...........we spoiled brats......

...the mans an ass. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/02/AR2010090203992.html

Sounds like he has a bad case of sour grapes. People don't like what the current admin is doing and he's thinks we are supposed to just leave them in office? Bet he did not see things that way when the people removed the last admin from power. It was probably a "mandate from the people" to him. He needs to get ready for another "mandate" from the same people who sent the last one.

Jerry, The last admin was term limited not "removed"

The most recent Pres. not reelected was Bush I waaaay back in '94

No more or less of "ass" then some of the folks you like to expose us to on the forum

It is obvious an attempt to cover the excesses of the current administration who holds the majority of americans in contempt as rascist, ala Eric Holder. Some how the writer wants us to believe the Dems are once again the victimes of the republicans.

President Obama can point to any number of occasions on which he has told Americans that getting our nation back on track is a long-range project.

Only after he was elected and sworn in then and only then did he figure out he wasnt big enough for the job and started blaming Bush for creating a too big mess for him to straighten out.

sly...in case you didn't understand the post...he called you a spoiled brat also.....as I said...he is an ass...but that's just my opinion...as well as yours is...you looked for partisanship and found it....way to go.

It is more that he throws out the statement that we know who he is and what his politics are and then he goes on to demand more of what has caused the long term structural problems. He says we need to speed up the demise of the past 75 years. When it is that long term course that got us where we are. Like all ultra liberals he has no answere to the the why of any question or problem. He says "can you imgine building the hiway system now" and then says lets do some mroe of why we can't build the hiway system.

Phil, who was talking about a President or an administration. The author was talking about the 2006 election and that is the only meaningful comparison and that was my understanding of what Gerry was saying. If you want to really change anything you have to change the House of Representatives. And that is what is happening and after only 4 years that is historical.

Well, no one wants to think of themselves as "Spoiled Brats" - after all, aren't we all "self-made" men who have worked hard, suffered much, and made our way by the sweat of our brow to our appointed destiny?

There is some truth to that for many people, but certainly not all, at least not in my experience. My Irish grandfather used to say it was a poor job that couldn't afford at least one supervisor, and frankly, in my lifetime, there always seemed to be an ample supply of supervisors in relation to those actually doing the work. And in my case, we are NOT talking union shops. I've only ever worked in two in my lifetime, the rest seemed to make this impression without them. JMO.

Eugene is exactly right, we ARE a nation of brats we want instant gratification we want easy fixes, we think the other guy should pay for it or put it on a credit card. You guys want it fixed NOW!!!DAMMIT!!! If it was McCain we wouldn't hear one word from you that "He has had 19 months" The most spoiled are the rich as we see right here on this board. I'm sure Eugene makes over $250K a year and you don't hear him whining about being overtaxed do you? In WW2 we were asked to sacrifice ,we bought war bonds,had rationing grew victory gardens. What did Bush say? Go shopping and I'll ease credit so you can. No pain except for the troops.
Well, Boys the truth hurts doesn't it? Now go play with your toys.

Pat, today Obama says he wants another $50 billion of stimulus to build roads and infratstructure. I thought that was in the first stimulus which has not been spent as we speak. It is like the $35 billion extra he needed last month for extended unemployment insurance that he would not take out the already allocated stimulus funds.

The tax on the wealthy only gains $35 billion a year. He spends that every month and then some. Don't you see what is happening, he and his administration don't have a clue.

He is talking about small business tax breaks. Why wasn't he doing that 18 months ago, and he still can not deal with what needs to be done because it just goes against the core of Obama and people like Robinson.

If he couldn't get the repubs to sign on 18 months ago how could he have done it? He is trying to get the small business loan bill going and who is blocking it? I do have a problem with the Dems not having enough balls,I would have called you out on every filibuster and made you stand there for days reading the phone book and let the public just who is blocking progress

...black is black...I want my baby back... http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/SowellObamaDemocratsGeithner/2010/08/30/id/368758

Pat the Repuclicans would have voted 100% for stimulationg small business with tax relief and incentives 18 months ago. What are you talking about. That is the problem with the stimulus, it did not stimulate growth or small business.

You are getting all confused about what the heck is going on. I tend to understand because the Obama guys are so confused they change direction every quarter.

Robert, the word is accountability.

Pat everyone is hurt by the crooks. CEO's are all crooks, as all unionists arent pricks either. Good and bad. Regulations are good and bad too. But when a regulator turns his head away from doing his job, he becomes a crook and a bad guy. No one is going to defend the regulators on the sunken oil rig. They are guilty as hell. That doesnt make the head of BP a crook.

[quote=wyatt]
sly...in case you didn't understand the post...he called you a spoiled brat also...Hey you called me a thug but i still like you

A day without whine is like a day without syphilis-wonderful!

