Time to consider "Worst Administration Ever"?

[PB the Deplorable]

...  Need to make a quarterly to impress the Street?  Toss 3,000 out of work to suppress costs!...

You really think that's how it works?

We have a dynamic economy - when it's healthy there are always going to layoffs, new hires, bankruptcies, new business startups.  Yes, it's hard on people that get canned for reasons that have nothing to do with their performance.  They may have to move, they may have to get re-trained or updated skills, but mostly they end up with new higher paying jobs.  Of course there are people that end up worse off, lots of them - it's not a perfect system and it needs to be monitored/regulated, but so far all the alternatives are worse for more people. 

It certainly beats Soviet style of taking tax dollars out of the economy and re-injecting them into failed businesses to keep them afloat.  That path leads to stagnation with a bunch of non-competitive companies being propped up by money that would produce more goods & services and employ more people elsewhere.


Reading through your posts, from here it looks like you are highly selective when it comes to interpreting what goes on in our economy.  And them some evil intent or criminal action is applied to the that which you don't like.  Are you providing each of your employees with a gold plated health care insurance policy?  Are you paying a 'living wage' to every single employee.  If not, is it because you're evil?  My impression is you assume that of others.

Same with past events.  For example the idea that FDRs stimulus was not a failure.  Of course it was - we were still in the Depression until WWII.  All those years of stimulus did nothing as far as job creation, GDP, unemployment - all the indicators that measure the economy.  All the lost years of people providing for their families, moving up, saving for their kids education, and preparing for retirement because we had a president that didn't understand how the economy worked and wanted to score political points.  Just like now.

[PB the Deplorable]

Exactly who was going to buy these troubled assets?  At what ruinous price?  Dimon had to swallow Bear Stearns for $10 a share (Hank Paulson originally said $2 a share!) - Bank of America had to swallow Country Wide and they're still suffering the pains of indigestion by way of settling lawsuits!

The problem with your economic philosophy (invisible hand, Friedman, laissez faire) is that it has been tried all too often with ruinous results.  There is no catalyst, no impetus, no mechanism guaranteeing action! You presume someone, somehow, somewhere wants to buy these assets (without the government twisting their arm) and you have no plan for how to re-employ the obvious job casualties that would result from these bankruptcies. Or even guarantee a fair price for the assets because the "competent" management wouldn't touch them voluntarily...

All assets have value.  There is some price that would draw interest.

When businesses are mismanaged, or when the competition is better, or when certain goods and services are obsolete, the proper thing is for those assets to be redeployed where they are more productive.  That includes employees.

There are a few terms that people seem to want to inject into a discussion when events don't go their way.  'Ruiness price' is one of them.  These terms have no meaning in a discussion of economics.

'Ruiness price'?  'Fair price'?  These have definitions?  Different from what someone is willing to pay?  Should someone be forced to buy these assets at a predetermined amount?   Who should decide who and at what price?

Assets will be sold for the highest amount someone is willing to pay.  There are a lot of pools of cash out here waiting to buy distressed assets, and anyone else is welcome to offer more.  These assets are typically old, outdated, in need of repair, retooling, it costs money to integrate them into other existing businesses, it takes up time to manage them and so on.  How valuable do you think they are.  Of course people are only going to buy them at an attractive price.



"There is no catalyst, no impetus, no mechanism guaranteeing action!"  I don't even know what this means.  Would you be happier with a Soviet style system where some bureaucrat is making every decision, instead of people that know how to run their business and know what they need to do so?  And recognize an opportunity when they see it - such as a distressed asset that needs a new owner. 

For once why don't you look at the failed economies of the places that thought like you do, and implemented the ideas you favor.  We've had state run economies where there was a 'catalyst', an 'impetus', a 'mechanism guaranteeing action'.  It doesn't turn out well.

[onan]

All assets have value.  There is some price that would draw interest.

When businesses are mismanaged, or when the competition is better, or when certain goods and services are obsolete, the proper thing is for those assets to be redeployed where they are more productive.  That includes employees.

There are a few terms that people seem to want to inject into a discussion when events don't go their way.  'Ruiness price' is one of them.  These terms have no meaning in a discussion of economics.

'Ruiness price'?  'Fair price'?  These have definitions?  Different from what someone is willing to pay?  Should someone be forced to buy these assets at a predetermined amount?   Who should decide who and at what price?

