This is not what leadership looks like

[Hoss]

He pissed of some occupiers that we as well as the United Nations don't recognize (while telling the truth) and Obama snubbed the country that they are occupying. You make my point well.

My point was his (lack of) foreign policy skills are telling.

Also, how do you piss off the biggest ally the US has?  Oh, you tell them you don't think they're quite ready to host the Olympics.  The week they are hosting it.

[Conan71]

Erf,

One sign of good leadership is bi-partisanship.  If Romney comes to an opposition Senate or HOR with an initiative to help veterans but ties cuts in welfare, SSI, Medicare, etc. or an abortion ban to the legislation then says the Dems are being obstructionist- that's poor leadership.

That's what I think most Democrats have missed when they call Republicans obstructionist.  They are hung up on old sound bites of Sen. McConnell and Speaker Boehner saying they intend to defeat any Obama-backed legislation as proof of some massive obstructionist conspiracy.  The main reason I see for such rhetoric is I'm not sure Obama has introduced a single piece of major legislation which did not contain a tax increase or that he could find something really repugnant in the GOP social agenda that they simply couldn't vote for the legislation.  He'd rather play political gamesmanship than actually try to work for compromise.  

Good leadership would also demand the Senate carry out it's Constitutional responsibility to pass a budget.

You have to be willing to work with your opposition, not against them at every turn.  We could also use new leadership in the HOR and Senate.  I think we've all seen that Reid and Boehner are impotent at best, too afraid to piss off their own base if they do compromise.

[erfalf]

My point was his (lack of) foreign policy skills are telling.

Also, how do you piss off the biggest ally the US has?  Oh, you tell them you don't think they're quite ready to host the Olympics.  The week they are hosting it.

You know when he said that, the local papers had been saying it as well. I'm sure he knew this before hand, how else would he know to say that? There are inherent issues when holding an event of that magnitude in the center of one of the largest population centers in the world. And he would know more than anyone what goes on there and what's important.

I will admit that sometimes he doesn't know when to keep quit. The British certainly don't want to have their shortcomings pointed out by a foreigner. But what do you want, an honest politician, or someone that will blow smoke up your arse?

[erfalf]

Erf,

One sign of good leadership is bi-partisanship.  If Romney comes to an opposition Senate or HOR with an initiative to help veterans but ties cuts in welfare, SSI, Medicare, etc. or an abortion ban to the legislation then says the Dems are being obstructionist- that's poor leadership.

That's what I think most Democrats have missed when they call Republicans obstructionist.  They are hung up on old sound bites of Sen. McConnell and Speaker Boehner saying they intend to defeat any Obama-backed legislation as proof of some massive obstructionist conspiracy.  The main reason I see for such rhetoric is I'm not sure Obama has introduced a single piece of major legislation which did not contain a tax increase or that he could find something really repugnant in the GOP social agenda that they simply couldn't vote for the legislation.  He'd rather play political gamesmanship than actually try to work for compromise.  

Good leadership would also demand the Senate carry out it's Constitutional responsibility to pass a budget.

You have to be willing to work with your opposition, not against them at every turn.  We could also use new leadership in the HOR and Senate.  I think we've all seen that Reid and Boehner are impotent at best, too afraid to piss off their own base if they do compromise.

That is what I understood Romney to be saying.

[Hoss]

Erf,

One sign of good leadership is bi-partisanship.  If Romney comes to an opposition Senate or HOR with an initiative to help veterans but ties cuts in welfare, SSI, Medicare, etc. or an abortion ban to the legislation then says the Dems are being obstructionist- that's poor leadership.

That's what I think most Democrats have missed when they call Republicans obstructionist.  They are hung up on old sound bites of Sen. McConnell and Speaker Boehner saying they intend to defeat any Obama-backed legislation as proof of some massive obstructionist conspiracy.  The main reason I see for such rhetoric is I'm not sure Obama has introduced a single piece of major legislation which did not contain a tax increase or that he could find something really repugnant in the GOP social agenda that they simply couldn't vote for the legislation.  He'd rather play political gamesmanship than actually try to work for compromise.  

