CEO's who lunched with Obama embarrassed for him for his stupidity.

aqwertyuiop

Literotica Guru
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Posts
655
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/03/29/obama-in-rude-denial

The White House political and legislative operations were said to be livid with the announcement by several large U.S. companies that they were taking multi-million or as much as a billion dollar charges because of the new health-care law, the issue was front-and-center with key lawmakers. By last Friday, AT&T, Caterpillar, Deere & Co., and AK Steel Holding Corp. had all announced that they were taking the one-time charges on their first-quarter balance sheets. More companies were expected to make similar announcements this week.

"These are Republican CEOs who are trying to embarrass the President and Democrats in general," says a White House legislative affairs staffer. "Where do you hear about this stuff? The Wall Street Journal editorial page and conservative websites. No one else picked up on this but you guys. It's BS."

On Friday White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and Obama senior advisor Valerie Jarrett were calling the CEOs and Washington office heads of the companies that took the financial hits and attacked them for doing so. One Washington office head said that the White House calls were accusatory and "downright rude."

The companies are taking the charges because in 2013 they will lose a tax deduction on tax-free government subsidies they have had when they give retirees a Medicare Part D prescription-drug reimbursement. Many of these companies have more than 100,000 retirees each. AT&T may have more than three-quarters of a million retirees to cover.

"Most of these people [in the Administration] have never had a real job in their lives. They don't understand a thing about business, and that includes the President," says a senior lobbyist for one of the companies that announced the charge. "My CEO sat with the President over lunch with two other CEOs, and each of them tried to explain to the President what this bill would do to our companies and the economy in general. First the President didn't understand what they were talking about. Then he basically told my boss he was lying. Frankly my boss was embarrassed for him; he clearly had not been briefed and didn't know what was in the bill."

It isn't just the President who didn't understand his own proposal. Late Friday, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman and Rep. Bart Stupak, chairman of the Oversight and Investigations panel, announced that they would hold hearings in late April to investigate "claims by Caterpillar, Verizon, and Deere that provisions in the new health care reform law could adversely affect their company's ability to provide health insurance to their employees."

Neither Waxman or Stupak -- who betrayed the pro-life community by negotiating for more than a week with the White House to ensure his vote on the health care bill -- had anything more than a cursory understanding of how the many sections of the bill would impact business or even individual citizens before they voted on the bill, says House Energy Democrat staff. "We had memos on these issues, but none of our people, we think, looked at them," says a staffer. "When they saw the stories last week about the charges some of the companies were taking, they were genuinely surprised and assumed that the companies were just doing this to embarrass them. They really believed this bill would immediately lower costs. They just didn't understand what they were voting on."

NOT WHAT THEY EXPECTED
So much for President Obama's promises to build better relations with America's friends and allies overseas. Just 15 months into his administration, Obama has managed to alienate most of the major European allies, this time having a State Department functionary announcing in Brussels that U.S.-EU summits will no longer be held annually, and only when there are particular issues to be decided.

State Department officials, some of whom were holdovers from the Bush Administration, say the reasoning for the U.S. to end the annual summits, which had been held since 1991, was in part due to Obama and his team's feeling " slighted" by European leaders and their staffs, such as French president Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, both of whom have come away less than impressed with Obama's style and substance.

During Obama's much heralded European visits last year, he and his team were met with lukewarm enthusiasm by his fellow leaders. Obama responded by, as host last November, meeting with his counterparts for only three hours and sending Vice President Joe Biden to spend the rest of the time in the summit, including the official lunch. Other than a 15-minute meeting in the morning with Merkel (which on the schedule was supposed to be a half-hour), the summit meeting, Obama had an almost open schedule on that day, with only a late-afternoon meeting with Sen. Blanche Lincoln on the agenda.

Then in February Obama announced that he would not attend a U.S.-EU Summit in Madrid, Spain, scheduled to take place in May, thus ensuring the meeting would be canceled.

The Obama Administration got off to a rocky start diplomatically when it embarrassed British Prime Minister Gordon Brown by giving him official White House presents -- U.S. formatted DVDs that could not played in Great Britain due to different formatting, for example -- that created the impression Obama didn't seem to care much for Brown. He later, in meeting Queen Elizabeth II gave her an iPod, loaded with podcasts of his major speeches.

"People may not have liked some of the Bush Administration's style, but at least President Bush came to meetings and was gracious," says a current State Department staffer. " I won't say that the Europeans are missing Bush, but they feel that President Obama just doesn't care about the 'special relationship' that has existed between American and Europe. He's made it worse, not better."
 
It's interesting that these guys think the CEOs are manipulating their earnings for political gain. That would be illegal for a public company. It would also be illegal for these companies NOT to take these charges if they know this will affect their earnings.

I can only infer Obama's staff thinks it's typical to manipulate the truth for political gain.
 
cant help but notice that none of the people they talked to gave their names..in this op/ed piece

thats some crack reporting right there..completely unsubstantiated and based on hearsay and personal view
 
cant help but notice that none of the people they talked to gave their names..in this op/ed piece

thats some crack reporting right there..completely unsubstantiated and based on hearsay and personal view

You must not read many news stories critical of (say) the President. If somebody isn't already identified as a member of the opposition party, there's nothing for them to gain by being quoted as saying things that are not complimentary.

When (e.g.) the WaPo does it, they do explicitly say that so-and-so would only talk on condition of anonymity, so this article could have done likewise, but it would be more unusual to have names quoted in this situation.
 
