1. You said: “Now, if we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that for too long, we have not always met these responsibilities — as a government or as a people.” As a people, what did we do? What are you accusing us for?
Because “we import more oil today than ever before?” Are you blaming Americans for where they buy or how much they buy or what they buy with their money? Or that we resist socializing our healthcare? You call this irresponsible?
2. “A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future. (Applause.)” The reason we are in trouble now is because taxes were decreased for all?
3. “Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market. People bought homes they knew they couldn’t afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway.” You don’t think it’s the government regulations that created the problem? People were offered a great deal by the government: buy a house with no down payment, no income verification, below the government artificial cost of money. If the price of the house goes up, you’ll make a lot of money. If down, you’ll get out. Or, as it turns out, be bailed out, or will get even better terms. Who was irresponsible except the government? Fixing the cost of money artificially low and insisting on banks lowering their standards of lending?
4. “It’s an agenda that begins with jobs. (Applause.) ” Former Soviet Union and Cuba and North Korea has full employment. What good does it do? If the people are not willing to voluntarily pay for the products of those jobs, why do we need them?
5. “I called for action because the failure to do so would have cost more jobs and caused more hardship.” How do you know that? Some economists who expect the governemnt handouts for their reasearch support that, some don’t. Is your famous judgment the only proof you can offer? It’s not acceptable when you take my money to do so. Use your own money if you are so convinced. And others who agree with you.
6. “Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs. More than 90 percent of these jobs will be in the private sector — jobs rebuilding our roads and bridges; constructing wind turbines and solar panels; laying broadband and expanding mass transit.” Suppose this hazy numbers are correct. Who are you to use the force to get other people money to start building wind turbines? If it’s such a good thing start you own company and make it success. Why do you experiment with our money? I noticed you are not talking about ethanol anymore. You were very enthusiastic about it just a year ago. What happened?
7. “I have told each of my Cabinet, as well as mayors and governors across the country, that they will be held accountable by me and the American people for every dollar they spend.” “And we have created a new website called recovery.gov so that every American can find out how and where their money is being spent.”
Bloomberg News is suing you to get information to identify the recipients of about $2 trillion in emergency loans. Why do you hide this information?
8. “That’s what this is about. It’s not about helping banks — it’s about helping people. (Applause.) It’s not about helping banks; it’s about helping people. Because when credit is available again, that young family can finally buy a new home. And then some company will hire workers to build it. And then those workers will have money to spend. And if they can get a loan, too, maybe they’ll finally buy that car, or open their own business.” And maybe they won’t be able to pay their loan. What then?
9. “In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. (Applause.) Now, let me be clear — let me be absolutely clear, because I know you’ll end up hearing some of the same claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: If your family earns less than $250,000 a year — a quarter million dollars a year — you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: Not one single dime. (Applause.)” Do we have the right to get their money? Is it their money or ours? Or yours?
10. “And yesterday, I held a fiscal summit where I pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term in office.” “But we have already identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade. (Applause.)” In about trillion dollar stimulus bill that you just signed before this pledge, can you identify the best three programs that you are proud of? That are not wasteful?
5 responses so far ↓
1 J from Texas // Feb 25, 2009 at 5:15 am
There are no problems that can’t be solved with other people’s money. — the democratic oath
I say let’s start by bankrupting the top 2% of all liberals. a la Chavez – a 100% tax on the net worth of all Oscar winners, Global Warmers, Hedge Fund Employees , Warren Buffett and the Sulzbergers. That will repay them for the 787 Billion they just cost us.
2 Seriously? // Feb 25, 2009 at 11:18 am
I speak for myself, not Obama:
>Because “we import more oil today than ever before?” Are you blaming Americans for where they buy or how much they buy or what they buy with their money?
Yes, most definitely. A reduction in oil imports will not happen until there is less oil being consumed. Only consumers can drive this.
>Or that we resist socializing our healthcare? You call this irresponsible?
Extremely, yes. There is no good reason that every single person should not have basic healthcare without having to deal with insurance companies who fight tooth and nail to keep from paying on policies that they themselves sell.
>The reason we are in trouble now is because taxes were decreased for all?
When did this happen? I hope you’re not referring to the “stimulus checks”.
>You don’t think it’s the government regulations that created the problem?
No.
>People were offered a great deal by the government: buy a house with no down payment, no income verification, below the government artificial cost of money.
No, this isn’t the problem. People got into unsustainable ARMs when the banks falsified a whole lot of loan applications. That’s the problem.
>Who was irresponsible except the government?
The people who didn’t understand how to manage their own money, and the banks that preyed on them.
>Former Soviet Union and Cuba and North Korea has full employment.
This is your argument for not adding jobs to the market? Seriously?
>Who are you to use the force to get other people money to start building wind turbines? If it’s such a good thing start you own company and make it success.
Firstly, there are private companies that are already having tremendous success with this. Secondly, it reduces our dependence on foreign oil imports which is obviously good for the long term view on America’s financial situation.
>Bloomberg News is suing you to get information to identify the recipients of about $2 trillion in emergency loans. Why do you hide this information?
Really? From the article in the link:
>Bloomberg News asked for details of the lending on May 21 and filed a federal lawsuit against the Fed Nov. 7 seeking to force disclosure.
Obama was president on May 21st? Really? It was the Bush administration hiding this information. President Obama can’t respond to requests that were denied during the Bush presidency. How incredibly absurd.
>And maybe they won’t be able to pay their loan. What then?
So because someone might not be able to pay a loan on a house we shouldn’t help people be able to buy homes? Seriously?
>Do we have the right to get their money? Is it their money or ours? Or yours?
