Official Obama Foot in Mouth Thread - he just can't STFU sometimes.

[Soul Crusher]

Obama: Gusts, Gaffes and Basketball Greats (Obama forgets name of $1M fundraiser host)
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer ^ | Sunday, September 25, 2011 | Joel Connelly
Posted on September 25, 2011 8:41:41 PM EDT by kristinn

President Barack Obama sped through wind gusts, withstood gaffes, raised millions of dollars and tried to sell the message of his jobs bill during a whirlwind four-hour Sunday visit to the Seattle area.

The President told a $35,800-a-couple Medina fundraiser that the 2012 election will be “especially hard because a lot of people are discouraged” but vowed he will “keep drawing a clear contrast” between his vision of America and the Republicans’.

The fund raiser was held in the 27,000-square toot, art-draped home of former Microsoft chief operating officer Jon Shirley. Obama deemed the art collection unforgettable. But he could not remember the name of his host.

“I was saying to Mark that I wish I had time to just roam around because this is as beautiful a collection as I’ve ever seen. I want to thank Mark . . .” Obama said. A couple of guests said “Jon,” and the president quickly corrected himself.

SNIP

Inside the Paramount, two basketball greats — Bill Russell and Lenny Wilkins — co-hosted the fundraiser. The two men put on a lavish Obama fundraiser in 2008 that featured to aide Valerie Jarrett.

The gremlins hit Obama again. The President turned to his right and gestured backstage, using his hands to deliver a rolling motion. It appeared the telepromter was not working.

Obama pressed on, but did not look at the teleprompter panes flanking the podium.

The President joked that he he needed the supporters in the room so badly that he came to the Emerald City during a Bears/Packers NFL game.

SNIP

[Soul Crusher]

Gaffetastic!… Obama Thanks “Mark” Shirley For $35,800-a-Couple Dinner… His Name Is Jon Shirley
Posted by Jim Hoft on Sunday, September 25, 2011, 9:06 PM

  

President Barack Obama, right, smiles as he is introduced by NBA basketball hall-of-famer, Bill Russell, left, during a Democratic fundraiser at the Paramount Theater, Sunday, Sept., 25, 2011, in Seattle. (AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Terrific!
Barack Obama was guest of honor at a $35,800-a-couple fundraiser in Seattle today. He was very appreciative to his host Jon Shirley… It’s just unfortunate that he called him Mark.
Seattle P-I reported:

The President told a $35,800-a-couple Medina fundraiser that the 2012 election will be “especially hard because a lot of people are discouraged” but vowed he will “keep drawing a clear contrast” between his vision of America and that of the Republicans.

The fundraiser was held in the 27,000-square toot, art-draped home of former Microsoft chief operating officer Jon Shirley. Obama deemed the art collection unforgettable. But he could not remember the name of his host.

“I was saying to Mark that I wish I had time to just roam around because this is as beautiful a collection as I’ve ever seen. I want to thank Mark . . .” Obama said. A couple of guests said “Jon,” and the president quickly corrected himself.

It is a tradition of Democratic presidents and presidential candidates to deliver partisan stem-winders in the salons of wealthy donors. Obama did not disappoint.

He warned that electing a Republican presidential candidate next year would deeply hurt the country.

“The (Republican) alternative I think is an approach to government that would fundamentally cripple America in meeting the challenges of the 21st Century and that’s not the kind of society that I want to bequeath to Malia and Sasha, and your children and your grandchildren,” Obama said.

“My hope when I came into office that was because we were in crisis that the other side would respond by saying now is the time for all of us to pull together,” he added.

“That was not the decision they made so from the moment I took office what we’ve seen is a constant ideological pushback against any kind of sensible reform that would make our economy work better and give people more opportunity.”

 
 


 
ADVERTISEMENT

#1    September 25, 2011 at 9:13 pm
gus commented:

Did the President speak in BLACK URBAN DIALECT today?


#2    September 25, 2011 at 9:14 pm
Bob Z commented:

Good times


#3    September 25, 2011 at 9:18 pm
Sasja commented:

The only time der Teufel cares about someone’s name is when he sees it written on a fat check. Shirley and his ilk are only useful monetary tools and even bigger fools to support this monster.


#4    September 25, 2011 at 9:20 pm
Opaobie commented:

Surely this was just a non-issue gaffe…and DON’T call me Shirley….


#5    September 25, 2011 at 9:24 pm
Ted commented:

Join the new army!
Sleep and shower with gay men everyday!


#6    September 25, 2011 at 9:31 pm
pamlinson commented:

Did he not bring his teleprompter?


#7    September 25, 2011 at 9:31 pm
BradInMo commented:

“The fundraiser was held in the 27,000-square toot,” I’ll bet the room was full of toots. Wonder if they ever expected to host such a large amount of hot stinky air when they built the place.


#8    September 25, 2011 at 9:37 pm
Granny Jan commented:

I’d like to know what the joke is? He always is laughing like a hyena. Actually, I know what the joke is but Shirley he isn’t laughing at himself?


#9    September 25, 2011 at 9:39 pm
No Man commented:

Ben Franklin said, “Admiration is the daughter of ignorance.”

How many hundreds of Obama’s gaffs?

We know Obama-worshiping imbeciles worship an idiot.


#10    September 25, 2011 at 9:41 pm
Nelle commented:

I’ve noticed the ideological pushback, but did I miss the part where Obama proposed a sensible reform that would make the economy work better?


#11    September 25, 2011 at 9:46 pm
MrGoodWench commented:

The President told a $35,800-a-couple..
++++
Errrr…what ? $ 35,800 is average YEARLY salary for some Americans .
Why was that woman from Rutgers not in this fundraiser,
yelling at people for drinking expensive wine ?
All those darn millionaires and billionaires with corporate jets, throwing money at the poor little ghetto kid so that he can raise their taxes ! How pathetic

[Soul Crusher]

WOODSIDE, Calif. (AP) -- President Barack Obama is swiping at Texas Gov. Rick Perry, criticizing him as "a governor whose state is on fire, denying climate change."

Obama also poked at the audience reactions at recent GOP presidential debates, singling out those who cheered at the prospect of someone dying because he didn't have health insurance - and those who booed a gay service member.

(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...







Incredible how stupid Obama is. 

[Soul Crusher]

[Butterbean]

So is he saying he's going to have everyone pay the same tax rate?  I think people would be fine with that.

[Soul Crusher]

So is he saying he's going to have everyone pay the same tax rate?  I think people would be fine with that.

Not at all.  He is lying again as his idiotic tax scam applies to w2 wages as well. 

[Soul Crusher]

Obama's Biggest Lies
Townhall.com ^ | September 26, 2011 | Peter Ferrara



If you work hard, play by the rules, save your money, create jobs, and make a success out of yourself, President Obama and the Democrat party will plunder everything you have worked so hard for, because in their view that is only fair.


That is the meaning of the policies President Obama is espousing as he campaigns for re-election around the country this week. As Mark Steyn has explained, there is no bill yet that the President is demanding Congress pass, it won't create any jobs, and there is no money to pay for it. It is just a traveling road show, and we need to start to hold accountable our relatives, friends and neighbors who would fall for it, and thereby darkly threaten the entire future of America.


Calculated Deception


Campaigning for re-election on Monday, President Obama said,



Middle-class families shouldn't pay higher tax rates than millionaires and billionaires. That's pretty straightforward. It's hard to argue against that. Warren Buffet's secretary shouldn't pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it. It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million. Anybody who says we can't change the tax code to correct that.... They should have to defend that unfairness -- explain why somebody who's making $50 million a year in the financial markets should be paying 15 percent on their taxes, when a teacher making $50,000 a year is paying more than that -- paying a higher rate. They ought to have to answer for it.

Let me educate you, Mr. President, even though I am quite certain you are not interested in hearing any answer that contradicts your committed religious beliefs. But the truth is that the unfairness you discuss is a fantasy. The facts are just the opposite.


Even before you were elected, Mr. Obama, under the tax policies adopted by President Reagan, House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and the much vilified President George W. Bush, official IRS data for 2007 showed that the top 1 percent of income earners paid more in federal income taxes than the bottom 95 percent combined! The top 1 percent of income earners that year earned 22 percent of income but paid 40.4 percent of total income taxes. When Reagan became President, the top 1 percent paid 17.4 percent of income taxes, as I note in my recent book, America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb. As Jack Kemp used to say, if you want to soak the rich, cut tax rates. Moreover, the bottom 40 percent plus of income earners now pay no federal income tax on net as a group.


So if "the rich" are not paying their fair share, Mr. President, what would that fair share be? Based on these official facts, for you to run around the country telling America that we could have jobs and balance the budget and solve the debt crisis you are creating if the rich would just pay their fair share of taxes only demonstrates that you are not qualified to be President. Either you don't understand the basics of America's tax policies even after you have been President for three years, or you are engaged in calculated deception thinking your fairy tale will fool enough gullible people that you can be re-elected despite an economic record so bad that it is threatening to rival the Great Depression.


As the Wall Street Journal further explained yesterday, in 2008 official IRS data shows that taxpayers earning over $1 million paid an average federal income tax rate of 23.3 percent. Those earning between $500,000 and $1 million paid an average federal tax rate of 24.1 percent. As the Journal further elaborated, "that is more than twice the 8.9% average rate paid by those earning between $50,000 and $100,000, and more than three times the 7.2% average rate paid by those earning less than $50,000. The larger point is that the claim that CEOs are routinely paying lower rates than their secretaries is Omaha hokum."


Actually it is a Warren Buffett scam. His company that made him rich, Berkshire Hathaway, itself is a sophisticated tax shelter. If tax rates are raised, that will only lead more of the wealthy to flee to investing in his company to avoid the abusive multiple taxation. The IRS claims that Buffett's company owes a billion dollars in back taxes. If Buffett thinks the rich don't pay their fair share, why is he fighting this? Why doesn't he just pay his fair share as required under current law?


Buffett is just playing all of us like President Obama is. What a disgrace that our public debate has fallen this low, to this level of rank, manipulative dishonesty.


And the above doesn't even count the corporate income tax. America suffers from virtually the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world, nearly 40 percent on average counting state corporate income taxes. Even Communist China has a 25 percent corporate rate. The average rate in the European Union, which is reputedly mostly socialist, is even less than that. In formerly socialist Canada, the corporate tax rate is 16.5 percent, slated under current law to fall to 15 percent next year. Compared to America, Canada has been booming since Obama was mistakenly elected.


The Obama/Buffett ruse arises just like any other magician's trick. It focuses attention on just one tax rate paid on income arising from capital investment -- the capital gains tax rate of 15 percent. The florid abusive rhetoric distracts from the multiple taxation of that income, which is actually taxed at least four separate times under our tax code. Capital investment income is taxed first by the above mentioned, abusive, internationally uncompetitive corporate income tax. If any is paid out as dividends, then it is taxed again by the individual income tax. If the value of the capital interest, say a share of stock, manages to increase in the Obama depression, then it is taxed again by the capital gains tax. If anything is left at death, then it is subject to taxation again by the death tax.


Moreover, a basic principle of our tax code is that any business expenses incurred to produce income are deductible in the year they are incurred. But not the expenses of capital investment. Those expenses can only be deducted over several years under depreciation rules, which is yet another form of discrimination and plunder of capital investment. Moreover, the money devoted to any capital investment has already been taxed when it was earned, so that is effectively still more taxation of the same income.


That is how the top 1 percent of income earners ends up paying more than the bottom 95 percent combined. And it is why the average tax rate paid by millionaires is three times the average rate paid by the middle class.


On the basis of his abusively misleading rhetoric, President Obama in his campaign speech on Monday called for $1.5 trillion in increased taxes. That would be on top of all the tax increases for which Obama has already won enactment under current law for 2013. In that year, the tax increases of Obamacare become effective, and the Bush tax cuts, which President Obama has refused to renew for the nation's small businesses, job creators, and investors, expire.


As a result, the top two income tax rates will go up by nearly 20 percent. The capital gains tax would soar by nearly 60 percent. The tax on dividends would nearly triple. The Medicare payroll tax would rocket up by 62 percent for these disfavored taxpayers. That is before the new tax increases our Dear Leader called for on Monday.


Those Tax Increases Are Not Paid For


President Obama said in his campaign speech on Monday that Congress should pass his jobs plan "knowing that every proposal is fully paid for." They are paid for by his tax increases on "the rich," which he says will raise $1 trillion, 573 billion over 10 years. But those tax increases don't have a prayer of raising nearly that much.


Obama and Buffett are blowing smoke over the 15 percent rate on capital gains and on dividends adopted in the Bush years. But over the last 40 years, every time the capital gains tax rate has been cut, revenue has gone up. And every time the capital gains tax rate has been raised, revenue has gone down.


In 1968, a 25 percent capital gains tax rate yielded real capital gains tax revenues of $40.6 billion calculated in 2000 dollars. The capital gains tax rate was then raised four times in the next eight years to 35 percent. By 1975, at the higher rate, capital gains revenues totaled $19.6 billion in constant 2000 dollars, less than half as much.


In 1978, the capital gains tax rate of 35 percent raised $29.9 billion in 2000 dollars. The capital gains rate was then cut three times to 20 percent over the four years. By 1986, the new rate 43 percent lower than the 1978 rate raised $92.9 billion in 2000 dollars, about three times as much.


The capital gains rate was raised by 40 percent the next year, to 28 percent. Capital gains revenues fell to $56.2 billion that year, and declined all the way to $34.6 billion by 1991.


The reason for this is that when the capital gains rate was cut, more taxpayers sold their capital and realized their gains, and a rising stock market produced more gains. When the rate was increased, more taxpayers held on to their capital and a declining stock market cut off the gains.


You might say that the estimate Obama gives for his tax increase just reflects the official scoring of the proposal from the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Tax Committee. But in 1997, Congress was considering a cut in the capital gains rate from 28 percent back down to 20 percent. The Joint Tax Committee (JTC) estimated that as a result revenues would increase by $7.8 billion from 1997 to 1999, but the tax cut would produce a loss of $28.8 billion over the following seven years, for a net loss of $21 billion over the 10 year period.


The actual numbers after the tax cut was passed showed an increase of $84 billion over the pre-tax cut projections for 1997 to 2000. Despite an almost 30 percent cut in the rate, capital gains revenues rose from $62 billion in 1996 to $109 billion in 1999.


Similarly, Congress considered cutting the capital gains rate again in 2003, from 20 percent to 15 percent. The JTC estimated that this would cause a loss of revenue of $5.4 billion from 2003 to 2006. But after Congress passed the tax cut, capital gains revenues increased by $133 billion during those years, as compared to the pre-tax cut projections. As Dan Clifton of the American Shareholders Association said, "There is no excuse for this $138 billion error." Capital gains tax revenue doubled from 2003 to 2005 despite a 25 percent cut in the tax rate.


Similarly, when the tax rate on dividends was cut to 15 percent in 2003, dividends paid soared, and so did the resulting revenue.


So if we effectively raise these rates again under President Obama's tax piracy proposals, revenues will most likely decline rather than rise. If those tax increases push the economy back into recession, federal revenues will decline across the board, and the national debt will soar further.


Moreover, there is further miscalculation in Obama's proposals. He claims $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. But most of his spending cuts involve $1.84 trillion in supposed savings due to the withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan over the next 10 years that have long been expected. President Bush signed a peace treaty with Iraq providing for withdrawals in 2008.


Another $436 billion in spending cuts are from assumed interest savings due to the supposed spending cuts in the plan. But interest rates over the next 10 years will only rise from the current historic low levels. Moreover, there are no net spending cuts in the plan. The remaining cuts outside the planned reductions in Iraq/Afghanistan spending over the next 10 years total $577 billion. But the proposal involves $447 billion in increased "stimulus" spending for the President's so-called Jobs Plan. In addition, $320 billion of the remaining $577 billion are cuts to Medicare and Medicaid mostly involving further reduced payments to doctors and hospitals providing health care to the poor and elderly under those programs. That only threatens the continued provision and quality of that health care.


Class Warfare: Making War on Working People


Before this last recession, since the Great Depression recessions in America lasted an average of 10 months, with the longest previously lasting 16 months. But in August 2011, 44 months after the last recession began, unemployment was stuck at 9.1 percent, with exactly zero jobs created for the month, leaving over 25 million Americans unemployed or underemployed. This is the longest period of unemployment that high since the Great Depression, when Keynesian economics first reigned supreme.


Unemployment for African-Americans in August was 16.7 percent, stuck at depression levels for over 2 years. Hispanic unemployment at 11.3 percent has been in double digits for over 2 years as well. Teenage unemployment was a depression level 25.4 percent. Black teenage unemployment was at a Jim Crow level 46.5 percent.


The U6 unemployment rate, reflecting total unemployment and underemployment, was 16.2 percent. And that still doesn't fully count the millions of Americans who have given up and dropped out of the work force altogether.


The Census Bureau reported on September 14 that median family income has fallen all the way back to 1996 levels. As the Wall Street Journal explained the next day, "Earnings of the typical man who works full time year round fell, and are lower -- adjusted for inflation -- than in 1978."


Census also reported that the poverty rate climbed to 15.1 percent, higher than in the late 1960s when the War on Poverty was getting underway, $16 trillion ago. The child poverty rate climbed to 22 percent, nearly a quarter of all American children. The total number of Americans in poverty is higher than at any time in the over 50 years that the Census Bureau has been tallying poverty.


Obama apologists cannot argue that this is because the recession he inherited was so bad. The historical record for the American economy is the worse the downturn the stronger the recovery. Based on the historical record, we should be completing our second year of a booming recovery by now.


These are the natural results of Obama's class warfare. If you try to rob the rich, you only end up stealing from the poor and working people. That is because the poor and working families have the most to lose when the economy turns bad, as they lose the jobs and wages they need to maintain a basic standard of living.


Most small business income is earned by singles making over $200,000 or families making over $250,000. Obama's $1.5 trillion tax increase, and his 2013 tax increases, will fall precisely on these small business earners. And most jobs are created by small business.


Moreover, what creates jobs is capital investment. Virtually all of Obama's tax increases will fall on capital investment, as proposed in his supposed jobs plan, and in 2013. The result would be even fewer jobs. If the economy falls back into recession, unemployment will soar further, along with government spending, deficits and debt.


But Obama figures the suckers will have re-elected him by then, and he could care less.

[Soul Crusher]

New gaffe: Obama confuses Jews with janitors
LAT ^ | 9/26/11 | Andrew Malcolm



President Obama spoke to the Congressional Black Caucus awards banquet over the weekend.

Those folks will stick with him in 2012, of course.

But they've been somewhat miffed in recent months that the first post-partisan president is doing too many deals with those Republicans and seeming to give in.

So, Obama needed to give the crowd some presidential love. He even brought his wife along. As with virtually all of Obama's speeches recently, the Democrat's remarks dealt with selling his jobs legislation, as if it wasn't DOA on Capitol Hill.

The first black president got to reminiscing about some other struggles in the past familiar to African Americans.

His 28 minutes of remarks had a strange tone to them, as if somehow Obama was equating support for his jobs program legislation with the far more important and historic civil rights movement.

He got into the usual yada-yada about rich people paying their fair share of taxes.

And then, deep into the speech, according to the White House transcript, the president said:

When you start saying, at a time when the top one-tenth of 1 percent has seen their incomes go up four or five times over the last 20 years, and folks at the bottom have seen their incomes decline -- and your response is that you want poor folks to pay more?

Give me a break.

If asking a billionaire to pay the same tax rate as a janitor makes me a warrior for the working class, I wear that with a badge of honor. I have no problem with that.

That's what the transcript says he said.

Now, watch the C-SPAN video below, and listen especially to the phrase "the same tax rate as a janitor..."


(Excerpt) Read more at latimesblogs.latimes.com ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Soul Crusher]

Obama's Randomly-Selected Questioner Just So Happens To Be A Major Democratic Donor
Ace of Spades blog citing Mark Knoller ^ | September 26, 2011



Wow, what a shock. Doug Edwards, formerly an executive with Google. And now, as he says, retired, by choice.

Guy seems to be willing to pay a lot of money to get his taxes raised. $10k to the Ohio Demo Partry in 2010

$7.5k to John Kerry in 2004

$500 to the DNC Services Corp in 2004

$2.3k to Michael Arcuri in 2007

$2.1k to Bob Casey in 2006

$250 to Hillary Clinton in 2007

$1k to John Courage in 2006

$5k to the DCCC in 2006

$700 to Kay Hagan in 2008

$1k to Ron Klein in 2006

$2,300 to Harry Mitchell in 2007

$1k to Joe Sestak in 2006

$2.3k to John Yarmouth in 2007

$2k to the Franken Recount fund in 2008

$2.3k to Timothy Walz in 2007

$30k to to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in 2010!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

$2.4k to Betty Sutton for Congress in 2010

$1k to Bill Foster for Congress in 2010

As a general matter, he gives the federal limit ($2300 or $2400) to a lot of Democratic candidates.

Here's a screencap of the donor information for "Edwards, Douglas." You have to skip some of these entries because it's not the same Doug Edwards (e.g., he's not an attorney and not likely to donate to some kind of lobbying group for convenience stores).

One odd thing is that he's only given $500 (five hundred) to Obama himself.

I sort of think these records might be incomplete. I can't see this guy showering $2300 on every Patrick Murphy or Tammy Duckworth and then only giving Obama $500.

You can look it up here.

Thanks to "Northern California."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




LMFAO!!!!



FAILBAMA

[Soul Crusher]

Obama’s Big Lie To Ohio
BY NEOAVATARA – SEPTEMBER 26, 2011


Ohio is going to be the keystone to any Presidential strategy.  And as such, we will be seeing a lot of this President, and the Republican nominee, over the next 14 months.

But we have already seen that this President has little or nothing to offer the great state of Ohio.

Obama last week, in what can only be defined as a political stunt, went to the Brent Spence Bridge spanning the Ohio River near Cincinnati.  The choice of Cincinnati was not random, as it is the home of Speaker of the House John Boehner, and lies acrosss the Ohio River from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s home state of Kentucky.

So Obama, in his usual arrogant and condescending manner, proclaimed the bridge as a perfect example of why Republicans, and all Ohioans, heck, all Americans should support his jobs plan.  He stated that bridges like the Spence Bridge need to be fixed to prevent them from falling, and America could create jobs by immediately supporting his bill.  In fact, Obama specifically pointed to the bridge and said it was crumbling, and we should infer that Republicans are basically putting lives at risk by not supporting the funding.

Great story.  One problem:  there is virtually nothing factual about Obama’s argument.

First and foremost, the Brent Spence Bridge is 48 years old.  According to the Department of Transportation, and the website for the bridge repair or replacement that can be seen here, the bridge in fact is in such good repair, it could function for decades more.  In fact, by the websites own analysis, it is not crumbling at all.  According to the DOT, the bridge could last another 50 years with basic improvements.

There is one caveat.  People are pushing for funding…to replace the bridge in its entirety.  This is not because it is crumbling, or at risk of falling down.  It is because business leaders argue that it is functionally obsolete.  This means that the bridge, initially designed to carry approximately 85,000 cars and trucks a day, now carries almost twice that number.  The problem is not structural, so much as capacity, as the bridge is a common cause of backups and delays.

So Mr. Obama’s statement of a ‘crumbling bridge’ is totally and completely a misstatement.

Furthermore, the project to replace the Spence Bridge is nowhere ready to move any time soon.  According to supporters of replacing the bridge, the earliest work could even begin on a replacement is…2015.  In other words, Obama would be in the third year of his second term in office before a single job was created in either Ohio or Kentucky.  In fact, the project was considered so unworthy of ‘shovel ready’ status, that it was not provided funding in the first Obama stimulus specifically for that reason.

There are, of course, a multitude of problems with this.  First and foremost is Obama’s ability to try to use people’s vulnerabilities, such as fear of the bridge falling down and of course the larger issue of the lack of jobs, to scare them into supporting his plan.  But it gets even more fundamental than that. Obama’s jobs bill specifically states that projects must be started no less than 2 years after passage of the bill…thus making the Brent Spence Bridge ineligible for funds from the Jobs bill he is promoting, while standing in front of said bridge.

Another obvious problem is more basic with Obama’s, and most liberals, solution for economic growth.  Nothing they do today will have virtually anything other than a minimal effect for years.  And even then, the large stimulative effect on the economy is questionable at best.  In short, this administration is simply out of ideas on creating jobs or on moving the economy again, and simply is lying to voters across the nation in order to distract the American people from that reality.

 

 

 

[Soul Crusher]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/video-man-asks-obama-raise-taxes-town-hall-201340480.html



Let's see - this wealthy limousine liberlal piece of trash no longer works - so what exactly is this piece of shit asking Obama for to raise taxes?   

oh that's right, he turns out to be a plant for Obama to sell his tax scams.   


Unreal - whoever plans on voting for this again should drop dead. 

[Soul Crusher]

Obama: ‘You Can’t Have a Modern Industrial Economy’ Under GOP Tax Plans
CNSNews ^
Posted on September 26, 2011 8:06:25 PM EDT by Sub-Driver

Obama: ‘You Can’t Have a Modern Industrial Economy’ Under GOP Tax Plans By Fred Lucas September 26, 2011

(CNSNews.com) – Under Republican tax proposals it would not be possible to have a “modern industrial economy,” President Obama said during a town hall event in Mountain View, Calif. on Monday.

A member of the audience asked whether he could pay more in taxes, adding that he had been helped by federal Pell grants and infrastructure and job training programs that allowed him to be successful.

“Right now, we’ve got the lowest tax rates we’ve had since the 1950s,” Obama said during a lengthy reply.

“And some of the Republican proposals would take it back – as a percentage of GDP – back to where we were back in the 1920s,” he added. “You can’t have a modern industrial economy like that.”

(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...

[Soul Crusher]

Oops! White House fails basic geography test


Looks like someone in the White House press office needs to brush up on their U.S. geography.

The press office issued credentials to those reporters and photojournalists who are covering the president’s trip this week to Washington state, California, and Colorado. The credential even provides a handy graphic highlighting (in white) which states the president will visit.

The only problem?

Wyoming is highlighted, not Colorado. To be fair, both states are square, nearly identical in size, and stacked next to each other. But we doubt our third grade teachers would buy that!

[Soul Crusher]

How did I miss this gem? 

LMFAO!!!!!!

FAIL! 

[Soul Crusher]

Chicago Bears Legend Snubs Obama
Politico ^ | Sept. 27, 2011



The Chicago Bears team that won the 1986 Super Bowl never had an official visit to the White House because of the Challenger explosion, so President Obama — a big Bears fan — has invited the squad for a visit on Friday.

It may be a nice gesture, but one player is saying no thanks.

Dan Hampton, who played for the Bears for more than a decade, said on Chicago’s Mully and Hanley radio show on Monday, “It's my own personal choice, and I don’t choose to go.”

Hampton explained that he won't go, first of all, because his family can't attend. “How do you go to the White House and you tell your, kids, your wife, oh wait, I’m sorry you’re not invited?” he said.

"Secondly, I’m not a fan of the guy in the White House,” he said. “Third, hey, it was 25 years ago. Let it go.”

(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



He needs to call his CPA and prepare for an audit.   

[Soul Crusher]

Obama Email: ‘We Rely on Ordinary Americans’ for Campaign Cash
ABC News ^
Posted on September 27, 2011 8:18:32 PM EDT by Sub-Driver

Obama Email: ‘We Rely on Ordinary Americans’ for Campaign Cash

Never mind that President Obama left California today with millions of dollars in fresh campaign cash gathered from hundreds of his wealthiest donors.

Obama says what sets his campaign apart from any other is that “we rely on ordinary Americans giving what they can – one grassroots donation at a time.”

“I enjoy talking about fundraising deadlines as much as I imagine you enjoy hearing about them,” he said in an email to supporters. “But this Friday’s deadline is important. It’s a chance for us to prove how we’re different from any campaign in politics.”

The message is geared towards pressuring small-dollar donors to open their wallets before the end of the second major fundraising period on Sept. 30.

Obama has offered to place a personal phone call to a select group of supporters who give as $3. His campaign is also running a sweepstakes for grassroots supporters to win dinner with the president.

(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...



who the fuck is he kidding? 

[Soul Crusher]

(CNSNews.com) - President Barack Obama told an audience of high school students in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday that he was “not always the very best student” and that ethics “would not have made it on the list” of his favorite subjects.

“I was not always the very best student that I could be when I was in high school, and certainly not when I was in middle school,” Obama said, speaking at Benjamin Banneker Academic High School.

“I did not love every class I took. I wasn’t always paying attention the way I should have,” Obama said. “I remember when I was in 8th grade I had to take a class called ethics. Now, ethics is about right and wrong, but if you’d ask me what my favorite subject was back in 8th grade, it was basketball. I don’t think ethics would have made it on the list.”

Flash version 9,0 or greater is required

You have no flash plugin installed

Download latest version from here

Obama went on to tell the high school students that even though that 8th grade ethics class was not one of his favorites it did have a significant impact on his life—and now inspires the way he acts as president.

“I still remember that ethics class, all these years later,” Obama said. “I remember the way it made me think. I remember being asked questions like: What matters in life? Or, what does it mean to treat other people with dignity and respect? What does it mean to live in a diverse nation, where not everybody looks like you do, or thinks like you do, or comes from the same neighborhood as you do? How do we figure out how to get along?

“Each of these questions led to new questions,” said Obama. “And I didn’t always know the right answers, but those discussions and that process of discovery--those things have lasted. Those things are still with me today. Every day, I’m thinking about those same issues as I try to lead this nation.”

Obama attended 5th through 12th grade at the Punahou School in Hawaii. The K-12 school describes itself as “an independent college preparatory day school.”  On its website, it cites as the first element of its mission: “To provide an environment where students can: Develop moral and spiritual values consistent with the Christian principles on which Punahou was founded, affirming the worth and dignity of each individual.”

