PRESS CORPS: “Good morning Miss Landers”

OBAMA: “Good morning class, you may be seated”

But as we’ve learned very clearly and conclusively over the last eight years, tax cuts alone can’t solve all of our economic problems, especially tax cuts that are targeted to the wealthiest few Americans. – Barak “The Brain” Obama

Please choose one option:

____ This man is an utter moron

____ This man is completely clueless

Tax cuts are what kept this from happening for as long as it did. Not ONCE has this fraud bother to mention that it was the crude political manipulation of the Housing Market by his own party – the Party of Jim Crowe – that caused this economic disaster.

Ok class, time to grade you papers – if you’ve chose either one of these statements you’re absolutely correct! Give yourself an A. If you chose both you get an A+! because as of this date he has shown no ability to comprehend the cause of the problem, and has attempted to implement solutions that have failed every time they’ve been attempted (in every country they’ve been attempted), therefore we can also accept a write in answer of “He’s insane.” His policies are going to make the Smoot-Hawley act look like Divine Deliverance in a year from now.

Keep in mind that he’s also failed to prove he’s even a citizen of this country.

Zogby was right.

On February 10th, 2009 at 12:36 pm, chapoutier said:

But as we’ve learned very clearly and conclusively over the last eight years, tax cuts alone can’t solve all of our economic problems, especially tax cuts that are targeted to the wealthiest few Americans. We have tried that strategy time and time again, and it’s only helped lead us to the crisis we face right now.

He is saying that thinking tax cuts for the rich is the cure to the crisis is wrong. He is not saying tax cuts caused the crisis.

This style of argument (Obama’s, not yours) always seems like a bit of a ad nauseum attack against a class of citizens. Which tax cuts only targeted the rich? The argument typically seemed to be that the rich should not benefit from tax cut incentives that were targeted to be universal. There’s a lot of shell games that are played with total amounts and not percentages that make it appear as though the wealthiest benefit most. Where is the line drawn, anyway? The $250k that was part of Obama’s campaign?

Ultimately, this stimulus is intended to induce more individual spending, investment, etc. Why are the richest among us always derided for their wealth when they are the same people we want to spend money?

Why must it always be about class warfare?

The president completely lost me when he indicated that our current crisis was the result of tax cuts for the rich. WHAT????!!!!

Really? Can you tell me where in the transcript he said that?

I do note he said this:

Obama: Well, first of all, I don’t think it’s accurate to say that consumer spending got us into this mess. What got us into this mess initially were banks taking exorbitant, wild risks with other people’s monies based on shaky assets and because of the enormous leverage, where they had $1 worth of assets and they were betting $30 on that $1, what we had was a crisis in the financial system.

That led to a contraction of credit, which, in turn, meant businesses couldn’t make payroll or make inventories, which meant that everybody became uncertain about the future of the economy, so people started making decisions accordingly, reducing investment, initiating layoffs, which, in turn, made things worse.

And with respect to tax cuts, this:

But as we’ve learned very clearly and conclusively over the last eight years, tax cuts alone can’t solve all of our economic problems, especially tax cuts that are targeted to the wealthiest few Americans. We have tried that strategy time and time again, and it’s only helped lead us to the crisis we face right now.

He is saying that thinking tax cuts for the rich is the cure to the crisis is wrong. He is not saying tax cuts caused the crisis.

Like you do with Bill Grant?

Actually I was being sarcastic (although apparently feebly), and I’ve never said anything critical of Bill Grant.

But it’s eerily close!

Not really. Do you think Obama, from your opinion of him, would choose a reporter that questioned whether he is losing credibility and actually hurting the economy, if they were pre screened? I mean after all, the guy is a complete narcissist who only wants to bask in universal adulation, right?

Or what about the reporter that brought up the fact he had gotten zero votes in the House and only 3 in the Senate? That’s not a very nice question, is it?

And what about Chuck Todd asking if consumer overspending is the cause, and not the solution to the crisis?

Or the woman from Bloomberg calling the President out on the real cost of the bank bailout?

Or Helene Cooper asking why Obama thinks this bank bailout will work when the last one didn’t?

Not to mention Major Garrett’s odd question.

I guess these were all just softballs.

So you set the standards of credibility here? Good to know – I guess.

Certainly not. I set the standard for what I consider credible. The bar for what is considered credible HERE is often far too low.

Better yet, instead of criticizing us, why not embrace our diversity of ideas and opinion?

Like you do with Bill Grant?

So you setdetermine the standards of credibility here?

The change is more fitting with your often judgmental concept of others – wouldn’t you agree?

You all should really try to rally around just ONE silly idea. It makes it ever so slightly more credible.

So you set the standards of credibility here? Good to know – I guess.

Better yet, instead of criticizing us, why not embrace our diversity of ideas and opinion?

Pre-selected people to call on (no matter your method) absolutely does not equal pre-screened questions.

But it’s eerily close!

I was against this practice when President Bush did it, and I’m against it when Obama does it now.

How can we as citizens truly have all the information necessary to be informed and instill trust in our government, when our president literally follows a script meant to evoke support for his own spending bill?

Can’t our leaders think on their feet and defend their own plans and ideas when presented with honest questions?

beachmom said: He sounds like a spoiled child.

If you know anything about narcissism then your statement makes perfect sense.

Someone with Narcissistic Personality Disorder acts like at kid….if they don’t get their way all the time they whine and throw a fit. DO NOT QUESTION THEM they are ALWAYS RIGHT! They can rationalize anything and everything they do no matter how illogical. They do not have the ability to be empathetic. They are also pathological liars.

I could go on……..get the drift?

You all should really try to rally around just ONE silly idea. It makes it ever so slightly more credible.

On February 10th, 2009 at 8:00 am, SnowyOwl said:
If I didn’t know any better, I’d say that the whole event was scripted, to include the questions and who would ask them. If that’s the case, then it’s no press conference, it’s theater, and the media are willing accomplices.

Of course the entire charade was scripted! Why the hell else would there be teleprompters at a freaking press conference! Once I saw those, the TV went off.
I weep for my country.

While some presidents may have pre-selected reporters they will call on, they also would call upon those that, for whatever reason, attracted attention. President Bush was famous for that, as was President Reagan.

Really? The same President Bush that staged those farcical “Town Halls” on social security reform?

The One never went off script when selecting questioners. That tells me pre-selects had pre-approved questions.

Pre-selected people to call on (no matter your method) absolutely does not equal pre-screened questions.

the Soviet style presser (like we witnessed) is “silly” and overt way to signal to all that only the favored few, the preselected, need attend. All others need not apply.

This is absurd. Sorry. Not everyone in the room is going to get picked. And every President has their “favored few.” This isn’t Little League where everyone gets at least one at bat and one inning.

The Slimes was not P.O.ed in any way. They and Obama know they need to keep the unwashed masses happy by letting then take a swing at the big time.

And this is barely intelligible. The NYT has been very public with its disappointmnet about Obama snubbing it for a pre-Inaugural interview. And which paper got called on last night? The Post. Which didn’t? The Times. Which is fine by me, because the Post is a superior paper anyway.