Your opinion on the job that President Obama is doing so far (3 Viewers)

[Statorama]

Deficit grew by 181 billion.....in July

By Walter Alarkon

Posted: 08/09/09 06:06 PM [ET]

Bailouts for financial firms and billions in tax revenue lost because of the recession drove the deficit to a record $1.3 trillion in July, according to the independent Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

Tax receipts that have fallen due to the poor economy and increased spending to save car companies, banks and mortgage firms were major contributors to the federal deficit, according to CBO, which provides official budget numbers for Congress. The federal deficit grew by another $181 billion in July.

Falling tax receipts and increased spending on bailouts for auto companies and the financial sector and for the economic stimulus package added to the deficit, according to CBO.

Spending through July of 2009 has increased by $530 billion, which is 21 percent over the same period in 2008. The bailout money for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae accounted for almost half of the spending increase. Unemployment benefits have more than doubled, Medicaid spending has grown by a quarter and Medicare spending has increased by 11 percent.

Tax revenue for the first three quarters of 2009 has fallen by approximately $350 billion, or 17 percent compared to the same period last year, due mostly to the effects of the recession on payroll, income and corporate taxes. A third of the decline is due to tax breaks in the stimulus, including the middle-class tax cut that President Obama campaigned on during last year's election.

The independent budget scorekeeper has projected the deficit to reach $1.8 trillion by the end of the fiscal year, Sept. 30. The deficit in 2008 reached $455 billion, which was a record at the time.

The latest deficit projections come as Democrats in Congress and the White House are pushing for healthcare reform criticized by Republicans as too costly.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) stressed during a town-hall meeting in Colorado this week that the healthcare bill won't add to the deficit or restrict benefits and instead will increase access to care. But lawmakers have yet to settle on a way to pay for the bill, expected to cost roughly $1 trillion over the next decade. Pelosi has supported an income surtax on the highest earners, those making more than $280,000, while senators are considering a tax on insurance companies that offer expensive health plans.

Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.), the top Republican on the Budget Committee, said that Democrats in Congress aren't doing anything to address the record deficit and are instead pushing ahead with “wildly expensive” healthcare legislation.

“To allow the deficit to hit these previously unthinkable levels – while still planning to implement massive new spending programs – shows an incredible lack of fiscal responsibility, especially toward the future generations who will be saddled with the consequences of today’s actions,” Gregg said.

One poll released last week suggests that the GOP attacks are starting to work. A Rasmussen survey of likely voters found that 71 percent believe Obama's policies have increased the deficit. While most -- 54 percent -- blamed the recession that started during the Bush administration for the country's fiscal situation, 39 percent blamed Obama's policies.

 

[RBM]

= Obamaites

 

[Statorama]

USA Today fact checks Obama's Health Care statements

Even though they miss his biggest misstatement (I have never been a proponent of single-payer healthcare), they do find a bunch.

Some of the assertions that President Obama made about his health plan at Tuesday's town-hall meeting are open to argument:

• "Under the reform we're proposing, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."

Not necessarily. In an analysis of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee bill, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that 10 million workers could lose employer-provided benefits and would have to find other insurance.

• "Insurance companies basically get $177 billion of taxpayer money to provide services that Medicare already provides."

About 10.2 million Medicare recipients are in Medicare Advantage. Under that program, the government pays insurers a set amount per Medicare beneficiary. Obama ridiculed it as costly and redundant, but the plan provides additional benefits, such as vision, dental and hearing, to seniors and helps coordinate health care for those with chronic conditions, says Robert Zirkelbach at the trade association, America's Health Insurance Plans.

• "The rumor that's been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for 'death panels' that will basically pull the plug on Grandma. ... (T)he intention. .. was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they're ready, on their own terms. ... (O)ne of the chief sponsors of this bill originally was a Republican ... (Sen.) Johnny Isakson from Georgia."

Isakson issued a press release saying Obama misused his name. A provision he attached to a Senate health care bill would allow seniors to obtain help in formulating a living will something Isakson said is different from House language. The House bill would require Medicare to pay for end-of-life counseling sessions, but it would not mandate that anyone use the benefit.

[statorama note: when I first heard it, I thought "what the heck would a Senator have to do with a congressional bill?" Glad USAT caught it]

• "AARP would not be endorsing a bill if it was undermining Medicare, OK?"

The AARP issued a press release to make it clear that it has not endorsed any particular health care proposal. "Indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate," AARP said.

 

[Statorama]

#1 for a second week - Culture of Corruption by Michelle Malkin

CULTURE OF CORRUPTION, by Michelle Malkin. (Regnery, $27.95.) President Obama and his team of tax cheats, petty crooks, influence peddlers and Wall Street cronies.

Editorial Review from Amazon.com

Product Description

In her shocking new book, Malkin digs deep into the records of President Obama's staff, revealing corrupt dealings, questionable pasts, and abuses of power throughout his administration. --This text refers to the Audio CD edition.

From the Inside Flap

The era of hope and change is dead....and it only took six months in office to kill it.

Never has an administration taken office with more inflated expectations of turning Washington around. Never have a media-anointed American Idol and his entourage fallen so fast and hard. In her latest investigative tour de force, New York Times bestselling author Michelle Malkin delivers a powerful, damning, and comprehensive indictment of the culture of corruption that surrounds Team Obama's brazen tax evaders, Wall Street cronies, petty crooks, slum lords, and business-as-usual influence peddlers. In Culture of Corruption, Malkin reveals:

* Why nepotism beneficiaries First Lady Michelle Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are Team Obama's biggest liberal hypocrites--bashing the corporate world and influence-peddling industries from which they and their relatives have benefited mightily

* What secrets the ethics-deficient members of Obama's cabinet--including Hillary Clinton--are trying to hide

* Why the Obama White House has more power-hungry, unaccountable "czars" than any other administration

* How Team Obama's first one hundred days of appointments became a litany of embarrassments as would-be appointee after would-be appointee was exposed as a tax cheat or had to withdraw for other reasons

* How Obama's old ACORN and union cronies have squandered millions of taxpayer dollars and dues money to enrich themselves and expand their power

* How Obama's Wall Street money men and corporate lobbyists are ruining the economy and helping their friends In Culture of Corruption, Michelle Malkin lays bare the Obama administration's seamy underside that the liberal media would rather keep hidden.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

USA Today fact checks Obama's Health Care statements

Even though they miss his biggest misstatement (I have never been a proponent of single-payer healthcare), they do find a bunch.

Some of the assertions that President Obama made about his health plan at Tuesday's town-hall meeting are open to argument:

• "The rumor that's been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for 'death panels' that will basically pull the plug on Grandma. ... (T)he intention. .. was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they're ready, on their own terms. ... (O)ne of the chief sponsors of this bill originally was a Republican ... (Sen.) Johnny Isakson from Georgia."

Isakson issued a press release saying Obama misused his name. A provision he attached to a Senate health care bill would allow seniors to obtain help in formulating a living will something Isakson said is different from House language. The House bill would require Medicare to pay for end-of-life counseling sessions, but it would not mandate that anyone use the benefit.

[statorama note: when I first heard it, I thought "what the heck would a Senator have to do with a congressional bill?" Glad USAT caught it]

What does the Republican Senator from Georgia think about this-

Is the Government Going to Euthanize your Grandmother? An Interview With Sen. Johnny Isakson.

Sarah Palin's belief that the House health-care reform bill would create "death panels" might be particularly extreme, but she's hardly the only person to wildly misunderstand the section of the bill ordering Medicare to cover voluntary end-of-life counseling sessions between doctors and their patients.

One of the foremost advocates of expanding Medicare end-of-life planning coverage is Johnny Isakson, a Republican Senator from Georgia. He co-sponsored 2007's Medicare End-of-Life Planning Act and proposed an amendment similar to the House bill's Section 1233 during the Senate HELP Committee's mark-up of its health care bill. I reached Sen. Isakson at his office this afternoon. He was befuddled that this had become a question of euthanasia, termed Palin's interpretation "nuts," and emphasized that all 50 states currently have some legislation allowing end-of-life directives. A transcript of our conversation follows.

Is this bill going to euthanize my grandmother? What are we talking about here?

In the health-care debate mark-up, one of the things I talked about was that the most money spent on anyone is spent usually in the last 60 days of life and that's because an individual is not in a capacity to make decisions for themselves. So rather than getting into a situation where the government makes those decisions, if everyone had an end-of-life directive or what we call in Georgia "durable power of attorney," you could instruct at a time of sound mind and body what you want to happen in an event where you were in difficult circumstances where you're unable to make those decisions.

This has been an issue for 35 years. All 50 states now have either durable powers of attorney or end-of-life directives and it's to protect children or a spouse from being put into a situation where they have to make a terrible decision as well as physicians from being put into a position where they have to practice defensive medicine because of the trial lawyers. It's just better for an individual to be able to clearly delineate what they want done in various sets of circumstances at the end of their life.

How did this become a question of euthanasia?

I have no idea. I understand -- and you have to check this out -- I just had a phone call where someone said Sarah Palin's web site had talked about the House bill having death panels on it where people would be euthanized. How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as that is nuts. You're putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don't know how that got so mixed up.

You're saying that this is not a question of government. It's for individuals.

It empowers you to be able to make decisions at a difficult time rather than having the government making them for you.

The policy here as I understand it is that Medicare would cover a counseling session with your doctor on end-of-life options.

Correct. And it's a voluntary deal.

It seems to me we're having trouble conducting an adult conversation about death. We pay a lot of money not to face these questions. We prefer to experience the health-care system as something that just saves you, and if it doesn't, something has gone wrong.

<a href="http://" target="_blank"></a>Over the last three-and-a-half decades, this legislation has been passed state-by-state, in part because of the tort issue and in part because of many other things. It's important for an individual to make those determinations while they're of sound mind and body rather than no one making those decisions at all. But this discussion has been going on for three decades.

And the only change we'd see is that individuals would have a counseling session with their doctor?

Uh-huh. When they become eligible for Medicare.

Are there other costs? Parts of it I'm missing?

No. The problem you got is that there's so much swirling around about health care and people are taking bits and pieces out of this. This was thoroughly debated in the Senate committee. It's voluntary. Every state in America has an end of life directive or durable power of attorney provision. For the peace of mind of your children and your spouse as well as the comfort of knowing the government won't make these decisions, it's a very popular thing. Just not everybody's aware of it.

What got you interested in this subject?

I've seen the pain and suffering in families with a loved one with a traumatic brain injury or a crippling degenerative disease become incapacitated and be kept alive under very difficult circumstances when if they'd have had the chance to make the decision themself they'd have given another directive and I've seen the damage financially that's been done to families and if there's a way to prevent that by you giving advance directives it's both for the sanity of the family and what savings the family has it's the right decision, certainly more than turning it to the government or a trial lawyer.

 

[Statorama]

Obama Pal George Soros restructures his stock holdings in a South American Oil Drilling Company just a few days before the U.S. Government loans the same company $2 Billion dollars.

Nothing to see here. MoveOn!

 

[Statorama]

This is not the Obama we (you) elected

Health care debate confirms this is not the Barack Obama we elected

Wednesday, August 19th 2009, 4:00 AM

Taking the stage for a town hall meeting on health care the other day, President Obama emerged from behind a curtain in a fake jog. He pumped his arms in an exaggerated fashion, but his smile looked forced as he waved and shook hands with a few audience members.

It all seemed a campaign ritual, dulled by time and beleaguered by circumstance, prompting a flashback in my head to the Paul Simon song about Joe DiMaggio.

Where have you gone, Barack Obama? Where is the sunny-side-up young man who promised to inspire and unite an unhappy nation?

Gone into the partisan sinkhole of Washington, that's where. Like some novice swimmer too confident of his own ability, Obama is suddenly finding himself in water over his head.

His flailing, including a foul habit of demonizing dissent, is not pretty. And that brief foray into e-mail tracking of critics showed a win-at-any-cost side.

Where is the appealing man we elected? Where is that Barack Obama?

Let's find him quick because the whole nation is paying the price for this impostor's irrational exuberance. Or hubris.

Americans, more of them every day, are growing disenchanted with the expansion of government and the massive pile of debt. Yet the President, certain he can change their minds if only he talks to them again, keeps trying to sell bigger as better.

The public's not buying it. And as a measure of the nation's mood, a recent poll was practically cruel: Nearly half think the President is on television too much. Ouch.

Obama fatigue occasionally surfaced during the campaign, but this is different. He's the President, and if the country tunes him out, there is no Plan B. He's the rock star-turned-salesman, and everything in his administration depends on his stage act.

That the novelty is wearing thin is obvious. The danger is that the health care fiasco turns him into an unpopular and ineffective President.

Those who say it can't happen should study a recent New York Times/CBS poll. Among the lowlights:

* Sixty-nine percent believe Obamacare will hurt the quality of their own health care.

* Seventy-three percent believe they will have less access to tests and treatment.

* Sixty-two percent believe Democrats' proposals would force them to change doctors.

* Seventy-six percent believe Obama's changes will mean higher taxes for them.

* Seventy-seven percent expect their health care costs to rise.

All those findings run counter to the claims Obama makes. Even as he talks in vague ways about what exactly he favors, he promises the bill that emerges from Congress' sausage factory will be a magic elixir.

Writing in The New York Times, he guaranteed everything for everyone: "If you don't have health insurance, you will finally have quality, affordable options once we pass reform. If you have health insurance, we will make sure that no insurance company or government bureaucrat gets between you and the care you need.

"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."

Those claims would be credible if they were a multiple-choice question, where only one is true. To say they can all happen at once is a crock, and the country knows it.

Heck, throw in a free puppy for everybody, too.

With stubborn wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and an economy still bleeding, you'd think a new President would have challenges enough. Yet Obama has plunged into the health care mess as though it is a battle of absolute necessity.

It isn't. It is his choice. And it is a mistake.

If he's the man we thought he was, he'll now choose to make peace, before the country concludes he's the mistake.

 

[Statorama]

Wee-wee? really?

