Delusional? Stupid? or Simply a Liar??

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
N

Narcotized

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
1,255
Reaction score
4
Members do not see this ad.
Obama says he's pulled the economy out of a ditch to recovery

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/41200

What is he really telling us?

a) I have no idea what I'm talking about and have a grandious impression of myself not based in any reality.

b) I am too dumb to realize how bad the economy still is and will be under my idiotic policies.

c) I know the economy sucks. I know my policies suck. I just won't tell you the truth.

d) Some combination of the above, such as, I am a not too bright delusional liar.
 
In general Obama is a combination of all 3, all of the above. With regards to the economy it may just be a and b because he does come off as if he believes the economy is heading in the right direction and that he is the wizard that fixed it. But a good liar is one who sounds convincing, so I can't say for sure that there isn't some option c working here as well.
 
well we can all agree that it wasn't the democrats that drove us into this mess - but we are all definitely questioning whether the democrats are making the right decisions to get us out of it. I think Obama means well but in the end, we won't know whether any of his plans will have any benefit until we look back 15-20 years from now.
 
EternalMD said:
well we can all agree that it wasn't the democrats that drove us into this mess - but we are all definitely questioning whether the democrats are making the right decisions to get us out of it. I think Obama means well but in the end, we won't know whether any of his plans will have any benefit until we look back 15-20 years from now.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you're incredibly naive or worse.
 
jwk said:
I'm not sure if you're incredibly naive or worse.
Click to expand...

If you address that to Obama, you just lent an almost perfect translation to the question I asked in the original title.
 
dr doze said:
Both parties are equally incompetent and equally guilty. I just find the republicans slightly less offensive.
Click to expand...

Republicans are offensive in their belief in freedom, except when it comes to being free from their religion.

Democrats are offensive in their unending march toward destructive social programs that will be far more harmful than the problems they had hoped to address.

The Republican problem is really annoying.
The Democrat problem is incredibly destructive to the future of this country.

Obama is the worst president since LBJ if not the worst president ever.
 
nolagas said:
Republicans are offensive in their belief in freedom, except when it comes to being free from their religion.

Democrats are offensive in their unending march toward destructive social programs that will be far more harmful than the problems they had hoped to address.

The Republican problem is really annoying.
The Democrat problem is incredibly destructive to the future of this country.

Obama is the worst president since LBJ if not the worst president ever.
Click to expand...

When is the last time we had a President that wasn't "the worst ever?" FDR? Lincoln? The original GW? It's all hyperbole, and adds nothing to the discussion, but if it makes you feel better to vent, have at.

For instance, the economic boom at the end of the 90s early 00s. Whose policies are responsible for it? Bush Jr? Clinton? First Bush? Reagan, even? Who knows? Do economists even know? We're talking about policies that have downstream effects decades into the future.

What it boils down to is, how is the economy during any given term in office? Rightly or wrongly, Obama is going to take flak regardless of what he does unless the economy turns around on his watch.
 
Narcotized said:
Obama says he's pulled the economy out of a ditch to recovery

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/41200

What is he really telling us?

a) I have no idea what I'm talking about and have a grandious impression of myself not based in any reality.

b) I am too dumb to realize how bad the economy still is and will be under my idiotic policies.

c) I know the economy sucks. I know my policies suck. I just won't tell you the truth.

d) Some combination of the above, such as, I am a not too bright delusional liar.
Click to expand...

e) he knows that no problems have been solved, but thinks that positive pep talks can help, and he means well, so he gives positive pep talks

I don't believe he's dumb, or that he's maliciously plotting the destruction of the US in order to turn us into communist Muslim socialist Marxist cannibals ...
 
nolagas said:
Obama is the worst president since LBJ if not the worst president ever.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt he is, and will be remembered as, the worst president ever.
 
WholeLottaGame7 said:
When is the last time we had a President that wasn't "the worst ever?" FDR? Lincoln? The original GW? It's all hyperbole, and adds nothing to the discussion, but if it makes you feel better to vent, have at.

