[NewsPoster]

US President Barack Obama recently called several CEOs for advice on dealing with the upcoming "fiscal cliff" faced by the federal government, according to a White House official in contact with CNN. Four executives have been named, including Apple's Tim Cook, JPMorgan Chase's Jamie Dimon, Boeing's Jim McNerney, and Costco's Craig Jelinek. The calls follow meetings with other CEOs last week, including conversations with General Electric's Jeffery Immelt and American Express' Kenneth Chenault.

Thanks to earlier, failed budget negotiations, federal politicians have until the end of the year to come up with a new deal that will prevent across-the-board cuts and tax hikes that could potentially cripple both the government and the economy. The White House official hasn't said what sort of specific input Obama is searching for from people like Cook, beyond "a balanced deficit-reduction solution that protects the middle class and continues to move our economy forward."

[Mr. Strat]

I suppose that consulting people who know how to run a business and have an understanding of economics would be beneficial when you don't.

[jfgilbert]

Yes, it is so much better to pretend that you know everything and have every answer. Only an inferior mind would be open to other people's knowledge and intellect.

[JackWebb]

Any advice that would actually work is not advice he'll take. A few million non-experts already know that government spending more isn't helping the economy. A few less know that tax increases would only reduce the deficit by single digit percentage in the best case scenarios. They'll probably all agree to climb up to a higher cliff to jump off later.

[LenE]

Was there a TelePrompTer present in the meeting? The last time the President met with his jobs council, a group of CEO's from very large companies, there was. There also was zero knowledge transfer, and no follow-up policy shifts. This is for show, nothing more or less.

[efithian]

Originally Posted by JackWebb 

Any advice that would actually work is not advice he'll take. A few million non-experts already know that government spending more isn't helping the economy. A few less know that tax increases would only reduce the deficit by single digit percentage in the best case scenarios. They'll probably all agree to climb up to a higher cliff to jump off later.

The survey found that reducing taxes on the "job creators" did not create jobs. Surprise, surprise. Our President will listen and then make a decision based upon several factors. We are all in this together.

[Mr. Strat]

Deficits are a spending problem. Do you libs really think that any additional revenues from either those evil rich people or wherever - do you believe that the government would actually use that money to pay down the debt?

[Foe Hammer]

Ballmer sent Obama his office number, main number, cell number, fax number, home number, home fax number, wife's cell number, kids' cell numbers and dance instructor's cell number.

Still no calls.

[Charles Martin]

Lene, thanks for bringing up the old tired TelePromtTer canard. Good to see Republicans maintaining their long-standing tradition of being petulant sore losers.

Yes, Obama is the first president to EVER use a TelePrompTer. Certainly that articulate master of the English language George Bush NEVER used one, nor his father, nor Reagan. NEVER!

Oh wait, in fact they all used them ALL THE TIME.

This also tells me that you have never bothered to watch the President on the MANY occasions where he's spoken extemporaneously. Like, for example, the debates. Or that video that's going around where he thanks his campaign workers. Or any of his rallies, interviews on TV, etc.

Interesting that some people go after Obama for (on formal occasions, just like EVERY PREVIOUS PRESIDENT) using a TelePrompTer.

Are you under the impression that only BLACK presidents need one, perhaps?? Cuz that's the impression I'm getting from YOU ...

[msuper69]

Stop spending money we don't have.
Stop funding businesses that are not sound.

Just stop.

[Charles Martin]

Originally Posted by Mr. Strat 

Deficits are a spending problem. Do you libs really think that any additional revenues from either those evil rich people or wherever - do you believe that the government would actually use that money to pay down the debt?

Deficits are not ALWAYS a spending problem. The government sometimes takes really BAD advice -- like the lie that reducing taxes on "job creators" (what a joke) increases the number of jobs.

Clearly, the real world has proven -- for three decades now -- that this isn't true. It's just another "trickle down" lie from the ultra-wealthy.

The current problem with deficits is PRIMARILY down to two main things:

1. Two unfunded wars
2. Rich people paying LESS in taxes than middle-class and poor people (as a percentage of income)

Don't even bother trying to deny this, your own boy Romney admitted he pays less in taxes under these rules than middle-class people (and said it was only right for all those jobs he hasn't created ever).

