Obama 6(...66)

[Jon]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

Now see, if you're going to use examples from the entertainment industry in a timeframe when you weren't even a zygote, I'd have picked "1984". It's a little more accurate.

And the award for best impression of a liberal poster on USCHO circa 2005 goes to...

 

[joecct]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

The Mormons bought theirs the old fashioned way. Hookers.

Bingo! And the IOC, as others have pointed out, are big fans of the ego stroke. Having El Presidente there is the biggest ego stroke they can have.

Sure gazillions of dollars will flow into Chicago for venue and infrastructure renovation / construction. So? Maybe Milwaukee and South Bend will get the overflow.

However the transportation folks may be having a cow. Chicago is a major airline hub. With all the olympic airline traffic flying in, there will be massive delays. Amtrak? Forget about it.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

Obama being in the U.S. for a day or two instead of being in Denmark wouldn't mean squat for fixing the U.S. economy or any other issue. I don't see what the big deal is. It's not like he's got some great idea to fix the economy, and because he's gone for a day or two he won't be able to implement it or something. Washington will be the same political quagmire it was before he went, and after he returns.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

They should be rooting for Chicago to win. Then they can make all their dire 1936 comparisons.

"Young, strapping Ralph Edgar Palmer III, Yale '14, wins the 100 meters, thus refuting Obama's black supremacy rhetoric and giving hope to the oppressed* upper classes in their ghettos in Colorado Springs and Orange County."

(* forced to wear Gucci by Obama's racial purity acts)

 

[SteveP]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

We're Americans... we should be above such asinine ***-kissing and kowtowing.

You're right. Just buy the games -- like Coca Cola did for Atlanta!

They should be rooting for Chicago to win. Then they can make all their dire 1936 comparisons.

"Young, strapping Ralph Edgar Palmer III, Yale '14, wins the 100 meters, thus refuting Obama's black supremacy rhetoric and giving hope to the oppressed* upper classes in their ghettos in Colorado Springs and Orange County."

(* forced to wear Gucci by Obama's racial purity acts)

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

Now see, if you're going to use examples from the entertainment industry in a timeframe when you weren't even a zygote, I'd have picked "1984". It's a little more accurate.

Why does it matter how old I am? I was born in 1985, so therefore, I'm not allowed to use historical items from before that time in any sort of benchmark? ****ing bizarre.

Anyways, asserting that we somehow live in an oppressive totalitarian regime a la Nineteen Eighty-Four is about as paranoid as it gets. Complaining about it in context of Obama being our president and all the spending we've gone through since is pretty amusing, especially considering (1) that the only "totalitarian" thing he's done so far is spend money, (2) that money was spent because of the economic state we've found ourselves in on account of the last 8 years, (3) people complaining about Obama's bailout money are conveniently leaving out the fact that W. put up $700 billion towards the banks (you know: the people MOST responsible for our economic crisis right now... yeah, they deserved to be first in line...).

The irony of you bringing up Nineteen Eighty-Four in this context is this: the main tools for the totalitarianism in the novel are media/propaganda (certainly a tool for manipulation in todays society: although our media is controlled by corporate, not government, interests and "justified" by a true free market) and surveillance (has Obama done anything that even approaches the Patriot Act yet?).

In either case, if you genuinely think this country is closer to the mind-numbingly oppressive totalitarianism of Nineteen Eighty-Four than it is to, well, anything else on this planet, then I'm afraid that says more about you than anything else. Any change in my personal freedoms since before I was born has been marginal at most. Even with the Patriot Act, my freedoms have been nearly identical. There is very little that Obama can do to that that hasn't already been done by a Bush, Clinton or Reagan. Nineteen Eighty-Four, or Brazil, or Fahrenheit 451, or V For Vendetta... they all make for great escapism and cautionary tales, but it takes a certain kind of paranoid to say that we're "close" to that level of existence.

 

[gregg729]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

Last I looked, this is a two party system. The Republican years were the most extreme example of unnecessary spending in generations...and the Republican years left the country in the worst shape in generations, requiring the most spending to resuscitate it. And its president carried much responsibility for both. The right has shown itself to be horrible managers of fiscal responsibility. As a result, the group has settled back into its position of competency…perennial complainers from the sidelines.

"....the most extreme example of unnecessary spending in generations...." So Obama makes it look like chump change in nine months and you're still fixated on what the other side did and complain about the chump change they blew. Again, I can at least recognize that Bush was a bad president. You seem to be concentrated on keeping a blind eye on Obama (and it seems you probably do that with all liberals) and remain fixated on the past.

