OBAMA speech fact check

[Strike 6,095]

Summary: He's full of sh!t.

 

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama knows Americans are unhappy that their taxes will be used to rescue people who bought mansions beyond their means.

 

But his assurance Tuesday night that only the deserving will get help rang hollow.

 

Even officials in his administration, many supporters of the plan in Congress and the Federal Reserve chairman expect some of that money will go to people who used lousy judgment.

 

The president skipped over several complex economic circumstances in his speech to Congress — and may have started an international debate among trivia lovers and auto buffs over what country invented the car.

 

A look at some of his assertions:

 

OBAMA: "We have launched a housing plan that will help responsible families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly payments and refinance their mortgages. It's a plan that won't help speculators or that neighbor down the street who bought a house he could never hope to afford, but it will help millions of Americans who are struggling with declining home values."

 

THE FACTS: If the administration has come up with a way to ensure money only goes to those who got in honest trouble, it hasn't said so.

 

Defending the program Tuesday at a Senate hearing, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said it's important to save those who made bad calls, for the greater good. He likened it to calling the fire department to put out a blaze caused by someone smoking in bed.

 

"I think the smart way to deal with a situation like that is to put out the fire, save him from his own consequences of his own action but then, going forward, enact penalties and set tougher rules about smoking in bed."

 

Similarly, the head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. suggested this month it's not likely aid will be denied to all homeowners who overstated their income or assets to get a mortgage they couldn't afford.

 

"I think it's just simply impractical to try to do a forensic analysis of each and every one of these delinquent loans," Sheila Bair told National Public Radio.

 

___

 

OBAMA: "And I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it."

 

THE FACTS: Depends what your definition of automobiles, is. According to the Library of Congress, the inventor of the first true automobile was probably Germany's Karl Benz, who created the first auto powered by an internal combustion gasoline engine, in 1885 or 1886. In the U.S., Charles Duryea tested what library researchers called the first successful gas-powered car in 1893. Nobody disputes that Henry Ford created the first assembly line that made cars affordable.

 

___

 

OBAMA: "We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy. Yet we import more oil today than ever before."

 

THE FACTS: Oil imports peaked in 2005 at just over 5 billion barrels, and have been declining slightly since. The figure in 2007 was 4.9 billion barrels, or about 58 percent of total consumption. The nation is on pace this year to import 4.7 billion barrels, and government projections are for imports to hold steady or decrease a bit over the next two decades.

 

___

 

OBAMA: "We have already identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade."

 

THE FACTS: Although 10-year projections are common in government, they don't mean much. And at times, they are a way for a president to pass on the most painful steps to his successor, by putting off big tax increases or spending cuts until someone else is in the White House.

 

Obama only has a real say on spending during the four years of his term. He may not be president after that and he certainly won't be 10 years from now.

 

___

 

OBAMA: "Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market. People bought homes they knew they couldn't afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway. And all the while, critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day."

 

THE FACTS: This may be so, but it isn't only Republicans who pushed for deregulation of the financial industries. The Clinton administration championed an easing of banking regulations, including legislation that ended the barrier between regular banks and Wall Street banks. That led to a deregulation that kept regular banks under tight federal regulation but extended lax regulation of Wall Street banks. Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, later an economic adviser to candidate Obama, was in the forefront in pushing for this deregulation.

 

___

 

OBAMA: "In this budget, we will end education programs that don't work and end direct payments to large agribusinesses that don't need them. We'll eliminate the no-bid contracts that have wasted billions in Iraq, and reform our defense budget so that we're not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don't use. We will root out the waste, fraud and abuse in our Medicare program that doesn't make our seniors any healthier, and we will restore a sense of fairness and balance to our tax code by finally ending the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas."

 

THE FACTS: First, his budget does not accomplish any of that. It only proposes those steps. That's all a president can do, because control over spending rests with Congress. Obama's proposals here are a wish list and some items, including corporate tax increases and cuts in agricultural aid, will be a tough sale in Congress.

 

Second, waste, fraud and abuse are routinely targeted by presidents who later find that the savings realized seldom amount to significant sums. Programs that a president might consider wasteful have staunch defenders in Congress who have fought off similar efforts in the past.

 

___

 

OBAMA: "Thanks to our recovery plan, we will double this nation's supply of renewable energy in the next three years."

 

THE FACTS: While the president's stimulus package includes billions in aid for renewable energy and conservation, his goal is unlikely to be achieved through the recovery plan alone.