Good leadership would also demand the Senate carry out it's Constitutional responsibility to pass a budget.

You have to be willing to work with your opposition, not against them at every turn.  We could also use new leadership in the HOR and Senate.  I think we've all seen that Reid and Boehner are impotent at best, too afraid to piss off their own base if they do compromise.

Almost 100 percent in agreement, except for that the Republicans HAVE been obstructionists on many occasions.  His jobs bill has been languishing now for over a year.  I'd like to see a sane opposition party for a change.

[Conan71]

Almost 100 percent in agreement, except for that the Republicans HAVE been obstructionists on many occasions.  His jobs bill has been languishing now for over a year.  I'd like to see a sane opposition party for a change.

Read the text of the bill or even a summary.  There's plenty in there for the GOP not to like.  The bill isn't all about creating jobs.  Sort of like the agriculture bill isn't all about agriculture, it contains a bunch of funding for food stamps.

[erfalf]

Read the text of the bill or even a summary.  There's plenty in there for the GOP not to like.  The bill isn't all about creating jobs.  Sort of like the agriculture bill isn't all about agriculture, it contains a bunch of funding for food stamps.

My co-worker and I think all bills should be single subject (unless it's a budget). I know it would slow things down but stuff should be able to pass on its own. The way it works now is the bills are sweetened up with some good stuff to hide (or make you forget about) the bad.

[Conan71]

My co-worker and I think all bills should be single subject (unless it's a budget). I know it would slow things down but stuff should be able to pass on its own. The way it works now is the bills are sweetened up with some good stuff to hide (or make you forget about) the bad.

There is absolutely no reason for any bill to contain 2000 pages.  Especially a bill which a legislator and his staff have 72 hours or less to digest.  An issue (okay let's say closely-related issues could be included for brevity's sake) should be able to stand on it's own for a straight up or down vote.  It's blatant dishonesty toward the taxpayers to cram 1990 pages of un-related crap to the title element of a bill.

[erfalf]

More foreign policy experience on display.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/54880456-68/attacks-romney-response-american.html.csp

It would be nice if he had American's back as his first inclination.

[Hoss]

He pissed of some occupiers that we as well as the United Nations don't recognize (while telling the truth) and Obama snubbed the country that they are occupying. You make my point well.

incorrect

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/09/obama-calls-netanyahu-135245.html

[erfalf]

incorrect

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/09/obama-calls-netanyahu-135245.html

Fair enough, who do I trust now, freaking Bloomberg is lying.

[Conan71]

A summary op-ed as to why the Jobs Act was a pile.  Also confirmed by Bob Woodward in his new book. 

This is his pitch, but it is dishonest, as is this line from the White House web site: "From day one, President Obama has focused on efforts that can help small businesses grow and expand." The truth is, the president did not focus on jobs until well into his term in office. He launched the American Jobs Act – his response to our ongoing employment crisis - in September 2011. A full eighteen months earlier, in March 2010, he signed the healthcare bill that divided the country and alarmed small businesses about future hiring costs.

President Obama never expected The American Jobs Act to pass. Though it contained some proposals that had bipartisan approval, the $447 billion mini-stimulus bill also featured tax proposals and regulations that the White House knew full well would never get through the  GOP led House. It was a scam – a diversion meant to flesh out the narrative that Republicans blocked the country's progress, and to portray the president as fighting hard for our workers. A myth now debunked by Bob Woodward's new book, The Price of Politics, that was born out of the failed debt ceiling negotiations. A myth – Blame the Republicans! -- that is central to President Obama's campaign.
   
In his address to a joint session of Congress a year ago President Obama urged legislators to pass his jobs bill "right now" – repeating that demand eleven times in thirty minutes. After two and a half years in office, why the sudden rush? Because job growth was slowing and the president's approval rating was at record lows.  His rattled advisors decided that it was time the president addressed the concerns of the nation. With unemployment stuck at 9 percent, ginning up jobs was the concern of the nation.

Even as he launched the Jobs Act, White House insiders alerted reporters that they intended to use the bill's inevitable failure to "blame Republicans for the jobs crisis." In his speech to a joint session of Congress, President Obama said the bill contained nothing "controversial"; he also said "the American Jobs Act will not add to the deficit." Neither was true.