I'll wager that you will be fixated on the 00-08 years until the GOP wins the White House back. Check that. I'll wager you're fixated on the 00-08 years until January of 2013. At the rate Obama's ravaging the country, it will most likely be a GOP victory anyway, but my memory isn't anything special - I wanna ensure myself a small chance of calling you out on it.

Perennial complainers from the sidelines? Dude.... how ignorant, really.

You were already exposed there because none of your commentary cited a single word of specific language within the document iteself. You were implored over and over again to recite specific verbiage from the text and have yet to do so.

I'll repeat myself here.... I posted the link to the unabridged text of HR 3200 and then pointed out a half dozen or so gems of that bill (with the relevant page numbers). Implored over and over again, huh? For some reason, I think you might have a latent talent for spinning a tall tale. I honestly didn't see one request for specific verbiage. Either way, it's irrelevant. I wouldn't have done that anyway, I would have told them to reread my post.

I provided all the information, why should I have to baby anyone and cut and paste? Anyone that contested that particular post of mine and is either too lazy or unwilling to click on the link and read the parts I showed them isn't someone I want to engage in anyway. The kinda person wants to argue with me but refuses to simply click on a link doesn't seem like he's very interested in the facts, and therefore is most definitely not worth my time.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

So, wait, 1984 is an accurate reflection of the United States under Obama? Is that what I just read today?

Wow.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

"....the most extreme example of unnecessary spending in generations...." So Obama makes it look like chump change in nine months and you're still fixated on what the other side did and complain about the chump change they blew.

I'll take a shot at this.

First, Bush was hardly "chump change." In 2007 the Comptroller of the GAO estimated that Bush had added $32 trillion to the government's fiscal exposures up to that date, 7 years into his presidency, or about $4.5T per year. When the GAO comes up with comparable numbers about Obama, we can debate who had a higher burn rate.

Second, it all comes down to what constitutes "unnecessary" spending. Bush's spending came from both expansion of entitlements and two discretionary wars. Many (most?) Americans think the second and by far the most expensive of these wars was not only unforced but actually counter-productive -- a net negative for American interests. Obama hasn't done anything remotely like that, yet.

Third, some of Obama's spending (health care) is at least theoretically targeted towards bringing down future costs, and if that happens that actually counts as net savings. We won't know whether that's effective for some time. We do know that Bush's spending didn't reduce any costs -- it is all "dead weight."

So while it's possible Obama may wind up to be a greater spendthrift than Bush, it's far from the certainty you are intoning. As for the "ravishing" of the country, plenty of us are applauding what you might call "ravishing," so don't measure those drapes quite yet. Obama will be re-elected if the economy recovers and dumped if it doesn't. Like a head coach, it's just win, baby.

 

[gregg729]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

So, wait, 1984 is an accurate reflection of the United States under Obama? Is that what I just read today?

Wow.

And just when you've been thinking all along it's been 1984 since 2000, what's up with that?

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

I'll repeat myself here.... I posted the link to the unabridged text of HR 3200 and then pointed out a half dozen or so gems of that bill (with the relevant page numbers). Implored over and over again, huh?

Anyone that contested that particular post of mine and is either too lazy or unwilling to click on the link and read the parts I showed them isn't someone I want to engage in anyway.

Yes, you noted the link for the proposal and to someone's commentary on the proposal itself. Sadly, your commentary (and that which you copy/pasted) neglected to reference a single written word from the document itself. So there's nothing to rebut given nothing stated can be attributed to the verbiage within the document. And yes, this was specifically pointed out to you more than one time.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

"....the most extreme example of unnecessary spending in generations...." So Obama makes it look like chump change in nine months and you're still fixated on what the other side did and complain about the chump change they blew. Again, I can at least recognize that Bush was a bad president.

I don't know that its a blind eye towards Obama as much as it is that a lot of people view that if this country is going to spend exhorbitant amounts of money, it might as well be on something worthwhile. In other words: look where the money goes, then decide how mad you are at the obscene amount.

W. Bush would get a free pass on his vast military spending from all but the fringe left if it weren't for his Iraq misfire. And although Obama has spent more on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act than W. Bush did for his initial Auto Industry/Bank Bailout, for a lot of people, its worth noting where that money went before decrying it based on pure monetary value.

