Obama says CEOs should quit complaining

Posted by Solver 12 years ago to Politics
26 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

It's just the nature of his type I guess: To lie and rule.

"President Barack Obama said corporate America has done well under his economic policies, telling the Economist magazine that chief executive officers should stop complaining about regulations and show greater social responsibility."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/0...

All Comments

  • Posted by $ Abaco 12 years ago
    Absorbing financial abuse at the hands of your elected leaders is a way to show greater social responsibility. - Got it. Um...no thanks.

    I'm teaching my kids the opposite, which is why we are hearing more of "it takes a village..."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 12 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Attacks, even those that are technically or morally right, but fail only weaken the case against it. I like the Halbig case (and the fact that a second district court make a different ruling an a related case just about guarantees that it will be heard by the SCOTUS) to undercut the law. When people see the real costs, and the absurd coverage requirements, they will rebel.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 12 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Seemingly well worth it for all the other people's money he can bestow unto his favored guests who pay so very little to buy just, a um...dinner.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 12 years ago in reply to this comment.
    No, it was not legal.

    Nothing Obama has done since occupying the White House has been legal.

    Article 2, section 1, clause 5...

    Although born in Hawaii, his father was a British subject at the time of his birth (according to his birth certificate), therefore, while "native born", Obama is not "natural born" and therefore is not eligible to hold the office.

    As he's not eligible to hold the office, nothing he does can be legal, and anyone who obeys, enforces or acknowledges his proclamations is in violation of their oath of office, from Congressmen/Senators, to soldiers, to cops to civil servants.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Snoogoo 12 years ago
    If they weren't so wealthy they couldn't afford your $25,000 per plate campaign dinners Mr. President.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Your_Name_Goes_Here 12 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I've never been convinced of that. I always wondered why Congress (the House at least) never challenged this on that basis. If they did, I missed it somehow...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 12 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Unfortunately, they took an existing bill, gutted it, and inserted O'care. So, technically it was legal.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by iroseland 12 years ago
    He shouldn't worry too much. When the CEO's discover the true nature of things, they will quit.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 12 years ago in reply to this comment.
    But technically, all spending bills need to start in the house, so really, it would be spending like a drunken member (LOL!!!!!!!!!!)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 12 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, your memory is correct, and on that, Obama was right for once. Bush did spend like a drunken senator.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 12 years ago in reply to this comment.
    To me, socially responsible means not putting our children and grandchildren into debt we ought to not be accumulating.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 12 years ago
    Short term gains for long term pains is not a good social policy.
    Good businesses have struggled to do well, in-spite of big government's economic drag..
    Big government provides retribution style favors to targeted “socially response” businesses, and promise to hurt those businesses less. This they call, "fair."

    Why does does the Obama regime think that they should dictate what individuals should do with their own time and earnings? To many, socially responsible means trying to stay out of social debt.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo