Weekend Wars: Donny vs. Barry
How important is the Commander-in-Chief to the world of Wall Street? Does business go on as usual regardless of who wears the king's regalia? Does party affiliation or pulpit spout matter? Will change ever come or forever remain a buzz word?
If you've been around long enough, you know that the world will keep on turning the way that it has. Or perhaps, you're a true believer. Hoping to change our most primitive instincts into a cohesion which breeds positivity. Can't say I blame either perspective, though both make me laugh...in their own way.
Certainly the only thing that could ruin a lovely Sunday is a political conversation in an era of non leadership. But with 2012 fast approaching, I have to ask you guys the borderline apocalyptic question again...what's better: the current cancer or the coming plague?
Donny or Barry...
In one corner stands the most incompetent president we have ever seen. The only thing more comical that his administration, the oncoming onslaught of why Midas...what do you mean?
In the other, a real estate developer who keeps putting his investors in the red. A human being which exists on marketing principles and empty rhetoric. Wait...that last one probably applies to both equally.
In an odd way, you couldn't pick two better court jesters to compete over America's next coronation...
I would like to think of myself as a conservative.
I figure that sentence deserves a bit of space...and lampooning. Precisely due to the fact that I clearly am not after a thoughtful look at these numbers.
It has become increasingly difficult to discuss markets and competition. Since it is arguable that neither really exists any longer. Considering that the purported defenders of the free market are only welfare-ists of the top tax bracket variety, why even bother supporting any of the following:
Romney? Donny? Newt? Huck?
If there were four words that could make me holler four more years, you have just read them and hopefully rolled your eyes along with me.
It never ceases to amaze how low we can sink, while supposedly progressing. This point is addressed at both sides of the aisle.
So tell me monkeys. If today was the day and the aforementioned circus freaks were the only two contenders for the title... which one would get your cotton candy vote?
Pray in the meanwhile, that this choice doesn't ever actually have to be made.
I would vote for the anti-Christ before I would vote for Barack Obama. That said, it is a matter of near certainty that Obama will be virtually impotent on the domestic front in his 2nd term as the Republicans will almost certainly control the House and Senate (the Democrats are defending something like 23 seats compared to the Republicans' 10). The liberal domestic agenda will be DOA.
There's no chance Trump gets the GOP nomination. National polling is worthless in primaries. Trump will be readily handled by long standing presidential contenders in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, etc. He's invested virtually no time in those areas. If he runs as an independent, he will probably pull about 4-5% of the vote and most likely in non-competitive states, like a Kansas or a New York, and that's assuming he could even get on the ballot. Ross Perot had foot soldiers--he was the wave, reformist candidate. The "wave" voters will be backing the Republican. Trump will have no ground game. He would be wasting his money--that's not a Trump move--to bet on a sure loser.
Beyond the fact that he's mormon, I like Romney. He's a brilliant businessman (built Bain up from the ground) and seems like a good guy. The mormon thing freaks me out though; how could anyone believe in that crock of shit? Your Jesus-figure is an alcoholic womanizer who spent his life chucking around rocks in upstate New York? Seriously? I honestly hope that in the next couple months the republicans find a good candidate who is sane (unlike Donny), scandal-free (unlike Newt), believes in a normal religion (unlike Romney), and isn't a media tool (unlike Huckabee). Maybe Mitch Daniels or Paul Ryan. I would vote for any candidate who honestly understands how much government waste this country currently entertains and is willing to cut the budget and welfare services back. Someone who can intervene and cut out the bullcrap that we put up with now.
The Mormon thing bothers you? I mean, any religion sounds absurd if you take the gospel literally. But, yea, that will sink him with middle america. The GOP will also be campaigning on healthcare repeal, so a guy who basically pioneered the plan in his own state is not great.
Paul Ryan has potential, but right now comes off as fiscally extreme (though in reality we need his budget). The middle-aged will get scared of their disappearing benefits; the 40-55 voting block will sink him.
Nobody knows Daniels, but he is one of my favorite candidates. He seems normal, and has good business experience. The GOP machine should have been hyping him for months, but he has remained obscure. T-Paw and Petraeus also would have been good with more publicity. TPaw unfortunately took the pro-union route, undermining his fiscal credibility; Petraeus did great in Iraq, but the wars have been too unpopular.
Outside of these guys, there aren't many good options. Christie, though a sharp guy, doesn't come off as presidential. Jindal could have been good, but then he went pro-creationism.
"In one corner stands the most incompetent president we have ever seen"
You forgot Dubya...