For instance, the economic boom at the end of the 90s early 00s. Whose policies are responsible for it? Bush Jr? Clinton? First Bush? Reagan, even? Who knows? Do economists even know? We're talking about policies that have downstream effects decades into the future.

What it boils down to is, how is the economy during any given term in office? Rightly or wrongly, Obama is going to take flak regardless of what he does unless the economy turns around on his watch.
Click to expand...

FDR is one of the worst too. They aren't the worst because of what happens during their terms. They are they worst for setting up programs that will lead to economic destruction in the future.

Obama and his kind are thieves. The steal from denseless future generations who would probably revolt against him if they were born yet. Unfunded social program communists/democrats have picked the most defenseless group to target and they are harming future generations immeasurably. It's sick that they think they are doing good.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
nolagas said:
FDR is one of the worst too. They aren't the worst because of what happens during their terms. They are they worst for setting up programs that will lead to economic destruction in the future.

Obama and his kind are theives. The steal from denseless future generations who would probably revolt against him if they were born yet. Unfunded social program communists/democrats have picked the most defenseless group to target and they are harming future generations immeasurably. It's sick that they think they are doing good.
Click to expand...

My warning bells are starting to sound on this line of reasoning, but my curiousity is piqued on how someone elected to an unprecedented 4 terms of office, oversaw a major economic turnaround, and (almost) saw the end of WWII is "one of the worst" Presidents ever...
 
WholeLottaGame7 said:
My warning bells are starting to sound on this line of reasoning, but my curiousity is piqued on how someone elected to an unprecedented 4 terms of office, oversaw a major economic turnaround, and (almost) saw the end of WWII is "one of the worst" Presidents ever...
Click to expand...

To be elected President you have to pander to special interests. Winning the popularity contest 4 times doesn't qualify greatness. What he oversaw was a depression; I don't know about turnaround. The turnaround occurred after WW2 ended. FDR was dead by then.

I'm admittedly not a big war buff, and much less knowledgable on that subject than economics. But you are right, he was the WW2 president, and we did win a pretty big one there. Economically his social program welfare our way to prosperity was a bomb. He may have achieved greatness with being the chief during WW2, but as stated I'm not someone to offer much opinion on that.
 
Narcotized said:
To be elected President you have to pander to special interests. Winning the popularity contest 4 times doesn't qualify greatness. What he oversaw was a depression; I don't know about turnaround. The turnaround occurred after WW2 ended. FDR was dead by then.

I'm admittedly not a big war buff, and much less knowledgable on that subject than economics. But you are right, he was the WW2 president, and we did win a pretty big one there. Economically his social program welfare our way to prosperity was a bomb. He may have achieved greatness with being the chief during WW2, but as stated I'm not someone to offer much opinion on that.
Click to expand...

Obviously, there are 2 sides to every story. You could argue that he delayed recovery from the Depression and allowed WW2 to happen in the first place, or you could argue that he saved us from the Depression and ended the war. I have a PhD in neither economics nor history, so all I can say is that from what I know, the economy seemed to be in better shape when he died than when he started, and that the war was almost over when he died.

My point is that on the whole, history seems to view him in a largely positive light, as apparently did the American people of the time. The argument that he pandered to special interest groups is kind of moot, as every President throughout history has done so and will continue to do so. So if your argument is that FDR is one of our worst Presidents, the implication is that the overwhelming majority of our elected leaders have been terrible, which runs counter to the fact that our country has grown into one of the world's strongest and most prosperous.

I suppose you could argue that we've done so DESPITE our elected leaders, and I can't really rebuff you there. It's entirely possible. But if that's the case, then it doesn't really matter who we elect, since they don't have any impact regardless.
 
The problem is that once social welfare programs are in place, they can never be done away with (social security is about to prove that wrong as it implodes-but they will never be "voted" out). FDR was the king of welfare and we are left dealing with a society that can't pick itself up by its bootstraps and make it on their own because they have been programmed for so many years that they will have more prosperity by being deadbeats than by actually working (then they lose all of their benefits) or that more out of wedlock kids = a fatter gubment check. Obama is doing more of the same and the country and its citizens will be worse off because of it.

Our citizens need the government to expect more of them. If they did, the citizens would rise to the level of expectations. Right now, the expectation is that the gubment will take care of you, so why try to advance your position. On the other side, the expectation of the producers is that the harder they work, the more the government expects of them and takes from them. One day, they may just stop trying and then where will we be?

Who is John Galt?
 
WholeLottaGame7 said:
My warning bells are starting to sound on this line of reasoning, but my curiousity is piqued on how someone elected to an unprecedented 4 terms of office, oversaw a major economic turnaround, and (almost) saw the end of WWII is "one of the worst" Presidents ever...
Click to expand...

He set up a welfare program that he called a retirement program. He is the originator of the largest Ponzi scheme ever. Sure, the Ponzi scheme seems great while the house of cards stands, and he was popular as a result, but social security is now in the red, his Ponzi scheme is coming to an end, and the truth that he was a terrible president will become more and more evident as time goes on. For now, we continue to get robbed by the government through FDR's program.

Obama gives away money the government doesn't have. He steals from the minority to buy votes from the majority of people who pay little to no federal taxes. He is worse that FDR and LBJ because, today, it is obvious that it is not sustainable. Common sense would have predicted the failure of FDR and LBJ's programs, but it is even more obvious that BHO's spending is not sustainable.
 
Narcotized said:
Obama says he's pulled the economy out of a ditch to recovery

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/41200

What is he really telling us?

a) I have no idea what I'm talking about and have a grandious impression of myself not based in any reality.

b) I am too dumb to realize how bad the economy still is and will be under my idiotic policies.

c) I know the economy sucks. I know my policies suck. I just won't tell you the truth.

d) Some combination of the above, such as, I am a not too bright delusional liar.
Click to expand...



He is a socialist. That means he is a liar by default 😀
 
nolagas said:
Republicans are offensive in their belief in freedom, except when it comes to being free from their religion.

Democrats are offensive in their unending march toward destructive social programs that will be far more harmful than the problems they had hoped to address.

The Republican problem is really annoying.
The Democrat problem is incredibly destructive to the future of this country.

Obama is the worst president since LBJ if not the worst president ever.
Click to expand...

Knocked that one clear outta the park.
 
nolagas said:
He set up a welfare program that he called a retirement program. He is the originator of the largest Ponzi scheme ever. Sure, the Ponzi scheme seems great while the house of cards stands, and he was popular as a result, but social security is now in the red, his Ponzi scheme is coming to an end, and the truth that he was a terrible president will become more and more evident as time goes on. For now, we continue to get robbed by the government through FDR's program.

Obama gives away money the government doesn't have. He steals from the minority to buy votes from the majority of people who pay little to no federal taxes. He is worse that FDR and LBJ because, today, it is obvious that it is not sustainable. Common sense would have predicted the failure of FDR and LBJ's programs, but it is even more obvious that BHO's spending is not sustainable.
Click to expand...

Game, Set, Match. Checkmate! Counted out to 10. Dude's on fire!!!
 
nolagas said:
If you can explain why it isn't wrong for a politician to transfer money from future generations to his voters please do so.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it isn't wrong, my point is that you could probably say that about most politicians. I don't even necessarily disagree with most of what has been said on this thread, I just take issue with the delivery. I admittedly get rankled by people who argue definitively about subjects in which they are not qualified. I'm not saying people can't have strong opinions about things, or that individuals don't have a better grasp of finance than politicians, but this whole "I'm right they're wrong" talk is ridiculous.

Also, I respect consistency in logic. You can't say on one hand that the jury is still out on FDR's reputation in history 70 years after the fact, and on the other hand say that Obama is already the worst President in history. If I recall, WW2 FDR had some ridiculous approval ratings. Are we judging a snapshot of work, or are we letting history be the judge?

Also, the whole "Game, Set, Match" thing, it's like I'm still on XBox live, playing with a bunch of 12 year olds. Let me go get my noob toob with danger close, brb.
 
nolagas said:
If you can explain why it isn't wrong for a politician to transfer money from future generations to his voters please do so.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, they'll transfer money from the current generation too.

