Obama 2016: #1 Movie in America?

[Phatscotty]

From the producer of Jurassic Park and Schindler's List...





I saw the 2016 movie yesterday. Obviously, it was awesome! The movie explores Obama in a completely different dimension, from the outside looking in, and comes off surprisingly neutral. Only thing I want to say is the theater was packed on a Sunday at noon, and I have never seen so many senior citizens in one place. People were getting up with their walkers and going to the bathroom 3 times each and using the hearing impaired equipment and everything. And yes, the movie got a standing ovation at the end. Also, the interviews with Obama's brothers and sisters were jaw dropping.

Dr. Dinesh D'Souza




http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2012 ... ce-is-weak

The movie 2016: Obama's America just did something that's hard for any political documentary to accomplish: it took seventh place on the list of this weekend's highest grossing movies. Usually, when any documentary pulls in more than five million dollars, it's about, say, Katy Perry. But 2016 looks at the ideologies and global movements that it says helped intellectually mold the President of the United States from a critical, conservative perspective. And the ending imagines an America economically undone by four more years of an Obama presidency.

During the three years writer Dinesh D'Souza worked on the documentary, he traveled to Kenya to interview George Obama, the president's half-brother, as well as to India to create something of a parallel between his story and Obama's.

When I asked why he made a film intended for movie theaters, rather than use the web or television to reach audiences, Molen replied, "Michael Moore did very well with his documentaries." As a producer whose credits include such films as Jurassic Park and Schindler's List, Molen is using the medium he knows best to communicate his political beliefs. And so far, 2016 has made more than nine million dollars. It's already the sixth highest grossing political documentary of all time.

Analyst Jeff Bock, of Exhibitor Relations, says 2016 might not have done quite as well if its distributor had been released the film earlier in the year. "End of the summer's always the weakest time at the box office," he says. "So it was a great move by Rocky Mountain Pictures to drop their political documentary in this spot."

Bock expects Obama 2016 to keep attracting audiences over the next few months, as the weather cools and the election heats up. In fact, Gerald Molen says his goal is for nothing less than for everyone to see the film. "I realize that's outrageous," he said, "but, sure, if there's a goal, that's what I would seek."

[saxitoxin]

Only thing I want to say is the theater was packed on a Sunday at noon, and I have never seen so many senior citizens in one place. People were getting up with their walkers and going to the bathroom 3 times each and using the hearing impaired equipment and everything.

INB4 pimpdave "I thought you said you'd been to a Tea Party rally?"

[BigBallinStalin]

As bad as a president may be, the individuals in the market can make up for a lot of political/regulatory incompetence and consequences.

These are the main problems:


(1) Deficit spending/unfunded liabilities leading to future higher taxes, reduced government spending, and/OR maayyybe welfare reform (Medicare/Medicaid).
(These are inevitable).

(2) Relative value of the US dollar. If people find a more useful dollar for making international exchanges (90% are done with the USD), then those US dollars are not used, thus will re-enter the US domestic market, causing inflationary pressure.

(3) Federal Reserve "stabilization" policies currently. QE3 may come within a month. Constantly depressing the interest rates for US securities stimulates investments according to Keynesian economics, but these bonds become an unattractive form of savings--as do banks, banking deposits (timed--forgot the technical term). Stocks, gold, and durable capital become relatively more valuable for savings. The problem is complex... if savings are depressed in the future, then how will people pay for the new stuff later? On more credit? Or buy less? Thus causing another recession? It's hard to say from now, but the Fed's primarily responsible for forcing us into these trajectories.

(4) Future Federal Reserve policies? Who knows, but if with #1, they'll continue expanding the money supply (which could cause inflation), but if the banks aren't willing to lend that money, then the Fed will pay them to hold onto their excess reserves and Federal reserves--which is a lovely self-serving policy for the few major banks, which were recently bailed out. If the latter happens, inflation won't happen--it'll only be delayed.

(5) On top of this, is concern about the US federal government defaulting on its loans or hyperinflation--given certain conditions which depend on the how #1-4 play out.



Unfortunately, these are all long-term problems with the exception of #3. Politicians aren't geared toward long-term considerations, so in my humble opinion, we're headed for a world of shit--in the long-term, whenever that may be. Of course, politicians will be marginally induced toward effectively addressing these above problems as the long-term costs become more immediate. However, they may be too late or too ineffective in addressing the problems, thus heightening the costs in a much shorter time.

#2 is interesting. Nearly all states depreciate the value of their currencies, so that their exports become relatively cheaper in foreign countries. (I wonder whose interests are at play here?) Anyway, since almost all states do this, then the relative value of the US dollar is safe for now--even if the US engages in similar policies. It's a prisoner's dilemma, or their choices inadvertently lead to a sub-optimal outcome.

Now that I think about it, the above problems are the Legacy of the US Welfare State. These are what such a State produces or leads itself too.

Surprisingly, I'm still an optimist.

[Night Strike]

CNN refused to air the trailer for the movie:

http://insidetv.ew.com/2012/08/28/cnn-2016-obama/

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016-obamas-america-producer-claims-cnn-rejected-films-ad-because-its-too-political/

[PLAYER57832]

CNN refused to air the trailer for the movie:

Good for them. Maybe they are trying to do real journalism, after all.

[Night Strike]

CNN refused to air the trailer for the movie:

Good for them. Maybe they are trying to do real journalism, after all.

How does the movie not count as real journalism? Because CNN and NPR don't report on the subjects it covers?

[comic boy]

CNN refused to air the trailer for the movie:

Good for them. Maybe they are trying to do real journalism, after all.

How does the movie not count as real journalism? Because CNN and NPR don't report on the subjects it covers?

Real journalism is balanced and without bias , does the film in question meet that criteria ?

[Night Strike]

CNN refused to air the trailer for the movie:

Good for them. Maybe they are trying to do real journalism, after all.

How does the movie not count as real journalism? Because CNN and NPR don't report on the subjects it covers?

Real journalism is balanced and without bias , does the film in question meet that criteria ?

I haven't seen it, but from the creators' accounts, it does. This is from the producer of Schindler's List, so he has experience making big, investigative movies.

[comic boy]

CNN refused to air the trailer for the movie:

Good for them. Maybe they are trying to do real journalism, after all.

How does the movie not count as real journalism? Because CNN and NPR don't report on the subjects it covers?

Real journalism is balanced and without bias , does the film in question meet that criteria ?

I haven't seen it, but from the creators' accounts, it does. This is from the producer of Schindler's List, so he has experience making big, investigative movies.

Oh Please , a film based on a book which in turn was loosely based on true events, this in your mind is an investigative movie I also think you will find that Spielberg was the main producer , as well as director , of Schindlers Ark .
Now if Spielberg had made the Obama film and claimed it was unbiased and factual then I would believe it so without hesitation , after all he proved his documentary credentials with ET and Raiders

[patches70]

As bad as a president may be, the individuals in the market can make up for a lot of political/regulatory incompetence and consequences.

These are the main problems:

show

Surprisingly, I'm still an optimist.

I wanna ask you,BBS, considering that the deficit spending and the ever mounting debt is made possible by the incredibly low interest rate the US has to pay on most borrowed money, what would happen if those interest rates rose to a normal level (historically speaking, where the average interest rate like say in the 80's or even 90's)?

I'm of the thinking that these "long term" problems would become very short term if Uncle Sam saw an interest rate increase of just a few percentage points.

What are your thoughts?

[Juan_Bottom]

Bill Maher Takes On Dinesh D’Souza Over Anti-Obama Documentary 2016

[Phatscotty]

Only thing I want to say is the theater was packed on a Sunday at noon, and I have never seen so many senior citizens in one place. People were getting up with their walkers and going to the bathroom 3 times each and using the hearing impaired equipment and everything.

INB4 pimpdave "I thought you said you'd been to a Tea Party rally?"

however, inbetween the lines, the statement carries various further implications, such as the Democrat's supposed "chains" around the senior citizen vote

[Lootifer]

Jesus americans will consume just about anything it would seem

Also can someone please define anti-colonialism in the Obama context?

[Phatscotty]

Jesus americans will consume just about anything it would seem

Also can someone please define anti-colonialism in the Obama context?

[BigBallinStalin]

As bad as a president may be, the individuals in the market can make up for a lot of political/regulatory incompetence and consequences.

These are the main problems:

show

Surprisingly, I'm still an optimist.

I wanna ask you,BBS, considering that the deficit spending and the ever mounting debt is made possible by the incredibly low interest rate the US has to pay on most borrowed money, what would happen if those interest rates rose to a normal level (historically speaking, where the average interest rate like say in the 80's or even 90's)?

I'm of the thinking that these "long term" problems would become very short term if Uncle Sam saw an interest rate increase of just a few percentage points.

What are your thoughts?

From what I've read, the 20-year increase in GDP and reduced variance of business cycles since the early 1980s was due to Greenberg (IIRC) allowing the interest rates to rise.

