Stir the pot

[JohnK]

Wouldn't it be nice if we could just get rid of stupid, lazy people? Come to think of it, people have been proposing selection criteria for such folk for quite some time now, but they seem to get into wars over whose criteria are the right ones to apply.

[speedwagon]

When my sister brags on the current prez; my answer is do you really think that a product of the cook county political machine is totally honest? Our problem is us. We let those who "want to" become our leaders and most of them have their own wants at the fore front. We need economy of operation, honesty, compassion and leaders who make decisions based on "what is good for the country" not what is good for the people who paid for my campain. btw i sort of lean liberal and would vote for a morman but not "that" morman, Obama made a mistake when he didn't select John Huntsman as his vp and let Biden out to pasture. is this stirring the pot?

[BusaNostra]

is this stirring the pot?

 

Nope...someone asked to stir the pot, which I did first.

I'm always been candid & no BS - I'm rep (not conservative), there is a distinction.

All i want was what speedwagon said...."what is good for the country"

 

Better yet...what Clint Eastwood said: "When somebody doesn't do the job, you gotta let `em go,"

Edited September 1, 2012 by BusaNostra

[speedwagon]

There have been many times that I did not fire anyone because the available replacements were worse. we are there now, I am not happy but I was less happy 7 years ago. it is good to differ and I have the utmost respect for those who think differently than me that do so in the best interests of the country, they are in the minority these days and may have always been.

[JohnK]

When my sister brags on the current prez; my answer is do you really think that a product of the cook county political machine is totally honest? Our problem is us. We let those who "want to" become our leaders and most of them have their own wants at the fore front. We need economy of operation, honesty, compassion and leaders who make decisions based on "what is good for the country" not what is good for the people who paid for my campain. btw i sort of lean liberal and would vote for a morman but not "that" morman, Obama made a mistake when he didn't select John Huntsman as his vp and let Biden out to pasture. is this stirring the pot?

 

I was impressed to learn that the French have a university track/program/ whatever that you follow if you want to be a "minister" - like a minister of state. So when you run for office and get in, you've had formal introduction to the different areas that someone in that job is supposed to be knowledgeable about; like diplomacy, banking systems, taxation finance, national and local security ... To me it only makes sense that anyone aspiring to public office is faced with university level and hopefully graduate level courses where they have to face and work with the issues that a minister is likely to encounter, and the opportunity to present their work for the criticism of other aspirants and to be guided, hopefully well, by people who have spent their careers studying and learning about each of the different areas. I've heard Ronald Reagan criticized for not having the technical knowledge necessary to conduct the Presidency. What the French do certainly seems to be something we could think about.

[JohnK]

There have been many times that I did not fire anyone because the available replacements were worse. we are there now, I am not happy but I was less happy 7 years ago. it is good to differ and I have the utmost respect for those who think differently than me that do so in the best interests of the country, they are in the minority these days and may have always been.

 

Agreed. Two points to add:

-A multi-party political system is valuable because many issues need to be presented from differing perspectives and discussed by us all. It's the only process that we've found that works better than any of the alternatives. I accept as fact that different facets of the overall challenge that faces us can be best solved by Conservative solutions in one case and Liberal solutions in another, depending on the particular facet. But adopting a single ideology hasn't proven to be a successful approach. One party may ascend in power, but that doesn't necessarily translate into what's 'best for the country'. Indeed, if a particular ideology were actually truly successful, everyone would adopt it because it produced successful outcomes all or most of the time. As such, and in support of the above,I have problems with the Republican party when its people say publicly "Our goal is to make the current guy fail." I can only read this as saying that they have a desire for power, not a desire to serve the people of the U.S.

 

-I'm sure that all of us have been in a situation where we've had something dropped in our laps that we found was a lot uglier than we thought - and we failed trying to get it into shape in time. There are a lot of specific examples of this in the current situation, but I think that, most simply, the guy in charge doesn't have control over the size of each of the problems that have been dropped into his lap, hence they may be easily solved (unlikely), or are simply not solvable by anyone within the current environment, or have really ugly solutions that are necessary (like the bank bailouts). I think (or hope that ) the guy who happens to be facing the task of running our Country is really smart and amazingly skilled, but I don't expect him to be a magician. Consequently I am not so interested in getting rid of someone who, from my limited perspective, is not running things really well, as I am avoiding jumping from the frying pan into the fire. While this probably doesn't apply accurately due to historical context, the hard working and industrious German people democratically elected Adolf Hitler because they were unhappy with their circumstances and wanted a change. (Admittedly at the time things were really bad in Germany, but I feel the example has some significance.)

[slomove]

.....the hard working and industrious German people democratically elected Adolf Hitler because they were unhappy with their circumstances and wanted a change........

 

Not sure anymore but maybe Hitler promised them 12 million new jobs and maybe he even succeeded preparing for war. But the hard working and industrious Germans are anyway overrated. Believe me I am one of them

 

I am disgusted how the politics here have been eroded by money to a caricature of democracy. Bribery (a.k.a. political contributions) in one of the other form has become a morally accepted and even proud way of doing business (free speech, sure...) and indispensable to win any election.

 

I would not bother to vote if I had not a slight hope that one side is is a teeny bit less corrupt an promoting minimally better ideas. But I am sure no side has the balls to even mention the real issues, god forbid tackling them.

 

On the other hand, politics in Europe are not really that much better. Less money involved (yet), but less professional, too and just about as dishonest. A bit more entertaining, though

Edited September 2, 2012 by slomove

[Mondo]

Report: 2012 Election Likely To Be Decided By 4 Or 5 Key Swing Corporations

July 25, 2012 | ISSUE 48•30 | More News

 

 

Both candidates will likely tour the swing corporations extensively in an attempt to win their support this November. Article Tools

Clinton Writes Fan Letter To Joan Jett Defense Department Typo Results In U.S. Attack On Ira WASHINGTON—With polls this week showing the race between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney tightening even further, a growing number of political experts have declared this year's election will almost certainly be decided by a small handful of swing corporations.

 

"While most publicly traded companies are solidly red or blue, there are four or five major corporations that are complete tossups right now, and any one of them could prove decisive come November," said Nate Silver of The New York Times, noting in particular that Procter & Gamble, a traditional bellwether for the country as a whole, remained a "total wildcard." "Both candidates will have to focus almost exclusively on these swing businesses in order to gain the upper hand."

 

"And given how close this race is, I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing comes down to undecided executives at Dow Chemical or Disney," Silver continued. "Let's not forget 2000, when Philip Morris International single-handedly put George W. Bush into office."

 

According to polling data, the president's favorability has fallen steadily among independent-leaning multinationals, a demographic that effectively carried him to victory in 2008. Additionally, the latest figures suggest that even some reliably Democratic strongholds, such as Google, may now be in play, buoying hopes within the Romney camp that the GOP challenger could take the White House with an unexpected victory in a key tech boardroom.

 

Recognizing the importance of these closely contested conglomerates, both Obama and Romney have made frequent campaign stops at swing corporations in recent weeks and delivered speeches aimed squarely at these pivotal companies’ interests, with both candidates blasting each other as out of touch with the issues that truly matter to real American CEOs.

 

"As president, I promise to stand up for you in Washington and always put you first," Romney said earlier this week, addressing an audience in the battleground boardroom of Time Warner during a barnstorming tour through the communications sector. "All of you good, hardworking people gathered here represent the best of America, and mark my words, I will do everything in my power to fight for your freedoms and prosperity."

 

Political observers have noted the stakes of this year's election are unusually high, with many experts claiming the Affordable Care Act's fate, the tax burden on American families, and a possible U.S. invasion of Iran are questions that now reside entirely in the hands of those few Fortune 500 corporations that remain up for grabs.

 

"I went with Obama in 2008, but now I'm having my doubts," said Kenneth Frazier, an undecided CEO at the Merck corporation. "Frankly, I've been disappointed with his failure to follow through on the promises he made to us four years ago. This time around, I want to make sure I'm voting for someone who truly has the best interests of me and my company at heart."

 

"It's kind of exciting, though," Frazier added. "Who knows? Maybe in November it will be our $15 million backing funneled anonymously into a political action committee that decides this whole thing."

 

From "The Onion"

[BusaNostra]

why doubt? why do we need to argue and vote for the same guy when a liberal polls showed 62% thinks that our country was going in the wrong direction.....if I tell you fox said this, you will go ballistic....again, "for the good of the country" means we need to change. Sometimes, I think some of the freeloader have no reason to change.

http://www.pollingreport.com/right.htm

Edited September 3, 2012 by BusaNostra

[slomove]

.....when a liberal polls showed 62% thinks that our country was going in the wrong direction....

 

See, that is what I meant. I totally agree that the country is big time going the wrong direction. I would be happy to vote for a politician who gives me the "blood sweat and tears" story, meaning to be honest there is no nice and easy way out of this mess. Obviously there has to be a reduction of entitlements and more revenue or this debt pile will not be paid off. Would be nice though if the pain is somewhat shared fairly.

 

But there is no candidate and no party who will go for that, probably because without promising paradise the money machine does not work. So I guess I will vote for the same guy again. Not really happy but we really don't need to make it worse.

[Kitcat]

The problem with the "62% say country is going in the wrong direction" stat is that those 62% do not agree on what the right direction is. Conservatives, of course, believe it's too liberal, etc., but that 62% also contains liberals who are disillusioned w/Obama's perceived "Bush-light" approach to the economy, foreign policy, etc.

[BusaNostra]

So I guess I will vote for the same guy again. Not really happy but we really don't need to make it worse.

 

 

But when you do the math - when dissatisfied reach 50%, we better pay attention. Other polls reaching 77% and 23% satisfied. That's more than worse. So, how can I go wrong if I change? The worse can happen is the same sewer economy, however there is also a chance to make it better.

 

Just remember there are 47% who pay taxes - what happened to the 53% ? We are now in the minus side. So how can we live with that figure if the situation even get worse?

[powderbrake]

Just remember there are 47% who pay taxes - what happened to the 53% ? We are now in the minus side. So how can we live with that figure if the situation even get worse?

 

We can't. The problem is spending, not revenue. When leadership is present, and spending is reduced, the economy will soar, and revenue will be there.

[speedwagon]

the republicans have been recently branded as the party of NO, but we must remember that during the Bush era some lady called Nancy was holding back just as bad, we need people who are not afraid to vote for the country not the party. They are just like the fellow worker who will skid your job to make you look bad (hoping to get ahead) instead of just doing their job to the best of their abilities. We too need to change- lets all write in Jessie Ventura and Warren Buffett,

[BruceBowker]

It is sort of a shame there are Republicans and Democrats and not American citizens. Seems if the Rep have a good idea and the Dem secretly like it, they will vote against it just because. If the Dem have a good idea and the Rep secretly like it, they will vote against it just because. And of course always blame the other side in either case. Plus spend 4 years after an election doing nothing but trying to get the opposition out (by any means!).

[WestTexasS2K]

Has anyon else seen this. 16 Trillion in bailouts is way more than we are being told. This happened from late 2007-2011. Blame who you want but we wont last long if this is true.

 

http://www.unelected.org/audit-of-the-federal-reserve-reveals-16-trillion-in-secret-bailouts

[slomove]

Has anyon else seen this. 16 Trillion in bailouts is way more than we are being told. This happened from late 2007-2011. Blame who you want but we wont last long if this is true.

 

http://www.unelected.org/audit-of-the-federal-reserve-reveals-16-trillion-in-secret-bailouts

 

I am not a banker or economist but that looks like Internet hype. If you look up the actual report it mentions about 1 trillion maximum for emergency loans outstanding at the end of 2008. The 16 trillion number appears to be the total transaction amount, i.e. aggregated in and out over the 4 years.

 

Not that I like this money juggling and a trillion is nothing to sneeze at anyway.

[speedwagon]

Is an old saying in statistics- "Give me the data and I will arrange it in such a manner as to justify the conclusion you wish"

[jimrankin]

"Figures don't lie, but liars can figure.." seems to be the "reality" behind most of what we are given as "facts", especially on the internet (or politics). A non-political example of this (just to keep away from pot stirring) is a recent add for 5 Hour Energy. They make it look like 73% of doctors recommend their drink but the actual verbage has to be examined to find real truth. No doctor is really going to advise you to use this product but they were not asked that question. What the doctors answered was "for a patient who was going to use an energy drink they would advise using a low sugar product. And that was only 73% and did not name their product specifically, the rest probably said it was a stupid waste of $3 and you really don't want to take any of them. The whole truth doesn't work well in advertising and lets face it, political campaining is pretty much just advertising your "product". Until you look behind the sound bite and find the real truth, something most of us do not have the means or time to do, your pretty much running blind.

[slomove]

Also not related to pot stirring but regarding 5-hour energy....as it happens one colleague did not show up last week and when he finally came in he said he spent the night in the ER because his 21 year old son tried to keep going for 30 hours with that stuff (he may have had 5 or 6) to finish a term paper. He ended up getting serious heart trouble and needed treatment for a few days before they let him go home. So, at least you got to be careful to not overdose....