Thanks, Obama!

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Stevenson

Stevenson

Old School
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
4,175
Likes
5,419
Points
113
Sometimes I read this forum and think I am living in an alternate universe.

Bush gave us two unfunded, never-ending wars, one of which completely destabilized the Middle East. His spending spree and tax cuts ended the surplus handed to him by Bill Clinton and helped drive the economy to the brink of Depression. I agree with Trump on one thing: 9/11 happened on Bush's watch.

The country was in far worse shape after he was done.

Conversely, Obama's eight years, while obviously far from perfect, gave us this:
  • 74 continuous months of private sector job growth
  • The lowest jobless rate in 25 years - 4.9% right now
  • The killing of Osama Bin Laden and the head of the Taliban
  • 16.5 million more people with health insurance
  • The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
  • Signed the Paris Accords
  • Delayed Iran's nuclear program
  • Opened relations with Cuba
  • Increased overtime pay
I know, I'm a Dem and some of these are our agenda items, and I know, ISIS, blah, blah, blah. But jeez, if any Republican had done half of this, you would want him on Mt. Rushmore (oh wait, you do!)

Statistically, we are in far better shape than we were 8 years ago. "This is reality, Greg." (Bonus points if you can name that movie!)
 
I'm sorry I don't go to movies.

Add in executive orders banning discrimination by federal contractors, although Congress is working hard to overturn. Naturally. Some people think discrimination is a really good thing.
 
CAPhill05ch_040116-300x256.jpg
 
http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/06/news/economy/obama-us-jobs/

Why doesn't 4.9% unemployment feel great?

Only 62.7% of adult Americans are working. The so-called Labor Force Participation rate hasn't been this low since the late 1970s.

Another reason why the jobs picture still looks gloomy is that an unusually high number of people can't find jobs even though they have been looking for a long time.

The typical take home pay (often called "median income" by the Census Bureau) is about the same today as it was 20 years ago, once you adjust for inflation.
 
Only when a Democrat gets 4.9% unemployment does a Republican decide that the long-used rules used to interpret economic data need to be changed. Again, if Bush had these results, you wouldn't be saying 4.9% really isn't 4.9%.
 
Stevenson said:
Sometimes I read this forum and think I am living in an alternate universe
Click to expand...

Wow! Since you seem to be with the majority, I know I see things from the alternate place.
You do realize you isolated your good points from the big picture? This is the only reason they appear to be good.
Then there is some that is just BS. Do you know how many people LOST their health care insurance as a result of the ACA?
They never mention this little fact.
 
Stevenson said:
Only when a Democrat gets 4.9% unemployment does a Republican decide that the long-used rules used to interpret economic data need to be changed. Again, if Bush had these results, you wouldn't be saying 4.9% really isn't 4.9%.
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of Bush. That line of pounding the table won't work with me.

It's not hard to realize how people stopping to look for work and dropping out of the workforce can drop the unemployment rate. Heck, if all the unemployed drop out, unemployment would be 0%, without adding a single job.

The quality of jobs matter, too.

Under Reagan, the fastest growing fields were medical, computers, engineering, and other high quality/paying jobs.

Under Obama, the fastest growing fields are food service, janitorial, etc.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/18/news/economy/fastest-growing-jobs/

5 of America's fastest growing jobs pay less than $25,000
160414172016-americas-fastest-growing-jobs-pay-780x439.jpg
 
A joke from the Clinton years.

Clinton on his daily jog decides to trot into a MacDonald's.

The man at the counter recognizes Clinton and tells him he's not a fan.

Clinton replies, "Why are you so upset with me? I've created lots of jobs!"

The man relied, "I know, I have 3 of them."
 
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...ck-was-obama-against-the-troop-surge-in-iraq/

In Congress, Obama was one of many lawmakers who spoke against the plan. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse," he said in a response to Bush's speech.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122186492076758643

Why the Surge Worked

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ali...ies-came-after-obama-ordered-troops-increased

74% of U.S. Afghan Casualties Came After Obama Ordered Troops Increased

https://www.wired.com/2012/09/surge-report-card/

Military’s Own Report Card Gives Afghan Surge an F
 
Thanks Obama!

7 years of the people watching you work has led to this:

upload_2016-6-1_12-53-29.png

You'd think Hiliar running on a 3rd Obama term would be crushing Trump. That Trump is popular at all is thanks to those two terms.

Thanks Obama.
 
you forgot drone bombing countless civilians and their children, continuing the torture chambers at gitmo, selling us out to the TPP, and appointing a fucking republican to the supreme court (even though the republicans are too stupid to confirm him lol). obamacare, while helpful to the very poor, is a huge money grab for the insurance companies. he also extended most of the bush era tax cuts. and continued pot prohibition. took money from privatized prisons, monsanto, all the big banks, etc, etc, on and on.

calling obama a socialist, or a liberal, is fucking stupid as shit. honestly, only the most brainwashed and moronic people in this country would even entertain the thought. But he is for gays (as of a few years ago), and abortion! what a shining bastion of liberal ideals...

and hillary is more of the same. its just such a shame that this is what people get for their "progressive" candidate. The hope and change he promised fell by the wayside, and americans are too fucking inept mentally to even realize it.

the democratic party is right of center, and that is a fact.
 
I made multiple posts because there was a list of things mentioned in the OP. I tend to verify things that are written, even drexlersdad. The "countless" part made me wonder how many.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...inistrations-drone-strike-dissembling/473541/

The notion that the Obama Administration has carried out drone strikes only when there is “near-certainty of no collateral damage” is easily disproved propaganda. America hasn’t killed a handful of innocents or a few dozen in the last 8 years. Credible, independent attempts to determine how many civilians the Obama administration has killed arrived at numbers in the hundreds or low thousands. And there is good reason to believe that they undercount the civilians killed.

Why the disparity between what American officials claim and what others report?The New York Times provided a first clue back in 2012, when it reported that the U.S. “in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent." The same sort of dishonest standard was described last last year when a whistleblower provided The Intercept with a cache of documents detailing the U.S. military’s drone killings in Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia. One campaign, Operation Haymaker, took place in northeastern Afghanistan.

“Between January 2012 and February 2013,” The Intercept reported, “U.S. special operations airstrikes killed more than 200 people. Of those, only 35 were the intended targets. During one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets.” That’s one campaign of many in just one country where drone killings happen.

Said the source of the documents:“Anyone caught in the vicinity is guilty by association. When a drone strike kills more than one person, there is no guarantee that those persons deserved their fate … So it’s a phenomenal gamble.”
 
This isn't good:

Numerous reports during the Obama Administration––including at least one by a former drone pilot––describe a pattern in which a missile fired from a U.S. drone hits an area, bystanders rush to the scene to help the wounded, and the drone, still overhead, kills the rescuers.
 
Every president past Carter has been nothing but crap for America. Reagan was the worst president in American history, Bush Sr. horrible, Clinton terrible, G.W. Bush pathetic crap, Obama is just an extension of G.W. with the exception of his left leaning social agenda. Obama has now been at war longer than any other president in history and will leave office as the only president to have been at war for his full 8 year term.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/u...estled-with-protecting-nation-and-troops.html
 
Road Ratt said:
Every president past Carter has been nothing but crap for America. Reagan was the worst president in American history, Bush Sr. horrible, Clinton terrible, G.W. Bush pathetic crap, Obama is just an extension of G.W. with the exception of his left leaning social agenda. Obama has now been at war longer than any other president in history and will leave office as the only president to have been at war for his full 8 year term.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/u...estled-with-protecting-nation-and-troops.html
Click to expand...
Reagan is known as one of the top Presidents of all time. For me he is probably top 10ish. Please tell me why you think he is the worst.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aly
Mediocre Man said:
Reagan is known as one of the top Presidents of all time.
Click to expand...