I certainly think there's some fat to be trimmed (the defense budget, primarily), but I would certainly like to see tax rates for the wealthy RESTORED to where they are supposed to be. Look at the tax rates during boom times in our economy and guess what you'll find -- much HIGHER taxes on corporations and the wealthy. I don't think we need to go back to the historic high tax rates, but a modest restoration of tax rates (like what we had under Clinton) and a restoration of taxes on non-job-creating capital gains in particular would really help matters.

Of course, I'd like to see tax BREAKS for companies that ACTUALLY create good-paying jobs in the US -- oh wait, Obama has been trying to get those pushed through for YEARS, guess who's blocking that.

[climacs]

Chas_M, where do I subscribe to your newsletter?

With Bush the Lesser, we had two failed wars, 9/11, Katrina, a government surplus turned into trillion-dollar deficits, and an utter meltdown of the economy on his way out the door.

With Obama, the worst that the right wingnuts can hang on him is Teleprompter and OMG BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI. Oh there's Obamacare too, but it turns out that the American people actually like it.

What's it like being wrong all the time, Obama-haters? Don't you ever feel embarrassment? Y'all really need to STFU. By the way, Obama is the first president since Reagan to win two terms with a majority of the popular vote both times.

[LenE]

Climacs and Chas_m; I'm glad the mention of the TelePrompTer got you guys all frothed up, but you weren't paying attention to the substance of my post. O is for show. There was no substance, only a speech and a photo op when he met with his jobs council. What the country needed, and still desperately needs, is jobs.

Instead of meeting with small business owners, who do the lion's share of hiring, he "met" with CEO's of large companies. I use quotations, as he really was just sharing the room with them. Most of the represented companies are multi-national, and have the majority of their supplier workforce overseas. Apple is no different. Sure the Foxconn workers don't work directly for Apple, but for those individuals working on the iPad lines in China and Brazil, they pay no US tax, and don't support our growing welfare state.

Instead of taking advice from people who actually know about how the economy works, and how to employ people in the productive non-government sector, he ignored them and went full steam ahead on his vote buying food stamp operation. Our unemployment rate has only lowered this year because of people falling out of the tail end of unemployment program. I thought it was tragic that the African-American community in this country had double the unemployment rate of the country overall, but apparently that community is getting exactly what it wanted.

[Charles Martin]

Originally Posted by LenE 

Climacs and Chas_m; I'm glad the mention of the TelePrompTer got you guys all frothed up

Well we don't much care for hypocrites and liars, and tend to call them out.

There was no substance, only a speech and a photo op when he met with his jobs council.

Your reading comprehension skills are really poor, possibly due to your OMGBLACK-colored glasses.

Go back and read the article above again. What Jobs Council are you talking about? What speech? What photo opportunity?

The story is about Obama CALLING ON THE TELEPHONE some CEO's to consult on how to get CONGRESS to work TOGETHER to get something DONE to balance taxes and improve the economy. Heaven knows those people don't know anything about business, or how to tackle difficult problems.

Oh dearie me yes, we can't have the President doing THAT!!

What the country needed, and still desperately needs, is jobs.

Then maybe you shouldn't have let your Republican pals ship them overseas ... just sayin'.

Instead of meeting with small business owners, who do the lion's share of hiring, he "met" with CEO's of large companies. I use quotations, as he really was just sharing the room with them.

You should be using quotation marks because you just made this entire thing up. He CALLED people. ON THE PHONE. You are living in a fantasy world based on where you get your propaganda news. I'm going to guess your main "news" source has the initials FNC.

Instead of taking advice from people who actually know about how the economy works, and how to employ people in the productive non-government sector, he ignored them and went full steam ahead on his vote buying food stamp operation.

Yes, we're all rolling in food stamps now, suckers!

Seriously, you are misinformed. Food stamp use, for example, has gone DOWN recently. Use of food stamps spiked after your boy Bushie tanked the economy. Of course, I'm unfairly using FACTS to counteract your racism-based arguments ...