 

[NCCommish]

Well I see this has turned into a link fest but as for my opinion on the Obama admin I am less than impressed and about ready to cash it in on them. I am pissed at the DNC as well for foisting all these GOP lite Blue Dogs off on us. Rahm Emanuel can go play in traffic. Sick of Democrats undermining what the people elected them as a majority to do. And the GOP is worse.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Well I see this has turned into a link fest but as for my opinion on the Obama admin I am less than impressed and about ready to cash it in on them. I am pissed at the DNC as well for foisting all these GOP lite Blue Dogs off on us. Rahm Emanuel can go play in traffic. Sick of Democrats undermining what the people elected them as a majority to do. And the GOP is worse.

Cash for clunkers ends on Monday. Better hurry.

 

[NCCommish]

Well I see this has turned into a link fest but as for my opinion on the Obama admin I am less than impressed and about ready to cash it in on them. I am pissed at the DNC as well for foisting all these GOP lite Blue Dogs off on us. Rahm Emanuel can go play in traffic. Sick of Democrats undermining what the people elected them as a majority to do. And the GOP is worse.

Cash for clunkers ends on Monday. Better hurry.

I did like that program by the way. I mean sure it was a bit of a give away but those cars sold mean more jobs for the next few months at a minimum and that has to be a good thing.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I did like that program by the way. I mean sure it was a bit of a give away but those cars sold mean more jobs for the next few months at a minimum and that has to be a good thing.

No it doesn't. It's either taxed away from other, current jobs or borrowed away from future jobs.

 

[NCCommish]

I did like that program by the way. I mean sure it was a bit of a give away but those cars sold mean more jobs for the next few months at a minimum and that has to be a good thing.

No it doesn't. It's either taxed away from other, current jobs or borrowed away from future jobs.

Yeah tell that to the people that will be able to keep their house. My money is leaving in taxes anyway rather have it go that way then another tax cut for the folks that already hold all the wealth.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I did like that program by the way. I mean sure it was a bit of a give away but those cars sold mean more jobs for the next few months at a minimum and that has to be a good thing.

No it doesn't. It's either taxed away from other, current jobs or borrowed away from future jobs.

Yeah tell that to the people that will be able to keep their house. My money is leaving in taxes anyway rather have it go that way then another tax cut for the folks that already hold all the wealth.

You know that's not the point.

 

[kupcho1]

I did like that program by the way. I mean sure it was a bit of a give away but those cars sold mean more jobs for the next few months at a minimum and that has to be a good thing.

No it doesn't. It's either taxed away from other, current jobs or borrowed away from future jobs.

Yeah tell that to the people that will be able to keep their house. My money is leaving in taxes anyway rather have it go that way then another tax cut for the folks that already hold all the wealth.

You mean like the people that run used car lots that have suffered because of "cash for clunkers"? Oh, wait a minute ...

 

[Philo]

I did like that program by the way. I mean sure it was a bit of a give away but those cars sold mean more jobs for the next few months at a minimum and that has to be a good thing.

No it doesn't. It's either taxed away from other, current jobs or borrowed away from future jobs.

Well, since the gov't isn't paying the dealers the money that was promised, it's just a screwjob with no taxing involved.

 

[NCCommish]

I did like that program by the way. I mean sure it was a bit of a give away but those cars sold mean more jobs for the next few months at a minimum and that has to be a good thing.

No it doesn't. It's either taxed away from other, current jobs or borrowed away from future jobs.

Yeah tell that to the people that will be able to keep their house. My money is leaving in taxes anyway rather have it go that way then another tax cut for the folks that already hold all the wealth.

You mean like the people that run used car lots that have suffered because of "cash for clunkers"? Oh, wait a minute ...

I doubt seriously very many of the folks that bought under this program had any intention of buying from a used lot. Or buying at all prior to this really. I know a lot of folks were interviewed who said the only thing that got them to the lot was this, otherwise they were waiting.

 

[NCCommish]

I did like that program by the way. I mean sure it was a bit of a give away but those cars sold mean more jobs for the next few months at a minimum and that has to be a good thing.

No it doesn't. It's either taxed away from other, current jobs or borrowed away from future jobs.

Yeah tell that to the people that will be able to keep their house. My money is leaving in taxes anyway rather have it go that way then another tax cut for the folks that already hold all the wealth.

You know that's not the point.

Actually it is exactly the point of why I liked the program.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I did like that program by the way. I mean sure it was a bit of a give away but those cars sold mean more jobs for the next few months at a minimum and that has to be a good thing.

No it doesn't. It's either taxed away from other, current jobs or borrowed away from future jobs.

Yeah tell that to the people that will be able to keep their house. My money is leaving in taxes anyway rather have it go that way then another tax cut for the folks that already hold all the wealth.

You know that's not the point.

Actually it is exactly the point of why I liked the program.

You like that the government picks winners and losers?

 

[kupcho1]

I doubt seriously very many of the folks that bought under this program had any intention of buying from a used lot. Or buying at all prior to this really. I know a lot of folks were interviewed who said the only thing that got them to the lot was this, otherwise they were waiting.

Many of the vehicles being traded in for more fuel-efficient models -- with the help of the government chipping in up to $4,500 toward the purchase -- are the same type that dealers would purchase for resale. But now they're being destroyed. So besides having fewer customers looking for used cars, dealers are finding that there are fewer low-cost used cars to buy and sell, and the reduced supply could hike up the cost of other used cars.Cash for Clunkers throws some into reverseDealers in used cars, parts join charities in feeling popular program’s bite

“Probably 1 out of 3 customers that pull in the lot are asking about it,” he said, but he has no rebates to offer. Only his competitors who sell new vehicles can make a Cash for Clunkers deal.

“Yeah, it’s an unfair advantage they do have,” Ackerman said.

It isn’t just dealers, who say their customers are disappearing. It’s also auto parts businesses, which fear that the cost of used parts could skyrocket as clunkers are destroyed rather than sold for parts. And it’s charities, many of which depend on donated cars to raise cash at auctions.

Unintended consequences, my friend, unintended consequences.All cash for clunkers did was accelerate the pace of new car purchases. Unfortunately, the cost is paid by the taxpayer and the businesses (see above) that weren't advantaged under the program.

 

[NCCommish]

You like that the government picks winners and losers?

When the winners aren't the incompetent jackals who cratered the economy for a change yeah. And since GM owes us money I am glad to see our investment given a boost. Cause every policy picks winners and losers. Lately the winners had all been people who were already winning.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

You like that the government picks winners and losers?

When the winners aren't the incompetent jackals who cratered the economy for a change yeah. And since GM owes us money I am glad to see our investment given a boost. Cause every policy picks winners and losers. Lately the winners had all been people who were already winning.

Ninja, please. You're too smart to spew that populist BS.

 

[kupcho1]

You like that the government picks winners and losers?

When the winners aren't the incompetent jackals who cratered the economy for a change yeah. And since GM owes us money I am glad to see our investment given a boost. Cause every policy picks winners and losers. Lately the winners had all been people who were already winning.

And it's different now. Last I checked, Dodds and Franks - two of the most incompetent of the incompetent jackals - were still in office. But if it makes you feel less bitter to think differently, well then, carry on.

 

[NCCommish]

I doubt seriously very many of the folks that bought under this program had any intention of buying from a used lot. Or buying at all prior to this really. I know a lot of folks were interviewed who said the only thing that got them to the lot was this, otherwise they were waiting.

Many of the vehicles being traded in for more fuel-efficient models -- with the help of the government chipping in up to $4,500 toward the purchase -- are the same type that dealers would purchase for resale. But now they're being destroyed. So besides having fewer customers looking for used cars, dealers are finding that there are fewer low-cost used cars to buy and sell, and the reduced supply could hike up the cost of other used cars.Cash for Clunkers throws some into reverseDealers in used cars, parts join charities in feeling popular program’s bite

“Probably 1 out of 3 customers that pull in the lot are asking about it,” he said, but he has no rebates to offer. Only his competitors who sell new vehicles can make a Cash for Clunkers deal.

“Yeah, it’s an unfair advantage they do have,” Ackerman said.

It isn’t just dealers, who say their customers are disappearing. It’s also auto parts businesses, which fear that the cost of used parts could skyrocket as clunkers are destroyed rather than sold for parts. And it’s charities, many of which depend on donated cars to raise cash at auctions.

Unintended consequences, my friend, unintended consequences.All cash for clunkers did was accelerate the pace of new car purchases. Unfortunately, the cost is paid by the taxpayer and the businesses (see above) that weren't advantaged under the program.

So what you're saying is the used car lots with good inventory just saw that inventory go up in value? And parts dealers will make more money in the long run since they already own warehouses full of parts that they paid pre-CFC prices for and weren't selling all that well prior to this?

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

I doubt seriously very many of the folks that bought under this program had any intention of buying from a used lot. Or buying at all prior to this really. I know a lot of folks were interviewed who said the only thing that got them to the lot was this, otherwise they were waiting.

Many of the vehicles being traded in for more fuel-efficient models -- with the help of the government chipping in up to $4,500 toward the purchase -- are the same type that dealers would purchase for resale. But now they're being destroyed. So besides having fewer customers looking for used cars, dealers are finding that there are fewer low-cost used cars to buy and sell, and the reduced supply could hike up the cost of other used cars.Cash for Clunkers throws some into reverseDealers in used cars, parts join charities in feeling popular program's bite

"Probably 1 out of 3 customers that pull in the lot are asking about it," he said, but he has no rebates to offer. Only his competitors who sell new vehicles can make a Cash for Clunkers deal.

"Yeah, it's an unfair advantage they do have," Ackerman said.