 

In 2007, the U.S. produced 8.4 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, including hydroelectric dams, solar panels and windmills. Under the status quo, the Energy Department says, it will take more than two decades to boost that figure to 12.5 percent.

 

If Obama is to achieve his much more ambitious goal, Congress would need to mandate it. That is the thrust of an energy bill that is expected to be introduced in coming weeks.

 

___

 

OBAMA: "Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs."

 

THE FACTS: This is a recurrent Obama formulation. But job creation projections are uncertain even in stable times, and some of the economists relied on by Obama in making his forecast acknowledge a great deal of uncertainty in their numbers.

 

The president's own economists, in a report prepared last month, stated, "It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error."

 

Beyond that, it's unlikely the nation will ever know how many jobs are saved as a result of the stimulus. While it's clear when jobs are abolished, there's no economic gauge that tracks job preservation. The estimates are based on economic assumptions of how many jobs would be lost without the stimulus.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090225/ap_on_...t_check_obama_6

[patweisers44 876]

any mention of tax cuts?

[posty 2,862]

Summary: He's full of sh!t.

 

We don't need fact check to know that...

[Saint Elistan 106]

Summary: He's full of sh!t.

 

 

We don't need fact check to know that...

 

RACIST

[wiffleball 4,799]

I was really hoping for a better fact check than this. Waiting on factcheck.org. Basically what do we have here?

 

 

1. Only Congress can pass laws. - Great thanks. Every POTUS has used the same language, we understand that these are proposals.

 

2. Depends upon what "car" means? Geebus Christ. Fine, we're the first country to mass produce cars. Next.

 

3. Projections may change over time. Really? Thanks.

 

4. Some homeowners who used bad judgment might get a break. - Shocking.

 

There's got to be a better break down than this.

[Me_2006 14]

sure is dark in here.

 

 

 

Strike, how come you're hating on Obama for not telling the whole truth? Why are you just rooting for America to fail so you can say "I told you so" ? I mean, Bush lied too. I'm not political but here's a motherfucking paragraph about politics for you to read while you whine. I love ABBA. Does my hair look okay?

[GettnHuge 2]

I mean, Bush lied too.

 

too vague

[Me_2006 14]

too vague

Nah, it wasn't. I really don't care about politics. Just dont think it's fair that you guys are picking on Obama and hoping America fails.

[Lackman 0]

Are you going to actually stand there and tell me there were facts in there? I got news for you, pal. You can't bullsh!t a bullsh!tter.

[Strike 6,095]

Strike, how come you're hating on Obama for not telling the whole truth?

 

Me,

 

Obama is more dangerous than any President there's been in my lifetime. Bush was a fock up. Great. But nothing he changed can't be undone. He spent a lot of money. If we get fiscally responsible we can get our finances under control. So far Obama hasn't shown any willingness to be fiscally responsible. But I'm more concerned about the long term, permanent structural changes he wants to implement. If Obama gets to nationalize health care we're focked. It will be a fundamental change on the level of when SS was created. If we realize it didn't work we won't be able to get rid of it, just like we can't get rid of SS. And that's damn scary to me. I do not want the government in charge of health care. On top of that he's trying to make everyone even more dependent on the government when we should be encouraging people to be accountable and self sufficient. He's a con man with an agenda, and I can't believe how many people are falling for it. The problem is, if he succeeds with his agenda we're focked.

[Me_2006 14]

Me,

 

Obama is more dangerous than any President there's been in my lifetime. Bush was a fock up. Great. But nothing he changed can't be undone. He spent a lot of money. If we get fiscally responsible we can get our finances under control. So far Obama hasn't shown any willingness to be fiscally responsible. But I'm more concerned about the long term, permanent structural changes he wants to implement. If Obama gets to nationalize health care we're focked. It will be a fundamental change on the level of when SS was created. If we realize it didn't work we won't be able to get rid of it, just like we can't get rid of SS. And that's damn scary to me. I do not want the government in charge of health care. On top of that he's trying to make everyone even more dependent on the government when we should be encouraging people to be accountable and self sufficient. He's a con man with an agenda, and I can't believe how many people are falling for it. The problem is, if he succeeds with his agenda we're focked.

 

 

I was acting like Newbie. Apparently I fail.

[Strike 6,095]

I was acting like Newbie. Apparently I fail.

 

I recognized the Newbie references but I thought you were asking a serious question but throwing Newbie in because he shares the sentiment. My bad. I won't take you seriously in the future

[Me_2006 14]

I recognized the Newbie references but I thought you were asking a serious question but throwing Newbie in because he shares the sentiment. My bad. I won't take you seriously in the future

 

 

I don't care how seriously you take me. I just sold my home for 1/4 of it's market value. I don't need your support. I feel good about myself.

[GettnHuge 2]

Me,

 

Obama is more dangerous than any President there's been in my lifetime. Bush was a fock up. Great. But nothing he changed can't be undone. He spent a lot of money. If we get fiscally responsible we can get our finances under control. So far Obama hasn't shown any willingness to be fiscally responsible. But I'm more concerned about the long term, permanent structural changes he wants to implement. If Obama gets to nationalize health care we're focked. It will be a fundamental change on the level of when SS was created. If we realize it didn't work we won't be able to get rid of it, just like we can't get rid of SS. And that's damn scary to me. I do not want the government in charge of health care. On top of that he's trying to make everyone even more dependent on the government when we should be encouraging people to be accountable and self sufficient. He's a con man with an agenda, and I can't believe how many people are falling for it. The problem is, if he succeeds with his agenda we're focked.

 

[Strike 6,095]

I don't care how seriously you take me. I just sold my home for 1/4 of it's market value. I don't need your support. I feel good about myself.

 

Well at least some worthy teacher or fireman was able to afford a home at your expense.

[Greedo 13]

If we get fiscally responsible we can get our finances under control. So far Obama hasn't shown any willingness to be fiscally responsible. But I'm more concerned about the long term, permanent structural changes he wants to implement. If Obama gets to nationalize health care we're focked. It will be a fundamental change on the level of when SS was created. If we realize it didn't work we won't be able to get rid of it, just like we can't get rid of SS. And that's damn scary to me. I do not want the government in charge of health care. On top of that he's trying to make everyone even more dependent on the government when we should be encouraging people to be accountable and self sufficient. He's a con man with an agenda, and I can't believe how many people are falling for it. The problem is, if he succeeds with his agenda we're focked.

 

You're not an economist, and you're wrong. People who do this for a living, as opposed to posting on message boards, are in near unanimous agreement that the stimulus was too little, and in some areas misdirected.

 

Try reading the health care plan - there's no nationalization of healthcare coming.

 

It is wearying to continually deal with people that just don't understand.

[Strike 6,095]

You're not an economist, and you're wrong. People who do this for a living, as opposed to posting on message boards, are in near unanimous agreement that the stimulus was too little, and in some areas misdirected.

 

Try reading the health care plan - there's no nationalization of healthcare coming.

 

It is wearying to continually deal with people that just don't understand.

 

We'll see about the nationalization of healthcare. It hasn't passed yet. Dude has lied up and down to us. I don't trust him and anyone that does is an idiot. Ooh, I won't hire lobbyists in the White House, except these exceptions. Ooh, I'm for Nuclear, except that I'm not. I'm going to pay for any new spending I pass with cuts/additional revenue so the net is even. Except this Trillion plus I've put through in my first month on the job. Yeah, he's someone to really put faith in. As far as the economic thing goes, you're right about one thing - most economists think a huge chunk of the "stimulus" bill was misdirected, AKA wasted pork spending that will do NOTHING to stimulate the economy. If he was serious he should have made the whole bill stimulus. If it's not enough it's even more not enough when half of it is pork.

[Greedo 13]

You're going to have to define what you think is pork. We've got 1/3 or so of the bill which is tax cuts, then we've got true stimulus, like infrastructure spending, among others.

 

I hear people say pork, and they come up with a few billion of a $787B bill.

[kpbuckeye 3]

You're not an economist, and you're wrong. People who do this for a living, as opposed to posting on message boards, are in near unanimous agreement that the stimulus was too little, and in some areas misdirected.

 

Try reading the health care plan - there's no nationalization of healthcare coming.

 

It is wearying to continually deal with people that just don't understand.

 

STFU moron. There are also economists who claim it will cause more harm than good.

You were preaching to everyone last week about people didn't know what was really in the bill, but neither did you.

What is weary is watching cliff clavins like yourself act like you know something when you don't know sh1t.

[KSB2424 3,174]

You're not an economist, and you're wrong. People who do this for a living, as opposed to posting on message boards, are in near unanimous agreement that the stimulus was too little, and in some areas misdirected.