[LenE]

Are you calling me a hypocrite and a liar? I see nothing I stated that was either hypocritical or inaccurate. Possibly sarcastically colored, but not a lie.

You are right that the original article did not reference the jobs council, I did. Why would I do that? Because it is the same sleight of hand as this current drivel about calling these CEO's. Note, this was not Apple coming out and saying that President Obama called Tim, nor J.P. Morgan-Chase, or GE, or Costco. This was a press release by the White House to show that President Obama is engaged with a problem he created here, even as he is jet-setting over to Burma, and calling it Myanmar.

I am quite focused on the fiscal cliff and jobs here in the U.S., as I do worry about my own and my industry. I will admit that I work in one of the remaining manufacturing sectors still on our shores, but the sequestration is a looming axe. Call me a Republican if it makes you feel better. I see myself as a former Democrat that grew up and started paying bills and taxes.

By the way, here's some facts about food stamps for you. I don't know what your time horizon is for 'recently', but with food stamp usage growing at a rate that is 75x the rate of job growth in this country, you can't expect anyone to take your assertion seriously.

My criticisms of President Obama are not based on race, but on his bad economic policy. Steve Jobs gave him sound advice, and he ignored that, too. As I flatly stated in my first post, this is only for show. Perhaps, now that he has a second term, he will become more pragmatic and focus less on class warfare, but that is not what is showing in his fiber.

[LenE]

Originally Posted by chas_m 

I'm going to guess your main "news" source has the initials FNC.

Nope. I don't have cable (can't afford it because I'm not on food stamps). It is amazing what you learn when you read in depth from all sides of an issue, then make up your mind.

[climacs]

my business is much better off since Obama took office. I don't think that he had a direct effect on my business, but certainly the government influences the direction of the economy and I think he's done a very good job. The volume of my business attests to that. As an aside, I am a freelancer in the media business, primarily with corporate clients. We are the first to get cut when things go south and the first to get busy when things are getting better. Pretty convinced that my niche is a leading economic indicator.

In any case, anybody who has any investments is much MUCH better off since Obama took office. That's an undeniable fact and if you can't acknowledge that, then you really have your head up your bum. We'd be even better off if the GOP had not adopted a policy of obstructing anything Obama proposed for the last four years.

[JackWebb]

Originally Posted by efithian 

The survey found that reducing taxes on the "job creators" did not create jobs. Surprise, surprise. Our President will listen and then make a decision based upon several factors. We are all in this together.

Oh, I didn't know tax cuts were even a consideration. Even republicans are offering reducing our deductions which is a tax increase. So did they all say they'd create more jobs if taxes are increased? Maybe it will help the big companies eliminate the smaller companies that are their competition that can't escape the taxes as easily by keeping them overseas like Apple is able to. Actually taxes are already higher with the affordable healthcare act. And US has the highest corporate tax rate in the world (39.2%) now that Japan lowered theirs recently. So, sure, let's raise taxes more and reduce the deficit by 8%. If all goes well we should hit a debt of 20 trillion in 3 years and 4 months instead of in just 3 years and 1 month.

[The Vicar]

Originally Posted by Mr. Strat 

Deficits are a spending problem. Do you libs really think that any additional revenues from either those evil rich people or wherever - do you believe that the government would actually use that money to pay down the debt?

Funnily enough, the previous Democratic president left behind a budget surplus, which was earmarked for paying for debt and Social Security. Then the Republicans got in and turned that into a deficit by giving tax breaks to everyone, but disproportionately to the very rich. Then they put together an unfunded Medicare program (part D) and a pair of unfunded wars (Iraq and Afghanistan). All of that was borrowed money to go on the debt. We didn't hear a peep out of nitwits like you at the time about how that debt was bad for the country.

In other words, if the Republicans actually cared about the debt or the deficit, they could have done something about it. They had a huge opportunity, and instead of acting on it they did the contrary. Therefore we know that they don't actually care -- in fact, come to think of it, Cheney rather famously said "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" -- so you're just yet another Republican liar. You only care about spending when it's on things which actually make the country better, like education or infrastructure. If it's being spent on your pet projects -- the military and prisons -- then it's okay. Screaming about the deficit is just a stick to beat the drum with, not actually an issue to take seriously.

