(02-06-2009 02:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am not trying to bash him, either. He is our president now, for better or worse, and we can have high hopes at the same time as low expectations.

Frankly, I expected it would take a longer time before we started seeing the cracks in his programs that i expected. I thought iIwould just check back in 6 months. But things change (or sometimes they don't), and his growing list of failed or bad nominations jumpstarted the criticism.

Ranger, we did argue about whether it made sense to put someone with virtually no managerial experience into the job of Chief Executive when we had the long and lengthy discusion on the importance or unimportance of executive experience. Check the archives and see what was being said and by whom vis-a-vis exectutive experience. Basically, people who wanted Obama and/or disliked Palin thought it was of no importance. Personally, i think we are seeing the first results of his OTJ training.

...

Right, because if Obama had had even a little executive experience, he could've avoided these rookie mistakes and made nothing but smart picks: a Linda Chavez, or a Harriet Miers, or a 'Brownie', or a Bernard Kerik, or a Scooter Libby, or a John Bolton, or a Spencer Abraham, or even an Alberto Gonzalez. Alternatively, if he'd just had some middle-management experience he could've at least grabbed a Phil Gramm or similar.

Will we see the "Mean Side" of Obama? I bet we do. And finally we see him for the South Side Chicago Hack he really is. His "bipartisan game" ends today. And all Obama has to do to be "mean" is tell the Republicans "adopt my Bill or I'll turn Pelosi and Reid loose and sign anything that comes up from Congress."

How many times during the campaign did we hear Obama call for an end of the "politics of fear"? Now he tells everyone that we need to pass this hideous "stimulus package" otherwise we will be facing 'the end of the United States'.. Talk about harping the "politics of fear"..

Another Joke for a President....

____________________________________________

Obama ratchets up the rhetoric on stimulus plan

When open hand yields nothing, Obama shows GOP a clenched fist on stimulus bill

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama's soft-sell pitches to Republicans haven't gotten him very far on his economic stimulus plan, so he's resorting to a sharper tone that is at odds with his vow to make Washington less partisan.

Stopping just short of a take-it-or-leave-it stand, Obama has mocked the notion that a stimulus bill shouldn't include huge spending. He's also defended earmarks as inevitable in such a package. And he's pointedly reminded Republicans about who won the November election.

The heightened rhetoric reflects White House frustration that Obama's earlier efforts, which included high-profile visits to House and Senate Republicans last month, yielded not a single House GOP vote for the legislation. In the Senate, Obama and his allies were battling Friday for just a handful of Republican votes to avoid a bill-stopping filibuster.

"He's going on offense," Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., said after listening to Obama's more combative speech Thursday at a House Democrats' retreat. "I think the president decided that it's time to lay out the facts to the American people, as he did going into the campaign, and take control of this debate."

"We can't sit back and just let them define us," Clyburn said.

Some Democrats believe Republicans have done just that by highlighting questionable items in the roughly $900 billion package and using them to depict it as a pork-laden extravagance that won't do enough to stimulate the economy quickly.

Obama and his Democratic allies agreed to kill a few such provisions, such as money to resod the National Mall, in hopes of winning some Republican senators' support. Around midweek, however, Obama began changing his tone. Democrats need not apologize or compromise further except on small items, he said.

Some critics, he said at Thursday's retreat, contend the bill "is full of pet projects. When was the last time that we saw a bill of this magnitude move out with no earmarks in it? Not one."

Ratcheting up the sarcasm, the president said: "So then you get the argument, 'well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill.' What do you think a stimulus is?"

"That's the whole point," he said, as the audience hooted and applauded.

Obama warned Republicans not to "come to the table with the same tired arguments and worn ideas that helped to create this crisis." Americans, he said, "did not vote for the false theories of the past, and they didn't vote for phony arguments and petty politics."

"They sent us here to bring change," he said.

Congressional Democrats in close touch with the White House say Obama would welcome more Republican support for the stimulus bill but has lost patience and feels Republicans have slapped his open hand of friendship. White House officials now talk of trying to win just the few GOP Senate votes needed to cut off a filibuster and pass a bill that could be reconciled with the House version.

Both sides, it seems, are ready to let voters -- and history -- cast their judgments on a dispute where the two sides differ widely. Both sides say polls support their positions.

Backers of the Obama stimulus plan "haven't been listening to the American people, who clearly want major changes in this bill," said House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio.

House GOP Conference Chairman Mike Pence of Indiana said Friday he was disappointed that Obama had abandoned bipartisanship and "resorted to tough political rhetoric to pass the Democrats' so-called stimulus bill."