You need to change your stance. SOME economists think that. It is no where near unanimous. Stop reading liberal blogs and think for yourself.

 

An unusual aspect of the recent debate in Washington is the lengths that supporters have gone to marginalize anyone who questions the so-called stimulus plan. Robert Reich, Bill Clinton's labor secretary and member of President Obama's transition team, claims "almost every economist will tell you the stimulus has to be massive." Nobel laureate and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman accuses skeptics of "making totally non-serious arguments." Sen. Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, says "economists agree" that doling out large sums to state governments is "effective." Vice President Joe Biden says that "every economist that I've spoken to" believes the spending package "has to be big."

 

Perhaps the vice president should broaden his social circles. The truth is that, instead of being uniformly in favor of the massive spending bill, which is being championed by congressional Democrats with Obama's support, economists remain divided.

You may have heard that respectable economists, including Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, say stimulus spending should be high or higher. But some news organizations have been less than diligent in telling you that other respectable economists are deeply skeptical of the idea, flatly oppose it or favor competing proposals such as additional tax relief.

 

The University of Chicago's Gary Becker, another Nobel laureate, warns that "the true value of these government programs may be limited because they will be put together hastily, and are likely to contain a lot of political pork and other inefficiencies." Becker says that in that case, spending could do more harm than good.

 

The Cato Institute, a non-partisan think tank that takes broadly free-market views, was frustrated enough by the conventional wisdom in Washington that it took out a full-page ad on page 11 of the New York Times on Wednesday. The ad, which will also appear in Roll Call magazine and Thursday's Washington Post, is signed by scores of economists and says "we do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance."

Remember, the stimulus cash has to come from somewhere. If taxes are raised, people will be poorer. If the money is borrowed, it must be paid back with interest, and anyone lending to the U.S. Treasury has less to spend on other items. As in other parts of life, there's no free lunch.

 

Don Boudreaux, the chairman of the economics department at George Mason University and contributor to CafeHayek.com, pointed out in an interview this week that economists still agree on many topics, such as the benefits of free trade and the harmful effects of price controls.

 

"Keynesianism was in fact not a good theory," Boudreaux says, referring to the theories of the late economist John Maynard Keynes that encourage government spending. "In the profession, Keynesianism was almost dead until the past few months. It was never dead in the popular mind. It's a flat Earth kind of theory. People look out and see the Earth looks flat, so it must be flat. By and large, macroeconomists rejected at least the standard Keynesian line. Now it's back and that's a real mystery."

 

He adds: "I think one of the fears is that the perception of the size of the downturn is so intense that even among professional economists, a lot of prudent, careful thought has gone out of the window: 'Geez, we have to do something...' The problem is not some kind of sudden lack of consumer confidence. The problem is that the bubble burst."

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/28/...in4759532.shtml

[GettnHuge 2]

You're going to have to define what you think is pork. We've got 1/3 or so of the bill which is tax cuts, then we've got true stimulus, like infrastructure spending, among others.

 

I hear people say pork, and they come up with a few billion of a $787B bill.

 

a few billion in this bill, a few billion in that bill, another billion in another bill...it adds up, and it's our money they

are wasting. If you were overcharged by 10 bucks at the grocery store on a product you're going to speak up...but

a billion dollars? meh, right? Part of the problem is many people like yourself who accept this corruption

[GettnHuge 2]

speaking of spending just ran across this checking my mail...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090225/ap_on_...wh/obama_budget

 

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama wants a significant "down payment" for overhauling the health care system: $634 billion over 10 years. A senior administration official says Obama's budget calls for financing the overhaul by trimming Medicare spending and limiting tax deductions for upper-income earners. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the budget won't be released until Thursday.

 

About 48 million Americans are uninsured, according to recent estimates. The cost of guaranteeing coverage for all could easily exceed $1 trillion over 10 years.

 

cute, canada has 30m people and they're at 175b per year. and 2/3 of their pop has their own supp insurance.

 

 

About 48 million Americans are uninsured, according to recent estimates. The cost of guaranteeing coverage for all could easily exceed $1 trillion every year.

 

fixed

[Strike 6,095]

About 48 million Americans are uninsured, according to recent estimates. The cost of guaranteeing coverage for all could easily exceed $1 trillion every year.

 

fixed

 

Not sure if that's the current talking point number but whatever the number is it's inflated. We've had that discussion before. But hey, whatever number Obama has to float to get his health care plan passed I guess that's alright.

[GettnHuge 2]

Not sure if that's the current talking point number but whatever the number is it's inflated. We've had that discussion before. But hey, whatever number Obama has to float to get his health care plan passed I guess that's alright.

 

If the gov't offers universal health care for those who don't have it, every employer in the country will drop

health insurance and recommend their employees take the gov't plan.

 

or do you think businesses will continue to pay for health care out of the goodness of their hearts? All ya gotta do is

multiple 170bill by 10 for the population difference, then add another 50%+ for abuse and higher prices. The price

to insure everyone will be much more per year than our entire budget is now.

[Strike 6,095]

If the gov't offers universal health care for those who don't have it, every employer in the country will drop

health insurance and recommend their employees take the gov't plan.

 

or do you think businesses will continue to pay for health care out of the goodness of their hearts? All ya gotta do is

multiple 170bill by 10 for the population difference, then add another 50%+ for abuse and higher prices. The price

to insure everyone will be much more per year than our entire budget is now.

 

Oh, I have no doubt the gov't. run system will be a clusterfuck and screw with the private systems. My point is that the number they're using to justify the government's involvement are inflated to make the problem seem worse than it is.

[bushy 0]

You're not an economist, and you're wrong. People who do this for a living, as opposed to posting on message boards, are in near unanimous agreement that the stimulus was too little, and in some areas misdirected.

 

No, you're wrong. Here's a link to an ad published in the NY Times of 200 economists (a few are nobel laureates) that were against the stimulus. Making sh!t up does not help your side, so please stop.

[FlaHawker 24]

You're not an economist, and you're wrong. People who do this for a living, as opposed to posting on message boards, are in near unanimous agreement that the stimulus was too little, and in some areas misdirected.

 

.

Is that you Paul Krugman

[Strike 6,095]

Being here illegally is not a crime!!!!!

 

[Frank M 181]

No, you're wrong. Here's a link to an ad published in the NY Times of 200 economists (a few are nobel laureates) that were against the stimulus. Making sh!t up does not help your side, so please stop.

 

Oh, you mean like making up the statement that Obama will nationalize health care?

 

"Well, he's lied about other stuff, so he'll do this, too!"

 

Great logic being thrown around here.

[Brad GLuckman 519]

I think it's pretty ballsy what Obama is doing here...I didn't think he would grow government this much, this fast. The guys on a fvcking roll, and people don't give a damn so why stop?

 

It's pretty amazing, like Emanuel said though....ya gotta take advantage of a crisis. THe majority of Americans are on board too. A trillion here, a trillion there. Instead of people being outraged at all the debt being racked up....I think people are just becoming numb to the idea that our government is spending another trillion dollars.

 

"Eh, whats another trillion?"

 

In one of these threads, maybe this one, somebody actually mentioned that $ 5 Billion wasted on pork isn't a big deal because it's not much compared to the $800 billion spent on the whole stimulus...wtf kind of reasoning is that? ITS FIVE BILLION FOCKING DOLLARS!!!!!!!!!!

 

But that is the attitude of the whole country. Obama's scare tactics have worked wonders. He has convinced people that if we doesn't spend $300000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000 for climate reasearch and modeling...then the economy will shatter. $50 billion for retarded homeowners who can't do basic fvcking math and figure out that an $800,000 house on a fvcking bus drivers salary might just not be possible, another $450 billion spending bill just passed with over 9000 earmarks in it, $634 billion healthare fund...he's going to pay for all of this with a troop cutback and a tax hike on those who actually generate jobs?

 

Its just amazing to me how much he is spending in such a short time. Fvck, we're not even two months into the Presidency. We've got 4 (probably 8) more years of this crap? How can anyone support this? I don't care if you hated Bush....but jesus fvcking christ, that has nothing to do with this. Do people really support this crap, or do they still just get all tingley when they hear Obama speak so they're ok with it?

 

Before the Obama supporters answer...I know I know...Bush sucked.

[bushy 0]

Oh, you mean like making up the statement that Obama will nationalize health care?

 

"Well, he's lied about other stuff, so he'll do this, too!"

 

Great logic being thrown around here.

 

WTF are you talking about moron? I didn't say anything about health care. I'd like for you to post a link to anything I've posted about Obama's healthcare plan.