Get bent, jerk. The sooner people like you die painfully in a fire, the better it will be for everyone else in the entire world.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by chas_m 

Deficits are not ALWAYS a spending problem. The government sometimes takes really BAD advice -- like the lie that reducing taxes on "job creators" (what a joke) increases the number of jobs.
Clearly, the real world has proven -- for three decades now -- that this isn't true. It's just another "trickle down" lie from the ultra-wealthy.
The current problem with deficits is PRIMARILY down to two main things:
1. Two unfunded wars
2. Rich people paying LESS in taxes than middle-class and poor people (as a percentage of income)
Don't even bother trying to deny this, your own boy Romney admitted he pays less in taxes under these rules than middle-class people (and said it was only right for all those jobs he hasn't created ever).
I certainly think there's some fat to be trimmed (the defense budget, primarily), but I would certainly like to see tax rates for the wealthy RESTORED to where they are supposed to be. Look at the tax rates during boom times in our economy and guess what you'll find -- much HIGHER taxes on corporations and the wealthy. I don't think we need to go back to the historic high tax rates, but a modest restoration of tax rates (like what we had under Clinton) and a restoration of taxes on non-job-creating capital gains in particular would really help matters.
Of course, I'd like to see tax BREAKS for companies that ACTUALLY create good-paying jobs in the US -- oh wait, Obama has been trying to get those pushed through for YEARS, guess who's blocking that.

3. Health care, which costs trump both #1 and #2.

[Charles Martin]

Originally Posted by LenE 

Are you calling me a hypocrite and a liar?

Yes. Because you are.

I'm also suggesting your views are "colored" by certain factors that make Obama different than previous presidents.

You are right that the original article did not reference the jobs council, I did. Why would I do that? Because it is the same sleight of hand as this current drivel about calling these CEO's.

So you're saying he DIDN'T call these CEOS. And your proof of that is ... oh that's right NOTHING.

So you bring up something COMPLETELY UNRELATED to the story because ... oh that's right NO REASON.

My criticisms of President Obama are not based on race, but on his bad economic policy.

Given that Congress has BLOCKED Obama's economic policies entirely, can you explain how you come to believe they are bad? Aren't you really saying that the Repubican HOUSE's economic policies are bad?

Perhaps, now that he has a second term, he will become more pragmatic and focus less on class warfare, but that is not what is showing in his fiber.

Yes, he's been SO focused on class warfare rather than, I don't know, cleaning up the mess your boy Georgie created. You Republicans lie a lot, but when you pretend to be "former Democrats" it's particularly amusing. And transparent.

[Grendelmon]

Originally Posted by LenE 

Nope. I don't have cable (can't afford it because I'm not on food stamps).

Huh. I can't afford cable either but I don't have food stamps. So how did you afford a Mac computer if you aren't on food stamps, either? I'm shocked.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Grendelmon 

Originally Posted by LenE 

Nope. I don't have cable (can't afford it because I'm not on food stamps).

Huh. I can't afford cable either but I don't have food stamps. So how did you afford a Mac computer if you aren't on food stamps, either? I'm shocked.

He bought it on his tax refund last year.

[LenE]

Originally Posted by chas_m 

Yes. Because you are.

Originally Posted by chas_m 

I'm also suggesting your views are "colored" by certain factors that make Obama different than previous presidents.
So you're saying he DIDN'T call these CEOS. And your proof of that is ... oh that's right NOTHING.

I read your code words there! My opinion of him has nothing to do with his ethnicity, but is much about his overall job performance. I can't totally blame him though, as our national elections are just big high school student council elections. Most politicians are much more interested in being recognized as being an office holder, rather than doing the job required by the office. He is no different from most. Why don't we hold our politicians to job performance standards?

About the President specifically, this stunt, like the jobs council or his dinner with Jobs, have no impact on his policy pushes. It is designed to start buzz on Wall Street or in tech forums like this, that the President is engaged. The White House is essentially click baiting. He doesn't have to do anything because perceptions are being set without having any meaningful change. It is like the education reforms he pushes in the campaign (which I fully support), but then never get acted upon, or the comprehensive immigration reform he promised in his first year, when he had both houses of congress. The talk fostered hope and goodwill, which was enough to gain votes. No actual action happened and none is apparently required.

