Obama's SOTU: Stuck On Stupid Lies

[BeAChooser]

How would I characterize Obama's SOTU address?

Let's see …

Stuck On Stupid?

A pack of lies?

Or Both.

For example, during the speech (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-state-union-address ) he said

By the time I took office, we had a one year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade.

Seems Obama is trying to blame Bush for everything. But the fact is almost all democrats, including Obama, voted for the spending in the final months of 2008 that drove the deficit that year over $1 trillion. In fact, he actively encouraged his party to support that spending.

And the second part of his statement is an outright lie. Back in May of 2009, during a highly touted press conference that Obama gave to promote his health care agenda, he claimed that he inherited projected deficits of $9.3 trillion dollars. Here are his precise words back then:

if we had done nothing, if you had the same, old budget as opposed to the changes we made in our budget, you'd have a $9.3 trillion deficit over the next 10 years.

He went on to say

Because of the changes we've made, it's going to be $7.1 trillion. ... snip ... Now, that's not good, but it's $2.2 trillion less than it would have been if we had the same policies in place when we came in. ... snip ... And the steps that we've taken so far have reduced federal spending over the next 10 years by $2.2 trillion."

Of course, that wasn't true at all. And that fact was pointed out to the Obama administration by various sources back then (and I noted it here at JREF, too). You see, the CBO stated in a March 2009 report (http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cach...rent+law+assumptions&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us ), which the administration had previously cited so Obama must have read it (in fact, the $9.3 trillion figure comes from that report but not in the way Obama described it), that

The cumulative deficit from 2010 to 2019 under the President's (BAC - Obama's) proposals would total $9.3 trillion, compared with a cumulative deficit of $4.4 trillion projected under the current-law assumptions embodied in CBO's baseline (BAC - Bush's).

In other words, Obama didn't inherit projected deficits of $8 trillion (or $9.3 trillion) over the next decade. He inherited a projected deficit of only $4.4 trillion. And rather than cutting deficits by $2.2 trillion like he claimed in May, he's actually added programs that will balloon the national debt by more than $6.5 trillion over the next 10 years (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123871911466984927.html). And more projected debt is being added daily by his administration. So for Obama to claim now that he inherited an $8 trillion dollar projected 10 year increase in the national debt only confirms what I said back then … that he and his staff are either baldfaced liars or they are totally incompetent (because they are unable to comprehend the very clear language on the very first page of the CBO report they clearly read).

And there are many more examples of dishonesty or incompetence in Obama's SOTU speech. For example, you'd think that a former President of the Harvard Law Review whose knowledge of the law and intelligence is openly touted by his supporters, would at least get the facts right when citing case law. But apparently, even that is beyond Obama …

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTVkODZiM2M0ODEzOGQ3MTMwYzgzYjNmODBiMzQzZjk=

Tonight the president engaged in demogoguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that last week's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, "open[ed] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities." 



The president's statement is false.



The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or anything of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication... ." 


And the NYTimes agrees with the assessment that Obama was untruthful:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/justice-alitos-reaction/

This time, Justice Alito shook his head as if to rebut the president’s characterization of the Citizens United decision, and seemed to mouth the words “not true.” Indeed, Mr. Obama’s description of the holding of the case was imprecise. He said the court had “reversed a century of law.”

The law that Congress enacted in the populist days of the early 20th century prohibited direct corporate contributions to political campaigns. That law was not at issue in the Citizens United case, and is still on the books.

So like I said, Obama's either a liar or incompetent.

Then there's the issue of unemployment. During the SOTU speech he claimed:

if we had allowed the meltdown of the financial system, unemployment might be double what it is today.

Need I remind everyone that when promoting the stimulus spending back in February of last year, he claimed analyses predicted that if the stimulus bill wasn't passed, unemployment would peak at about 9 percent (and if it was passed it would only rise to about 8 percent). Yet here we are with unemployment over 10 percent and still rising. But he even had the gaul to claim back in July that "the stimulus package is working exactly as we had anticipated." And now he's claiming that had there been no stimulus spending unemployment would have been over 20 percent now. I ask you, what does he base this on? Why should we believe him now when he was so wrong previously? Why doesn't he cite his source for this claim? I think it's because it's just more demagoguery. And, by the way, if you want to claim that he was only talking about the TARP effort in the above sentence (saving the financial system), then I need only point out that TARP was initiated under the Bush administration, not by Obama's.

And regarding the effectiveness of the stimulus, he claimed in the SOTU

Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. 200,000 work in construction and clean energy. 300,000 are teachers and other education workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers, and first responders.

Again, what does he base this on? As pointed out here, http://www.rgj.com/article/20100127/NEWS12/100127058 , "In December, the administration reported that recipients of direct assistance from the government created or saved about 650,000 jobs" and even that number was soon discovered to be highly unreliable (on the high side) by numerous sources. And here we are a month later with him now claiming 2 million jobs saved? I say prove it. Show us your source for this claim and let's see if it stands up to close scrutiny.

Obama's statement on saved jobs is best characterized by what democrat Max Baucus told Geither back in March (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96P7RC80&show_article=1 ):

"If the economy loses 2 million jobs over the next few years, you can say yes, but it would've lost 5.5 million jobs. If we create a million jobs, you can say, well, it would have lost 2.5 million jobs," Baucus said. "You've given yourself complete leverage where you cannot be wrong, because you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct."

And don't you remember Obama telling us last January regarding the stimulus that "MOST of the money that we are investing as part of this plan will get out the door immediately, and go directly to job creation, generating or saving 3 to 4 million new jobs." Well clearly most of the money is still unspent. And where are the "new" jobs? Come on folks, just admit that Obama is a serial liar. Every speech he gives is filled with lies … so many that he and his staff can't even keep them straight any more. And they are counting on you being too stupid to see it.

Consider his populist claims about banks in the SOTU address. He said

So I supported the last administration's efforts to create the financial rescue program. And when we took the program over, we made it more transparent and accountable. As a result, the markets are now stabilized, and we have recovered most of the money we spent on the banks.

To recover the rest, I have proposed a fee on the biggest banks. I know Wall Street isn't keen on this idea, but if these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need.

But he's not proposing a fee, he's proposing a tax. And that tax doesn't just apply to the banks that took money during the bailout but all banks. He's being utterly dishonest in his description of what's proposed but thinks he can get away with it because he thinks Americans are stupid.

Here's another lie in his speech:

We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families … snip … we haven't raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime.

First of all, as pointed out here, http://www.atr.org/state-union-myth-factbr-obamas-new-a4456# , it is impossible to cut taxes for 95 percent of working families when according to the IRS, fully one-third of all tax returns owed no income tax last year. These people cannot see their taxes cut any further and anything given to them is "pure spending".

And not one dime on a single person? From the same source:

Obama, Pelosi, and Reid may not have raised income taxes last year, but they surely tried to. Last year’s administration budget submission had dozens of tax hikes. The health care legislation they are still pushing has 18 separate tax hikes. All told, ATR has calculated that President Obama proposed or supported $2.1 trillion in tax hikes in 2009.

And what about future taxes? Don't they count? This, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123871911466984927.html , estimates the future taxes on that extra $6.5 trillion in debt will amount to over $163,000 per income tax paying family of four (in current dollars). Or are democrats under the illusion that debt need not be repaid?

And, remember, when Obama took office and first used this "not one dime" phrase, he promised that throughout his term, Americans earning less than $250,000 wouldn't see their taxes raised. But what is the bank "fee" he's proposed other than a tax that will surely be passed on to those people in the form of higher 401(k) fees, higher bank fees, higher mortgage and credit card interest rates, and lower interest rates on savings.

In fact, according to http://www.atr.org/state-union-myth-factbr-obamas-new-a4456#, under democrat legislation, "the top two tax rates (which two-thirds of small business profits face) would rise from 33 and 35 percent today to 36 and 39.6 percent in 2010. The return of the itemized deduction and personal exemption phase-outs would take the mathematical effective top marginal tax rate to 41.6 percent. The top capital gains rate would rise from 15 to 20 percent. The top dividends rate would skyrocket from 15 to 39.6 percent. This would be a body blow to everyone’s IRA and 401(k) as the stock market priced in this new tax wedge."

In short, Obama's speech was nothing more than populist demagoguery.

Regarding health care, Obama says in the SOTU:

And according to the Congressional Budget Office – the independent organization that both parties have cited as the official scorekeeper for Congress – our approach would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades.

