Sunday, July 24, 2011
Too Long at the Hope-Fair
Hindsight is always 20-20. But I'll bet that President Obama really wishes now that he had more fully embraced the findings/solutions of his own debt commission. My suspicion here is that he probably thought that the economy (either through the stimulus or the previous budget agreement that a) sustained the tax-cuts, b) provided additional unemployment relief, and c) included a payroll-tax holiday) would be chugging along by now and that maybe he could skate a trifle on some of these tougher choices. He miscalculated, in other words..................................................................................................As to why this (an embracing of the commission's findings/conclusions) might have been a good thing, I posit. a) It would have made the President look serious and proactive (GONE, that Republican talking-point). b) It might have gone a good distance toward placating the business community. c) He would have avoided the charge that he hasn't been specific. d) The country as a whole might have been farther down the road to solving this mess......................................................................................................Now, granted, there would have been some loudmouths on both sides of the political spectrum (Maxine Waters, Michele Bachmann, this recently emerging Walsh blowhard) who would have criticized Mr. Obama for making such an emboldened move (I've heard that some of the tea partiers are already pissing on the "gang of six"). But, overall, I'm thinking that the public would have largely been behind him (I know that I would have been).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Rusty lives and works out of Las Vegas and I'm here to tell you the unabashed king of Las Vegas is Steve Wynn.Mr.Wynn has for years been a supporter of all causes democratic in Clark County plus the state of Navada,including being an over the top supporter of Harry Reid.Well,last week Mr.Wynn,one of the smartest (in my humble opinion)businessmen in america threw Obie under the bus.Steve said Obie was a "wet blanket" on business and american business leaders would be sitting on their thumbs while he was in office.Kids,this was from a former democratic kingpin,this is from a man who was an unabashed supporter of all things democratic in Clark County,Nevada and the united states.Should'nt this at least worry the left just a little?
The public was opposed to the recommendations of the debt commission. Your conclusion is wrong.
The Progressive caucus viewed the recommendations a total non-starter. If he had embraced the commission's findings he would have angered his base and seriously imperiled his re-election chances.
They are threatening NOW to withhold contributions of time and money if he goes along with cuts to any of the big three.
If the president goes down this road a majority of Americans will NOT be behind him (I know I won't).
Josh Brown, an investment advisor for high net worth individuals, says, "Steve Wynn's Obama Wet Blanket Rant Is Nonsense".
Look at the stock performance for Wynn Resorts Ltd, and, as pointed out by Media Matters, it's evident that Steve Wynn is a liar. Media Matters says, "After taking a tumble during the economic crisis, the stock's value is right around its pre-crisis peak".
Wynn, in THE SAME conference call as the "wet blanket" comment said, "We had a great first quarter, the best in our history".
I don't know why he's lying, but by his OWN WORDS it's clear that he is.
BTW, I also recall Lawrence O'Donnell mentioning the same conference call (the one where Wynn LIES) on his program.
I mention this for the benefit of Will... who I'm guessing might dismiss my Media Matters link, but has voiced approval for LO in the past.
dmarks (in another comment thread on this site): Your comments... have you supporting an argument not with facts (Steve Wynn) but with opinions from a leftist political campaign site.
You're wrong. I quoted the facts from the Media Matters article. There was a small amount of information that could be considered "opinion", but I didn't quote that.
I quoted a fact about the stock performance for Wynn Resorts Ltd, and I quoted Steve Wynn's own words. I quoted just the facts and none of the opinion.
What does a comment from someone (Josh Brown,)a person no one has ever heard of have to do with anything....and what the hell does the price of Wynn stock mean at all?You in your infinite wisdom,along with a comment from Media Matters conclude Steve Wynn is a liar.I wonder if you were face to face with Mr.Wynn you'd have the courage to call him a liar?That question is moot...you'll never be that close to Steve Wynn.
