Conservatives Are Standing on the Wrong Side of History

[Jack Hays]

But you won't show them.

Already posted at #280.

 

[Jack Hays]

We've already been through this where I showed you how meaningless the average means. You cling to it because Bush benefits from the low unemployment rate he inherited while it hurts Obama who inherited a very high unemployment rate amid the Great Recession.

And BHO has achieved almost no improvement in unemployment rate. You've only showed me your partisan loyalty.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Reuters is wrong, and so are you. They can't support those numbers.eace

Let's see your numbers?

 

[LowDown]

Yes, unfortunately he negotiated that bargaining chip away....so what did he get in return from the Republicans?

He got an extension of the tax cuts.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

And BHO has achieved almost no improvement in unemployment rate. You've only showed me your partisan loyalty.

True, under Obama, we've gone from 7.8% to 7.3%. Still far better than going from 4.2% to 7.8%. :roll:

 

[Linc]

Interesting link. So now we're down to whose data? And whgat factors went into that data?
My compliments to your ever-lasting revision.

Off by more than 100%.

[h=3]Cost of War - National Priorities Project[/h]nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/‎
$824,328 for Cost of War in Iraq Since 2003. $814,226,647,092. Every hour, taxpayers in the United States are paying. $11.26 million for Total Cost of Wars ...eace

 

[Jack Hays]

We've already been through this where I showed you how meaningless the average means. You cling to it because Bush benefits from the low unemployment rate he inherited while it hurts Obama who inherited a very high unemployment rate amid the Great Recession.

A weak performance, only buoyed up by so many discouraged job seekers leaving the labor force.

[h=4]Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey[/h]
Series Id: LNS14000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status: Unemployment rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over

 

[polgara]

Still not back to GWB's average number of jobs and certainly not down to GWB's average unemployment. BHO is a failure on the economy.eace

:agree: Plus, I read that 70 percent of those new jobs are only part time! Certainly not much to brag about there!

Good evening, Jack. :2wave:

 

[Jack Hays]

Let's see your numbers?

Please see my #280.

 

[Linc]

Actually we should start above 10% where it topped off instead of 7.8%.
According to history rewriters, the 3 months after the election belong to Obama. LOL. Not to mention the 1st 3 months for Obama.

True, under Obama, we've gone from 7.8% to 7.3%. Still far better than going from 4.2% to 7.8%. :roll:

 

[Jack Hays]

True, under Obama, we've gone from 7.8% to 7.3%. Still far better than going from 4.2% to 7.8%. :roll:

Wrong again. Average under GWB well out of BHO's reach.

 

[Jack Hays]

Interesting link. So now we're down to whose data? And whgat factors went into that data?
My compliments to your ever-lasting revision.

Check out the site.

 

[Jack Hays]

:agree: Plus, I read that 70 percent of those new jobs are only part time! Certainly not much to brag about there!

Good evening, Jack. :2wave:

Good evening, Polgara.:2wave:

Full time vs part time is a bit too much nuance for my interlocutors.:lamo

 

[LowDown]

No, no, no. Conservatives are always more comfortable with the familiar and strongly suspicious of the unfamiliar. Clinton was a white Southerner - he wasn't a black guy with a funny name (that included 'Hussein'). The night before Obama took the oath of office the first time, the most powerful among the Republican party met and decided that they would oppose whatever he did, no matter what it was, no matter what he offered...

...and we all see the result. So don't tell me it's because he didn't try to work with them - they'd already decided to oppose everything he did, BEFORE he ever took the oath of office.

Sorry, but that doesn't comport with the facts. Republicans have voted for Obama initiatives that they could support, like the extensions of the tax cuts, the sequester, continuing budget resolutions, raising the debt ceiling, and various and sundry bills you never heard of because they produced no friction. The moratorium on payroll taxes, job creation act, unemployment insurance reauthorization, etc.

Initiatives that represent big shifts to the left away from existing policy? Not so much.

 

[Jack Hays]

This is from a 2012 article, but it makes a point that's relevant today.

When President Bush took office in January, 2001 the unemployment rate was 4.2%.
After the jolt of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the highest the unemployment rate rose was 6.3% in June, 2003.
This rate seems remarkably low by today’s economic standards.
Then the economy calmed down and actually grew, dropping the unemployment rate to the mid 5% range, where it stayed for the next two years.
In fact, the rate was 5.4% in November, 2004 when Bush was reelected.
Really good news came in December, 2005 when the unemployment rate dipped to 4.9% and stayed in the 4% range straight through to November, 2007.
Then in December, 2007 it went to 5.0%, rose slowly and really shot up in August, 2008 to 6.1%. When the economy tanked, the rate blew right through the 6% range ending December, 2008 at 7.3%.
Rising still in January, 2009 when President Obama took office, the rate was 7.8%.
It saw a high of 10% in October, 2009 and now in July, 2012 the rate has come down to 8.2% where it seems to be stuck in what I call, “the new normal” for this president.
The takeaway here is the highest unemployment rate during President Bush’s entire eight years in office was his last at 7.8%, compared to President Obama’s low of 8.1%.
It is ironic how Obama still loves to blame the “economy he inherited” from Bush, when at this point in the presidential election campaign, Obama would love to have the 7.8% unemployment rate he did in fact inherit from Bush in January, 2009 or better yet the 6.8% from November, 2008 when he was elected.eace

