Seeking Alpha

President Obama talked taxes, jobs, education, the deficit and U.S. competitiveness in his...

President Obama talked taxes, jobs, education, the deficit and U.S. competitiveness in his four-hour meeting with 20 CEOs, striving to come across as willing to listen and work with business. Boeing's (BA) Jim McNerney gets in the mood, saying he plans to add 4,000-5,000 jobs next year. Only one Wall Street figure attended, an odd choice: Richard Wolf of UBS.
Comments (18)
  • HiSpeed
    , contributor
    Comments (1169) | Send Message
    Obama talks a good game concerning jobs, but then he hypocritically backs job-killing concepts/legislation such as cap-n-trade.


    Companies have clearly learned to judge him by his actions, not his hollowed, meaningless rhetoric. His actions have contributed to the lack of hiring and current economic malaise.
    15 Dec 2010, 05:19 PM Reply Like
  • Silentz
    , contributor
    Comments (714) | Send Message
    Kinda like during his post-meeting speech. In one sentence, he stated that they were searching for ways to get American companies to hire people to work. Then, his closing statement was something to the effect of, "We know the way forward, now we just have to do it." No substance, only the typical political boilerplate.
    15 Dec 2010, 05:31 PM Reply Like
  • Joseph Wagda
    , contributor
    Comments (57) | Send Message
    BA hires 5,000 engineers to de-bug the 787 "Nightmareliner". What the heck - it's a start.
    15 Dec 2010, 05:23 PM Reply Like
  • Duude
    , contributor
    Comments (3398) | Send Message
    5000 engineers would be great, if it were so. Its 4000-5000 workers to be used to help fill 7 years of unfilled orders. That sounds like assembly. But besides the787, Boeing also needs better engineering of the missile defense system they're trying to peddle to the Pentagon. It just met failure today over the Pacific.
    15 Dec 2010, 05:35 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4311) | Send Message
    My guess is this was primarily about corporate tax rate as these corp CEOs can hire all they want but the "economy" is small business. Perhaps he also asked for suggestions on improving the business environment, but I'd bet it was taxes, taxes, taxes all the way...
    15 Dec 2010, 05:30 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4106) | Send Message
    Obama is a statist who realizes he won't get reelected unless employment picks up. He needs the private sector to accomplish his goals but his preference would be to tax all the profits he can and redistribute the proceeds to the riffraff.
    15 Dec 2010, 05:33 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
    I wonder how many more waivers will be issued to companies wanting out of Obamacare?


    Wouldn't it be easier to just repeal it entirely rather than continue playing charades?


    I know, I know. The child's ego couldn't take it. Better to just keep silently issuing these waivers.


    Then wait, desperately, for the SCOTUS to make the hard choice and strike it down. Then he doesn't have to say he was wrong. It will just quietly go away as if it never happened.




    15 Dec 2010, 05:35 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3333) | Send Message
    And, in other news....
    Pro-Business Obama sues BP to circumvent laws capping liability.


    No I don't believe BP should not be held accountable.
    But the law is the law. One cannot change the rules of the game after the game has started.


    Does he think that adds to certainty?
    15 Dec 2010, 05:43 PM Reply Like
  • zorrow
    , contributor
    Comments (1142) | Send Message
    Step one: Confab with the real CEOs of legitimate big business---No GS phonies--No "has been" lawyer intermediaries (Business Round Table, Chamber of Commerce etc.).


    Finally a step in the right direction.
    15 Dec 2010, 06:48 PM Reply Like
  • Mr. Ed, Jr.
    , contributor
    Comments (745) | Send Message
    The last time Obama met with business execs, he had them break out into workgroups of 4, then he told them he would check back on their progress in a few hours. Little, if anything, was accomplished. It is probably safe to assume this dog and pony show will fare no better, despite the happy talk that we will hear from the execs, post-meeting.