Another way of looking at it is, the Unions are paying them off to create more jobs. That makes more sense to me but I think the middle ground is as Richard pointed out. If someone is employed to "do" something, and they don't, they should not be protected by anyone. Fired on the spot or immediately after the tragedy. There are plenty of legal Americans willing to accept the job and responsibility.
JMO

What the hell is he getting paid for? If he didn't know it he should have and if he did he is a criminal so it's either he is incompetent or he is a crook either way it's not good.

If you don't screw around you don't have to worry about it.

Patrick with all due respect, your suggestion borders on being scurrilous. I don't think you have any idea of what CEOs do. I share your anger about "a few" in the banking and investment business and some others who get profound bonuses even while driving the company into the ditch sometimes. But ultimately, the board, elected by share holders can be held accountable. To assume that any and all top management knows every daily function within a multinational corporation is absurd. As is suggesting all the woes of the world rest solely on the shoulders of a few of top corporate management.

Was the FBI agent who repeatedly warned of the possibility of 9/11 being ignored by payoffs to her/his superiors? How about the several who repeatedly said the numbers just didn't crunch on Madeoffs investments. Was the entire SEC on Barnie's payroll? Ineptitude surrounds us daily, pork barrel politics, government oversight who are sightless, malfeasence of office, Union retirement funds being used by the mob. There is plenty of blame to be shared.

When one defends a daft word monger one is seen as being as daft as the monger. By any standard outside of a very far left camp, this guy is about as on target as wrongway Corrigan ...

Sly, also with due respect, if you want a lesson about Unions, read or even watch any account of Hoffa and the Teamsters. Lets call a muffin a muffin and a turd manure. The very problem in America is select wealthy minorities buying off legislative privledge. It defies one man one vote, and corrupts the corruptable which seems to be a majority of DC electees.

Glad your kids are home where they belong! :)-D
The blessing of grand kids is knowing the abuse they will inflict on your children as gentle revenge! :)-D:)-D

So then you would agree Obama isn't to be held responsible for the economy?

If that makes you rest better, OK.
Once you get your head out of the sand perhaps wer can speak more clearly. Its two years past GWB, what has happened in two years Pat? DNC numbers are tanking, an entire new movement is afoot, Tparties are a reality, but if your prefer to think its not about BHO, go for it.

Bob with all do respect to you and no offense i would hardly need a lesson on union's from yourself. Perhaps you should be reminded why the Teamsters were started in the first place.

You say te CEO isn't responsible so following your logic the prez (Ceo) isn't either.

My grandfather would probably say that human nature was little different in his day working for the New York Central Railroad from 1895 to 1930. His point was that there were always plenty of people to stand around and collect a paycheck while observing someone else do the work. That is a little different from supervision to observe how a job is done or supervision that does not bother to supervise or to assure that work is done right and rules observed. That is a different point within human nature, Robert, and you should know that.

Bob, I have never worked in the Government in my life but I have always worked around the Government in the same industry and doing the same work so I have always had a good feel for the difference between the public sector organization and the private sector. There is not much doubt that the private sector went through change in my 40 years working. However the difference between private sector supervision in manufacturing which is strictly controlled because of both union rules in that the contracts required at least two levels of union supervision so if it was not controlled tightly they would lose control of the ratios. So you might have 12 mechanics and one non working leaderman and and then a second level who would have 5 to seven leadermen working for a quarterman and then the Foreman would be salaried over the entire production group of tradesmen divided by trade discipline like electrical and piping.

Then in my last 10 years of working we were able to force the non working leadermen to work with his tools as part of his day in certain circumstances.

And I did not allow any assistant leadership positions or Assistant managers or administrtive assistants.

On the public side they were different in that supervisors did not work and they had assistants so in essence you had two or three to a group of 10 workers. Then it got worse as it went up the chain until there were almost one to one supervision over supervision and the actual supervision was done by the absolute lowest denominator. The rest became management of the process and administrtive. And virtually every function outside of the actual work was done by someone eles with their organization.

If you are to look at a public orgaization chart is almost unreadable with the layers and the connections accross the lines of authority and the higher it goes the more assistants and deputies. One of those reasons is the pay system and it takes a title to get money and rewards are titles. And the long and short of it all is that as we get more and more complicated and social it takes more and more non direct supervision and more and more administrative supervision.

You don't have to be at the bottom to be the one doing the work. I've had plenty of opportunity to observe officers in the military and in a corporate headquarters suffer with the same behaviors as those who were digging latrines. It is a human thing, Richard. And, if you were an officer in the military, Richard, like it or not, you were working for the government, albeit a rather singular branch of it.

Good point Gerry I used to think he hadn't responded and didn't read the quote to see his response. Steve Put your response separate.... Please!