[Voltaire 5,537]

Is that you Paul Krugman

 

I didn't realize that you were familiar enough with his writing to recognise Krugman's view when you see it.

[Voltaire 5,537]

I think it's pretty ballsy what Obama is doing here...I didn't think he would grow government this much, this fast. The guys on a fvcking roll, and people don't give a damn so why stop?

 

It's pretty amazing, like Emanuel said though....ya gotta take advantage of a crisis. THe majority of Americans are on board too. A trillion here, a trillion there. Instead of people being outraged at all the debt being racked up....I think people are just becoming numb to the idea that our government is spending another trillion dollars.

 

"Eh, whats another trillion?"

 

In one of these threads, maybe this one, somebody actually mentioned that $ 5 Billion wasted on pork isn't a big deal because it's not much compared to the $800 billion spent on the whole stimulus...wtf kind of reasoning is that? ITS FIVE BILLION FOCKING DOLLARS!!!!!!!!!!

 

But that is the attitude of the whole country. Obama's scare tactics have worked wonders. He has convinced people that if we doesn't spend $300000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000 for climate reasearch and modeling...then the economy will shatter. $50 billion for retarded homeowners who can't do basic fvcking math and figure out that an $800,000 house on a fvcking bus drivers salary might just not be possible, another $450 billion spending bill just passed with over 9000 earmarks in it, $634 billion healthare fund...he's going to pay for all of this with a troop cutback and a tax hike on those who actually generate jobs?

 

Its just amazing to me how much he is spending in such a short time. Fvck, we're not even two months into the Presidency. We've got 4 (probably 8) more years of this crap? How can anyone support this? I don't care if you hated Bush....but jesus fvcking christ, that has nothing to do with this. Do people really support this crap, or do they still just get all tingley when they hear Obama speak so they're ok with it?

 

Before the Obama supporters answer...I know I know...Bush sucked.

 

You're pretty close to how I feel actually. Not that I'm on board with Obama's economic plans. I voted for the guy even though I knew goin in that I agreed more with McCain on this sort of thing. I don't like the stimulus bill, I oppose the Wall Stret bailouts, I don't think taxpayers should be responsible for morons who lent/borrowed ridiculously for housing. I generally oppose entitlement programs so I'm really suspicious of his health care plans. But the thing is ... for some reason I'm giving him a free ride since I'm really not p*ssed off and just kind of accepting. I guess after the last eight years I've become numb to budgetary mismanagment and I don't really see or have a viable alternative approach. Maybe the big reason is that I'm still basically deleriously happy Bush is gone, his policies being thrown out, and his supporters deprived of the levers of power.

[Brad GLuckman 519]

You're pretty close to how I feel actually. Not that I'm on board with Obama's economic plans. I voted for the guy even though I knew goin in that I agreed more with McCain on this sort of thing. I don't like the stimulus bill, I oppose the Wall Stret bailouts, I don't think taxpayers should be responsible for morons who lent/borrowed ridiculously for housing. I generally oppose entitlement programs so I'm really suspicious of his health care plans. But the thing is ... for some reason I'm giving him a free ride since I'm really not p*ssed off and just kind of accepting. I guess after the last eight years I've become numb to budgetary mismanagment and I don't really see or have a viable alternative approach. Maybe the big reason is that I'm still basically deleriously happy Bush is gone, his policies being thrown out, and his supporters deprived of the levers of power.

 

I've read quite a few of your posts, your hatred of Bush is quite clear. I don't blame you one bit though. I can't stand the guy either. Although I will say I gave the guy much more of a chance than I should have on quite a few issues and feel like a dumbass for defending him even the little bit that I did. His fiscal irresponsibly was my biggest anger point actually. Followed by the religious crap. Although I will say I am socially much more liberal than I was 8 years ago, hell even one year ago so obviously alot of my views differ with his that I used to agree on.

 

Someone mentioned it earlier...are the Repubs ACTUALLY going to go back to fiscal responsibility, or is this just some future campaign crap so they can say "Hey sorry about the last 8 years, but we're back to being good ol' fiscal conservatives, not like that Obama guy". Because they should have been doing this sh!t the last 8 years. If they have....maybe they wouldn't have been blown the fvck out of the last elections.

 

In the end, I guess I have no choice but to hope they've learned their lesson from this, see what Obama is doing, and try to get their message across. While the stimulus was being pushed through, all we heard was Repub politicians b!tching about the pork and the size of the bill....but rarely did they get the message across that they had an alternative. It would have been nice to see them hitting the talk show circuits saying "Here's our plan, this is why it will work, and it won't take generations to pay for it"....instead they just whined.

 

There is alot of blame to go around for this crap...unfortunately I think that is a line we will be repeating for a long time. But once some of these policies pass...there is no going back. We will be paying for it for the rest of our lives.

[GettnHuge 2]

I think it's pretty ballsy what Obama is doing here...I didn't think he would grow government this much, this fast. The guys on a fvcking roll, and people don't give a damn so why stop?

 

It's pretty amazing, like Emanuel said though....ya gotta take advantage of a crisis. THe majority of Americans are on board too. A trillion here, a trillion there. Instead of people being outraged at all the debt being racked up....I think people are just becoming numb to the idea that our government is spending another trillion dollars.

 

"Eh, whats another trillion?"

 

In one of these threads, maybe this one, somebody actually mentioned that $ 5 Billion wasted on pork isn't a big deal because it's not much compared to the $800 billion spent on the whole stimulus...wtf kind of reasoning is that? ITS FIVE BILLION FOCKING DOLLARS!!!!!!!!!!

 

But that is the attitude of the whole country. Obama's scare tactics have worked wonders. He has convinced people that if we doesn't spend $300000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000 for climate reasearch and modeling...then the economy will shatter. $50 billion for retarded homeowners who can't do basic fvcking math and figure out that an $800,000 house on a fvcking bus drivers salary might just not be possible, another $450 billion spending bill just passed with over 9000 earmarks in it, $634 billion healthare fund...he's going to pay for all of this with a troop cutback and a tax hike on those who actually generate jobs?

 

Its just amazing to me how much he is spending in such a short time. Fvck, we're not even two months into the Presidency. We've got 4 (probably 8) more years of this crap? How can anyone support this? I don't care if you hated Bush....but jesus fvcking christ, that has nothing to do with this. Do people really support this crap, or do they still just get all tingley when they hear Obama speak so they're ok with it?

 

Before the Obama supporters answer...I know I know...Bush sucked.

 

People will take some notice in a couple years when the funny money runs out and each state is hooked on these

new insanely expensive obligations. Then again Osama will still be there so they can just come back with their hands

out again asking for trillions.

[Brad GLuckman 519]

People will take some notice in a couple years when the funny money runs out and each state is hooked on these

new insanely expensive obligations. Then again Osama will still be there so they can just come back with their hands

out again asking for trillions.

 

Exactly.

Make the people depend on you.

So they will keep voting you in.

 

Kind of like how the Dems scare old people. "The Repubs are going to take away your social security that we gave you!!! Free Money - Vote for Us!"

[Frank M 181]

WTF are you talking about moron? I didn't say anything about health care. I'd like for you to post a link to anything I've posted about Obama's healthcare plan.

 

 

Did I say you, dooshbag? No. You accused someone of making statements up, and the same thing is done in every dire prediction of what is going to happen to our country, particularly from Strike. Are you concerned about the stuff he's just letting fly off the top of his head? Doesn't seem like it to me. Consistency, assclown.

[Strike 6,095]

Did I say you, dooshbag? No. You accused someone of making statements up, and the same thing is done in every dire prediction of what is going to happen to our country, particularly from Strike. Are you concerned about the stuff he's just letting fly off the top of his head? Doesn't seem like it to me. Consistency, assclown.

 

ROFLMAO. Yeah, Obama just asked for 600+ billion as a DOWN PAYMENT on his health plan. But no, he's not making any permanent structural changes to health care is he? Not to mention that that post has NOTHING to do with this thread. That was a reply to someone who asked why I'm riding Obama so hard. Those are MY fears. You don't have to agree with them. I'm sure a lot of Obama kool aid drinkers don't. They listen to his BS and believe him despite the fact that he hasn't upheld ONE campaign promise yet except for starting down his Robin Hood road of taking from the rich to give to the poor. Why don't you address the topic of this thread instead of a tangential post that has nothing to do with it?

[paulinstl 296]

Was there anything about the president lying about Iraq's connection to terrorists, or having WMDs, or any mention m,of mushroom clouds?

[KSB2424 3,174]

Was there anything about the president lying about Iraq's connection to terrorists, or having WMDs, or any mention m,of mushroom clouds?

Can you not do better than that? I thought you were part of the "Golden Age"? :yawn: