Skip to main content

I have come to the point that I cannot believe a thing President Obama says.  That’s not quite the same as saying I don’t believe anything he says.  When he speaks he may be telling the truth, he may not be, or he may be parsing his words to mislead. 

 

But it’s impossible to know which is which?

It has been his pattern since, well, forever, as John Heilemann and Mark Halperin demonstrate in their excellent book on the 2008 presidential election, Game Change.

 

One revealing passage recounts Obama’s decision to run for president.  The authors quote him in 2005 telling Senate Chief of Staff Pete Rouse, “I can assure you there’s no way I’m running [in 2008].”

 

In 2006 he told Meet the Press’s Tim Russert that he would “absolutely” serve out his full first term in the Senate.  “So you will not run for president in 2008?” Russert is quoted as asking.  “I will not,” Obama answered.

 

Later, Obama-confidant Valerie Jarrett questioned him about the absoluteness of his response.  Heilemann and Halperin quote Obama as saying, “You can always change your mind.”

 

Yes, you can, and have, Mr. President, which partly explains the public-trust deficit.  Thinking people who reflect and debate issues do sometimes change their mind.  (I know I do.)  But dissimulators can also use it as an excuse to dismiss previous statements to the contrary.

 

Does anyone—ANYONE—really believe Obama wasn’t virtually certain he would run for president in 2008 even though he absolutely denied it to Russert?  So how does one know when the president means what he says vs. plans to become a “mind-changer”?

 

With respect to Syria, the president tells us there will be no U.S. boots on the ground.  Um, would that be like:

 

  • If you like your health coverage you can keep it. Most people won’t be able to.
  • Health insurance premiums for a family would be $2,500 lower by the end of his first term in office.  They were actually about $3,000 higher.
  • The Obama administration was not responsible for proposing the budget sequester idea.  Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward challenged this claim and forced the administration to backtrack.
  • Money from the nearly $800 billion stimulus package would be spent on “shovel-ready projects” and unemployment would drop to 5.3 percent by the end of his first term.  The president later conceded the projects weren’t as shovel ready as he had hoped and unemployment was 7.9 percent.
  • There was nothing Obama could do about Benghazi.  Subsequent revelations and congressional testimony have shown just how disengaged or disinterested the administration was.
  • The Justice Department told a judge that Fox Fox News reporter James Rosen was a “co-conspirator” and a security threat?  The DOJ later apologized and tried to make amends with Washington reporters.
  • That Attorney General Eric Holder didn’t know about the Fast and Furious gun-running program?  Investigators have found documents confirming that he did have knowledge.

Or how about when Obama told Fox News host Bill O’Reilly that he hadn’t raised taxes when there were 21 new or increased taxes in ObamaCare alone.  Or when he claimed that he didn’t draw the “red line” with respect to Syria, the international community did, when it is very obvious from his taped statements that he alone drew the line.

 

And when Obama or his team aren’t asserting something that is demonstrably false, they are frequently making claims that might be technically true, but are intended to mislead.

 

For example, during the last presidential campaign the president attacked his critics because they claimed that the size of government had grown under his watch when it had actually decreased.

The fact is that the number of federal employees had increased significantly, while the number of state employees had declined, primarily because of tight state budgets. 

 

Taken together the total was smaller.  But the president had no control over the hiring and firing of state employees.  So while that number declined, he had nothing to do with it.  Where he did have control, federal employees, that number had grown.

 

Take another example.  The president criticized his opponents for saying he was against drilling for oil and gas.  He then boasted that oil and gas production have been higher than ever under his administration.

 

Yes, but the vast majority of that drilling has been done on private land—where the president has no control.  As for drilling on public lands, which his administration does control, drilling was significantly lower.

 

Was what Obama claimed a lie?  Not technically, but neither was it the truth because it was purposely intended to mislead.

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by Quaildog:

I don’t know but you might ask him why Mo Brooks and Bentley are closing the paper mill in Courtland. That’s going to hurt. It’s what one would call red-state mentality.

  

Are you REALLY this dense?

 

Did you type this post up...on a piece of PAPER?

Send it in...to the Times Daily...in an ENVELOPE...attached with a PAPER stamp?

Rube as you are, surely you can see the writing on the wall...

Meybe not...

 

MEMPHIS, Tenn., Sept. 11, 2013 /PRNewswire/ — International Paper (NYSE: IP) today announced plans to permanently close its Courtland, Ala. Mill, a facility that is part of the company’s Printing and Communications Papers Business. The mill will shut down in stages with a full closure expected to be complete by the end of the first quarter of 2014.

“These decisions are especially difficult because of the impact to long-serving and hard-working employees, their families and the surrounding communities,” said International Paper Chairman and CEO, John Faraci. “This decision to permanently close capacity is primarily being driven by demand decline for uncoated freesheet paper products in the United States.”

 

“This decision to permanently close capacity is primarily being driven by demand decline for uncoated freesheet paper products in the United States.”

 

 

The Courtland Mill produces papers for forms, envelopes, labels, copiers, printers and magazines. The demand for uncoated freesheet in North America has been in decline since 1999 and has recently accelerated as consumers continue to switch to electronic alternatives such as online publications and electronic billing and filing.

International Paper is committed to helping the 1,100 employees impacted by the closure. The company will work closely with union officials concerning benefits and other assistance programs for impacted hourly employees. Salaried employees impacted by these machine shutdowns will be eligible for severance packages and outplacement assistance consistent with company policy. Employee assistance providers will be available to support employee and family needs.

 

 

Originally Posted by direstraits:

Once more QD makes a statement completely outside the realm of reality,  Paper is a declining necessity in business and has been for years.  Another paper mill closing is about as surprising as Kodak closing their film making plants. 

I think QuailDung is REALLY worried about how he will wipe his azz (both of them...ya' know...ESPECIALLY the one under his nose that REALLY runs off...) with "internet paper"...with the closure of this plant!

 

 

Guess the biggest difference is that most past presidents were reluctant (Clinton the exception) to go before the camera while being observed by the american public.  Our current president would literally destroy anyone standing between he and the camera.  Obama had an excellent opportunity to do good.  He was "green as a gourd", unskilled and knew nothing of the presidency (which is not unusual for a beginner).  Unfortunately, he remains much the way he arrived.  It's ridiculous that he cared so little that no effort was made to improve, learn or seek assistance.  He has blown it!

Mr Q-dog, if we are doing the usual "the-president-in-office-did-it-all" routine, then Obama must have sold his soul. Check this headline:

Best Times for the 1 Percent Since 1920s

From: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireS...2-us-income-20213135

 

"Economists point to several reasons for widening income inequality. In some industries, U.S. workers now compete with low-wage labor in China and other developing countries. Clerical and call-center jobs have been outsourced to countries such as India and the Philippines.

 

Increasingly, technology is replacing workers in performing routine tasks. And union power has dwindled. The percentage of American workers represented by unions has dropped from 23.3 percent in 1983 to 12.5 percent last year, according to the Labor Department.

 

 

The changes have reduced costs for many employers. That is one reason corporate profits hit a record this year as a share of U.S. economic output, even though economic growth is sluggish and unemployment remains at a high 7.2 percent." 

 

 Personally, I think the problem started 2 decades ago when our country decided to ship the smokestacks overseas. Trying to create an economy based on manipulating the value of paper while giving away the farm to China in a trade deal didn't help either.

Originally Posted by Stanky:

Mr Q-dog, if we are doing the usual "the-president-in-office-did-it-all" routine, then Obama must have sold his soul. Check this headline:

Best Times for the 1 Percent Since 1920s

From: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireS...2-us-income-20213135

 

"Economists point to several reasons for widening income inequality. In some industries, U.S. workers now compete with low-wage labor in China and other developing countries. Clerical and call-center jobs have been outsourced to countries such as India and the Philippines.

 

Increasingly, technology is replacing workers in performing routine tasks. And union power has dwindled. The percentage of American workers represented by unions has dropped from 23.3 percent in 1983 to 12.5 percent last year, according to the Labor Department.

 

 

The changes have reduced costs for many employers. That is one reason corporate profits hit a record this year as a share of U.S. economic output, even though economic growth is sluggish and unemployment remains at a high 7.2 percent." 

 

 Personally, I think the problem started 2 decades ago when our country decided to ship the smokestacks overseas. Trying to create an economy based on manipulating the value of paper while giving away the farm to China in a trade deal didn't help either.

______________________________________________________________

As stated in the article, a major reason for the large increase in income is investors cashed in stocks and bonds before the an increase in the capital gains tax.  That's a one time revenue increase they won't see again.

 

A major reason for the decline in manufacturing began in the middle 1970s.  Industries were used to being the big dog on the block as the US was the major surviving power from WWII with their industries unscathed and workforce not decimated by war.  Companies begin to believe they could produce anything and consumers would have not alternative.  The auto and steel industries were major offenders.  US made cars from the mid-1970s were poorly designed and produced. 

 

Meanwhile, in Germany and Japan, industries were forced to retool from scratch -- their factories were the most modern in the world.  Between the German trait for engineering perfection and the Japanese idea of continuing improvement of a product and production facilities, the US was caught flat footed.  In the late seventies, German and Japanese cars begin to out sell domestically produced cars.  Foreign steel was imported at a much cheaper price. 

 

The unions thought the gravy train would continue and got management to agree to increases in pay and benefits that were not sustainable.    Nor, did the unions complain about the crappy products being produced.  Plenty of blame to go around. 

Add Reply


Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×