Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24
  1. #1 Obama admits he is a failure 
    Sonnabend
    Guest
    Link


    In NY Times Magazine interview, regretful Obama admits his policies are failures

    In the upcoming New York Times Magazine interview, Barack Obama has admitted that his policies are failures. More specifically, he has lamented his embarrassing failure surrounding his deficit-increasing stimulus, their shovel-ready projects, and the painfully insufficient amount of "tax cuts" that he included in Americans’ paychecks (so small, no one felt them). In the interview in New York Magazine, a liberal reporter spent an hour with Obama, talking to him about his first two years in office, and, unexpectedly, Obama sounded very introspective, defeated and full of regret. His self-defeating comments are good news for Republicans who instantly seized on choice quotes to release uncomplimentary press releases that pointed out Obama’s hypocrisy. At the same time, some Democrats were left feeling even more frustrated than ever, essentially complaining that Obama had made it even harder for them in the already adverse midterm election climate.
    The man was a failure from the day he was born. This is...news?

    The way that this interview should be interpreted is that Obama sees the writing on the wall; the bigger question is, Why did it take him only until three weeks before the midterms to admit what the majority of Americans already knows? In fact, prominent conservatives and even non-biased analysts have been pointing out the absolute failure of Obama’s economic policies for the better part of a year now. The interview is noteworthy for its sheer contrast with Obama’s public statements on his economic policies—like when he’s busy pumping up a crowd of masochistic, hardcore Obama voters who are actually cheering him as he’s busy lying to them about the apparent "effectiveness" of shovel-ready projects. At this point in time, Obama clearly sees that his party is done for, so it’s no more use to continue being so shameless. Still, the president refuses to concede on all points.
    Most liars can't admit their lies. Obama being who he is, is a typical example.

    Obama’s most implicating admission comes on the issue of the failed, shovel-ready projects that he was always dishonestly touting as ways to get the US economy humming again quickly. Shovel-ready projects are basically infrastructure projects that are funded by taxpayer money in Obama’s debacle of a "stimulus" bill, with the incorrect idea that giving all that money to local governments can jump-start quick construction activities that turn the economy around. In the interview, Obama finally concedes that "there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects." Gee, Mr. President, do you want a reward for finally acknowledging that which most of the country has already been on your case about for the longest time?! It’s too bad Obama didn’t have this way-too-late epiphany BEFORE he actually squandered the hard-earned, taxpayer money in "shovel-ready projects" that are now verified as a big failure.
    Saw this coming when this snake oil salesman was on the campaign trail. I could smell the bullshit from here.

    Obama’s not contrite to the point, however, where Americans can really be sure that he’s learned the lessons of his discredited and ignorant economic policies, because a big regret of his seems to be merely that he’s seen as a tax-and-spend liberal Democrat. Only seen as a tax-and-spend liberal Democrat?! Mr. Obama, you are totally a tax-and-spend liberal Democrat! The fact that Obama seems to be more preoccupied in this interview with how he looks to voters—while still denying that he is in fact the worst of tax-and-spend liberal Democrats—still shows that he thinks he’s correct in his underlying ideology and approach. That’s really sick if you think about it, simply because Obama suffers from more than a messaging problem: He is in fact a failed president whose policies on the economy have worsened conditions for everyone in the US. The empirical evidence backs that up.
    It's always all about him, and not about the people he screwed over. Another professional victim.

    Obama ends the interview—unbelievably in his incomparable arrogance—by still deluding himself into thinking that time will be kind to him and that once people start seeing the imaginary "benefits" of his policies, they will realize he’s been good for the US. What??! Clearly, Obama only watches MSNBC and reads the New York Times to come up with such a warped forecast. In reality, it is only G.W. Bush’s record that Americans will look kindly upon in due time; Obama’s, however, they will continue to condemn for generations.
    They'll take one look at this complete jerk and wonder how someone this stupid ever made it to the Oval Office.

    Pres. Bush is, and was, a better man than this posturing fool could ever hope to be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    I don't understand how people insist that the stimulus was a 'failure' when most of the money hasn't even been used yet

    http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/home.aspx

    The data is all there.

    only 39% of the money has been used and there have been 750,045 reported jobs created.

    Jobs are still being lost in the midst of the recession but everyone knows our capitalist system runs on boom and bust cycles, exponetially so for the more acutely aware, and we are in one of these as our housing and credit bubbles have popped.

    Yes jobs are being lost, (and no I'm no raving Obamaniac, I'm not voting for Democrats this november) but the fact is that the stimulus has helped create jobs and I see many working-class people like construction workers working on infrastructure projects around my city paid for by the stimulus act so it is working.

    I have much beef with Obama but the stimulus has been a good deal so far.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Sonnabend
    Guest
    I don't understand how people insist that the stimulus was a 'failure' when most of the money hasn't even been used yet

    http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/home.aspx

    The data is all there.

    only 39% of the money has been used and there have been 750,045 reported jobs created.
    Uh...no.

    Jobs are still being lost in the midst of the recession but everyone knows our capitalist system runs on boom and bust cycles, exponetially so for the more acutely aware, and we are in one of these as our housing and credit bubbles have popped.
    Owing to liberal policies forcing banks to give home loans to people who couldnt afford them in a million years.

    Yes jobs are being lost, (and no I'm no raving Obamaniac, I'm not voting for Democrats this november) but the fact is that the stimulus has helped create jobs and I see many working-class people like construction workers working on infrastructure projects around my city paid for by the stimulus act so it is working.
    You do not borrow your way out of poverty and you do not spend your way out of debt.

    I have much beef with Obama but the stimulus has been a good deal so far.
    It, like you and Obama, are all failures.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonnabend View Post
    Uh...no.
    The data is all there. You can ignore it all you want, but you can't claim it wasn't willful ignorance.



    Owing to liberal policies forcing banks to give home loans to people who couldnt afford them in a million years.
    And greedy wallstreet capitalist trading that risked trillions of dollars on the failure of these loans. It wasn't the failure of the loans that caused the recession, it was the enormous piles of capital deliberately placed on top of these bad loans with the expectation of failure and the subsequent avalanche which made a few bankers enormously rich while the tax payers picked up the slack to preserve our precious capitalist system. Both parties are to blame for this and guess what, these notions of "liberal" and "conservative" are just imaginary constructions invented by corporate elites to get working class Americans like you and I to fight over so we won't unite.



    You do not borrow your way out of poverty and you do not spend your way out of debt.
    A government's finances are in no way comparable to household finances. Sometimes massive government spending can help poverty and sometimes borrowing can pull us out of future debt (if that money is invested wisely).

    Debt isn't a bad thing. Anyone who buys a house knows this. Excessive debt can be bad, but that's why we should be taxing the wealthy.
    Last edited by Wei Wu Wei; 10-14-2010 at 02:55 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Sonnabend
    Guest
    Debt isn't a bad thing. Anyone who buys a house knows this. Excessive debt can be bad, but that's why we should be taxing the wealthy.
    The wealthy create the jobs, you fool.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Small business owners are wealthy?
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Large corporations already have an advantage with being able to buy politicians to get legislation passed that helps their bottom line, also they have an advantage in contrlling major institutions like the media.

    Small businessses are where we should be looking. Small business provide jobs for millions of Americans and they offer competition against large corporatons. Small businesses have a hard time competing against those who disproportionately benfit from the status quo (which they actively sustain) so we should be working to help small business growth, and we can do this by cutting small business taxes while increasing taxes on the large corporations and the very wealthy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Sonnabend
    Guest
    Small business owners are wealthy?
    Yes. Small business people own shops and property and employ people

    Large corporations already have an advantage with being able to buy politicians to get legislation passed that helps their bottom line, also they have an advantage in contrlling major institutions like the media.
    Large corporations employ more people. Make business too expensive for them and they move offshore, and relocate to where they can make money and not be taxed out of existence.

    And Americans become unemployed as a result.

    Al this is, Wei, is you wanting other peoples money you never worked for a day in your life.

    Simple.

    The "very wealthy" already pay taxes on just about everything. What you want is for the state to take all they own and hand it over to others, whether they are willing to or not.