Assets will be sold for the highest amount someone is willing to pay.  There are a lot of pools of cash out here waiting to buy distressed assets, and anyone else is welcome to offer more.  These assets are typically old, outdated, in need of repair, retooling, it costs money to integrate them into other existing businesses, it takes up time to manage them and so on.  How valuable do you think they are.  Of course people are only going to buy them at an attractive price.



"There is no catalyst, no impetus, no mechanism guaranteeing action!"  I don't even know what this means.  Would you be happier with a Soviet style system where some bureaucrat is making every decision, instead of people that know how to run their business and know what they need to do so?  And recognize an opportunity when they see it - such as a distressed asset that needs a new owner. 

For once why don't you look at the failed economies of the places that thought like you do, and implemented the ideas you favor.  We've had state run economies where there was a 'catalyst', an 'impetus', a 'mechanism guaranteeing action'.  It doesn't turn out well.

You would probably be right if we hadn't changed the term assets to mean intangibles. Now the important thing is how to measure or diminish a loss so that a derivative has value... talk about insane. We lost the war on the economy when we let production go to other countries. We lost the war on the economy when we let big business make the rules and give little consideration to regulation of those businesses. And to make it clear, I hold little sympathy for the politician that sleeps with these bastards, the real devil is the "lets-bleed-this-thing-dry" schmuck.

[PB the Deplorable]

You would probably be right if we hadn't changed the term assets to mean intangibles. Now the important thing is how to measure or diminish a loss so that a derivative has value... talk about insane. We lost the war on the economy when we let production go to other countries. We lost the war on the economy when we let big business make the rules and give little consideration to regulation of those businesses. And to make it clear, I hold little sympathy for the politician that sleeps with these bastards, the real devil is the "lets-bleed-this-thing-dry" schmuck.

Shipping jobs offshore was an unintended consequence of 'free trade'.   I'm all for a global economy, but we should slap tariffs on goods that used to be made here and are now offshored.  And use that money to the benefit of the displaced workers that need it.




It seems like the whole country has become a bunch of takers, from politicians and business down to people abusing handicapped parking.

I wonder if it's just a general drop in personal responsibility and pride of doing the right thing, or if everyone just feels ripped off at every turn and is trying to get something back.  Or both.  Or some other different reason.

[aldousburbank]

As I recall from eighth grade constitution class, one of congress' few original mandates were levy's and tariff's.  NOT taxing income.

[onan]

As I recall from eighth grade constitution class, one of congress' few original mandates were levy's and tariff's.  NOT taxing income.

So dig a bit deeper and see where the "motivation" came from to implement an "income" tax.

[PB the Deplorable]

You would probably be right if we hadn't changed the term assets to mean intangibles. Now the important thing is how to measure or diminish a loss so that a derivative has value... talk about insane...

I don't understand why the problem with Swaps hasn't been fixed (other than a huge adverse effect on AIG, who sells most of them).  Basically Swaps are insurance one can buy in case their security goes sour.  For example Default Interest Swaps can be bought on certain bonds that guarantees the interest will be paid to the bond holder (Default Equity Swaps are insurance against loss of value, etc).  It's like having fire insurance in case a house burns down.

The problem is, anyone can buy the Swap without owning the underlying security.  So a Goldman Sachs can own a zillion Swaps contracts that will pay off if a certain security goes under.  It's like a neighbor taking out 100 fire insurance policies on someone else's house.  Big payoff for them if it burns.

So these things are bought and sold like stock options and are out there way in excess of the underlying assets.  Just waiting for the system to crash again. 


Just this alone is an indication of how stupid/corrupt our politicians are in not fixing it.  Just as no one is allowed to take out fire insurance on someone else's home, people that don't own the underlying security should not be allowed to own these Swaps.

Most derivatives have purpose, and can either leverage investment income or limit risk, but they should only be allowed to be used appropriately.  The tradable ones (as opposed to those written into a contract) should probably be registered - with full explanation - in some way.

[NowhereInTime]

You really think that's how it works?

Yes, because I have been in business and been ordered to lay people off.  Especially during tight fourth quarters when expectations from analysts are high. 

Why do you always go back to talking about "soviet style" and other nonsense when I criticize business?  Have you not noticed that I am in the private sector?  Just because I have gripes doesn't mean I agree with "Marx" or the friggin' Soviets!!  That's the conservative demagoguery that I will no longer allow or respect. 

Do you work in the private sector?  I wonder because you are always so reverential about the wonders of it that I can't imagine you do or ever have. You've never had a CEO order layoffs to make a cost number that will reflect in a stock price?  You've never had benefits cut for no other reason than someone in the CFO's office determined they could be?  I cannot imagine someone having been in either big or small business and having gone through a career unscarred unless they walked out of the Ivy into Corporate HQ.  Even then, some of those people got tossed.

