Why is Obama mocking this poor native American?

[Edited on August 12, 2009 at 5:45 PM. Reason : ]

8/12/2009 5:45:16 PM

because he is a racist asshole

8/14/2009 12:29:52 PM

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/dem-congressman-obama-willing-to-be-one-term-president-over-health-care.php?ref=fpblg

Quote :

"Dem Congressman: Obama Willing To Be One-Term President Over Health Care Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-IA) told a local town hall meeting that President Obama told him he would deal with health care -- even if it cost Obama re-election. Said Boswell: "And he said, 'No, if it makes me a one-term president, I'm going to, we're going to take it on because the country is in need of us taking this on.' I respected that very much.""

8/14/2009 12:49:52 PM

"I'm willing to do something that is so fucked up... so assinine... that it will ensure I'm never re-elected."

[THE DEAFENING ROAR OF APPLAUSE]

8/14/2009 1:28:28 PM

lol @SaabTurbo

8/14/2009 2:53:51 PM

One day: People need to stop spreading lies about health care.

Next day: Doctors get 50k just to amputate a leg.

Actual cost 700 bucks. Nice going prez.. .look for those numbers to keep falling.

8/14/2009 11:06:14 PM

obama's credibility is about minus 47 percent

8/14/2009 11:13:13 PM

giving ppl healthcare is assinine[sic]?

8/15/2009 1:15:56 AM

Yes us taxpayers paying for sorry-ass people on welfare and whatnots healthcare is asinine.

8/15/2009 1:18:38 AM

^ it's not the helping people I'm terribly worried about. We're already giving them free medical care while they clog up emergency rooms around the country. At least hospitals will not be going out of business anymore.

Not that I like the idea... it's easy to see that government healthcare will first undercut the private insurers for all but the rich, then their quality of service will degrade as people start horribly abusing it (just like in every other country with a socialist-style system.) Don't go to the hospital because you have a cough and want free meds when $4 cough syrup will fix you. Instead they'll be receiving $95 prescription meds, plus $195 for coming into the hospital, and just to be sure we'll run a $600 chest xray to make sure you're not dying from your common cold.

Just as an example my uncle currently has around a dozen blood sugar meters all paid for by uncle sam (he is disabled, so he's in the 'deserving' crowd - injured doing his job.) ALL of them work. The reason he has so many is that diabetes companies will telemarket him saying "hey, you can get this free meter and 2 weeks worth of strips at no cost to you, it's covered on your medicare/medicaid plan." And of course the same meter you can get at wally world for $65 is billed to the government at $325. 12 times. Times the millions of people with type 2 diabetes. Now we're taking that system and broadening it to the entire populace.

So now the day you turn 40 you'll receive calls from Viagara stating "now that you're 40 you can receive Viagara for free, covered under your government healthcare plan. Studies have shown people in your age group have a high occurrence of impotence and you can get a 30 day supply at no charge to you." Or for Alzheimer meds, or bone density, or flu shots. You see where this is going.

The only way I can see this having even a prayer for success is a heavy-duty, tiered copay system. That way someone that really needs the help can get it for $50 on a Dr. visit, and people who are middle class can pay $300 for a visit and the rich can pay $1000 for a visit. Which you know, sounds fair and stuff. This will at least provide a reason NOT to clog up the system. Oh, and due to the incredible rise in surgery that normally people would have opted out of we should all be required to donate blood at regular intervals. And plasma. And sperm, just in case. And associate high fines for avoiding these things. Taking your lunch break and donating blood so you're basically useless the rest of the day is your civic duty! Or you can pay the $500 fine so we can import blood from China at a reduced rate to pay for Bills knee surgery that is really just an inflamed joint that will go down in a week on some cheap anti-inflammatory drugs.

8/15/2009 2:45:04 AM

I think it's funny that Obama is complaining about "staged" town hall meetings we're seeing on the news and is now fighting them w/ his owned staged town halls where he screens out pretty much anyone that isn't going to nod their head and laugh when he smiles. You've got probably the highest number of people quickly approaching retirement/old age in US history and, rightfully so, they see it essentially directly affecting their life expectancy. Who would expect an outpouring of support on this? It's not as if this is a brand new system and noboby knows how it will play. There are working models of this everywhere.

8/15/2009 7:44:09 AM

^ how is he screening people out? And how is asking for skeptics to ask questions only letting in people who nod their heads and smile?

And the health reform bills can only help seniors... the myth that it would hurt them is a pure lie coming out of the right.

8/15/2009 10:46:45 AM

hey moron, do you think Obama is doing a great job? Is he all you ever expected and more?

8/15/2009 1:17:40 PM

I'm not letting some cat out of the bag by saying he's screening attendees and getting questions in advance. That is happening. He's didn't do it in New Hampshire, but it's fucking New Hampshire. As for seniors, it's not just the right sitting here scaring old people. The whole "plug on grandma" thing is just the current annoying catchphrase, but it's the truth that essentially some very difficult decisions are going to be made to people from far far away and it's a no-brainer that's going to scare the shit out of alot of people. The death squads are complete bullshit obviously but I don't buy for a second that any currently insured person, retired or not, is going to benefit from this.

8/15/2009 1:19:06 PM

Quote :

" The whole "plug on grandma" thing is just the current annoying catchphrase, but it's the truth that essentially some very difficult decisions are going to be made to people from far far away and it's a no-brainer that's going to scare the shit out of alot of people."

In what meaningful way is this the truth? Or are you arguing against the concept of the insurance company in general?

^^ Do you think he's the spawn of satan and loves nazis?

[Edited on August 15, 2009 at 1:21 PM. Reason : ]

8/15/2009 1:21:01 PM

Quote :

"^^ Do you think he's the spawn of satan and loves nazis?"

not really, but I do think he's systematically ruining the country we worked so hard to build.

8/15/2009 1:22:58 PM

^ lol

So the economy borderline collapses over the past 8 years, the US's standing in the world plummets, terrorism world-wide increases, yet it is Obama, over the past 6 months, that is "systematically ruining the country?"

haha

You really are extremely delusional, aren't you?

8/15/2009 1:26:35 PM

Quote :

"systematically"

implies intent.

really?

8/15/2009 1:30:50 PM

Quote :

"You really are extremely delusional, aren't you?"

we'll see

8/15/2009 1:49:41 PM

Even if you disagree with Obama's policies, he's actually not doing anything very radical (probably to the chagrin of his left-wing base).

Autobailouts -> This current round started under Bush, but you can find autocompanies getting explicit "bailouts" going back to Carter.

Fiscal Stimulus Package -> a popular way of fighting a recession going back to Kennedy (you could say to FDR or even Hoover, but Kennedy & congress were actually the first to craft a stimulus package based on explicitly Keynesian economic principles).

Health Care Reform -> Though I think a public option is bad idea, it is a much smaller intervention into the health care market than was pursued by LBJ when he created Medicare and Medicaid. And there is no guarantee that his plan will be as ambitious as billed.

You may disagree with all these things, but you must realize he isn't doing anything new at all. If any of this was going "ruin" America, it would have done it a long time ago.

[Edited on August 15, 2009 at 3:58 PM. Reason : ``]

8/15/2009 3:57:28 PM

The amount of spending he's doing is new to this country.

8/15/2009 4:16:21 PM

Not as a % of GDP, which is the relevant measure.

8/15/2009 4:25:33 PM

Is America better yet?

8/15/2009 4:47:05 PM

now, nothing is permanent yet, but i'm starting to feel a sense of disappointment with the Obama Administration.

i'm also willing to wait out the first year before coming to any sort of conclusions.

8/15/2009 5:47:51 PM

Quote :

"You may disagree with all these things, but you must realize he isn't doing anything new at all. If any of this was going "ruin" America, it would have done it a long time ago. "

I have to disagree a little with you Socks.

Each of those things you mentioned we're never attempted at the same time. All we have to do is look at Japan (a path we're walking close to btw) for what happens when debt isn't crammed down and massive amounts of stimulus are injected trying to prop up the economy. Now...we want to add on the burden of this new health care plan and it absolutely has the potential to be ruinous.

It's really playing with gasoline and matches to try and roll in this new health care plan in the midst of this recession. Banking in this country is the circulatory system through which everything else runs, and all we've done is tell them they can carry toxic assets on their book at whatever value they want, we've forked over untold billions to them to prevent their failure....and thats it. How do we expect that part of the system to function properly without real changes. Then we want to tack on another massive entitlement to that at the same time? Epic fail.

8/15/2009 6:08:26 PM

^^ Join the growing chorus. But keep in mind that I'm not suggesting McCain would've been so much better--he would've been a somewhat more desirable choice in a process with two rather undesirable choices.

And, no, Ron Paul was not the goddamned answer.

8/15/2009 6:18:04 PM

^^ FailBoat,

Well, I have to agree with you about the potential for long-term deficits to have serious consequences for the U.S. government's fiscal solvency. In particular, I've long worried (going back to at least 2003) that investors would start getting antsy about lending more money to the federal government because the more it barrows the more potential there is for the U.S. government to default (or more likely inflate away the real value of their debt obligations).

But, for as long as I've worried about it, there is really no evidence that investors are worried. They are not demanding any sort of "default premium" on the money they lend.
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/08/the-us-can-sell-bonds-boy-can-the-us-sell-bonds.html

I've been expecting long-term interest rates to spike for years and even told my dad to get a fixed rate mortgage in 2006 because "hey, in a few years, you'll thank me!!" (he hasn't). Yet, the spike has not really come. So, these days I am much less worried about fiscal solvency. That's partly because I am thinking our current deficits are not really all that long-term.

1) A large portion of the current deficit is coming from our presence in Iraq, which will likely continue to decrease as will eventually be true of our presence in Afghanistan.

2) Another large portion of the current deficit is coming from the drop in revenues that always accompany a recession, which will increase again as the recession comes to a close.

3) Another less large portion of the deficit is coming from the Bush 2001 tax cuts, which will expire at the end of next year. And as we are already moving out of recession (hopefully) that should also help reduce the deficit without major, negative economic consequences.

Now that isn't to say I support Obama's health care proposals, but what you're describing is problem with the entire budget. And while I think there is potential for things to get really bad if investors lose confidence in the U.S. government, I am just not as worried about it now as I was...even a few weeks ago.

[Edited on August 15, 2009 at 7:38 PM. Reason : ``]

8/15/2009 7:28:55 PM

Quote :

"So the economy borderline collapses over the past 8 years, the US's standing in the world plummets, terrorism world-wide increases,"

The economy was not collapsing the whole 8 years....mainly the last four. Two of those years was a Democrat Congress. The U.S. World standing nice point. Are you one of the pussies that says you are from Canada when you travel or are you just repeating what you heard on CNN?

Terrorism world-wide increases is somehow GWB's fault?

Quote :

"now, nothing is permanent yet, but i'm starting to feel a sense of disappointment with the Obama Administration."

Were you not the fucker that made the following obnoxious threads claiming Obama to be the Saviour?

message_topic.aspx?topic=555831
message_topic.aspx?topic=547310
message_topic.aspx?topic=546260

[Edited on August 16, 2009 at 1:35 AM. Reason : joe_schmoe]

[Edited on August 16, 2009 at 1:36 AM. Reason : Bush hating]

8/16/2009 1:30:38 AM

^ wouldn't that kinda explain then why he was disappointed?

8/16/2009 2:30:50 AM

Quote :

"The economy was not collapsing the whole 8 years....mainly the last four. Two of those years was a Democrat Congress. The U.S. World standing nice point. Are you one of the pussies that says you are from Canada when you travel or are you just repeating what you heard on CNN? Terrorism world-wide increases is somehow GWB's fault? "

It was nice of you to dust off those old right-wing talking points for us. You can now go back to your imaginary world where Bush was a great president.

8/16/2009 2:55:17 AM

Quote :

"But, for as long as I've worried about it, there is really no evidence that investors are worried. They are not demanding any sort of "default premium" on the money they lend."

Your link doesn't really doesn't tell us much in the way of investors being worried or not. We do see this

Quote :

"With many, particularly the Chinese, shifting to the shorter end of the curve from the longer end, today was an easy sale. "

And, before I explained myself I found a commenter who had done just that

Quote :

" First, you are assuming that the buyers of these bonds will not come to regret this decision. Perhaps in a year or two these buyers will look like idiots for accepting such a small return from a government running trillion dollar deficits every year. Perhaps they won't, I can't say for sure. But if they do come to regret it and this result is viewed as a bad judgement on the part of these buyers, it will tell us that yields should have been higher. Second, this ignores the fact that rates would have been lower had there not been a sharp increase in offerings. This data does not disprove the assertion that an increase in borrowings places an upward pressure on rates. Third, part of the reason why rates have been kept low is the Fed's $300b buyback program, which . If this program had never been created, we likely would have seen a rise in rates, you can't ignore this factor. Fourth, you probably should think twice about touting the success of a 3 year auction. The 10 year auction today did poorly, and it is likely that the 30 year tomorrow will also run into problems. What does this mean? Our lenders are moving from long term yields to short term yields, which essentially means that we are being put on an adjustable rate lending scheme due to our decreased creditworthiness. This is how the amount of cash we raise can stay the same each month in spite of an increase in our debt's risk. From this point of view it is perfectly logical that the 3 year would do well... but that's a cause to celebrate. "

Then there is this:

http://www.chrismartenson.com/blog/fed-buys-last-weeks-treasury-auction/23880

Quote :

"1) A large portion of the current deficit is coming from our presence in Iraq, which will likely continue to decrease as will eventually be true of our presence in Afghanistan."

Eh, what is your definition of large? The total deficit through all of 2008 was ~300 billion. Estimates for this year put it at 1.8 trillion. If tomorrow, we were to completely stop all wars and go back to pre-Iraq levels of war spending, this would remove ~300 billion in spending if we neglect other areas that could have increased spending in this time period that we can't easily see in the round total year numbers. That's 16% of the projected 2009 deficit. Not small, but not my definition of large and that 300 billion is going to take years to wind down.

Quote :

"Another large portion of the current deficit is coming from the drop in revenues that always accompany a recession, which will increase again as the recession comes to a close."

Another 16%, again, significant but not large. The revenue returning also assumes we don't double dip and everything has already begun to slowly return to normal. If that is really the case, why is the fed funds rate being left at zero? Look at the last graphic post by agentlion in the Impressive Economy thread and consider that there has been new talk of a second round of bailout because of the coming CRE bust (which traditionally lags housing by...18 months?). What will that do to the deficit as the Fed starts up a new round of MBS vacuuming?

8/16/2009 9:04:07 AM

Plenty of info out there about debt and why it matters

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/08/guest-post-frank-veneroso-on-mortgage.html

8/16/2009 10:56:55 AM

Failboat,

You seemed to have got the point of the link just fine--that the lack of a sharp increase in interest rates of tres securities is evidence that investors are not very much worried about "credit worthiness" of the U.S. government. Could investors be wrong tomorrow as the commenter suggests? Sure, I've been saying that for 6 years. Could the Fed's purchases of long-term tres securities put downward pressure on interest rate, hiding the "default premium"? Sure, but it isn't like deficits just appeared this summer. We have been seeing deficits climb at an ever increasing rate for this entire decade. And certainly interest rates have went up as a result, but we have not seen any hint of an Argentina style melt-down. If investors are actually worried about the solvency of the federal government, they are taking a long time to show it.

(Now please note that I am not saying I'm not worried at all about investors losing confidence in the government's ability to pay back its debt, just less worried than I was).

As for the rest of your post, where are you getting your numbers?????

In 2001, we had an $800 billion budget surplus. Since then, we have moved to a $1+ trillion deficit. According to NYT in June, **37%** of that 2 trillion swing can be accounted for by the current recession.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html?_r=1&hp

That seems pretty large to me. You add Iraq in there and we are talking over 50%. And that doesn't even include TARP and the stimulus, both of which are also temporary recession fighting measures. Then of course there is the Bush tax cuts, which will expire next year. It really seems hard to escape the fact that majority of this deficit is going to be gone in less than a decade (Obama pledged 50% reduction in first term and that seems right). If you have better numbers, please provide.

PS* Of course, that doesn't account for any changes in the deficit coming from health care reform. And that's one reason I am worried about Obama's plans.

[Edited on August 16, 2009 at 11:22 AM. Reason : ``]

8/16/2009 11:19:12 AM

Obama pledged a 50% reduction on the deficit after he quadrupled it. it's really not hard to make that kind of promise, you know.

but, yes, he will reduce the deficit by adding over 2 trillion dollars to it over ten years. If he's lucky.

8/16/2009 7:40:50 PM

^ "oh man, i can't have a discussion without mentioning how much i hate that obama fellow. "

8/16/2009 8:21:55 PM

Quote :

"You seemed to have got the point of the link just fine--that the lack of a sharp increase in interest rates of tres securities is evidence that investors are not very much worried about "credit worthiness" of the U.S. government."

No one said the US was on the edge of default. Our credit worthiness is only tangentially related to tacking on piles and piles of debt which in fact could cripple the economy.

Quote :

"where are you getting your numbers????? "

The CBO, but I think I've interpreted them wrong.

Quote :

"In 2001, we had an $800 billion budget surplus."

Umm, from your link

Quote :

"The Congressional Budget Office estimated then that the government would run an average annual surplus of more than $800 billion a year from 2009 to 2012. "

Quote :

"According to NYT in June, **37%** of that 2 trillion swing can be accounted for by the current recession."

I really can't wrap my brain around who came up with this figure. The CBO had projections in 2001. The yoy changes in Total Revenue from 02-08 were
34
53
73
84
95
110
129
146 (for 2009)
The actual yoy for those years were
-138.0
-70.9
97.7
273.6
253.4
161.0
-44.6

The total revenue growth for projected and actual is very close, not surprisingly as the CBO was projecting slow steady growth and what we got was a couple years of languish until the ultra low interest rates finally ignited the next bubble.

But, the thing that sorta blows my mind is how they were projecting the outlays. If you click on the link embedded in your link of the CBO estimate for Medicaid/Medicare/SS and then look at the actual numbers, they were off by miles. For instance, on page 31 of their 01 report they have this statement

Quote :

"All told, the act added an estimated $94 billion to Medicare spending from 2001 through 2010, with annual upticks starting at $4 billion in 2001 and rising to $14 billion by 2010"

Where the hell did they come up with 4 billion and 14 billion? If you look at the 90s, you can see Medicare spending grew in teh 13-17 billion range every year until 98 when it went up by 3, actually dropped by 1.7 in 99, and was up by 6.8 again in 2000. Already in 2001 the number had jumped to 21.8 billion over the previous year.

Anyway, I don't feel like going through the 190 page CBO projecting from 2001, looking at all the actual numbers since then, and trying to figure out how NYT start assigning percent changes between real numbers and a decade worth of estimates that stopped reflecting reality after the first year.

Quote :

"It really seems hard to escape the fact that majority of this deficit is going to be gone in less than a decade "

Hey, I've been here almost 10 years, in 10 more we'll find out just how wrong one of us is.

8/16/2009 9:18:28 PM

^ haha agreed. Hopefully, things will work out for the best. But at least some people are concerned about the possibility that things might not be. This admin seems overly eager to push things through without worrying about the long-term consequences.

[Edited on August 16, 2009 at 10:54 PM. Reason : ``]

8/16/2009 10:53:23 PM

doesn't that kind of describe every administration?

8/16/2009 11:40:48 PM

And the creator of the Obama Joker posters has been revealed:

Quote :

"A 20-year-old college history major of Palestinian descent who supported Rep. Dennis Kucinich's presidential candidacy is the anonymous artist who turned a Time magazine cover photo of Barack Obama into the nefarious Joker of the Batman series, The Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday. Firas Alkhateeb was home in Chicago on his winter break from the University of Illinois when he toyed around with Photoshop to come up with the image. He posted it to the picture site Flickr for friends to see his artwork, the paper reported. Months later, the doctored picture appeared on posters around the country with the word "Socialism" added to it. Alkhateeb, who dabbles in graphic arts, told the newspaper he worried about copyright infringement and so kept a low profile. He also feared a backlash for appearing to be against the president in his hometown of Chicago. Alkhateeb said he doesn't support Obama, though he likes him better than President Bush. And he doesn't think he's a socialist. "In terms of domestic policy, I don't think he's really doing much good for the country right now," he told the Times. "We don't have to 'hero worship' the guy.""

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/18/clean-slate-obama-joker-artist-revealed/

8/18/2009 10:28:46 AM

Why the hell did the police question him?

8/18/2009 11:54:22 AM

Can't be too careful with those assault posters.

In all seriousness though, unless I missed something, I don't see where the police questioned him.

8/18/2009 7:10:20 PM

Quote :

"Why the hell did the police question him?"

How dare someone poke fun at the Obama!

He is working hard out there in Washington and Martha's Vineyard to get our country trillions of dollars in debt...and this is the thanks he gets. We're lucky he even still wants to be the president.

8/19/2009 10:29:53 AM

How come there are no threads about the large increase in violence in Iraq? When Bush was in office there were new threads every day about innocents dying, but now 75 people die in a blast this morning and no threads? Oh yeah I know why, because people are still infatuated with Obama

8/19/2009 10:47:38 AM

also it wasn't obama's idea to go there in the first place. there is certainly a difference between the responsibility obama has for this violence and the responsibility bush had/has.

8/19/2009 10:53:49 AM

I agree there is a difference, but it doesn't change the fact that Obama's planned troop withdrawals might have had some effect on the increase in violence. Besides, this happened "on Obama's watch", a reason I heard countless times during Bush's presidency

Just seems pretty inconsistent, but like I said people are still infatuated with Obama

8/19/2009 10:55:42 AM

Obama assumed full responsibility when he became President. I'm not saying he could have fixed the problems by now, but that doesn't mean Bush has more responsibility (much less any) than Obama to fix it now as ^^ alluded.

8/19/2009 10:58:14 AM

obama's damned one way or another. there will not be peace in that country while we're there. and there likely will be increased violence when we leave. it was a stupid idea to begin with. we should give iraq as good of a chance to defend itself from terrorism as we can while getting the hell out of there.

[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 11:06 AM. Reason : .]

8/19/2009 11:06:06 AM

yeah, freedom for the iraqi people is a stupid idea...stick to your political guns

look, its over 6 years after the initial invasion, and its still too early to know if it was a good idea or not...but the fact still remains, Obama wanted to run for President and inherit the good and the bad...the ball is in his court

[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 11:10 AM. Reason : first sentence sarcasm, 2nd truth]

8/19/2009 11:07:43 AM

it's not a stupid idea. it's just an untenable one. i would be incredibly surprised to see a legitimately democratic and free iraq remain stable for more than a couple years after forces have left. there has not been political reconciliation of many disputes. BUT. i think the best chance for their success is for us to leave them fairly quickly.

8/19/2009 11:12:43 AM

We have given them freedom. Freedom to kill eachother like they've always wanted to.

Mission Accomplished.

8/19/2009 11:54:06 AM