Obama Managing Crisis 'Horribly': Jack Welch

NigelTufnel said:
Welch is a Republican former CEO. I'm *shocked* that he criticized Obama. Absolutely floored. Never would have guessed it in a million years.

And frankly, his criticism is fucking stupid:

That's fucking brilliant, Jack. I'm sure people are just sitting on their thumbs and spinning in circles instead of trying to get the oil leak stopped and all it would take is for some super-executive type to tell them to fix it and it would be fixed.

Whaaaaaaaaa. Leave BP alone! Newsflash, Jack: if BP agreed to it, it's legal.
Click to expand...

Oh look... another of the disciples rushing to defend his messiah. I am shocked.

Frankly, your criticism of Welch is fucking stupid. Side note... they HAVE been sitting on their asses spinning in circles. The inept leadership is nothing short of pathetic.

But as always, you try to attack the messenger so as to deflect the legitimate criticism of your messiah.
 
Superfreak said:
Please. If you knew anything about LEADERSHIP, you would know that Welch is one of the most respected leaders in the business world. His comments were directed at the lack of LEADERSHIP from the Obama administration.

Pretending that because GE had the PCB issue that somehow disqualifies Welch from talking about leadership is complete buffoonery on your part.
Click to expand...

Sure. He fought tooth & nail to avoid the PCB cleanup, delaying it by over a decade, trying to convince the gov't that PCB's weren't a health or environmental hazard, and using every legal tactic in the book to avoid GE cleaning up after itself. And during all that, fishing was banned in the Hudson, industries that relied on the river suffered and residents had to deal with the consequences.

A great, shining example of leadership during an environmental crisis; no hypocrisy here.

There are legit criticisms of Obama. I'm just pointing out that Welch is hardly the guy to be making them.
 
Onceler said:
Sure. He fought tooth & nail to avoid the PCB cleanup, delaying it by over a decade, trying to convince the gov't that PCB's weren't a health or environmental hazard, and using every legal tactic in the book to avoid GE cleaning up after itself. And during all that, fishing was banned in the Hudson, industries that relied on the river suffered and residents had to deal with the consequences.

A great, shining example of leadership during an environmental crisis; no hypocrisy here.

There are legit criticisms of Obama. I'm just pointing out that Welch is hardly the guy to be making them.
Click to expand...

Again, all legal, due to the legal disposal of a legal product, and totally unrelated to the current issue.
 
Onceler said:
Sure. He fought tooth & nail to avoid the PCB cleanup, delaying it by over a decade, trying to convince the gov't that PCB's weren't a health or environmental hazard, and using every legal tactic in the book to avoid GE cleaning up after itself. And during all that, fishing was banned in the Hudson, industries that relied on the river suffered and residents had to deal with the consequences.

A great, shining example of leadership during an environmental crisis; no hypocrisy here.

There are legit criticisms of Obama. I'm just pointing out that Welch is hardly the guy to be making them.
Click to expand...

Like I stated, it is sad the lengths the disciples go to for their beloved messiah.

The ONE will save us!
 
Superfreak said:
Oh look... another of the disciples rushing to defend his messiah. I am shocked.

Frankly, your criticism of Welch is fucking stupid. Side note... they HAVE been sitting on their asses spinning in circles. The inept leadership is nothing short of pathetic.

But as always, you try to attack the messenger so as to deflect the legitimate criticism of your messiah.
Click to expand...

First, I'm not attacking the messenger. The misuse of that idiom on this board has reached epidemic proportions. "Attacking the messenger" refers to attacking a disinterested third-party for delivering a message from an interested party.

In this instance, if Jack Welch said "Steve Jobs thinks Obama's leadership sucks" and I responded by saying Jack Welch is a goat-fucking child molestor then I would be attacking the messenger. However, in this case I simply pointed out Jack isn't a disinterested third-party but is instead a well-known Republican partisan. Pointing out that Jack Welch may have biases against Obama isn't "attacking the messenger" at all but rather exposing potential sources of bias so that the reader has sufficient information to assess Jack's biased opinion.

Additionally, on substance Jack is just plain wrong. "Leadership" doesn't solve technical impossibilities.
 
Superfreak said:
Like I stated, it is sad the lengths the disciples go to for their beloved messiah.

The ONE will save us!
Click to expand...

And....SF goes full troll!

Amazing; couldn't respond to any of that.

It's like the captain of the Valdez coming out & criticizing the response to the spill...
 
I give Obama an F on prevention, ie it's his shop that failed ie MMS no buck passing to Bush as he knew well in advance he had many problems with Bush.
I give him a D on clean up, an F on the stopping drilling.
I give him an A+ on making BP not only pay for the clean up but fund an escrow that's not shamefull like what Exxon rapeage of Alaska was.
Overall grade D
 
NigelTufnel said:
First, I'm not attacking the messenger. The misuse of that idiom on this board has reached epidemic proportions. "Attacking the messenger" refers to attacking a disinterested third-party for delivering a message from an interested party.

In this instance, if Jack Welch said "Steve Jobs thinks Obama's leadership sucks" and I responded by saying Jack Welch is a goat-fucking child molestor then I would be attacking the messenger. However, in this case I simply pointed out Jack isn't a disinterested third-party but is instead a well-known Republican partisan. Pointing out that Jack Welch may have biases against Obama isn't "attacking the messenger" at all but rather exposing potential sources of bias so that the reader has sufficient information to assess Jack's biased opinion.

Additionally, on substance Jack is just plain wrong. "Leadership" doesn't solve technical impossibilities.
Click to expand...

Leadership DOES help alleviate the damage. Again... you idiots pretend that by accepting SOME foreign aid a MONTH into the crisis, that somehow means Obama is doing a good job.

The Dutch Arms should have been on the way when the Dutch first offered them. The sand barriers being built should have all available hands on the situation to build it as fast as possible...... but no... politicians are playing games and thus it is US only.
 
Superfreak said:
Leadership DOES help alleviate the damage. Again... you idiots pretend that by accepting SOME foreign aid a MONTH into the crisis, that somehow means Obama is doing a good job.

The Dutch Arms should have been on the way when the Dutch first offered them. The sand barriers being built should have all available hands on the situation to build it as fast as possible...... but no... politicians are playing games and thus it is US only.
Click to expand...

LOL

Someone isn't keeping up w/ current events, or w/ recent discussions on the board...
 
Superfreak said:
Leadership DOES help alleviate the damage. Again... you idiots pretend that by accepting SOME foreign aid a MONTH into the crisis, that somehow means Obama is doing a good job.

The Dutch Arms should have been on the way when the Dutch first offered them. The sand barriers being built should have all available hands on the situation to build it as fast as possible...... but no... politicians are playing games and thus it is US only.
Click to expand...


You're raising an entirely different issue that Jack. If you want to discuss the foreign aid issue you can do so on that other thread. The issue here is that Jack seems to be under the dumbshit impression (and only an egotistical narcissist CEO can have this sort of impression) that "leadership" can resolve the technical problem of stopping the leak. It can't.
 
then I don't need to hear from some fat ass old washed up tool who sucked tax payer dollars for his failure.
 
Onceler said:
And....SF goes full troll!

Amazing; couldn't respond to any of that.

It's like the captain of the Valdez coming out & criticizing the response to the spill...
Click to expand...

Right... I responded several times, you just keep repeating the same line of bullshit over and over again expecting a different answer.

Again.... Jack Welch is a great leader, one of the best CEO's of the past 50 years. He understands the issue of LEADERSHIP. THAT is the area he is commenting on with regards to your messiah. His LACK OF LEADERSHIP.

Instead, you want to say... 'well, because GE dumped PCBs and Welch fought the cleanup bill given that GE had not violated any laws or regulations.... well that must mean Welch is not qualified to comment on leadership'

Your entire 'argument' is bullshit and nonsensical.

It is a vain attempt by you to deflect attention away from Saint Obama's inept handling of the Horizon disaster.

We should all know by now... 'thou shalt not criticize the messiah'
 
General Electric Gets a $140B Bailout - What's the Point of AAA?
8 comments * by: Vernon Hill November 14, 2008 * about: GE Font Size: PrintEmail Recommend 0 Share this page
Share0 Vernon Hill 62
Followers 0
Following FollowYou are currently following Vernon Hill
Stop FollowingYou are no longer following Vernon Hill
Profile
Articles (64)
About this author:

Visit Bankstocks.com
Submit
an article to Tell me again what a triple-A rating is good for? Not a whole lot, if one of the iconic triple-As in American industry, General Electric, has to go hat in hand to the federal government for a $140 billion bailout.

Or maybe G.E. isn't the bulletproof financial juggernaut the rating agencies say. The company's vaunted GE Capital unit has supposedly been a money machine for years, having generated solid returns come rain or shine. By now, the unit generates upwards of 40% of G.E. overall profits.

Except there's one problem: G.E.'s financial services business may be the blackest box on Wall Street. The unit has little transparency, no regulatory oversight, and now, we are finding out, an unstable funding model.

In particular, G.E. has chosen to fund its finance business with short-term commercial paper rather than secure more stable long-term funding based on its triple-A rating--which, it appears, turns out to be fiction.

Odd, isn't it, that even though it operates in the same economic environment as regulated financial behemoths, G.E. never seems to get hit by outsized credit losses or asset writedowns? Is that because a) the people at G.E. are just smarter than everybody else, or b) the company has wide latitude to paper over problems since it doesn't have a regulator looking over its shoulder?

I vote for b. We know, for instance, that GE is not above skimping on non-cash discretionary items in order to plump up its near-term results. And not in a small way, either: one reason Jack Welch could show such sparkling earnings gains toward the end of his tenure as CEO is that in the late 1990s and early 2000s, G.E. systematically underreserved for losses at its reinsurance unit. When the company sold the business in 2005, it had to pump in an extra $10 billion to make up the shortfall.

Opaque assets and unstable funding. That's some combination. In any event, yet another pillar of the "shadow banking system" founders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top