Only in the South, where you live. Politics rescued the Gipper from an acting career in ashes. Likewise, Trump ascended the ladder of failure to his biggest scam yet...Trump University, White House Campus. In other news:

The World Naked Bike Ride occurs in June of every year. It is in many cities. In each city, it's on a different day in June. Here's a Bellingham article. Where will it be held in Oregon?

http://www.cascadiaweekly.com/currents/bellingham_naked_bike_ride
 
Last edited:
jlprk said:
Only in the South, where you live. Politics rescued the Gipper from an acting career in ashes. Likewise, Trump ascended the ladder of failure to his biggest scam yet...Trump University, White House Campus. In other news:

The World Naked Bike Ride occurs in June of every year. It is in many cities. In each city, it's on a different day in June. Here's a Bellingham article. Where will it be held in Oregon?

http://www.cascadiaweekly.com/currents/bellingham_naked_bike_ride
Click to expand...

LOL I lived Oregon until I was 40. I was in Oregon when he was President. Again, even taking completely bias liberal polls into account, Reagan finishes top 15.
 
Good to see all the usual Obama haters are maintaining their very loud crusade to make sure he gets no credit for anything ever. Keep up the good work!
 
I agree that obviously this recovery doesn't feel like a gangbusters recovery. But to me you are looking for problems when you try and explain away the low unemployment rate or months of continued economic growth. I will also note that many of the things I listed are essentially undisputable. Obama has been far more effective than he gets credit for.

I also find it beyond silly when I hear Republicans talk about income inequality. They are the party of income inequality. That is their economic point.

For a later day, a discussion about Ronald Reagan and his true legacy would be very interesting. I will admit that I didn't get his value at the time. But the GOP way over-estimates his value and true policies 30 years later.
 
Stevenson said:
I agree that obviously this recovery doesn't feel like a gangbusters recovery. But to me you are looking for problems when you try and explain away the low unemployment rate or months of continued economic growth. I will also note that many of the things I listed are essentially undisputable. Obama has been far more effective than he gets credit for.

I also find it beyond silly when I hear Republicans talk about income inequality. They are the party of income inequality. That is their economic point.

For a later day, a discussion about Ronald Reagan and his true legacy would be very interesting. I will admit that I didn't get his value at the time. But the GOP way over-estimates his value and true policies 30 years later.
Click to expand...

I won't dispute some of the things on your list. He did end don't ask don't tell. I think that was good, and it's a factual statement. The ones I have disputed are not factual on your part.

On the other hand, those on the left whine and howl about how republicans obstructed Obama's agenda. If that's true, how did he ever get anything passed at all? He did, so they didn't obstruct much at all. So that's a kind of outright lie on the lefties' part. Or hypocrisy. As well, since republicans did obstruct certain things, they actually prevented Obama's policies from doing further damage to the economy and nation as a whole.

You can't have it both ways.

Unemployment rate is a stat that needs to be taken in context. It doesn't actually measure unemployment, just the government's definition of it. The definition changes to make things look better than they really are. You also have to look at the quality of the jobs. Getting part time minimum wage jobs for highly skilled individuals is underemployment, and not a good thing. People take crappy jobs because that's all there is and they're desperate.

Consider:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/127538/workforce-weekly.aspx

Actual survey of 30,000 households.

Underemployment at 13.7%.

The government's REAL UNEMPLOYMENT (their own accounting using a stricter formula, U-6) is at 9.7%.

http://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate

U3 is the official unemployment rate. U5 includes discouraged workers and all other marginally attached workers. U6 adds on those workers who are part-time purely for economic reasons.

And this from gallup's CEO:

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/181469/big-lie-unemployment.aspx

Income inequality is an effect that occurs under both parties.

us_federal_debt_as_percent_of_gdp_by_president_1940_to_2012.png
 
PBS explains how unemployment rate masks true unemployment. Something that I didn't mention in my previous post is that people took Obama's 52 weeks of unemployment benefits, rather than taking a job. When the 52 weeks ran out, they scammed the government for disability benefits. Those people are not counted as unemployed, though they are.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/do-federal-statistics-mask-the/

Do Federal Statistics Mask the True Unemployment Rate?

Paul Solman: We’ve done considerable work on the unemployment statistic, Mr. Bianco. See our story, Undercounting Unemployment, which defines the different unemployment rates (called U-3, U-4, U-5 and U-6). The key points are that, compared to the way the headline unemployment rate (U-3) was officially calculated back when it hit its post-WWII high of 10.8% (1982), there have been major changes. Here they are:

1) The population is older and thus should have a LOWER unemployment rate, since older workers work more than younger ones do;

2) The number of Americans receiving government disability, virtually nil in 1982, is over 5 million today, and a significant percentage of them would presumably be unemployed if in the labor market;

3) Same for America’s prison population, which has risen by some 2 million since 1982. Estimates of unemployment among ex-convicts range up to 80%

4) Finally, the point you’re presumably making when you write about “a time restraint”: there are far more “discouraged” workers now than in the 1980s who don’t affect the unemployment rate at all. Starting in 1994, once you hadn’t looked for work for more than a year, you were officially removed from the workforce. Entirely. And that, as with items (2) and (3), above, reduces the headline rate – U-3 – and all the broader measures of unemployment as well.

One more point about unemployment before touching on the CPI issue you raise. Right now (as of May’s data), the broadest measure — U-6 — stands at 16.6 percent. If you included working-age Americans who haven’t looked for work in the past year — and who WERE included back in 1982 — the number would be a lot higher. And indeed, the main reason the unemployment rate didn’t go down last month, despite the surge of Census Bureau workers, was that many of them began looking for work again, thus “rejoining” the officially counted workforce.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimpowe...s-doubled-under-president-obama/#4fd68903140b

Why Long-Term Unemployment Has Doubled Under President Obama

President Obama has promoted long-term unemployment by adopting policies that make it harder and more expensive for employers to hire people. He has relentlessly pushed for higher taxes, higher energy costs, compulsory unionism and, of course, Obamacare. One doesn’t need a Harvard degree to figure out that when government makes hiring more difficult and expensive, there’s likely to be less of it.

Obama’s policy of extending and re-extending unemployment benefits is another culprit. Many academic studies show how unemployment benefits undermine the urgency of finding a job. People can afford to be more picky, and as a result they’re out of work longer. But the longer they’re out of work, the more out of touch they’re likely to be and the harder to find a another job.

From an employer’s point of view, it’s always difficult to determine whether a job seeker will be able to do what he or she is supposed to. Calling references often doesn’t reveal much, since an employer might be sued for making candid comments about a former employee’s performance. An employer might be willing to confirm only that a particular individual was an employee at the firm. Moreover, many washouts have had glowing resumes. It’s no wonder employers seem to feel more comfortable making an offer to somebody who has a job rather than somebody who lost a job.

As extended unemployment benefits finally expired, large numbers of out-of-work people have applied for Social Security disability benefits.

 
So, presumably, if economic policies under Obama discourage new employment and result in many unemployed dropping out of the counted workforce, there should be a major disparity in the rates of change between U-3 and U-6 over the course of the past 8 years, yes? Is there a reputable source for that data?
 
sgs-emp.gif


http://unemploymentdata.com/unemployment-rate/what-is-u-6-unemployment/

According to Shadowstats the government is really underestimating unemployment by even more than our numbers suggest since “long-term discouraged workers were defined out of official existence in 1994.” The new U-6 numbers only include short-term discouraged workers.

Note that shadowstats shows the unemployment rate relatively flat since 2009 at 22 – 23% primarily because of a declining Labor Force Participation Rate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PapaG
Romney Releases 2011 Tax Returns
2 3 4
Replies
101
Views
4K
maxiep
maxiep
MARIS61
TRUMP TAX PLAN
2 3 4
Replies
101
Views
5K
magnifier661
magnifier661
SlyPokerDog
Politics For first time ever, US billionaires pay lower tax rate than workers
Replies
4
Views
274
CupWizier
CupWizier
TradeNurkicNow
[/soapbox]
Replies
2
Views
584
Tweak
Tweak
MrJayremmie
Jobless Rate Drops
Replies
0
Views
380
MrJayremmie
MrJayremmie

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top