The Obama Deception HQ Full length version

[Straight Success]

Yes, because it is impossible to judge the performance of a black man negatively without being racist.

Oddly, the only one to mention such a thing in here is you.

Ahh, valid point about me being the only one. However, in my recent experience, I have notice that some people dislike Obama even without giving him a chance to work. He's only been in office for six and a half months. I just left a National Laboratory, and I've seen how some people, even at a gov't lab, black and white, view him. These views were not based on performance, but nasty ol' hatred. Buy the way, we all view or see things different stemming from many differents factors. I had many talks with a lot of Texans when I did my internship. They informed me about many people's views on current topics such as politics down there. I'm glad they were honest, and I was shocked the things that I heard. They were real cool though.

Of course I'm pro Obama; however, I'll tell you this, I'm quick to keep it real when it comes to our current president. Is he perfect? No. Does he want the best for America and Americans? Absolutely. Will he try his best to get us out of this horrible situation that we are currently in? YUP! Did he put us in this situation? No. Well then, who did?

I want to see what would happen if people let him work and forget about all the dirty back door politics. I'm going to sit back now and finish watching him work.

[npor]

I opened-up a yogurt, underneath the lid it said, "Please try again." because they were having a contest that I was unaware of. I thought maybe I opened the yogurt wrong. Or maybe Yoplait was trying to inspire me. "Come on Mitch, don't give up!" An inspirational message from your friends at Yoplait. Fruit on the bottom, hope on top.

[Pandemic]

I opened-up a yogurt, underneath the lid it said, "Please try again." because they were having a contest that I was unaware of. I thought maybe I opened the yogurt wrong. Or maybe Yoplait was trying to inspire me. "Come on Mitch, don't give up!" An inspirational message from your friends at Yoplait. Fruit on the bottom, hope on top.

Ah, mitch

[npor]

[owequitit]

Ahh, valid point about me being the only one. However, in my recent experience, I have notice that some people dislike Obama even without giving him a chance to work. He's only been in office for six and a half months. I just left a National Laboratory, and I've seen how some people, even at a gov't lab, black and white, view him. These views were not based on performance, but nasty ol' hatred. Buy the way, we all view or see things different stemming from many differents factors. I had many talks with a lot of Texans when I did my internship. They informed me about many people's views on current topics such as politics down there. I'm glad they were honest, and I was shocked the things that I heard. They were real cool though.

Of course I'm pro Obama; however, I'll tell you this, I'm quick to keep it real when it comes to our current president. Is he perfect? No. Does he want the best for America and Americans? Absolutely. Will he try his best to get us out of this horrible situation that we are currently in? YUP! Did he put us in this situation? No. Well then, who did?

I want to see what would happen if people let him work and forget about all the dirty back door politics. I'm going to sit back now and finish watching him work.

Everybody is entitled to their assessment, and just because you don't agree with them does NOT make their position less founded.

How much time exactly should we give him to work? He has already spent the nearly trillion dollars. Sorry, but he doesn't get an endless timeline to succeed and it is getting to be about time for his policies to start showing their merit, or deciding that they don't measure up. So far, for the amount we have spent "stimulating" the economy, very little effect has been felt, even though by now, there should be major signs. The stimulous has done little if anything to even accelerate the process as there were beginning recovery signs BEFORE he even took office. So while he certainly doesn't get all of the blame for the bad, he certainly didn't do all of the good either, nor should he get full credit for it either, which most likely his supporters will also want to do.

FYI, this current "situation" has been coming for the better part of a decade now, and actually precedes Bush's entry into office, so this isn't a one politic problem, even though Obama's supporters also want to paint that picture.

I voted for the man, and I am still waiting for him to have enough time to succeed, however, as of yet there are some things going on that have hit his credibility. 1) He swears up and down that we can pay for this healthcare nuke he is tryng to sell. I know for a fact that us being able to "pay" for it involves cooking the books to make it look like we will have more money than we actually do. Not only is it a knowingly false assumption, but it is an out and out lie, because they KNOW that money isn't going to materialize. If it were a major private corporation doing this, we would be slaying them in the national media, calling for criminal convictions and holding Congressional hearing on who is to blame and who needs to go to jail. Yet, when our government does it, it is A-OK. I would be happy to go into further detail, but this is getting to the very limits of the conversation as it is. On this issue I don't need to give him time to work, because it is not only blatantly dishonest, but it goes directly against the "change" that he so much promised in his campaign. He went on and on about how he wanted to change the way government is run for future generations, and here is a screaming, flashing, red example of business as usual. That I have a problem with. That doesn't require time, and it doesn't require consideration.

I cut Bush no slack on such things, and I will happily do the same for Obama.

I am also disappointed that he has called the "War on Terror" unnecessary, and made the commitment to bring our troops home and not deploy them unless absolutely necessary to our vital security, and now he is already talking about redeploying them, under UN control, to Somolia which has less effect on our security than Afganistan, or Iraq. Can't have it both ways. It is either acceptable to deploy them where they already are, or it is unacceptable to send them back into Somolia to perpetuate a problem that should have been fixed in the early 1990's. I don't do double standards.

I am going to cut this off now.

[Straight Success]

Everybody is entitled to their assessment, and just because you don't agree with them does NOT make their position less founded.

How much time exactly should we give him to work? He has already spent the nearly trillion dollars. Sorry, but he doesn't get an endless timeline to succeed and it is getting to be about time for his policies to start showing their merit, or deciding that they don't measure up. So far, for the amount we have spent "stimulating" the economy, very little effect has been felt, even though by now, there should be major signs. The stimulous has done little if anything to even accelerate the process as there were beginning recovery signs BEFORE he even took office. So while he certainly doesn't get all of the blame for the bad, he certainly didn't do all of the good either, nor should he get full credit for it either, which most likely his supporters will also want to do.

FYI, this current "situation" has been coming for the better part of a decade now, and actually precedes Bush's entry into office, so this isn't a one politic problem, even though Obama's supporters also want to paint that picture.

I voted for the man, and I am still waiting for him to have enough time to succeed, however, as of yet there are some things going on that have hit his credibility. 1) He swears up and down that we can pay for this healthcare nuke he is tryng to sell. I know for a fact that us being able to "pay" for it involves cooking the books to make it look like we will have more money than we actually do. Not only is it a knowingly false assumption, but it is an out and out lie, because they KNOW that money isn't going to materialize. If it were a major private corporation doing this, we would be slaying them in the national media, calling for criminal convictions and holding Congressional hearing on who is to blame and who needs to go to jail. Yet, when our government does it, it is A-OK. I would be happy to go into further detail, but this is getting to the very limits of the conversation as it is. On this issue I don't need to give him time to work, because it is not only blatantly dishonest, but it goes directly against the "change" that he so much promised in his campaign. He went on and on about how he wanted to change the way government is run for future generations, and here is a screaming, flashing, red example of business as usual. That I have a problem with. That doesn't require time, and it doesn't require consideration.

I cut Bush no slack on such things, and I will happily do the same for Obama.

I am also disappointed that he has called the "War on Terror" unnecessary, and made the commitment to bring our troops home and not deploy them unless absolutely necessary to our vital security, and now he is already talking about redeploying them, under UN control, to Somolia which has less effect on our security than Afganistan, or Iraq. Can't have it both ways. It is either acceptable to deploy them where they already are, or it is unacceptable to send them back into Somolia to perpetuate a problem that should have been fixed in the early 1990's. I don't do double standards.

I am going to cut this off now.

WOW. Good job. I hope you feel better.

Everybody is entitled to their assessment...

Uh, huh. Including you, regardless if your right or wrong.

How much time exactly should we give him to work?

Enough time so that things get fixed correctly the first time, and to avoid long term problems. Patience is a virtue. We'll make it through this.

I know for a fact that us being able to "pay" for it involves cooking the books to make it look like we will have more money than we actually do.

You do. Well I guess you are ahead of the game. Facts are sometimes hard to come across in politics. You must be very important.

Thanks for the update. You take care now Scott! Stay cool and don't lose any bets in the future. Just some CB7 advice.

[owequitit]

WOW. Good job. I hope you feel better.

Everybody is entitled to their assessment...

Uh, huh. Including you, regardless if your right or wrong.

How much time exactly should we give him to work?

Enough time so that things get fixed correctly the first time, and to avoid long term problems. Patience is a virtue. We'll make it through this.

I know for a fact that us being able to "pay" for it involves cooking the books to make it look like we will have more money than we actually do.

You do. Well I guess you are ahead of the game. Facts are sometimes hard to come across in politics. You must be very important.

Thanks for the update. You take care now Scott! Stay cool and don't lose any bets in the future. Just some CB7 advice.

Importance has nothing to do with it. It is all public information.

It is amazing how far a little reading and fact finding can go. Sorry it doesn't jive with your fabricated version of reality. Oh, and by the way, those facts came straight from the Democratic Party. Now, if you would like to try to talk down to me, which you aren't being very successful at, and would like to battle wits, I would be happy to oblige. Feel free to PM, so I am not bound by the rules of this board that are designed to protect people from opinions they can't handle. Otherwise, drop it.

[Straight Success]

Importance has nothing to do with it. It is all public information.

It is amazing how far a little reading and fact finding can go. Sorry it doesn't jive with your fabricated version of reality. Oh, and by the way, those facts came straight from the Democratic Party. Now, if you would like to try to talk down to me, which you aren't being very successful at, and would like to battle wits, I would be happy to oblige. Feel free to PM, so I am not bound by the rules of this board that are designed to protect people from opinions they can't handle. Otherwise, drop it.

Naaaa. I don't feel like going back and forth with your views and so called facts. We both read and interpret things different, so we'll probably never agree when it comes to politics (or other topic for that matter). What I need for you to do is stop being upset and have a good day, OK. I'm going to say a prayer for you. One.

[owequitit]

Naaaa. I don't feel like going back and forth with your views and so called facts. We both read and interpret things different, so we'll probably never agree when it comes to politics (or other topic for that matter). What I need for you to do is stop being upset and have a good day, OK. I'm going to say a prayer for you. One.

I am not upset. You talked down to me, and I called you out on it. You are avoiding the topic. But that is OK.

[IAmTheNight]

How much time exactly should we give him to work? He has already spent the nearly trillion dollars. Sorry, but he doesn't get an endless timeline to succeed and it is getting to be about time for his policies to start showing their merit, or deciding that they don't measure up. So far, for the amount we have spent "stimulating" the economy, very little effect has been felt, even though by now, there should be major signs. The stimulous has done little if anything to even accelerate the process as there were beginning recovery signs BEFORE he even took office.

What major signs? According to Rutledge Capital, less than a quarter of the $787 billion stimulus package has actually been spent. The operational lag of democracy is keeping the money from flowing. From the last chart in the article, it appears that most of the money will be spent next year. So you asked how much time we should give the government to do its job? I would say about a year and four months.

[owequitit]

What major signs? According to Rutledge Capital, less than a quarter of the $787 billion stimulus package has actually been spent. The operational lag of democracy is keeping the money from flowing. From the last chart in the article, it appears that most of the money will be spent next year. So you asked how much time we should give the government to do its job? I would say about a year and four months.

It isn't going to take that long. Haven't been following the news much eh?

P.S. The slower it is spent, the less effect it will have, because the "jolt" on the economy will be significantly reduced, not to mention all of the unintended consequences that are incurred and have been talked about by economists, such as China owning 30% of our government and the additional burden carried by making payments on that money.

The fact that signs of recovery are beginning to strongly show up PRIOR to the disbursment of most of the money, indicates that the stimulous will in fact be ineffective on the whole. That is also directly mentioned in that article, or at least alluded to, but I notice that you neglected to mention that.

If you would like to go search news from the 4th quarter of last year, and moreso the 1st quarter of this year, then you will find many finance, economy, and business articles talking about the earliest or "nascient" signs of recovery. While they were unwilling to declare the beginning of the end, they did discuss the fact that those indicators were usually leading indicators of a recovery.

As for the amount spent, I mis spoke, but that has NO bearing on the reality of the effectiveness of the stimulus.

The fact that nearly nothing has been spent and the economy is already showing heavy signs of recovery further proves that point. It also reinforces fiscal policy versus monetary policy and the effectiveness of government in controlling an economy. I.E. They are a day late and a dollar short.

But I suppose you would have me give Obama all kinds of credit for that, even though he is not responsible for it.

Sorry, not going to happen.

This chart details how much of the $787 billion in stimulus money will hit the economy each year over the next three years. As you can see, only 11% of the $308 billion appropriated to discretionary spending like highways, mass transit, energy and education will be spent by the end of this year. Overall, less than a quarter of total funds will be spent in 2009.

Why is this s problem? Because there are early signs of recovery coming in now every day. By the end of this year the recovery will be undeniably underway. That means next year (2010) and the year after will be periods of rapid growth and rising inflationary worries. That’s why bond yields have increased by more than a full percentage point in recent weeks with more to come over the coming months. And that’s one of the reasons why commodity prices have been rising so fast.

[IAmTheNight]

It isn't going to take that long. Haven't been following the news much eh?

P.S. The slower it is spent, the less effect it will have, because the "jolt" on the economy will be significantly reduced, not to mention all of the unintended consequences that are incurred and have been talked about by economists, such as China owning 30% of our government and the additional burden carried by making payments on that money.

The fact that signs of recovery are beginning to strongly show up PRIOR to the disbursment of most of the money, indicates that the stimulous will in fact be ineffective on the whole. That is also directly mentioned in that article, or at least alluded to, but I notice that you neglected to mention that.

If you would like to go search news from the 4th quarter of last year, and moreso the 1st quarter of this year, then you will find many finance, economy, and business articles talking about the earliest or "nascient" signs of recovery. While they were unwilling to declare the beginning of the end, they did discuss the fact that those indicators were usually leading indicators of a recovery.

As for the amount spent, I mis spoke, but that has NO bearing on the reality of the effectiveness of the stimulus.

The fact that nearly nothing has been spent and the economy is already showing heavy signs of recovery further proves that point. It also reinforces fiscal policy versus monetary policy and the effectiveness of government in controlling an economy. I.E. They are a day late and a dollar short.

But I suppose you would have me give Obama all kinds of credit for that, even though he is not responsible for it.

Sorry, not going to happen.

I know it won't take THAT long. A year and four months would be the end of 2010, so if the stimulus package didn't work by then, we could be just about certain that there is a major problem. That is the absolute maximum amount of time I would give the government to do its job. I did notice that the article mentioned that the recovery is starting to happen before the money is spent, but I suppose I wrongfully assumed that the recovery was riding on a temporary bubble, and that once the money was spent it could support the "pre-emptive" recovery. As for giving Obama credit, that's your call.

[JoshM]

I opened-up a yogurt, underneath the lid it said, "Please try again." because they were having a contest that I was unaware of. I thought maybe I opened the yogurt wrong. Or maybe Yoplait was trying to inspire me. "Come on Mitch, don't give up!" An inspirational message from your friends at Yoplait. Fruit on the bottom, hope on top.

This is by far the best thing I've read on CB7T in a very long time.

[owequitit]

I know it won't take THAT long. A year and four months would be the end of 2010, so if the stimulus package didn't work by then, we could be just about certain that there is a major problem. That is the absolute maximum amount of time I would give the government to do its job. I did notice that the article mentioned that the recovery is starting to happen before the money is spent, but I suppose I wrongfully assumed that the recovery was riding on a temporary bubble, and that once the money was spent it could support the "pre-emptive" recovery. As for giving Obama credit, that's your call.

Once most of the major signs line up, there isn't a pre-emptive bubble, generally speaking. One of the predictors of a "bubble" is a lack of reason for it to be occurring, often as indicated by other economic indicators. For instance, in the tech bubble of the early century, there were a lot of conflicting signals that it shouldn't be happening. Because many of the fundamentals were not there, some predicted it as a bubble, while others just continued to pour money into it. The housing bubble that precipitated this mess was another prime example. If you really took a look at the market, what was happening, what the average person COULD support and what they were trying to support, it was not rocket science to figure out it was going to crash. Many people ignored the signs and the advice and the warnings at their own peril.

However, now we are getting to the point where retail sales are steadying, housing prices are steadying to a degree, the job losses are steadying etc. There is always a period of continuing decline that actually indicates recovery because before things can actually start the trek back up hill, they MUST come out of freefall. Once the spending and prices start to recover, there will still be a period of job losses afterward because it takes time for those to have an effect on the bottom line of companies and their demand on product. Generally, once the job market starts to recover, you are solidly in recovery and have been for a time.

We have been showing signs of recovery for nearly all of 2009 now, and we will continue to see these signs for the rest of the year, with nearly every major economist predicting the start of a full recovery by the end of the year.

That is an unfortunate circumstance for Obama because essentially, his "stimulus" will end up not doing a whole lot other than adding nearly a trillion dollars to the national debt. We do need some of the infrastructure things that it is spending on, but frankly, there would have been better ways to do it. But don't you worry, the political propaganda machine will go into full force, crediting Obama with everything under the sun and slaying Bush for all of the world's problems, and the really sad thing is that 80-90% of Americans will buy it because they want a fairy tale story told to them about how 1 man saved the world and equals the second coming of Christ, and they will believe it because they are too ignorant to know better, and want their desired construct of reality to be true, even though it is patently false.

The sad, unfortunate reality of it is that the President of the US is nearly powerless against the cogs of the economic machine, and even at its fastest clip the government is too slow. You can go back and study all economic "stimuli" in history and see this same effect. The New Deal was not nearly as effective as Democrats would have you believe either, with it ultimately taking WWII to end the unemployment problem which remained in the 11-13% range until we entered the war.

What it ends up doing is creating greater economic hardship for future generations of our children, which is one thing the current administration said it sought to avoid. Only now, we have an additional trillion dollars to work off, which ultimately increased our debt by about 13% of an already incomprehensible and astronomical feature. We aren't going to pay that off, so who gets to? Our kids and grandkids, which is something that was a problem that OUR grandparents bitched and complained about. The problem is that it is business as usual on Capitol Hill, and really nothing has changed except the lip service.

Ultimately, if you really look at the CBO's numbers on the healthcare issue, you will see more evidence of business as usual. When Clinton created his "balanced budget" it was nothing but a smokescreen. You should have enough background and education to understand how prediction of future revenues works. They have to make certain assumptions about what is going to happen in the future in order to estimate how much money that will bring. The problem with the "balanced budget" that we once has is that the assumptions were false. Some knowingly and some not. They made assumptions that the economy would continue to grow like it had been even though there were fundamental economic signs all over the place that said it wouldn't. Still, they used the wrong numbers, because it looked good on paper and gave them the political capitol they wanted. When it was actually accounted for the next year, the deficit was huge because the assumptions were wrong. Guess what? They blamed it on Bush, even though he had nothing to do with it. The funny thing? A lot of people bought it hook, line and sinker, because the Democrats told them what they wanted to hear.

We are looking at similar issues with the current healthcare debate. The Dems have accounted for $300 billion in revenue that will NEVER materialize. They assumed that a middle class tax cut enacted under Bush would expire in, I think, 2012. Over the course of the next 8 years, that tax cut expiring would generate about $300 billion of the trillion they say they need. Seems OK right? Wrong. Obama has already said that he is NOT going to let that tax cut expire, and will in fact renew it when it comes time. He may even extend it indefinitely. Yet, he is williing to "assume' that it will expire to make the program look like it can be paid for. Sorry, but if a corporation did that, they would be SLAYED in the media and tried for fraud. It is a full blown, blatant lie. So where does that put us with health care? It puts us $300 billion short of just maybe BARELY paying for it. Since we also know that money will never materialize, guess what? It puts us $300 billion further in the hole, even though it doesn't LOOK that way on paper. The other assumption is that they are trying to produce a bottom dollar, lowest bidder figure because they KNOW that if it is too expensive, nobody will support it. The problem is that many of the estimates that aren't cooked by the government put the price far higher than the trillion the administration says it will take. It is a classic case of lying now, in hopes they can push the blame on someone else later. I don't know about you, but that sure sounds like business as usual to me. The fact that they are trying to ramrod it through the system causes further issues. 1) their main reason for doing it is so they can get more Democrats elected in November by holding up landmark legislation and saying "oh lookie what we did!" 2)They are ramrodding it through the system because the quicker they stuff it down our throats, the less time we have to question it and move against it. Right now, there is a big defamatory propaganda war on BOTH sides. One side trying to slay it, and the other trying to stifle the criticism. Either way, without legitimate discussion, due process, and widespread bi-partisan consideration, we as citizens are going to get screwed. Plain and simple. They can not provide the cost savings and benefits that they are trying to sell, because they can't address some of the major root causes of the issues. Period. Taxes WILL go up to support it, services WILL go down, and the average person will end up spending the same as they already do.

Now, the Republicans for their many decades in office have also bled us dry. They have always done it under the false purveyance that lower taxes would increase revenues because it would result in greater economic growth, which would offset the size of the deficit based on the % of GDP. There is some merit to that equation, TO A POINT. The problem is that with ever higher record deficits, it is approaching the point where even though it is relatively a low % of US GDP, it is so staggeringly large, that people are getting hesitant to lend it. So this way puts the US citizens in the same backward position as the other system, with the end result of us being screwed. One screws us on the backend, and one screws us on the front end. Either way, we lose.

The fundamental problem in this country is that everyone is too wrapped up in their ideology to actually have an honest debate about what is good or bad for the country. You will notice (even in this thread in some examples) that everyone wants to have an opinion, but when offered the opportunity to discuss or back it up, they generally decline and leave the scene with veiled personal insults designed to project the fault onto whoever they are backing down against.

Until the citizens in this country realize that you don't have to be either left or right, and that currently the two party system in the US is leading to our systematic destruction as a society, then we won't ever get anywhere. It has gotten to the point, as evidenced by the many discussions on this board, that people are too about being blue, or red, when really that is just bullshit that doesn't matter. It is nothing more than systematically ingrained ideology that is not only half right, but also half wrong. Why not be neutral instead, and embrace ideas that are good? Everybody preaches objectivity and open mindedness, very few actually practice it. It would be to our benefit if more did what they say.

[owequitit]

So far the dicussion has been civil, but I am sure that won't last much longer, so it will probably be closed soon. Either way, it was nice while it lasted.