Really, guys, I'm trying to get on-board with Obama, but...

I mean, I don't hate the guy, or even dislike him, esp. personally, but really -
where is the change, the hope, yada-yada-yada...? It's still the same ol'
bull****...


http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...tor-abuse.html


If anyone can, please explain/defend how 160 billion divided by 1 million equals
160 thousand is "calculator abuse." They even gave them their own numbers -
well, they gave them the inflated numbers above what they originally said the
number - a very precise 640,329 - was, and didn't hold them to the other
800-plus billion to which they pointed (and who the hell knows what of that has
been spent as opposed to proposed/budgeted/etc.).

IAC, even if the admin's unabused calculator is the one to use, please
explain/defend how it is good economics to spend even 90-something thousand
dollars so a waitress can keep a job - the admin's own example - that doesn't
pay anywhere near per annum what it cost the US taxpayer for her to keep. And
which likely has very limited benefits, such as health care, which will wind up
costing even more in tax dollars.

I understand that it isn't a direct route from dollars spent to X number of
annual paychecks, but there doesn't seem to be anywhere near even the 640
thousand jobs created OR saved, either. It's like the whole Cash for Clunkers
fiasco - when an apparently apolitical Edmunds ran the numbers and got 24K per
sale, the administration went bat**** and made all sorts of stammering defenses
- again, same ol', same ol' - IOW, "our **** don't stink like the OTHER guy's
does...."

And they've (...to be sure, Congress, of all flavor, has had its trotter in on
this. too...) used, what, nearly a trillion, close to the increase in deficit,
to get about 425 billion in GDP growth. And supposedly, all of this because
some sub-prime mortgages went, as they were destined to do, into the crapper?
Er, no.

Sheesh,
R

wrote:
I mean, I don't hate the guy, or even dislike him, esp. personally, but really -
where is the change, the hope, yada-yada-yada...? It's still the same ol'
bull****...

The worldwide economy was snatched back from the brink of
almost certain disaster by Obama's team. That's hardly the
same ol' bull**** which got us into that mess in the first
place.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 07:35:28 -0600, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
I mean, I don't hate the guy, or even dislike him, esp. personally, but really -
where is the change, the hope, yada-yada-yada...? It's still the same ol'
bull****...

The worldwide economy was snatched back from the brink of
almost certain disaster by Obama's team. That's hardly the
same ol' bull**** which got us into that mess in the first
place.

That's just incorrect, over-the-top, partisan Obamaniac nonsense, and if nothing
more, it's same partisan bull**** that claims Clinton's admin (and to a lesser
extent, Reagan's) fiscal policies were all good. Clinton's admin
allowed/created (as much by inaction as action) much of the situation that was a
big part of the pro-actively created (as opposed to the more-or-less "normal
cycles") current mess and Bush's did little to stem the tide. And now, Obama's
is acting just as crazily. And of course, the US Congress, GOP and Dem members
alike, and with all four trotters, has been actively participating, too.

Can you give any examples of how Obama's team has done anything of real
substance for "the worldwide economy," much less snatched from the brink of
disaster? And pointing to helping the Japanese auto industry via Cash for
Clunkers doesn't count for much...with all due respect to the writers at SNL...

Can you even give an example of any substantive idea of their own they have
implemented insofar it "saving" the "worldwide economy?"

TC,
R

ha!! you must be a racist...he, he, he......

comrade hussein is a clown...






On Nov 1, 5:27*am, wrote:
I mean, I don't hate the guy, or even dislike him, esp. personally, but really -
where is the change, the hope, yada-yada-yada...? *It's still the same ol'
bull****...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...per-stimulus-j...

If anyone can, please explain/defend how 160 billion divided by 1 million equals
160 thousand is "calculator abuse." *They even gave them their own numbers -
well, they gave them the inflated numbers above what they originally said the
number - a very precise 640,329 - was, and didn't hold them to the other
800-plus billion to which they pointed (and who the hell knows what of that has
been spent as opposed to proposed/budgeted/etc.).

IAC, even if the admin's unabused calculator is the one to use, please
explain/defend how it is good economics to spend even 90-something thousand
dollars so a waitress can keep a job - the admin's own example - that doesn't
pay anywhere near per annum what it cost the US taxpayer for her to keep. *And
which likely has very limited benefits, such as health care, which will wind up
costing even more in tax dollars. *

I understand that it isn't a direct route from dollars spent to X number of
annual paychecks, but there doesn't seem to be anywhere near even the 640
thousand jobs created OR saved, either. *It's like the whole Cash for Clunkers
fiasco - when an apparently apolitical Edmunds ran the numbers and got 24K per
sale, the administration went bat**** and made all sorts of stammering defenses
- again, same ol', same ol' - IOW, "our **** don't stink like the OTHER guy's
does...."

And they've (...to be sure, Congress, of all flavor, has had its trotter in on
this. too...) used, what, nearly a trillion, close to the increase in deficit,
to get about 425 billion in GDP growth. *And supposedly, all of this because
some sub-prime mortgages went, as they were destined to do, into the crapper?
Er, no.

Sheesh,
R

Welcome to the real 1984 and Big Brother. The big O and his toadies
Pelosi
and Reid think that if they just say something enough, then it will be
true. The
problem is that so many clueless Americans worship this huckster and
actually
believe what he says, regardless of the truth. Jobs saved? That's just
pure
nonsense. And, he keeps prattling on about all the help for small
businesses.
Another load of crap. I have a small business and I can tell you that
there is
nothing for us.

On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 06:52:51 -0800 (PST), "~^ beancounter ~^"
wrote:

ha!! you must be a racist...he, he, he......

comrade hussein is a clown...

No, he isn't...either of the above. He has his faults (and I think he has his
fair share), but he is neither a "comrade" nor a clown, either in his personal
life or as President, and calling him such doesn't help the situation one little
bit. Reasonable, debatable (or arguable, if one prefers) criticism is one
thing, silly-assed ad hominem attacks are another. From what little of your
posting I've read, you're only capable of the latter...

Don't really give a **** if this helps,
R






On Nov 1, 5:27*am, wrote:
I mean, I don't hate the guy, or even dislike him, esp. personally, but really -
where is the change, the hope, yada-yada-yada...? *It's still the same ol'
bull****...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...per-stimulus-j...

If anyone can, please explain/defend how 160 billion divided by 1 million equals
160 thousand is "calculator abuse." *They even gave them their own numbers -
well, they gave them the inflated numbers above what they originally said the
number - a very precise 640,329 - was, and didn't hold them to the other
800-plus billion to which they pointed (and who the hell knows what of that has
been spent as opposed to proposed/budgeted/etc.).

IAC, even if the admin's unabused calculator is the one to use, please
explain/defend how it is good economics to spend even 90-something thousand
dollars so a waitress can keep a job - the admin's own example - that doesn't
pay anywhere near per annum what it cost the US taxpayer for her to keep. *And
which likely has very limited benefits, such as health care, which will wind up
costing even more in tax dollars. *

I understand that it isn't a direct route from dollars spent to X number of
annual paychecks, but there doesn't seem to be anywhere near even the 640
thousand jobs created OR saved, either. *It's like the whole Cash for Clunkers
fiasco - when an apparently apolitical Edmunds ran the numbers and got 24K per
sale, the administration went bat**** and made all sorts of stammering defenses
- again, same ol', same ol' - IOW, "our **** don't stink like the OTHER guy's
does...."

And they've (...to be sure, Congress, of all flavor, has had its trotter in on
this. too...) used, what, nearly a trillion, close to the increase in deficit,
to get about 425 billion in GDP growth. *And supposedly, all of this because
some sub-prime mortgages went, as they were destined to do, into the crapper?
Er, no.

Sheesh,
R

Don't really give a **** if this helps,



same here.......

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
...
The worldwide economy was snatched back from the brink of
almost certain disaster by Obama's team.

huh?? The worldwide economy?? Geez, Ken let's get the ideological blinders
off, and look at reality. If the 'worldwide economy' approached the 'brink
of almost certain disaster' at all(I suspect not), it was probably during
the fall of 2008. Bush's team sort of held their collective noses and
steered out of that mess, whether one agrees with the tactics or not. Obama
had not even won the damned election.

Now, and I suspect Rick will disagree with me here, I do feel that Obama's
team has taken steps to lessen the severity of the impact on the citizenry
of the US. As Biden stated last week, in 8 months we have gone from,"will
this be the next Great Depression" to "I wonder what shape the recovery will
take", and that is a positive thing.

It always amuses me that any person or group assigns dramatic economic
impact to politicians. They, as Rick notes rightly, do affect trends, either
by actions or inactions, but far more complex and stronger forces are
generally at work. The role of politicians is to take the economic realities
they face and try and do the best for the society as a whole. Time will tell
if the Obama administration succeeds in that goal. So far, I'll give them
credit for intelligent thinking on the matter, but, as with so much of the
current scene, from the economy, to healthcare, to foreign affairs, any
person looking at things dispassionately has to say the jury is still out.
For example, today finds Hillary Clinton glowing over the remarkably
cooperative attitude of the Israeli government towards settlements in what
the Palistinians wish to be their homeland. Looks like the same-old same-old
that got us into a ****load of trouble to me.......
Tom



That's hardly the
same ol' bull**** which got us into that mess in the first
place.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Tom Littleton wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
The worldwide economy was snatched back from the brink of
almost certain disaster by Obama's team.

huh?? The worldwide economy?? ...

Yep, the worldwide economy. How quickly you forget.

Consider this a reply to both you and Rick, you're entitled
to your own opinions but not your own facts.

--
Ken Fortenberry

smooth move comrade hussein





JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Pointing an accusing finger at the United
States, the Palestinians on Sunday said Washington's backing for
Israeli refusal to halt Jewish settlement expansion had killed any
hope of reviving peace negotiations soon.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, buoyed by new-found support
from the Obama administration, urged the Palestinians to "get a grip"
and drop their settlement freeze precondition for restarting talks
suspended since December.

On a one-day Middle East visit on Saturday, Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton endorsed Israel's view that settlement expansion in the
occupied West Bank should not be a bar to resuming negotiations --
contradicting the Palestinian position.

Netanyahu has proposed limiting building for now to some 3,000 settler
homes already approved by Israel in the West Bank. He does not regard
building in occupied East Jerusalem, annexed in defiance of
international opposition, as settlement.

U.S. President Barack Obama himself, after persuading Palestinian
President Mahmoud Abbas in September to meet Netanyahu in New York,
called only for "restraint" in settlement, not the "freeze" he had
previously proposed.

Stung by Obama's about-face and Clinton's remarks, the Palestinians
voiced their frustration