It isn't just dealers, who say their customers are disappearing. It's also auto parts businesses, which fear that the cost of used parts could skyrocket as clunkers are destroyed rather than sold for parts. And it's charities, many of which depend on donated cars to raise cash at auctions.

Unintended consequences, my friend, unintended consequences.All cash for clunkers did was accelerate the pace of new car purchases. Unfortunately, the cost is paid by the taxpayer and the businesses (see above) that weren't advantaged under the program.

Something jumped out at me that I didn't consider before. Do the requirements state it has to be a brand new car? If so, this seems silly. If this is a program that is supposed to increase the average fuel efficiency of the cars on the road, isn't purchasing a 3 year-off lease high MPG hybrid preferable to buying a brand new SUV?

 

[Statorama]

Obama's Healthcare Contradictions

ObamaCare's Contradictions

Over the past week, President Obama has held three town-halls to make the case for his health-care plan. While he didn't say much that he hasn't said a thousand times before, his remarks did offer another explanation for the public's skepticism of ObamaCare. Namely, the President contradicts himself every other breath. Consider:

He likes to start off explaining our catastrophe of a health system. "What is truly scary—what is truly risky—is if we do nothing," he said in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. We can't "keep the system the way it is right now," he continued, while his critics are "people who want to keep things the way they are."

However, his supporters also want to keep things the way they are. "I keep on saying this but somehow folks aren't listening," Mr. Obama proclaimed in Grand Junction, Colorado. "If you like your health-care plan, you keep your health-care plan. Nobody is going to force you to leave your health-care plan. If you like your doctor, you keep seeing your doctor. I don't want government bureaucrats meddling in your health care."

Mr. Obama couldn't be more opposed to "some government takeover," as he put it in Belgrade, Montana. In New Hampshire, he added that people were wrong to worry "that somehow some government bureaucrat out there will be saying, well, you can't have this test or you can't have this procedure because some bean-counter decides that this is not a good way to use our health-care dollars."

So no bureaucrats, no bean-counters. Mr. Obama merely wants to create "a panel of experts, health experts, doctors, who can provide guidelines to doctors and patients about what procedures work best in what situations, and find ways to reduce, for example, the number of tests that people take" (New Hampshire, again). Oh, and your health-care plan? You can keep it, as long your insurance company or employer can meet all the new regulations Mr. Obama favors. His choice of verbs, in Montana, provides a clue about what that will mean: "will be prohibited," "will no longer be able," "we'll require" . . .

Maybe you're starting to fret about all those bureaucrats and bean-counters again. You shouldn't, according to Mr. Obama. "The only thing I would point is, is that Medicare is a government program that works really well for our seniors," he noted in Colorado. After all, as he said in New Hampshire, "If we're able to get something right like Medicare, then there should be a little more confidence that maybe the government can have a role—not the dominant role, but a role—in making sure the people are treated fairly when it comes to insurance."

The government didn't get Medicare right, though: Just ask the President. The entitlement is "going broke" (Colorado) and "unsustainable" and "running out of money" (New Hampshire). And it's "in deep trouble if we don't do something, because as you said, money doesn't grow on trees" (Montana).

So the health-care status quo needs top-to-bottom reform, except for the parts that "you" happen to like. Government won't interfere with patients and their physicians, considering that the new panel of experts who will make decisions intended to reduce tests and treatments doesn't count as government. But Medicare shows that government involvement isn't so bad, aside from the fact that spending is out of control—and that program needs top-to-bottom reform too.

Voters aren't stupid. The true reason ObamaCare is in trouble isn't because "folks aren't listening," but because they are.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You like that the government picks winners and losers?

When the winners aren't the incompetent jackals who cratered the economy for a change yeah. And since GM owes us money I am glad to see our investment given a boost. Cause every policy picks winners and losers. Lately the winners had all been people who were already winning.

Ninja, please. You're too smart to spew that populist BS.

3 billion to smooth out the lives of those that have been losers versus how many trillion to the robber barons?It might be populists, but nowhere near the that blaming this on uneducated consumers for over extending their credit as they were told to do by the financial experts, and of course blame Barney Franks.

 

[NCCommish]

You like that the government picks winners and losers?

When the winners aren't the incompetent jackals who cratered the economy for a change yeah. And since GM owes us money I am glad to see our investment given a boost. Cause every policy picks winners and losers. Lately the winners had all been people who were already winning.

Ninja, please. You're too smart to spew that populist BS.

The masters of the universe let their greed lead the worlds economy to the brink 62 trillion in CDOs? Whose brilliant ####### idea was that? But hey they got their millions and millions and millions. Populist isn't a dirty word in my world sometimes allegedly populist talk is really just a truth people don't like to hear.

 

[Statorama]

NY Times blasts Obama

Seven months into his presidency, fewer than half of his top appointees are in place advancing his agenda.

Of more than 500 senior policymaking positions requiring Senate confirmation, just 43 percent have been filled so far — a reflection of a White House that grew more cautious after several nominations blew up last spring, a Senate that is intensively investigating nominees and a legislative agenda that has consumed both. …

“If you’re running G.M. without half your senior executives in place, are you worried? I’d say your stockholders would be going nuts,” said Terry Sullivan, a professor at the University of North Carolina and executive director of the White House Transition Project, which tracks appointments. “The notion of the American will — it’s not being thwarted, but it’s slow to come to fruition.” …

Mr. Obama has a more intact national security team than his predecessor at this point. But even in this area, vital offices remain open. No Obama appointee is running the Transportation Security Agency, the Customs and Border Protection agency, the Drug Enforcement Administration or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Mr. Obama still does not have an intelligence chief at the Department of Homeland Security, nor a top civilian in charge of military readiness at the Pentagon.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

3 billion to smooth out the lives of those that have been losers versus how many trillion to the robber barons?It might be populists, but nowhere near the that blaming this on uneducated consumers for over extending their credit as they were told to do by the financial experts, and of course blame Barney Franks.

The masters of the universe let their greed lead the worlds economy to the brink 62 trillion in CDOs? Whose brilliant ####### idea was that? But hey they got their millions and millions and millions. Populist isn't a dirty word in my world sometimes allegedly populist talk is really just a truth people don't like to hear.

The problem is in picking who gets the benefit and who doesn't. This reeks of favoritism and political payback.And anyway, this particular 3 billion isn't going to make anyone's lives better except in the immediate present. The payback will be painful once this bubble, which is no different than the real estate or internet bubbles, burst just like the others have.

 

[bueno]

Well I see this has turned into a link fest but as for my opinion on the Obama admin I am less than impressed and about ready to cash it in on them. I am pissed at the DNC as well for foisting all these GOP lite Blue Dogs off on us. Rahm Emanuel can go play in traffic. Sick of Democrats undermining what the people elected them as a majority to do. And the GOP is worse.

Cash for clunkers ends on Monday. Better hurry.

I did like that program by the way. I mean sure it was a bit of a give away but those cars sold mean more jobs for the next few months at a minimum and that has to be a good thing.

It did nothing to fix the basic problems with the auto industry. I'm sure Toyotal and Honda loved it though.

 

[Philo]

NY Times blasts Obama

Seven months into his presidency, fewer than half of his top appointees are in place advancing his agenda.

Of more than 500 senior policymaking positions requiring Senate confirmation, just 43 percent have been filled so far — a reflection of a White House that grew more cautious after several nominations blew up last spring, a Senate that is intensively investigating nominees and a legislative agenda that has consumed both. …

“If you’re running G.M. without half your senior executives in place, are you worried? I’d say your stockholders would be going nuts,” said Terry Sullivan, a professor at the University of North Carolina and executive director of the White House Transition Project, which tracks appointments. “The notion of the American will — it’s not being thwarted, but it’s slow to come to fruition.” …

Mr. Obama has a more intact national security team than his predecessor at this point. But even in this area, vital offices remain open. No Obama appointee is running the Transportation Security Agency, the Customs and Border Protection agency, the Drug Enforcement Administration or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Mr. Obama still does not have an intelligence chief at the Department of Homeland Security, nor a top civilian in charge of military readiness at the Pentagon.

Blasting Bush for not having everyone in place in August 2001, then in the same hole himself.

Hope and Change!

 

[CrossEyed]

Why are people like Van Jones getting such prominent positions in this administration?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Cash for Clunkers reduced net jobs, so people should find a different reason to like it.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

3 billion to smooth out the lives of those that have been losers versus how many trillion to the robber barons?It might be populists, but nowhere near the that blaming this on uneducated consumers for over extending their credit as they were told to do by the financial experts, and of course blame Barney Franks.

The masters of the universe let their greed lead the worlds economy to the brink 62 trillion in CDOs? Whose brilliant ####### idea was that? But hey they got their millions and millions and millions. Populist isn't a dirty word in my world sometimes allegedly populist talk is really just a truth people don't like to hear.

The problem is in picking who gets the benefit and who doesn't. This reeks of favoritism and political payback.And anyway, this particular 3 billion isn't going to make anyone's lives better except in the immediate present. The payback will be painful once this bubble, which is no different than the real estate or internet bubbles, burst just like the others have.

All stimulus packages have back end costs. That is the economy will grow less sometime in the future than it would have we left well enough alone. But those cost on a $3 billion programs are going to be trivial compared to the cost of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and the close to a decade of artificially low interest rates aren't they. Trivial compared to TARP and ARRA, all the new money spread by the Fed, etc.Oh, and I agree with you about picking winners and loser. Lets have some form of flat tax rates with no credits and deduction and what have you on the tax side. And on the welfare side lets just give every American poverty level cash to do as they please. And if we have national goals lets use cash rewards for success as the incentive program. But if we are not going to do things correct, lets try not to complain loudly over the $3billion program that helps the small guys while the robber barons have the Brinks trucks backed up to the Treasury and Fed.

 

[jamny]

might be time for a new poll.

 

[Gigantomachia]

Cash for Clunkers reduced net jobs, so people should find a different reason to like it.

How so, oh and,

 

[Gigantomachia]

Why are people like Van Jones getting such prominent positions in this administration?

Just to screw with you Cross.God I love Obama.

 

[jamny]

Why are people like Van Jones getting such prominent positions in this administration?

Just to screw with you Cross.God I love Obama.

Are you saying Jones' anarchism is not profit driven?

 

[Gigantomachia]

Why are people like Van Jones getting such prominent positions in this administration?

Just to screw with you Cross.God I love Obama.

Are you saying Jones' anarchism is not profit driven?

I don't think Jones is an anarchist.

 

[tommyboy]

at this rate, obama will quickly pass jimmy carter as the worst president of the last 60 years. I may have to start a new thread documenting how Obama has completely undermined the war on terror to the point where it is just a matter of time that 9/11 part 2 comes rolling along.

you get the sense with obama that he'd just as soon ruin America permanently, or more directly his goal as President is to completely #### this country up to the point its unfixable.

 

[P Boy]

you get the sense with obama that he'd just as soon run America permanently

Fixed

 

[jamny]

Why are people like Van Jones getting such prominent positions in this administration?

Just to screw with you Cross.God I love Obama.

Are you saying Jones' anarchism is not profit driven?

I don't think Jones is an anarchist.

He may not call himself one now, but 7 years ago he said:

"I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the (Rodney King) verdicts came down on April 29th," he said. "By August, I was a communist." "I met all these young radical people of color – I mean really radical: communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.' I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary," he said.

 

[P Boy]

= Obamaites

I believe the term is Obots.

 

[Gigantomachia]

He may not call himself one now, but 7 years ago he said:

"I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the (Rodney King) verdicts came down on April 29th," he said. "By August, I was a communist." "I met all these young radical people of color – I mean really radical: communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.' I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary," he said.

7 years ago I weighed 30 lbs. less, what's your point?And he has since said he is a staunch socialist--which can be found just below that claim you took off wiki-knowledge--, so like I said, he is NOT an anarachist.

 

[Gigantomachia]

at this rate, obama will quickly pass jimmy carter as the worst president of the last 60 years. I may have to start a new thread documenting how Obama has completely undermined the war on terror to the point where it is just a matter of time that 9/11 part 2 comes rolling along. you get the sense with obama that he'd just as soon ruin America permanently, or more directly his goal as President is to completely #### this country up to the point its unfixable.

 

[jamny]

He may not call himself one now, but 7 years ago he said:

"I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the (Rodney King) verdicts came down on April 29th," he said. "By August, I was a communist." "I met all these young radical people of color – I mean really radical: communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.' I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary," he said.

7 years ago I weighed 30 lbs. less, what's your point?And he has since said he is a staunch socialist--which can be found just below that claim you took off wiki-knowledge--, so like I said, he is NOT an anarachist.

Do you think he might have considered himself one when he made the comments posted?

 

[Statorama]

GDP twice as bad as Obama White House predicted

U.S. unemployment will surge to 10 percent this year and the budget deficit will widen to $1.5 trillion next year, reflecting a “deeper recession” than previously expected, White House budget chief Peter Orszag said.

The Office of Management and Budget also forecasts that the U.S. economy will shrink 2.8 percent this year, worse than the 1.2 percent contraction the OMB projected in May. For next year, the budget office said the gross domestic product will grow 2.0 percent, less than the 3.2 percent expected in May. By 2011, the economy would be well on its way to recovery, growing at a 3.8 percent annual rate, according to the administration’s mid-year economic review, released this morning.

The budget shortfall for 2010 will mark the second straight year of trillion-dollar deficits. The projected deficit for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 is higher than the $1.26 trillion forecast in May and reflects expectations economic growth will be slower this year and next because of “the severity of the crisis in the U.S. and in our trading partners,” said Christina Romer, White House chief economist, who along with Orszag briefed reporters on the report.

Obama's social programs would be an economic disaster even in the best of times. Can he be stopped before he destroys us all?

 

[tommyboy]

at this rate, obama will quickly pass jimmy carter as the worst president of the last 60 years. I may have to start a new thread documenting how Obama has completely undermined the war on terror to the point where it is just a matter of time that 9/11 part 2 comes rolling along. you get the sense with obama that he'd just as soon ruin America permanently, or more directly his goal as President is to completely #### this country up to the point its unfixable.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I'm hoping that this administration picks up a book by Friedman, Hayek, or von Mises sometime.

Put down the Keynes, Mr. President!