Bloomberg 2012
Couldn't have said it better myself, George W. Bush is the most incompetent president since Warren Harding.
Bloomberg 2012. Failing that, Romney or Obama, depending a lot on how much Romney panders to the religious and far-right in order to win primaries.
I agree with the OP that its going to come down to choosing between the lesser of two evils. I wonder what would happen if Trumph actually won the Republican nomination...
What's with all the Bloomberg love? Are you hoping for a nationwide bikelane? More awesome snow cleanups? Or are you more a fan of the union giveaways coupled with some lip service about 'reform'?
My fellow monkeys, just vote for me for president. I dont take or sprout any bullshit, I like to hoard tons of cash, I think the military should rely solely on shock and super awe, none of this nation building shit protectionist crap America looks out for our interests only. Everyone pays taxes, no bull shit write offs, cut the corporate tax rate while closing loopholes that allow them to not pay taxes here.
But most of all if people say no to me ill lay a shock and awe on their face.
Obama inherits this mess and suddenly he's worse than George.W.Bush? You can't be serious
Empty rhetoric? Since when do politicians fullfill their campaign promises and tell their nations that everyone is fucked during their terms? You think it matters who is Head of State? I'm not saying Obama is an angel but calling him the most incompentent president ever calls for a few basic history lessons. Presidents don't rescue countries this deep in the shit by themselves, especially presidents of a country divided on basically every single issue! It does not matter who comes in next, because drastic changes are needed and drastic changes are met with ferocious opposition. They finally agreed on this year's budget which as it turns out is going to cut as much as Fuld took with him in compensation ! Whoo-hoo let's pop champagne because we finally agreed on something!
Forgive the rant, the point is Obama is not the most incompetent president ever and I doubt that if you had a gun pointed to your head and was forced to pick between the greatest stand-up comedian to grace the White House and Obama "He's the Anti-Christ/Terrorist/Alien/ Evil Shaman" Obama, that you would pick the former.
He's not the most incompetent president of all time, true. There were many presidents in the 19th century who were beyond bad. But to say that Obama is anything less than incompetent is intellectual dishonesty. Where do I even start?
He took an abysmal debt situation and made it worse by orders of magnitude. He sold the omnibus stimulus spending plan in 2009 as a one-time, temporary stiumulus package. The budget he presented (I believe in January or February) makes permanent the elevated spending level and runs permanent budget deficits 4 times higher than the largest Bush era budget deficit. His budget proposal was so poor that he was forced to scrap his budget proposal from earlier this year and present another budget--well, actually, that budget that "cuts" $4 trillion from the deficit actually doesn't exist. It's just a concept on paper.
Obama ordered a bi-partisan debt commission to help deal with long-term structural issues related to the federal budget. He has since ignored virtually all material recommendations by the debt commission, so much so that the chairmen, Bowles and Simpson, have privately tarnished him.
Obama failed to get a 2011 budget passed when he had both houses of congress and a filibuster proof majority in the U.S. Senate. 6 months after the fact, he turns around and demagogues the budget debate last week in one of the most intellectually dishonest speeches I've ever heard in my entire life.
Obama launched a war in Libya, backing rebels that he knew nothing about. Turns out that Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood are among the factions fighting for power in Libya. Now, the 2 sides are at a stalemate, with the only way of breaking the stalemate is for NATO to actively fight back Qaddafi. The one nation--Syria--that the U.S. might particularly value change in, the U.S. has given virtually no support to rebels. Ditto to Iran counter-revolutionaries in 2009. Not to mention that Obama sold out our eastern European allies when he signed a pact with Russia agreeing, with almost no concessions, to end the missile shield project in Russia's sphere of influence.
I believe Gallup came out with a poll recently that showed 35% support for ObamaCare. So much for elected officials working the will of the people. I've already written a lengthy article on why ObamaCare is one of the worst pieces of legislation in the history of the United States. Upon request, I will copy and paste it for your liking.
Unemployment rose above 10%, labor participation is at 25-year lows, the dollar's performance is abysmal, and inflation as calculated 30 years ago currently stands at 10%. There is some talk of $5 gas by the end of May. And this has been one of the worst rebounds from recession in generations with anemic post-recessionary growth.
And I'm just warming up.
New thread topic: is Midas Mulligan Magoo the biggest dbag ever? And how much of a little bitch is he in real life? Inquiring minds want to know all about his pen15.
So, disagreeing with Obama's political philosophy equates to him being "the most incompetent President ever?"
What a fucking joke.
