[mikemike]

The paper had a photo this photo of a local business owner putting up a sign outside his business that said:

"What does the president, congress, and
15,000,000 americans have in common?
None of them are working."

On his first campaign tour through the midwest he didn't meet with any hard hit communities or struggling families.

There are hundreds of thousands of children starving to death in Somalia and he hasn't said or done anything to help or encourage people to help.

The stock market is a turd spinning down in the toilet bowl.

He is taking a vacation in millionaires' playground, Martha's Vineyard and his post vacation agenda is to put out a "jobs plan" that he knows will never see the light of day in congress.

It feels to me like he is very out of touch and just going through the motions of being president without even trying to lead.

[GeneV]

A more balanced discussion here. obama vacation compared to those of other US presidents - ABC News

[mikemike]

A more balanced discussion here. obama vacation compared to those of other US presidents - ABC News

I'm not faulting him for taking a vacation (too much) but it does add to the impression that he is out of touch given the state of the country and the world. It just feels like hes phoning it in instead of really rising to the challenges of the office.

[GeneV]

I'm not faulting him for taking a vacation (too much) but it does add to the impression that he is out of touch given the state of the country and the world. It just feels like hes phoning it in instead of really rising to the challenges of the office.

We've had this discussion on other threads. As the article points out, there is no such thing as a cheap vacation for the President. Jimmy Carter took the least vacation of any president, and was unpopular even before the end of his term. Presidents don't win by going on no vacations, and they may make themselves sick.

It is a little disingenuous for you to complain about his vacation as "not rising to the challenges" of his office. When he is proposing policies, you don't think much of them anyway.

[reeftool]

I think the end results of today's economic news would be just about the same no matter who got elected last time. The current downturn in the stock market is mostly a result of the inability of congress to do it's job. There are members of congress who think the default and subsequent problems are a good thing. This was a set up planned event.

As for Somalia, been there ,done that. The last time we went there with aid, the ungrateful bastards did nothing but use our troops and aid workers for target practice while our guys were forced to abide by rules that prevented them from doing anything but return fire only in response. It's tragic but not our problem.

The President needs a vacation like anybody else. Somebody bitches every year when the Prez takes a vacation, no matter which party is in power. People make bad decisions when they are tired and burned out and need a break and presidents are people just like any of us. Martha's Vineyard is probably a cheaper vacation than other places because the biggest expense of a presidents vacation is security and being an island with a small population and limited access, it is a much cheaper and easier task. Imagine the hassles and taxpayer expense if he decided on Virgina Beach.

[cardinal43]

He is taking a vacation in millionaires' playground, Martha's Vineyard and his post vacation agenda is to put out a "jobs plan" that he knows will never see the light of day in congress.

So mikemike, since you appear to have all the answers, just how would you put out a "jobs plan" when the republicans/tea party have stated numerous times that they would never vote for anything Obama proposes no matter how good it is.

[Nesster]

...and the Republican jobs plan seems to be: resist all "job killing" revenue increases, add more tax cuts to the wealthy and the corporations, cut education and social services while gutting the EPA etc, all as a part of federal spending cuts. Resist all additional spending, even in a trade with cuts elsewhere.

I'm trying to figure out how these policies create jobs?


As far as Obama being a lame duck already - the election isn't a sprint and isn't being held this November. There's plenty that will happen in the 15 months that will change things, in different directions. However, Obama will have a tough time if there isn't a recovery in jobs, regardless of who the Republicans throw at him. And who knows, there may be a 3rd party candidate whose presence will decide the election.

[shooz]

"What does the president, congress, and
15,000,000 americans have in common?
None of them are working."

The press must be really BAD down there.
Did they really miss that whole debt limit thing?
The amount of effort it took to get health care act passed?
Did they just whine like Limbaugh?
You should buy a different paper.
This one doesn't seem too "fair and balanced".
Is it perhaps why you have such a twisted world view?
Why it's you who is so far out of touch?
I would have bought one of those just to take it home and burn it.
How was their view of Pres. Bush?
Outstanding, I'll bet.

[mikemike]

So mikemike, since you appear to have all the answers, just how would you put out a "jobs plan" when the republicans/tea party have stated numerous times that they would never vote for anything Obama proposes no matter how good it is.

I would focus on stuff that could be done without congressional action. The president has a lot of flexibility on how policies are enforced and over regulatory issues. So what I would do if I were president is pledge not to change any current regulations (barring any catastrophes like the BP oil spill or TVA coal ash spill) and focus 100% of regulatory agencies budgets on enforcement. This would spur investment since the "rules of the game" would be set and it would stimulate compliance, which also creates jobs, if the referees were more aggressive. It would also generate some revenue in the form of fines and hopefully make the enforcement wings more efficient and effective.

I would also move on stuff that doesn't need to get through the house, like those free trade agreements. The senate just needs to ratify them and I don't think more than a handful of republicans would vote against them... plus they might be able to use those treaties as the carrots to get through the backlog of appointments. As soon as the senate comes back line them up 10-20 appointment votes then a free trade agreement, vote for 10-20 more appointments then another free trade treaty, and again.

With the other stuff I would make sure to try and get them as individual measures instead of one big package. Maybe Herman Cain could help him write a bunch of 3 page bills.

You should buy a different paper.
This one doesn't seem too "fair and balanced".
Is it perhaps why you have such a twisted world view?

The local paper is very liberal and almost always endorses democrats.

[shooz]

Then the post was confused?
It was hard to tell what was the paper and what was you.
You also didn't answer the question.

[luftfluss]

Don't see the issue here.

Even when the POTUS is on vacay, he is "in touch", so easy with the current technology.

Abe Lincoln took vacations during the Civil War.

As far as the Somalia issue... I'm curious about why you bring that up. Whenever the Obamalama mentions something outside of the American borders, the conservatives slam him, "we have enough problems, don't worry about what's happening elsewhere".

Considering his lame-duckness... yeah, I think he is. Even though Barry's more centrist than many folks admit, we are in the midst of such a polarized partisanship that even when individuals from each party want to play ball - like John Boehner - the constituency breaks out the torches and pitchforks.

[shooz]

What did you say the name of that paper was anyway?

[mikemike]

Don't see the issue here.

Even when the POTUS is on vacay, he is "in touch", so easy with the current technology.

I wasn't just saying that he was out of touch because he went on vacation. He also avoided the "I feel your pain" type of encounters as he started hitting the campaign trail. It might be his handlers' fault but the only people hes been meeting with are the types who have $10,000 to donate to his campaign or are out at the fairs. He isn't getting in touch with the millions of people who are struggling. The real issue is that he seems to be completely ineffective in governing and doing anything other than political posturing. He is letting the country go on autopilot when we are facing some serious turbulence.

As far as the Somalia issue... I'm curious about why you bring that up. Whenever the Obamalama mentions something outside of the American borders, the conservatives slam him, "we have enough problems, don't worry about what's happening elsewhere".

Maybe you are right, I just find it disturbing that he has failed to even mention the ongoing tragedy. I personally have as much or more sympathy for people suffering in the third world than I do for people struggling in relative comfort here.

What did you say the name of that paper was anyway?

The paper is The Times-Picayune but the photo of the business owner putting up the sign was the business owner's editorial on the current political and economic situation.

What does the president, congress, and
15,000,000 americans have in common?
None of them are working.

[GeneV]

I would focus on stuff that could be done without congressional action. The president has a lot of flexibility on how policies are enforced and over regulatory issues. So what I would do if I were president is pledge not to change any current regulations (barring any catastrophes like the BP oil spill or TVA coal ash spill) and focus 100% of regulatory agencies budgets on enforcement. This would spur investment since the "rules of the game" would be set and it would stimulate compliance, which also creates jobs, if the referees were more aggressive. It would also generate some revenue in the form of fines and hopefully make the enforcement wings more efficient and effective.

I would also move on stuff that doesn't need to get through the house, like those free trade agreements. The senate just needs to ratify them and I don't think more than a handful of republicans would vote against them... plus they might be able to use those treaties as the carrots to get through the backlog of appointments. As soon as the senate comes back line them up 10-20 appointment votes then a free trade agreement, vote for 10-20 more appointments then another free trade treaty, and again.

With the other stuff I would make sure to try and get them as individual measures instead of one big package. Maybe Herman Cain could help him write a bunch of 3 page bills.

.

With some of those, I think you are overestimating the President's power. However, on their merits, those suggestions sound like more of the same policies that got us where we are, rather than any solution. I haven't seen any credible evidence why more "free trade" will grow jobs here. Lack of regulation had a lot to do with our recent crash. I'm fascinated to hear which regulations are keeping jobs that make sense from appearing.

[skyredoubt]

I think the end results of today's economic news would be just about the same no matter who got elected last time.

Do you imagine for a second that if a Republican were in the office they'd give a flying f^&k about the deficits with 20% of the country underemployed? They'd run whatever deficit necessary to reduce the unemployment, maybe start a war or two (Republicans love militant Keynesianism!) and the spineless Dems would fall in line. It is depressing, but this President tuned out to be such a Manchurian candidate. There is actually more chance that we'll cut social programs with him in office, than if it were someone even as senile as McCain.
I cannot believe I am actually contemplating whether having some not totally bat-sh$t crazy Republican like Romney would be better than Obama. And I cannot stand Romney...