What is it with Obama and the CBO? Turns out he's wrong again …

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...dermines-dems-claim-on-health-care-reform.php

December 20, 2009

As I noted yesterday, Democratic aides were ecstatic about a key CBO finding: "CBO expects that the legislation, if enacted, would reduce federal budget deficits over the ensuing decade relative to those projected under current law--with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range around one-half percent of GDP."

This, they claimed, implied that the health care bill could reduce deficits by as much as $1.3 trillion from 2020-2029--double the first draft of the Reid bill, which, based on a different CBO analysis, leadership aides claimed would reduce the deficit by as much as $650 billion.

Well, they may have to backtrack now.

"CBO has discovered an error in the cost estimate released yesterday related to the longer-term budgetary effects of the manager's amendment to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," reads a new blog post by CBO chief Doug Elmendorf. "All told, CBO expects that the legislation, if enacted, would reduce federal budget deficits over the decade after 2019 relative to those projected under current law--with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP."

In fact here's the letter that Elmondorf sent Harry Reid:

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/cbo-corrects-healthcare-savings-estimate

CBO Corrects Healthcare Savings Guess

December 20, 2009

… snip ...

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has discovered an error in the cost estimate released on December 19, 2009, related to the longer-term effects on direct spending of the manager’s amendment to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), Senate Amendment 2786 in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 3590 (as printed in the Congressional Record on November 19, 2009).

Correcting that error has no impact on the estimated effects of the legislation during the 2010–2019 period. However, the correction reduces the degree to which the legislation would lower federal deficits in the decade after 2019.

… snip ...

All told, CBO expects that the legislation, if enacted, would reduce federal budget deficits over the decade after 2019 relative to those projected under current law—with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP. In comparison, the extrapolations in the initial estimate implied a reduction in deficits in the 2020–2029 period that would be in a broad range around one-half percent of GDP. The imprecision of these calculations reflects the even greater degree of uncertainty that attends to them, compared with CBO’s 10-year budget estimates. The expected reduction in deficits would represent a small share of the total deficits that would be likely to arise in that decade under current policies.

Since there is no way Obama was unaware of that letter to the Senate Majority leader, one can only logically conclude that Obama tried to deceive the public in the SOTU address. In short, he lied. Or, as I've alternately suggested, he and his staff are so Stuck On Stupid that they couldn't understand the CBO chief's letter.

Besides …

http://dailycaller.com/2010/01/10/c...-consistently-wrong-on-health-care-estimates/

Congressional Budget Office consistently wrong on health-care estimates

1/10/10

…snip …

There are a number of problems associated with CBO’s estimates. Some have to do with the games Congress itself plays with numbers. In the case of highly complex programs like health care, a myriad of variables can throw estimates off. In fact, the government’s track record for estimating health-care program costs is poor.

Congress usually asks CBO to judge a bill’s budget impact over 10 years. In the case of health-care reform, Congress is seeking to fudge the budget impact of the program by starting the program in 2013. But the CBO’s 10-year estimates start with 2010, so that they actually include costs for seven program years.

In addition, the CBO estimates show costs rising dramatically over time. “The estimate on the Senate bill could give the impression the program will cost $85 billion a year,” said Marron.

But the CBO estimate shows costs of more than $200 billion at year 10 and rising. In other words, costs for the original Senate bill could run well over $2 trillion during the second decade of the program.

… snip …

There is evidence that governments chronically underestimate health-care program costs. A report released over the summer by Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) argues that “health care appears to be an area with great room for overly optimistic assumptions regarding” changes in the behavior of patients and providers, the impact of technology, future health cost inflation and the likely success of cost controls.

The report cites numerous instances of faulty health-care estimates from Medicare and Medicaid, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), the Massachusetts universal-coverage plan and the United Kingdom’s National Health Service.

In fact ...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/12/cbo_real_10year_cost_of_senate.asp

December 19, 2009

… snip …

The Congressional Budget Office's score is in for the final Senate health bill, and it's amazing how little Americans would get for so much.

The Democrats are irresponsibly and disingenuously claiming that the bill would cost $871 billion over 10 years. But that's not what the CBO says. Rather, the CBO says that $871 billion would be the costs from 2010 to 2019 for expansions in insurance coverage alone. But less than 2 percent of those "10-year costs" would kick in before the fifth year of that span. In its real first 10 years (2014 to 2023), the CBO says that the bill would cost $1.8 trillion -- for insurance coverage expansions alone. Other parts of the bill would cost approximately $700 billion more, bringing the bill's full 10-year tab to approximately $2.5 trillion -- according to the CBO.

In those real first 10 years (2014 to 2023), Americans would have to pay over $1 trillion in additional taxes, over $1 trillion would be siphoned out of Medicare (over $200 billion out of Medicare Advantage alone) and spent on Obamacare, and deficits would rise by over $200 billion. They would rise, that is, unless Congress follows through on the bill's pledge to cut doctors' payments under Medicare by 21 percent next year and never raise them back up -- which would reduce doctors' enthusiasm for seeing Medicare patients dramatically.

And what would Americans get in return for this staggering sum? Well, the CBO says that health care premiums would rise, and the Chief Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services says that the percentage of the Gross Domestic Product spent on health care would rise from 17 percent today to 21 percent by the end of 2019. Nationwide health care costs would be $234 billion higher than under current law. How's that for "reform"?

Reality just isn't the way Obama painted it.

In any case, let's move on. To how Obama claims he'll solve the deficit problem:

Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected.

What else can one call this but dishonest or Stuck On Stupid when what Obama proposes would amount to less than 1% of deficit spending (http://www.rgj.com/article/20100127/NEWS12/100127058 )? Furthermore, during the presidential campaign Obama criticized McCain for suggesting a similar freeze. What has changed other than his political situation as a result of Massachusetts? Did he think we wouldn't recall his previous position?

He also said we need to encourage

businesses to stay within our borders, it's time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs in the United States of America.”

But what's the real situation on international corporate taxes? What tax breaks is Obama talking about?

http://www.atr.org/atrf-analysis-administration-proposals-reform-u-a4279

The United States has the highest federal corporate tax rate in the world, at a staggering 35 percent. This is almost 15 percent higher than the OECD average, and more than double the rate of high-growth economies like Switzerland and Ireland.

More insidiously, the U.S. is one of only a handful of countries to violate principles of national sovereignty and to tax worldwide income, forcing American businesses overseas to pay tax twice.

… snip …

Now the Obama Administration wants to make this even worse. Yet while the whole world is moving to a tax system based on territoriality (taxing income only once in the country it is earned) so their businesses can stay competitive, the Obama Administration wants us to do the exact opposite. They have proposed 11 tax hikes on American businesses overseas. While the technical details of these proposals are still missing, one thing is clear: rather than helping Americans, the Obama Administration has proposed a staggering $200 billion of tax hikes on American companies trying to compete in the world market.

Is it any wonder companies are moving overseas, folks? And Obama thinks he's going to do that by raising taxes on American companies? I think that's called being Stuck On Stupid.

Finally, how about what Obama said regarding national defense in the SOTU? Given how little time he devoted to it compared to previous Presidents, it's certainly doesn't seem to be on his front burner. Where was the discussion of Guantanamo Bay, the terrorist detainees being tried on US soil, and the Flight 253 attempted attack, all of which are bound to have a major impact on the lives of Americans? Where was the discussion of troop losses in Afghanistan (which are dramatically up this year) and what we are fighting for there (given we will soon have 100,000 troops committed in the country)? Does he know? After all, he only mentioned freedom once. Democracy twice. Liberty not at all. Terrorism just 3 times (despite polls showing it's a close third behind the economy and jobs in the public's priorities, and despite the priority of fighting terrorism having actually risen from last January … http://people-press.org/report/584/policy-priorities-2010. ). Israel isn't mentioned at all (despite resolving the palestine issue having been a centerpiece of his agenda going into office). Frankly, the fact that Napolitano (who fell asleep during the SOTU address, by the way … http://www.cristyli.com/?p=5336 ) is still Homeland Security Chief despite all the idiocy she's uttered says it all.

Seriously, Obama just doesn't get it. Clearly, he didn't learn anything from what happened in Massachusetts' special election. He's in complete denial regarding the economic situation and the wishes of the public regarding healthcare. He doesn't really think we are fighting a War on Terror, despite claiming in a recent speech that we are. He's still in blame it all on Bush mode, pushing his failed Obamanomist economics, and bowing down to the desires of his more extreme leftwing supporters, while ignoring real extremists abroad, or worse, trying to cozy up to them. But its his blatant dishonesty that I find most troubling. And the ease with which he lies.

How about you?

 

[Darat]

US economy in fastest growth rate for six years

So perhaps he is doing something right?

 

[BeAChooser]

US economy in fastest growth rate for six years

So perhaps he is doing something right?

Far more likely, even Obama and the democrats haven't managed to muck up the system enough to prevent what happens naturally after recessions, stimulus or not. High GNP growth. Surely you aren't claiming that the stimulus jobs have been the ones that led to last quarter's GNP growth? If so, I didn't realize that mowing loans and repaving streets that don't need repaving is so beneficial to GNP.

What liberals simply don't understand is that recessions happen and they serve a purpose. They aren't the end of the world. They make the system more efficient (too bad government workers are insulated from recessions … even in this one they didn't suffer).

As I've shown in earlier threads, the recessions that ended the fastest, were the ones where the government didn't interfere or actually cut spending and taxes. As I've shown in earlier threads, GNP growth coming out of this recession is actually lower and occuring slower than what happened in most other recessions, especially the deep ones. Did you know that, Darat?

And note:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703363704574503612183545516.html

Consumers provided nearly two-thirds of the GDP increase, and auto sales alone represented roughly one percentage point. However, car sales soared in July and August due to the "cash for clunkers" program, only to crash in September after the program expired. Auto sales are unlikely to add as much pop in the coming months, barring a robust recovery in hiring and personal income.

The personal consumption share of GDP also rose to a modern high of 71% in the third quarter, while business investment came in at a lowly 12.1% of GDP. Consumers can't carry this expansion for long if the job market doesn't recover. And the modest growth in business investment reveals how wary companies are about taking new risks or committing to big-dollar projects or new job creation in the current political and economic climate.

The irony here is that the largest obstacle to turning this recovery into a durable expansion is now the very "stimulus" programs that were sold as a way to ensure recovery. Washington's Great Reflation—fiscal and monetary—eventually has to be wound down and paid for, and those looming bills now cloud the expansion outlook.

 

[Darat]

Far more likely, even Obama and the democrats haven't managed to muck up the system enough to prevent what happens naturally after recessions, stimulus or not. High GNP growth.
...snip...

Really?

 

[BeAChooser]

Really?

Yeah. Really.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574420811475582956.html

With regard to the recession that precedes the recovery, worse is subsequently better. The deeper the slump, the zippier the recovery. To quote a dissenter from the forecasting consensus, Michael T. Darda, chief economist of MKM Partners, Greenwich, Conn.: "[T]he most important determinant of the strength of an economy recovery is the depth of the downturn that preceded it. There are no exceptions to this rule, including the 1929-1939 period."

Growth snapped back following the depressions of 1893-94, 1907-08, 1920-21 and 1929-33. If ugly downturns made for torpid recoveries, as today's economists suggest, the economic history of this country would have to be rewritten.

The fact is that the 5.7% growth of last quarter may be an aberration during this recovery. Numerous sources I've read expect growth of only 1-2% this year. Quoting from the above source:

Among economists polled by Bloomberg News, the median 2010 GDP forecast is for 2.4% growth. It would be a unusually flat rebound from a full-bodied downturn.

Now compare that to a recession where there was no Obama-type stimulus:

Our recession, though a mere inconvenience compared to some of the cyclical snows of yesteryear, does bear comparison with the slump of 1981-82. In the worst quarter of that contraction, the first three months of 1982, real GDP shrank at an annual rate of 6.4%, matching the steepest drop of the current recession, which was registered in the first quarter of 2009. Yet the Reagan recovery, starting in the first quarter of 1983, rushed along at quarterly growth rates (expressed as annual rates of change) over the next six quarters of 5.1%, 9.3%, 8.1%, 8.5%, 8.0% and 7.1%. Not until the third quarter of 1984 did real quarterly GDP growth drop below 5%.

One may observe that Ronald Reagan stood for enterprise, free trade and low taxes, whereas Barack Obama stands for other things.

How about another historical example from the same source:

The brutality of the depression of the early 1920s could not have been far from the mind of President Harry S. Truman as he signed into law the 1946 act to make it the government's business to maintain the economy at full employment. That 1920-21 crackup featured a deflationary collapse — wholesale prices plunged by 37% — and, by 21st century lights, a highly unconventional set of government measures to set things right. To meet the downturn, the Fed raised, not lowered, interest rates and Congress balanced the budget — indeed, ran a surplus. Yet the depression ended. How, exactly, did it end? Falling prices opened wallets, the monetary historian Allan H. Meltzer explains. Finding bargains, consumers and investors snapped them up. "The fall in market prices raised the public's stock of real [money] balances above the desired amount, just as if the Federal Reserve had increased base money at a constant price level," Mr. Meltzer relates in his "A History of the Federal Reserve." After falling by 4.4% in 1920 and by 8.7% in 1921, inflation-adjusted GNP shot up by 15.8% in 1922 and by 12.1% in 1923.

Amazing what happens without a stimulus. High GNP growth.

 

[Peephole]

Maybe you should write a sternly worded letter about it.

 

[tyr_13]

Wait, full stop. Reagan era growth is somehow evidence that Obama is messing up the economy and a liar.

Where's the popcorn, this should be good.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...spending_freeze_to_have_big_impact_on_deficit

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just nine percent (9%) think the freeze will reduce the deficit a lot.

Eighty-one percent (81%) disagree, including 42% who say it will have no impact. Another 39% say the freeze in nearly all areas except defense, national security, veterans affairs and entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will reduce the deficit a little.

… snip …

Overall, 57% would like to see a cut in government spending, 23% favor a freeze, and 12% say the government should increase spending. Republicans and unaffiliated voters overwhelmingly favor spending cuts. Democrats are evenly divided between spending cuts and a spending freeze.

If Obama's really trying to be a populist, maybe he should taken Populism 101 rather than Demagoguery 101 at Haaaavard.

Because he's going about it the wrong way.

 

[BeAChooser]

Wait, full stop. Reagan era growth is somehow evidence that Obama is messing up the economy and a liar.

Obviously, you didn't even attempt to read what I wrote.

Or else you're having the same reading comprehension problems that Obama displayed vis a vis the March CBO report.

 

[Allen773]

Threads like these remind me why this clown (BeAChooser) is on my ignore list.

 

[BeAChooser]

Threads like these remind me why this clown (BeAChooser) is on my ignore list.

Yet, here you are posting on the thread with nothing to say in defense of Obama against the facts I noted. So who is the clown?

 

[tyr_13]

Obviously, you didn't even attempt to read what I wrote.

Or else you're having the same reading comprehension problems that Obama displayed vis a vis the March CBO report.

I think I'm just going to watch as your inane spin, lies, and quote mining (many from sources already invalid) collapses around you. You know, a classic BaC thread.

You attack Obama at any chance, often waffling back and forth. For example, you attack him for being 'populous' at the same time as you cite 'polls' that he isn't 'listening to the people'. You call people, and Obama stupid for not drawing the same conclusions as you, from polls, and whatever you believe a single special election means.

Keep stacking that cow **** as high as you want. It will never be gold.

 

[BeAChooser]

My my ... I think I touched a sore spot, tyr_13.

And by the way, do YOU think that Obama inherited a projected 8 trillion dollar cumulative deficit over the next 10 years?

 

[tyr_13]

No, I think the economy was great, we weren't in any unpopular wars, and we had no deficit.

It is amusing that any time someone puts any fire into a response someone will say something as inane as 'ooo, I got you'. Yes, stupid is a sore spot when I see so much of it, but Obama isn't the source in this case.

 

[BeAChooser]

No, I think the economy was great, we weren't in any unpopular wars, and we had no deficit.

Gee, you seem to be having a problem answering a very simple question:

Do YOU think that Obama inherited a projected 8 trillion dollar cumulative deficit over the next 10 years?

 

[tyr_13]

Gee, you seem to be having a problem answering a very simple question:

Do YOU think that Obama inherited a projected 8 trillion dollar cumulative deficit over the next 10 years?

I don't know, I don't think the exact numbers are as important as you're going to try to make them appear, and I've learned to be more than skeptical of anything you cite.

 

[Peephole]

 

[BeAChooser]

I don't know

How can you not know?

 

[XBoxWarrior]

 

[XBoxWarrior]

the appropriate reply to whargarbl