    What business really wants is for this government to get out of their lives. Already burdened with absurd new 1099 regulations starting next year, and with no idea what their healthcare costs will be under a mountain of new rules headed their way, they need the one thing Obama will not provide-- relief from an overbearing government.


    Obama's ideology clashes with business. Nothing can come of this, except that a few of the favored companies get government business.


    Almost two years into his term, and all we get is another meeting. This is truly pathetic.
    16 Dec 2010, 03:36 AM Reply Like
  • zorrow
    , contributor
    Comments (1142) | Send Message
    No. Obama's philosophy clashes with the revived Lucky Luciano-Meyer Lansky gang that has taken over the financial system--- Not legitimate American enterprise. Yeah, the new Al Capones want government out of their business. They want Big Bill Thompson style Republicans "regulating" all their "innovative" financial products and market manipulating software and trading techniques that seem (just like Bernie Madoff) to consistently pull billions of "trading profits" out of thin air. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, we discover that that their "trading" has destroyed our credit system, the life savings of millions of Americans (and other people around the world); has forced our government to hide the truth that "securities" and savings held in money market funds, banks, pension plans, and even our currency is no longer safe and secure. All because this Mafia controls most of the money flow on the world's exchanges. We need massive government interference to wrest our market system from these criminals and provide retstitution to thier many victims. The culpirts are individuals--not collective abstract nouns. If the government has to go after them with Black ops. They should . And again this has nothing to do with our system of government or the free enterprise system. This is Mafia conspiracy stuff. And its not socialism or world domination or any of that other hooey. They just want to steal your money using fraud and market manipulating software.
    16 Dec 2010, 09:12 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
    I think you said it best. "This is Mafia conspiracy stuff."


    And James Bond crap and maybe Inspector Gadget too.
    16 Dec 2010, 12:27 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
    "The last time Obama met with business execs, he had them break out into workgroups of 4, then he told them he would check back on their progress in a few hours. Little, if anything, was accomplished."


    That's because he didn't hand out the construction paper, scissors and glue sticks first.
    16 Dec 2010, 12:28 PM Reply Like
  • Mr. Ed, Jr.
    , contributor
    Comments (745) | Send Message
    Give us a break with the nonsense about how Wall Street just wants to be unregulated so they can do whatever they want-- OF COURSE THEY DO. A child would understand that. And the unions and trial lawyers want to be able to do whatever they want-- everybody wants to do what they can get away with.


    There is no shortage of regulations from government. If you have ever operated a business, you would know that.


    And there is no shortage of financial regulations, either. There is, however, a shortage of people of integrity and principal. The laws on the books have not been enforced by those whose exact job was to enforce regulations.


    That is why we have Wall Street running a sky's-the-limit casino, why Bernie Madoff can operate for years, why securitized mortgages will soon cost the citizens many billions more, and why trillions of dolars have been wasted trying to save the financial system of this country.


    Just spare us the crap about how more regulations on evil business will solve any of this. The laws that are already on the books would have had most of the perpetrators in handcuffs a long time ago-- if the laws were enforced.
    19 Dec 2010, 03:49 AM Reply Like
  • zorrow
    , contributor
    Comments (1142) | Send Message
    "The laws on the books have not been enforced by those whose exact job was to enforce regulations". Yeah, we are saying the same thing. That's why we need people like Eliot Spitzer. We need enforcement. Any systems analyst can see that Goldman and the Davos Mafia are manipulating the market with computer hocus pocus. You have inputs at high speed (80% to 90% controlled by a few conspiring investment banks and hedge funds) and then you have outputs that magically create billions of dollars. You have a black box in betweeen. Part of the black box operation almost has to be the creation of nano second naked shorts. Like other smoke and mirror practioners, the details of the trick may be very technical, but intelligent people know they haven't sawed anybody in half. They have even admitted they can manipulate the market with this software. You had Hank Paulson, Treasury Secretary and fifth columnist actually clandestinely transfer your tax money to Goldman and the other bank trading desks, while Congress was kept in the dark. Goldman was made a depository bank overnight (why), and we find out that they have been regularly going to the discount window. The securitized mortgages are ONE BIG FRAUD. Mafia stuff. Our banks (savings, CDs and money markets) are hanging by a thread of lies. Individuals did this. The PAC Men in Congress (not Barney Frank; Not Dodd) enabled it. (Think Phil Gramm). This was not a business cycle recession. This was a Mafia style fraud, and until individuals, around the world, are brought to justice, the pressure is just going to build.
    19 Dec 2010, 09:58 AM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
    > The laws that are already on the books would have had most of
    > the perpetrators in handcuffs a long time ago-- if the laws were
    > enforced.