Obama ordered some rockets to be dropped on Libya, lets not get into what Bush got this country into. Unless the whole MENA region becomes as unstable as Charlie Sheen, and chances of that are increasing with every day, Obama's military leadership cannot be compared or even talked about in the same paragraph as what Bush did.
He took an abysmal situation and made it worse? Sure, I can agree with that and I see where you are coming from. Let me ask you something: was he expected to make everything a whole lot of better? I think that dissapointment comes from and is magnified tremendously by the publics expectation that with the first black president, an unprecedent situation in USA's history and perhaps signalling "change", things will get better. He took the whole "Yes we can" theme and ran with it and you can't blame him for running a successful campaign. If Obama didn't win you think McCain would have done the painful and necessary things that were needed to turn this country around? And if you truly believe that McCain would have taken a different stance on the crisis and issues surrounding it, you think Wall Street and the Congress would have let those changes take place?
By the way Obama didn't launch anything in Libya. It's not like he woke up one morning concerned with the contagion effect of Egypt's uprising and decided to ignite another conflict to take another dictator out. That's what the military branch, CIA, DOS, etc. are for and recommendations, research, self-serving and biased decisions come from. I know what you mean but let's not pretend the president is some all-informed soul that expertely decides on major issues.
Eastern-Europe partners? I'm not going to bring up the definition of a "partner" but that's not the type of a relationship USA has with many countries. I was raised in one of those countries and you wouldn't believe the shit that USA is using these countries for.
Dude, you cannot blame a single person for the dollar's downfall, double-digit unemployment levels and high inflation! C'mon now, that's ridicolous. The world has been distancing itself from the dollar for a while now, the FED is untouchable and the revolving door of GS executives roaming beetween the two is so out of hand that I can't even tell the difference between the two anymore. You're right Zimbabwe Ben has absolutely nothing to do with inflation and the devaluation of the dollar. Nor do any of the BRICS that decided to extend credit lines to each other denominated in their own currencies. This country has been slowly decaying for decades now and you know that. Obama did not reverse years of that in a matter of months so immediately he's labelled incompetant? Yea, he did not make things better and that's because no one could have. He made some questionable calls and is quite the hypocrite and contradicts himself by doing exactly what he stated that needed to change. It's absolutely disgusting and I agree with you on that but he's not the worst president ever, or the most incompetant president or even just incompetant. He's an unlucky SOB for taking over this mess and while I'm not going to go as far as saying that its clear that he's trying his best because he did make a lot of stupid decisions, this whole Obama-experience could have been a lot worse.
You're just warming up? Bush served two terms, the list of the shit he's done, supported, suggested and even said is a lot longer than one term of Obama whose results have been magnified by the worldwide crisis. I also don't get the whole Peace Prize thing but it's not like he gave it to himself.
I know I'm making it look like Obama is exactly what America needed and that's not the point of this. I don't have any solutions and I have no idea what I would have done if I had to make them, but whoever takes over Obama is going to be ostracized for the state that he/she is going to leave America in at the end of his/her term. People only change when faced with extinction or extreme change and discomfort. The fact that not a single Wall Street executive has been prosecuted should be indicative of who makes decisions in this country.
I also wanted to point out a mistake , or an oversight, I made in my earlier post with regards to stating the budget deal proposes to cut as much as Dick Fuld's compensation after he drove Lehman and everyone involved to the ground.
Point is, the president is not going to change squat and we all know this. Obama didn't help anything and made things worse, but honestly I didn't expect him to change things either. People need to stop falling in love with presidential candidates and their campaigns. This topic is too big and broad to be discussed through WSO and quite frankly futile too. Like I said, the effect of decades of bad policies, corporate favoritism, greed, changing demographic etc. is not going to be reversed in one term. Obama has his shortcomings and his ObamaCare among other calls is atleast questionable but at least he ain't this guy ( He DID provide a lot of comic reliefs though)
http://www.youtube.com/embed/8EvNJWM_NDg
Structural analysis points to Obama winning barring some major fuck up along the lines of * domestic disturbanc ending up on an episode of cops * denouncing religion as 'opium for the poor' * getting caught joking about nuking China * nuking China
Romeny = Mormon = most Christians simply will not vote for him Trump = clown = most people don't take him seriously Rand = market fundamentalist = most people see him as too extreme Palin.....see above Bachman = potentially viable a year ago = proven she doesn't understand how the system works
It sounds weird, but I'd actually vote McCain if he ran again.....
No offense, but that was one of the worst political analyses I've read in about 2 years. Congratulations.