Even if you don't agree, and this is purely a dollar amount issue for you, doesn't it make sense that some people are going to let the fact that Bush's bailouts included so much money towards banks (who are easily the number one cause of this recession) as compared to investing that money in infrastructure influence their views on each President's respective bailout package?

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

If it's really 1984, I'm going to go out and buy some Microsoft stock.

And possibly order a hit on Norm Green.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

Even if you don't agree, and this is purely a dollar amount issue for you, doesn't it make sense that some people are going to let the fact that Bush's bailouts included so much money towards banks (who are easily the number one cause of this recession) as compared to investing that money in infrastructure influence their views on each President's respective bailout package?

It's almost as if you were suggesting that some conservatives might support or oppose national policy based on personal benefit rather than national interest.

But as only liberals do that I'm sure this is a grave misinterpretation.

 

[gregg729]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

I'll take a shot at this.

First, Bush was hardly "chump change." In 2007 the Comptroller of the GAO estimated that Bush had added $32 trillion to the government's fiscal exposures up to that date, 7 years into his presidency, or about $4.5T per year. When the GAO comes up with comparable numbers about Obama, we can debate who had a higher burn rate.

Second, it all comes down to what constitutes "unnecessary" spending. Bush's spending came from both expansion of entitlements and two discretionary wars. Many (most?) Americans think the second and by far the most expensive of these wars was not only unforced but actually counter-productive -- a net negative for American interests. Obama hasn't done anything remotely like that, yet.

Third, some of Obama's spending (health care) is at least theoretically targeted towards bringing down future costs, and if that happens that actually counts as net savings. We won't know whether that's effective for some time. We do know that Bush's spending didn't reduce any costs -- it is all "dead weight."

So while it's possible Obama may wind up to be a greater spendthrift than Bush, it's far from the certainty you are intoning. As for the "ravishing" of the country, plenty of us are applauding what you might call "ravishing," so don't measure those drapes quite yet. Obama will be re-elected if the economy recovers and dumped if it doesn't. Like a head coach, it's just win, baby.

Well then.... Good detective work. I must admit that I have been remiss in keeping up to date on YubaNet.com, that "forum for top-notch citizen journalism, putting readers in control of the site's content." While I don't mean to slander the good name of the citizens of Nevada Country, California, I'm just not entirely convinced of how analagous the GAO article one of them reprinted on their citizen-run online newspaper is to what I'm talking about. Perhaps they did catch a bombshell that slipped through the cracks of all the major networks and print media, but I'm not convinced. But I did get a good chuckle from Obama Media Blitz in their cartoon section though.

Let me readily admit that I am in above my head here with this "fiscal exposure" thing - I don't know exactly what it means, so I'm not quite sure how the numbers pertaining to this term differ from expenditures, deficit, and debt. Obviously, they're all correlated. Which means if Bush's fiscal exposure was that much given his expenditures, Obama's fiscal exposure amount is going to be staggering - making Bush's fiscal exposure probably look like chump change in hindsight.

Regardless, I am pretty sure that, just as much as deficit vs. debt, I am talking apples and you are talking oranges. I am very open minded to learning why Bush's "fiscal exposure" can be a proper comparison to Obama's expenditures if you'd like to teach me why. If not sir, please take back your orange and toss me an apple.

If this were case, the 5MN Majors of the world would have been smearing it in my face by now, ya know?

 

[gregg729]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

Yes, you noted the link for the proposal and to someone's commentary on the proposal itself. Sadly, your commentary (and that which you copy/pasted) neglected to reference a single written word from the document itself. So there's nothing to rebut given nothing stated can be attributed to the verbiage within the document. And yes, this was specifically pointed out to you more than one time.

Sigh... again....

I provided all the information, why should I have to baby anyone and cut and paste? Anyone that contested that particular post of mine and is either too lazy or unwilling to click on the link and read the parts I showed them isn't someone I want to engage in anyway. The kinda person wants to argue with me but refuses to simply click on a link doesn't seem like he's very interested in the facts, and therefore is most definitely not worth my time.

If you're too lazy to click on it and learn what the bill says, then you cannot possibly have a rebuttal that's worth my time.

EDIT: You've spent 3 posts trying to beat me up that I only provided you a link.... that directs you to the UNABRIDGED text of HR 3200. But instead of clicking and going to the pages I listed to get your own rebuttal, you're doing this. Put yourself in my shoes - no offense, on the intelligent/ignorant scale where do you think I'm gonna score your line of attack? And given the score, why would it be worth my time?

The people that are actually serious about debating the text of HR 3200 will do something totally crazy - they will actually CLICK on the link and READ the text! Wild, wacky stuff I tell ya!

 

[gregg729]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

I don't know that its a blind eye towards Obama as much as it is that a lot of people view that if this country is going to spend exhorbitant amounts of money, it might as well be on something worthwhile. In other words: look where the money goes, then decide how mad you are at the obscene amount.

Well that's fair enough there, buddy. It's exactly my point, too. We spent 8 years debating about if what Bush spent the money on is worthwhile. Been there, done that.

Now, put your money where your mouth is. Let's stop fixating (I'm on the verge of saying whining) about what Bush did and talk about what this guy is spending our money on, and whether or not it's worthwhile.

If you can't bring yourself to do that then you absolutely DO have a blind eye.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

Bickering over who is a worse spender, Bush or Obama, is like debating whether Stalin or Hitler was more murderous. Both Bush and Obama have not shown, or are not showing, any serious fiscal responsibility. I was a huge critic of Bush on it during his years, and I'm a huge critic of Obama on it now. Bush, at least we have some amount of closure on his spending. Time will tell whether Obama's unparalelled spending in his first year is a sign of the next 3 or 7 years, or whether it was a short-term anomaly. I hope the latter, but expect the former. Both Bush and Obama should be ashamed of themselves for their lack of fiscal restraint. And as for arguments that Obama's spending is this great stimulus stuff, well, I didn't buy it to begin with and I buy it even less now. Obama's pork barrel so far makes Bush almost look like a spendthrift. Almost.

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

Bickering over who is a worse spender, Bush or Obama, is like debating whether Stalin or Hitler was more murderous. Both Bush and Obama have not shown, or are not showing, any serious fiscal responsibility. I was a huge critic of Bush on it during his years, and I'm a huge critic of Obama on it now. Bush, at least we have some amount of closure on his spending. Time will tell whether Obama's unparalelled spending in his first year is a sign of the next 3 or 7 years, or whether it was a short-term anomaly. I hope the latter, but expect the former. Both Bush and Obama should be ashamed of themselves for their lack of fiscal restraint. And as for arguments that Obama's spending is this great stimulus stuff, well, I didn't buy it to begin with and I buy it even less now. Obama's pork barrel so far makes Bush almost look like a spendthrift. Almost.

This rant is nice, Bob, but completely useless without any context.

Paul Krugman reminds us of that fact:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/crowding-in/

Now for the discussion. Why, exactly, do we think that budget deficits are a bad thing?

The textbook answer identifies two reasons — two ways in which budget deficits now make us worse off in the future. They are:

(1) The fiscal burden: deficits now mean higher debt later, which will have to be serviced, and that means higher taxes and/or less spending on other, presumably desirable things

(2) Crowding out: when it runs deficits, the government competes with the private sector for funds, so deficits crowd out private investment, which reduces potential growth

All this makes sense under normal conditions. But right now we’re not living under normal conditions. We’re in a situation in which the economy is deeply depressed, and monetary policy — the usual line of defense against recession — is hard up against the zero-interest-rate bound. This weakens argument (1) — and it actually reverses argument (2).

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/the-true-fiscal-cost-of-stimulus/

So fiscal expansion is good for future growth. Still, it does burden the government with higher debt, requiring higher taxes or some other sacrifice in the future. Or does it? Well, probably — but not nearly as much as generally assumed.

Here’s why: first, in the short run fiscal expansion leads to higher GDP, which leads to higher revenues, which offset a significant fraction of the initial outlay. A billion dollars in stimulus probably leads to only $600 million or a bit more in additional debt.

But that’s not the whole story. Crowding in raises future GDP — which raises future tax revenues. And the rise in revenues relative to what they would have been otherwise offsets at least some of the burden of debt service.

I’m not proposing a fiscal-stimulus Laffer curve here: it’s probably not true that spending money actually improves the government’s long-run fiscal position (although that’s certainly within the range of possibilities.) What I am suggesting is that fiscal stimulus under current conditions, where the Fed funds rate “ought” to be around -5 percent, does much, much less to hurt that long-run position than the headline number would suggest.

And that, in turn, means that penny-pinching on stimulus is deeply, destructively foolish.

Anyway, just reflexively saying that spending is bad without any consideration of the context misses the point.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

This rant is nice, Bob, but completely useless without any context.

No context? If I didn't know better, I'd say you're a newbie, as I've been giving context to this issue for quite a few years. Get with the game.