Dude, your reading comprehension is quite poor. I never said he didn't call these CEO's. I just said that this was all for show. There was no change in direction on any policy by this administration that would in any way be interpreted as pro-jobs or pro-growth, after the last time he used a bunch of CEO's. If you can find any evidence of policy changes in the past, due to his jobs council, or in the near future, as a result of this flurry of calls to CEO's, then I will take that statement back. I will not be holding my breath.

Originally Posted by chas_m 

So you bring up something COMPLETELY UNRELATED to the story because ... oh that's right NO REASON.

I brought it up because history tends to repeat itself, and leopards don't change their spots. I would have a much different opinion if there were any policy pushes that would actually encourage job growth, but there were none. This story is about buzz. Just symbolism over substance.

Originally Posted by chas_m 

Given that Congress has BLOCKED Obama's economic policies entirely, can you explain how you come to believe they are bad? Aren't you really saying that the Repubican HOUSE's economic policies are bad?

Well, they passed Obamacare, which has been bad and is scheduled to get much worse. You are partially correct that we haven't had a budget passed for over three years because the senate blocked that. We have been coasting on the 2009 budget, which the President helped to craft while he was a sitting senator, and the Democrats controlled both houses of congress and the presidency. When you talk about the Republican house blocking the President's budget, I will point out that his budget has not gotten a single Democratic vote for the last three years. Why no votes? The submitted budget was not credible. He has been working the executive orders to circumvent congress.

Why would I know or pay attention to this? Well, my job was severely affected in 2010 when congress couldn't get a budget passed, so they pushed through a continuing resolution several months late. It shut down half of the work at my employer for several months. This was an up close and personal experience I had with the President's lack of leadership skill and bad economic policies.

Originally Posted by chas_m 

You Republicans lie a lot, but when you pretend to be "former Democrats" it's particularly amusing. And transparent.

Dude, you have to calm down, and understand that not everyone who is or was a Democrat is a cheerleader for Obama. I am a former Democrat from a family of life-long Democrats. The party moved away from us when the larger party decided to sideline my Democrat governor at a presidential convention because he was pro-life. They further alienated me when the party decided to attack success rather than encourage it, a recent change that contrasts to Bill Clinton's passing of welfare reform in 1996. Seriously, I'd just like to find one honest and good person who loves this country and all of its people, who is grounded in principles and truly open about their beliefs, to run for president. I don't think any of the clowns for this cycle, from either party, fit that bill.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by JackWebb 

Any advice that would actually work is not advice he'll take. A few million non-experts already know that government spending more isn't helping the economy. A few less know that tax increases would only reduce the deficit by single digit percentage in the best case scenarios. They'll probably all agree to climb up to a higher cliff to jump off later.

This. If you took all the assets of all the "1%", not just their income but everything they own, you still couldn't balance the Federal budget for six months, let alone a year.

Yeah, spending is definitely the problem here, not insufficient taxation.

Originally Posted by chas_m 

2. Rich people paying LESS in taxes than middle-class and poor people (as a percentage of income)
Don't even bother trying to deny this, your own boy Romney admitted he pays less in taxes under these rules than middle-class people (and said it was only right for all those jobs he hasn't created ever).
I certainly think there's some fat to be trimmed (the defense budget, primarily), but I would certainly like to see tax rates for the wealthy RESTORED to where they are supposed to be. Look at the tax rates during boom times in our economy and guess what you'll find -- much HIGHER taxes on corporations and the wealthy. I don't think we need to go back to the historic high tax rates, but a modest restoration of tax rates (like what we had under Clinton) and a restoration of taxes on non-job-creating capital gains in particular would really help matters.

Not relevant. See my above comment. Defense is what? 18% of the budget? While mandatory entitlements are 56%?

[besson3c]

This whole simple narrative of less spending = lower deficit is just nauseatingly simplistic, I wish those that keep parroting this sentiment would expand their thinking just a little bit.