To start, George W. Bush being incompetent--which he was--does not nullify Obama's incompetence. Obama being incompetent and Bush being incompetent aren't mutually exclusive. What is true is that Obama ran up more debt in 18 months than Bush did in 96. That is truly an epic accomplishment.
Hey, genius, Ben Bernanke was APPOINTED by Barack Obama (and George W. Bush). So while the Fed is independent, Bernanke's incompetence stops at the Oval Office. Just like the lack of prosecutions for financial bubble era corruption stops at the desk of BARACK OBAMA'S Department of Justice. The fact that you would ignore these 2 obvious facts in your analysIs demonstrates that, yes, you in fact do not get American governance.
Libya was not launched by Obama? The Libya campaign was launched by NATO, of which the United States is the supreme command. Hmm. Yeah, you're right--that's not on Obama.
In sum, you've basically said that Obama is incompetent but it's cool because Bush was worse. Yeah, Bush had 8 years to f*ck things up--and he did--Obama has doubled down in 26 months. You've also granted immunity to Obama the man for things that HIS ADMINISTRATION is responsible for. That's fine--we all know the president isn't individually responsible for everything that happens, but his adminstration is. As Harry Truman said, "THE BUCK STOPS HERE".
The above was serious, the rest was joking / debatable. The current disorganization and lack of concensus focus reminds me of the Democratic party circa 2003. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just a time for the GOP to rethink what it's all about and start DOING it. Making the argument that "Yeah, Bush was bad, but Obama's worse" isn't enough to get the weak field of side show candidates elected.
Hopefully, this period of reflection will be utilized to have the GOP come back leaner, meaner, and more effective than ever before.
I am not going to call Obama incompetent. I say he's par for the course, which is a far worse insult in my opinion. He has continued the neocon policies of his predecessor, while adding on his own fiscal irresponsibility. He has not exactly gone to bat for civil liberties (gay marriage, marijuana decriminalization, net neutrality), and has often ignored popular opinion in favor of "government knows best".
He forced through that abomination of a healthcare act just to say he did in the 2012 election. The cost forecasts are so varied and nebulous, I am skeptical it will even hold together once the changes go into effect. But he will have been re-elected by then, so it's not his problem.
He has never really left campaign mode; he blows stimulus money on democratic pet projects like high speed rail and electric vehicles, but doesn't allocate enough to actually generate results.
Now he is paying lip service to austerity, but, as usual, not doing anything meaningful. But, he will save the entitlements, unlike the evil Republicans! And save money too!
I can accept this flack on the campaign trail. But he is two years in. He has just been talking the good fight his entire presidency.
UFO, I think that was directed towards me, not you. And yea, he probably will get re-elected and it will just anger some people even more. People who think that a single person should be able to fix one of the biggest fuckups in recent history.
Virginia,
Don't worry I don't take things like that personally. I noticed that people love to argue with emotion rather than logic and most people are just like that today which is why no one can agree on anything, both the public and congressmen/women
My response was only outrage at MMM calling Obama the most incompetant president. I agree with many points you make but none of that addresses the real issue of why US is in the situation it is now.
Bernanke was appointed by both presidents but they did not tell him what to do, its simple. Those decisions were made by the FED and the president has nothing to do with those decisions. Bernanke vowed to fix the errors that were made and continued Greenspans policies which were wildly popular. Bernanke lies to the American public that the crisis is over so what choice does Obama have but not to releect him to a second term? I don't understand why you are in love with the idea that governments exist to serve the public.
Again, Libya does not even come close to Iraq/Afghanistan, end of arguement. NATO was probably influenced by US but those decisions, and I am running out of ways to explain this to you, came from a different branch. Yes, Obama has power to stop anything that comes through his door (theoretically) and the decision had to run through him but this is miniscule compared to Bush's antics. No soldier were deployed here, couple rockets fired and the idea is to just observe. Atleast that's what the MSM are reporting and I don't agree with the decision.
Not once did I mention that Bush's incompetance "nullifies" Obama's supposed incompetance. You arguement seems to revolve around the fact that Obama ran up more debt in less time than Bush did. Of course, the fact that Obama was dealing with a financial crisis not seen before by most generations has nothing to do with that right? Increasing spending is fundamentally not going to solve these problems but you think China is still banking on getting their BenBucks back?
Ever thought that it's hard to prosecute someone who is lying under oath or someone that can essentially confuse any congressman with complicated finance talk? Yea, DOJ dropped the ball on that, I fully agree and I just as outraged at that as anyone,and maybe Obama could have done more. If you believe that's how the real world works, that everything is so linear and simple then I also understand now why you think Obama is actually the Anti-Christ.