Democrats, however, say Boehner and Pence are trapped in an echo chamber of conservative talk shows and rock-ribbed Republican districts.

"There's a great disconnect between the way this plan is being perceived by the American people and the way it's being bantered about ... on the cable channels," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.

While Obama is aiming harsher words at Republicans in general, he has kept the fight from becoming personal.

Asked Friday who Obama felt was being "petty," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs demurred, and simply cited the need to stop job losses.

But Gibbs did not quarrel with a description of Obama's new tone as a "fist-in-a-velvet-glove approach."

"The president's tone denotes the economic crisis that we face," Gibbs said.

Even some of Obama's strongest supporters don't know if the tougher tone will prove more effective than the softer tone.

"It's a work in progress," Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., said of the stimulus package, which must be reconciled by the House and Senate. With Obama continuing to make personal appeals to lawmakers, he said, "it's still cooking."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Obama-ratc...84923.html

We can debate the "stimulus" plan until the cows come home, and in the end nobody really knows whether it will work or not. Either it will or it won't.
If it does work, then we are well on our way to becoming a socialist state.
If it doesn't work, then we are well on our way to becoming a third-world country.
I'd rather be Sweden than Nicaragua, but what I really wish is that we had better options on the table.
I do find it troubling that we are rushing headlong into socialism at a point in time when most of western Europe is searching for ways out of their 60-year socialist experiment. France, Germany, and Italy have elected conservatives, UK is looking like doing so, and even Sweden has privatized social security.
The republicans had their chance to run the country, they abandoned their principles, and they brought us to the lip of the cup of disaster. Now the democrats are going to tap us in.
We elected these people, so maybe we deserve what we get. But I didn't vote for any of them, and I'm not happy with those of you who did.

I quit typing last night because I allowed myself to get bogged down into a discussion of Bush's policies, rather than THIS package.

The point is this...

We are being asked by our government to spend ANOTHER $1 trillion dollars... on top of the trillions they spent last year... and in spite of another trillion they might spend later. I don't think it is unwise, unfair, unpatriotic or partisan to apply a little simple economics to their proposals. For those who would prefer to see something entirely different done, I would STILL say that as that doesn't appear to be likely, we should STILL seek to be most effective with the money. I don't want you to spend it, but if you're going to anyway, spend it well.

Sloth, I said initially that this was a simple, back of the napkin argument... while I don't dispute your argument that SOME people were already going to buy a car, and now may either just spend less on the car and pocket the difference, or spend it elsewhere while others will buy more accessories... you ALSO leave out the leverage added by the increased banking activity in generating car loans which begets additional loan activity in general... OR the fact that the incentive offered by the government to people to do something they were already going to do STILL provides an opportunity to stilumate the economy as that person redeploys that stimulus elsewhere. Is it a 1:1 ratio?? Who knows... We haven't even begun to discuss how the proposal might be implimented. In an extreme example for effect, If I designed it such that only people with sub 600 FICO scores got the incentive, then not one person CAPABLE of buying a car today would be encouraged to do something they were already going to do... or a sliding scale based upon a variety of criteria. How about a $15,000 "grant" for all people who make under $25,000/year if you buy a car for AT LEAST $20,000. You STILL will get an additional 20% in leverage... and a bank might not loan someone with a 700 FICO and a relatively low income $15,000 on a $15,000 car, but they WILL loan him $5,000 on a $20,000 car. Economists can apply all sorts of metrics and say it is anywhere from 0.5:1 to 10:1, but the fact is, they will all be wrong... and MORE is still MORE. Having the government buy $250mm in low margin cars with no salesmen or dealerships doesn't help nearly as many people as having banks get involved in the process. If one person buys an upgraded radio that the government wouldn't have bought, then it is STILL an improvement. Having one person take the $3,000 in incentives he got for buying a car he was already going to buy... even if he pockets $2,750 of it and spends the extra $250 on beer is STILL an improvement... because even saved money (put in banks or money market accounts) get put into investments and spurs economic activity... heck, it can be used as liquidity for the new Auto ABS conduit we just created.

The argument that in an attempt to encourage people to do something they might not have been ready to do... that you MIGHT "reward" someone who was already making that decision is no different that saying that many government vehicles were going to be replaced this year anyway, and money that WOULD have been spent on repairs of older government vehicles now won't be spent. The difference is... in the government's plan... no "risk" dollars (meaning banks/finance companies) are involved in that $250mm purchase at all... and no discretionary personal dollars are involved in it at all. If my proposal encourages ONE person to buy and especially finance a car today rather than wait 6 months (or not at all) or to buy an accessory he wasn't going to buy...

