Jump to content

The Official Obama Scorecard Thread


Recommended Posts

It's already Thursday, and the only damage Obama has done this week is to socialize one of the largest companies in the world and use it to pay off a major campaign contributor, the UAW.Sadly, that makes this one of his least harmful weeks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 6.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

President Obama ordered the cabinet to cut $100,000,000.00 ($100 million) from the $3,500,000,000,000.00 ($3.5 trillion) federal budget.   I'm so impressed by this sacrifice that I have decided to

It's already Thursday, and the only damage Obama has done this week is to socialize one of the largest companies in the world and use it to pay off a major campaign contributor, the UAW.Sadly, that makes this one of his least harmful weeks.
Don't forget his wonderful leadership of a country in economic pull back, showing us the correct way to handle government resources.Taking Michelle to NY for dinner, along with 3 airplanes, numerous secret service, and his own private security vehicles.The low end estimation for the trip is $250K.But hey, he told the CEO's of companies that supply jobs to this country that they better not take THIER company jets off for jaunts to Vegas for fun weekends anymore.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't forget his wonderful leadership of a country in economic pull back, showing us the correct way to handle government resources.Taking Michelle to NY for dinner, along with 3 airplanes, numerous secret service, and his own private security vehicles.The low end estimation for the trip is $250K.But hey, he told the CEO's of companies that supply jobs to this country that they better not take THIER company jets off for jaunts to Vegas for fun weekends anymore.
our latest non-story. following this logic, the president should never go anywhere because it costs so much to transport him with the proper security. I can only imagine what it cost to get George Bush to Russia so he could look into Putin's soul....
Link to post
Share on other sites
our latest non-story. following this logic, the president should never go anywhere because it costs so much to transport him with the proper security. I can only imagine what it cost to get George Bush to Russia so he could look into Putin's soul....
Surely you know the difference between spending taxpayer money on official business and spending a quarter of a million taxpyer dollars for a "date night".I feel bad because we spend $40 on a sitter for our date night, and that's my own money.I guess Washington DC doesn't have good enough food and entertainment for our Messiah-in-chief.
Link to post
Share on other sites
our latest non-story. following this logic, the president should never go anywhere because it costs so much to transport him with the proper security. I can only imagine what it cost to get George Bush to Russia so he could look into Putin's soul....
So, when earlier this year, the President told an audience in Elkhart, Indiana, "You can't get corporate jets. You can't go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayer's dime."*He apparently meant it was OK to go to for a nite on the town with your wife in New York on the Taxpayer's dime.*From the OP in this thread: http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...howtopic=136158
Link to post
Share on other sites

I waffle on this one. We can't expect any president to be a shut in. They are still people. Anybody in that position would go crazy if they did not get to enjoy themselves on occasion. It is what it is, it's not like he can say, "Hey I am going to go visit my family in Chicago next week, but don't worry about Secret Service or Air Force 1. We are going to take the ol' Astrovan."Also I thought it was closer to a million every time Air Force one starts it's engines.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I waffle on this one. We can't expect any president to be a shut in. They are still people. Anybody in that position would go crazy if they did not get to enjoy themselves on occasion. It is what it is, it's not like he can say, "Hey I am going to go visit my family in Chicago next week, but don't worry about Secret Service or Air Force 1. We are going to take the ol' Astrovan."Also I thought it was closer to a million every time Air Force one starts it's engines.
I've been to Washington DC, there's plenty to do there. There is no need to take a plane ride for a date.I agree they don't need to be shut-ins, but on the one hand he is criticizing corporations for using tax money for things that have been traditionally considered legitimate business expenses, and then he jumps on the plane for a photo-op date to show what a regular guy he is..... I think part of the problem is that it is just a bit too typical of the limousine liberal set: sacrifice for thee, but not for me.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been to Washington DC, there's plenty to do there. There is no need to take a plane ride for a date.I agree they don't need to be shut-ins, but on the one hand he is criticizing corporations for using tax money for things that have been traditionally considered legitimate business expenses, and then he jumps on the plane for a photo-op date to show what a regular guy he is..... I think part of the problem is that it is just a bit too typical of the limousine liberal set: sacrifice for thee, but not for me.
I really don't care about this too much, but wasn't he already going to NYC for something?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I really don't care about this too much, but wasn't he already going to NYC for something?
I agree, I don't care a lot about it, but it is just further proof of the hypocrisy of the limousine liberals.No, I don't think he was there for anything else, it was just for the date. But it's not a story I've followed all that closely, so I could be wrong. Or was there a private fundraiser, too? I don't think there was any official business.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Also I thought it was closer to a million every time Air Force one starts it's engines.
They didn't take AF1, they took a smaller, less expensive plane (which gets called AF1 just because he is on it, but is not the plane that is usually called that).
Link to post
Share on other sites
I waffle on this one. We can't expect any president to be a shut in. They are still people. Anybody in that position would go crazy if they did not get to enjoy themselves on occasion. It is what it is, it's not like he can say, "Hey I am going to go visit my family in Chicago next week, but don't worry about Secret Service or Air Force 1. We are going to take the ol' Astrovan."Also I thought it was closer to a million every time Air Force one starts it's engines.
yeah, this coming from the guy who spends more money going out to eat in one month that I've spent on gasoline in my entire life. COME ON!
Link to post
Share on other sites

The point of mocking Obama for the NY trip is more the idea that hick dem president newbies always seem to be immune to critism of anything they do like this. Remember Clinton when he got a $5K haircut at LAX on AF1? Well when AF1 has the president on the tarmac, no other plane is allowed to take off or land. So Bill takes his sweet time getting a fancy new do while hundreds of people wait in a holding pattern or on the taxiway for him to finish his 2 hour haircut.Yea, maybe just a bone headed newbie play, or is it a glimpse into the reality that we just once again elected a star struck intellectual teenager and gave him the keys to the Porsche while we are away?Obama decides that a date night with Michelle is more important than the people in Manhatten who have to deal with the closed roads, or bear the cost of the extra pay for the NYPD overtime details, the SS men who have to leave their families for an overnighter to protect him as he exposes himself, etc.Let's not pretend Bush would have gotten the same pass Obama is. Heck the dems didn't even give the CEOs of the big three this right when they were summoned to appear before them, taking a private plane and letting the company bear the cost., Add in a 150 man security team and a couple extra planes to that bill and then you have a remotely fair comparison.Except the CEOs of America generally do things that generate jobs for this country, unlike the president.

Link to post
Share on other sites
They didn't take AF1, they took a smaller, less expensive plane (which gets called AF1 just because he is on it, but is not the plane that is usually called that).
Well that changes everything, sure it was $250K, but it was the smaller extra plane they have for him to use when ever he feels like seeing a musical.Nevermind
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well that changes everything, sure it was $250K, but it was the smaller extra plane they have for him to use when ever he feels like seeing a musical.Nevermind
you're just jealous because he's one of the few people richer than you.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked for the source on that one. this PDF is apparently it:http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdfI guess the blogger missed this paragraph?"It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significantmargins of error. There is the obvious uncertainty that comes from modeling a hypotheticalpackage rather than the final legislation passed by the Congress. But, there is the more fundamentaluncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program. Our estimates of economicrelationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactlyin any given episode. Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because thecurrent recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity."the only flagrantly ridiculous thing about the graph is the fact that it says Obama's plan was supposed to be having some effect on jobs starting jan. 1.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I looked for the source on that one. this PDF is apparently it:http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdfI guess the blogger missed this paragraph?"It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significantmargins of error. There is the obvious uncertainty that comes from modeling a hypotheticalpackage rather than the final legislation passed by the Congress. But, there is the more fundamentaluncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program. Our estimates of economicrelationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactlyin any given episode. Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because thecurrent recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity."the only flagrantly ridiculous thing about the graph is the fact that it says Obama's plan was supposed to be having some effect on jobs starting jan. 1.
So what you are saying is that Obama bankrupted the nation for generations for something where he just pulled numbers out of his ass with no expectation that they were in the least bit accurate?Well, that's reassuring.On the other hand, economists with brains actually predicted the actual trend that we are seeing, and I've been explaining why since the bill passed. Why Obama continues to get a pass on this economy wrecking pork is beyond me. He was clearly wrong, the results are starting to show. The people who predicted bad results were clearly right.I think Obama is a basketball fan, he's going for the double-double: double digit inflation and double digit unemployment. He's well on his way.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So what you are saying is that Obama bankrupted the nation for generations for something where he just pulled numbers out of his ass with no expectation that they were in the least bit accurate?
the document the chart appeared in was preliminary planning for legislation that hadn't even been written yet, and pasting jobs data from months later proves literally nothing. how you fail to miss this distinction is entirely beyond me.
Link to post
Share on other sites
the document the chart appeared in was preliminary planning for legislation that hadn't even been written yet, and pasting jobs data from months later proves literally nothing. how you fail to miss this distinction is entirely beyond me.
See, the point of a prediction when used in planning is to try to get it correct. And the way to verify if it was correct is by using "jobs data from months later".So yes, if someone sells us a sack of shit with a very specific promise attached, and that promise turns out to be verifiably false, there are two possible conclusions:1. They never believed the predictions and just wanted to force some crap down our throats with no data to back it up, or2. They are totally incompetent in their predictions and should not be trusted to make any major policy decisions.Attaching the "preliminary" label does not excuse the incompetence, because the administration basically got what they asked for.So which is it: flagrant liars, or economically incompetent? That's really your only choices.
Link to post
Share on other sites
See, the point of a prediction when used in planning is to try to get it correct. And the way to verify if it was correct is by using "jobs data from months later".So yes, if someone sells us a sack of shit with a very specific promise attached, and that promise turns out to be verifiably false, there are two possible conclusions:1. They never believed the predictions and just wanted to force some crap down our throats with no data to back it up, or2. They are totally incompetent in their predictions and should not be trusted to make any major policy decisions.Attaching the "preliminary" label does not excuse the incompetence, because the administration basically got what they asked for.So which is it: flagrant liars, or economically incompetent? That's really your only choices.
I agree that, for whatever motives, the chart was ridiculous and not at all based in reality. it is disappointing that this was put forth at any point, regardless of how trivial the document may been in the scheme of things.
Link to post
Share on other sites
On the other hand, economists with brains actually predicted the actual trend that we are seeing, and I've been explaining why since the bill passed. Why Obama continues to get a pass on this economy wrecking pork is beyond me. He was clearly wrong, the results are starting to show. The people who predicted bad results were clearly right.
@henry: patience is gold these days. results of this "economy wrecking pork" will show after a year at the earliest. and even then you'll be only able to see if obama's policy was able to counteract the worst effects of the crisis. then there are still the aftereffects to deal with before one could even dream about having this crisis solved.well, i think what i'm saying is: we can only judge obama's work after his first term is over. or at least after 2 years. until then, there's nothing we can do.okay, we could waste time with predicting what's going to happen and rambling on about what is wrong and everything...
Link to post
Share on other sites
@henry: patience is gold these days. results of this "economy wrecking pork" will show after a year at the earliest. and even then you'll be only able to see if obama's policy was able to counteract the worst effects of the crisis. then there are still the aftereffects to deal with before one could even dream about having this crisis solved.
The unemployment rate rising like it has in the graph is a predictable immediate effect of the Obama Economic Wrecking Ball. If you don't believe it, go back through this thread and the bailout threads and look what the businessmen from this very board have been saying this whole time. Businessmen need to plan. They don't just wake up in the morning and say "I wonder if I should hire someone to meet today's demands?". They engage in both short term and long term planning. And a big part of that plan is predictions on what the business environment will be like in six, 12, 24, 60 months. And when Obama announced his plan to raise taxes on business and redirect money from productive parts of the economy to people with political connections, the business community unanimously saw bad things coming. When taxes go up, they stop hiring because they can't afford it. So a lot of jobs that would've been filled in the last 4 months have been left unfilled because companies see their profits disappearing in a wave of pork spend-and-tax programs. Plus, if the business was a low-cost producer, they are likely to be hurt by the "stimulus" package, because the very nature of the program is to reward the weak and tax the strong -- a double whammy to a good business.So yes, the actual dots on the chart match the predictions of all real economists and all the really smart people who posted when all these stimulus and bailout plans were first announced. It's pretty basic economics, but it appears to be beyond the grasp of Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Immaturity In PowerA sign of immaturity - most often found in children and certain politicians - is being in denial or even unaware of the consequences of one's actions. The global political class has always suffered from an excess of immaturity, but every generation or so, political immaturity explodes like a star in its death throes and vaporizes everything in its vicinity. Current examples are all too numerous. Much of the present global financial crisis was caused by the issuance of too much debt by both governments and by private players. A mature thinker would understand that part of the solution must be a reduction in debt, and only an immature mind would advocate the creation of mountains of new and almost never-ending debt - yet this is precisely what the majority of the political class in the United States and many other countries is doing in issuing many trillions of dollars of new government debt. Stanford University economics professor and former Treasury Undersecretary John B. Taylor has shown how the proposed additional U.S. government debt could cause 100 percent inflation over the next few years, which means most people will see their real standard of living fall as prices double. Long-term interest rates on U.S. government debt have jumped a colossal 81 percent (annualized) in just the last five months and seem slated to go higher as markets see the increased risk of future inflation. To ameliorate some of the inflation, immature political minds (and even a few immature economists) argue for a massive tax increase to pay for all of the new debt. Mr. Taylor estimates the tax increase would have to be about 60 percent, which, of course, would kill incentives to work, save and invest and would result in a stagnant economy, or worse, massive unemployment. For centuries in the United States, and even before under English common law, bond holders were secure in the knowledge that in a business failure they would be first in line to collect from the sale of the assets. Suddenly, the immature actors in the Obama administration have overturned well-established bankruptcy law and put a politically favored union ahead of the bond holders in the case of Chrysler and General Motors Corp. The predictable result is that firms with strong unions already find they have to pay higher interest rates because lenders demand a substantial political risk premium. As a result, unionized firms will be even less competitive and, thus, there will be even fewer union jobs (unless the taxpayers are forced to subsidize the higher union costs). Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth. More by Richard W. RahnAnother sign of political immaturity in Washington, Paris and London is the attack on low-tax jurisdictions with the demand that they enforce the tax laws of high-tax countries. Just this past week, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris - an organization originally founded to promote economic growth - said it would help coordinate the attack of the high taxers on the low taxers. One result of this attack is that suddenly fewer and fewer banks will open accounts for Americans living or working in other countries. The banks find the new rules too costly to administer, and thus the safer and less costly course of action for them is to refuse to provide accounts for Americans. The reason given for the attack is to collect the purported $100 billion that Americans are evading in taxes. The Internal Revenue Service commissioner was recently forced to admit that the $100 billion number was totally fabricated without any evidence. More mature minds (than those now found in much of the Congress, the Treasury and the IRS) would understand that trying to go after a fictitious $100 billion, while putting several trillion of needed foreign investment into the United States at risk, is a fool's game. Without bank accounts, overseas Americans will not be able to write a check on a U.S. bank to pay U.S. bills or taxes, or to get a U.S.-issued credit card, or to transfer funds to American bank accounts, or to establish a credit rating in the United States, etc. To date, the IRS has refused to do a cost-benefit test on its proposed regulations, despite requests - probably because a legitimate cost-benefit analysis would show that millions of Americans would be harmed - and potentially hundreds of billions of dollars lost - in a futile attempt to catch a few tax evaders. The good news is that there is still time to reverse the worst aspects of the destructive policies described above - to avoid ever-increasing inflation and interest rates. The bad news is those politicians responsible both for the current mess and these proposed harmful "cures" will probably continue to act like immature teenagers with too much access to money and power.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The unemployment rate rising like it has in the graph is a predictable immediate effect of the Obama Economic Wrecking Ball. If you don't believe it, go back through this thread and the bailout threads and look what the businessmen from this very board have been saying this whole time. Businessmen need to plan. They don't just wake up in the morning and say "I wonder if I should hire someone to meet today's demands?". They engage in both short term and long term planning. And a big part of that plan is predictions on what the business environment will be like in six, 12, 24, 60 months. And when Obama announced his plan to raise taxes on business and redirect money from productive parts of the economy to people with political connections, the business community unanimously saw bad things coming. When taxes go up, they stop hiring because they can't afford it. So a lot of jobs that would've been filled in the last 4 months have been left unfilled because companies see their profits disappearing in a wave of pork spend-and-tax programs. Plus, if the business was a low-cost producer, they are likely to be hurt by the "stimulus" package, because the very nature of the program is to reward the weak and tax the strong -- a double whammy to a good business.So yes, the actual dots on the chart match the predictions of all real economists and all the really smart people who posted when all these stimulus and bailout plans were first announced. It's pretty basic economics, but it appears to be beyond the grasp of Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al.
maybe. but then, what if 5 years from now al the predictions will be proven wrong and the bailouts work and the economy is going strong again - strong enough to work off the debts the bailouts caused? then all the economists and really smart people were wrong.all i'm saying is, that we have to be patient. nothing to do with obama, if there were another president, it would be the same.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...