[aldousburbank]

So dig a bit deeper and see where the "motivation" came from to implement an "income" tax.

I dig your point amigo.

http://youtu.be/qm3LaqO-lAA
(Edit) the youtube links, she no works.

[PB the Deplorable]

... Why do you always go back to talking about "soviet style" and other nonsense when I criticize business?  Have you not noticed that I am in the private sector?  Just because I have gripes doesn't mean I agree with "Marx" or the friggin' Soviets!!  That's the conservative demagoguery that I will no longer allow or respect...

You can say or think what you like.  Your ideas are right out of the East Bloc.  I suggest you scroll past my posts if you don't want to hear it.

Yes, because I have been in business and been ordered to lay people off.  Especially during tight fourth quarters when expectations from analysts are high...

You know what?  That is either BS, or you have some real morons running your company.

By the time they realize the quarter is tight, laying people off won't help much.  They've already been paid for much of the quarter.  Those expenses are already included in whatever the results are going to be.

Add to that the cost of layoffs - everyone gets their accumulated vacation paid out that quarter, they get severance, everything they are owed and whatever the total severance package is expensed that quarter.



I guess there are a few shyster firms that just shit-can people with no severance, that don't offer paid vacations or any other benefits, then yeah, they can save a few pennies.  Most companies do incur a good deal of expense laying people off, they are reluctant to do so knowing if affects their people - the laid off people and those remaining - a great deal, it affects productivity, it costs money to train people that are hired later.

Maybe a few low paid clerks and cashiers don't take long to train, but firing them doesn't really save much money either.

If that's the only kind of company you've worked for you have my sympathy, the vast majority aren't like that.

If business is just plain down, or if the cost of some benefit like health insurance is skyrocketing, yes that needs to be addressed.  But again, most companies are very reluctant to make cuts.  You act like they are eager to do so, they aren't.

[NowhereInTime]

You can say or think what you like.  Your ideas are right out of the East Bloc.  I suggest you scroll past my posts if you don't want to hear it.





You know what?  That is either BS, or you have some real morons running your company.

By the time they realize the quarter is tight, laying people off won't help much.  They've already been paid for much of the quarter.  Those expenses are already included in whatever the results are going to be.

Add to that the cost of layoffs - everyone gets their accumulated vacation paid out that quarter, they get severance, everything they are owed and whatever the total severance package is expensed that quarter.



I guess there are a few shyster firms that just shit-can people with no severance, that don't offer paid vacations or any other benefits, then yeah, they can save a few pennies.  Most companies do incur a good deal of expense laying people off, they are reluctant to do so knowing if affects their people - the laid off people and those remaining - a great deal, it affects productivity, it costs money to train people that are hired later.

Maybe a few low paid clerks and cashiers don't take long to train, but firing them doesn't really save much money either.

If that's the only kind of company you've worked for you have my sympathy, the vast majority aren't like that.

If business is just plain down, or if the cost of some benefit like health insurance is skyrocketing, yes that needs to be addressed.  But again, most companies are very reluctant to make cuts.  You act like they are eager to do so, they aren't.

BS?!?  Yes, now I know you don't work in the private sector!  The "morons" I worked for run a little department store you may have heard of called "Macy's"?  Only in business the last 160 years and counting.  It was not an everyday or everyquarter occurrence but it happened when 4th quarter (October, November, December) had a soft start, like if we had a warm fall and cold weather gear hadn't sold.  In order to finance the markdown dollars to promo the goods we had to make cost and that meant cutting hours and, in some cases, jobs.
Yes, training costs are expensive but failure to make quarter had graver consequences for little things like debt ratings.  Try issuing corporate bonds when you aren't close to making numbers!

Yeah, you don't work in the private sector at all:

"By the time they realize the quarter is tight, laying people off won't help much.  They've already been paid for much of the quarter.  Those expenses are already included in whatever the results are going to be."   - Absurd.  Half of retail is anticipating trend.  We would know by Veteran's Day of OND was going to be flush or flat.

And your best retorts are this philosophical gibberish about Alinsky and the Soviets.  Both were dead and gone well before the millennium.  All I'm saying is if you want to keep going back to that tired old well then have at it.

[PB the Deplorable]

Veterans Day?  So you laid off people hired for the Christmas rush?  These aren't exactly high value jobs.  You extrapolate this onto how companies treat their full time long term employees?



Marx and Alinsky - yes, both were dead and gone, and thankfully so.  But their ideas live on.  Like I said, it's the easiest thing in the world for some demagogue to point at a successful person and tell the people that didn't bother to get educations or jobs that it's that persons fault they aren't doing well.



And no, I don't work in academia.  The only govt job I ever had was working for the Census 5 or 6 months when I was a student - in the office preparing everything for the field workers to go out, going out into the field myself, and returning to the office to finish up and send everything back to Washington DC.  That job was more than enough for me to se how wasteful and inefficient the public sector was and I never considered it after that.

[PB the Deplorable]

Looking beyond the government 'shutdown' and however that turns out, the next issue coming up is raising the US Federal Debt Limit Ceiling again.  Because $16-something Trillion hasn't dug us in a deep enough hole.  And hasn't bought enough permanent votes.

Obama is already saying he isn't interested in talking about it or negotiating.  He said he doesn't think the R's should 'get something' in exchange for allowing the debt limit to increase.


(As an aside, not only is this person not a leader, he refuses to acknowledge checks and balances and the role of the Congress vis-a-vis his administration.  And has the gall to say it's other people that won't work with him.)


I'm starting to see Democrat officials, Media editorials, articles, and reports that claim it's 'irresponsible' for the R's to hold up passing a debt limit increase - because the Federal government needs to pay it's debts.  And presumably because digging the hole deeper IS the responsible thing.

'Paying debts' is misrepresenting the issue.  The Federal government has tax money coming in every day - payroll taxes and income taxes held out of people's paychecks, estimated taxes being paid by individuals and companies, all the usual tax dollars that usually come in.  This money is available to pay the bills we've already racked up - and using these funds to pay these bills does not increase the national debt.  Same with Social Security and Medicare - those taxes are still being withheld and remitted to the Federal government and those funds are available to send to recipients.

The issue is new debt being incurred, new money borrowed to pay for new/future spending - not paying outstanding debt.

I get why the D's would blur the issue, and lie, and say it's about 'paying our bills', but the Media should be a little more accurate, a little more honest, and at least mention it's really about new spending. 


Big Media, always there supporting the Dem's, always acting as their accomplices.  But, you know, don't watch Fox News.

[Juan]

Most of the media went into journalism because there is no math requirement.  PB, you are expecting too much.

[Sardondi]

Well, it's all about your priorities: more personnel was sent to prevent 90-year-olds from being able to visit their own WWII memorial than were sent to rescue an American ambassador and three other Americans under deadly attack by a mob in Benghazi. http://washingtonexaminer.com/shutdown-overreach-more-personnel-sent-to-wwii-memorial-than-benghazi-park-service-closes-park-it-doesnt-run/article/2536710

The cynicism and inherent dishonesty and corruption of this administration beggars belief.

[PB the Deplorable]

After promising 'a full investigation' of every one of his scandals, from getting guns to the Mexican drug cartels, to spying on the AP and the rest of us, to Benghazi, to using the IRS against his political enemies - a few weeks ago Obama deemed them all 'phony scandals' and refuses to talk about them or allow anyone in the administration to answer any questions.


His Big Lie this week is his claim that he's 'bent over backwards to work with the Republican Party'.   Well, let's see.  Right after he was inaugurated, when the leaders of both parties in Congress traditionally meet with the incoming President, he made it a point to tell the R's that he had won and they had lost.  And wasn't interested in their ideas on the collapsed economy.

Since then, he's rammed the dreadful job killing ObabaCare bill down their and our throats, allowing no discussion or hearings or amendments.  Instead of operating under the usual protocol of negotiating and finding common ground under divided government (Ds vs Rs, Executive branch vs Legislative, Executive vs Judicial), he issues threats.  He puts out insults and lies when he should be working with people. 

He issues illegal decrees and makes arbitrary changes to laws when it suits him and he knows Congress won't go along.  He declared the Senate to be in recess when they weren't so he could make appointments he knew wouldn't be confirmed.

He misuses his powers of Executive Orders to legislate, and Executive Privilege to hide criminal activity.

The list goes on. And his accomplices in the Media have supported him all the way in their 'reporting'.  After having promised to bring us all together, to have the most transparent administration in history, to be a transformational President.



And now he claims to have bent over backwards to work with the R's?  I'd sure like to have heard him give some examples of that.  From here it looks like all he knows how to so is campaign and attack.

[aldousburbank]

P*B, much of this reads like Independence Hall, Philly, 1776.

[Sardondi]

P*B, much of this reads like Independence Hall, Philly, 1776.