Do you drive on roads? Send your children to school? There are hundreds of government programs that you don’t even realize you benefit from every day, and every one of them is struggling for cash. Don’t be so obtuse.
3 Zak Maymin // Feb 25, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Zak Maymin(ZM) reply to Seriously: You seem to suggest that if the government decides that something is in the public interest then it gives the government the right to collect the money from its citizens for it. I am not against it. What I am against is the use of force on those who are against it for whatever reason or no reason at all. That’s why I don’t want to argue each particular project whether it’s “good” or “bad” for society. If you convince me, I may be able to voluntarily support your project. But if not, or if I don’t want to even discuss fors and cons, you have no right to forcefully take my money from me.
I speak for myself, not Obama:
>Because “we import more oil today than ever before?” Are you blaming Americans for where they buy or how much they buy or what they buy with their money?
Yes, most definitely. A reduction in oil imports will not happen until there is less oil being consumed. Only consumers can drive this.
ZM: If we didn’t have the oil, then I don’t see what’s wrong with buying oil elsewhere. So happen that people we don’t like very much have the oil that we need. So we buy it from them. I see nothing wrong here. Unless you are suggesting some kind of economic blockade that didn’t work in Cuba, didn’t work in Russia, and I think never worked in history.
>Or that we resist socializing our healthcare? You call this irresponsible?
Extremely, yes. There is no good reason that every single person should not have basic healthcare without having to deal with insurance companies who fight tooth and nail to keep from paying on policies that they themselves sell.
ZM: I don’t agree, but I don’t want to argue with you. Why don’t you and like-minded people get together and create your own insurance company? We’ll compete. I might join you later. Just don’t force me into it. And don’t use my money to do it.
>The reason we are in trouble now is because taxes were decreased for all?
When did this happen? I hope you’re not referring to the “stimulus checks”.
ZM: “A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future. (Applause.)” When did we transfer wealth to the wealthy?
>You don’t think it’s the government regulations that created the problem?
No.
>People were offered a great deal by the government: buy a house with no down payment, no income verification, below the government artificial cost of money.
No, this isn’t the problem. People got into unsustainable ARMs when the banks falsified a whole lot of loan applications. That’s the problem.
ZM: Do you think so or do you have evidence that the reason for the crisis is banks falsifying loan applications?
>Who was irresponsible except the government?
The people who didn’t understand how to manage their own money, and the banks that preyed on them.
ZM: People are not idiots. Nobody ever gave me $10 for nothing.
>Former Soviet Union and Cuba and North Korea has full employment.
This is your argument for not adding jobs to the market? Seriously?
ZM: This is my argument against the government adding jobs. I am not against you or anybody else adding jobs to the market.
>Who are you to use the force to get other people money to start building wind turbines? If it’s such a good thing start you own company and make it success.
Firstly, there are private companies that are already having tremendous success with this. Secondly, it reduces our dependence on foreign oil imports which is obviously good for the long term view on America’s financial situation.
ZM: Even if you think it’s good, and even if it’s objectively good, don’t force me into it. Let the private companies do it. They don’t steal my money.
>Bloomberg News is suing you to get information to identify the recipients of about $2 trillion in emergency loans. Why do you hide this information?
Really? From the article in the link:
>Bloomberg News asked for details of the lending on May 21 and filed a federal lawsuit against the Fed Nov. 7 seeking to force disclosure.
Obama was president on May 21st? Really? It was the Bush administration hiding this information. President Obama can’t respond to requests that were denied during the Bush presidency. How incredibly absurd.
ZM: The article was dated January 29, 2009. From the same article: “Late yesterday, Geithner’s office put hundreds of pages about the fund on the department’s Web site. They did not include documents describing the guaranteed assets.”
Here’s another article from Bloomberg News dated February 9, 2009: “Bloomberg requested details of Fed lending under the Freedom of Information Act and filed a federal lawsuit against the central bank Nov. 7 seeking to force disclosure of borrower banks and their collateral. Arguments in the suit may be heard as soon as this month, according to the court docket. Bloomberg asked the Treasury in an FOIA request Jan. 28 for a detailed list of the securities it planned to guarantee for Citigroup and Bank of America. Bloomberg hasn’t received a response to the request.”
>And maybe they won’t be able to pay their loan. What then?
So because someone might not be able to pay a loan on a house we shouldn’t help people be able to buy homes? Seriously?
ZM: Go ahead and help. I’m not against you spending your money the way you want. I am against you spending my money the way you want. And I reserve the right of not even explaining to you why the result of my spending my money is better for some higher purpose than your spending my money. Why? Because it’s my money.
>Do we have the right to get their money? Is it their money or ours? Or yours?
Do you drive on roads? Send your children to school? There are hundreds of government programs that you don’t even realize you benefit from every day, and every one of them is struggling for cash. Don’t be so obtuse.
ZM: For the sake of argument let’s assume that you are against Iraq war. But we built roads in Iraq, wrote the Constitution, got rid of Hussein, let their women vote. Is it right that we used deadly force on Iraqis to achieve that?
4 State of Union | Republic Wasted // Mar 1, 2009 at 2:02 pm
[...] I’m browsing through sites and my Twitter feed and I run across this blog post, Dear Obama: I have ten questions about your speech. Now, I could care less what Obama has to say because it’s all useful bullshit spewed forth [...]
5 Canadian // Apr 17, 2009 at 9:47 am
When Obama says he wants to import less oil, he doesn’t always mean use LESS oil. He means use domestic oil, some of which the US is exporting. He also means find ways to replace oil with other sources of power.
If you don’t want to pay for any of his plans (almost all of which are completely sound) then just move to a different country. It’s not that hard, there’s lots of crazy countries out there where you could probably get away with bloody murder.
Leave a Comment