to the whims of a president who can't tell pro-business policies from anti-business ones.

Self-explanitory passage.

...Obama could reverse policies that are choking off domestic oil production and contributing to rising energy costs. The nervousness about oil prices is detrimental to investment.

He could admit that Obamacare was rushed through without regard to the higher costs for employers. When the government makes every employee added to the payroll more expensive, the result is fewer hires.

The president could also stop stubbornly defending his financial regulations and listen to complaints that they make it all but impossible for banks to lend to small businesses.

He could roll back spending to calm fears that exploding deficits will send the economy tumbling again.

And he could get over his obsession with raising taxes on high-income earners to provide craved-for certainty in the tax code.

But instead, he reveals he doesn't get it at all by assuming businessmen can do what politicians do — spend money they don't have on things they don't need without worrying about paying the bill.

The Obama presidency in a nutshell.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

Obama represents the triumph of hope over experience. This will not turn out well for America.

 

[Whovian]

Obama represents the triumph of hope over experience. This will not turn out well for America.

I love how a man with no business experience tries to tell business men how to run their corporations, and expects them to follow his suggestions. If it wsn't so sad, it'd be funny.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

I love how a man with no business experience tries to tell business men how to run their corporations, and expects them to follow his suggestions. If it wsn't so sad, it'd be funny.

What is truly sad is that at least forty percent of Americans are willing to go down with Obama's ship no matter what.

 

[Redress]

Op/ed, no real content, nothing to see here.

I do like Whovian's tactics, nice to be able to use them on his threads.

 

[Whovian]

Op/ed, no real content, nothing to see here.

I do like Whovian's tactics, nice to be able to use them on his threads.

Yes... comments made by the President to the Chamber of Commerce, reported in a piece (op-ed though it may be), on a news website... EXACTLY the same as spamming the board with Media Matters nonsense.

You sure told me

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

Yes... comments made by the President to the Chamber of Commerce, reported in a piece (op-ed though it may be), on a news website... EXACTLY the same as spamming the board with Media Matters nonsense.

You sure told me

tencharacters

 

[Renae]

Op/ed, no real content, nothing to see here.

I do like Whovian's tactics, nice to be able to use them on his threads.

Speaking of nothing to see here, you merely dismiss Whovian's commentary in the "General Political Discussion" forum. Which is in itself an OP ED forum.

Thus your complaints are both worthless in adding anything to the debate, and off topic. How about addressing what's wrong with his comments instead of trying to derail the thread with flippant commentary. You represent the forum, that means you are looked up to. You're a "role model", thus people see you posting in this manner, and think it's okay for THEM too. Bringing debate and discussion down for all.

Step up Redress.

 

[Renae]

Now on topic.

Obama seems to believe that Business exist to provide high paying jobs to all workers. Profits are not as important as making sure every worker is highly paid.

This is what happens when you have people in positions of power without experience in what makes the real world tick.

 

[Redress]

Speaking of nothing to see here, you merely dismiss Whovian's commentary in the "General Political Discussion" forum. Which is in itself an OP ED forum.

Thus your complaints are both worthless in adding anything to the debate, and off topic. How about addressing what's wrong with his comments instead of trying to derail the thread with flippant commentary. You represent the forum, that means you are looked up to. You're a "role model", thus people see you posting in this manner, and think it's okay for THEM too. Bringing debate and discussion down for all.

Step up Redress.

I used the exact same type of comments that the OP uses when something like this is posted. I never take op/ed's seriously. They are by there nature not dependable sources of information.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

I used the exact same type of comments that the OP uses when something like this is posted. I never take op/ed's seriously. They are by there nature not dependable sources of information.

Op/eds don't provide facts. They provide analysis which can be used to create context and understanding.

 

[Renae]

I used the exact same type of comments that the OP uses when something like this is posted. I never take op/ed's seriously. They are by there nature not dependable sources of information.

Then don't bother posting in them? He posted this to elicit discussion on the issue, using the OP as a spring board. AND he placed it in the appropriate forum for such discussion. He didn't post it in "Breaking News" he posted it here. And he added his own views and why he agrees with the sources conclusions.

I suppose you COULD break down the Source material and then take that to deconstruct HIS posts. But that would require effort, and debate leaving you open for counter debate. It appears you are not interested in that, just popping into threads and posting dis-missives of the OP as not worth the effort and expecting people to roll over for you. That time has ended. Now please stay on topic or not post, this is an interesting discussion and I for one would like to see it not derailed further.

 

[Redress]

Then don't bother posting in them? He posted this to elicit discussion on the issue, using the OP as a spring board. AND he placed it in the appropriate forum for such discussion. He didn't post it in "Breaking News" he posted it here. And he added his own views and why he agrees with the sources conclusions.

I suppose you COULD break down the Source material and then take that to deconstruct HIS posts. But that would require effort, and debate leaving you open for counter debate. It appears you are not interested in that, just popping into threads and posting dis-missives of the OP as not worth the effort and expecting people to roll over for you. That time has ended. Now please stay on topic or not post, this is an interesting discussion and I for one would like to see it not derailed further.

Funny how you never ask him those questions.

 

[Renae]

Funny how you never ask him those questions.

He's not a role model, he's a poster with an agenda. You have been asked, you have answered. Need I say more? Now will you contribute to the OP discussion?

 

[Redress]

He's not a role model, he's a poster with an agenda. You have been asked, you have answered. Need I say more? Now will you contribute to the OP discussion?

I did answer, you just did not like the answer since it was not blindly agreeing with you. He posted an op/ed. Op/eds are not intended to be a complete look at something, or a straightforward look at the issue, or even as some one claimed an analysis. It is an intentionally slanted look at something. Drawing any conclusions from an op/ed is stupid.

 

[Renae]

I did answer, you just did not like the answer since it was not blindly agreeing with you. He posted an op/ed. Op/eds are not intended to be a complete look at something, or a straightforward look at the issue, or even as some one claimed an analysis. It is an intentionally slanted look at something. Drawing any conclusions from an op/ed is stupid.

Everything posted here is basically OP-ED in terms of posters posts. So you're saying that drawing any conclusion from what we post is stupid? Why bother posting then?

 

[Redress]

Everything posted here is basically OP-ED in terms of posters posts. So you're saying that drawing any conclusion from what we post is stupid? Why bother posting then?

No, far more stuff is based off news than op/eds.

 

[Renae]

No, far more stuff is based off news than op/eds.

I did state that POSTERS POSTS. Are all OP. You dismiss OP ED. Ergo, all Posts are Op Ed, you dismiss all posts.

 

[Whovian]

Speaking of nothing to see here, you merely dismiss Whovian's commentary in the "General Political Discussion" forum. Which is in itself an OP ED forum.

Thus your complaints are both worthless in adding anything to the debate, and off topic. How about addressing what's wrong with his comments instead of trying to derail the thread with flippant commentary. You represent the forum, that means you are looked up to. You're a "role model", thus people see you posting in this manner, and think it's okay for THEM too. Bringing debate and discussion down for all.

Step up Redress.

I, for one, have never looked up Redress's...dress :ninja:

 

[Whovian]

I did answer, you just did not like the answer since it was not blindly agreeing with you. He posted an op/ed. Op/eds are not intended to be a complete look at something, or a straightforward look at the issue, or even as some one claimed an analysis. It is an intentionally slanted look at something. Drawing any conclusions from an op/ed is stupid.

The how about taking the opinions expressed in the op-ed, and saying either 'hey, I disagree with that because...' or 'Hey, I agree with that because...' instead of whining that I posted an op-ed in a forum for op-eds! :rofl:

 

[pbrauer]

The how about taking the opinions expressed in the op-ed, and saying either 'hey, I disagree with that because...' or 'Hey, I agree with that because...' instead of whining that I posted an op-ed in a forum for op-eds! :rofl:

How about when you post an op/ed, you identify it as such? Like in the title of the thread.

 

[Whovian]

How about when you post an op/ed, you identify it as such? Like in the title of the thread.

How about, show me where in the 'General Political Discussion' rules, it says I have to do that? Redress didn't whine I had not 'properly identified' the OP like you are. I think I'll take that as an indication I did nothing wrong. Besides, the linked page CLEARLY shows it's an Op-Ed piece.. I guess it was too much trouble for you to actually look at the linked page prior to whining, huh.

While you're at it, how about you stop trolling and actually add to the discussion? Too much effort?

I don't think I've ever had anyone whine that i used the exact title of the article, therefore I am trying to hide the nature of the piece. That's a first, even for you :rofl:

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Op/eds don't provide facts. They provide analysis which can be used to create context and understanding.

They provide PERSONAL anaysis and OPINIONATED anaylsis, not academic analysis. There is a difference between the two.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

The how about taking the opinions expressed in the op-ed, and saying either 'hey, I disagree with that because...' or 'Hey, I agree with that because...' instead of whining that I posted an op-ed in a forum for op-eds! :rofl:

The General Politics Forum is NOT the OP-ED Forum. OP-EDs are usually placed in the Partisan Politics Forum.

 

[Whovian]

Link to the full text of the Chamber of Commerce speech...

Transcript: President Barack Obama Speech to U.S. Chamber of Commerce – January 7, 2011

We recently signed export deals with India and China that will support more than 250,000 jobs here in the United States. We finalized a trade agreement with South Korea that will support at least 70,000 American jobs.

That's great... I approve. Keeping existing jobs going is a good thing. What about NEW jobs?

That’s why I want to lower the corporate rate and eliminate these loopholes to pay for it, so that it doesn’t add a dime to our deficit. And I’m asking for your help in this fight. I think it can be done.

Pleasant surprise. I approve. Let's see if he follows through.

I’ve ordered a government-wide review, and if there are rules on the books that are needlessly stifling job creation and economic growth, we will fix them.

Who gets to decide what is 'stifling'?