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/03/29/obama-in-rude-denial


"Most of these people [in the Administration] have never had a real job in their lives. They don't understand a thing about business, and that includes the President," says a senior lobbyist for one of the companies that announced the charge. "My CEO sat with the President over lunch with two other CEOs, and each of them tried to explain to the President what this bill would do to our companies and the economy in general. First the President didn't understand what they were talking about. Then he basically told my boss he was lying. Frankly my boss was embarrassed for him; he clearly had not been briefed and didn't know what was in the bill.

so if he doesn't know what's in his own bill who's pulling his strings? I think we give to much credit/blame to presidents.....but there is a vote coming up....let's take all this out on the jerks that deserve to be out of office in the house and senate......
 
cant help but notice that none of the people they talked to gave their names..in this op/ed piece

thats some crack reporting right there..completely unsubstantiated and based on hearsay and personal view

Isn't an opinion a personal view? hence op/ed.......
 
Haha! Good one!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8590767.stm

'The committee said although Britain and the US still had close ties, the UK's influence had "diminished" as its economic and military power had waned.

"The use of the phrase 'the special relationship' in its historical sense, to describe the totality of the ever-evolving UK-US relationship, is potentially misleading, and we recommend that its use should be avoided," the committee said. "
 
In case you missed it, the White House did acknowledge the impact when spokesidiot Robert Gibbs called the tax break a "loophole."
It was not a loophole. It was created specifically so these companies could provide health benefits to retirees.
Now, can one of you Obama supporters tell me how this benefits anyone? Regardless of what shape the economy's in, do you think $100 million is something Caterpillar can just shrug off?
 
cant help but notice that none of the people they talked to gave their names..in this op/ed piece

thats some crack reporting right there..completely unsubstantiated and based on hearsay and personal view

It's not unusual for reporters to quote a person on condition of anonymity.
 
Youth is easily deceived because it is quick to hope - Aristotle

Now we understand the theme "Hope and Change" After experiencing the real legacy of social democrat rule....extensive unemployment, they'll come to their senses and vote conservative.
 
Consider the source: The Spectator. Why should I care what the British far right thinks of the American President?

If The Nation ran a column critical of some Republican pol and featuring a lot of unnamed sources, I doubt many of you would find that very persuasive.
 
The British...ahahahaha...:rolleyes:

You need to get a life.

Today, 04:42 AM
Replies: 101
Obama in Afghanistan
Views: 646
Posted By vetteman
Show me the link on that, or are you learning...

Show me the link on that, or are you learning from Rob on how to lie?
Forum: General Board Today, 01:24 AM
Replies: 28
Hysteria Channel: Apocalypse Island
Views: 198
Posted By vetteman
Hysteria Channel: Apocalypse Island

Did anyone bite on that phony bunch of baloney?
Only tweakers and old bigots post like this.
 
It's interesting that these guys think the CEOs are manipulating their earnings for political gain. That would be illegal for a public company. It would also be illegal for these companies NOT to take these charges if they know this will affect their earnings.

I can only infer Obama's staff thinks it's typical to manipulate the truth for political gain.

THINK???



They fucking KNOW!
 
Consider the source: The Spectator. Why should I care what the British far right thinks of the American President?

If The Nation ran a column critical of some Republican pol and featuring a lot of unnamed sources, I doubt many of you would find that very persuasive.

How come they call it the American Spectator and how come it's headed up by former Reaganites?

We KNOW why we'd never see a story like this at Salon unless Paglia wrote it...
 
In case you missed it, the White House did acknowledge the impact when spokesidiot Robert Gibbs called the tax break a "loophole."
It was not a loophole. It was created specifically so these companies could provide health benefits to retirees.
Now, can one of you Obama supporters tell me how this benefits anyone? Regardless of what shape the economy's in, do you think $100 million is something Caterpillar can just shrug off?

Yes, yes they do and they can afford to pay their employees better.

They're the bloody, stinkin' rich!
__________________
If you think it is acceptable to take a percentage of someone's income above your station in life, then everyone in that station, as well as everyone below your station in life will find it perfectly acceptable to take like amount from you.
A_J, the Stupid
 
Consider the source: The Spectator. Why should I care what the British far right thinks of the American President?

If The Nation ran a column critical of some Republican pol and featuring a lot of unnamed sources, I doubt many of you would find that very persuasive.

I think you're thinking of http://www.spectator.co.uk/

As for The Nation, I don't think they actually interview people outside of a small circle of regular contributors who are doing this for the publicity anyway. It's like Fox News without the news...all opinion, all the time.
 
It's interesting that these guys think the CEOs are manipulating their earnings for political gain. That would be illegal for a public company. It would also be illegal for these companies NOT to take these charges if they know this will affect their earnings.

I can only infer Obama's staff thinks it's typical to manipulate the truth for political gain.

Exactly. And company officers can be held personally liable for errors in financial statements. The companies have no choice under accounting rules they MUST recognize the known charges to their P&Ls.
 
'special relationship' that has existed between American and Europe. He's made it worse, not better."

Don't mean to be rude here but maybe it is time for Europe to get out from behind the United States skirts, and face up to the realities of their social model.

It desperately needs re-invigorating.

ETA especially since the US is about to cripple its own economy by trying to emulate Europe's social model in a half baked way.
 
Last edited:
After decades of seeing the world through dung-colored glasses the Right can only see things in shit brown.

Sweeties, you're trying oh too hard.
 
Consider the source: The Spectator. Why should I care what the British far right thinks of the American President?

If The Nation ran a column critical of some Republican pol and featuring a lot of unnamed sources, I doubt many of you would find that very persuasive.

File this under "You know you are a lame brained liberal when....."

You are unable to refute the point of the post so you go after the credibility of the source (and in this case are mistaken)

A simple Google search will turn up stories about this from Business Week, WSJ, Forbes, CNN/Money, Washington Post.
 
Back
Top