(02-09-2009 08:28 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We can debate the "stimulus" plan until the cows come home, and in the end nobody really knows whether it will work or not. Either it will or it won't.
If it does work, then we are well on our way to becoming a socialist state.
If it doesn't work, then we are well on our way to becoming a third-world country.
I'd rather be Sweden than Nicaragua, but what I really wish is that we had better options on the table.
I do find it troubling that we are rushing headlong into socialism at a point in time when most of western Europe is searching for ways out of their 60-year socialist experiment. France, Germany, and Italy have elected conservatives, UK is looking like doing so, and even Sweden has privatized social security.
The republicans had their chance to run the country, they abandoned their principles, and they brought us to the lip of the cup of disaster. Now the democrats are going to tap us in.
We elected these people, so maybe we deserve what we get. But I didn't vote for any of them, and I'm not happy with those of you who did.

I'm going to be in Washington for CPAC on the 26th. Ought to be fun. Many attending agree with you. There are some in the party ready to read the Riot Act to the "social conservatives" (me included) to tell them that Fiscal Responsibility is the key to winning elections, and to "can it" with the anti-abortion and morals agenda.

The Libertarian Wing is gaining strength because of the spending of Dubya, the "turnoff" of the former GOP Congressional Leadership, and the peril and threat caused by Obama.

Look... I'm all for second chances... and when it comes to the IRS, if you aren't at least PUSHING their relatively vague rules, you aren't trying. I have absolutely no problem with people working for or heading the IRS that have had run-ins with the IRS... in fact, I see some public benefit in it... PROVIDED they can at least reasonably articulate their disagreement.... like : I was told by my CPA, or I believed myself that this was okay... when challenged, my CPA and/or I presented our argument. By the time of this announcement, we had not yet reached an agreement. As new Director of the TSY, I believe it is now my duty to recuse myself from arguing with the government and pay what they say without further debate... but I support and defend the rights of citizens to question their government when rules are arguably unclear. As director, I'll work to eliminate confusion by our citizens.



and i agree 100% with the social conservatives complaint... NOT because i don't support some of their opinions, or believe that they don't have the right to live as they see fit... Merely because their position in aggregate is a minority position and dooms people more likely to agree with them to losing elections.

(02-09-2009 01:09 AM)JOwl Wrote:  

(02-06-2009 02:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am not trying to bash him, either. He is our president now, for better or worse, and we can have high hopes at the same time as low expectations.

Frankly, I expected it would take a longer time before we started seeing the cracks in his programs that i expected. I thought iIwould just check back in 6 months. But things change (or sometimes they don't), and his growing list of failed or bad nominations jumpstarted the criticism.

Ranger, we did argue about whether it made sense to put someone with virtually no managerial experience into the job of Chief Executive when we had the long and lengthy discusion on the importance or unimportance of executive experience. Check the archives and see what was being said and by whom vis-a-vis exectutive experience. Basically, people who wanted Obama and/or disliked Palin thought it was of no importance. Personally, i think we are seeing the first results of his OTJ training.

...

Right, because if Obama had had even a little executive experience, he could've avoided these rookie mistakes and made nothing but smart picks: a Linda Chavez, or a Harriet Miers, or a 'Brownie', or a Bernard Kerik, or a Scooter Libby, or a John Bolton, or a Spencer Abraham, or even an Alberto Gonzalez. Alternatively, if he'd just had some middle-management experience he could've at least grabbed a Phil Gramm or similar.

And your point is..What? That a lack of experience would have prevented these mistakes? (BTW, I don't agree that all these names represent mistakes, but certainly some do.) Why is is that some people think a total lack of experience is a plus? yeah, before I hire a (fill in the blank here) I want to make sure he has no background in doing this job at all.

Your list covers eight years vs. three weeks.

If it isn't lack of experience, then what do you attribute the failures to instead?

Experience is no guarantee that things will be done well, but a lack of experience is even less so.

How many of those names came up with tax problems in the vetting procedure?

If BHO cannot even come up with people who can survive a hearing when he owns the congress, how can we have any confidence in his future appointments?

It all comes down to faith - faith that Obama can do whatever is needed, faith that he can make the right moves. The events of the last few weeks have shaken the faith of some who had it before, but it has done little to give faith to those who didn't have it before. Or you could call it an erosion of public confidence, if you don't like the word faith.

