Comments on: Obama on CNBC

By: Bentover

Bentover — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 21:45:25 +0000

James, I enjoy your commentary on CNBC. That “Town Hall Meeting” was a sham. 1) The audience was packed with progressive democrats as evidence by the overwhelming applause after the President’s comment about how”assuming Sen. Boehner would be Speaker of the house was premature”. 2) Scaramucci obviously made some deal with the administration to be publically but gently chided by the POTUS in return for a shameless, “rubbing me on the back with a soul brother handshake photo-op” after the meeting. Can you say Shiela Jackson Scarramucci? I mean, seriously. And 3) why can’t the administration start these things on time? I mean, really….how far ahead was this scheduled? If it is supposed to start at 12:00, why make the American people wait. Obama has had….oh I quit counting….up-teen press conferences and I don’t believe even one has started on time.

By: phyvyn

phyvyn — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:14:51 +0000

Again: Treasury needs a taxpayer “Bail-In.” We need this system to improve before we can fix it. We need taxation based on a “tax bond” that returns based on tax-base improvements or keeps what it needs to pay some bills to leverage a better future. We also need to go to 32 hour work weeks to add employees and allow more family time. Other options would be far worse. Scientifically we need a competitive base to grow and yet protect innovation with protections. Survival of the fittest won’t work when you need a Doctor, Plumber, Electrician, Grocer, etc. and this is worth protecting.

By: Gotthardbahn

Gotthardbahn — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 14:22:11 +0000

Owly – I would happily take the economic prosperity that followed in the wake of Reaganomics. So would most, if not all, other Americans. What you deride as ‘voodoo economics’ laid the groundwork for astonishing properity from the early ’80s throught to the end of the Clinton administration. Mr. Obama, along with his advisors, still considers government – AKA ‘Washington’ – as THE major player in the US economy. How wrong he is. Two years of failed ‘stimulus’ policies, and a mountain of debt, is evidence enough.

By: elijahblue

elijahblue — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 11:27:16 +0000

Obama admitted he did not know the math behind the effects of spending and tax cut/increases. I get the feeling that since he got his Health Reform, Finreg and Stimulus package passed, he has lost interest in the economy except to smooth talk the average voter.

I sadly recognize that nothing in the way of economic improvement will happen until after the 1st of the year, and by that time the millions of middle and lower class folks will have no immediate way of bettering their economic position.

With the allowed lapse of the current income tax structure, the President and Congress will create a greater level of poverty by reducing the incomes of the retired populist further pushing another 10% to 15% to the poverty level.

Others like myself that are very disappointed with the President and Congress as a whole, have been and will continued to be ignored.

Congress and Obama have their protected perks and positions…let the little people eat cake, of in this case many not eat at all.

By: camper9574

camper9574 — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 09:55:23 +0000

Yesterday’s CNBC session with the president was a stacked deck with participants faces beaming when Obama entered as though they had just seen the face of God.

As a teen (I am 75 now) my parents took me to New York and we saw a TV show being filmed. When applause was required, a person held up a sign reading applause and we all clapped. I had the feeling that Jeffrey Immelt’s CNBC had that same guy with the same ‘applause” sign working that room yesterday.

It was just an infomercial for the Obamaistas!

By: JP007

JP007 — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 03:32:16 +0000

CNBC wasting energy to help keep the Obama doll inflated. Nice dog, no pony. All hat, no cattle.
Pied piper and manchurian candidate.

By: Owly

Owly — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 23:41:01 +0000

The Tea Party seems to want to cut taxes and yet reduce the deficit. Does the phrase “Voodoo Economics” ring a bell?