The Presidency as I see it

[Merge]

It was a priority and they passed the stimulus. It helped, but did not do enough. March showed significant progress dropping 1.3 points in 5 months. Conservatives aren't signing onto a jobs spending bill while that is happening which is also why they didn't produce a bill during that time even though that is why they won the 2010 elections.

Yes, I have seen the polls and what I have noticed is that the democrats were blamed for the poor economic performance since the end of 2009.

Now there has been a shift in the debate since this summer and the public is starting to view the republicans as obstructionists. The far majority of Americans did not agree with the GOP approach to the debt debate and their ratings have dropped considerably since then.

Now that Obama is getting out in the public pushing his agenda, conservatives really have no choice but to support his plan.

Conservatives are now going against what the majority of the public wants regarding taxes and entitlements. This has all happened very recently and if they don't work with Obama now, they are going to kill their chances in 2012.

 

[SnakeTom]

It seems that Republicans want lower taxes for the wealthy but oppose the cut in payroll taxes for for middle and lower income workers as suggested by the President. Yup that will go over real big on election day.

Tom K

 

[HALL85]

It's funny that you guys continue to blame everything on a Republican obstructionist strategy, but the reality is BOTH parties have failed in the process (and the polls support that). Where have the great Democratic ideas been on creating jobs in the last three years, especially when they had a majority in both houses???

Secondly, Eric Cantor has already come out in public support of the payroll tax cut, so not sure what you're referring.

Finally, it's clear that you are rooting so hard for Obama that you're coming up with theories to support his re-election. If not "working with Obama" is going to kill the Republican chances, why didn't that work (actually the complete opposite effect) in the mid-terms? Personally, I think BO has to stop with this "taking it to the public" strategy asking people to call their Congressmen. He talks down to the public, like he talks down to Congress, while the public is frustrated with the whole process and questioning why HE doesn't act more like a leader.

 

[HALL85]

One last point on jobs. It's anecdotal, but I look at what the situation is in the company I work (healthcare) and the message is to be very cautious about adding FTE's because of the uncertaintly that's looming on future healthcare costs from OB's plan and the medical device tax and how it will be administered. We've shed hundreds of jobs over the past three years and the gap in capacity is being filled by overtime and temps when needed. Until demand increases on a consistant basis and these uncertainties disappear, don't look for any steady hiring trends.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by HALL85:
It's funny that you guys continue to blame everything on a Republican obstructionist strategy, but the reality is BOTH parties have failed in the process (and the polls support that). Where have the great Democratic ideas been on creating jobs in the last three years, especially when they had a majority in both houses???

Secondly, Eric Cantor has already come out in public support of the payroll tax cut, so not sure what you're referring.

Finally, it's clear that you are rooting so hard for Obama that you're coming up with theories to support his re-election. If not "working with Obama" is going to kill the Republican chances, why didn't that work (actually the complete opposite effect) in the mid-terms? Personally, I think BO has to stop with this "taking it to the public" strategy asking people to call their Congressmen. He talks down to the public, like he talks down to Congress, while the public is frustrated with the whole process and questioning why HE doesn't act more like a leader.

It isn't nearly as black and white as that. 6 months ago, there was public support for the republicans. They campaigned on repealing Obamacare and creating jobs. They didn't campaign on blocking everything we do including a nasty debt ceiling debate that really hurt republicans because they were opposing what the public wanted.

We now see that the candidates in 2010 were lying because they cannot repeal the healthcare bill and they had absolutely no plan to create jobs.

They were not elected to hold our economy hostage in a debt ceiling debate. The public does not agree with where to get more revenue.

People are absolutely asking why Obama isn't more of a leader, but they are about to see him lead. You expect that the public will maintain that he wasn't good enough for three years, I expect that the public will quickly forget as they always do (kind of like how they forgot who's policies lead to the crisis in the first place and voted them back in 2010)

The public is no angry about the debt debate and how the republicans blocked everything. If they continue to obstruct the process, the anger will get louder and louder.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by HALL85:
One last point on jobs. It's anecdotal, but I look at what the situation is in the company I work (healthcare) and the message is to be very cautious about adding FTE's because of the uncertaintly that's looming on future healthcare costs from OB's plan and the medical device tax and how it will be administered. We've shed hundreds of jobs over the past three years and the gap in capacity is being filled by overtime and temps when needed. Until demand increases on a consistant basis and these uncertainties disappear, don't look for any steady hiring trends.