Mr.Wynn's point during his conference call was even though quite a few american businesses are sitting on massive ammounts of capital,his company included they are'nt building or expanding because of the uncertainty of the actions or inactions of the Obama administration and the current policies have thrown a wet blanket on american business.He went on to say profitable businesses are perfectly happy to sit on their thumbs until the present administration is gone.
Rusty: its better to let people think you're an idiot rather then start posting and removing all doubt.
I think you should take your own advice Rusty. Would you have the courage, if you met the president in person, to call him "Obie" and tell him you think he's a community organizer in over his head?
Mr. Wynn not building or expanding has nothing to do with "uncertainty" and everything to do with a lack of demand. Claiming that business would pass up meeting demand (and making profit) because of "uncertainty" is utter nonsense.
I place the blame firmly with the Republicans who are depressing demand with their anti-simulative budget cutting.
He would have angered his base, wd? You know what I have to say about that - screw the bases! The bases/special interests, IMHO, are a huge reason why we're in the frigging mess that we're in. Anybody with even a hop, skip, and a jump on their EEG knows that we're going to have to solve this deficit problem with a balanced approach (there aren't enough wealthy people in the country to do it with tax increases alone). And that's what the BIPARTISAN deficit commission (including Dick Durbin, Kent Conrad, and Erskine Bowles) came up with. Was it a perfect solution? No (I personally would have liked to have seen more reductions in the military). But at least it was serious. Note to President Obama. Note to Paul Ryan.
Its good to know WD that you personally have such an insight into how Steve Wynn is running his business.I'm gonna make a wild guess here and say Wynn's business holdings and their operation is just a shade more complicated then say....selling outdated movie score CD's on the web.
If and when you ever actually do learn something about building and running a business that creates real jobs with sustainable profits then and only then should you attempt to even make comments about the business world.
Meanwhile,feel free to continue to tout all things liberal,but please my friend stay out of subjects you know nothing about,stay out of the deep end.
I made no comments indicating I had personal "insight into how Steve Wynn is running his business". My comment was in regards to the lack of demand being the reason why businesses aren't hiring and expanding. This is basic economics... I went nowhere near the "deep end".
So Rusty tells me to "stay out of subjects you know nothing about", implying he's a business expert... to that I say "fuck off".
Never bring a knife to a gun fight WD.
If you care to debate business practices with me,you will indeed be in the deep end of the pool.
WD said...."I place the blame firmly with the Republicans who are depressing demand with their anti-simulative budget cutting."
Well, it seems to me that if a person wanted to cut a budget there would actually have to be a budget to cut.Seeing that the dem controlled senate has'nt passed an actual budget in over 800 days I find it difficult to understand how the Republicans can cut a non-existent budget.That along with the dems controlling the senate and the president having veto power this Republican budget cutting is even more impressive.
Rusty: ...if a person wanted to cut a budget there would actually have to be a budget to cut.
Rusty, you're wrong and you KNOW you're wrong (unless you're a utter moron). There IS a budget. There HAS to be a budget in order for money to be spent. You just view the legislation that was passed, the "budget enforcement resolution", as something you can attack the Democrats on.
The government IS spending money and the Republicans ARE proposing cutting what is being spent. Spending has already been cut (the Repubs demanded and received cuts to avert a government shutdown just 3 months ago). These are FACTS.
You do not "find it difficult to understand", you're just being a smart-ass.
Now,now WD,once again you can have your own opinion....you cant have your own facts.
The senate voted Obie's proposed budget down 97-0.There has'nt been an approved budget in over 800 days.Yes,the government is spending money (way too much in fact)without a 2011 budget.
Now,first you said "anti-simulative budget cutting," then you say "Republicans ARE proposing cutting." Which is it...did they cut spending,and if they did where did they cut? Or are they proposing cutting spending? Big difference.You realize,on his watch,this president (community organizer) is spending 4.1 billion per day? Of that 44 cents of every dollar spent is borrowed.Did you happen to see the economic numbers released today? If you would still say the present policies are working....my dear departed grandpa would say about you....oy vey,this one here is talking out his ass.