Less spending *can* lower deficits, but, and I've said this 209384092834 times in here, you can't really lower deficits without looking at the expenses as potential investments (not that they all are sound or worthwhile, which is why I used the word "potential"), accessing their ROI, value, etc. I'm so f-ing tired of politicians for whom "value" seems to be a dirty word. This ideology of "cut first, ask questions later" is brain-dead, and potentially harmful to boot.

Cutting Medicare, Social Security, Education, etc. has financial consequences, as does not cutting them. Perhaps the most simple of these examples to delve into this way is education. When we get into this we often hear from conservatives that want to privatize education which is a whole other topic, but working with WHAT WE HAVE in public education today, if states were to cut back drastically on education it would probably help their bottom line for a time, until it doesn't, at which point you have a generation of former students that pose potential expensive liabilities to the state/country.

I don't want to drudge up a debate about education, but what I want to know is this: do you conservatives agree that it is possible to ultimately *add* to the deficit by cutting certain programs too much?

[Shaddim]

Oh yeah, entitlements as investments... that's great, but only as long as the market will support such theories of a "great society", then it will collapse under its own weight. Giving mountains of money away, without any guarantee of performance whatsoever, is reckless and ignorant.

Lives aren't investments, and no one owes anyone else a living. If you're disabled and can't work at all, there should be a safety net, otherwise you need to get to work and pay your own way.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Oh yeah, entitlements as investments... that's great, but only as long as the market will support such theories of a "great society", then it will collapse under its own weight. Giving mountains of money away, without any guarantee of performance whatsoever, is reckless and ignorant.
Lives aren't investments, and no one owes anyone else a living. If you're disabled and can't work at all, there should be a safety net, otherwise you need to get to work and pay your own way.

And this is where this discussion almost always deteriorates.

How one goes from what I said to the notion of advocating giving mountains of money away without regard for performance is a jump I'll probably never understand until the day I die.

Nobody thinks that we should give away mountains of money without regard for performance. Nobody.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

And this is where this discussion almost always deteriorates.

How one goes from what I said to the notion of advocating giving mountains of money away without regard for performance is a jump I'll probably never understand until the day I die.

You understand it just fine, you just get a kick out of provocation and trying to look down your nose. Plus there's the whole love of drama thing you have going on.

We must cut deficit spending, there is no other option. To fit within even a 20% expenditure over annual revenue, we'll have to cutback entitlements by over 40%. That also includes cutting Defense by 50%, close most of our foreign bases, that's fine with me.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

You understand it just fine, you just get a kick out of provocation and trying to look down your nose. Plus there's the whole love of drama thing you have going on.
We must cut deficit spending, there is no other option. To fit within even a 20% expenditure over annual revenue, we'll have to cutback entitlements by over 40%. That also includes cutting Defense by 50%, close most of our foreign bases, that's fine with me.

I made a pretty simple statement, I think. It was a little pointed and emotional, but it wasn't intended to be dramatic. The point was simply that you can't have these discussions while ignoring the concept of value and ROI in these government programs. I stand by that, and I think it is illogical to believe otherwise.

I also believe that until politicians start addressing this in non-ideological ways, it will be very hard to take popular programs away with nothing more than ideological arguments. That is, politicians need to cut the ideological BS (especially when "moral" arguments are used as a manipulative tactic), and simply get down to "here is what this program costs, here is what it would cost without this program, here are some known consequences of these cuts, here are some known consequences of leaving things the way they are, here is the ROI that can be measured, here is the possible ROI that can't be, here is what can be done to make the program more efficient and the savings that would be entailed, etc.".

This needs to be about math, not partisan ideology. Why shouldn't it be math?

[turtle777]

Wow, this is entertaining. MacNN staff bitching out forum members. WTF ?

I really don't think staff should post their personal opinions from a staff account.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Wow, this is entertaining. MacNN staff bitching out forum members. WTF ?
I really don't think staff should post their personal opinions from a staff account.
-t

Why not?

[besson3c]

Here's the thing, as I see it...

