Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Is Obama an idiot OR is he smart and taking us down the path of hell on purpose?

Aug. 18 (Bloomberg) -- “UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems.” -- Barack Obama, Aug. 11, 2009

No institution has been the butt of more government- inefficiency jokes than the U.S. Postal Service. Maybe the Department of Motor Vehicles.

The only way the post office can stay in business is its government subsidy. The USPS lost $2.4 billion in the quarter ended in June and projects a net loss of $7 billion in fiscal 2009, outstanding debt of more than $10 billion and a cash shortfall of $1 billion. It was moved to intensive care -- the Government Accountability Office’s list of “high risk” cases - - last month and told to shape up. (It must be the only entity that hasn’t cashed in on TARP!)

Answer Question

Asked by Anonymous at 1:28 PM on Aug. 19, 2009 in Politics & Current Events

Answers (21)
  • That didn’t stop President Barack Obama from holding up the post office as an example at a town hall meeting in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, last week.

    When Obama compared the post office to UPS and FedEx, he was clearly hoping to assuage voter concerns about a public health-care option undercutting and eliminating private insurance.

    What he did instead was conjure up visions of long lines and interminable waits. Why do we need or want a health-care system that works like the post office?

    What’s more, if the USPS is struggling to compete with private companies, as Obama implied, why introduce a government health-care option that would operate at the same disadvantage?

    Answer by Anonymous at 1:28 PM on Aug. 19, 2009

  • Obama Unscripted

    These are just two of the questions someone listening to the president’s health-insurance reform roadshow might want to ask.

    Impromptu Obamanomics is getting scarier by the day. For all the president’s touted intelligence, his un-teleprompted comments reveal a basic misunderstanding of capitalist principles.

    For example, asked at the Portsmouth town hall how private insurance companies can compete with the government, the president said the following:

    “If the private insurance companies are providing a good bargain, and if the public option has to be self-sustaining -- meaning taxpayers aren’t subsidizing it, but it has to run on charging premiums and providing good services and a good network of doctors, just like any other private insurer would do -- then I think private insurers should be able to compete.”


    Answer by Anonymous at 1:29 PM on Aug. 19, 2009

  • Self-sustaining? The public option? What has Obama been doing during those daily 40-minute economic briefings coordinated by uber-economic-adviser, Larry Summers?

    Capitalism Explained

    Government programs aren’t self-sustaining by definition. They’re subsidized by the taxpayer. If they were self-financed, we’d be off the hook.

    Llewellyn Rockwell Jr., chairman of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, and editor of, put it this way in an Aug. 13 commentary on

    “The only reason for a government service is precisely to provide financial support for an operation that is otherwise unsustainable, or else there would be no point in the government’s involvement at all.”

    Answer by Anonymous at 1:29 PM on Aug. 19, 2009

  • Rockwell sees no “economic reason for a government postal system” and would abolish it.

    Of course, there’s the small matter of the U.S. Constitution. Article 1, Section 8, grants Congress the power “to establish Post Offices and Post Roads.” A series of subsequent statutes gave the USPS a monopoly in the delivery of first-class mail. Congress thought that without such protection, private carriers would cherry-pick the high-profit routes and leave money-losing deliveries in remote areas to the post office. (In those days, the USPS covered most of its expenses with revenue.)

    Less Bad Option

    It was only through exemptions in the law that private carriers, such as UPS and FedEx, were allowed to compete in the delivery of overnight mail.

    Short of a constitutional amendment or a waiver from Congress, we are stuck with the USPS.

    Answer by Anonymous at 1:29 PM on Aug. 19, 2009

  • But back to our storyline. Everyone makes a mistake or flubs a line when asked questions on the spot, including the president of the United States. We can overlook run-on sentences, subject and verb tense disagreement, even a memory lapse when it comes to facts and figures.

    The proliferation of Obama’s gaffes and non sequiturs on health care has exceeded the allowable limit. He has failed repeatedly to explain how the government will provide more (health care) for less (money). He has failed to explain why increased demand for medical services without a concomitant increase in supply won’t lead to rationing by government bureaucrats as opposed to the market. And he has failed to explain why a Medicare-like model is desirable when Medicare itself is going broke.


    Answer by Anonymous at 1:30 PM on Aug. 19, 2009

  • The public is left with one of two unsettling conclusions: Either the president doesn’t understand the health-insurance reform plans working their way through Congress, or he understands both the plans and the implications and is being untruthful about the impact.

    Neither option is good; ignorance is clearly preferable to the alternative.


    Answer by Anonymous at 1:30 PM on Aug. 19, 2009

  • I think it's BOTH!


    Answer by Anonymous at 1:39 PM on Aug. 19, 2009

  • I try to give him the benefit of the doubt, he is an idiot.

    Answer by Anonymous at 1:40 PM on Aug. 19, 2009

  • Your thesis is interesting, and your supporting commentary does hold water.

    Your question - is he swiftly imposing gov't control because he's clueless? or corrupt? can be answered with a simple realization. It's kind of mathematical:

    The social landscape present a thoughtful person with some realities. Some groups and individuals prosper while others fail. Examining their customs can reveal that certain attitudes & behaviors foster success while other attitudes/behaviors are self-destructive or incompetent. This objective assessment doesn't judge the PEOPLE, just their actions.

    Enter progressive education which emphasizes that everyone is SO equal that we can't judge them. There is no right/wrong, good/bad attitudes or behaviors. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and their lifestyle, and it's "all good".

    Plus, school teaches that church ideas of morals are only for gullible morons.

    The result? (cont'd)

    Answer by waldorfmom at 1:50 PM on Aug. 19, 2009

  • (cont'd) The result of this carefully crafted mind-set which forbids all value-judgment is this.

    When confronted with the social landscape, one can notice that some attitudes/actions succeed and bring benefits while others create failure and unhappiness. BUT - one is not ALLOWED to allocate good/bad or right/wrong. That's judging, that's being intolerant of someone's lifestyle or decisions ... even worse that could be falling prey to church moral teachings, proving oneself to be a moron.

    So, if it CAN'T be that there are more and less beneficial behaviors, then how to explain that some people/groups are successful & prosperous while others are poor? The only POSSIBLE explanation is that the successful ones are CHEATING the poor ! The rich have cheated and robbed the poor, and they must be forced to return what they have taken.

    Realizing the above mind-set makes clear EVERY liberal position - even anti-Semitism !

    Answer by waldorfmom at 1:58 PM on Aug. 19, 2009

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.