Obama General Discussion, vol. 4

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I could write a fairly scathing view of how I think the first term for Obama has gone...but I don't see the use. It all comes down to one thing; fiscal policy.

We have to get the deficit and debt under control for the benefit of not only U.S. citizens but the world economy.

The alternative to Obama believes we can run the American Government on 18% federal revenues relative to GDP. Proven across a twenty year span, 100% fact based numbers and math, to create deficits. Even with Republican control of everything. As long we only have two choices, that alone is reason enough to vote for Obama. Period.
 
Yes, a president is judged on foreign policy. Take a look at where the presumptive Republican nominee stands on foreign policy and then ask yourself if that would really be an improvement. And if we're going to compare losing a drone to Abu Ghraib, well, I'd rather lose 10 drones then have another Abu Ghraib incident.

Diemen, i used Abu Ghraib as an example, because we all know very well the public reaction to that one. Bush (who is not currently the GOP nominee) was certainly held accountable for that one, so im curious why losing a secret drone doesn't make the current Potus accountable? Actually, you don't have to answer that one...:D

Or the Secret Service Scandal with the Colombian Prostitutes
Or the GSA scandal
Or SSG Bales killing spree this year in Afghanistan
Or Maj Hassan's killing spree at Ft Hood in 2009
Or troops urinating on dead Afghans
Or the Fast & Furious Scandal
Or Solyndra Scandal

No need to answer for any of the above, Obama's not accountable for any of this right? Must be Bush's fault too :applaud:


Wait, what? They lose a helicopter (which they destroyed before leaving) while executing an extremely high-risk stealth operation that ended in the successful capture and killing of Public Enemy #1, and you're busting Obama's balls for the chopper?

I've said on here before, and i will say it again, hats off to Obama for killing Bin Laden.

It is understandable, under the consequences, that a helicopter was lost. I realize you were never in the military and probably do not realize how important it is not to leave something that sensitive behind, but believe me it is. (I can personally remember where our entire unit had a massive search lasting for hours to find a missing gas mask) It happened once...and then we have the drone missing...now this is bad.

And btw, they didn't completely destroy the helicopter as you can see from this picture:

g-cvr-110505-helicopter-binLaden-hmed-605a.grid-6x2.jpg


And then we have these allegations, which i don't personally believe but will leave up to the reader to decide what to make of it:

If even some of this is true Obama is so much more dangerous than we thought � � Coach is RightCoach is Right

If even some of this is true Obama is so much more dangerous than we thought

By Coach Collins, on April 23rd, 2012


By George Spelvin, staff writer

Years of living dangerously off of the U.S. taxpayers’ dime have certainly served the Obama-Dunham family well according to investigative journalist Wayne Madsen. Nevertheless, the downside for America is the Islamazation of Africa and Asia in a remarkable example of unintended consequences of foreign entanglements gone bad- very bad, indeed.

A Wayne Madsen 32 page pdf file is opening up a Pandora’s Box of American foreign aid money dispensed wildly and broadly overseas. The reporter cites American dollars intended to buy starving villagers rice actually going to finance foreign military weapons purchases for various wars, conflicts, and insurgencies. Our tax dollars earned through the hard work and sweat equity have not been used to our benefit but rather to further the Islamazation of these continents which is now almost complete.

The very aims and actions of politicians, faceless bureaucrats, foreign service operatives both covertly and not covertly have come back to bite America at a time when our own citizens are suffering through economic trouble. The investigative reporter’s dogged pursuit of the Obama-Dunham family odyssey in places from Jakarta to Jalalabad, and from the Ford Foundation to the Oval Office makes for fascinating reading: But how to verify it?

Rumors abound that Madsen has grown so fearful for his life that he has broken up with a long time companion and left the country. A noted author and syndicated columnist; Madsen’s reports have been widely circulated. He is the author of “Genocide and Covert Operations in Africa” and “Jaded Tasks: Big Oil, Black Ops & Brass Plates.”

A picture of Stanley Ann Dunham “visiting a Balinese duck farm officially as part of her work to secure bank loans for small businesses” is included in the five part report of international intrigue and American dollars. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s father Peter Geithner acted as the Ford Foundation’s grant selector for projects in Indonesia, and President Obama’s mother worked for or with him as Madsen reports.

The report’s dizzying array of abbreviations, acronyms, NGO’s and many other groups obfuscate duties, dollars and destinies.

What a labyrinth to wade through! Lost sight of in all of this overseas stewpot are the unsuspecting U.S. citizens who pay for everything. But where is Madsen now? Is all of what he says true? He filed communiqués from the Obama Korean summit recently, that much we know, but is he safe?

What really is apropos here is the admonishment of George Washington who warned America in his Farewell Address delivered to our new nation on 17 September 1796. Washington said, “Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence the jealousy of free people ought to be constantly awake since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of a republican government.”

Could any of our politicians look into the eyes of America’s founder and say they have followed his advice when it comes to foreign aid? Mightily served by our founding fathers, America has been miserably served by her politicians!

To contact your Congressional Representative use this link: Contacting the Congress: A Citizen's Congressional Directory

To read more about this story use these links:

http://exopolitics.blogs.com/files/wayne-madsen-obama-all-in-the-company.pdf

"George Washington's Farewell Address">
 
Given how spectacularly their last missile launch failed, I'd go with the sabre rattling.

I hope so, but technically the country is still at war / cease fire

And North Korea has a history of aggressive behaviour to include artillery they launched at Yeonpyeong island back in Nov 2010. There are also fence-line shootings between the north and south that occur along the DMZ quite often...yet we never hear about them.

Spies defecting, assassinations, subs running ashore with a crew dead by execution...all spooky stuff that doesn't make the 5 o'clock news.

and during a full scale war, they were pretty brutal:

Total civilians killed/wounded: 2.5 million (est.)[2]
South Korea: 990,968
373,599 killed[2]
229,625 wounded[2]
387,744 abducted/missing[2]
North Korea: 1,550,000 (est.)[2]

Their army:

North Korea is the most militarized country in the world today,[6] having the fourth largest army in the world, at about 1,106,000 armed personnel, with about 20% of men ages 17–54 in the regular armed forces.[7] Military service of up to 10 years is mandatory for most males. It also has a reserve force comprising 7,700,000 personnel.[8] It operates an enormous network of military facilities scattered around the country, a large weapons production basis, a dense air defense system,[9] the third largest chemical weapons stockpile in the world,[10] and includes the world's largest Special Forces contingent (numbering 180,000 men).[11] While the aging equipment,[12] deriving from the economic plight of the country, is seen as major defect of the North Korean military capability, it is nevertheless regarded as a significant threat due to its size and proximity to major civilian areas.

The terrain is mountainous, rugged, and very hot and humid in the summers with a monsoon season and also very very cold in the winters. There is NO good time to fight a war on this peninsula. It is estimated that the tens of thousands of US troops stationed between the DMZ and Seoul (2ID) would be nothing more than "speed bumps" in the wake of an all out invasion...and that North Korea has the potential to pummel Seoul with its long range artillery.

So yeah, their rockets might not work very well, but their million + man army fighting in the trenches along with the heavy artillery is enough to inflict massive casualties. Not good.
 
And then we have these allegations, which i don't personally believe but will leave up to the reader to decide what to make of it:

If even some of this is true Obama is so much more dangerous than we thought � � Coach is RightCoach is Right




this is insane and irresponsible, and you're "i report, you decide" "gawsh, i'm just a guy askin' questions" disclaimer doesn't change the fact that this is even farther out there than Birther territory. why don't you start posting the articles that claim that Obama is a trained KGB operative? that's at least more entertaining.
 
Diemen, i used Abu Ghraib as an example, because we all know very well the public reaction to that one. Bush (who is not currently the GOP nominee) was certainly held accountable for that one, so im curious why losing a secret drone doesn't make the current Potus accountable? Actually, you don't have to answer that one...:D

Or the Secret Service Scandal with the Colombian Prostitutes
Or the GSA scandal
Or SSG Bales killing spree this year in Afghanistan
Or Maj Hassan's killing spree at Ft Hood in 2009
Or troops urinating on dead Afghans
Or the Fast & Furious Scandal
Or Solyndra Scandal

You've turned into a Hannity wannabe throwing shit and hoping some of it sticks. You haven't engaged one person in here trying to speak to the specifics of any of these, or why one event is different from another.
 
Blaming the Bush Administration for Abu Ghraib seems silly to me; no one really knows how far that went up the chain of command.

Blaming Bush for pro-cyclical fiscal policy that helped to manufacture the recession? Probably partially true. The 2002 tax cuts were probably a pretty bad idea. The Fed's loose monetary policy in the early 2000s were also probably a bad idea, although they did start raising interest rates eventually. That's not directly Bush's fault, but he did appoint Alan Greenspan (just like Reagen, Bush 41, and Clinton). An out-of-control financial sector and a public that proved itself less than financially competent were major problems too. The latter can't really be regulated. The former can, and lack of regulation can be blamed on the Bush Administration and Republicans, but it can also be blamed on Democrats for not making any effort to change anything.

I still wrestle with the problem of stimulus. The Keynesian in me (generally the overwhelming force) says that, without that stimulus, we probably would have seen a much deeper recession and probably significantly worse deficit-to-GDP ratios in the long term. The Keynesian in me also says that, without stricter regulation and active monetary and fiscal policy to cool the economy whenever it starts booming again, this will all be for naught and the next recession will be deeper than this one and more money will be spent in recovery... and that is unsustainable. And maybe it is politically impossible for the United States to cool its economy while it grows; maybe that's just an inherent flaw in Keynesianism, that Keynesianism cannot ever actually be truly implemented, because of how politically tough it is for a democracy to attempt to cool its economy when it is booming. Another boom-recession cycle like this one would probably damage Keynesianism in my eyes, because Keynesian recessionary policy does not account for the potential impossibility of Keynesian boom-time policy. I am not totally sure. But without the stimulus spending of the Obama Administration (and the late Bush Administration, and their respective Congresses), I do fear that the US economy could be in a significantly worse position with worse long-term deficit prospects, in terms of potential to raise revenue.
 
And btw, they didn't completely destroy the helicopter as you can see from this picture:

g-cvr-110505-helicopter-binLaden-hmed-605a.grid-6x2.jpg

Is it your claim then that the troops involved in the Bin Laden raid were incompetent?

That's certainly a surprising take. :shrug:
 
Well, maybe if no one makes eye contact or responds to Mrs. Garrison, she'll eventually get tuckered out and wander back to her nearest local newspaper website comment thread to yammer into the abyss.

Or not. But she's basically just spitting out random codewords at this point.

Anyway, Social Security! It's in the news again, with reports that the "trust fund" will run out at an even earlier projected date. But don't worry! A really key, critical thing everyone should understand:

Social Security checks are scheduled to increase in real terms over the next several decades. After the trust fund "expires" in 2033, if nothing changes, there would still be enough income to give retirees 70-80% of scheduled benefits, which would still represent an increase over present benefits.

That represents the "crisis". Lower, higher future benefits. If we do nothing, people's benefits will be cut....which means, according to sensible pundits, we must cut people's benefits today in order to avoid that fate!
 
Yes, recession only describes when an economy is shrinking. The economy stopped shrinking in 09 but the depth of the recession was such that it will take years to return to pre-recession employment levels, if ever.

Maybe the road back to robust economic growth isn't Cash For Clunkers, a 2,000 page healthcare law, expanded food stamps rolls, petrophobia, and raising the capital gains tax on millionaires to pay for "targeted investments" while completely ignoring entitlement reform.
 
NBC Politics - Social Security trustees see earlier fund depletion date

Social Security trustees see earlier fund depletion date

The trustees of the Social Security system said Monday the fund that helps sustain retiree and survivors’ benefits will become exhausted in 2033, three years sooner than they projected last year.

In their annual report, the trustees also estimated that Social Security’s Disability Insurance fund will be exhausted in 2016, two years sooner than last year’s estimate. Congress will need to take action to avert that outcome, with the most likely remedy being a reallocation of the payroll tax between the part of the tax that supports Social Security’s retirement and survivors’ benefits and the part of the tax that pays for disability benefits.

The Social Security system does have assets in the form of $2.7 trillion in Treasury bonds -- but those assets must be redeemed – cashed in – in order to pay benefits.

“The redemption of those bonds can only occur out of current income,” explained Senate Budget Committee chairman Kent Conrad last year. “The general fund has been borrowing from Social Security and we've borrowed well over $2 trillion,” he said. “That money has got to be paid back. How's it going to be paid back? It's going to be paid back by the other general expenditures of the federal government having to be reduced to make way for the payments that we're going to have to make on those bonds.”Separately, the trustees, who are also the trustees of the Medicare program, reported that the Medicare fund that pays hospital costs for older and disabled Americans will be exhausted by 2024, the same forecast as they made last year.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said, “Despite the repeated efforts of Republicans to privatize Social Security and end the Medicare guarantee, these vital initiatives remain strong. Today’s Trustees’ report affirms that Social Security and Medicare will continue to provide critical benefits to seniors and other Americans.”

Nancy says these programs "remain strong" and the president's plan to reform entitlements is to demonize anyone that attempts it.

Leadership :up:
 
INDY500 said:
Nancy says these programs "remain strong" and the president's plan to reform entitlements is to demonize anyone that attempts it.

Leadership :up:
Who out there is actually trying to reform these programs? I just see people cutting without tackling the real issues. Guess what that does long term...

Cut and run will cause major long term issues. Where will these people go?
 
allsocialsecurityfixes.jpg


Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to pick options to fill the 1.4% of GDP that the Social Security deficit will be by 2040.

It should be pretty clear that relatively minor changes will preserve the program. Taxing all income above the $100,000 existing cap, while still capping benefits to that level removes an enormous amount of the shortfall (.9!). Raise the payroll tax rate by 1% and we're suddenly home free.
 
allsocialsecurityfixes.jpg


Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to pick options to fill the 1.4% of GDP that the Social Security deficit will be by 2040.

It should be pretty clear that relatively minor changes will preserve the program. Taxing all income above the $100,000 existing cap, while still capping benefits to that level removes an enormous amount of the shortfall (.9!). Raise the payroll tax rate by 1% and we're suddenly home free.

Raise the payroll tax rate by 1% -- Tell that to the 50% of college grads that can't find full-time work in their major.

I'd increase the retirement age. It's ridiculous that it hasn't been indexed to increased longevity. You're right, Soc Sec isn't what is going to send us over the cliff (rep Ryan barely addresses it in his "radical" reforms). It's Medicare.
Whether through major reform or painful default, Medicare as we know it will end.
 
INDY500 said:
Maybe the road back to robust economic growth isn't Cash For Clunkers, a 2,000 page healthcare law, expanded food stamps rolls, petrophobia, and raising the capital gains tax on millionaires to pay for "targeted investments" while completely ignoring entitlement reform.


Go look at Europe and see where austerity takes you. Le Pen.

Agreed on entitlement reform. The disagreement is over how to do it.

And defense spending. Don't forget that.
 
So Bush owns 2000 - 2008 yet somehow Obama is not accountable for 2009 - present?

:D

Never said he wasn't.

What I said was that the problems from 2000 to 2008 are spilling over into 2009 and beyond. Any problems that haven't been fixed by the time Obama leaves office will be for the next president to fix. And when they can't fix them, the president after that will have to deal with them.

This happens often in history. Every president inherits some problem of some kind, small or large, from the one before. If they do not fix it, they should be held responsible for not doing so, but at the same time if the problem is large enough, no president that follows that sort of disaster will get it fixed right away. Didn't FDR have to go through years of struggle before his plans to fix the mess that lead to the stock market crash, and the depression that followed, started to work? It happens to everyone.

Besides that, while I definitely think Obama can and should do more, at the same time, I get the feeling he at least WANTS to fix this, is trying to fix this. If Romney's in office I'm not going to get that same impression. And again, add in a beyond stubborn, pigheaded opposition, an electorate that pretty much sat back and figured Obama would fix everything overnight instead of, you know, doing their own sacrificing and pitching in to help Obama out, the fact that Obama has, like, fifty thousand things on his plate he needs to fix or that people want him to fix, and yeah, I'm not at all surprised we haven't made a whole hell of a lot of progress.

Plus, keep in mind, too, any plans Obama DOES try to implement get shot down by people who think it's a sign of a massive government takeover. He's either not doing his job or he's going to turn this country into an evil socialist empire when he does try to fix things. What do people want Obama to do, exactly, help or butt out? They have to quit bitching and make up their minds on that issue already.
 
Raise the payroll tax rate by 1% -- Tell that to the 50% of college grads that can't find full-time work in their major.

I'd increase the retirement age. It's ridiculous that it hasn't been indexed to increased longevity. You're right, Soc Sec isn't what is going to send us over the cliff (rep Ryan barely addresses it in his "radical" reforms). It's Medicare.
Whether through major reform or painful default, Medicare as we know it will end.

I hope that grad stat is more of a temporary condition, compared to the 30 year+ arc of the context of the graph. But perhaps there are better options. Raising the retirement age is certainly not one, it is a truly terrible idea. First, that CBO chart suggest it would be among the least monetarily effective ways of reducing the SS shortfall.

Furthermore, the impact would fall more on those 65-67 year olds doing physically demanding jobs, i.e, the less well paying. The CEOs and middle management working desk jobs have much less to worry about with an extra few years' work.

Totally agree.

Since 1982, life expectancy for men in the lower half of income has risen by 1 year. For men in the upper half, it is 5 years. Letting the health of the wealthiest drag Social Security beyond the grasp of the most vulnerable among us seems perverse. Raising the retirement age only harms those who need Social Security benefits the most- the poor, the less educated, the most strenuous workers. That should be the opposite goal of any well-designed policy.

I would far prefer to adjust the COLA.
 
Plus, keep in mind, too, any plans Obama DOES try to implement get shot down by people who think it's a sign of a massive government takeover. He's either not doing his job or he's going to turn this country into an evil socialist empire when he does try to fix things. What do people want Obama to do, exactly, help or butt out? They have to quit bitching and make up their minds on that issue already.
exactly. i guess it goes to show how things have changed, because there was definitely opposition from both parties in fdr's day with some of his ideas, but the republicans weren't outright throwing up roadblocks to prevent any progress. the politicians sure have whined about his policies from day one, yet when it comes down to suggesting any viable alternatives (printing magic money that won't affect inflation doesn't count), they grow quiet.

we have a deficit, everyone agrees with that. to help get rid of some of it, you can either raise taxes or reduce spending. the problem with the latter is it doesn't create any jobs and, well, does the exact opposite. most republicans keep calling for more spending cuts, then are shocked when more jobs aren't being created. it's setting obama up for failure. if you're gonna cut education, don't be surprised when a story comes out saying how teaching graduates are finding it harder to find a job than ever.
 
Raise the payroll tax rate by 1% -- Tell that to the 50% of college grads that can't find full-time work in their major.

I'd increase the retirement age. It's ridiculous that it hasn't been indexed to increased longevity. You're right, Soc Sec isn't what is going to send us over the cliff (rep Ryan barely addresses it in his "radical" reforms). It's Medicare.
Whether through major reform or painful default, Medicare as we know it will end.
The main reason why most college grads can't find a full-time job within their major is because the majority of those who do not have job graduated with useless degrees such as creative writing, humanities, arts, English and other majors that do not equalize career opportunities and cash in the long term; so it is important to consider that the economic situation and unemployment are not the sole responsible factors in not landing a job right after graduation. People's decisions and characters matter immensely as well.

Sure, you can increase the retirement age to over 65 years old but expecting the government to take care of you when you are old and reaching age 120 with a pension, Medicare and social security benefits is a very unrealistic vision from most people.

Seniors have to come to the realization that they had their whole lives to assure their retirement, apart and/or instead of expecting a hand from the government, not that they care either.
 
The main reason why most college grads can't find a full-time job within their major is because the majority of those who do not have job graduated with useless degrees such as creative writing, humanities, arts, English and other majors that do not equalize career opportunities and cash in the long term

10 Most Popular College Majors

Business Management
General Business
Accounting
Nursing
Psychology
Marketing
Communications
Elementary Education
Computer Science
Finance

These sound like exactly the first steps toward professional careers college grads are told they should want.

...It turns out they're not the ones with the fevered dreams. :rolleyes:
 
^ yep, just a few years ago some of those fields were reported on as being woefully understaffed and hey, you should major in it because you can have your pick of where to work!

the problem is, in the four years (if you're lucky) it took you to get that degree, there was how many thousands of people ahead of you filling those jobs? predicting what fields will be underemployed in 4-5 years is just a guessing game.

the average college student isn't some english major. at the very least if this were the case, the building wouldn't be so tiny compared to the engineering buildings and science buildings at my university.
 
Mrs. Garrison said:
If you are talking to me, please do not use this type of language towards me.

Sincere apologies for the language, but the question(s) still stand: Why on earth is this the fault of the President (any President - same would go for Bush and that spy plane incident with China), and why on earth should Iran give the drone back?
 
The main reason why most college grads can't find a full-time job within their major is because the majority of those who do not have job graduated with useless degrees such as creative writing, humanities, arts, English and other majors that do not equalize career opportunities and cash in the long term; so it is important to consider that the economic situation and unemployment are not the sole responsible factors in not landing a job right after graduation. People's decisions and characters matter immensely as well.



as a former English major and someone who hires people, those with strong writing and critical thinking backgrounds are vastly more impressive to me than someone with technical skills. the world needs more liberal arts majors with precisely these skills.

but then this could all be dependent upon one's chosen field.

however, blaming college grads for being unemployed as you've done seems completely and utterly wrong.
 
I hope that grad stat is more of a temporary condition, compared to the 30 year+ arc of the context of the graph. But perhaps there are better options. Raising the retirement age is certainly not one, it is a truly terrible idea.

Why? It was never designed to provide for a 20 year retirement. When Soc Security was created in the 30's life expectancy at birth was only 58 for men and 62 for women--the original retirement age was 65. You do the math.
First, that CBO chart suggest it would be among the least monetarily effective ways of reducing the SS shortfall.

Please make note of something I put in bold from the article:
“The general fund has been borrowing from Social Security and we've borrowed well over $2 trillion,” he said. “That money has got to be paid back. How's it going to be paid back? It's going to be paid back by the other general expenditures of the federal government having to be reduced to make way for the payments that we're going to have to make on those bonds.”

We've seen the government almost come to a halt over the cutting of 10 billion dollars from projected spending raises somewhere down the road and yet Congress is going to find the meddle to cut spending in order to payback the 2 trillion dollars owed to Social Security? Really?

Since 1982, life expectancy for men in the lower half of income has risen by 1 year. For men in the upper half, it is 5 years.
I'd like to see more on those stats. Counting the deaths of the poor from drug abuse or murder, for instance, against live expectancy would render a false picture of health in senior years.
I would far prefer to adjust the COLA.