    I question the simplicity of this, and here's why.


    What do we see time after time?


    First of all, lots of questions. "Is [insert obvious scumbag behavior here] /really/ illegal?" If the laws were clear, it shouldn't be this ambiguous.


    Second of all, we see lots of lawyers. Lots and lots of lawyers -- on the corporations' side. And a few on from the SEC. Just like a large business can bury a small one in red tape long enough to make whatever case not worth defending, a huge corporation can keep the regulators tied up long enough with legal shenanigans that it starts to become "too costly" to prosecute.


    Thirdly, we see /better/ lawyers on the corporations' side than from the regulators. This makes "free market" sense when you consider that the regulators' guys probably get low six figures at best, and the corporate types are raking in millions. Sometimes you get what you pay for.


    And yet, when the SEC wants more funding (porn website scandals notwithstanding), a lot of people whine about how we don't need more big government, or how federal employees get paid too much already. Again, you get what you pay for.


    Finally, yes, sometimes the regulators just suck. They prosecute, they win, or are in a clear position to win, and then agree to a puny fine that is meaningless to the corporation they caught being a scumbag. The legal fines then become a simple "cost of doing business" on par with tipping a waiter. No doubt this is at least partially due to the classic conflict of interest where the regulator leaves and gets a job with the corporations he regulates.


    So I conclude as follows:


    1) If the regulators are sufficient, or are already paid as much as you're willing to pay them, maybe we need better laws that are easier to enforce. Maybe that's "more laws", or maybe it's "clearer laws".


    2 and 3) If the laws are sufficient, maybe we need more and better lawyers fighting for justice and integrity. Per the "free market", this means we need more funding for the regulators.


    4) Regulators that are soft on financial crime need to be fired. Like many government financial types, they no doubt have conflicts of interest in the form of a job offer from a corporation when they leave government employment. Conflicts need to be removed -- like banning regulator employees from working for corporations they investigate for 10+ years or something.


    But in one way or another, changes need to be made so that he regulators can (and want to) do their jobs.
    19 Dec 2010, 10:27 AM Reply Like
  • zorrow
    , contributor
    Comments (1142) | Send Message
    If your house is on fire because of arson, you can CONCLUDE that there is nothing you can do about it. Or you can put the fire out, repair your home and go after the arsonist. If people share the flaming house, you will get a range of opinion. In the end the people who decide on inaction, don't really count. If there are some that will take action, the question becomes, "What form will that action take?" Maybe first it will be an appeal for justice to the powers that be. If that justice is not forthcoming, it will take a different form. This is a worldwide conflagration. I predict in some cases we will see military officers, stepping up and taking charge; in some form. this may be by entering the political arena or by junta. When civilian government can't deliver order and justice, in the opinion of a continuing majority, an alternative will surface. In the United States that struggle is becoming more visible. In fact the Teaparty energy comes from this dissatisfaction. Birthed from a burning economy, set afire by crooks on Wall Street. They may eventually figure out who the "Nero" is. Right now there confused, and think its the "Christians" that set the fire.
    19 Dec 2010, 10:47 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
    "That's why we need people like Eliot Spitzer."


    Call girls have to eat too.
    19 Dec 2010, 04:29 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs