American Politics during the Obama Presidency

I actually liked watching Obama on the campaign trail. I didn't then (and certainly don't now) agree with much of his domestic agenda or economic policies, but I thought that he had the right ideas on foreign policy. I still feel the same way today, although his domestic and economic agendas have been an even bigger disaster than I thought they could be.

Today, however, I'm struck by how tone deaf the guy is. He's giving a speech right now in Ohio. He clearly just doesn't get it. He continues to blame everyone else for where we are today, without taking any responsibility himself. Frankly, it's remarkable to hear the lies coming out of his mouth about the economy and how he's creating jobs, and the past administration is responsible for all job losses. Right now he's arguing that the Bush tax cuts for top income earners can't go into effect because we can't afford it. He appears to think people are too stupid to connect the dots after the Democrats' reckless spending of trillions of dollars over the past two years. The arrogance is there for all to see.

The most astonishing thing, however, is that he seems completely unaware that his excuses don't work anymore. It's worse than that. It actually turns folks away from him. His policy appears to be simply to pass the buck wherever and whenever possible, while trying to claim credit where none is due. Either his advisers are as tone deaf as he is, or he simply cannot find an ounce of candor in himself. If someone just told him to take some responsibility and chart a course, people would start to forgive him and might actually believe a few of the words coming out of his mouth. But, he appears physically incapable of doing so. It's as if he believes he can walk on water, even as he's completely submerged. Truly remarkable.

I didn't believe that Democrats could actually make things worse for themselves before the next election, but Obama is leading these lemmings right off the cliff. It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion. It's painful, but somehow you can't take your eyes off it.

I'd like to see both an expanded farm worker guest worker program and a expanded legal immigration program.

Except for the fact that I know you are just being snarky, I'd ask if you have anything substantive to backup your comments about voting patterns of amnesty immigrants? Or wonder about what wild story you'd come up with to explain why "red" California has had one Democratic governor since 1986? Or why you assume that illegals will automatically vote Democratic? But since I know you are just tweaking me, I won't bother.

Another fine mess brought to you by the Obama administration:

Rate Increases Are Blamed on Health-Care Overhaul; White House Questions Logic.

[url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703720004575478200948908976.html#mod=most_emailed_day[/url]

So, instead of reining in rates, they've actually increased [b]more[/b] than they otherwise would have. These are for the individual plans that so many here were squawking about, as well as plans for small businesses. I don't know whether the online WSJ edition includes the chart from the print edition, but several insurers broke out that portion of the rate increase directly attributable to ObamaCare [i]on top of[/i] the remaining increase.

The White House questions the insurers' logic. Here's the insurers' logic: When you mandate increased benefits, such as insurance for "children" until they're 26, no pre-existing condition exclusions, etc., etc., the cost to provide the expanded coverage goes up. Seems pretty logical to me. But, of course, Obama and his ilk can do no wrong, so obviously the insurance companies must be lying. Right. Just like the publicly traded companies who forecast that ObamaCare would cost them billions were lying, even though they were required to include these forecasts in their SEC disclosures. Everyone is lying or at fault except Obama.

Meanwhile, the cost of insurance in Massachusetts (the model for ObamaCare) continue to spiral out of control. Obviously, the folks in Massachusetts are lying, too. After all, they elected Scott Brown to fill Ted Kennedy's seat to try to fend off ObamaCare.

So, all of you who bought the free lunch that the Democrats were selling -- that ObamaCare would control costs -- were completely hoodwinked. Government has [b]never[/b] been good at controlling costs in any respect. It will be no different here. There's no free lunch.

Obama happen to be the first black president in America. In that context, it was historic and the rest of the world cheer and embrace him.

On the homefront, he was and is abominable to a certain segment of our society. As individuals, we are what we are, and we arrive to that point from our cultural background and life experiences. Thus we have our individual prejudices and opinions. Be very clear, I am not talking about outright racism, but people are always going to be very comfortable with their own kind (culturally) So on the issue of immigration, I feel that's where we are. Economically, as America struggle, this will come to the forefront in a big way. We already can see in France, the deporting of gypsies and not allowing the covering of the head by Muslim women. True, these examples do not measure up to the ransacking and raping of the Chinese community following the financial meltdown in Jakarta in 1997.

I guess I got carried away, just trying to say why there is so much passion when the discussion comes around to Obama.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]If you knew what a fact was, it would be easier to find one.[/QUOTE]If you knew anything that would be amazing. Try checking out the video link I posted. I will let Cheney make the fact in point.

[QUOTE=Miamipro]Yet sill no response to my last post. I guess you can't argue with facts.[/QUOTE]This is true. In his attempt to exaggerate Obama's spending, Doppelganger resorted to a CNN list of spending spanning several years, which included spending under Bush, and tried to pass it off as all Obama's spending.

This the same individual who claimed the true cost of the Stimulus (ARRA) projected by CBO @ 10 years was $327 Trillion. Aside from forgetting the decimal point in 3.27, what he failed to mention was that this was not an official CBO estimate. It was a response to a Republican from Wisconsin, Paul Ryan, who asked the CBO to estimate the impact of permanently extending more than 20 provisions in ARRA for 10 years. As CBO noted in it's letter to Ryan, these provisions are NOT in place for 10 years under ARRA. The official 10-year CBO cost estimate remains at $787 billion.

Now what would be the reason for a Republican to submit such a request to the CBO? Obviously, to provide an inflated number which can be peddled over the blogosphere to try to fool people.

Everything Doppelganger says needs to be fact-checked. And Wild Walleye as well!

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]Another fine mess brought to you by the Obama administration:

Rate Increases Are Blamed on Health-Care Overhaul; White House Questions Logic.

[url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703720004575478200948908976.html#mod=most_emailed_day[/url]

So, instead of reining in rates, they've actually increased [b]more[/b] than they otherwise would have. These are for the individual plans that so many here were squawking about, as well as plans for small businesses. I don't know whether the online WSJ edition includes the chart from the print edition, but several insurers broke out that portion of the rate increase directly attributable to ObamaCare [i]on top of[/i] the remaining increase.

The White House questions the insurers' logic. Here's the insurers' logic: When you mandate increased benefits, such as insurance for "children" until they're 26, no pre-existing condition exclusions, etc., etc., the cost to provide the expanded coverage goes up. Seems pretty logical to me. But, of course, Obama and his ilk can do no wrong, so obviously the insurance companies must be lying. Right. Just like the publicly traded companies who forecast that ObamaCare would cost them billions were lying, even though they were required to include these forecasts in their SEC disclosures. Everyone is lying or at fault except Obama.

Meanwhile, the cost of insurance in Massachusetts (the model for ObamaCare) continue to spiral out of control. Obviously, the folks in Massachusetts are lying, too. After all, they elected Scott Brown to fill Ted Kennedy's seat to try to fend off ObamaCare.

So, all of you who bought the free lunch that the Democrats were selling -- that ObamaCare would control costs -- were completely hoodwinked. Government has [b]never[/b] been good at controlling costs in any respect. It will be no different here. There's no free lunch.[/QUOTE]I think you are right on the mark, my health insurance has already increased 13.5% since the bill became law. This was an unusual mid year increase that came shortly after the law was singed.

Thank you Mr. President!

Esten, yes the decimal was omitted in error (it is $3.27 Trillion) but the link to the website was included for "fact checking". You don't dispute the number you just make excuses as to why it is so large. Just as you don't disput the numbers listed on the CNN documentation but try to obscure the facts by blaming it on Bush. In case you have not noticed - folks are buying that bill of goods any more.

You keep referring to $787 Billion for the cost of the Stimulus / ARRA of 01/29/2009 when the true cost with all the add ons is really now at least $836 Billion; even the Democrats are using this number and not the $787 Billion you continue to refer to.

The Congressional Budget Office's website does not concur with your claim the total cost of the Stimulus is $787 over 10 years, point of fact they have revised their number upward on the cost which is still not know. I would remind you of CBO cost estimate of Medicare, after 10 years their cost estimate was under the actual cost by a factor of 10.

If you look back at previous Federal Programs which we now have the ACTUAL COST numbers for you find the Congressional Budget Office significantly under estimated nearly every one of them.

Regarding the TARP spending, there was a revision of TARP in January 2009 and the referenced TARP spending by Obama – not Bush – occurred after that revision. I make the same argument with you as Maimipro – do you contend George Bush continued the spending after leaving office and after Obama was sworn in? You surely are not trying to tell me Bush fired the GM CEO, took over GM & Chrysler, funneled more money to AIG excreta, excreta, after Obama was sworn into office. These actions were taken with TARP funds by Obama not Bush and therefore add to his spending not Bush's.

How about the Bush Tax Cuts, Democrats are abandoning Obama in such numbers his proposal is dead on arrive in the House & Senate. Even his former budget director Peter Orszag recommends continuing ALL the tax Bush Tax Cuts for at least 2 more years.

Since Obama's definition of "rich" as married couples making a combined income of over $250,000, such a position will have a severe impact on small business. Depending on the legal formation of the company (Sub C, Sub S, LLP, LLC, excreta) and the accounting method used many will have "incomes" greater than $250K even though they did not receive that much in true income. Many of my clients are about to be caught in this trap.

I make the same challenge to you as I did to Maimipro, talk to me about Obama and Democracy after Nov. 2nd, but I assume you fall into the same category of those who believe the poor, huddled, unwashed masses are too stupid to know what is best for them and need the Liberal Elite to show them the way. The Liberal Elites and their talking heads are describing the current voter dissatisfaction with government as "stupid", "temper tantrums", "immature", "childish" just to name a few. Did you catch Bill Moyer on Larry King? He makes the Liberal Elite point very well.

[QUOTE=Esten]This is true. In his attempt to exaggerate Obama's spending, Doppelganger resorted to a CNN list of spending spanning several years, which included spending under Bush, and tried to pass it off as all Obama's spending.[/QUOTE]"(CNSNews. Com) - In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U. S. Presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan."