Would the same outcome occur at this different time? It's difficult to say. There's a lot of uncertainty about future political decisions, thus discouraging businesses from investing. They're trying to calculate net present values which are subject to change from (1) the taxcuts which may end on Jan 2013, (2) future taxes, (3) relative risk of US securities (if they use those as a basis of their "riskless" comparison for opportunity costs, etc.

There's also the problem of having about $5 trillion in excess reserves in the banks, so the threat of inflation (plus the Fed paying banks to hold that money) induces further uncertainty and an unwillingness to lend money.


If interest rates are allowed to rise, then borrowing becomes more expensive, but saving becomes more profitable--assuming that more people stick to US treasuries for their income. I'm also assuming that the Fed will allow banks to increase their interest rates, so people will be rewarded more for saving their money.

The short-run consequence would be a fall in aggregate GDP (to some unknown amount), but the long-term benefits would arise from future spending due to current savings. The problem is that politicians aren't rewarded for long-term benefits on the economy--they're rewarded for the short-term benefits. And although the Federal Reserve is supposedly free from political influence, I'm sure Obama can threaten Bernanke to behave. Obama did, after all, allow Bernanke to stay in his position.

I'm of the thinking that these "long term" problems would become very short term if Uncle Sam saw an interest rate increase of just a few percentage points.

That wouldn't be allowed to happen. According to the Federal Keynesians, an increase in the interest rate will not produce more investments; therefore, they must engage in quantitative easing. Of course, with interest rates so low, it's not surprising that the expected investments have yet to emerge--and instead we're in a more precarious position because basically markets were prevented from clearing (bailouts, changes in legislation, etc.).

[patches70]

Of course, with interest rates so low, it's not surprising that the expected investments have yet to emerge--

Wouldn't you think that such low interest rate encourage malinvestment?


But I was more referring to the amount of interest charged to Uncle Sam on the debt he's accruing. Yields are low, which encourages even more borrowing because the pain is put off. If Uncle Sam had to pay the same interest on it's debts as it did, in say 1980, this house of cards would have already collapsed.

The Fed, by not charging Uncle Sam very much in interest, puts their own balance sheets at high risk. At some point, The Fed won't have any choice but to raise said rates.

Right now it's The Fed who buys all the long term debt. No one but them wants to touch it. Only the very short term bond sales (Like two year bonds) are selling to anyone other than the Fed. Those who are fleeing the Euro are buying short term US bonds. But not the long term. Those who are protecting for the long term are buying PMs.

The Fed is putting itself in a tough position supporting this mess. It's why the Bernanke said last week they weren't going to do anymore QE until something got resolved or else things get really bad. The market at the moment is living off of cheap Fed money, and if that lifeline gets too thin, it'll cascade, in a bad way.

I think we are on a serious tightrope with The Fed and especially the Federal Government, having no idea of how to get out of this without a lot of pain.

Just sayin' is all.

[BigBallinStalin]

Well, yeah, that's how Hayek described it, and it's what people mean when they refer to future booms being created by decreased interest rates.

The current investments of banks is malinvestment. They lack the incentive to invest in more liquid capital, thus increasing their risk to default/become insolvent, but with the government there to subsidize this risk (while blaming the market), then malinvestment becomes a "good" thing for those in control. Until the voting public wises up, then we'll be stuck in this problem.

In the 1980s, they let interest rates rise. That means that they didn't buy up all those US securities. The Fed purchases US bonds by "lending credit into existence." That is, there is a current selling price of a US bond, that at the moment is not being sold for more valuable opportunities. The Fed enters this market by bidding up the price in order to raise the opportunity cost of NOT selling a T-bill to the Fed. As the price of t-bills (US securities) rises from the increased demand from the Fed, the interest rate drops.

In the 1980s, they could have bought all those t-bill to depress the interest rate, but they were concerned about the costs of higher unemployment in short-term for doing so. They chose to not buy up (as many) t-bills, let the interest rate rise, let unemployment increase a little, but the US experienced significant growth for the next 20 years from the future savings. It was sound monetary policy.

Can the outcomes be replicated? Not in today's climate, and not with an election on the line. (Haha, the Fed in considering QE3, which may increase employment temporarily, thus increasing the chances of Obama's win. Other early democracies which exert more direct control over their central banks use this policy to win elections. Of course, the long-term costs will hurt, but hardly anyone is aware of them. The market becomes the scapegoat again.)

From what I've read in the WSJ on the Federal Reserves minutes of Aug 1., the Fed is considering QE3 if investments and other indicators don't become more positive.

Not many want to buy long-term US securities because of Operation Twist 2011. The Fed is buying them, thus increasing their purchase price. In effect, demand from the private sector is being crowded out. The Fed does this to make short-term bonds more attractive, which it has--however, with long-term savings cut out, where will future spending come from???


It's like this.

Either the Federal Reserve and the federal government do nothing, and the economy drops more severely but for not as long. Or, in order to maximize votes, the federal government doles out cash to banks and the unemployed while the Fed essentially prints money to stimulate growth. These both have long-term costs, which are not nearly as noticeable as the act the of doing nothing in the short-term---Regardless if the act of doing nothing is actually better in the long-term.

The people appeal to the State in a moment of crisis, and the State rewards itself for doing so.


That's pretty much how it went down from 2007 to now.

[Phatscotty]

Currently watching CNN's "Obama: Revealed", a follow up to "Romney: Revealed". Actually, the piece on Romney was well done, as it looked at the history of Romney's father, his people, his religion, his college years. But now, as I am watching the one on Obama, they are starting it at 2008?

Hrmm....

For anyone interested, here is the piece CNN brings to Americans and around the world on Romney...I will post the Obama one when it becomes available

[AndyDufresne]

Little known fact, Obama was born in 2008 in Kenya. All those old clips of him were actual just historical video edits and photoshop jobs.


--Andy

[Phatscotty]

Little known fact, Obama was born in 2008 in Kenya. All those old clips of him were actual just historical video edits and photoshop jobs.


--Andy

yet it is interesting to notice all the attention focused on Romney's and Ryan's college years....Especially when it is crystal clear, and we have been over it a thousand times, that Obama's college records don't matter. Interesting to note all the attention on Romney religious beliefs and Mormonism and Ryan's Catholicism and his opinions on Ayn Rand. , and yet nobody wanted to do a piece on Obama's Black Liberation Theology and Social Christianity, because Obama's religious beliefs and political philosphies do not matter either and thus do not deserve any attention or questioning.

Black liberation theology is a theological perspective found in some Christian churches and the Nation of Islam in the United States.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_liberation_theology

Just sayin, observin....

[AndyDufresne]

Without you, PS, the world would be a little darker and blinder.


--Andy

[Phatscotty]

Without you, PS, the world would be a little darker and blinder.


--Andy

Racist!

We need more love around here.
Without you, Andy.....

[Woodruff]

yet it is interesting to notice all the attention focused on Romney's and Ryan's college years....Especially when it is crystal clear, and we have been over it a thousand times, that Obama's college records don't matter. Interesting to note all the attention on Romney religious beliefs and Mormonism and Ryan's Catholicism and his opinions on Ayn Rand. , and yet nobody wanted to do a piece on Obama's Black Liberation Theology and Social Christianity, because Obama's religious beliefs and political philosphies do not matter either and thus do not deserve any attention or questioning.

Someone who is able to think critically would recognize that in Obama, we have three and a half years worth of proof in the Presidency to look at signifying exactly what Obama's policy positions as the President are, whereas in Romney/Ryan we don't have that time of proof in the Presidency to look at positions from. Someone who is able to think critically, that is.

[Bones2484]

Someone who is able to think critically would recognize that in Obama, we have three and a half years worth of proof in the Presidency to look at signifying exactly what Obama's policy positions as the President are, whereas in Romney/Ryan we don't have that time of proof in the Presidency to look at positions from. Someone who is able to think critically, that is.

Inb4:
But Woodruff! Just imagine what Obama will do when he doesn't need to seek re-election!!

[Night Strike]

yet it is interesting to notice all the attention focused on Romney's and Ryan's college years....Especially when it is crystal clear, and we have been over it a thousand times, that Obama's college records don't matter. Interesting to note all the attention on Romney religious beliefs and Mormonism and Ryan's Catholicism and his opinions on Ayn Rand. , and yet nobody wanted to do a piece on Obama's Black Liberation Theology and Social Christianity, because Obama's religious beliefs and political philosphies do not matter either and thus do not deserve any attention or questioning.

Someone who is able to think critically would recognize that in Obama, we have three and a half years worth of proof in the Presidency to look at signifying exactly what Obama's policy positions as the President are, whereas in Romney/Ryan we don't have that time of proof in the Presidency to look at positions from. Someone who is able to think critically, that is.

So why didn't they look at those things in 2008 when he had barely any type of policy experience beyond voting present?