The Obama mega-thread II (merged)

[SUBMAN1]

Nooooooooo!!!!

"Greatest Wealth Destruction By a President"



http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/...ent_110203.asp

-S

[Dowly]

Sssshhhh

[SUBMAN1]

A was hoping to give him a chance, but he has already screwed us.

-S

PS. Another take on the situation:

Breathtakingly Bold Barack?
As Gov. Bobby Jindal began to offer a Republican response, it became apparent that he would be no match with Barack Obama in the soaring-oratory department. The Republicans really should have tried a gimmick instead. Perhaps Jindal could have simply walked on and said, “Today, the president held what he called a fiscal responsibility summit.” He could afford a wide smile at that point, knowing his audience had erupted in laughter.

Honestly, now: Are we quite ready finally to declare the Era of Obama As Fiscally Conservative is over? Last year, Republicans warned that Barack Obama was ultraliberal – a socialist, in fact – but the media handlers typically presented this as a conservative smear. Instead, they painted Obama as an aspiring moderate-Republican deficit reducer. Take New York Times economics writer David Leonhardt last August: “Obama’s aides optimistically insist he will reduce it [the deficit], thanks to his tax increases on the affluent and his plan to wind down the Iraq war. Relative to McCain, whose promised spending cuts are extremely vague, Obama does indeed look like a fiscal conservative.”

How ridiculous does that sound now? John McCain probably would have been a moderate Republican president. But the idea that President Obama would turn out to be a stronger fiscal conservative than McCain should inspire a pink-faced laughing fit at the preposterousness of The New York Times.

Now that Obama’s emphatic ultraliberalism is the elephant in the room, and liberals are cheering the reversal of everything Ronald Reagan tried to accomplish economically, the media still don’t want to call it liberal. Instead, it’s a pollster’s list of positive adjectives: bold, ambitious, audacious, and even breathtaking.

Here’s how Charles Babington of the Associated Press began his analysis: “Breathtaking in its scope and ambition, President Barack Obama's agenda for the economy, health care and energy now goes to a Congress unaccustomed to resolving knotty issues and buffeted by powerful interests that oppose parts of his plan.” Obama is the giant with breathtaking ambition, while members of Congress are mere mortals unaccustomed to accomplishment. Obama’s agenda is not described as liberal. Instead, it’s a plan “to undo major elements of Ronald Reagan's conservative movement.”

His AP colleague Liz Sidoti echoed the meaningless chatter: “Barack Obama is embracing the worst economic conditions in a generation as an opportunity to advance an audacious agenda that, if successful, could reshape the country for decades to come.”
The wire service Agence France-Presse found the president bristling with action: “Obama also highlighted his audacious 3.55-trillion-dollar budget plan for 2010, which bristles with economic reforms and spending on healthcare, climate change and education in a bid to end America's worst economic crisis since the 1930s.”

Then there was The Washington Post, the industry leader in budget salesmanship. In a front-page story, editor Karen DeYoung oozed Obama’s withdrawal plan from Iraq came “just a day after he transformed the domestic political landscape with a breathtakingly bold budget plan.” Two pages later, reporter Alec MacGillis somehow left out a cheerleader’s purse full of exclamation points in a story on Vice President Biden’s middle-class task force: “Commentators left and right have reacted with awe to the ambition and transformative potential of President Obama’s economic blueprint.”

Commentators on the right reacted with awe? Only at the shameless boosterism of the leg-tingling Obama press corps.

Later came a front-page Post story by Philip Rucker, which began, “President Obama’s budget is so ambitious, with vast new spending on health care, energy independence, and services for veterans, that experts say he will need to hire tens of thousands of government workers to realize his goals.” The Heritage Foundation suggests it means a quarter of a million new bureaucrats for the federal establishment.

As an adjective, “ambitious” is meant to be a positive word. But George Bush’s toppling of Saddam Hussein was “ambitious,” and the media didn’t applaud its scope. In fact, they paraded the liberals around arguing the Iraq war was unsustainably swelling the deficit. The late Tim Russert pressed Bush in February of 2004: “How, why, as a fiscal conservative as you like to call yourself, would you allow a $500 billion deficit and this kind of deficit disaster?”

Today, a $500 billion deficit would sound like progress. Obama’s budget aspires to reduce the projected 2009 deficit of $1.75 trillion by more than two-thirds, to $533 billion, by the end of his first term – which, if successful, would make it worse than the worst performance by President Bush.

It should be laughable for the White House to promote a “fiscal responsibility summit” days after they shoved through a $787 billion “stimulus” bill through Congress. But the gooey flood of positive adjectives from the press demonstrates that they are not government watchdogs. They’re “breathtakingly bold” Obama enablers. The honesty deficit in our press just grows, and grows. http://www.mrc.org/BozellColumns/new...ol20090304.asp

[SUBMAN1]

He is looking to repeal all tax breaks associated with buying a home:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...030601536.html

-S

[Enigma]

Yes. He's anti home ownership.

You're a genius.....

[Zachstar]

What do you expect Enigma? You've got a whole party out there that wants Obama to fail in this crisis and by proxy America as it is the ONLY way they can delude the country enough to vote them back in 2012.

So you can expect stuff like this from Subman and of course plenty of minions coming fresh from their daily Brainwash by defacto Republican Leader Rush Limbaugh.

As far as I am aware Obama is doing nothing to harm a person's right to purchase property. Just less tax incentive. But don't let that stop your fake ass panic attack.

[Onkel Neal]

omg, another Obama thread, kept alive by the inevitable replies....

[Enigma]

omg, another Obama thread, kept alive by the inevitable replies....

Your problem is with the replies, not the OP's thread? Huh.
By the way. Welcome to the replies.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Enigma

Yes. He's anti home ownership.

You're a genius.....

Genius is all relative. Do you understand the implications of this? Do you realize this maneuver takes spendable cash out of the consumers hands? Do you understand that to get the economy moving is to have consumers spend money? For years homeowners would take the interest write-off and use this cash for other things. Things that spur-on the economy. Nice down payment on a vehicle. Appliances or furniture. Clothing for the kids. Making a payment on a college tuition. Effectively he is taking cash out of the consumers hands. Last time I checked, Washington wants you to spend and get the economy going. I can't buy anything when I have nothing to purchase goods with. I do not think you understand how this will affect the other end of the spectrum...the economy. Millions of households with thousands to pour back into the economy. People do not sit on it. They spend it. Effectively this will take that buying power out of the consumers hands. It is a bad deal concerning the end result. Furthermore, this write-off is an incentive to purchase a home. Washington knows home purchases drives the economy....go figure Enigma....housing crisis, home foreclosing=the situation we are in today. This incentive was offered by the US government to help people make that decision to purchase a home thus driving the economy. He needs to stay away from this notion.

So when the government gives incentives to buy houses it is fueling the bubble which leads to an economic crash , and when it takes away incentives it is stopping people spending money which will lead to an economic crash .

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So when the government gives incentives to buy houses it is fueling the bubble which leads to an economic crash , and when it takes away incentives it is stopping people spending money which will lead to an economic crash .

Close but not quite, what caused the bubble was the goverment "suggesting" that the banks make bad loans to people whom obviously could not afford them, artifically inflating the demand, driving up the home prices. Tax incintives had little to do with that.

When these artifically priced houses forclosed or devalued due to market adjustment has a lot to do with the economic crash. Tax incintives had nothing to do with that.

The other factor driving the market down down down is all the doom and gloom and trepidation over the massive debt the Oministration is saddeling the country with. Taxes have a lot to do with that.

Tax incintives for buying a new home should be left alone. After all arent we trying to create jobs? Now is not the time to be dicking around and slapping even more hurt on the people trying to do things 'the right way'.

But cash strapped and in debt beyond measure every feasable way to tax american citizens will be conisidered.

[Frame57]

It is true. The more money you have, naturally the more you spend. The problem is that for it to be viable the money spent has to be real and not credit which gets defaulted. Credit is OK so long as it gets paid in a relatively short amount of time. Credit should only be given to those who are credit worthy. It is just good business.

[SUBMAN1]

Time for Obama to get with the program. Maybe he should read this. Try a bit of peace in the middle east for once.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/op...y.html?_r=1&em

-S

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Well the Muslim world isnt exactly famous for its listening skills.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Kapitan_Phillips

Well the Muslim world isnt exactly famous for its listening skills.

True, but at least an olive branch must be extended, and if that is not accepted, than maybe replace it with a sledgehammer.

-S