President Obama Serenades Helen Thomas on Their Birthday

Anything to distract from serious discussion. 54% Americans against cash from clunkers. Majority now against Obamacare in its current form. Let’s have a beer summit and a birthday serenade.
Does he know he’s not on reality tv?

I hope the were bran muffins. Apologies to the press pool persons sitting near Helen though.

Happy Birthday Mr. President!

Ryan, the government is giving people $4,000 to buy a car. Great! But where is it getting the $? From other people who can’t afford to buy a car! Yeah, sounds good to me. NOT

“Won’t do him any good. Helen will nail him on his mistakes again the next time she gets a chance.”
Ha!
Yes in terms of sweet talking Helen Thomas is a brick wall.

Ryan, the government is giving people $4,000 to buy a car. Great! But where is it getting the $? From other people who can’t afford to buy a car! Yeah, sounds good to me. NOT”
Huge new car sales. Stimulus for the economy.
I think right wingers are afraid the economy may turn around within the year then they would have to come up with actual ideas vs hoping for failure.

The right wing is furious that cash for clunkers has been such a success.
Posted by: Ryan C | Aug 4, 2009 2:50:55 PM
_____________________________________
“Cash 4 Clunkers” is simply a car rebate program paid for by the government – or more specifically by our tax dollars. Auto companies have sold cars for years using rebate programs – even during the Bush administration. For libs to be taking credit for it shows their lack of understanding of economics.

“The right wing is furious that cash for clunkers has been such a success.”
Posted by: Ryan C | Aug 4, 2009 2:50:55 PM
It only just happened; how do you measure its success so soon? Apparently you mean that the government “succeeded” in spending a ton of money, therefore . . . it’s a success! Even without your swipe at the right wing, it’s easy to see what your political persuasion is . . .

I’m sorry Ryan, but that just isn’t accurate in saying “Cash for Clunkers” is a “huge success” or that it is a “huge stimulus”
First of all, DOT won’t release real data about what types of cars are being sold, where, etc.
More importantly, it actually is basically neutral to the economy. Huge spike in sales this month on people turning in cars and buying new ones and then a huge drop in sales when the free lunch runs out.
The saying has been around a long time, robbing Peter to pay Paul. It was a great political ploy, showed increase in consumer demand and car sales showed growth year over year 08 to 09 for the time period, but as other gov’t programs that just put fake incentives into a marketplace, the repurcussions come down the road, a la the CRA and people who can’t afford houses taking huge mortgages. Or tax subsidies to pump ethanol and then food prices go up and some studies show these “biofuels” emit more carbon when refining and production are included.
There’s no such thing as a free lunch dude.

And of course instead of taking up the topic and maybe defending why Obama (Mr. Transparency) did not take questions or have Gibbs discuss facts like Cash for Clunkers numbers, you quickly resort to blame the radical neocon/repub/knuckle dragger angle that is oh so stale and old at this point.
Who’s currently President? Who controls Congress? What are the current problems? Oooooooh, just checking.

“And the headline of 54% disprove of cash for clunkers came from Politico. Nice try though.”
No, politico reports it correctly.
Poll shows opposition to cash for clunkers
Not that anyone in the Senate would ever let a poll drive their thinking on policy … but a Rasumussen survey out this morning shows that 54 percent of Americans oppose more money for “cash for clunkers.”
Hot Air’s headline
“Rasmussen: Majority still opposes Cash for Clunkers”
Hmmmmmmmm…..

Ryan, keep dreamin! The fact remains that the government is giving money for people to buy cars from others who can’t afford to buy cars. Please prove me wrong. You can’t. I pay taxes, my tax money is being used for cash 4 clunkers, I can’t afford a new car. My point proven!

“I can’t afford a new car.”
_____________________________________
If only Bush’s cutting of taxes and trickle down philosophy had resulted in a good living income for you, you would have been able to afford a new car that doesn’t waste as much gas.

danita, if you’ve ever read any of my posts you would know I enjoy a good living income thank you very much but that doesn’t mean i can afford a new car! My mini-van wouldn’t meet the criteria anyway since I get around 20 miles to the gallon and it’s only 2.5 years old. Doesn’t take away from the fact that the government is giving people money to buy new cars using money they took from people who can’t afford to buy them. Please prove me wrong!

Sorry you can’t afford a new car notanobamafan. In this competitive world we say ‘tough luck’.
Any encouragement to buy energy efficient products or to reduce the amount of garbage you dispose of or to use public transportation – pretty much all of it is subsidized.
Space exploration is funded by people who can’t afford to go into space, sports teams are subsidized by people who can’t afford to own a football team. The attack on Iraq was funded by people who can’t afford to own an oil company.
The entire Bush bankruptcy will be funded by people like you and I. Are you just waking up to this?

“danita, so you agree with me then?”
_______________________________________
No, I don’t agree with you . . . not at all. Just because you (say you) can’t afford a car doesn’t mean all taxpayers cannot afford cars. Please don’t judge people by your own (low) standards.

notanobamafan . . .
You just don’t understand how government works.
When government decides it needs to explore experimental military weapons, it uses funds from taxpayers who can’t afford a car to pay the salaries of people who could buy 20 cars. And the owners of companies that could buy 40 homes. That is the way the system works.
Setting the tone for reducing gas guzzlers is important to this administration, as developing a seldom used and EXTRAORDINARILY expense stealth type bomber was another administrations priority. And don’t think that many, many private individuals didn’t profit greatly from money sucked out of taxpayers who will never live in the style of those people who benefited from the military development.
I think you’re just selectively carping and not with a broad sense of perspective. You seem to be upset its normal americans who are benefiting from this, not just (for example) people within the elite military weapons industry. Tough luck!

“Do they make you pay taxes when you work for the government as a paid poster?”
______________________________________
Not a paid poster in any way, shape or form. Not a volunteer for any organization.
I am simply offended by the repeated and never ending lies and smear and fear attacks from the anti-Obama types on here.

“danita, why take it so personaly? The smears are against Obama not you. Unless…..?”
____________________________________
If you don’t understand why a person would want to defend the President (or anybody else) against repeated and never ending lies and smear and fear attacks . . . then you don’t understand why someone would fight for justice. If you don’t understand why someone would fight for justice, there is a lot to learn.

A Very Happy Birthday to President Obama and Helen.

“. . . whatever product the government decided . . .”, that is.