The Benjamin Banneker Academic High School where Obama spoke about the ethics he was taught in 8th grade at his private college preparatory school is a public school.






LMFAO!!!!!!   

[Fury]

Ethics wouldn't have made it on the list? Color me surprised!

[Soul Crusher]

Ethics wouldn't have made it on the list? Color me surprised!

Lmfao!!!   All these scandals must be on his stupid brain!!!

and someone please tell me how he got into ivy league schools again? 

[Fury]

Lmfao!!!   All these scandals must be on his stupid brain!!!

and someone please tell me how he got into ivy league schools again? 

Preemptive racist post reported.

[Soul Crusher]

Posted at 06:00 AM ET, 09/29/2011
A bogus chart on Obama and the debt gets a new lease on life
By Glenn Kessler

“Who Increased the Debt? President Reagan 189%. President GHW Bush 55%. President Clinton 37%. President GW Bush 115%. President Obama 16%.”

— Data on a chart floating around the Web this week (an older version of the chart above)

 

There’s a saying attributed to Winston Churchill that goes something like this: "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." 

 Try as we might at The Fact Checker, we find that no matter how many times we clearly identify an untruth — such as a ridiculous e-mail on Obama’s health-care plan — it still keeps popping up, months later.

 So imagine our surprise when we found in our Facebook feed this week a chart, purporting to show how Republican presidents — Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush — had increased the debt by a significantly greater percentage than either Bill Clinton or President Obama. Pretty impressive chart, “liked” by at least 7,000 people on a posting by the liberal group MoveOn.org.

 But this chart, originally created by the office of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, is as phony as a three-dollar bill. Our friends at PolitiFact did a pretty thorough takedown of it in May, giving it their worst rating: “pants on fire.” They even caught the Pelosi people in a bad mathematical error, based on the fact that the Democrats calculated the numbers as if Obama took office a year later than he did.

That error greatly reduced Obama’s supposed percentage increase (from 35 percent to 16 percent) and boosted George W. Bush’s increase (from 86 percent to 115 percent). Pelosi’s office corrected the math error after it was spotted by PolitiFact, but amazingly, the chart that turned up in several places in our Facebook feed was the old chart.

 But even with the corrected number, this is still a Four-Pinocchio whopper. Let’s explain why.

 

The Facts
The person who posted this on Facebook noted: “From the US Treasury Dept — any questions?” But it actually is not a Treasury Department calculation, just manipulated data taken from the Treasury Web site. 

The chart has some basic conceptual flaws. In particular, it cherry-picks the data that portray Obama in the best light by claiming to show “public debt” but in actuality using the statistics for gross debt.

Gross debt includes intergovernmental transactions such as bonds held by Social Security and Medicare, but public debt is the more commonly used figure of national indebtedness.

 If the chart actually used public debt rather than gross debt, it would have put Obama and George W. Bush virtually in the same league — 60 percent increase (as of September 2011) for Obama versus 70 percent for Bush — even though Bush served as president much longer.

 But the biggest problem is that this is just dumb math. What really counts is not the raw debt numbers, but the size of the debt as a percentage of the gross domestic product. The GDP is the broadest measure of the national economy and directly indicates the nation’s ability to service its debts. In fact, the White House budget office historical tables portray much of the data as a percentage of GDP, because that is the best way to truly compare such numbers over time.

 If the chart were recast to show how much the debt went up as a percentage of GDP, it would look pretty bad for Obama after not even three years in office. In fact, Obama does almost twice as poorly as Reagan — and four times worse than George W. Bush.

Reagan: plus 14.9 percentage points
GHW Bush: plus 7.1 percentage points
Clinton: down 13.4 percentage points
GW Bush: plus 5.6 percentage points
Obama: plus 24.6 percentage points
 (Note: We derived most of these data from table 7.1 of the budget office historical tables, which gives end-of-fiscal year figures, so they do not quite match up to presidential terms. Obama’s figures are based on the GDP: public debt ratio as of June 30, 2011)

 One can offer reasons for why Obama’s performance appears so poor, including the fact that he is battling a recession. An improvement in the nation’s economy would boost the gross domestic product, which would certainly begin to reduce his ratio. But the fact remains that under basic economic measures, not phony ones, his record on the growth of the national debt is the worst of recent presidents.

 

The Pinocchio Test
 If MoveOn.org or Pelosi’s office had any sense of shame, they would have quietly removed this chart from the Web when PolitiFact gave it a “pants on fire” rating four months ago. The fact that an outdated version is still floating around — and that people are still deluded into thinking it to be correct — is doubly shameful.

 

Four Pinocchios
 

(About our rating scale)

 

Follow the Fact Checker on Twitter and friend us on Facebook

Read more on PostPolitics.com

Are politicians minding their manners?

Perry backs off immigration remarks

The GOP money race: What the numbers mean

By    Glenn Kessler  |  06:00 AM ET, 09/29/2011

Categories:  4 Pinocchios, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Economy



inShare
Tumblr
Reddit
Stumbleupon
Digg
Delicious

Next: President Obama’s claim of lower small business taxes

Weigh In Discussion Policy About Discussions, Badges

LOG INREGISTER
+ SHARE THIS DEBATE
You are not logged in. You must login or register with the Washington Post to comment or post. If you post before logging in, your comment will be saved while you are guided through the login process.

