Posts archived in Obama

0 comments

The next great conspiracy theory.

AMGers are just finding out about today’s explosion at an oil rig off the Louisiana coast, and they are not missing this chance to express their paranoid, irrational fear of our nation’s first black President.

Floating platforms that drill for, capture, and store large amounts of flammable liquids and gas don’t just explode for no reason, you see. Obama makes them explode.

Suggests Melvin Udall:

Oh, crap. One explosion, accident. Multiples, and ?????

And I suppose there are explosions, and then there are explosions.

And then wv_republican adds:

1 is an accident, 2 within months after years of quiet success…….

Pretty soon wv_republican will be finding a way to retroactively frame Obama for all the coal mining explosions in recent years.

Just more irrational hate from the “common sense” crowd.

Once in a while The Editor goes through a period where he mostly makes sense, sometimes for up to almost a month. But then he does something that reminds me how ideologically buffoonish is his world view. This is one if those times.

He started this thread, wherein he posted Obama’s video message to the Scouts on their 100th anniversary. In the video Obama has nothing but praises for the Scouts and tells them that they are America’s future leaders. Watch for yourself:

Something in that two minutes of unadulterated praise sets The Editor off, because he laments that Obama thinks the Boy Scouts are like the “Cuban Red Scarves.” I guess it’s my lack of age, but I don’t even know what those are. I’m guessing it’s an evil Communist parallel version of the Boy Scouts, but instead of earning merit badges they kill puppies. Oh, and they all have goatees because they are EVIL.

Look, I’ll admit it wasn’t the most exciting speech in the world. But really, is there anything to complain about? How was it un-American in any way? Can’t the AMG universe refrain from complaining about Obama even when he says very nice things about a favored organization? I swear, if Obama went to the Editor’s house and mowed his lawn and then cooked him a BBQ, we would hear the next day how the smell of cut grass interfered with the flavor of the chicken.

There is nothing they won’t complain about.

Michelle Anderson doesn’t like Obama saying he’s got some ass to kick at British Petroleum because it makes him “President Pottymouth.”

She thinks everyone is being way too hard on BP:

BP has so far stepped up to the plate. They have promised to pay for all damages. Why would the Administration threaten to sue them for their part in what is clearly an accident if they are not shirking a single duty?

Yeah, BP has been so awesome in how it’s handling its self-created disaster. The well is only spilling 5,000 gallons a day… Oh wait, we’re collecting five times that in our siphon? Oops! But there’s definitely no oil plumes underwater. Oh those? That’s just a very small amount of oil floating around underwater. Is that what you’d call a plume? Oh, it is? Oops!

What is amazing is how quickly someone with a conspiracy bent, like Michelle, is willing to assign bad motives to nearly anyone with even the most remote incentives but won’t assign them to BP. For instance, she’ll reject global warming based on the theory that low paid academics around the world independently and repeatedly invent data showing a warming trend just so they can get a little bit more in grant money, but when BP has the CLEAREST, simplest incentive to behave badly she just ignores it. This is fucking BP, Michelle. They are an oil company, not a cleanup company. They exist solely to make money. They will absolutely try to downplay, hide, and obfuscate to protect their finances. They will pay as little in damages as they possibly can. It is that simple. How naive do you have to be to think that the President should be nice about this because BP has “promised” they will pay for everything?

I’m sure if I went and dumped a barrel of oil in Michelle’s front lawn, she wouldnt sue me or call the police as long as I immediately promised to pay for it. She’d be reasonable about it.

Not a chance. She would want me tarred and feathered. Unless, of course, I was a corporation. Then she’d probably apologize to me because her yard got in the way of my oil.

AMG is only now figuring out that Obama cut their taxes.

There is a $400 tax credit popping up on their tax returns. This isn’t new money they will receive from their refund, but reflective of less being taken out of their paychecks over the course of the year. That was a better way to stimulate the economy in 2009 than waiting for refund checks to go out in 2010.

At the time, AMG poo-pooed the whole idea. As user Islander so poignantly stated in May 2009 (regarding the decrease in withholdings):

What no comments from Democrat touting the tax cuts. I was always surprised at how easily liberals can be bought, $13/wk wow. And just as it was explained here on AMG, you would be giving it back at tax time. So the One has already increased taxes in the first 100 days, can’t wait to see what tax is next.

“And just as it was explained here on AMG, you would be giving it back at tax time?” I think “Explained” might be the wrong word. Maybe something like misled, or lied about, or propagandized would be more appropriate next time. Because the money isn’t being given back at tax time. It is right there on the form.

I also like the idea that $13/week is just not worth it, as if it doesn’t add up over the course of a year. Give people a $400 check and that is real money, but $13 a week for 31 weeks is chump change. Glad we sent Islander to school all those years. It really worked out well for him.

When will the first AMGer say “Thank You, Obama?” My guess is about the same time Islander says “I was wrong.”

0 comments

Stimulus Facts

Facts ©: For those that choose to care about them.

Do you remember back at the beginning of 2009 when the world was collapsing? It was damn near the end of everything. The stock market was shooting down and many large banks were near collapse. There was talk that businesses would not be able to get funding to make payroll. And like many people in times of crisis, I looked for advice from mostly anonymous people on internet message boards. What I found was pretty disheartening; the AMG tea leaves were pretty much pointed towards the end of America as we know it. Here are some examples.