So you're saying that if demand increased, your company would avoid hiring more full time employees because of how much their healthcare plan might cost?

Sorry, not buying that. The cost for healthcare has already been increasing about 7% per year for employers from 2000-2010. The reform plan will not move it more than that. Your employer should support single payer so thy don't have to worry about the cost burden... ha!

I did actually watch some videos from Jonathan Gruber recently and he did sell me on some of the cost savings that this plan will contain.

Part 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVT0-MBVUzk

Part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kk4sJBa45Ik

Part 3 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xt15FEccCQ

Part three went into the cost savings.

 

[HALL85]

Merge, you're making assumptions on the way you see them rather than how they are. The reality is that it's about ecomonic performance and that's how the public has voted whether it's been a sitting Republican or Democratic President. I saw an interesting stat on the news the other night that the last three single term President's all had exceptionally high unemployment rates during their term (between 7.3 and 7.7%). That is how OB will be judged by the electorate....not by your theory about who was on the right or wrong side of the debt debate (because polls have consistantly shown the public anger at BOTH parties). Time will tell, but I am pointing to history rather than a wishful theory.

 

[HALL85]

Originally posted by Merge:

Originally posted by HALL85:
One last point on jobs. It's anecdotal, but I look at what the situation is in the company I work (healthcare) and the message is to be very cautious about adding FTE's because of the uncertaintly that's looming on future healthcare costs from OB's plan and the medical device tax and how it will be administered. We've shed hundreds of jobs over the past three years and the gap in capacity is being filled by overtime and temps when needed. Until demand increases on a consistant basis and these uncertainties disappear, don't look for any steady hiring trends.

So you're saying that if demand increased, your company would avoid hiring more full time employees because of how much their healthcare plan might cost?

Sorry, not buying that. The cost for healthcare has already been increasing about 7% per year for employers from 2000-2010. The reform plan will not move it more than that. Your employer should support single payer so thy don't have to worry about the cost burden... ha!

I did actually watch some videos from Jonathan Gruber recently and he did sell me on some of the cost savings that this plan will contain.

Part 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVT0-MBVUzk

Part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kk4sJBa45Ik

Part 3 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xt15FEccCQ

Part three went into the cost savings.

No, what I'm saying is that my (and other) companies will not hire until we see a consistant increase in demand AND there is more clarity around some of these anticipated costs.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by HALL85:
Merge, you're making assumptions on the way you see them rather than how they are. The reality is that it's about ecomonic performance and that's how the public has voted whether it's been a sitting Republican or Democratic President. I saw an interesting stat on the news the other night that the last three single term President's all had exceptionally high unemployment rates during their term (between 7.3 and 7.7%). That is how OB will be judged by the electorate....not by your theory about who was on the right or wrong side of the debt debate (because polls have consistantly shown the public anger at BOTH parties). Time will tell, but I am pointing to history rather than a wishful theory.

Those numbers are interesting without context, but when those presidents were removed from office... were they coming out of the worst recession since the great depression? Was the other party blocking everything they were doing? Was public support behind what the president was proposing or the other party?

That is the problem with pointing to history as Gingrich tried to do during the debate with how many jobs would have been creating with the policies from the 80's. We are not in a bubble where everything is the same.

Time will tell, but republicans are in a situation where they are in trouble if they block this jobs bill which is why I don't think they will and our debate is pointless... but my only points were that this is a good start to get our economy moving again, and that it will pass but would not have passed 6 months ago.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by HALL85:

Originally posted by Merge:

Originally posted by HALL85:
One last point on jobs. It's anecdotal, but I look at what the situation is in the company I work (healthcare) and the message is to be very cautious about adding FTE's because of the uncertaintly that's looming on future healthcare costs from OB's plan and the medical device tax and how it will be administered. We've shed hundreds of jobs over the past three years and the gap in capacity is being filled by overtime and temps when needed. Until demand increases on a consistant basis and these uncertainties disappear, don't look for any steady hiring trends.