 

[Moot]

Reuters is wrong, and so are you. They can't support those numbers.eace

No, you're wrong. naa na naa naaaa.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Please see my #280.

The difference is accountable to future medical and disability costs of U.S. war veterans and also the interest on the debt to borrow money to fight the war.

So you fail to show the $2t figure is not right.

 

[Jack Hays]

The difference is accountable to future medical and disability costs of U.S. war veterans and also the interest on the debt to borrow money to fight the war.

So you fail to show the $2t figure is not right.

Those who advance the $2T figure are obliged to support it. I am not obliged to accept it. I have advanced my figure, and the site I linked explains how it was derived.eace

 

[Misterveritis]

If you really believed that, you would get out now while you could.

I am doing my research...

 

[LowDown]

Humm... Must be the sequester. So, we are giving Obama credit for cuts he opposed?

Obama has been very right about one thing, which is that Medicare costs are eating us up, and unless we get that under control discretionary cuts will be of little effect. Having said that, it's beginning to look like Obamacare won't be controlling the costs, sadly enough.

It was a very very bad idea for the government to get involved in that from the beginning. After 80 years the chickens are coming home to roost.

It's not Obama's fault. He and the Dems did their best. The rub was always going to be when it actually came to cutting back. In the past that has always meant that Congress caves to political pressure and increases benefits, driving costs up again.

Or, here's the alternative scenario -- Obamacare is effective in reducing costs because positive Congressional action is required to remove the cost control mechanisms that go into effect automatically otherwise, Republicans refuse to cooperate to save the Democrat's rears (except to offer to vote for a bill abolishing Obamacare), and the Democrats get the blame for cutting grandmother's benefits, get thrown out on their ears in 2014 and 2016.

 

[Misterveritis]

Actually we should start above 10% where it topped off instead of 7.8%.
According to history rewriters, the 3 months after the election belong to Obama. LOL. Not to mention the 1st 3 months for Obama.

He is the Marxist. And people who own businesses have plenty of examples of what happens when Marxists get into power...

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

BHO is already responsible for 36% of our national debt, more than any other POTUS. It is within reach for BHO to attain, by the time he leaves office on 20 January 2017, the honor of owning over 50% of the national debt -- more than all other Presidents combined.eace

Here are some other presidents you could say that about when they were in office.

Reagan was responsible for 64% of the national debt, at that time, more than any other president; and close to 3 times all other presidents before him combined.

Bush Sr. was responsible for 36% of the national debt, at that time, more than any other president for their first term and on track to surpass Reagan.

Bush Jr. was responsible for 46% of the national debt, at that time, more than any other president before him except for Reagan; and close to more than all other presidents before him combined.

Seems Obama is in some pretty good company, huh?

 

[polgara]

Good evening, Polgara.:2wave:

Full time vs part time is a bit too much nuance for my interlocutors.:lamo

:thumbs: :lamo

 

[Jack Hays]

Here are some other presidents you could say that about when they were in office.

Reagan was responsible for 64% of the national debt, at that time, more than any other president; and close to 3 times all other presidents before him combined.

Bush Sr. was responsible for 36% of the national debt, at that time, more than any other president for their first term and on track to surpass Reagan.

Bush Jr. was responsible for 46% of the national debt, at that time, more than any other president before him except for Reagan; and close to more than all other presidents before him combined.

Seems Obama is in some pretty good company, huh?

Yes. The figures are not in dispute. Nor are they relevant. Each of the other three borrowed to answer a foreign challenge: Cold War, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, 9/11. What did BHO get?eace

 

[Misterveritis]

Here are some other presidents you could say that about when they were in office.

Reagan was responsible for 64% of the national debt, at that time, more than any other president; and close to 3 times all other presidents before him combined.

Reagan defeated the Soviet Union. The other two are establishment Republicans. They are not much better than any democrat. So what has the One done? He has laundered money.

Bush Sr. was responsible for 36% of the national debt, at that time, more than any other president for their first term and on track to surpass Reagan.

Bush Jr. was responsible for 46% of the national debt, at that time, more than any other president before him except for Reagan; and close to more than all other presidents before him combined.

Seems Obama is in some pretty good company, huh?