DescentBB

null0010 wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

null0010 wrote:At least campaigning is a tiny iota more productive than taking a vacation.

That is debatable since campaigning leads to compromising ones position in exchange for donations and support where as vacations don't but in his defense Obama has managed to squeeze in quite a few vacations in between his campaigning...

He's not taken nearly as many vacation days as George W. Bush, at least.

So you're going to hold the bar at that level and scold others by virtue of having championed that benchmark?!? ' He campaigns a lot but he vacations less than the other guy therefore you shouldn't disparage his qualifications as an executive' Lol! you go!

No, I'm trying to point out how ridiculous it is to criticize a president in that way.

It's not a legit complaint to say he spends so much time campaigning his time actually performing his duty seems to be compromised? You have strange standards for judging an employee.
And then you give him credit for choosing to campaign too much instead of vacation too much?!?
I remember he did the same thing as a US Senator, he spent the vast majority of his time out running for the nomination for Presidential candidate and then in the later part of the Presidential run he used his absence from the floor of the Senate as a defense from criticism of the legislation his congress passed!
He didn't think it should fall on his shoulders having to take any blame for the legislation passed by the congress because he didn't vote on it!!
If Calvin Klein were to market a signature cologne for him it would be called Arrogance!

Will Robinson wrote:It's not a legit complaint to say he spends so much time campaigning his time actually performing his duty seems to be compromised? You have strange standards for judging an employee.

What kind of campaigning are you talking about? Our previous president demonstrated the danger of insufficiently campaigning for his issues. It's the duty of the president to campaign to a certain extent for what he believes in. Is it a legitimate complaint that Obama campaigns too much? Well, I don't know. I haven't actually seen any details of the complaint because no one has given any.

Will wrote:And then you give him credit for choosing to campaign too much instead of vacation too much?!?

In his defense, he borrowed parrying criticisms with examples of the other politicians doing similar things straight from your playbook.

Will Robinson wrote:
If Calvin Klein were to market a signature cologne for him it would be called Arrogance!

True arrogance is lambasting wall street execs., then running to them for campaign contributions.

No, that would be hypocrisy. Arrogance would be lambasting Wall Street executives and then refusing their money because you're "too good" for them.

Jeff250 wrote:...

What kind of campaigning are you talking about? Our previous president demonstrated the danger of insufficiently campaigning for his issues. ...

I'm talking about running around raising funds not running around advocating for policy.

Jeff250 wrote:In his defense, he borrowed parrying criticisms with examples of the other politicians doing similar things straight from your playbook.

Consider the context of the discussion. Suggesting campaigning is more productive than vacationing, although in a literal sense may be true, it isn't a good example of proving the person who chose campaigning is a better executive by virtue of that choice. In both instances the subject is serving his self instead of his employer. Then again, with our current political system, using the power of the presidency to raise funds for your party is serving your true employer...we just think they work for us because we pay their salary.

I have no problems with using examples of people doing something wrong to illustrate the thing we are talking about but in this case I'm not seeing a difference and that is what null was implying, that there is a positive difference between the two behaviors.

Jeff250 wrote:What kind of campaigning are you talking about? Our previous president demonstrated the danger of insufficiently campaigning for his issues. It's the duty of the president to campaign to a certain extent for what he believes in. Is it a legitimate complaint that Obama campaigns too much? Well, I don't know. I haven't actually seen any details of the complaint because no one has given any.

Point made.

But…

There is a big difference between campaigning to get things done and campaigning to get re-elected.

Hard to tell which is which some time. I would have to say that looking back on the healthcare issue…he didn’t do much to affect the result. But he did however make himself look good.

null0010 wrote:No, that would be hypocrisy. Arrogance would be lambasting Wall Street executives and then refusing their money because you're "too good" for them.

Hypocrisy yes but still arrogant to even contemplate running to them and thinking they will give him money.

if you don't think Wall Street, and a massive amount of America's Old Money isn't going to literally THROW money at Obama's reelection campaign, you are not paying attention. Look no further than the Dow Jones Index......at the outset of the term, around 7000, closed today around 12,500. That's up around 75% in less than 3 years! Most folks with liquidity have absolutely been making a killing for the Obama Presidency's run so far. Why on Earth would they NOT back him?Sure, there's been some tough rhetoric, but overall, the whole effort so far, has been aimed toward the resuscitation of the investment community.
Now, watch, if you will, as one serious GOP candidate after another reads the tea leaves and decides that 2012 just isn't the year to run for President.....

That’s a nice little spin…you could also say…It took 3 long years to get back to where it was in the first place.

I’m pretty sure it would have recovered, no matter who was in office, that’s just the way these things work.

Yea, I’m sure the GOP is quaking in it’s boots, because the stock market recovered. (forgetting about the last election?)

It should be noted that the main reason the Dow dropped as far as it did that March (about 6700, down from about 8300 on Obama's first day) is that a lot of people were in a panic over the housing bubble. People were desperate for cash and willing to take 50 cents on the dollar for their stocks. The economy was never as good as it appeared when the Dow was up over 14000, nor was it as bad as it appeared when it was down under 7000. Please do not make the mistake of thinking "wow, the economy got so much better under Obama" because of the movement of the Dow.

Yeah, those of us with liquidity made a killing -- but it wasn't because of Obama, or Bush, or any other politician. It was because desperate people and sheep decided "OMG I must sell" and offered some great bargains on stocks. It just so happened to bottom out shortly after the change in administrations.

People who are serious about making money off of their investments aren't particularly enthusiastic about a second term of Obama. Wall Street might be enthusiastic about more Bush-Obama bailout money, but people whose money comes from stocks rather than bailouts would really like to keep their cap gains rates down. If only there was a decent fiscal conservative in the race who wasn't some sort of nutball in some other key area...

It just so happened

Seems to be a lot of that ★■◆●, yet it is all so damn easily controlled .

callmeslick wrote:if you don't think Wall Street, and a massive amount of America's Old Money isn't going to literally THROW money at Obama's reelection campaign, you are not paying attention. Look no further than the Dow Jones Index......at the outset of the term, around 7000, closed today around 12,500. That's up around 75% in less than 3 years! Most folks with liquidity have absolutely been making a killing for the Obama Presidency's run so far. Why on Earth would they NOT back him?Sure, there's been some tough rhetoric, but overall, the whole effort so far, has been aimed toward the resuscitation of the investment community.
Now, watch, if you will, as one serious GOP candidate after another reads the tea leaves and decides that 2012 just isn't the year to run for President.....

If you are correct then you should be able to tell us what policy has Obama put in place to cause that 75% uptick. Keep in mind the bailout was put in play before Obama so there must be something else 'he did' that Wall Street is hoping for more of.

Spidey wrote:That’s a nice little spin…you could also say…It took 3 long years to get back to where it was in the first place.

yeah, but most of the smart money bailed, or started to, by 2006-2007. Anyone with a brain could smell the stench of bad paper and a massive housing bubble about to burst.

I’m pretty sure it would have recovered, no matter who was in office, that’s just the way these things work.

actually, had they taken the hands-off approach that some(many?) wished to take, we would have gone into an abyss from which we would have NEVER recovered. The Old Money knew that, backed Obama to the hilt in 2008, and will back, checkbooks in hand again for 2012. They know a good thing when they see it.
Trust me, if you will, on this one.......I did fundraising for the campaign in 2008, and will be doing so again,
and most of my large contributions came from middle aged prep school alums from very old families.

Yea, I’m sure the GOP is quaking in it’s boots, because the stock market recovered. (forgetting about the last election?)

just watch....

Will Robinson wrote:If you are correct then you should be able to tell us what policy has Obama put in place to cause that 75% uptick. Keep in mind the bailout was put in play before Obama so there must be something else 'he did' that Wall Street is hoping for more of.

actually, while some of the Wall Street bailout started in 2008(Sept, to be exact), a lot of key stuff was such as extensions of capital to smaller institutions, massive available liquidity for all investment houses, the auto industry prop-up and the like were on Obama's watch. Also, instead of reacting with massive overregulation of investment and banking, most of the business model was left unchanged. See my other post on the matter for further clarificaton.

Lothar wrote:It should be noted that the main reason the Dow dropped as far as it did that March (about 6700, down from about 8300 on Obama's first day) is that a lot of people were in a panic over the housing bubble. People were desperate for cash and willing to take 50 cents on the dollar for their stocks. The economy was never as good as it appeared when the Dow was up over 14000, nor was it as bad as it appeared when it was down under 7000. Please do not make the mistake of thinking "wow, the economy got so much better under Obama" because of the movement of the Dow.

I make no such mistake, merely using the Dow as an obvious marker.

Yeah, those of us with liquidity made a killing -- but it wasn't because of Obama, or Bush, or any other politician. It was because desperate people and sheep decided "OMG I must sell" and offered some great bargains on stocks. It just so happened to bottom out shortly after the change in administrations.

People who are serious about making money off of their investments aren't particularly enthusiastic about a second term of Obama. Wall Street might be enthusiastic about more Bush-Obama bailout money, but people whose money comes from stocks rather than bailouts would really like to keep their cap gains rates down. If only there was a decent fiscal conservative in the race who wasn't some sort of nutball in some other key area...

I would agree completely, but as you rightly state, Obama is the only sane option available.