    The word for this is dictatorship.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member Constitutionally Speaking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,301
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    I don't understand how people insist that the stimulus was a 'failure' when most of the money hasn't even been used yet

    http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/home.aspx

    The data is all there.

    only 39% of the money has been used and there have been 750,045 reported jobs created.

    Jobs are still being lost in the midst of the recession but everyone knows our capitalist system runs on boom and bust cycles, exponetially so for the more acutely aware, and we are in one of these as our housing and credit bubbles have popped.

    Yes jobs are being lost, (and no I'm no raving Obamaniac, I'm not voting for Democrats this november) but the fact is that the stimulus has helped create jobs and I see many working-class people like construction workers working on infrastructure projects around my city paid for by the stimulus act so it is working.

    I have much beef with Obama but the stimulus has been a good deal so far.

    EVERY SINGLE ONE of those TEMPORARY jobs that have been created, come at the EXPENSE of two or three PERMANENT jobs in the private sector.
    I long for the days when our President actually liked our country.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonnabend View Post
    Yes. Small business people own shops and property and employ people
    But they are not wealthy. Even by the Obama standard of Rich, not all small business owners make over $250,000 a year, and even if they do, it's only income above that amount which is taxed at a higher rate. So a small business household that pulls in $300,000 a year isn't going to have that $300,000 taxed at a higher rate as every Republican politician wants you to believe, they're only going to have the $50,000 above the $250,000 mark taxed at a higher rate. Even for successful small business owners, this will only afffect a small portion of their income.

    For large companies however, where individuals are bringing home tens of millions a year, they have a little bit more to spare than a small business owner and frankly they have the power to coerce our government to bend to their will so we should be fighting for small business owners and workers, along with middle class families, not for the wealthy who already own most of the nation and all of our politicians.




    Large corporations employ more people. Make business too expensive for them and they move offshore, and relocate to where they can make money and not be taxed out of existence.

    And Americans become unemployed as a result.
    Oh right and where are they going to go? To other industrialized countries that actually provide their workers with a decent minimum wage and guaranteed benefits such as vacation time and maternity leave? You're out of your mind if you think foreign labor is cheaper, unless you're only talking about the cheapest low skilled labor.

    Besides, it doesn't even matter because our economy is not manufacturing based anymore, that's been phased out over the last 40 years. We are a service and information based economy now, and while much of this can be outsourced (telephone service and online transactions), the vast majority of service labor in the United States cannot be outsourced because it requires a person being physically present (such as bank tellers or retail, which are some of the fastest growing job markets)



    Al this is, Wei, is you wanting other peoples money you never worked for a day in your life.

    Simple.
    Tell me more about how you imagine my life. I was born with a silver, no, platinum spoon in my mouth from my wealthy parents who were given all of the benefits of the United States government during their time. Oh yes they got the good end of the deal and I was born onto a silk pony and rode directly into the top 3 Ivy League schools where I joined an elite society which summoned the ghost of Marx because for some reason my wealth and easy life has turned me into a raving commie. Yes it all makes sense now.

    The "very wealthy" already pay taxes on just about everything.
    When you own over half of the wealth in the nation, even low taxes will provide most of the tax revenue.

    what you want is for the state to take all they own and hand it over to others, whether they are willing to or not.

    The word for this is dictatorship.
    Not quite. I'd be happy with significant raising of taxes on the very top, the top 10% and the top 1%, these few people hold so much wealth that their assets alone could entirely pay off the entire US debt (which seems like an unsolvable monster to so many people).

    Now I don't realistically see seizing all of their assets as a viable option, but we need to realize how much wealth they really have. No one in their entire social circle is going to miss a single 5-star meal if their taxes are significantly increased.

    With that money we could lower the deficit, sustain social security for our seniors, increase funding and oversight for medicare, provide a medicare-for-all system as an option for anyone who doesn't want a private corporate health care plan, we could rebuild our national infrastructure for the 21st century (we are being left behind by most other nations) and in the process create millions of jobs.

    so much could be done but the very wealthy own the media, own both political parties, own the airwaves (edit: and frankly they own most of our minds) and they're doing everything they can to frantically funnel as much money upwards while our economic system collapses on the rest of us.
    Last edited by Wei Wu Wei; 10-14-2010 at 07:03 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •