Obama: Do what I say to address economic crisis, or else!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think calling the private sector efficient is a bit of a fallacy, certainly when it comes to job creation.

Even now there are still people who doss about on the internet all day, file frivolous expense claims or do work that ends up being pointless or duplicated - because departments don't communicate effectively.

The government get's it's income through the profits of the private sector. Businesses earn profits by efficiently managing costs/prices.

There are inefficient companies within the private sector, I agree. But free-market mechanisms tend to force the inefficient companies out of business.

It's foolhardy to believe that a government official can manage your money better than you can manage it yourself. There is no incentive or risk for government run programs. It's not their money to lose, and their salary stays the same either way. Therefore it is doomed from the get-go.

Wholesale privatisation tends to have unwanted side-effects - for example, lowering living standards (healthcare) and political freedoms (university education).

This free market stuff you are pushing seems to me to be a pure economic theory. Nothing wrong with that (in theory) but what I don't agree with is that it tends to treat ethics and morality as separate subjects (or things that can simply be assumed).

The American economy currently follows the Keynesian economic theory. Pretty much every economic advisor advocates one form of intervention or another, all the while remaining lockstep with Lord Keynes' theory. The problem is; there are other theories out there. Ones that are far more sound.

Obviously I totally disagree with your assumption that privatization causes low living standards. In fact, it's quite the opposite.

I think healthcare is a subject entirely different from privatization. In fact, healthcare would be much more affordable and the supply of it much more abundant if it was allowed to operate without coercive restrictions such as the FDA, AMA, and HMO act. So I think healthcare should be freed as well.

Yes in theory - which is why I contested the idea that a completely free market economy could operate without inevitably compromising morality or ethics to the deteriment of the public (specifically the poorest and least able to participate in the economy).

I don't disagree that we have a labyrinthine amount of regulation, some of which is excessive, some of which is redundant. I don't dispute that. I do think there is a place for government to regulate the economy to ensure a level playing field for its citizens - certainly on things like education or healthcare.

Not to go too far down that route - but the general quality of healthcare as provided by socialized healthcare in Europe doesn't bear out the experience that quality care can't be provided in a relatively cost-effective manner by government.

[mRx 16]

Unfortunately, what you think is Keynesian is in fact pseudo-Keynesian.

The regulations in place, if truly in existence to regulate to adjust to a fair standard nationwide- would drive the costs downward as they stand. This is clearly not the case at this time.

Freeing up the regulations that you promote to be replaced by self-regulating enterprise is another way of asking for more price increases in the name of 'improving' supply and service. This is a perfect example where learning from several other countries and their regulatory practices could help.

I don't know what you mean by pseudo-Keynesian. It either is government intervention-based, or it isn't.

I don't know what regulations are in place that can possibly bring prices down. Regulation can only restrict the free market. That is it's purpose. Whether anyone likes to admit it or not, the free-market will always operate regardless of what regulations are placed on it. That's why politicians are scratching their heads while these heavily subsidized companies are going belly up. It's because they are inefficient that they're going bankrupt. And apparently private lenders don't want to take the risk with these companies, so we the taxpayers are forced to further subsidize them. Again, the free market will always weed out the inefficient companies, no matter how long their existence is prolonged through subsidies.

Higher productivity, technological advances, and efficiency all work in concert to bring prices down. As long as prices are higher than costs, then profits will be made. Competition is also a great free market tool. It forces fair business practices. If Company A is paying me garbage to do a job, and I know that I am worth more than what he is paying me, then surely I will jump over to company B. If I was indeed worth more than what A paid me, then surely my company switch is a loss to A. If Company X is charging more than what I want to pay for something, then this creates a demand for a lower price, and if Company X isn't going to budge, then Company Q may come along to capitalize on this demand. But government intervention seeks to destroy this peaceful balance through such coercive tools as subsidation and monopolization.

[HAL 9000 96]

Unfortunately, what you think is Keynesian is in fact pseudo-Keynesian.

The regulations in place, if truly in existence to regulate to adjust to a fair standard nationwide- would drive the costs downward as they stand. This is clearly not the case at this time.

Freeing up the regulations that you promote to be replaced by self-regulating enterprise is another way of asking for more price increases in the name of 'improving' supply and service. This is a perfect example where learning from several other countries and their regulatory practices could help.

I don't know what you mean by pseudo-Keynesian. It either is government intervention-based, or it isn't.

I don't know what regulations are in place that can possibly bring prices down. Regulation can only restrict the free market. That is it's purpose. Whether anyone likes to admit it or not, the free-market will always operate regardless of what regulations are placed on it. That's why politicians are scratching their heads while these heavily subsidized companies are going belly up. It's because they are inefficient that they're going bankrupt. And apparently private lenders don't want to take the risk with these companies, so we the taxpayers are forced to further subsidize them. Again, the free market will always weed out the inefficient companies, no matter how long their existence is prolonged through subsidies.

Higher productivity, technological advances, and efficiency all work in concert to bring prices down. As long as prices are higher than costs, then profits will be made. Competition is also a great free market tool. It forces fair business practices. If Company A is paying me garbage to do a job, and I know that I am worth more than what he is paying me, then surely I will jump over to company B. If I was indeed worth more than what A paid me, then surely my company switch is a loss to A. If Company X is charging more than what I want to pay for something, then this creates a demand for a lower price, and if Company X isn't going to budge, then Company Q may come along to capitalize on this demand. But government intervention seeks to destroy this peaceful balance through such coercive tools as subsidation and monopolization.

Intervention, as Paul wrote it- redundant in some places, ridiculous in others. Yet not unnecessary in others. Regulation is not black and white as you wish to portray it.

In other words, there's what we have now (plenty of the kind of regulation that makes waves in the lake that everyone swims and urinates in while we consume the fish) vs what we should have (the kind that only makes ripples- so that everyone can swim in the lake while only dealing with fish pee).

[mRx 16]

I think calling the private sector efficient is a bit of a fallacy, certainly when it comes to job creation.

Even now there are still people who doss about on the internet all day, file frivolous expense claims or do work that ends up being pointless or duplicated - because departments don't communicate effectively.

The government get's it's income through the profits of the private sector. Businesses earn profits by efficiently managing costs/prices.

There are inefficient companies within the private sector, I agree. But free-market mechanisms tend to force the inefficient companies out of business.

It's foolhardy to believe that a government official can manage your money better than you can manage it yourself. There is no incentive or risk for government run programs. It's not their money to lose, and their salary stays the same either way. Therefore it is doomed from the get-go.

Wholesale privatisation tends to have unwanted side-effects - for example, lowering living standards (healthcare) and political freedoms (university education).

This free market stuff you are pushing seems to me to be a pure economic theory. Nothing wrong with that (in theory) but what I don't agree with is that it tends to treat ethics and morality as separate subjects (or things that can simply be assumed).

The American economy currently follows the Keynesian economic theory. Pretty much every economic advisor advocates one form of intervention or another, all the while remaining lockstep with Lord Keynes' theory. The problem is; there are other theories out there. Ones that are far more sound.

Obviously I totally disagree with your assumption that privatization causes low living standards. In fact, it's quite the opposite.

I think healthcare is a subject entirely different from privatization. In fact, healthcare would be much more affordable and the supply of it much more abundant if it was allowed to operate without coercive restrictions such as the FDA, AMA, and HMO act. So I think healthcare should be freed as well.

Yes in theory - which is why I contested the idea that a completely free market economy could operate without inevitably compromising morality or ethics to the deteriment of the public (specifically the poorest and least able to participate in the economy).

I don't disagree that we have a labyrinthine amount of regulation, some of which is excessive, some of which is redundant. I don't dispute that. I do think there is a place for government to regulate the economy to ensure a level playing field for its citizens - certainly on things like education or healthcare.

Not to go too far down that route - but the general quality of healthcare as provided by socialized healthcare in Europe doesn't bear out the experience that quality care can't be provided in a relatively cost-effective manner by government.

I don't know where you are going with morality and ethics. These are subjective values anyways. But that is the glory of free market competition. A business owner can only be so greedy and evil, before an alternative pops up on the market. Now, if regulation clears out any possibility for this business owner to experience competition, then he is free to charge what he wants and operate how he pleases.

Healthcare in Europe is very different than healthcare here. I don't know if Europe has healthcare cartels that lobby for limiting the supply of healthcare and drugs like the AMA and FDA do in the USA.

Edit: Hit post too soon.

Edited January 5, 2009 by Matt85

[HAL 9000 96]

I think calling the private sector efficient is a bit of a fallacy, certainly when it comes to job creation.

Even now there are still people who doss about on the internet all day, file frivolous expense claims or do work that ends up being pointless or duplicated - because departments don't communicate effectively.

The government get's it's income through the profits of the private sector. Businesses earn profits by efficiently managing costs/prices.

There are inefficient companies within the private sector, I agree. But free-market mechanisms tend to force the inefficient companies out of business.

It's foolhardy to believe that a government official can manage your money better than you can manage it yourself. There is no incentive or risk for government run programs. It's not their money to lose, and their salary stays the same either way. Therefore it is doomed from the get-go.

Wholesale privatisation tends to have unwanted side-effects - for example, lowering living standards (healthcare) and political freedoms (university education).

This free market stuff you are pushing seems to me to be a pure economic theory. Nothing wrong with that (in theory) but what I don't agree with is that it tends to treat ethics and morality as separate subjects (or things that can simply be assumed).

The American economy currently follows the Keynesian economic theory. Pretty much every economic advisor advocates one form of intervention or another, all the while remaining lockstep with Lord Keynes' theory. The problem is; there are other theories out there. Ones that are far more sound.

Obviously I totally disagree with your assumption that privatization causes low living standards. In fact, it's quite the opposite.

I think healthcare is a subject entirely different from privatization. In fact, healthcare would be much more affordable and the supply of it much more abundant if it was allowed to operate without coercive restrictions such as the FDA, AMA, and HMO act. So I think healthcare should be freed as well.

Yes in theory - which is why I contested the idea that a completely free market economy could operate without inevitably compromising morality or ethics to the deteriment of the public (specifically the poorest and least able to participate in the economy).

I don't disagree that we have a labyrinthine amount of regulation, some of which is excessive, some of which is redundant. I don't dispute that. I do think there is a place for government to regulate the economy to ensure a level playing field for its citizens - certainly on things like education or healthcare.

Not to go too far down that route - but the general quality of healthcare as provided by socialized healthcare in Europe doesn't bear out the experience that quality care can't be provided in a relatively cost-effective manner by government.

I don't know where you are going with morality and ethics. These are subjective values anyways. But that is the glory of free market competition. A business owner can only be so greedy and evil, before an alternative pops up on the market. Now, if regulation clears out any possibility for this business owner to experience competition, then he is free to charge what he wants and operate how he pleases.

Healthcare in Europe is very different than healthcare here. I don't know if Europe has healthcare cartels that lobby for limiting the supply of healthcare and drugs like the AMA and FDA do in the USA.

Edit: Hit post too soon.

You have several different directions of regulators and lobbyists in that post, Matt. One thing is to protect the consumer/patient (FDA). Another is to lobby for practitioner standards of living (AMA). And yet another is the lobby of the pharmaceutical and insurance sectors to keep control favoring their profit margin- as is the case now.

[Dan J 277]

I think calling the private sector efficient is a bit of a fallacy, certainly when it comes to job creation.

Even now there are still people who doss about on the internet all day, file frivolous expense claims or do work that ends up being pointless or duplicated - because departments don't communicate effectively.

The government get's it's income through the profits of the private sector. Businesses earn profits by efficiently managing costs/prices.

There are inefficient companies within the private sector, I agree. But free-market mechanisms tend to force the inefficient companies out of business.

It's foolhardy to believe that a government official can manage your money better than you can manage it yourself. There is no incentive or risk for government run programs. It's not their money to lose, and their salary stays the same either way. Therefore it is doomed from the get-go.

Wholesale privatisation tends to have unwanted side-effects - for example, lowering living standards (healthcare) and political freedoms (university education).

This free market stuff you are pushing seems to me to be a pure economic theory. Nothing wrong with that (in theory) but what I don't agree with is that it tends to treat ethics and morality as separate subjects (or things that can simply be assumed).

The American economy currently follows the Keynesian economic theory. Pretty much every economic advisor advocates one form of intervention or another, all the while remaining lockstep with Lord Keynes' theory. The problem is; there are other theories out there. Ones that are far more sound.

Obviously I totally disagree with your assumption that privatization causes low living standards. In fact, it's quite the opposite.

I think healthcare is a subject entirely different from privatization. In fact, healthcare would be much more affordable and the supply of it much more abundant if it was allowed to operate without coercive restrictions such as the FDA, AMA, and HMO act. So I think healthcare should be freed as well.

Yes in theory - which is why I contested the idea that a completely free market economy could operate without inevitably compromising morality or ethics to the deteriment of the public (specifically the poorest and least able to participate in the economy).

I don't disagree that we have a labyrinthine amount of regulation, some of which is excessive, some of which is redundant. I don't dispute that. I do think there is a place for government to regulate the economy to ensure a level playing field for its citizens - certainly on things like education or healthcare.

Not to go too far down that route - but the general quality of healthcare as provided by socialized healthcare in Europe doesn't bear out the experience that quality care can't be provided in a relatively cost-effective manner by government.

I don't know where you are going with morality and ethics. These are subjective values anyways. But that is the glory of free market competition. A business owner can only be so greedy and evil, before an alternative pops up on the market. Now, if regulation clears out any possibility for this business owner to experience competition, then he is free to charge what he wants and operate how he pleases.

Healthcare in Europe is very different than healthcare here. I don't know if Europe has healthcare cartels that lobby for limiting the supply of healthcare and drugs like the AMA and FDA do in the USA.

Edit: Hit post too soon.

Without regulation, most companies would form into monopolies, since they are much more profitable. Without regulation, there are no restrictions on what a monopoly can do to eliminate such a competitor.

I'm not really sure where you get your health care thing from. FDA regulates food and drugs and does not have any influence or place in medical care.

Many decisions in the US medical system are made solely to boost profits of the effective companies, often at the expensive of quality or availability of care.

What drugs a pharmaceutical company will research are more tied to what will make the most money and less to what will be the most cost effective care option, or provide the best solution.

Insurance companies come up with excuses to deny care to meet profit goals or will raise rates becomes a number of their investments went bad.

Care availability is often limited by high malpractice insurance rates, inability for patients in a region to pay for care, investment (time and money) needed to become a doctor (Though that is a complicated area - doctors do need quite a bit of training) and often red tape put in place by insurance companies with complicated billing procedures.

[mRx 16]

I think calling the private sector efficient is a bit of a fallacy, certainly when it comes to job creation.

Even now there are still people who doss about on the internet all day, file frivolous expense claims or do work that ends up being pointless or duplicated - because departments don't communicate effectively.

The government get's it's income through the profits of the private sector. Businesses earn profits by efficiently managing costs/prices.

There are inefficient companies within the private sector, I agree. But free-market mechanisms tend to force the inefficient companies out of business.

It's foolhardy to believe that a government official can manage your money better than you can manage it yourself. There is no incentive or risk for government run programs. It's not their money to lose, and their salary stays the same either way. Therefore it is doomed from the get-go.

Wholesale privatisation tends to have unwanted side-effects - for example, lowering living standards (healthcare) and political freedoms (university education).

This free market stuff you are pushing seems to me to be a pure economic theory. Nothing wrong with that (in theory) but what I don't agree with is that it tends to treat ethics and morality as separate subjects (or things that can simply be assumed).

The American economy currently follows the Keynesian economic theory. Pretty much every economic advisor advocates one form of intervention or another, all the while remaining lockstep with Lord Keynes' theory. The problem is; there are other theories out there. Ones that are far more sound.

Obviously I totally disagree with your assumption that privatization causes low living standards. In fact, it's quite the opposite.

I think healthcare is a subject entirely different from privatization. In fact, healthcare would be much more affordable and the supply of it much more abundant if it was allowed to operate without coercive restrictions such as the FDA, AMA, and HMO act. So I think healthcare should be freed as well.

Yes in theory - which is why I contested the idea that a completely free market economy could operate without inevitably compromising morality or ethics to the deteriment of the public (specifically the poorest and least able to participate in the economy).

I don't disagree that we have a labyrinthine amount of regulation, some of which is excessive, some of which is redundant. I don't dispute that. I do think there is a place for government to regulate the economy to ensure a level playing field for its citizens - certainly on things like education or healthcare.

Not to go too far down that route - but the general quality of healthcare as provided by socialized healthcare in Europe doesn't bear out the experience that quality care can't be provided in a relatively cost-effective manner by government.

I don't know where you are going with morality and ethics. These are subjective values anyways. But that is the glory of free market competition. A business owner can only be so greedy and evil, before an alternative pops up on the market. Now, if regulation clears out any possibility for this business owner to experience competition, then he is free to charge what he wants and operate how he pleases.

Healthcare in Europe is very different than healthcare here. I don't know if Europe has healthcare cartels that lobby for limiting the supply of healthcare and drugs like the AMA and FDA do in the USA.

Edit: Hit post too soon.

You have several different directions of regulators and lobbyists in that post, Matt. One thing is to protect the consumer/patient (FDA). Another is to lobby for practitioner standards of living (AMA). And yet another is the lobby of the pharmaceutical and insurance sectors to keep control favoring their profit margin- as is the case now.

Those definitions, while promising and uplifting, are not the real intention of these cartels.

The AMA limits the amount of students wishing to enter the healthcare field. This keeps supply down, and costs up.

The FDA controls the amount of new drugs allowed to enter the US market. Here's an interesting point on the FDA: On 31 December 2008, CFC propelled asthma inhalers were banned. This was promoted as a "Go green" achievement. But a look behind the smoke and mirrors reveals something much different. First, the new alternatives, using HFA albuterol, are already patented by drug companies, and cost over 3 times as much as the regular inhalers! So was this ban of CFC inhalers (which account for less than 1% of CFC products) really driven by a yearning to protect our planet, or by FDA directors catering to their favorite pharmacuetical companies? You decide.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Matt - you need only look at the thread from a few weeks ago, about the blind guy refused service in a restaurant because the proprietor objected to his guide dog for religious reasons.

You can argue that the business should fold by customers word of mouth about the discrimination, but in practice its unlikely to happen - because the offended party is a member of a minority group and because others are not always unified about discrimination that doesn't affect them directly.

So the only thing the free market would do for the blind man would be to tell him to eat elsewhere (and maybe get served)

A pure free market is essentially feudalism.

.

[mRx 16]

Matt - you need only look at the thread from a few weeks ago, about the blind guy refused service in a restaurant because the proprietor objected to his guide dog for religious reasons.

You can argue that the business should fold by customers word of mouth about the discrimination, but in practice its unlikely to happen - because the offended party is a member of a minority group and because others are not always unified about discrimination that doesn't affect them directly.

So the only thing the free market would do for the blind man would be to tell him to eat elsewhere (and maybe get served)

A pure free market is essentially feudalism.

.

You can't argue that the one proprietor's refusal was another proprietor's profit. Whether or not the restaurant goes out of business is pretty irrelevant. The restaurant owner was exercising his own freedom. Whether it is due to religious reasons or just a genuine dislike for dogs, it is his freedom to do that. But I guarantee you this, that man and his dog gave their business to a different restaurant.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I do think that pre-emptively criticising Obama before he's even taken office is a bit weird.

Why? Is there a criticism moratorium we don't know about? He ran on a platform, which gives us something to anticipate about positions he will take as president. His cabinet and executive appointments are open for criticism, too. Nothing pre-emptive about that.

Given that there we can't exactly measure his performance in the job - it seems a little silly.

What was silly was to elect a guy who we couldn't measure re past performance due to his lack of experience and paper thin political CV, but we did. So, criticism of anything he does at this point is relatively appropriate.

Like I've said many times if your group (for lack of a better term) was even remotely critical of Bush as you are of Obama your opinions would carry at least some weight. I dislike Bush because he's a crappy President (I voted for Reagan & Bush Sr. so it's not like I vote exclusively Democrat) but it appears to me that your group dislikes Obama for the mere fact that he isn't far right (it can't be because of his actions as President because he is merely the President-elect). That smacks of bias to me.

I'm neither far-right nor a Bush lover. I have criticised him plenty in the past, but he is old news now. I admit to being biased, but so what? You are too, and if thats a failing, then pot/kettle.

[mawilson 2,133]

Matt - you need only look at the thread from a few weeks ago, about the blind guy refused service in a restaurant because the proprietor objected to his guide dog for religious reasons.

You can argue that the business should fold by customers word of mouth about the discrimination, but in practice its unlikely to happen - because the offended party is a member of a minority group and because others are not always unified about discrimination that doesn't affect them directly.

So the only thing the free market would do for the blind man would be to tell him to eat elsewhere (and maybe get served)

A pure free market is essentially feudalism.

.

You can't argue that the one proprietor's refusal was another proprietor's profit. Whether or not the restaurant goes out of business is pretty irrelevant. The restaurant owner was exercising his own freedom. Whether it is due to religious reasons or just a genuine dislike for dogs, it is his freedom to do that. But I guarantee you this, that man and his dog gave their business to a different restaurant.

[nowhereman 1]

I do think that pre-emptively criticising Obama before he's even taken office is a bit weird.

Why? Is there a criticism moratorium we don't know about? He ran on a platform, which gives us something to anticipate about positions he will take as president. His cabinet and executive appointments are open for criticism, too. Nothing pre-emptive about that.

Given that there we can't exactly measure his performance in the job - it seems a little silly.

What was silly was to elect a guy who we couldn't measure re past performance due to his lack of experience and paper thin political CV, but we did. So, criticism of anything he does at this point is relatively appropriate.

Like I've said many times if your group (for lack of a better term) was even remotely critical of Bush as you are of Obama your opinions would carry at least some weight. I dislike Bush because he's a crappy President (I voted for Reagan & Bush Sr. so it's not like I vote exclusively Democrat) but it appears to me that your group dislikes Obama for the mere fact that he isn't far right (it can't be because of his actions as President because he is merely the President-elect). That smacks of bias to me.

I'm neither far-right nor a Bush lover. I have criticised him plenty in the past, but he is old news now. I admit to being biased, but so what? You are too, and if thats a failing, then pot/kettle.

Like I said I dislike Bush because he's a bad President & you dislike Obama because he's a democrat (you've already judged him before he gets into office & no matter what he does you will criticize it). If Obama turns out to be a bad President we can finally agree on something... but the difference will be I gave him a chance & you didn't.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I do think that pre-emptively criticising Obama before he's even taken office is a bit weird.

Why? Is there a criticism moratorium we don't know about? He ran on a platform, which gives us something to anticipate about positions he will take as president. His cabinet and executive appointments are open for criticism, too. Nothing pre-emptive about that.

Given that there we can't exactly measure his performance in the job - it seems a little silly.

What was silly was to elect a guy who we couldn't measure re past performance due to his lack of experience and paper thin political CV, but we did. So, criticism of anything he does at this point is relatively appropriate.

Like I've said many times if your group (for lack of a better term) was even remotely critical of Bush as you are of Obama your opinions would carry at least some weight. I dislike Bush because he's a crappy President (I voted for Reagan & Bush Sr. so it's not like I vote exclusively Democrat) but it appears to me that your group dislikes Obama for the mere fact that he isn't far right (it can't be because of his actions as President because he is merely the President-elect). That smacks of bias to me.

I'm neither far-right nor a Bush lover. I have criticised him plenty in the past, but he is old news now. I admit to being biased, but so what? You are too, and if thats a failing, then pot/kettle.

Like I said I dislike Bush because he's a bad President & you dislike Obama because he's a democrat (you've already judged him before he gets into office & no matter what he does you will criticize it). If Obama turns out to be a bad President we can finally agree on something... but the difference will be I gave him a chance & you didn't.

I voted against Obama. Hint: that's a judgement. Voting for him is also a judgment. All done before he's in office and nothing new. Since when are we not allowed to be critical of politicians? Since when is "he's not in office yet" a legitimate reason to withhold negative opinions? Lord knows, loving Obama up hasn't stopped because he hasn't take office yet. He's going to be president whether you like him or not, so I doubt that it matters in the Big Picture that you're giving him a chance. It doesn't strike me as magnanimous one way or another.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I voted against Obama. Hint: that's a judgement. Voting for him is also a judgment. All done before he's in office and nothing new. Since when are we not allowed to be critical of politicians? Since when is "he's not in office yet" a legitimate reason to withhold negative opinions? Lord knows, loving Obama up hasn't stopped because he hasn't take office yet. He's going to be president whether you like him or not, so I doubt that it matters in the Big Picture that you're giving him a chance. It doesn't strike me as magnanimous one way or another.

In the sense that he hasn't been able to exercise any presidential authority or decision making, about the only legitimate criticism would be aimed at his cabinet choices, his political history or him personally.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

In the sense that he hasn't been able to exercise any presidential authority or decision making, about the only legitimate criticism would be aimed at his cabinet choices, his political history or him personally.

well that settles it then, no more criticizing me!