Limit 3000 characters (3000 characters remaining)
Post
 
Top Comments (34)All Comments (367)
Newest first Oldest first Most Recommended first
Live Updates On

Benson
Moveon and Pelosi have no sense of shame. 
 
They don't mind lying if it suits their cause. Nevermind that if they were right, they wouldn't have to lie.
Today 9/29/2011 9:40:16 AM EDTRecommendRecommended by 27 readersReplyReport
19 more (expand)


GaryEMasters
" If Moveon.org or Pelsosi’s office had any sense of shame," 
 
Are you kidding.? These people gave us "General Betray Us." 
 
They are despicable.
Today 9/29/2011 8:20:55 AM EDTRecommendRecommended by 30 readersReplyReport
13 more (expand)



Www.washingtonpost.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/a-bogus-chart-on-obama-and-the-debt-gets-a-new-lease-on-life/2011/09/28/gIQAx40Y6K_blog.html

[Soul Crusher]

Obama: America's Gone 'Soft'
weeklystandard.com ^ | Sept. 29, 2011 | DANIEL HALPER
Posted on September 29, 2011 11:13:51 PM EDT by Free ThinkerNY

In an interview this evening with a local NBC affiliate in Orlando, President Obama claimed that America has "gotten a little soft."

(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...






Lmfao.     Who voted for this shithead? 

[Soul Crusher]

GAFFE-OLOGY


Strategery, misunderestimated, refudiate: former President George W. Bush and Sarah Palin have been chastised by journalists and academes for their inventive language and occasional grammatical gaffes for years. Now it is President Obama’s turn. Here comes “Obama Grammar: Using the President’s Bloopers to Improve Your English,” a new book that parses Mr. Obama’s command of the language, or lack thereof.

“The first wordsmith is, in fact, an occasional stem-winder who is grammatically challenged,” says author and Harvard-educated historian William Proctor, who pored over 3,000 pages of the president’s official speeches and remarks. He’s convinced that Americans — particularly students — can learn a little something from Mr. Obama.

“His speeches reveal that at this point, he is simply not in the same rhetorical-grammatical league as a Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy or Ronald Reagan,” Mr. Proctor says. “Even as we explore Mr. Obama’s errors, we should not lapse into smug, finger-pointing complacency. His mistakes should serve as a reminder to the rest of us that we, too, may need to clean up our technical language skills.”

The author also sets the record straight on presidential pronunciation bloopers of several persuasions and provides the “Great Obama Grammar Face-Off.” From Inkslingers Press, the ebook is available for $10 on Kindle, via Amazon and Barnes & Noble.



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/29/inside-the-beltway-368371842

[Soul Crusher]

Obama Urges Supporters to Stick With Him in Fundraising Pitch at Deadline
QBy Kate Andersen Brower - Oct 1, 2011 12:01 AM ET .



President Barack Obama, in a push to raise money as the deadline for third-quarter campaign fundraising arrived, told donors he needs their help as much as ever to reach his goals for the nation.

While a lot has been accomplished, Obama said last night, “what we haven’t done is change Washington. And we still have work to do to make sure that this town is working on behalf of ordinary folks so that they can start once again believing in the American dream. Because people have lost confidence in the capacity of folks to look out for them, as opposed to look out for themselves or their most powerful patrons. And that’s what 2012’s all about.”

Obama addressed about 60 guests at a campaign event at a private home in Washington with tickets ranging from $10,000 to $35,800 each.

All the Republican presidential hopefuls will probably trail him in fundraising, including former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who anticipates taking in between $13 million and $14 million in the third quarter, according to a person close to the campaign.

Obama raised $86 million for the combined total of his campaign and the Democratic National Committee in the second quarter. The campaign and party are targeting a combined goal of $55 million for the third quarter.

The president told the donors his first-term accomplishments include the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” and passage of his health-care law. More must be done to help the middle class, he said, because Republicans want “to basically allow the most powerful forces in our society to write their own rules.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-01/obama-urges-supporters-to-stick-with-him-at-fundraising-deadline.html



________________________ ____________


LMFAO!!!!!!   How on eart can obama say that with a straight face while he is at a dinner costing 35k a head?   

Another thing - who the hell would wan to pay 35k to hear that bs? 

[Soul Crusher]

President Obama: America 'Not Better Off' Today than Four Years Ago (All together now: "Duh!")
ABC News ^ | BY RUSSELL GOLDMAN
Posted on Monday, October 03, 2011 3:54:52 PM




Calling himself an "underdog," President Obama today said the faltering economy is a drag on his presidency and seriously impairing his chances of winning again in 2012.

"Absolutely," he said in response to a question from ABC News' George Stephanopoulos about whether the odds were against him come November 2012, given the economy. "I'm used to being the underdog. But at the end of the day people are going to ask -- who's got a vision?"

The American people, he conceded, are "not better off" than they were four years ago.

"The unemployment rate is way too high," he said of the 9 percent jobless rate, the highest in more than half a century…


(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------