"At the end of fiscal year 1989, which ended eight months after President Reagan left office, the total federal debt held by the public was $2.1907 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That means all U. S. Presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan had accumulated only that much publicly held debt on behalf of American taxpayers. That is $335.3 billion less than the $2.5260 trillion that was added to the federal debt held by the public just between Jan. 20, 2009, when President Obama was inaugurated, and Aug. 20, 2010, the 19-month anniversary of Obama's inauguration."

From zerohedge:

"Nine States Did Not File Initial Claims Data Due To Labor Day, Hundreds Of Thousands Of Estimates In Data "Beat"

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/09/2010 08:16 -0500

The BLS has announced that as a result of the Labor Day weekend, 9 states (among which the biggest one California) did not report initial claims data to the bean counters, so instead the government had to "estimate" what the data would have been: yep, estimate, what the data was in these nine states. From Bloomberg: "For the latest reporting week, nine states didn't file claims data to the Labor Department in Washington because of the Labor Day holiday earlier this week, a department official told reporters. California and Virginia estimated their figures and the U. S. Government estimated the other seven." Official data is now made up on the fly. This US economic data reporting has just entered the twilight zone. Also, when the data is officially made up, it is not that difficult to get data that is "better than expected." The full list of states is: DC, Illinois, Idaho, Hawaii, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Washington. California and Virginia estimated themselves."

I guess Obama has been taking lessons from Argentina on making up statistics.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]From zerohedge:

"Nine States Did Not File Initial Claims Data Due To Labor Day, Hundreds Of Thousands Of Estimates In Data "Beat"

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/09/2010 08:16 -0500

The BLS has announced that as a result of the Labor Day weekend, 9 states (among which the biggest one California) did not report initial claims data to the bean counters, so instead the government had to "estimate" what the data would have been: yep, estimate, what the data was in these nine states. From Bloomberg: "For the latest reporting week, nine states didn't file claims data to the Labor Department in Washington because of the Labor Day holiday earlier this week, a department official told reporters. California and Virginia estimated their figures and the U. S. Government estimated the other seven." Official data is now made up on the fly. This US economic data reporting has just entered the twilight zone. Also, when the data is officially made up, it is not that difficult to get data that is "better than expected." The full list of states is: DC, Illinois, Idaho, Hawaii, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Washington. California and Virginia estimated themselves."

I guess Obama has been taking lessons from Argentina on making up statistics.[/QUOTE]Now I'm haunted by this vision of Halle Berry, playing Michelle Obama on the silver screen, singing "Don't cry for me, A-me-RI-ca..."

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]I guess Obama has been taking lessons from Argentina on making up statistics.[/QUOTE]You took the words right out of my keyboard. It started with "created or saved". Listening to Obama's speech yesterday, the BS was so thick you started to wonder whether Chavez was writing his teleprompted talking points. Perhaps Obama should go talk to Fidel Castro. Even he conceded yesterday that socialism doesn't work, but Obama hasn't learned that lesson yet, and we're the ones that are going to pay for it. The Silver Lining: At least we'll have Cuban style health care while we're all making $20 a week. Everyone will be the same -- dirt poor -- and then Obama can claim that he achieved equality.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]You took the words right out of my keyboard. It started with "created or saved". Listening to Obama's speech yesterday, the BS was so thick you started to wonder whether Chavez was writing his teleprompted talking points. Perhaps Obama should go talk to Fidel Castro. Even he conceded yesterday that socialism doesn't work, but Obama hasn't learned that lesson yet, and we're the ones that are going to pay for it. The Silver Lining: At least we'll have Cuban style health care while we're all making $20 a week. Everyone will be the same -- dirt poor -- and then Obama can claim that he achieved equality.[/QUOTE]Hopefully, in approximately 26 months we can achieve some measure of equality by placing Obama in the same status as 14.9 million fellow Americans, unemployed (although we all know the real number is much higher)

A link on another website turned up a story in the Augusta, Georgia [u]Chronicle[/u], about "When Augusta Licensed Its Prostitutes." (World War II)

Two useful comments followed the story:

[quote]Legalization could help President Obama with his unemployment numbers.[/quote][quote]Legalization would also help Obama with his tax revenue as they would be forced to submit tax returns rather than work for cash.[/quote]Yeah, it might help, but would the chicas have to join the SEIU?:p

[QUOTE=Westy]Now I'm haunted by this vision of Halle Berry, playing Michelle Obama on the silver screen, singing "Don't cry for me, A-me-RI-ca."[/QUOTE]Really not a bad scenerio. After all, we all love Argentina the way it is. If they clean up their act, it would be the "good" ole USA. Back in the 70 & 80s, the massage scene in Los Angeles was a monger's dream. Sunset Strip was jigglling and jiving. And downtown had the dance halls. Both Whites and Blacks women were coming out of the woodwork to work. This was followed by the Koreans and Vietnamese. Down the road was Tijuana, and Las Vegas and Nevada offered even more options.

A golden era. Well, you know my history now.