Which in inflationary times would truly be a penalty.
 
Why? It was never designed to provide for a 20 year retirement. When Soc Security was created in the 30's life expectancy at birth was only 58 for men and 62 for women--the original retirement age was 65. You do the math.

I am not opposed to a reasonable raising of retirement age, and I think the arguments you put forth are logical. There is very little downside in raising the retirement age to 67, as has been done in Canada without fanfare or anyone really batting an eyelash.

But I would like to add that as somebody who is 32 years old, I really do think that more and more we will see a generational war emerge. No, I don't mean WAR, but more of a resentment. On a personal level, with all due respect to my parents' generation, but truly the baby boomers have got to be, as a group (there are fine individuals) the most selfish, entitled generation that we have ever seen. They treated the earth like it was their own personal toilet to shit all over, they rewarded themselves with completely unsustainable entitlement programs and sweet pensions which we, the young, will now have to pay for until kingdom come, they ran up the deficits in nearly every Western democracy like drunken sailors. They have left us worse off than their parents left them - we'll be working well into old age as who knows what retirement age will be by the time we reach it, we'll deal with the consequences of climate change and the failed policies of relying on the Middle East for our oil because God knows if you didn't drive a 12 cylinder beast in the 70s for 10 cents a litre, you weren't livin', etc.

So instead of blaming the youth for being unemployed and projecting English poetry degrees on all of them, and blaming them for a crumbling society and social ills that come with it, why don't we look at their parents' generation for a truly fantastic example of egregious governance. Pathetic.
 
when you start to lose your base....it's not looking good for you...

Jon Lovitz Rant on Obama Has Web Buzzing - Yahoo! TV

Jon Lovitz Rant on Obama Has Web Buzzing

By Claudine Zap | Yahoo! TV – 2 hours 28 minutes ago.. .

Comedian Jon Lovitz has a serious -- and salty -- message for President Obama.

The former “Saturday Night Live” star delivered some choice words for the president on his podcast, "The ABCs of SNL." The show is co-hosted by Kevin Smith and calls itself “Live from the Jon Lovitz Podcast Theater.”

The actor said he’s a Democrat and voted for Obama, but now he’s mad as hell at the president’s plan to raise taxes on the rich -- and his rant has the Web buzzing.

The comic called Obama a “[bleep]ing a-hole... for saying the rich don't pay their taxes." Lovitz delivered his invective after assuring the audience “I voted for the guy” and even expressed admiration for Obama’s rise from “nothing.” “He had no father -- he is mixed-race, which is a burden… and the guy ends up going to Harvard, and he's the president of the United States.”

Lovitz gave Obama no slack for turning against his fellow millionaires, however. “This whole thing with Obama saying the rich don't pay their taxes is f---ing bulls---,” he said. “First they say to you… ‘The United States of America, you can do anything you want -- go for it! So then you go for it and you make it and everyone's like, ‘[Bleep] you!'”

Lovitz was most likely referring to Obama’s proposed “Buffett rule,” which stipulates that those making $1 million or more pay at least 30% of their income in taxes.

Response on the Web has varied. David Hill, who wrote, “During this entire debate, I've been asking myself 'But what does Jon Lovitz think?' Now I know, and all is right with the world.” Gloria commented, "He makes more than the majority of us and pays less taxes than us, how can he complain.” James added, “Just for that, Mr. Lovitz shall be taxed at 200%.”

Later in the podcast, the “SNL” alum discussed his past work on the sketch comedy show, saying he played characters who were “arrogant idiots” -- people who “think they know everything but they’re a moron." Smith, without missing a beat, asked, “Like people who go on about the government?”

This isn’t the first time Lovitz has delivered an opinion that’s attracted attention. The actor recently tweeted about an act of anti-Semitic bullying, and his online campaign is credited with having the girls involved in the incident expelled from their Los Angeles middle school.

Check out Jon Lovitz in this vintage "SNL" clip from 1989:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom