Posts Tagged Obama
The Nobel What Prize?
Posted by The Marginalist in Politics on October 9th, 2009
Imagine my surprise this morning when I woke up and read USA Today.
Press secretary Robert Gibbs awoke President Obama with a phone call just before 6 a.m. to tell him he had won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Let’s take a look at the short history of this very peaceful President.
January 22nd: Same Rhetoric as Bush
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Changefest ‘09 – Obama’s Inaugural Speech | ||||
 |
||||
|
||||
February 18th: Obama approves Afghanistan troop increase
Another 5,000 troops will be deployed at a later date to support combat troops, bringing the total to 17,000 the Defense Department said. A senior administration official confirmed the total.
September 9th: Obama sends 1,000 more troops to Iraq
Though the Iraq War has long since become an after-thought amid Obama Administration claims that the “drawdown” in on track, the Pentagon is reporting today that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has approved a request to send about 1,000 additional troops to Iraq.
September 15th: Obama considers military strike in Iran
The U.S. should begin preparing crippling sanctions on Iran and publicly make clear that a military strike is possible should the Iranian government press ahead with its nuclear effort, a bipartisan policy group said.
Also September 15th: US Sends 3,000 Troops to Afghanistan (Along with 14,000 “trigger pullers”)
Top US defense officials say that roughly 3,000 additional troops, which are classified not as combat troops but rather “combat enablers,” will be deployed to Afghanistan in the coming days.
September 22nd: Obama Wants to Renew Patriot Act
The Obama administration promised Congress on Tuesday to negotiate stronger privacy protections for Americans under terrorism surveillance but insisted on retaining current authority to track suspects and obtain records.
Liberals on the House Judiciary Committee were left unsatisfied, clearly wanting the administration to go further and pledge to curb what they consider abuses of the Bush administration.
October 8th: Troops depressed and disillusioned
American soldiers serving in Afghanistan are depressed and deeply disillusioned, according to the chaplains of two US battalions that have spent nine months on the front line in the war against the Taleban.
I mean, I thought the Chinese political dissidents on the 20th year anniversary of Tiananmen Square were gonna get the prize but, oh boy. Turns out you have to escalate wars to win the peace prize.
(To be cross-posted at YAL)
Stephanopoulos Doesn’t Need a Dictionary
Posted by The Marginalist in Politics on September 21st, 2009
From Bonnie Kristian at Young Americans for Liberty:
There is one point on which the president may not be criticized: he is a skilled verbal gymnast and there is no denying it. Most recently, he has denied that the government taking more of our money as a penalty for not living up to our supposed “responsibility to get health insurance” would be a tax increase, despite the dictionary’s assertion to the contrary:
“I don’t think I’m making it up,” Mr. Stephanopoulos said. He then had the temerity to challenge the Philologist in Chief, with an assist from Merriam-Webster. He cited that dictionary’s definition of “tax”—”a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”
Mr. Obama: “George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. . . .”
Riiight…because checking with the dictionary is always indicative of stretching the truth.
Very nice post, Bonnie. I wanna talk a little bit more about the individual mandate and taxes. Let’s take a look back at what Obama said during his campaign about tax increases at 1:20:
Now, let’s take a look at two different bills. The first one is the House bill, H.R. 3200. This is what the bill says about individuals who chose not to, or couldn’t afford to purchase health insurance:
Subpart A–Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable Health Care Coverage
`Sec. 59B. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.
`SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
`(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of–
`(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
`(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
I’m not lying to you, I’m quoting the actual text of the bill. This part of the bill is found in a section that modifies the Internal Revenue Code. Stephanopoulos doesn’t even have to go to the dictionary to check whether or not this plan involves a tax, the word tax is literally written all over it. The tax is charged to any individual who does not purchase health insurance — regardless of his or her income.
Now, let’s look at the Baucus Bill. The text of the Baucus Bill is here (go to Page 32) and here (scroll down). What do you see?
Excise Tax. The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax.
Not only is it written there, it’s italicized and bolded in the PDF.
Clearly the individual mandate is a tax. And what does our President say…?
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?
OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.
My Email to the White House
Posted by The Marginalist in Personal on August 11th, 2009
Dear President Obama, et. al.,
Your team recently posted on the White House Blog asking American citizens to come forth with “fishy” statements about health care reform that we find on the Internet. I applaud your efforts to combat disinformation about health care reform that could defeat attempts at sound and moral health care reforms. Disinformation must not stand in the way of true health care reform.
I’m writing today to respond to your request to seek out and flag fishy statements. I came across a lengthy document a few days ago that makes some very fishy statements that I believe run contrary to what the President has been saying. I fear these fishy statements may sink health care reform. I’m actually quite surprised the administration has not pointed out these fishy statements yet.
These are the fishy statements I found in this document.
- You promised that you would never raise taxes on individuals earning less than $250,000. However, the document says that individuals who fail to meet acceptable coverage will be subject to a 2.5% tax on their Adjusted Gross Income, even if their income is below $250,000.
- The President promised that health reform will guarantee the individual’s choice to purchase plans they want. However, the document claims that a “Health Choice Commissioner” will decide what counts as a “qualified plan.” If an individual wants to purchase a plan not approved by the Commissioner, he or she would not be allowed to.
- You have said that businesses are suffering from having to meet the health care costs for their employees. However, this document claims that businesses who choose not to, or cannot afford to, provide health insurance to their employees will be hit with a tax up to 8% of their payroll.
- The fishiest statement in this document is that existing health care plans may not enroll new individuals after health care reform is passed. The document also says that individuals who are currently enrolled in a plan will not be allowed to change the terms of their contracts after reform is passed. However, the President has consistently trumpeted choice as a key principle of health reform.
I hope you public address the fishy statements found in this document. As a strong advocate of health care reform, I believe these statements have the ability to drastically diminish the chances of your health care plan moving forward. If the public becomes more exposed to these fishy statements, public opinion may very well overwhelm your efforts at reform.
This document also claims to be H.R. 3200, an actual bill sponsored by Rep. John Dingell that is being considered by the House of Representatives at this very moment. But that couldn’t be possible; the bill breaks so many of the promises you’ve made to the American people. You would never support a bill with that many fishy statements.
Would you?
Sincerely,
Preston Mui
(Inspired by Keith Hennessey, cross-posted at Young Americans for Liberty)
Numbers Lie, #I-Lost-Count-Already: Health Care (again)
Posted by The Marginalist in Numbers Lie on July 7th, 2009
After the public uproar over a health insurance plan that was going to cost as $1 trillion (or $2 trillion or $4 trillion, but who’s counting?), the Democrats have put forth a new bill that claims to cost “only” $600 billion dollars over the next ten years.
The plan carries a 10-year price tag of slightly over $600 billion, and would lead toward an estimated 97 percent of all Americans having coverage, according to the Congressional Budget Office, Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and Chris Dodd said in a letter to other members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
Don’t let the lower numbers fool you. What the government has done here is not lowered the costs, but shifted the costs. To poor people, actually. How did they do it?
Numbers Lie, Part 5: Splitting a Penny
Posted by The Marginalist in Numbers Lie on June 7th, 2009
I’VE talked before about how Obama’s proposal to cut the budget was disingenuous at best.
Hat tip to Young Americans for Liberty at UW for this gem.
The creator of the video, 10000 pennies, also put up this very creative critique of the stimulus:
Great videos! Subscribe to him on Youtube. I did.
EDIT: His blog is Political Math. He’s on my blogroll.
Numbers Lie, Part 4: More Bad News
Posted by The Marginalist in Links, Politics on May 11th, 2009
A deficit of good news
From the New York Times:
The changes, reported on Monday by the Office of Management and Budget, brings the deficit for this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, to $1.84 trillion from a February projection of $1.75 trillion. For fiscal 2010, the new estimate is $1.26 trillion, up from $1.17 trillion.
As measured against the size of the economy, this year’s shortfall would be 12.9 percent of the overall economy, or gross domestic product. Next year’s deficit would be 8.5 percent of G.D.P. Even before the latest revisions those levels are the highest in more than 60 years, since the end of World War II.
And even more depressing:
In the office of the House Republican leader, Antonia Ferrier, a spokeswoman for Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, seized on the new deficit forecast to tweak the Democratic administration for its boast last week that its “line-by-line scrub” of the federal budget had produced proposals to save $17 billion in fiscal year 2010.
The $90 billion increase in the year’s deficit estimate, she noted, is “more than five times the amount of savings proposed last week.”
Any other young people ready to pay this off? Or should we just leave it to our kids?
Real unemployment rates
According to the Washington Post, the unemployment rate is actualy 15.8%
This morning’s news that U.S. unemployment has hit 13.7 million, pushing the rate to 8.9 percent, tells only half the story of this recession.
The total number of Americans who are not working full-time but ought to be is actually about 22 million, or 15.8 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Job Creation
Posted by The Marginalist in Links, Politics on May 8th, 2009
THERE has been a lot of talk lately about the need for “job creation,” but how far is our government willing to go? From the Washington Post (via Marginal Revolution):
Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey (D-N.Y.) vowed to force the White House to accept delivery of a new presidential helicopter Obama says he doesn’t need and doesn’t want. The helicopter program, which cost $835 million this year, supports 800 jobs in Hinchey’s district. “I do think there’s a good chance we can save it,” he said.
Is it just me, or does this speak volumes of, well, stupid? We’re paying 800 people to deliver a good/service that no one has any need or use for. We might as well be paying people to sit around and do nothing.
Actually, that would be better than what we’re doing now. Paying for these jobs not only wastes their human labor and time, but it also wastes our natural resources (not to mention the pollution caused by building a helicopter). At least paying people to sit on their asses wouldn’t use up valuable minerals and fuel.
It would be better than paying people to waste their time and effort. Yeesh.
Hedge Funds, Obama, and the Rule of Law
Posted by The Marginalist in Links on May 7th, 2009
CLIF Asness is fearful of increasing government power:
“The President’s attempted diktat takes money from bondholders and gives it to a labor union that delivers money and votes for him. Why is he not calling on his party to “sacrifice” some campaign contributions, and votes, for the greater good? Shaking down lenders for the benefit of political donors is recycled corruption and abuse of power.”
Numbers Lie, Part 2: Taxpayers to Get Rude Surprise
Posted by The Marginalist in Numbers Lie on May 3rd, 2009
LOOKS like someone messed up. From Yahoo News:
Millions of Americans enjoying their small windfall from President Barack Obama’s “Making Work Pay” tax credit are in for an unpleasant surprise next spring.
The government is going to want some of that money back.
…
The Internal Revenue Service acknowledges problems with the withholding tables but has done little to warn average taxpayers.
Actually, I couldn’t help but think of this video:
– The Marginalist
Don’t Make Me Laugh
Posted by The Marginalist in Politics on April 26th, 2009
OBAMA apparently wants to “Emphasize Discipline” in the budget:
On Saturday, Mr. Obama used his address to defend the effort and to return to the fiscal discipline theme. While his initiatives to stabilize the economy may be driving up the federal deficit, he noted that he also inherited a hefty deficit, estimated at $1.3 trillion this year, from his predecessor, President George W. Bush, and said his administration “identified two trillion dollars in deficit reductions over the next decade.”
That $2 trillion figure, however, is widely scorned by budget analysts, who say it is unrealistic because it reflects inflated assumptions on spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning research institution, said a more realistic figure for deficit savings was $900 billion.
Fudging the numbers was, by the way, something Bush was famous for in his Social Security plans. Is this really the change I can count on? Come on, Mr. President.