There is no debt repayment plan. It's going to be QE and inflation (maybe even some degree of default) and WE will pay that bill with lost savings and lost purchasing power.
 
WholeLottaGame7 said:
Also, I respect consistency in logic. You can't say on one hand that the jury is still out on FDR's reputation in history 70 years after the fact, and on the other hand say that Obama is already the worst President in history. If I recall, WW2 FDR had some ridiculous approval ratings. Are we judging a snapshot of work, or are we letting history be the judge?
Click to expand...

I'm totally consistent. BHO won the friggin Nobel Peace Prize after he'd been in office less than a month, based on his "potential". I've now had 18 times as long as the Nobel Committee to consider my own personal opinion, so I feel entirely comfortable in saying that he is already the worst president in history.
 
It's funny that it is a crime for a politician to use his own money to buy votes, but if he buys votes with your money it is totally fine. He's even viewed as generous and caring. How's that for consistency. They found a loophole and are exploiting it.
 
jwk said:
I'm totally consistent. BHO won the friggin Nobel Peace Prize after he'd been in office less than a month, based on his "potential". I've now had 18 times as long as the Nobel Committee to consider my own personal opinion, so I feel entirely comfortable in saying that he is already the worst president in history.
Click to expand...

You're criticizing a group for making an obviously rash decision, then using their timeline as justification for your decision. Nice.

Meanwhile, Narcotized over there is ironically stuck on repeat while accusing me of being leftist and not thinking for myself, despite having no what my clue as to my political leanings. Maybe if people paid attention to what I was actually saying instead of framing it to suit their one-track agendas and decided to engage in actual discourse, we could get somewhere.

At least your political careers are all lined up if the anesthesia business is taken over by CRNAs.
 
Last edited:
federal-spending_01-580.jpg



Check out the exponential Obama spike at the end of the graph. I don't need a popularity opinion poll to know where that is taking us.
 
Narcotized said:
The only circle-jerking jerk is the guy taking this to a personal level.
Click to expand...

Which guy is that? My only point in coming on to this thread was to try to spread a balanced view, but clearly that's not exactly wanted. Which, of course, the thread title implies, I just didn't pay attention to, so that's my bad.

To show that there are no hard feelings, I leave everyone with the following graph:

budget-deficit.gif


Obviously, this would be more useful if it were updated to include the past 2 years, or in relation to our earlier "discussion," if it extended beyond JFK. Still interesting from a historical perspective, nonetheless.
 
Yearly deficits are fairly irrelevant. I mean BHO's yearly record deficits are irresponsible, but they are nothing compared to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest on future debt.
These Democrat programs are on their way to destroying this country. Our government is unable to correct for their obvious failure because they care about getting reelected more than about saving this country.
We should start with telling wealthy elderly that they don't qualify for the welfare program social security.
We should raise the age at which people become Social Security eligible.
We should label the AARP as a terrorist organization and treat it accordingly.
We need to cut back on Medicare and Medicaid, not expand them BHO and Nancy F'ing Pelosi.
A trillion dollar debt per year under Obama is terrible, but increasing government 'obligations' is far worse.
Our government is becoming a failure. They are unable to turn the wheel even though we all know we are heading for a cliff (a cliff that looks more like a ramp in the graph).

debt.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I know I won't convince the tea partiers and "libertarians" here. But I will point out that it is interesting how previous posts assail Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid while they are silent on the defense budget, intelligence budget and foreign wars.

Reagan had eight years to cancel Social Security, Medicare and whatever else his heart desired. Bush Sr. had four more. And baby Bush had eight years plus six years of a rubber stamp congress. So for all the blustering from the right on so called democratic failures and disasters, when these very people had power they did nothing to cancel or change anything.
 
anesthesia2011 said:
I know I won't convince the tea partiers and "libertarians" here. But I will point out that it is interesting how previous posts assail Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid while they are silent on the defense budget, intelligence budget and foreign wars.

Reagan had eight years to cancel Social Security, Medicare and whatever else his heart desired. Bush Sr. had four more. And baby Bush had eight years plus six years of a rubber stamp congress. So for all the blustering from the right on so called democratic failures and disasters, when these very people had power they did nothing to cancel or change anything.
Click to expand...

Theres's some truth to what you say, but wars end and spending is limited. It doesn't grow exponentially over time.
The defense budget should be cut along with the rest of the budget until we run a slight surplus.

Those social programs were started by democrats and democrats continue to try to expand them even today, but neither party is able to really change them. It would do little good for a republican to reform and shrink social programs only to be voted out of office at the next opportunity and find that his democrat replacement canceled out the reforms and probably even expanded these failed programs.

Ultimately, it is selfish voters who keep these programs going against all reason. Grampa wants a welfare check. He even thinks he earned it since FDR was a liar. He wants free medical care, even though it is mostly futile end-of-life care. It's amazing that the greatest threat to this country is money wasted on slightly prolonging the end of life.

Until voters demand reform rather than punishing it, we will not change social security, medicare, or medicaid. Selfish voters choose to keep taxes low and keep social spending high. They get it both ways by screwing future generations. Who doesn't want free stuff right? If we had a balanced budget amendment and people actually had to pay for these programs, enough people would start to oppose their waste that republicans could afford to do the right thing. Democrats still wouldn't be iterested in fixing things because they are deeply committed to the failed welfare state.
 
jwk said:
I'm totally consistent. BHO won the friggin Nobel Peace Prize after he'd been in office less than a month, based on his "potential". I've now had 18 times as long as the Nobel Committee to consider my own personal opinion, so I feel entirely comfortable in saying that he is already the worst president in history.
Click to expand...

Because Buchanan, Pierce, Grant, Harding, and Hoover did some quality gold star work
 
nolagas said:
Theres's some truth to what you say, but wars end and spending is limited. It doesn't grow exponentially over time.
The defense budget should be cut along with the rest of the budget until we run a slight surplus.

Those social programs were started by democrats and democrats continue to try to expand them even today, but neither party is able to really change them. It would do little good for a republican to reform and shrink social programs only to be voted out of office at the next opportunity and find that his democrat replacement canceled out the reforms and probably even expanded these failed programs.

Ultimately, it is selfish voters who keep these programs going against all reason. Grampa wants a welfare check. He even thinks he earned it since FDR was a liar. He wants free medical care, even though it is mostly futile end-of-life care. It's amazing that the greatest threat to this country is money wasted on slightly prolonging the end of life.

Until voters demand reform rather than punishing it, we will not change social security, medicare, or medicaid. Selfish voters choose to keep taxes low and keep social spending high. They get it both ways by screwing future generations. Who doesn't want free stuff right? If we had a balanced budget amendment and people actually had to pay for these programs, enough people would start to oppose their waste that republicans could afford to do the right thing. Democrats still wouldn't be iterested in fixing things because they are deeply committed to the failed welfare state.
Click to expand...

I agree in that the percentage of GDP spent on health care in this country is absolutely ridiculous. I don't think it's even end-of-life care that drains as much money as it is a general mindset of "I have the sniffles, my life is going to end if I don't get an MRI and antibiotics!" People need to realize that there was life before hospitals.

Since you brought it up, though, if physicians as a group had more open discussions with elderly revolving end-of-life issues, we'd probably end up with a lot less expenditure. A $50 office visit to find out that Grandma doesn't really want to be on a ventilator is a hell of a lot cheaper than her $50K trip to the ICU before she kicks the bucket.

Also, with regards to social programs, my feeling is that they are a great thing to have if a society can afford it. The problem is, what you can afford one year is not necessarily what you can afford the next. And as you alluded to, it's a hell of a lot harder to cancel those programs than it is to start them. Of course, a down economy is exactly when those programs are going to be the most popular with constituents who are out of work.

The best solution is to cut spending across the board (excepting maybe education). Do we really need to be fighting wars in areas of the world where people have been killing each other for thousands of years, and will still be killing each other long after we leave? Streamline Medicare and Medicaid, not make it more complicated and bloated. Better regulate disability payments. If the government doesn't reimburse hospitals/physicians for physician-induced complications such as VAP or CRBSIs (and probably rightly so), why should they pay for patient-induced complications such as diabetes and all that is related to it? Stop spending so much on foreign energy and instead legitimately focus on renewable energy from within.

Anyway, the next set of elections should tell us a lot about how the country feels like things are going. I'll be curious to see.
 
WholeLottaGame7 said:
I agree in that the percentage of GDP spent on health care in this country is absolutely ridiculous. I don't think it's even end-of-life care that drains as much money as it is a general mindset of "I have the sniffles, my life is going to end if I don't get an MRI and antibiotics!" People need to realize that there was life before hospitals.

Since you brought it up, though, if physicians as a group had more open discussions with elderly revolving end-of-life issues, we'd probably end up with a lot less expenditure. A $50 office visit to find out that Grandma doesn't really want to be on a ventilator is a hell of a lot cheaper than her $50K trip to the ICU before she kicks the bucket.

Also, with regards to social programs, my feeling is that they are a great thing to have if a society can afford it. The problem is, what you can afford one year is not necessarily what you can afford the next. And as you alluded to, it's a hell of a lot harder to cancel those programs than it is to start them. Of course, a down economy is exactly when those programs are going to be the most popular with constituents who are out of work.

The best solution is to cut spending across the board (excepting maybe education). Do we really need to be fighting wars in areas of the world where people have been killing each other for thousands of years, and will still be killing each other long after we leave? Streamline Medicare and Medicaid, not make it more complicated and bloated. Better regulate disability payments. If the government doesn't reimburse hospitals/physicians for physician-induced complications such as VAP or CRBSIs (and probably rightly so), why should they pay for patient-induced complications such as diabetes and all that is related to it? Stop spending so much on foreign energy and instead legitimately focus on renewable energy from within.

Anyway, the next set of elections should tell us a lot about how the country feels like things are going. I'll be curious to see.
Click to expand...

Well race-based voting is unlikely to change.
McCain won by the white vote by over 10%.
It'll be hard to beat Obama among white voters by much more than 10% due to some die hard liberals. Race-based voting won't change no matter how bad a president he is. Only 4% of black voters voted for McCain.
My point is the change in voting is likely to underestimate how bad a president he is viewed as.
Hopefully he is so bad that he'll lose next time even though he gets a unfair advantage due to race-based voting. It really undermines our democracy.

(I'm not implying that black people can't vote for Obama based on policy. Maybe even 60% or more, but 96% is ridiculous.)

Reminds me of this Howard Stern clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zsxGvaBi8I
 
anesthesia2011 said:
I know I won't convince the tea partiers and "libertarians" here. But I will point out that it is interesting how previous posts assail Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid while they are silent on the defense budget, intelligence budget and foreign wars.

Reagan had eight years to cancel Social Security, Medicare and whatever else his heart desired. Bush Sr. had four more. And baby Bush had eight years plus six years of a rubber stamp congress. So for all the blustering from the right on so called democratic failures and disasters, when these very people had power they did nothing to cancel or change anything.
Click to expand...

Yes, the Republicans are worthless too.

I won't argue that our interventionist foreign policy and huge military industrial complex isn't part of the problem. But the military and wars aren't the great bulk under that scary looking curve to the right ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
CRNAs - a blessing or a curse.... we have created a monster
2 3 4
Replies
158
Views
21K
lotsapain
L
L
Didn't know anesthesia was something a pt could simply decide to comply with or not
Replies
42
Views
3K
deleted641888
D
MirrorTodd
ERAS meds: surgery or anesthesia run?
Replies
2
Views
864
CopaceticOne
CopaceticOne
G
Are New Anesthesia Attendings HENRYs or are we Just HENR
16 17 18 19 20
Replies
980
Views
81K
deleted87051
D
S
Nasal tubes after stopping anti platelets or anticoagulation
Replies
7
Views
1K
Biochemist21
Biochemist21
Top