Obama General Discussion, vol. 4

[financeguy]

H/T Maltesertoo – who posted the litany below, for which I take no credit, in comments. It's proving so popular I think it deserves a wider circulation.)

1) Only in America could the President talk
about the greed of the rich at a $35,000 a plate campaign fund-raising event.

2) Only in America could people claim that the government still
discriminates against black Americans when we have a black President, a
black Attorney General, and roughly 18% of the federal work force is black
while 12% of the population is black.

3) Only in America could we have had the two people most responsible
for our tax code, Timothy Geithner, the head of the Treasury Department
and Charles Rangel who once ran the Ways and Means Committee, BOTH turn out
to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes.

4) Only in America can we have terrorists kill people in the name of
Allah and have the President and the media react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash.

5) Only in America would we make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of
thousands of dollars for the privilege while we discuss letting anyone who
sneaks into the country illegally just become American citizens.

6) Only in America could the people who believe in balancing the
budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be mocked by the President
and labeled "extremists" by the media.

7) Only in America are you required to present a driver's license to
cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.

8) Only in America could the President and the media blame oil
companies for gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return
on equity invested in a most major oil companies is less than half that of
a company making tennis shoes (Nike).

9) Only in America could the government collect more tax dollars from
the people than any nation in recorded history, but still spend over a
trillion dollars more than it has per year while the President complain that
there is not nearly enough money to do what he wants.

10) Only in America could the people who pay 86% of all income taxes
be accused by the President of not paying their "fair share" on
behalf of the people who don't pay any income taxes at all.

Only in America….. – Telegraph Blogs

 

[financeguy]

This is a historical artifact. Most of these guys "running" our economy today were educated around or just after the 1970s crisis where inflation was through the roof. If you read Greenspan's book, basically the thing that he repeats ad nauseum is that we have to have a handle on inflation. They were almost indoctrinated into believing that any inflation past the 2-3% base inflation is unacceptable, must be immediately curtailed, or the world will end.

High inflation is absolutely and completely disastrous for the middle and working classes - it erodes their limited savings, it makes the cost of living more expensive, obvioiusly, and though there is usually a time lag, at a basic level it makes simple household budgeting a task fraught with difficulty.

By contrast, the upper classes - the 1%'ers as we seem to be calling them these days - get by just fine in periods of high inflation. They have the contacts to pursue a diverse range of investment options and much of their net worth is invested in hard assets like property and commodities in the first place. As for the cost of living, it doesn't matter to them.

There is a very good reason why someone like Hitler arose from the ashes of a high inflation economy and there is a very good reason why Zimbabwe today, is in the mess that its in.

Greenspan can be criticised for many, many things - but his concern with controlling inflation ain't one of them. Actually, one of his biggest errors was failing to control house price inflation.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

2) Only in America could people claim that the government still
discriminates against black Americans when we have a black President, a
black Attorney General, and roughly 18% of the federal work force is black
while 12% of the population is black.

Yep, having all those things in place clearly means racism doesn't exist anymore, right?

4) Only in America can we have terrorists kill people in the name of
Allah and have the President and the media react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash.

Maybe because too many people have a hard time differentiating between regular, everyday Muslims and radical Islamic extremists, perhaps?

People bomb abortion clinics in the name of God. They're often white males, and the occasional white female. I guess we should start looking suspiciously at all people who look similar to them or who are Christian, too, huh?

6) Only in America could the people who believe in balancing the
budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be mocked by the President
and labeled "extremists" by the media.

Except, no. That's not what makes someone an extremist.

7) Only in America are you required to present a driver's license to
cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.

The ID is not the problem in and of itself. It's the fact that sometimes people can't easily get ID for one reason or another, and in some states, one form of ID is acceptable, but another isn't.

10) Only in America could the people who pay 86% of all income taxes
be accused by the President of not paying their "fair share" on
behalf of the people who don't pay any income taxes at all.

Because those who can't are underemployed or unemployed for various reasons, and can't pay income tax.

And of course we all know the good, innocent rich people at the top NEVER try and hide any of their money to avoid paying their required share in taxes, right? It ain't the poor who have tax shelters, after all.

Once again, the rich and those who support them need to quit their whining. They don't have my sympathy, sorry.

 

[INDY500]

I'm sure there's a better way to respond to his comment so that you're not just flat out insulting him.

You ask too much as that would require arguing solely on the merits of his position.

 

[INDY500]

High inflation is absolutely and completely disastrous for the middle and working classes - it erodes their limited savings, it makes the cost of living more expensive, obvioiusly, and though there is usually a time lag, at a basic level it makes simple household budgeting a task fraught with difficulty.

It is in fact a de facto tax. It is in fact true austerity as opposed to the statists' austerity which is only seen in any cut in public spending. And sadly inflation may eventually become too great a temptation for modern politicians as a means out from under our debt burden.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

You ask too much as that would require arguing solely on the merits of his position.

"Hi, pot, this is kettle..."

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

You ask too much as that would require arguing solely on the merits of his position.

replies like this don't help, you know. you're just as guilty as making comments like he does, as proven by this reply.

 

[INDY500]

8,733,461: Workers on Federal 'Disability' Exceed Population of New York City | CNSNews.com

8,733,461: Workers on Federal 'Disability' Exceed Population of New York City

(CNSNews.com) - A record of 8,733,461 workers took federal disability insurance payments in June 2012, according to the Social Security Administration. That was up from 8,707,185 in May.

There has been a dramatic shrinkage in the United States over the past 20 years in the number of workers actually employed and earning paychecks per worker who is not employed and is taking federal disability insurance payments.

In June 1992, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 118,419,000 people employed in the United States, and, according to the Social Security Administration, there were 3,334,333 workers taking federal disability payments. That equaled about 1 person taking disability payments for each 35.5 people actually working.
When President Barack Obama was inaugurated in January 2009, there were 142,187,000 people employed and 7,442,377 workers taking federal disability payments. That equaled about 1 person taking disability payments for each 19.1 people actually working.

In May of this year, there were 142,287,000 people employed, and 8,707,185 workers taking federal disability payments. That equaled 1 worker taking disability payments for each 16.3 people working.The federal disability payments made to the record 8,733,461 workers in June averaged $1,111.42.

The Social Security System’s Disability Insurance Trust Fund has run deficits in each of the last three fiscal years, meaning the government has needed to borrow money to pay disability benefits to the workers claiming them. In fiscal 2009, the Disability Insurance Trust Fund deficit was $8.5 billion. In fiscal 2010, it was $20.8 billion. And in fiscal 2011, it was $25.3 billion.

Food stamp program costing U.S. $80 billion each year

Number of Americans using food stamps reaches record high
Updated: Jun 22, 2012 9:57 PM EDT

(FOX) - Statistics show food stamp usage has reached a record rate, as many American families try to recover from recession.

The program currently helps one in seven Americans afford essential groceries. It was originally created to help those who are unemployed or unable to pay full price for food.

The U.S. government is now spending $80 billion each year on the program, which some believe is far too much.

"It's doubled in the last four years. It's gone up fourfold since 2001 and we've not had anything like that increase in the amount of unemployment that would justify such numbers," said Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL).

Obama: I've "Cleaned Up" GOP's "Wild Debts"--My Spending Is Lowest In 60 Years - YouTube



I needed something to take my mind off the disaster that Obamacare will unleash.

 

[Irvine511]

funny how Clinton is erased from that graph.

you continue to make great reasons to vote for Obama -- increase in revenues -- and not to vote for Romney, who's promised to cut taxes and increase military spending will be a catastrophe for the deficit, when you've identified this as your #1 issue.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

funny how Clinton is erased from that graph.

yep. this is why i hate graphs and statistics, 87% of them are misleading and only serve to distort things to serve the purpose of whoever made them.

never mind we now have a gop congress too. so if they were the reason for the success of the mid to late-90s (aka the clinton years), then what's the excuse now? still a democratic president, still a gop congress.

 

[Pearl]

"First thing that always pops into my head regarding our president is that all of the people who are setting up this barrier for him ... they just conveniently forget that Barack had a mama, and she was white — very white American, Kansas, middle of America," Freeman said. "There was no argument about who he is or what he is. America's first black president hasn't arisen yet. He's not America's first black president — he's America's first mixed-race president."

Morgan Freeman: No Black President For U.S. Yet : NPR

True, but I think this is a bit harsh of Freeman. I guess this is related to the argument on what being black really means in this country.

 

[anitram]

I understand his point (and it's factually correct) but I think this is a matter of perception.

At my old job I worked with a black lady who once had a conversation with me about this exact topic. And she said that for me, as a white person, if I saw somebody like Barack Obama walking down the street, I'd think "there goes a black man" - not in a racist way or anything, but merely as a physical observation. Whereas for her, there was a difference when it came to black men and mixed-race men, and she said she especially noticed it when she was dating, because she found most men within her own community (Jamaican/Caribbean) on average less well off, holding fewer white collar jobs, etc than mixed-race men that she'd dated.

Obviously this is anecdotal, but I guess my point is that white America might, by and large, see President Obama as a black man, whereas black America recognizes, through a wealth of personal experiences, that there is a difference.

 

[corianderstem]

In this white girl's opinion (and limited understanding), it depends on how the person in question defines their racial identity ... if they even choose to do so.

I would also say that going around pointing at people and saying "you're not really black" isn't very helpful, no matter what the race of whomever is doing the pointing.

 

[anitram]

I would also say that going around pointing at people and saying "you're not really black" isn't very helpful, no matter what the race of whomever is doing the pointing.

Totally agree.

Also hard for me to tell tell whether Morgan Freeman meant it in the "you're not really black" context or "white people would elect Barack but not a blacker black man." Not that either is really a great option...

 

[corianderstem]

Yeah, that's a good point. I can't really tell from that quote.

 

[deep]

Morgan Freeman's opinion should not be discounted.

Most likely he has had the opportunity to stand at a urinal next to the president.

 

[Salome]

he is still a communist though, isn't he?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

And Brad Pitt's mother doesn't like Obama either

Reading the online comments about the woman who died an hour after serving Obama in her restaurant=#1 reason to blow up the internet

 

[Steved1998]

You are now reading this thread in Morgan Freeman's voice

 

[Steved1998]

Only in America….. – Telegraph Blogs

I'd rather vote for the guy who gets campaign money by making $10,000 bets, not an Ivory tower elitist looking for handouts from the rich.

 

[mobvok]

High inflation is absolutely and completely disastrous for the middle and working classes - it erodes their limited savings, it makes the cost of living more expensive, obvioiusly, and though there is usually a time lag, at a basic level it makes simple household budgeting a task fraught with difficulty.

By contrast, the upper classes - the 1%'ers as we seem to be calling them these days - get by just fine in periods of high inflation. They have the contacts to pursue a diverse range of investment options and much of their net worth is invested in hard assets like property and commodities in the first place. As for the cost of living, it doesn't matter to them.

There is a very good reason why someone like Hitler arose from the ashes of a high inflation economy and there is a very good reason why Zimbabwe today, is in the mess that its in.

First, you move very smoothly from discussing the perils of "high" inflation (in the US, historically ~7%+) to citing "high" inflation for Hitler's rise. The problem is, Weimar hyperinflation at its peak was 29,500%.

That's like equating the space heater in your room with the surface of the sun. Don't look directly at either!!! They'll both incinerate all living life!!!!!

Second, follow this timeline

1923 - German hyperinflation
1930 - strong German deflation, austerity
1933 - Hitler!

There's an inconvenient bump in the "high inflation caused Hitler" narrative that you try to sand off by vaguely describing how Hitler rose "from the ashes", the problem clearly being that deflation is far closer chronologically to Hitler than hyperinflation. If you try and backpedal by saying the moral here is that 1930 Germans were so scarred by the 1923 experience that they made bad choices the opposite way, the moral of this post has now devolved from "high inflation is bad" to "economic mismanagement is bad", which is a staggeringly dull and banal point.

 

[mobvok]

FWIW*, in American history the working class has benefited from inflation reducing the real value of their nominally-pegged debts (mortgages, medical bills...) making it easier to pay off, while Wall Street and big banks (i.e, creditors) absolutely loathe it for the same reason. As our economy is stalled mainly because it's trying to shake off private sector debt, the benefit of mild inflation would far outweigh the negative effects of higher cost of living. As Canadiens said, inflation is a tool, not a moral issue.

*no pun intended

 

[financeguy]

First, you move very smoothly from discussing the perils of "high" inflation (in the US, historically ~7%+) to citing "high" inflation for Hitler's rise. The problem is, Weimar hyperinflation at its peak was 29,500%.

That's like equating the space heater in your room with the surface of the sun. Don't look directly at either!!! They'll both incinerate all living life!!!!!

Second, follow this timeline

1923 - German hyperinflation
1930 - strong German deflation, austerity
1933 - Hitler!

There's an inconvenient bump in the "high inflation caused Hitler" narrative that you try to sand off by vaguely describing how Hitler rose "from the ashes", the problem clearly being that deflation is far closer chronologically to Hitler than hyperinflation. If you try and backpedal by saying the moral here is that 1930 Germans were so scarred by the 1923 experience that they made bad choices the opposite way, the moral of this post has now devolved from "high inflation is bad" to "economic mismanagement is bad", which is a staggeringly dull and banal point.

2% is the long term average for the US. It's nothing like 7%, don't know where you're getting that from.

Even if hyperinflation is avoided, if the worst outcome in the coming years is inflation rates of say 7%, then even that is bad for the middle and working classes because even if wages rise, there is always a time lag.

 

[financeguy]

Morgan Freeman's opinion should not be discounted.

Most likely he has had the opportunity to stand at a urinal next to the president.

Has he prayed with him? And more importantly, did they pray to the right God?

 

[BVS]

Morgan Freeman is God.

 

[Danny Boy]

Morgan Freeman is Muslim, or at least he was in that Robin Hood movie with Kevin Costner.

 

[financeguy]

Morgan Freeman is Muslim, or at least he was in that Robin Hood movie with Kevin Costner.

In that case, if he sat down and broke bread and prayed with the president, they are both praying to a false god.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

And Brad Pitt's mother doesn't like Obama either

Reading the online comments about the woman who died an hour after serving Obama in her restaurant=#1 reason to blow up the internet

Oh, lord, I don't even want to know, do I?

 

[INDY500]

Strassel: Obama's Imperial Presidency - WSJ.com

Obama's Imperial Presidency
When Congress won't do what he wants, he ignores it and acts anyway.

The ObamaCare litigation is history, with the president's takeover of the health sector deemed constitutional. Now we can focus on the rest of the Obama imperial presidency.

Where, you are wondering, have you recently heard that term? Ah, yes. The "imperial presidency" of George W. Bush was a favorite judgment of the left about our 43rd president's conduct in war, wiretapping and detentions. Yet say this about Mr. Bush: His aggressive reading of executive authority was limited to the area where presidents are at their core power—the commander-in-chief function.

By contrast, presidents are at their weakest in the realm of domestic policy—subject to checks and balances, co-equal to the other branches. Yet this is where Mr. Obama has granted himself unprecedented power. The health law and the 2009 stimulus package were unique examples of Mr. Obama working with Congress. The more "persistent pattern," Matthew Spalding recently wrote on the Heritage Foundation blog, is "disregard for the powers of the legislative branch in favor of administrative decision making without—and often in spite of—congressional action."

Put another way: Mr. Obama proposes, Congress refuses, he does it anyway.

For example, Congress refused to pass Mr. Obama's Dream Act, which would provide a path to citizenship for some not here legally. So Mr. Obama passed it himself with an executive order that directs officers to no longer deport certain illegal immigrants. This may be good or humane policy, yet there is no reading of "prosecutorial discretion" that allows for blanket immunity for entire classes of offenders.

Mr. Obama disagrees with federal law, which criminalizes the use of medical marijuana. Congress has not repealed the law. No matter. The president instructs his Justice Department not to prosecute transgressors. He disapproves of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, yet rather than get Congress to repeal it, he stops defending it in court. He dislikes provisions of the federal No Child Left Behind Act, so he asked Congress for fixes. That effort failed, so now his Education Department issues waivers that are patently inconsistent with the statute.

Similarly, when Mr. Obama wants a new program and Congress won't give it to him, he creates it regardless. Congress, including Democrats, wouldn't pass his cap-and-trade legislation. His Environmental Protection Agency is now instituting it via a broad reading of the Clean Air Act. Congress, again including members of his own party, wouldn't pass his "card-check" legislation eliminating secret ballots in union elections. So he stacked the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with appointees who pushed through a "quickie" election law to accomplish much the same. Congress wouldn't pass "net neutrality" Internet regulations, so Mr. Obama's Federal Communications Commission did it unilaterally.

In January, when the Senate refused to confirm Mr. Obama's new picks for the NLRB, he proclaimed the Senate to be in "recess" and appointed the members anyway, making a mockery of that chamber's advice-and-consent role. In June, he expanded the definition of "executive privilege" to deny House Republicans documents for their probe into the botched Fast and Furious drug-war operation, making a mockery of Congress's oversight responsibilities.

This president's imperial pretensions extend into the brute force the executive branch has exercised over the private sector. The auto bailouts turned contract law on its head, as the White House subordinated bondholders' rights to those of its union allies. After the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the Justice Department leaked that it had opened a criminal probe at exactly the time the Obama White House was demanding BP suspend its dividend and cough up billions for an extralegal claims fund. BP paid. Who wouldn't?

And it has been much the same in his dealings with the states. Don't like Arizona's plans to check immigration status? Sue. Don't like state efforts to clean up their voter rolls? Invoke the Voting Rights Act. Don't like state authority over fracking? Elbow in with new and imagined federal authority, via federal water or land laws.

In so many situations, Mr. Obama's stated rationale for action has been the same: We tried working with Congress but it didn't pan out—so we did what we had to do. This is not only admission that the president has subverted the legislative branch, but a revealing insight into Mr. Obama's view of his own importance and authority.

There is a rich vein to mine here for GOP nominee Mitt Romney. Americans have a sober respect for a balance of power, so much so that they elected a Republican House in 2010 to stop the Obama agenda. The president's response? Go around Congress and disregard the constitutional rule of law. What makes this executive overreach doubly unsavory is that it's often pure political payoff to special interests or voter groups.

Mr. Obama came to office promising to deliver a new kind of politics. He did—his own, unilateral governance.

Imperial is so harsh, let's just call Barack Obama our first post-constitutional president.

 

[Canadiens1131]

Strassel: Obama's Imperial Presidency - WSJ.com



Imperial is so harsh, let's just call Barack Obama our first post-constitutional president.

Executive Order has been an increasingly-effective (and abused) tool for bypassing the two other branches since the 1950s.

For someone who enjoys U.S. History quotes for a good old anti-2012 Democratic Party circlejerk so often, you sure love to ignore it when it might undermine your point.