• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you hire Obama to run your company?



The image below shows the debt ceiling at 14.5 trillion. It's a tad out of date. It's difficult to keep pace with the rising trillions that have now rocketed up to about 18 Trillion. I don't care who you are, you just have to be impressed. The link shows a graph of the inflation adjusted deficits for the last several decades.

Bush was no piker when it comes to racking up debt. Before Obama, he was the absolute champ. Obama has blown away his records and isn't even done playing the game yet. A true savant.

Obama posted the highest deficit in history by any country ever in the history of the world. He had help from Bush who ran up the debt in the first half of 2009, but he carried the ball across the goal line and spiked it. Adjusted for inflation, the deficit you are using as a base line was about twice the biggest deficit posted in WW2. That's impressive! The Big 0 spent that kind of money and lost the war with a minor country while FDR beat the whole world and created the most robust economy in the history of the world. The Obama economy is, by any rational standard, just not at that level. Again, impressive!

You're right. Half of the country is a bad estimate of the guy's falling popularity. It's now up to 58% who are not that impressed.

If the country was a business, it would have been out of business years ago. A company can't print billions of dollars of cash every month to support its failed leadership's failed policies and ongoing bad decisions. Well, to be fair, a failing company can do this I suppose, but it's illegal. Ask Bernie Maddoff.



History of Surpluses and Deficits in the United States (Graph)
 
Last edited:
code1211 said:
The image below shows the debt ceiling at 14.5 trillion. It's a tad out of date. It's difficult to keep pace with the rising trillions that have now rocketed up to about 18 Trillion.
Click to expand...
Yes, if only there was a website which tracked this kind of thing...oh wait, there are many.

Let me google that for you


You'll notice the debt is a little more than $17t, not $18t. I'm sure that was simply an honest mistake on your part and in no way an attempt to be deceptive to further your position. Furthermore, if you passed 2nd grade math, you'll know $17t is not more than double $10.6t, which is roughly where the debt stood when Obama took office.

I don't care who you are, you just have to be impressed.
Click to expand...
About what, exactly, am I supposed to be impressed? Do you have any understanding of the conditions which has led to our current situation?

Bush was no piker when it comes to racking up debt. Before Obama, he was the absolute champ. Obama has blown away his records and isn't even done playing the game yet. A true savant.
Click to expand...
Apparently the answer to my last question is, "no".

Go do a little digging on how we've achieved our debt. Please pay particular attention to the following things:

A) When a fiscal year ends and begins
B) The economic collapse of 2008
C) When Obama took office
D) The difference in tax revenue from the projected FY 2009 budget and the final FY 2009 budget
E) The difference in deficit from the FY 2009 and the deficit now

When you do those things, you'll realize why I say you apparently do not understand the conditions which led to our current situation.

Obama posted the highest deficit in history by any country ever in the history of the world. He had help from Bush who ran up the debt in the first half of 2009, but he carried the ball across the goal line and spiked it.
Click to expand...
Again, please research the fiscal year for the federal government. Be sure to note the expected expenditures and revenues from the projected and the final, noting how the expenditures increased very little and the revenues were nearly cut in half.

Adjusted for inflation, the deficit you are using as a base line was about twice the biggest deficit posted in WW2. That's impressive!
Click to expand...
Indeed, but it makes a person wonder why you think that had anything to do with Obama. Actually it doesn't, because I know why you think that, which is related to your obvious lack of understanding of our current situation.

The Big 0 spent that kind of money
Click to expand...
A) Congress spends money, not the President
B) That money was set to be spent before Obama even won the election
C) Most of that deficit was on the backs of much lower than expected tax revenues to the recession, not extra spending

Please do your research.

and lost the war with a minor country while FDR beat the whole world and created the most robust economy in the history of the world.
Click to expand...
The fact we entered late into the 2nd World War and basically saw the entire landscape of Europe destroyed might have had something to do with FDR/Truman's success as well.

You're right. Half of the country is a bad estimate of the guy's falling popularity. It's now up to 58% who are not that impressed.
Click to expand...
There's a difference between an opinion poll and feelings of alienation. I'd suggest you research the difference on this as well.

If the country was a business, it would have been out of business years ago.
Click to expand...
But it's not, and therein lies the mistake of so many people. You cannot run a government the way you run a business. They have different needs, different expectations and entirely different purposes.

Do both of us a favor and do more Google work before you post here again. It'll save you from appearing as if you do not know what you are talking about and only parroting talking points and it'll save me from having to become weary for having to explain it to you.
 
Hicup said:
Serious question. Would any of you who own businesses or hypothetically might own one, would you consider Obama as your President and CEO? I sure as hell wouldn't, but I'm curious how many members of DP would?

Tim-
Click to expand...

Would you hire Lincoln?
 
I haven't checked this thread in a while. Have any uber-liberals said they'd actually hire this jerk, or are they still deflecting by spouting off as many republicans as they can?
 





So many things that you fail to understand… Where to start?

The graph was one of debt ceilings, not debt. The misstatement of what the graph is, was probably as you say, "an honest mistake on your part". I'm sure you are familiar with the feeling of having made these.

Fiscal years end in October. What you either don't know or about which you are again making an "honest mistake" is that the Democratic Controlled Congress approved spending only for six months for Bush, so Obama got the other six months. No budget, just a spending authorization doncha know. Apparently, you don't.

So the spending on WW2 was not that great? This would be a surprise to the Imperial Japanese, the Nazis, the Russians, the British and the French. The point is that the spending to fight WW2 actually produced results and created a new world order with the USA at the top.

Under Obama the cash has pretty much just been pissed away. I suppose in one way, Obama is also creating a new world order with the USA being one of many equals. This will be a world that looks and works a great deal like the world of the pre WW1 days. What could possibly go wrong in a world structured like that?

There are 90 million people out of work who have simply given up on the American Dream and this is at least in part because their leader has told them that this is the only logical thing for them to do because they really have no chance and no avenue to take to achieve.

This labor participation rate according to the BLS is more than 2% of the total population down from when your hero took office. That means more than 2% of the population has left the work force and that is alienation. Ironically, this is about 6 million people and is about the number of people that have had their insurance policies cancelled so far. But I digress...

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

For someone as uninformed as you are, your little "let me google that for you" is a little too cute by half.

Your man is a failure and the ridiculous failure of Obamacare is going to publicize this to all of his very surprised and disappointed victims that voted for him.

Do you find it at all interesting that the Democrat party is now trying to blame the Republicans for the failure of the Obamacare web site?

I wonder if the Press Corp is going to continue to help with the PR Campaign to save the Bystander in Chief...
 
Not to run the company but I'd put him in charge of our company's social responsibility initiatives. His role would be to make sure our employees recycle more on the job, carpool more and look for ways to help the local community. Good spot for an idealist, but I would also keep an eye on him because he may also try to unionize my employees too.
 



He also may have Black Skin.

You state absolutes as if there is some doubt.
 
code1211 said:
So many things that you fail to understand… Where to start?
Click to expand...
I'd suggest the facts with honesty, but without even starting to have read your entire post, I suspect I'm not going to get at least one of those.

The graph was one of debt ceilings, not debt.
Click to expand...
Who cares about the debt ceiling? Your original comment was:

code1211 said:
He would double the debt of your company in 5 years
Click to expand...
Which is a provably false statement, as I've proven.

The misstatement of what the graph is, was probably as you say, "an honest mistake on your part". I'm sure you are familiar with the feeling of having made these.
Click to expand...
My apologies, I just assumed you would post a comment germane to the discussion. Next time I will not assume you understand the difference between relevant and irrelevant information. I promise I will not over-estimate your ability to have a discussion again.

Fiscal years end in October. What you either don't know or about which you are again making an "honest mistake" is that the Democratic Controlled Congress approved spending only for six months for Bush, so Obama got the other six months.
Click to expand...
Which has nothing to do with what I said, nor does it change the fact what I said was true. The spending which happened in FY 2009 was almost entirely enacted/approved under Bush, not Obama. So for you to claim it was Obama's deficit is unequivocally false.

So the spending on WW2 was not that great?
Click to expand...
Where did I ever say such a thing? What I said was that it wasn't just the spending which led to our economic superiority after World War 2, but rather a range of factors from which we benefited.

The point is that the spending to fight WW2 actually produced results and created a new world order with the USA at the top.
Click to expand...
Yes, because we entered the war late, and many countries were devastated as the result of the war. This is not hard to understand.

Under Obama the cash has pretty much just been pissed away.
Click to expand...
And yet, the facts say, and I know you're not interested in facts really but bear with me, the spending under Obama has increased a VERY small amount over the term of his presidency, and our deficit has been cut in half.

So if you have problems with spending or deficits, you ought to take it up with someone else, because under Obama, the spending has remained mostly unchanged and the deficit has been cut in half. Who wouldn't want someone to run their business if they could cut their losses in half while not having to spend any more? I know I would if I were losing money.

This labor participation rate according to the BLS is more than 2% of the total population down from when your hero took office.
Click to expand...
Oh geez...do you think it has something to do with Baby Boomers retiring and the increasing number of people going to college which affects that? How about the fact we're coming off a major economic recession? Do you think the drastic increase of technology and outsourcing of jobs plays anything into that?

Nah, I'm sure you believe none of that had any affect, only Obama.

For someone as uninformed as you are, your little "let me google that for you" is a little too cute by half.
Click to expand...
And yet, YOU were the one who posted a provably false number for our debt, despite the fact you could have done a quick Google search. So why didn't you do a Google search? Why did you post a completely inaccurate number?

Your man
Click to expand...
My man? He's not my man, he's my President. But unlike people who want to play politics because of the letter behind his name, I can recognize facts and don't need to post irrelevant information and make provably false statements to support my position. You? Well, you've done both.

Do you find it at all interesting that the Democrat party is now trying to blame the Republicans for the failure of the Obamacare web site?
Click to expand...
Why would I? That's what politics are. And when people who would have qualified for Medicaid expansion in Republican states are denied assistance, Republicans will blame Obamacare. It's how it works. The failure of the web site can be attributed to many different things, and there's plenty of blame to around for both parties.

I wonder if the Press Corp is going to continue to help with the PR Campaign to save the Bystander in Chief...
Click to expand...
Ahh...you're one of THOSE people. No wonder you were making provably false statements which could easily have been checked with a quick Google search.
 
Hicup said:
Serious question. Would any of you who own businesses or hypothetically might own one, would you consider Obama as your President and CEO? I sure as hell wouldn't, but I'm curious how many members of DP would?

Tim-
Click to expand...

Only if I was contemplating bankruptcy... he would be the perfect man to make THAT happen.
 
code1211 said:
He also may have Black Skin.

You state absolutes as if there is some doubt.
Click to expand...

My heart wants to give the poor guy a shot, but my mind is saying no can do amigo....
 




You hold the opinions that I would hope are the result of being a hopelessly committed political hack.

Horrible side stepping overall.

Would you hire the failure in chief to run your company given that the only budget he has ever had responsibility to manage is increasing by leaps and bounds and the thing he is supposed to be helping is circling the drain?

I do love the fact that you take the highest deficit in history of the planet for any organization, country or even continent, more than half of which Obama rang up, and use that as your baseline. A really pathetic and desperately unfounded misrepresentation used with the intention to obscure and misdirect.
 
Last edited:
Hicup said:
Serious question. Would any of you who own businesses or hypothetically might own one, would you consider Obama as your President and CEO? I sure as hell wouldn't, but I'm curious how many members of DP would?

Tim-
Click to expand...

No, I don't think so. And that's a good thing. The country is NOT a company. The country is not just money. The country has many interests for itself, its millions of citizens, and around the world. Even if some things cost money, as a matter of policy or compassion or well being of citizens,sometimes it must be done. That's very different from a for-profit company, which exists for the sole purpose of making a profit. A company sometimes weighs the cost of redesigning a component that it knows might kill some people with the cost of payouts for lawsuits of the decedents' families, and may well opt to just let some people die, and shell out money to the decedents' families, since it makes better sense, money-wise, than redesigning the component. Countries don't (or shouldn't) operate that way. Its citizens are part of the country; the citizens are part of the government; the government exists to protect the citizens, even if it costs money and doesn't produce a profit.

That's one thing that Romney didn't understand, IMO.
 
code1211 said:
You hold the opinions that I would hope are the result of being a hopelessly committed political hack.

Horrible side stepping overall.
Click to expand...
Yes, using facts are what hopelessly committed political hacks do. :roll:

Your dismissal of facts suggests you should take a long look in the mirror before accusing others of being political hacks.

Would you hire the failure in chief
Click to expand...
Yeah, no political hackery there. Clearly you're completely objective. :roll:

to run your company given that the only budget he has ever had responsibility to manage is increasing by leaps and bounds
Click to expand...
Except it's not, as I've already proven. Why would you even begin to make such a false claim when I've already shown the deficit has decreased nearly in half from what Bush left in his last budget?

and the thing he is supposed to be helping is circling the drain?
Click to expand...
You clearly were not alive in 2009 when Obama took office.

I do love the fact that you take the highest deficit in history of the planet for any organization, country or even continent, more than half of which Obama rang up, and use that as your baseline.
Click to expand...
Because it was based on spending proposed and implemented under Bush, relying on tax revenue which was lost because of the collapse of the financial sector in late 2008. This is not hard to understand. Obama had very little to do with the deficit of FY 2009, and the only people who don't understand that are "hopelessly committed political hacks".

A really pathetic and desperately unfounded misrepresentation used with the intention to obscure and misdirect.
Click to expand...
Says the person who is dismissing facts to continue a political attack on the man you call "the failure in chief".

I agree there is a hopelessly committed political hack, but it's not the guy providing facts and correcting your inaccurate statement.
 



The Failed Stimulus was passed by Obama after Bush left office and that had a price taq of just under a trillion dollars. The total deficit for 2009 was right around 1.4 Trillion.

It's difficult to understand how a guy could spend that much money and have no positive impact at all. Really quite amazing.

You still haven't said whether or not you would take advantage of this man's expertise to run your company.

You thoughts? Maybe your facts?

 
WCH said:
He's a proven liar and thief. He'd be lucky to be employeed anywhere.
Click to expand...

Well, if that were his true trades.. he'd actually qualify very well for a CEO position in a lot of industries.. Financial institutions leading the chart
 
code1211 said:
It's difficult to understand how a guy could spend that much money and have no positive impact at all. Really quite amazing.
Click to expand...

The fact that you personally are not satisfied with the impact of that money spend, does not mean that there was no positive impact.

It's easy to say such a thing, if your not able or required to proof
- that the unemployment rate today, as it has decreased since 2009, would have done just the same without that stimulus, and not being way worse without
- that the economic growth, which is still very slow and disappointing, would have occurred just the same without that stimulus, and not possibly be still negative and rather declining
- that the bailout of the car companies did not have any positive impact, and that all these companies would still exist today just the same, and again with some future, without that bailout money
- and so on.
 
code1211 said:
The Failed Stimulus was passed by Obama after Bush left office
Click to expand...
Failed stimulus? It halted our slide toward depression and started to turn the economy around shortly after it was passed. What is a failure about something which worked the way it was intended?

and that had a price taq of just under a trillion dollars.
Click to expand...
Once more you are making inaccurate statements.

http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9989/hr1conference.pdf

It wasn't "just under a trillion", it was less than $800 billion and that was over a ten year period. Furthermore, that stimulus was not $800b in spending, it was spending and revenue cuts.

The total deficit for 2009 was right around 1.4 Trillion.
Click to expand...
And the stimulus was $185b of it. Like I said before:

Slyfox696 said:
Obama had very little to do with the deficit of FY 2009, and the only people who don't understand that are "hopelessly committed political hacks".
Click to expand...

It's difficult to understand how a guy could spend that much money and have no positive impact at all. Really quite amazing.
Click to expand...
Yes it is. Too bad for you it is completely untrue in just about every way.

You still haven't said whether or not you would take advantage of this man's expertise to run your company.
Click to expand...
Yes, I did. A long time ago. Another inaccurate statement from you.


It was the very first post I made in the thread. Do you ever get tired of making false statements?

You thoughts? Maybe your facts?
Click to expand...
All I've been doing is destroying you with facts. You keep posting blatantly false information, which doesn't even address the things I say. The fact is Obama inherited a nearly destroyed economy and it has done nothing but get better since. He inherited a deficit over $1t and has cut it in half. He's a charismatic speaker.

As I said originally, whether I would hire him or not would depend entirely on what my company was, but I would not automatically dismiss a candidate for the job who has cut money loss in half, has a history of raising revenue on the campaign trail and who is a charismatic speaker.
 


I am personally dissatisfied with the result of the failed stimulus and any thinking person would be.

To the first two of for questions, of course, yes. There have been economic troubles before. The Failed Stimulus was not aimed at stimulating anything but union support for Democrats. It succeeded in doing what it was intended to do. It failed to do what the lies led the population to accept. If you are not in a union and still think that this turkey helped you, yuou are deluding yourself. In that way there was some stimulus, I suppose. It stimulated your own self deception.

I hope you're sitting down. Obama lied about what the Failed Stimulus was intended to do.

The bailout of the car companies was not intended to save the car companies. It was intended to save the unions. That is why the funds were initially lied into existence as the means to avoid the bankruptcy. Are we starting to notice a pattern? The lie was that a car company would not be able to sell cars if it went bankrupt. The monies were expended to save the unions and the administration violated case law by screwing the bond holders and maintaining the unions.

The bankruptcies of both Chrysler and GM did occur, were rigged in the courts and occurred in spite of the lie to avoid bankruptcy. Chrysler is now owned by Fiat and GM is behind on its debt payments.
 



One last question: Do you actually own a company?
 
code1211 said:
One last question: Do you actually own a company?
Click to expand...
Oh, you're back, huh? I thought those facts and truths had driven you from the thread. If I did own a company, I wouldn't constantly state my decision to hire him would depend on what kind of company I had (as well as the other traditional things such as location, interview, etc.).
 



Do you make hiring decisions in real life?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…