So you're saying that if demand increased, your company would avoid hiring more full time employees because of how much their healthcare plan might cost?

Sorry, not buying that. The cost for healthcare has already been increasing about 7% per year for employers from 2000-2010. The reform plan will not move it more than that. Your employer should support single payer so thy don't have to worry about the cost burden... ha!

I did actually watch some videos from Jonathan Gruber recently and he did sell me on some of the cost savings that this plan will contain.

Part 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVT0-MBVUzk

Part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kk4sJBa45Ik

Part 3 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xt15FEccCQ

Part three went into the cost savings.

No, what I'm saying is that my (and other) companies will not hire until we see a consistant increase in demand AND there is more clarity around some of these anticipated costs.

Uncertainties are always there, especially regarding rising healthcare costs... but demand is the important piece right now.

If they abolished Obamacare today, there would be no new jobs tomorrow.
We need demand.

 

[HALL85]

Originally posted by Merge:

Originally posted by HALL85:
Merge, you're making assumptions on the way you see them rather than how they are. The reality is that it's about ecomonic performance and that's how the public has voted whether it's been a sitting Republican or Democratic President. I saw an interesting stat on the news the other night that the last three single term President's all had exceptionally high unemployment rates during their term (between 7.3 and 7.7%). That is how OB will be judged by the electorate....not by your theory about who was on the right or wrong side of the debt debate (because polls have consistantly shown the public anger at BOTH parties). Time will tell, but I am pointing to history rather than a wishful theory.

Those numbers are interesting without context, but when those presidents were removed from office... were they coming out of the worst recession since the great depression? Was the other party blocking everything they were doing? Was public support behind what the president was proposing or the other party?

That is the problem with pointing to history as Gingrich tried to do during the debate with how many jobs would have been creating with the policies from the 80's. We are not in a bubble where everything is the same.

Time will tell, but republicans are in a situation where they are in trouble if they block this jobs bill which is why I don't think they will and our debate is pointless... but my only points were that this is a good start to get our economy moving again, and that it will pass but would not have passed 6 months ago.

Merge the only thing voters will care about is 9.2%....All of the static about why he was or wasn't successful won't matter much (as it hasn't historically). Like it or not, we are a sound byte culture that predominately doesn't know or care about how things got there...they care about having a job and putting food on the table. The President is supposed to lead and work with Congress to overcome challenges and get things done. You even said OB is a poor leader.

Not that I'm a Romney or Perry supporter, but neither of them have been a part of the President/Congressional circus, so they enter the process without any branding of being a blocker.

I hope the President and Congress put through meaningful measures together to get people back to work, rather than forcing through a one-size fits all approach without agreement. Finally, demand is critical, but I disagree with you on repealing Obamacare. That would have an effect on hiring.
This post was edited on 9/10 11:37 AM by HALL85

 

[Belluno]

Originally posted by shu09:
A power-hungry man (Perry in this instance, if he has a Republican Congress), will never do what is right for the country. It will most definitely be George W. Bush 2.0.

Anybody running for President likes power and Obama is front and center on that score. If he had his way, and he might, you wouldn't be able to inale of exhale without the Government's permission. What a fun life you'll have, young man

 

[Belluno]

Originally posted by SnakeTom:
It seems that Republicans want lower taxes for the wealthy but oppose the cut in payroll taxes for for middle and lower income workers as suggested by the President. Yup that will go over real big on election day.

Tom K

Even bigger than a President who sits with his fat cat friends laughing about shovel ready projects that weren't quite shovel ready? (Yuck,yuck) And now he's back singing the same song. Real bright guy he is, aright, doesn't even have the sense to show his true colors off camera.

 

[Bobbie Solo]

what?