I'm just waiting to be told I'm going to have to house troops, and then it's shooting time.

Seriously, anyone in America who isn't already committed to The Great Tit sees through the grotesquely cynical twists of truth Obama has engineered in his selective shutdowns. He is as great a demagogue as America has ever produced, and by far the worst ever in the White House. It would be nothing to him to see this country in flames.

[ItsOver]

Most of the media went into journalism because there is no math requirement.  PB, you are expecting too much.

That's what I love about the mainstream media.  A bunch of narcissistic idiots trying to tell all of us what to think.

[PB the Deplorable]

... He is as great a demagogue as America has ever produced, and by far the worst ever in the White House. It would be nothing to him to see this country in flames.

[attachimg=1]

[bateman]

Hard at work.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/04/President-Obama-Spent-Shutdown-Day-Three-Sitting-for-Portrait

[ItsOver]

Hard at work.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/04/President-Obama-Spent-Shutdown-Day-Three-Sitting-for-Portrait

The Dear Leader's portrait.

[Sardondi]

“We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It’s disgusting.” said an angry Parks Service ranger. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/3/pruden-the-cheap-tricks-of-the-game/

Such a vile, petty, tiny man.

[bateman]

The Dear Leader's portrait.

That is too perfect.

[PB the Deplorable]

... Such a vile, petty, tiny man.

That about sums it up.  Let's be a bit more vigilant next time we are offered an unvetted nobody with a hidden past

[Falkie2013]

That about sums it up.  Let's be a bit more vigilant next time we are offered an unvetted nobody with a hidden past

Applause !!!

Wish we had an applause icon like the other forum I post in does.
Can't agree with you more.


[attachment deleted by admin]

[PB the Deplorable]

You know, up until about a couple of weeks ago I was against Impeachment.  It would never get the votes in the Senate, and it would increase the political tension in our country.  Just like the Impeachment of the scandal-a-day Clinton Administration.


But he has become so arrogant, brazen, and aggressive now that I think it should be used as a tool to run the clock out on this most destructive Presidency.  Aggressive hearings on each of the scandals - from the cowardice of the Benghazi incident, the spying on the media, siccing the IRS on his political opponents, Fast & Furious and the subsequent inappropriate use of Executive Privilege, the spying on all of us and digging into our private information and correspondence without warrants or due process, his use of powers not granted to the Presidency through illegal use of Executive Orders, the heavy-handedness and intimidation tactics, the illegal 'czars', arming terrorists in Libya and Syria, everything.   

A separate aggressive Congressional investigation into each one.

Keep him playing defense and on the run, instead of continually implementing new policies and procedures designed to grow his party, the Federal government in general, the continued militarization of the police, and the theft of our liberty.

Defund as much of what he is doing as they can.  If they are constantly being accused of blocking him and not working with him - show him what that really looks like.


And find someone who can explain it and be available all day, every day, to discuss it with the media

[cosman]

Applause !!!

Wish we had an applause icon like the other forum I post in does.
Can't agree with you more.

Here ya go..http://www.youtube.com/embed/4pNvOOjhRvM

[bateman]

You know, up until about a couple of weeks ago I was against Impeachment.  It would never get the votes in the Senate, and it would increase the political tension in our country.  Just like the Impeachment of the scandal-a-day Clinton Administration.


But he has become so arrogant, brazen, and aggressive now that I think it should be used as a tool to run the clock out on this most destructive Presidency.  Aggressive hearings on each of the scandals - from the cowardice of the Benghazi incident, the spying on the media, siccing the IRS on his political opponents, Fast & Furious and the subsequent inappropriate use of Executive Privilege, the spying on all of us and digging into our private information and correspondence without warrants or due process, his use of powers not granted to the Presidency through illegal use of Executive Orders, the heavy-handedness and intimidation tactics, the illegal 'czars', arming terrorists in Libya and Syria, everything.   

A separate aggressive Congressional investigation into each one.

Keep him playing defense and on the run, instead of continually implementing new policies and procedures designed to grow his party, the Federal government in general, the continued militarization of the police, and the theft of our liberty.

Defund as much of what he is doing as they can.  If they are constantly being accused of blocking him and not working with him - show him what that really looks like.


And find someone who can explain it and be available all day, every day, to discuss it with the media

Agree with this so wholeheartedly.

[Juan]

You know, up until about a couple of weeks ago I was against Impeachment.  It would never get the votes in the Senate, and it would increase the political tension in our country.  Just like the Impeachment of the scandal-a-day Clinton Administration.

Let's impeach Bush, too.