Russ, you make some good points. The President clearly hasn't been specific enough. But the fact is that he did make at least the outline of a proposal for 4 trillion in budget reduction, with a 3-4 to 1 ratio in favor of cuts, and Mr. Cantor stormed out of the room on him. I, along with sane Republicans such as David Frum and Bruce Bartlett, think that this was a major mistake (if, that is, a deal is what the Republicans wanted).
Rusty made no good points.
The Republicans extracted cuts to stop them from shutting down the government (a few short months ago) AND they are doing the same with the battle over the debt ceiling. You say, "which is it"? It's both.
You want specifics? You look it up. I don't have the information memorized.
The government wouldn't need to borrow so much if taxes were raised. It's the Republicans out-of-control tax cutting that has put us in this position.
Will,first of all Obama agreed to a deal with the Republicans that the speaker could have passed....then the president asked for another 400 billion in revenue on top of the 800 already agreed to,second...the Republicans have submitted at least four written plans...if you have a copy of Obie's plan you're the only american in possesion of one.
So please Will,stop with the president is bending over backwards on this.The other night he comes on TV and makes a friggin campaign speech for christ sake.
And to WD who said..."I dont have the information memorized" you're correct there because you have zero information.The facts are this administration is spending over 20% of GDP while we take in less then 17%.And sparky,if you raise the taxes of then nations top 5% of earners to 100% it would'nt begin to bring spending and revenue together.
WD see my thumb....boy you're dumb.
Rusty: if you raise the taxes of then nations top 5% of earners to 100% it wouldn't begin to bring spending and revenue together. ...boy you're dumb.
Democrats, unlike Republicans, haven't suggested doing one thing will solve the problem. That would be incredibly dumb.
btw, did you hear about this moron who introduced a bill to lower the debt ceiling? The Tea Partiers are dumber than a box of rocks.
Rusty: you're correct there because you have zero information.
What the hell are you talking about Rusty? Are you denying there were any cuts made to avoid the government shutdown?
The Wall Street Journal says, "Under the deal, the GOP won budget cuts of $39 billion for the remaining six months of the fiscal year..."
As for the specifics of the President's plan... WHY should he have wasted the time? The president said he was willing to offer a "grand bargain" of 3 trillion in cuts and 1 trillion in revenues. The Republicans said "no way" and walked out. Yet he should have gone ahead and worked out the details anyway?
Sounds like what the Republicans are doing now... wasting time writing and voting on legislation that won't even be brought up in the Senate, let alone signed by the president.
I could care less what Tea Party folks do.As for the cuts you mention....none,not one of them has yet happened....zero,nada.
Obie reneged on the "Grand Deal" by trying to add an additional 400 billion in revenue after a deal was agreed to....shame on him,typical Chicago crooked politics....now its biting him square on the ass.
I dont have time for any more of your silly B.S.,I have a 12:00 tee time.
Russ, I was referring to an earlier package. That one Mr. Cantor did walk out on. You're right, though, subsequent to that, there appeared to be a deal and Obama DID move the goal-posts (he justified it by saying that the gang of 6 had 1.2 trillion in revenues). There's more than enough blame to go around.
I have a new nickname for you, wd, the "Points Nazi" (I'm assuming that you watch "Seinfeld"). "Hey, Rusty, no points for you!!!"
"I dont have time for any more of your silly B.S.,I have a 12:00 tee time."
He's obviously some sort of teebagger too :)
Will: "Hey, Rusty, no points for you!!!"
As if Rusty would ever say I made a good point.
Will: Obama DID move the goal-posts... There's more than enough blame to go around.
I believe you're mistaken Will. I'm pretty sure it was Boehner and Cantor who moved the goal posts. Enough blame to "go around"? Perhaps, if you want to assign blame to individuals who deserve none.
Post a Comment