President Obama has neglected the tasks of creating jobs and growing our economy
- Although it is not the governments responsibility to "create" jobs they can tweak policies that increase employment.
- When the private sector is not creating jobs, the government should find temporary jobs to keep people productive. Obama should have created more short term government jobs to put people back to work.
- Obama has focused his efforts on an anti-jobs, anti-growth agenda that has significantly expanded the role of the federal government.
- When the economy was falling apart, Obama worried about Healthcare, which should have not been his first priority, especially as it didn't save any money
- His actions have only succeeded in creating more of the uncertainty and obstacles to investment that threaten the economic vitality of our nation
- Its not the governments responsibility to create jobs.
Obama=Bad CEO
Side Score: 7
|
 |
Obama not bad CEO
Side Score: 5
|
|
|
|
|
A CEO is concerned with corporate profits, not with the well being of employees or how many employees a company has. That's why politicians are elected and not appointed by a board of trustees, from a CEO's perspective companies are better off if this is a third world country. So yeah, bad CEO, and he definitely could have at least made a show of doing more to create jobs. However, look up filibuster and see how many there has been, it's actually a tribute to his political prowess that he's completed as much as he has. To be fair though, jobs have increased consistantly since 2008. They were decreasing consistantly for over six years before 2008. Look up how we got out of the Great Depression. We need more making roads, railways, etc, and less of giving global corporations tax cuts (the US has the lowest actual real taxes paid for any corporation in the Western world already after loopholes are exploited) - But yeah, that means "socialist" programs. But these programs are only really"socialist" if you watch fox and listen to talk radio and don't understand what socialism actually is and don't understand that these are perfectly democratic programs every successful democracy has engaged in since democracy was invented. Side: CEO does not equal president
re: "a CEO's perspective companies are better off if this is a third world country". A CEO has stated objectives: to make money for a company. The analogy of a president as a CEO speaks to their ability to meet the objectives of a president: to lower unemployment, balance the budget, etc. A CEO should balance the budget, a president should balance a budget. A CEO and president should motivate the company or nation. When you state "CEO's perspective companies are better off if this is a third world country" I don't know what you are saying except that you are a good person and all CEOs are bad people. This is some of the most overly simplistic, self-righteous, smarmy... I'm sorry, I'm sorry... why do you say that CEOs would be better off if this is a 3rd world country? Side: Obama not bad CEO
A CEO has stated objectives: to make money for a company. The analogy of a president as a CEO speaks to their ability to meet the objectives of a president: to lower unemployment, balance the budget, etc. A CEO should balance the budget, a president should balance a budget. A CEO and president should motivate the company or nation. A CEO is in charge of a corporation (often publically traded), otherwise he'd just be the boss. I'm all for getting rid of publicly traded companies and just having companies and getting rid of CEO, which is a tricky way of saying I'm in charge but not responsible - that is socialism after all, but that's another story. Back to your gibberish, there is nothing in a CEO's mission statement (not that one exists) to "lower unemployment." Their only loyalty is to investors, which in fact in many cases means more unemployment... and seriously? You're motivated by CEO's? That's sad. Read Mark Twain or something. When you state "CEO's perspective companies are better off if this is a third world country" I don't know what you are saying except that you are a good person and all CEOs are bad people. A third world country = cheap labor, and today they can always just sell the product the cheap labor's making to another country. So yeah, it's a win for any global business due to unfair trade laws. And following the idea of President of the U.S. = CEO, the U.S. is definitely a global company... and publically traded at that. And no, not every CEO is bad, but I'd rather have a president elected by the people than a president elected by whoever has the most money. The second one is what a CEO is if you're getting dizzy. This is some of the most overly simplistic, self-righteous, smarmy... I'm sorry, I'm sorry... why do you say that CEOs would be better off if this is a 3rd world country? 1. I just explained why they'd be better off in a third world country. You asked the same question twice. 2. simplistic - you've said nothing any deeper than me, actually your reply is kind of saying nothing with a bunch of words. self-righteous - self-righteous would imply I stand on some moral high ground. I'd love to argue morals with anyone, but my opinion here is not moral based. smarmy - which definition? I'm honest, but certainly not hypocritical. In fact you can spend days going through my replies and not find an instance of that specific fault. I'm "un-hypocrit" practically to a fault... I'm also pretty sleek if that's the definition you're after. I don't think it is though. Side: Obama=Bad CEO
1
point
|
2
points
In the reasons to agree: #2 and #3 contradict each other. #4,If you compare the US health Insurance industry with those in other countries you'll see that cost savings is likely in the long run, especially since preventive care will likely become a major trend due to changes in insurance pools and the competitive advantages preventive care being popular would give to insurance companies. Preventive care is generally cheaper and helps to stop more expensive health issues from occurring. The only thing which I can think of which might stop that from occurring would be economies of scale, ie. paying for 1 expensive health issue might be cheaper than paying for 10 preventive health care screens or something. #5 is likely based on a flawed theory which gives no credit to the importance of democratic checks on capitalism. The stimulus, fight over taxes, fight over the debt ceiling, etc all pretty much speaks for themselves on this issue. The stimulus helped keep money flowing, something vital for every company, and also helped maintain jobs and make inevitable job losses less severe. The fight over taxes had to do with recognizing that demand needed to increase in order for the number of jobs to, and the debt ceiling is about recognizing the possibility of a double dip and the need of money flow, and that our economy is dependent on debt(actually, money is debt due to the money multiplier affect and how money is created). In order for jobs to increase, companies have to grow and that means there needs to be demand and credit flow. That being said, massive cuts can indeed be made to expenditures the government makes. Something needs to be done with social security, since it is inherently flawed due to its dependence on a stable or increasing population. Our defense budget can be slashed, and we would still maintain our national security if the amount other countries spend on "defense" is any indicator of how threatening they are. Ultimately A large stable monetary-based economy is impossible(at least with modern popular economic structures/foundations), due to issues with scarcity and inflation; which I can go further into if you want. You can expect recessions to get worse and to occur every 20 or 30 years, even though the quality of life should continue to improve. Maintaining a high and advancing quality of life should be the nation's goal, not profit or a maximum GDP. After All, the government isn't a business. Side: Obama not bad CEO
1
point
1
point
The paragraph your referring to is likely the following: "The stimulus helped keep money flowing, something vital for every company, and also helped maintain jobs and make inevitable job losses less severe." Is a consistent money flow not vital for for a company to maintain its number of employes? Or are you stating that a stimulus does not keep money flowing? "The fight over taxes had to do with recognizing that demand needed to increase in order for the number of jobs to" In order for a business to be profitable do people first have to be willing/able to buy services and goods from them? In order for a business to hire more people, do they first need to be profitable? Would keeping taxes low on the majority of the population help allow them to buy goods and services? "The debt ceiling is about recognizing the possibility of a double dip and the need of money flow, and that our economy is dependent on debt(actually, money is debt due to the money multiplier affect and how money is created)." I'm sure Murray Rothbard would agree with some of my own criticisms of fractional reserve banking, although he wouldn't agree with my solution. Our "Fraudulent" monetary system would be difficult to replace with one which has the same or similar benefits, thus trying to control the down swings so their less severe is preferable to giving up those benefits. The lost of benefits would be catastrophic to our society. Banks currently serve the useful role of financial intermediation, a very important function they would lose with most forms of 100% reserve banking. Also commodity money is too inelastic, leading to large "adjustment costs" as deflation inevitably occurs. Inevitably due to the limited supply of money, increases in population and in production, etc. Also, if you would debate the points presented, rather than just label them and attempt to dismiss them under that label then your dispute might actually constitute a valid argument. Side: Obama not bad CEO
1
point
|