Beth O’Connor in February, 2009:

I talked to one very good friend today who has lost a bundle in the stock market. He was so incredibly optemistic today over Obamas address I thought he would burst. I asked if he knew as we spoke the market was down another 160…he said yes, but we are at the bottom and it’s going to get better. He said that confidence had been restored and people were ready to invest and buy again.I bet him 5 bucks that by December we would see double digit unemployment and the dow we be around 5000 probably less. Gosh, I hope I have to pay him.

You’re in luck, Beth! You were only 5,000 points off. I hope you’ve ponied up the 5 bucks.

Roger Ek in March, 2009:

The price of the Dow and Gold crossed at 34 in 1931.
The price of the Dow and gold grossed at 800 in 1981.
I predict the price of the Dow and gold will cross at 4200 this year.

4200?? God damn, Roger, tell us what you really think. Well, the Dow is at 10,000 and Gold is at 1,000 so I guess you were close, in cosmic terms. I hope you’re buying all the gold you can right now, because I’d love to hear about how you lose it all in the next couple years.

Oh, and in case you think that Roger was being a tad bit on the pessimistic side, he makes clear that his predictions were less extreme than those being broadcast on a certain news organization:

The distance from 14,000 to 4,200 is 9,800 points. We have come down 70% of the way from 14,000 to 4,200. Only 30% more to go. Yesterday a pundit on Fox Business Network said the Dow would bottom around 3,800. I’m more optimistic than that.

Man, if I got all my advice from the Fox Business Network I’d be, like, a hundredaire by now.

This sort of extreme negativity wasn’t just limited to obvious nuts like Roger Ek. See Economike in March, 2009:

Since it became apparent last summer that Obama would be elected, the United States has lost half its wealth.

I guess if you equate the stock market with the nation’s wealth, that would be true. It is also true, then, that since Obama was inaugurated the wealth of the United States has increased about 25%, and is up some 60% off the low. I know this because Economike tells us all the time. I mean, he likes to give Obama a fair shake. Not an ideological bone in his body. I feel so lucky to have such an unbiased professional view of the nation’s economy available, free of charge, on AMG.

So how does one explain the vast difference between economic predictions on AMG in early 2009 and the reality of where we are? Gosh, I don’t know. I’d give Obama credit if credit were due, but I can’t think of anything he did to stimulate the economy or shore up banks.

Okay, this is just a little one but it strikes a nerve with me. Conservatives not understanding English is a pet peeve of mine. It also shows how AMG and conservatives, day-in and day-out, distort language and facts to build their own fantasy world wherein liberals are a bunch of extreme, mindless child-men.

Here, the Editor posts a thread entitled “Obama: Collecting Food Stamps Is A Job.” Wow, Obama said that getting food stamps is like a job?! That would piss me off! What a moron! Of course, Obama didn’t say that and the linked article doesn’t claim he did.

What the WSJ article says is that Obama’s projections of jobs saved:

“are based on macroeconomic models and try to include the number of jobs that exist indirectly as a result of people being hired to work on stimulus projects, or of people receiving food stamps or other aid funded by the stimulus program.”

Read the sentence again, Editor. See the word “indirectly?”  It means “not direct.” As in, some jobs exist because people get food stamps rather than getting food stamps equals employment. I interpret this to mean that people getting food stamps spend money supporting the jobs of the people who provide, transport, and distribute the food. If 7 million people without jobs spend less on food, that means some people up the food supply chain also lose their jobs. Food stamps soften the blow on the industry. Just like if the government bought everyone a hamster it would save jobs in the hamster procurement industry. Get it? It isn’t like it takes a Ph.D., just some common knowledge about the meaning of words and a brain not warped by intense hatred of all things Obama.

As always, there is something for reasonable people to disagree about here.  I’d acknowledge an argument that food stamps are less efficient than other sorts of aid conservatives might prefer.  I disagree with that particular assertion, but that isn’t nuts. It makes an effort. But the Editor goes straight for the throat of basic seventh-grade reading comprehension and doesn’t try to argue any point. He just wants you to believe that Obama is an idiot.  Let’s face it AMGers: he’s a lot fucking smarter than most of you.

A good measure of how reasonable Obama looked during his Q&A session with House Republicans is the lack of any large AMG response. Gerald from DirigoBlue posted about it in a new thread and over nearly 24 hours it accrued only 17 replies.  That is less than 20% of the replies to a thread about someone that is pissed his vehicle didn’t pass inspection.  Aside: Sorry, dude, people don’t want your rust-bucket driving around. Maybe you should find a free market solution, i.e. get a car that doesn’t suck.

So Obama directly takes his arguments to the GOP, accepts tough questions from a tough audience for over an hour without a teleprompter, and actually looks somewhat good doing it and the response is crickets. Figures.

Oh wait, there were a few responses worth noting. The Editor posted a youtube video depicting a shell game. I guess he thinks that the way Republicans now attack as socialism the very same ideas they proposed as great health care solutions in 1994 is sort of a shell game. And the way Republicans request “bipartisanship,” but negotiate with the majority party by requiring Democrats do exactly what the Republicans want or else they only vote no might be kind of a shell game. Good points, Editor.