There are politicians researching the answers to my above questions (i.e. here is what this program costs, here is what it would cost without this program, here are some known consequences of these cuts, here are some known consequences of leaving things the way they are, here is the ROI that can be measured, here is the possible ROI that can't be, here is what can be done to make the program more efficient and the savings that would be entailed, etc.), but it is nearly impossible to have these sorts of discussions with the ideological cheerleading that goes on in all sides, and which the media feeds on.

I don't blame this on the media solely though, because the general population loves to parrot these same sorts of ideological arguments about the deficit. If you go by the ideology alone, it is clear to me that neither party is really interested in reducing the deficit, they are only interested in reducing the deficit so far as it provides ideological gains.

We will know that Republicans are serious about reducing the deficit when when they are questioned about what they would do, we hear answers that start with health care costs rather than PBS, Planned Parenthood, and the like. We will know the Democrats are serious when they dispense with the moral arguments and various other manipulative tactics (the Republicans employ these same tactics too). We will know that the general population is interested in reducing the deficit when people can say stuff similar to what I have said here without invoking the usual sorts of ideological responses, knee jerk reactions, and parroting of partisan rhetoric. I don't mean to single you out here Shaddim, I think we are all stuck in this trap, including myself.

ebuddy pointed out to me some Republican attempts at health care legislation, and he called me accurately on my claim that Republicans are doing nothing. They aren't doing nothing, it's just that the general public has no clue what they are actually doing because this isn't a part of our public discourse. All they hear is either *grunt* Obamacare good, or *grunt* Obamacare bad.

I would give my left testicle to hear/see a political debate where the participants are given electric shocks when they resort to ideological arguments, with higher voltage charges for moral arguments. Yes, these arguments are worth having at some level, but they completely overshadow the math.

We need more math.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why not?

Is this the official opinion of MacNN ?

That's how it could be perceived by people that haven't been around a long time.

I don't see why 'NN staff should post from a staff account for personal business, especially when it comes to PWL material.

-t

[cgc]

Originally Posted by Mr. Strat 

I suppose that consulting people who know how to run a business and have an understanding of economics would be beneficial when you don't.

The funny thing is President Obama gave Mitt Romney's business experience no credibility, surprised he's gone to these "corporate fat cats" who all probably own corporate jets for help. Good for him, but the perceived hypocrisy is interesting.

[cgc]

Originally Posted by LenE 

Climacs and Chas_m; I'm glad the mention of the TelePrompTer got you guys all frothed up, but you weren't paying attention to the substance of my post. O is for show. There was no substance, only a speech and a photo op when he met with his jobs council. What the country needed, and still desperately needs, is jobs.
Instead of meeting with small business owners, who do the lion's share of hiring, he "met" with CEO's of large companies. I use quotations, as he really was just sharing the room with them. Most of the represented companies are multi-national, and have the majority of their supplier workforce overseas. Apple is no different. Sure the Foxconn workers don't work directly for Apple, but for those individuals working on the iPad lines in China and Brazil, they pay no US tax, and don't support our growing welfare state.
Instead of taking advice from people who actually know about how the economy works, and how to employ people in the productive non-government sector, he ignored them and went full steam ahead on his vote buying food stamp operation. Our unemployment rate has only lowered this year because of people falling out of the tail end of unemployment program. I thought it was tragic that the African-American community in this country had double the unemployment rate of the country overall, but apparently that community is getting exactly what it wanted.

I think President Obama focuses too much on appearance and being the coolest President that he's forgotten he has a really important job to do. I agree with many of your assertions...

@Besson and @Turtle, I agree 100%....not sure why Chas_m is using a MacNN staff account to promote his obviously liberal views here, should be done from a personal account so as to not appear as the official view of MacNN and so posters don't feel intimidated.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Is this the official opinion of MacNN ?
That's how it could be perceived by people that haven't been around a long time.
I don't see why 'NN staff should post from a staff account for personal business, especially when it comes to PWL material.
-t

I think this is pretty needless worry.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by cgc 

I think President Obama focuses too much on appearance and being the coolest President that he's forgotten he has a really important job to do.

He could be Superman, but it doesn't enable him to do anything constructive with an uncooperative Congress.