Barack Obama took the oath of office Sunday, renewing his vow to be president of the United States. Monday he will have a public inauguration with considerable more pomp and circumstance.
As the president who won a second term in office, his official White House portrait was taken last month and unveiled on Friday.
It shows Obama smiling in the oval office.
Given that Obama is the first president to have his photo taken with a digital camera, we're thinking we would like to have some digital fun. What would the portrait look like if you were the president?
To get started, we've included the original here, as well as a local editor at Patch and some dude who had a pretty good run as king. Using Photoshop, or another tool such as Gimp or the online photo-editing site Pixlr, take your mugshot and stick it above Obama's collar.
Afterall, anyone can grow up to become president, right?
I think the last real ugly President was had was LBJ. Had Kennedy not been shot he wouldn't have had a snowball's chance. So, as unfair as it sounds, it's probably not a great idea for ugly people to run for elected office. I know, that sounds discriminatory. But there are times when we have to fact the harsh realities of life. That is unless you can get Congress to pass anti-discriminatory legislation that protects ugliness. If you can get that done, more power to ya! heh. :^)
Anyone who knows anything about economics or the variables that go into GDP understands that $1 of debt = $1 of deficit reduction as far as the negative impact on GDP. In other word's the more debt a nation acquires after a certain point - the greater damage that is done to GDP. And, at the same time, if we balanced the budget tomorrow it would have a significant negative impact on GDP - but we would eventually work our way out of it and recover. The problem with accumulating debt is that it's cumulative and the larger it gets the MORE damage it does to the economy in the long run. What happens if they can't artificially contain the interest rates and they go to historical norms of 6%? That mean we would have to spend nearly a TRILLION DOLLARS annually to merely SERVICE that debt. And that would be about 28% of our current Federal budget! heh. The problem is that they are doing NOTHING to reduce the debt and the 'quanitative easing' or money printing of $85 BILLION per month is necessary to keep the economy's head above water (barely). Very, very, very dangerous. It is a classic ponzi scheme. And like with a heroin addict - the injections have to INCREASE to get the same high. If they stop the addict goes into convulsions. But if the injections are INCREASED - his liver eventually fails and he dies. That is the dilemma we find ourselves in today.
You must be blind.
Money makes an economy, tiny. That's why economists study monetary theory. Because it's all intertwined. Like a badly woven spider web. " For instance all the funny money creation is only going to the large banks to back all their financial obligations." Yes. But the monetary ponzi also being used to artificially pump up the stock market to keep the large pension funds afloat. Another downturn like in 2008 and the pension funds go "poof". But all this is temporary. Because no matter how much the gamers want to ignore it, Mr. Math waits right outside the central control room with a huge sledgehammer in his hands. And Mr. Math ALWAYS gets the last laugh. A system cannot manipulate the 'free hand' without evenually paying a HUGE price. This is all common sense. " So the inflation hasn't really hit because it's not being applied into the economy" Baloney. Have you seen grocery prices lately? The prices are either going UP or the containers are getting smaller selling for the same price. Have you looked at the medical costs? The largest CA health insurers have asked for 25% premium increases on their most popular plans. Gas prices? $3.50/regular is considered a BARGAIN today. No inflation??? You're dreaming. The only thing not being inflated are wages in the private sector. heh. :^)
JustUs: "Money makes an economy." - does the period go before the "? People make an economy. A person discovers a better way of doing things. Then applies that to an economic process that then increases the productive power of labor. "That's why economists study monetary theory." - And look at their record. How do you think we've been transformed from the world's most productive nation to only a fraction of what we were, without hardly a peep? One reason is the economists are saying we've had all this growth for the last decades while the exact opposite is occuring. They are counting the money for one.
Now you purport to change the "laws of economics" that have been taught in all business schools for since Adam Smith right here on the Patch comment board, eh? I think our conversation is done on this topic.
You make a comment and I refute it with FACTS. And then you completely gloss over it or ignore it completely. When you want to have a REAL discussion, let me know, ok?