I heard an Obama supporter on TV talking on the Gitmo situation, and questions were asked about what would be done about the worst of the worst - how would the situation be handled without just setting them loose. Her smug answer: "I am sure that president Obama and his team will come up with the solutions to that". That is faith, baby.

Every President has made/will make errors in appointments. Obama seems to be starting sooner than most, and with more early errors. Will he straighen himself and his team out? I hope so. But hope isn't faith.

(02-09-2009 02:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  It all comes down to faith - faith that Obama can do whatever is needed, faith that he can make the right moves. The events of the last few weeks have shaken the faith of some who had it before, but it has done little to give faith to those who didn't have it before. Or you could call it an erosion of public confidence, if you don't like the word faith.

I heard an Obama supporter on TV talking on the Gitmo situation, and questions were asked about what would be done about the worst of the worst - how would the situation be handled without just setting them loose. Her smug answer: "I am sure that president Obama and his team will come up with the solutions to that". That is faith, baby.

Every President has made/will make errors in appointments. Obama seems to be starting sooner than most, and with more early errors. Will he straighen himself and his team out? I hope so. But hope isn't faith.

"The work of this entity will be overseen by three co-chairs: John Podesta, Valerie Jarrett, and Pete Rouse.

The co-chairs will be assisted by an advisory board comprised of individuals with significant private and public sector experience: Carol Browner, William Daley, Christopher Edley, Michael Froman, Julius Genachowski, Donald Gips, Governor Janet Napolitano, Federico Peña, Susan Rice, Sonal Shah, Mark Gitenstein, and Ted Kaufman. Gitenstein and Kaufman will serve as co-chairs of Vice President-elect Biden's transition team.

Supervising the day-to-day activities of the transition will be:

Transition Senior Staff:

Chris Lu—Executive Director
Dan Pfeiffer—Communications Director
Stephanie Cutter—Chief Spokesperson
Cassandra Butts—General Counsel
Jim Messina—Personnel Director
Patrick Gaspard—Associate Personnel Director
Christine Varney--Personnel Counsel
Melody Barnes—Co-Director of Agency Review
Lisa Brown—Co-Director of Agency Review
Phil Schiliro—Director of Congressional Relations
Michael Strautmanis—Director of Public Liaison and Intergovernmental Affairs
Katy Kale—Director of Operations
Brad Kiley—Director of Operations

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/camp...-team.html

Go to http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:qduf...cd=3&gl=us

And you will see a list of different "Transition Agency Review Teams" and it looks like there were lots of "Chiefs" and very few "Indians" doing the work, and things like vetting on unimportant things like taxes, nannies, spouses business affrairs, fell through the cracks.

Did Obama hand out jobs on the Transition Team like Bush gave out jobs at FEMA?

I have more faith in the Almighty God than I do in any politician or anyone else in human form.

(02-09-2009 02:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2009 01:09 AM)JOwl Wrote:  

(02-06-2009 02:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am not trying to bash him, either. He is our president now, for better or worse, and we can have high hopes at the same time as low expectations.

Frankly, I expected it would take a longer time before we started seeing the cracks in his programs that i expected. I thought iIwould just check back in 6 months. But things change (or sometimes they don't), and his growing list of failed or bad nominations jumpstarted the criticism.

Ranger, we did argue about whether it made sense to put someone with virtually no managerial experience into the job of Chief Executive when we had the long and lengthy discusion on the importance or unimportance of executive experience. Check the archives and see what was being said and by whom vis-a-vis exectutive experience. Basically, people who wanted Obama and/or disliked Palin thought it was of no importance. Personally, i think we are seeing the first results of his OTJ training.

...

Right, because if Obama had had even a little executive experience, he could've avoided these rookie mistakes and made nothing but smart picks: a Linda Chavez, or a Harriet Miers, or a 'Brownie', or a Bernard Kerik, or a Scooter Libby, or a John Bolton, or a Spencer Abraham, or even an Alberto Gonzalez. Alternatively, if he'd just had some middle-management experience he could've at least grabbed a Phil Gramm or similar.

And your point is..What? That a lack of experience would have prevented these mistakes? (BTW, I don't agree that all these names represent mistakes, but certainly some do.) Why is is that some people think a total lack of experience is a plus? yeah, before I hire a (fill in the blank here) I want to make sure he has no background in doing this job at all.

Your list covers eight years vs. three weeks.

If it isn't lack of experience, then what do you attribute the failures to instead?

Experience is no guarantee that things will be done well, but a lack of experience is even less so.

How many of those names came up with tax problems in the vetting procedure?

If BHO cannot even come up with people who can survive a hearing when he owns the congress, how can we have any confidence in his future appointments?

It all comes down to faith - faith that Obama can do whatever is needed, faith that he can make the right moves. The events of the last few weeks have shaken the faith of some who had it before, but it has done little to give faith to those who didn't have it before. Or you could call it an erosion of public confidence, if you don't like the word faith.

I heard an Obama supporter on TV talking on the Gitmo situation, and questions were asked about what would be done about the worst of the worst - how would the situation be handled without just setting them loose. Her smug answer: "I am sure that president Obama and his team will come up with the solutions to that". That is faith, baby.

Every President has made/will make errors in appointments. Obama seems to be starting sooner than most, and with more early errors. Will he straighen himself and his team out? I hope so. But hope isn't faith.

(02-09-2009 02:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2009 01:09 AM)JOwl Wrote:  

(02-06-2009 02:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am not trying to bash him, either. He is our president now, for better or worse, and we can have high hopes at the same time as low expectations.

Frankly, I expected it would take a longer time before we started seeing the cracks in his programs that i expected. I thought iIwould just check back in 6 months. But things change (or sometimes they don't), and his growing list of failed or bad nominations jumpstarted the criticism.

Ranger, we did argue about whether it made sense to put someone with virtually no managerial experience into the job of Chief Executive when we had the long and lengthy discusion on the importance or unimportance of executive experience. Check the archives and see what was being said and by whom vis-a-vis exectutive experience. Basically, people who wanted Obama and/or disliked Palin thought it was of no importance. Personally, i think we are seeing the first results of his OTJ training.

...

Right, because if Obama had had even a little executive experience, he could've avoided these rookie mistakes and made nothing but smart picks: a Linda Chavez, or a Harriet Miers, or a 'Brownie', or a Bernard Kerik, or a Scooter Libby, or a John Bolton, or a Spencer Abraham, or even an Alberto Gonzalez. Alternatively, if he'd just had some middle-management experience he could've at least grabbed a Phil Gramm or similar.

And your point is..What? That a lack of experience would have prevented these mistakes? (BTW, I don't agree that all these names represent mistakes, but certainly some do.) Why is is that some people think a total lack of experience is a plus? yeah, before I hire a (fill in the blank here) I want to make sure he has no background in doing this job at all.

Your list covers eight years vs. three weeks.

If it isn't lack of experience, then what do you attribute the failures to instead?

Experience is no guarantee that things will be done well, but a lack of experience is even less so.

How many of those names came up with tax problems in the vetting procedure?

If BHO cannot even come up with people who can survive a hearing when he owns the congress, how can we have any confidence in his future appointments?

It all comes down to faith - faith that Obama can do whatever is needed, faith that he can make the right moves. The events of the last few weeks have shaken the faith of some who had it before, but it has done little to give faith to those who didn't have it before. Or you could call it an erosion of public confidence, if you don't like the word faith.

I heard an Obama supporter on TV talking on the Gitmo situation, and questions were asked about what would be done about the worst of the worst - how would the situation be handled without just setting them loose. Her smug answer: "I am sure that president Obama and his team will come up with the solutions to that". That is faith, baby.

Every President has made/will make errors in appointments. Obama seems to be starting sooner than most, and with more early errors. Will he straighen himself and his team out? I hope so. But hope isn't faith.

My point: To challenge your claim that Obama's nominating mistakes are proof that it was foolish to elect someone with such little executive experience. I think I've made it abundantly clear that executive experience doesn't prevent such mistakes. You even make the point yourself - "Your list covers 8 years vs. three weeks"; how is it that a president with 6 years of gubernatorial experience and 4 years of presidential executive experience still gives us a Bernard Kerik, and then follows it up one experience-year later with a Harriet Miers? I'd say it's because these mistakes are made regardless of executive experience.

(02-09-2009 08:07 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2009 02:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2009 01:09 AM)JOwl Wrote:  

(02-06-2009 02:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am not trying to bash him, either. He is our president now, for better or worse, and we can have high hopes at the same time as low expectations.

Frankly, I expected it would take a longer time before we started seeing the cracks in his programs that i expected. I thought iIwould just check back in 6 months. But things change (or sometimes they don't), and his growing list of failed or bad nominations jumpstarted the criticism.

Ranger, we did argue about whether it made sense to put someone with virtually no managerial experience into the job of Chief Executive when we had the long and lengthy discusion on the importance or unimportance of executive experience. Check the archives and see what was being said and by whom vis-a-vis exectutive experience. Basically, people who wanted Obama and/or disliked Palin thought it was of no importance. Personally, i think we are seeing the first results of his OTJ training.

...

Right, because if Obama had had even a little executive experience, he could've avoided these rookie mistakes and made nothing but smart picks: a Linda Chavez, or a Harriet Miers, or a 'Brownie', or a Bernard Kerik, or a Scooter Libby, or a John Bolton, or a Spencer Abraham, or even an Alberto Gonzalez. Alternatively, if he'd just had some middle-management experience he could've at least grabbed a Phil Gramm or similar.

And your point is..What? That a lack of experience would have prevented these mistakes? (BTW, I don't agree that all these names represent mistakes, but certainly some do.) Why is is that some people think a total lack of experience is a plus? yeah, before I hire a (fill in the blank here) I want to make sure he has no background in doing this job at all.

Your list covers eight years vs. three weeks.

If it isn't lack of experience, then what do you attribute the failures to instead?

Experience is no guarantee that things will be done well, but a lack of experience is even less so.

How many of those names came up with tax problems in the vetting procedure?

If BHO cannot even come up with people who can survive a hearing when he owns the congress, how can we have any confidence in his future appointments?

It all comes down to faith - faith that Obama can do whatever is needed, faith that he can make the right moves. The events of the last few weeks have shaken the faith of some who had it before, but it has done little to give faith to those who didn't have it before. Or you could call it an erosion of public confidence, if you don't like the word faith.

I heard an Obama supporter on TV talking on the Gitmo situation, and questions were asked about what would be done about the worst of the worst - how would the situation be handled without just setting them loose. Her smug answer: "I am sure that president Obama and his team will come up with the solutions to that". That is faith, baby.

Every President has made/will make errors in appointments. Obama seems to be starting sooner than most, and with more early errors. Will he straighen himself and his team out? I hope so. But hope isn't faith.

My point: To challenge your claim that Obama's nominating mistakes are proof that it was foolish to elect someone with such little executive experience. I think I've made it abundantly clear that executive experience doesn't prevent such mistakes. You even make the point yourself - "Your list covers 8 years vs. three weeks"; how is it that a president with 6 years of gubernatorial experience and 4 years of presidential executive experience still gives us a Bernard Kerik, and then follows it up one experience-year later with a Harriet Miers? I'd say it's because these mistakes are made regardless of executive experience.

And i would say that mistakes can be made by anybody, but they are more likely to be made by those with no experience. If the liklihood of error is the same regardless of experience, as your last sentence implies, then hire anybody to do your taxes, hire anybody to remodel your bathroom, hire anybody to run your business, hire anybody to be Secretary of the Treasury, hire anybody to run the CIA, we are all equally qualified.

Experience is no guarantee that things will be done right, but it is a better indicator that they will be than no experience at all. When you hire someone, a tax advisor, an electrician, a surgeon, an employee, do you not inquire about experience? If so, why? If not, why not?

This highlights a problem republicans have criticizing Obama. Shrub--or perhaps more correctly the neocons that I believe were pulling his strings--wanted the war in Iraq so badly that they compromised principles on everything else to keep enough support to keep the war going.

Shrub was wrong, but that doesn't make Obama right. In many cases, what I think Obama is doing wrong is carrying the mistakes of Shrub to wretched excess. "Stimulus" program is a case in point. We've pretty much already tried deficit spending and throwing money at the problem, to no avail. Obama promised a fresh approach. This isn't.

It was interesting to listen to Obama last night...

This wasn't the Presidency he envisioned during the campaign... Neither was Bush's...

I inherited a deficit that had doubled... and a weak economy... True, but why is all of Obama's spending necessary stimulus and all of Bush's spending simply waste? What I mean is... if as he saud the other day, spending IS stimulus, then while Bush may have been incredibly inefficient, his spending ALSO kept the economy from being even worse.

I'm not defending Bush as much as I'm saying sauce for the goose...


### late edit... sorry, hit send too early.

Personally, I'm tired of the finger pointing and excuses. I think Bush screwed me over, but I think he did so because people didn't want the truth... BUSH's answer was to say one thing and do another... talk tough and then under-commit. Obama's answer seemed to be to tell people what they wanted to hear during the election, and then once elected, blame changes in his plan on external forces... well surprise, surprise, surprise... I think we'd ALL be better off if we dropped the finger pointing and pretenses... Personally, I want a President who will limit the impact of the government on me... but 90% of voters seem to support someone who will make decisions FOR them. Why did every Bush speech mention 9/11?? because it was his excuse for ot being the guy we elected. Obama is starting down the identical path.

It doesn't take a Harvard or Yale or Rice graduate to know how to get out of the way...

(02-10-2009 07:02 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  This hughlights a problem republicans have criticizing Obama. Shrub--or perhaps more correctly the neocons that I believe were pulling his strings--wanted the war in Iraq so badly that they compromised principles on everything else to keep enough support to keep the war going.

Shrub was wrong, but that doesn't make Obama right. In many cases, what I think Obama is doing wrong is carrying the mistakes of Shrub to wretched excess. "Stimulus" program is a case in point. We've pretty much already tried deficit spending and throwing money at the problem, to no avail. Obama promised a fresh approach. This isn't.

Until someone finailly concedes that it is necessary for the Feds to buy up all the garbage commercial paper related to the mortgages and take it off the balance sheets, the "stimulus plans" is just like putting a Band-Aid on a lacerated artery.

Why won't they set up the "Bad Bank" with the balance of the TARP money and start solving the problem instead of printing money and spending it?

And I just heard on the news 15 minutes ago that someone buried some rather radical Health Care Reform measures inside the "Stimulus Bill".

Whats the difference between a Congressman and a Car Salesman? The Car Salesman is more honest.

The problem with the bad bank idea WMD is what should they pay for the assets?? The TARP money wasnt' really designed to keep banks from failing, it was designed to spur them to loan. Instead, they have used the money to further write down some assets so that when things come back, they will look even better. If the government took the assets over (which they really can't do unless the bank is insolvent) then they have to buy the assets at the value that makes the banks insolvent... which DOES put them out of business, and means an even bigger bailout.

I generally support the bad bank idea... but I think it has to be at some negotiated level. Banks have no interest in selling these assets at or below their book value... it makes no sense... and to sell them above book value requires "faith".

I just ran across THIS ARTICLE comparing the current recession to the several relatively recent recessions. While I won't vouch for the accuracy of the charts, it does appear to be the same chart that Nancy Pelosi is using a small snippet of to suggest this is the worst recession ever. However, the big picture suggests that several others were both deeper and longer. So my question becomes how the economy came out of these recessions without a huge bailout and why the bailout should be expected to work better than the market? While I took and passed Econ 101 back in the dark ages, my feeble memory doesn't suggest that throwing more money at the problem will do anythiing other than fuel inflation and deepen and lengthen the recession. Somebody that paid more attention want to enlighten me? Thanks!

Honestly Doc, you can pick your timeframe... but all we are really doing is correcting the excesses of SOME portion of the last 25 years, depending on whom you want to believe... There is so much leverage in our economy it is criminal. We talk about individual leverage, but it goes so much further than that... and our government is setting the worst example, and encouraging us to follow.

(02-10-2009 02:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Experience is no guarantee that things will be done right, but it is a better indicator that they will be than no experience at all. When you hire someone, a tax advisor, an electrician, a surgeon, an employee, do you not inquire about experience? If so, why? If not, why not?

And we're back to where we started. Your opinion is that "executive experience" is extremely important for a President; my opinion is that it's way down on the list. You argue that Obama making the same mistakes as Presidents with much greater "executive experience" serves to bolster your claim; I disagree.

You'll note I've never said experience is valueless. That would be ludicrous. But bear in mind that we elect a president with no presidential experience at least once every eight years; I just don't feel that what you consider to be "executive experience" is all that important to being president. Considering that presidents (Bush II and Clinton certainly; anyone before that is mostly before my time) with significant amounts of "executive experience" made Obama's mistake over and over, I fail to see how Obama's mistakes bolster your claim that a president with more "executive experience" would have avoided them.

(02-10-2009 03:26 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(02-10-2009 02:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Experience is no guarantee that things will be done right, but it is a better indicator that they will be than no experience at all. When you hire someone, a tax advisor, an electrician, a surgeon, an employee, do you not inquire about experience? If so, why? If not, why not?

And we're back to where we started. Your opinion is that "executive experience" is extremely important for a President; my opinion is that it's way down on the list. You argue that Obama making the same mistakes as Presidents with much greater "executive experience" serves to bolster your claim; I disagree.

You'll note I've never said experience is valueless. That would be ludicrous. But bear in mind that we elect a president with no presidential experience at least once every eight years; I just don't feel that what you consider to be "executive experience" is all that important to being president. Considering that presidents (Bush II and Clinton certainly; anyone before that is mostly before my time) with significant amounts of "executive experience" made Obama's mistake over and over, I fail to see how Obama's mistakes bolster your claim that a president with more "executive experience" would have avoided them.

More likely to have avoided them. Not would. Not my claim. Not my statement.

There is a reason the president is called the Chief Executive. Experience as a President is not what is used to make a voting decision, although if it is available, as in re-election campaigns, it is important. We make the judgements based on our assesments of their experience and job performance. If we were to hire someone to build a fence, we might well give the job to someone who has never built a fence before, but does have carpentry experience and seems nice. Is it possible that he will build a perfect fence? Sure. Or we might give the job to someone who has built dozens of fences over the last ten years. Is it possible that he will botch the job? Sure. Which one is more likely to deliver what is promised, a good fence. i submit the odds are better with the guy with experience. And i bet if you were building a fence, you would probably choose the experienced guy. If you hire the other guy anyway, and the job is botched, is it fair to say that it was probably because he was learning OTJ? I think so. You seem to think not, because you can point to other fence builders with experience who also botched the job. Not relevant to THIS fencebuilder.

You are the one who said these mistakes are made REGARDLESS of executive experience. i understand this to mean that they are equally likely to be made by someone with experience as by a tyro. I say they are more likely to be made by someone without executive experience. People do learn from their mistakes, and they also learn through practice and repitition. There is a reason the mail clerk who is promoted directly to CEO exists only in Hollywood. I think the lack of relevant experience is a drawback in any job - I see no reason to exempt the Chief Executive from this.

I just called a plumber to fix a leak. I guess I could have just tried to do it myself. Chances are my first effort would be perfect, right? experience is unimportant. But silly me, I opted to have the guy with 20 years experience do it. What was i thinking?

Electing a President with no Presidential experience is akin to promoting someone to a job they have never held before, i. e. a promotion. Usually, when considering someone for a promotion, we consider their experience in handling similar jobs. If they have never done anything similar, they are considered poor candidates. Only in electing our officials is previous experience in similar positions deemed unimportant. That's why we elect comedians and football players and actors to public office. If you are going to promote someone to the head of accounting, you would usually look to someone with accounting experience - you don't go to the motor pool and promote the chief mechanic - he lacks experience needed for the job.

I think that if the democrat in 2008 had had the experience, it would have touted by his supporters as part of his qualifications. But he didn't, so it is deemed unimportant.

My statement is simple - maybe his problems stem from a lack of experience, specifically experience in appointing and vetting people. Prove me wrong.

If you are saying that experience is not a guarantee of results, i agree. But it appears to me you are saying it is of nearly no importance, and with that i do not agree. In making a decision as to who to vote for, i think it is only one of many things to consider, but an important one, not "way down the list". I didn't consider McCain's executive experience adequate either, but when you only have the two choices, you have to go with the better of the two. I did, IMO, and so did you, IYO, but just because he may have been the better (or even best) choice, IYO, doesn't mean his stumbles are unrelated to his lack of experience. I didn't expect this many stumbles, of this magnitude, so soon, but neither am i surprised. FWIW, the internet, cable, and papers are full of articles indicating he is learning from his mistakes, an indicator of OJT. Glad to see he is learning.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Let's revisit this topic in 3 years - should be interesting.

(02-10-2009 06:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  My statement is simple - maybe his problems stem from a lack of experience, specifically experience in appointing and vetting people. Prove me wrong.

You're asking me prove you wrong in the contention that his problems may have stemmed from a lack of experience? Obviously that's impossible.

Consider: "Maybe his problems stem from the fact that I ate cornflakes rather than rice krispies three months ago. Prove me wrong." Impossible, no?

Your original contention was that "Personally, i think we are seeing the first results of his OTJ training". Mine is that personally, I see him making the same mistakes as every other president I've followed.

Also, my apologies for misrepresenting your position. Let me amend my last comment from my prior post, as I still stand by it:
"Considering that presidents (Bush II and Clinton certainly; anyone before that is mostly before my time) with significant amounts of 'executive experience' made Obama's mistake over and over, I fail to see how Obama's mistakes bolster your claim that a president with more 'executive experience' would have been more likely to have avoided them."

I mean really, what in history suggests that this is the sort of mistake one is more likely to avoid after having been governor of Illinois or CEO of Monsanto? Bush went from governor of Texas to nominating Linda Chavez. He failed to learn from that and nominated Kerik. Clinton had a few years as president under his belt when he nominated Zoe Baird, and he immediately followed her nomination with Kimba Wood!

It seems you're predisposed to blame Obama's lack of experience for any misstep. To me, these seem particularly ill-chosen given the rich history of similar mistakes by presidents with "executive experience".