 

[SnakeTom]

Originally posted by Belluno:

Originally posted by shu09:
I thought tonight was a good start down that path.

The only path he has us started down is the one to bankruptcy. This guy is such a total failure at everything he's tried ....

This must make you very happy then since when OB was elected you posted here that you wanted him to fail at everything he did (and country be damned - my interpretation in parenthesis).

TK

 

[Belluno]

Originally posted by SnakeTom:

Originally posted by Belluno:

Originally posted by shu09:
I thought tonight was a good start down that path.

The only path he has us started down is the one to bankruptcy. This guy is such a total failure at everything he's tried ....

This must make you very happy then since when OB was elected you posted here that you wanted him to fail at everything he did (and country be damned - my interpretation in parenthesis).

TK

The country would be damned if he succeeded in pushing his domestic agenda, and, unfortunately, he did succeed when Dems controlled both houses. We are now living with that "success", so hoping for his failure domestically has been proven to be the right thing to do, and I will continue to do so. Why would I hope for anyone to succeed if I know he is doing the wrong thing?

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by HALL85:

Originally posted by Merge:

Originally posted by HALL85:
Merge, you're making assumptions on the way you see them rather than how they are. The reality is that it's about ecomonic performance and that's how the public has voted whether it's been a sitting Republican or Democratic President. I saw an interesting stat on the news the other night that the last three single term President's all had exceptionally high unemployment rates during their term (between 7.3 and 7.7%). That is how OB will be judged by the electorate....not by your theory about who was on the right or wrong side of the debt debate (because polls have consistantly shown the public anger at BOTH parties). Time will tell, but I am pointing to history rather than a wishful theory.

Those numbers are interesting without context, but when those presidents were removed from office... were they coming out of the worst recession since the great depression? Was the other party blocking everything they were doing? Was public support behind what the president was proposing or the other party?

That is the problem with pointing to history as Gingrich tried to do during the debate with how many jobs would have been creating with the policies from the 80's. We are not in a bubble where everything is the same.

Time will tell, but republicans are in a situation where they are in trouble if they block this jobs bill which is why I don't think they will and our debate is pointless... but my only points were that this is a good start to get our economy moving again, and that it will pass but would not have passed 6 months ago.

Merge the only thing voters will care about is 9.2%....All of the static about why he was or wasn't successful won't matter much (as it hasn't historically). Like it or not, we are a sound byte culture that predominately doesn't know or care about how things got there...they care about having a job and putting food on the table. The President is supposed to lead and work with Congress to overcome challenges and get things done. You even said OB is a poor leader.

Not that I'm a Romney or Perry supporter, but neither of them have been a part of the President/Congressional circus, so they enter the process without any branding of being a blocker.

I hope the President and Congress put through meaningful measures together to get people back to work, rather than forcing through a one-size fits all approach without agreement. Finally, demand is critical, but I disagree with you on repealing Obamacare. That would have an effect on hiring.
This post was edited on 9/10 11:37 AM by HALL85

The only reason that republicans are being rather tame right now in regards to the jobs bill is that they are going through damage control.

How does this bill which contains republican and democratic ideas differ from the deficit debate which contained republican and democratic ideas? Where was the language that Obama's ideas merit consideration then?

Conservatives are looking at the path to election and reelection and they know they have to support something Obama does. I don't think I am really going out on a limb there.

Now, as far as jobs from repealing Obamacare... Why do you think that would happen? The short term increase that we have seen in premiums would have been very similar without it.
The long term outlook for group coverage is that the premiums will be ver close to if we didn't do anything. The rising costs of premiums is a problem for companies that neither party has been able to go after effectively.

 

[HALL85]

Of course the Republicans (as well as the Democrats) make decisions relative to political expediency. Remember though, Obama NEVER submitted a deficit reduction plan. He spoke in generalities about what he wanted.

The problem that our business and most struggle with regarding Obamacare is the uncertainty. Until you know how it's going to impact you financially, the best thing to do is make temporary decisions regarding filling gaps in terms of needs. That is real and happening now.