The Jobs Act included, for starters, higher taxes on the wealthy and on oil companies – two moves that were dead on arrival in the House. It also required Congress to come up with additional spending cuts on top of the $1.5 trillion required of the debt ceiling agreement. That was unlikely in the extreme, since Congress had yet to actually agree on any budget cuts of substance.

The Act also included expansion of unemployment benefits. A new study from Deloitte confirms fears that doing so is counterproductive, saying "current UI policy actually keeps the unemployment rate high because it can dissuade workers from relocating and making other hard decisions when they can receive close to 50 percent of their former wage in UI benefits." The GOP was never going to go for that.

In anticipation of the proposal, Republican House leaders sent a letter to the president asking to meet with him, in order to craft a plan that might actually have bipartisan support. At the same time, Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell suggested, "(the president) might start working with Congress, instead of writing in secret, without any consultation with Republicans, a plan that the White House is calling bipartisan."  That request went unanswered.

Anathema to Republicans, the Jobs Act contained restrictions and rules that might make for good campaigning but that would sock it to taxpayers – such as a "buy American" clause and "prevailing wage" language that would inflate costs and pander to unions.  Muddying the bill further, it included waivers in case such rules went against the "public interest." It was, in short, vintage Obama – relying on government to get things going but including a back door exit in case of failure.

Clogging up the nation's commercial bloodstream with inflated costs and impenetrable rules will only make us less competitive and weaker in the long run.  The White House doesn't understand that – or why offering temporary tax cuts to hire workers will fail. It also continues to pretend that only small businesses create jobs. Heads up! Half our workers are employed by big companies.

As he campaigns across the country, President Obama will argue that his efforts on behalf of working Americans have been blocked by Republicans who favor the wealthy. Voters should ask him – how would he know? When was the last time the president met with his opponents? How about his own Jobs Council? Turns out that in the first six months of this year he was too busy hosting 100 campaign events – outpacing any of his predecessors by a wide margin – to get together with the very people who are supposed to assist him with job-creating ideas. Is it any wonder that the Jobs Act fell flat? No surprise...it was intended to.

Read more at http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/09/11/Obamas-Jobs-Act-Not-Just-a-Failure-but-a-Fraud.aspx#uVqC1vfdjL8XmfeB.99

For the shape our economy was in, his priorities were way out of whack.  If he'd had a GOP Congress and/or Senate to deal with his first two years, I suspect he would have tabled Obamacare until later in his first term and focused on jobs first and foremost.  Instead, he wanted to frame his legacy around healthcare reform.  Admirable, but Obamacare won't reform healthcare, it simply shifts around how we pay for it and supposedly will compel those who are indifferent to their health to get better care.

HuffPo addresses the president being "too busy" to meet with his job council:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/18/obama-jobs-council_n_1684221.html

Sounds to me as if he prioritizes keeping his own job ahead of making sure all Americans who want a job have one.

[nathanm]

The American Jobs Act was half tax cuts. If that's not meeting the Republicans in the middle, I don't know what is. Do you expect Obama to just give up and only propose plans that satisfy the Tea Party ideologically?

And Deloitte's study is full of smile. You'll note that the labor participation rate has not been improving even as people fall off the unemployment rolls.

[erfalf]

The American Jobs Act was half tax cuts. If that's not meeting the Republicans in the middle, I don't know what is. Do you expect Obama to just give up and only propose plans that satisfy the Tea Party ideologically?

And Deloitte's study is full of smile. You'll note that the labor participation rate has not been improving even as people fall off the unemployment rolls.

You know they weren't really tax cuts. They were reductions in payroll taxes, which aren't really taxes as much as they are retirement plans (forced savings if you will). Of course to the government it may seem like one because they just shuffle the money around anyways.

[nathanm]

Funny how Medicare and Social Security are on budget when it's convenient for you, but off budget when it isn't. Pick a position and stick with it.

I suspect the people whose paychecks became bigger and the employers whose tax bill became smaller would see it as quite the tax cut.