Worst political analysis? You think I'm trying to analyze politics? I only responded to MMM's original post and was outraged that someone would label Obama the most incompetant president, that's all. I assume you watch a lot of FOX News?
I might not fully understand how everything is governed ( And I don't act like I'm some expert on everything either...) but I do understand that blaming a single person for this situation is childish. I also understand, and more and more people are waking up to this everday, that the goverment doesn't exist to serve the public nor does the president make all the decisions. This country is in such a deep hole that no matter how patriotic you are and how many times you shout "America is the greatest country in the world!" it won't matter. If things don't change, well, you're just going to become more bitter with whoever takes office next. I am not defending Obama, just the notion that Obama is an anti-christ/terrorist who ruined America. This debate can go on and on and its pointless. He didn't live up to his promises, just like every politician, is that really that surprising?
I would argue what Bush did economically was significantly worse. He came in with a budget surplus and a fairly rosy economic outlook for the foreseeable future and promptly started two unfunded wars (how can anyone lower taxes and after starting two wars), plunging the country right back into the red. Obama came in with a terrible situation and now it is slightly less terrible.
I don't think the former President was directly responsible for all the wars. I would venture to say planes crashing into the World Trade Centers had something to do with the "War on Terror". But we can make things sound however you'd like them to sound to help your point. President Bush's time led to economic problems, President Obama inherited them and created his own. He cannot go through life blaming everything on everyone before him. He can take responsibility as well. If you believe what you wrote, you are clearly a fool. Outlooks change with a changing environment. Did that rosy outlook include a terrorist attack 9 months into the Presidency? I will answer it for you, no.
The war in Iraq was not because of 9/11, so your sarcastic point which ironically includes a reference to the "War on Terror" in a non-derisive manner is way off base. If Bush wanted to start two wars, justified or not, the only responsible thing to do would be to raise taxes or cut spending in other areas, when in fact he lowered taxes and raised spending. It's not rocket science, you can't go to two wars, an endeavor that will invariably lead to drastically increased spending, without paying for it somehow.
What I don't understand is why people feel limited to choosing either a Republican or Democrat when all candidates are clearly unqualified. Maybe Americans really are too dumb to see past media propaganda. Ron Paul as President, Peter Schiff as Vice President, and Jesse Ventura as Speaker of the House would be an amazing combination.
Funny you posted this Midas, I was thinking about Trump's candidacy this morning. I've always disliked the guy, big ego, little credibility, etc. He might not be a business master, but he knows marketing and PR very well.
For example, look at his recent "campaign" strategy. He hints that he might run, and then, instead of defending his credentials (or even giving us time to question his credentials), he plunges right into the birther movement. I don't think Trump really believes in the birther movement; I think he is being smart by directing the media's attention from other aspects of his candidacy.
He was on CNN this morning, and listed the reasons why he would be a good president. "I get the job done, I'm a successful businessman, and I have A HIT REALITY TV SHOW!" That's right, he played that off as his strongest trait.
Still, perhaps America needs a president with PR/marketing prowess instead of executive experience.
Agree with all of that!
I'm no left-winger but calling Barack Obama the "most incompetent president we have ever seen" is fucking ridiculous.
Velit error voluptate quos sint aut in atque. Aspernatur aliquam non quod. Et quia molestiae consequuntur qui doloremque. Earum sunt ratione nihil exercitationem assumenda repellat quos. Et suscipit voluptas quis at quis. Placeat voluptas sunt magnam possimus nihil.
Culpa nobis consequatur veniam. Consectetur quidem officia nesciunt. Necessitatibus voluptas labore eum aut sapiente. Dolorem velit ducimus suscipit qui dolores. Modi voluptatibus dolor magni non harum.
Exercitationem ut porro nostrum ut provident aliquid magni. Quia eligendi sint et earum voluptas.
Veritatis consequatur quia voluptatem commodi sed tempore cumque culpa. Molestias ut autem quasi voluptas. Necessitatibus est occaecati et a culpa laboriosam est animi.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Nihil cum aut quae. Molestiae dolores exercitationem numquam et dicta consequatur ducimus minima. Est iste et rem. Suscipit vel aut sit cupiditate sint id. Quia sit omnis blanditiis nam voluptas.
Voluptatum possimus vitae maxime. Doloribus aliquid ducimus repudiandae ut eos deleniti non sed. Consectetur rerum qui voluptatem eos ex mollitia laboriosam consectetur. Ratione aspernatur cum deleniti consequatur. Est doloremque sed voluptatem occaecati fuga saepe. Est et aut quia officiis.