Have people forgotten how messed up things were when Obama took office? [W:635/789]]

[99percenter]

i have a question,when bush entered office,he had to deal with a failing economy,arguably from clinton.was bush responsible for the stock market divinng in 2000?or the dot com bubble?

repealing glass steagal was one of the largest factors causing the recession,it was repealed under clinton not bush,and it was repealed by overwhelming majority on boths sides,so for bushes great recession there sure seemed to be equal number of democrats that stuck their hands in the problem,but yet have worked endlessly to blame bush and the republicans for a bipartisan failure on epic levels.

LOL. Clinton created the great recession? LOL that is laughable. Blaming clinton for something that happened 8 years into bush presidency. I won't respond to something that stupid. Although repealing glass-steagall was bad it was not the direct cause of the great recession. See video below. Also the nasdaq bubble really didnt affect the middle class like the bush housing bubble did nor did it hurt the economy like the bush bubble. It affected paper millionaires which i really dont care about.

 

[beerftw]

LOL. Clinton created the great recession? LOL that is laughable. Blaming clinton for something that happened 8 years into bush presidency. I won't respond to something that stupid. Although repealing glass-steagall was bad it was not the direct cause of the great recession. See video below. Also the nasdaq bubble really didnt affect the middle class like the bush housing bubble did nor did it hurt the economy like the bush bubble. It affected paper millionaires which i really dont care about.

ok so removing the regulations that were enacted during the great depression to prevent another depression obviously had nothing to do with it:roll:

 

[specklebang]

Obama, whom I affectionately refer to as Obusha, has been a mediocre president at best. He has continued one too many Bush policies and he's a bureaucrat of ludicrous proportions. However, he's not all bad and neither would McCain have been all bad. Every president has admirers and detractors.

The big problem with Democrats is their predilection for endless "programs". They create new programs without looking to see if there aren't already 999 other programs that, if decently administrated, already provide overpriced solutions. However, the Republicans are just as bad, just as incompetent and instead of wasting money on social programs, they waste our money on exotic weaponry and nation building.

There is a good reason that this recovery is so tectonic. First, the housing bubble was IMHO the worst bubble in history in terms of social destruction. Millions and millions of people were encouraged to buy homes they couldn't possibly afford and then they borrowed themselves into disaster using the imaginary equity in those ever rising homes. Did our fearless leader take a moment to contemplate this? No, he was running his personal war to enrich his Halliburton pals. In the meantime, we bubbled over with our national misconception of "american excetptionalism" and the degree of damage is not one we will easily recover from.

Over-populated and over-rated, I consider it a miracle we've recovered even as much as we have. Regrettably, we have 4.5 years more of Obusha ahead because we are offered no real alternative. Sure, I don't mind Romney but his Republicanism is bound to be fatal to his aspirations. Would he do more for America? Probably not. Anyway, we won't find out, will we?

 

[99percenter]

ok so removing the regulations that were enacted during the great depression to prevent another depression obviously had nothing to do with it:roll:

Where did i say it had nothing to do with it? I said it wasn't the direct cause. The bush housing bubble was.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yes. There are lot of folks still unemployed and underemployed. The residual effects of the bush cheney great recession. Would be higher if mccain had won. If obama had done more of the things that liberals like krugman are calling for and less compromising with the GOP the recovery would be more robust.

Yawn-things didn't start to crap out until botox bitch and dingy hairy got control of Congress.

You are talking out of your six. Jacking up taxes on the people who already pay far more than they should wouldn't have done anything good (and making the losers feel better or catering to the envious is not a benefit btw)

 

[beerftw]

Where did i say it had nothing to do with it? I said it wasn't the direct cause. The bush housing bubble was.

hmmmm no!

the bush housing bubble did not cause a financial collapse,it didnt let banks become mortgage,investment,and insurance all in one,the housing bubble didnt destroy bank liquidity..

all the housing bubble did was push for housing,which did hurt the economy,but did not cause the financial collapse,glass steagall did.

 

[Travis007]

well..simple logic says B Hussein Obama allowing the spectre of Cap and Trade, Obamacare and constant flip flopping on the GWB tax cuts really shows how in tune the Occidental accidental tourist knows about economics...he really is a genius, when hes not s stud athlete... ( GWB or Palin would mop the floor with him in anything athletic.)

but he is into social re-engeriering and wealth redistribution..a real hallmark of all the great Presidents ...of Kenya..

 

[Eighty Deuce]

Obama was an inept jackass voted in by the illiterate lemmings. Yes, he volunteered for, and took over, a mess. And then the jackass made it so much worse.

Nothing to forget here. Obama is a clutz.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Simply: he oversold his policies.

He promised positive results from all of his policies. Policies that have not materialized, especially in terms of fiscal responsibility.

Obamacare, cap and trade and constant shifts on tax policy have businesses wary---they dont know what their final cost to hire an empployee is going to be.

 

[AdamT]

Simply: he oversold his policies.

He promised positive results from all of his policies. Policies that have not materialized, especially in terms of fiscal responsibility.

Obamacare, cap and trade and constant shifts on tax policy have businesses wary---they dont know what their final cost to hire an empployee is going to be.

Maybe the uncertainty is a result of the temporary Bush tax cuts? :roll:

On a serious not, though, this is such a bull**** argument. Businesses never know what the future may hold in terms of tax policy and regulations.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Maybe the uncertainty is a result of the temporary Bush tax cuts? :roll:

On a serious not, though, this is such a bull**** argument. Businesses never know what the future may hold in terms of tax policy and regulations.

Excuse me...They are not the Bush tax cuts anymore. They have been extended several times, stop playing games, Dems own those those policies just as much as anyone else.

If you think the AHCA isnt part of the problem youre being rediculous, its an added cost onto the employer similar to unemployment insurance but at about a 7% rate rather than a 4.5% one. Obama's energy policies are making it easier for speculators---hes keeping supply as tight as possible for the US. Im sure you disagree with all of this, but the problem for you and Obama is that businesses agree with it and are hiring with these and other factors like them in mind.

 

[rocket88]

1. Mr. Obama wanted the job. He got the job. Now he must perform.

2. Some one other than Mr. Obama, e.g., McCain or H. Clinton, might not have dug such a deep hole. Maybe they would have stopped digging.

3. Would some any one believe anything the govt. says? No.

1. Yes. He has been a disappointment.

2. It's impossible to say. I don't think that McCain or Clinton would have necessarily been better or worse. While I think Obama's been disappointing, none of the other candidates in '08 were all that great either, and I don't think would be much better or different. I don't regret voting for Obama, as I think he was the best choice 4 years ago. I don't think he's the best choice this time.

3. Not from either side. Thank God for a biased media that shows two sides of the story to anybody willing to find out. There's more than two sides, but at least there's that.

 

[Radical Ron]

In response to the topic of the thread... No. I would even go as far as to say that I don't think Obama is to blame for the mess we are in. I just have disagreements with the way he conducts his policies.

 

[lizzie]

I can understand why that is where they would attack him, just because it is politically savvy, but do people REALLY believe that McCain or ANY Republican would have turned the economy around faster?

Why would anyone believe that?

I don't necessarily believe McCain would have turned the economy around faster, but I do believe he would have wasted far fewer taxpayer dollars while the economy started on its way toward recovery, and I do believe he would not have tried to micromanage and control American business. Additionally, I don't think we would be facing the indebtedness that Obamacare will be putting us in.

 

[rocket88]

I don't necessarily believe McCain would have turned the economy around faster, but I do believe he would have wasted far fewer taxpayer dollars while the economy started on its way toward recovery, and I do believe he would not have tried to micromanage and control American business. Additionally, I don't think we would be facing the indebtedness that Obamacare will be putting us in.

It would be a difference in style more than substance. McCain had many of the same ideas as Obama in '08 about health care. Both wanted major reform, and the individual mandate was long a Republican idea that McCain favored.

John McCain on Health Care « Election 2008 News

This does not indicate that the policies would have been so different coming out. We'd just have "McCaincare" instead of "Obamacare."

 

[pbrauer]

You people forget how dire the situation was when Obama became president. Here from bls is the per month changes in the private sector. It should also be pointed out that the financial crisis involved lending institutions, so credit markets were nonexistent, which made the situation worse.

Granted the recovery is slow, even still there have been 25 months (since March 2010) of private sector growth resulting in approx 4 million jobs.

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2001	-46	-8	-67	-329	-81	-236	-173	-188	-267	-364	-346	-207
2002	-151	-159	-65	-96	-80	12	-95	-56	-12	108	-14	-170
2003	57	-157	-199	-34	19	-39	-2	32	161	143	37	108
2004	170	32	299	223	310	94	41	102	152	327	27	133
2005	95	231	145	346	143	261	280	187	84	96	304	140
2006	315	285	258	165	7	80	158	145	86	5	189	166
2007	229	57	172	46	121	61	-4	-73	20	61	75	47
2008	41	-136	-112	-215	-216	-231	-259	-294	-425	-480	-797	-658
2009	-839	-725	-787	-802	-312	-426	-296	-219	-184	-232	-42	-120
2010	-40	-27	141	193	84	92	92	128	115	196	134	140
2011	119	257	261	264	108	102	175	52	216	139	178	234
2012	277	233	121

 

[Travis007]

You people forget how dire the situation was when Obama became president. Here from bls is the per month changes in the private sector. It should also be pointed out that the financial crisis involved lending institutions, so credit markets were nonexistent, which made the situation worse.

Granted the recovery is slow, even still there have been 25 months (since March 2010) of private sector growth resulting in approx 4 million jobs.



You may want to find out who this fruad is int he whitehouse.. hes a radical Saul Alinsky Soros puppet

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2001	-46	-8	-67	-329	-81	-236	-173	-188	-267	-364	-346	-207
2002	-151	-159	-65	-96	-80	12	-95	-56	-12	108	-14	-170
2003	57	-157	-199	-34	19	-39	-2	32	161	143	37	108
2004	170	32	299	223	310	94	41	102	152	327	27	133
2005	95	231	145	346	143	261	280	187	84	96	304	140
2006	315	285	258	165	7	80	158	145	86	5	189	166
2007	229	57	172	46	121	61	-4	-73	20	61	75	47
2008	41	-136	-112	-215	-216	-231	-259	-294	-425	-480	-797	-658
2009	-839	-725	-787	-802	-312	-426	-296	-219	-184	-232	-42	-120
2010	-40	-27	141	193	84	92	92	128	115	196	134	140
2011	119	257	261	264	108	102	175	52	216	139	178	234
2012	277	233	121

I know.. and Bush only had to inherit 9/11 and the housing mess of The Dems....

if you for one second think Obama is doing anything to correct anythign financial..I have a bridge to sell you.. Dodd Frank is a disaster and the spectre of Cap and Trade and the fear of the loss fo the Bush Tax cuts....

You may want to find out who this fruad is int he whitehouse.. hes a radical Saul Alinsky Soros puppet

did Michelle give you your new slogan "Change is slow" because thats the new losers lament tag line..

and never have we had so many MILLIONS drope out of the work force.. I dont see that stat..? and remember Pelosi says food stamps create jobs..Liberals oh they make me laugh...

any source on that bingo card you posted? or did Barney Frank just hand it to you?

 

[pbrauer]

I know.. and Bush only had to inherit 9/11 and the housing mess of The Dems....

if you for one second think Obama is doing anything to correct anythign financial..I have a bridge to sell you.. Dodd Frank is a disaster and the spectre of Cap and Trade and the fear of the loss fo the Bush Tax cuts....

You may want to find out who this fruad is int he whitehouse.. hes a radical Saul Alinsky Soros puppet

did MIcehle give you your new slogan "Change is slow" because thats the new losers lament tag line..

Typical Right Wing talking points, I presented you with the facts, why don't you do the same? :coffeepap:

 

[Travis007]

Typical Right Wing talking points, I presented you with the facts, why don't you do the same? :coffeepap:

again.. a source on that bingo card?


Here is where you got your slogan from



New Slogan: 'Real Change Is Slow and it Never Happens All at Once'
2:36 PM, May 1, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPERSingle Page
Print
Larger Text
Smaller Text
Alerts AlertsHide
Get alerts when there is a new article that might interest you.
Send me alerts for: Bill Kristol
Fred Barnes
Jay Cost Your e-mail address: Confirm e-mail address: Please sign me up for The Weekly Standard weekly newsletter. The Weekly Standard reserves the right to use your email for internal use only. Occasionally, we may send you special offers or communications from carefully selected advertisers we believe may be of benefit to our subscribers. Click the box to be included in these third party offers. We respect your privacy and will never rent or sell your email. Please include me in third party offers.

Michelle Obama seems to have tried out a new campaign slogan at today's fundraiser in Las Vegas.



"I’m not going to kid you," the first lady said at the fundraiser, according to the pool report. "This journey is going to be long. And it’s going to be hard. And there are going to be plenty of twists and turns along the way. That’s how change always happens in this country. The reality is real change is slow and it never happens all at once."

Seems like a winning slogan to me! "Change is slow."

"Michelle Obama addressed about 130 people at a private fundraising breakfast at a café inside The Springs Preserve, a 180-acre protected nature area a few miles from the Las Vegas Strip," according to the pool report. "The guests paid at least $2,500 each, raising more than $300,000 for the Obama Victory Fund, a committee raising funds for his re-election campaign and the Democratic National Committee."

One wonders how receptive these high dollar attendees were to the new tone.

UPDATE: According to the official White House transcript, Michelle Obama also got the name of venue wrong. "And I also want to thank The Springs Reserve [sic] and the Culinary Academy for hosting us here today," the first lady said. "This is a beautiful site. As often as I have been here, I didn't know this was here." She spoke at the Springs Preserve

 

[pbrauer]

again.. a source on that bingo card?

Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics



Total Private Employment - CES0500000001

 

[Travis007]

Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics



Total Private Employment - CES0500000001

Yawn..

Don't Be Fooled, The Obama Unemployment Rate Is 11%
76 comments, 0 called-out + Comment now
+ Comment now
Image by AFP via @daylife
When Barack Obama entered office in January, 2009, the labor force participation rate was 65.7%, meaning nearly two-thirds of working age Americans were working or looking for work.

When the recession supposedly officially ended in June, 2009, the labor force participation rate was still 65.7%.

Move up Move down
The 'No Unemployed Need Apply' Problem Deborah L. Jacobs
Forbes Staff
In the latest, much celebrated, unemployment report, the labor force participation rate had plummeted to 63.7%, the most rapid decline in U.S. history. That means that under President Obama nearly 5 million Americans have fled the workforce in hopeless despair.

The trick is that when those 5 million are not counted as in the work force, they are not counted as unemployed either. They may desperately need and want jobs. They may be in poverty, as many undoubtedly are, with America suffering today more people in poverty than in the entire half century the Census Bureau has been counting poverty. But they are not even counted in that 8.3% unemployment rate that Obama and his media cheerleaders were so tirelessly celebrating last week.

If they were counted, the unemployment rate today would be a far more realistic 11%, better reflecting the suffering in the real economy under Obamanomics.

Just last month, while the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported finding 243,000 new jobs, they also reported in the same release that an additional 1.2 million workers had dropped out of the work force altogether, giving up hope under Obama. If labor force participation had remained the same in January, 2012 just as it was the month before in December, 2011, the unemployment rate would have risen to 8.7% in January rather than supposedly declining to 8.3% as reported.

Some additional facts highlight how misleading the reported unemployment rate, and the political rhetoric around it, can be. One year ago, 99 million Americans were unemployed or otherwise not working, and the unemployment rate was 9.1%. Today, while the reported unemployment rate is 8.3%, over 100 million Americans are unemployed or otherwise not working.

In January, 2009, 11.6 million Americans were unemployed, with 23% of those unemployed for more than 6 months. By January, 2012, 12.8 million were unemployed, with 43% of those out of work more than 6 months.

At the official end of the recession in June, 2009, America was 12.6 million jobs short of full employment. By January, 2012, we were 15.2 million jobs short, falling behind by another 244,000 in that month alone.

The time has come to begin to raise questions about the precipitous decline in the labor force assumed by BLS. Are the career bureaucrats there partial to President Obama, and favorable towards promoting his political chances for reelection? Or has the Obama Administration placed someone in a leadership slot over at the BLS or the unemployment statistics branch that is imposing this assumed sharp decline? Because of the oddness of this record setting decline, coinciding with President Obama’s ascension to office, these questions bear further investigation.


The numbers are DISMAL!!!!!

Don't Be Fooled, The Obama Unemployment Rate Is 11% - Forbes

 

[AdamT]

This guy has got the wingnut playbook down COLD. :lol:

If the numbers support your argument, cite them as if they were carved in marble and delivered from Mt. Sainai. If the numbers don't support your argument, just make up some other numbers that do!

 

[Travis007]

This guy has got the wingnut playbook down COLD. :lol:

If the numbers support your argument, cite them as if they were carved in marble and delivered from Mt. Sainai. If the numbers don't support your argument, just make up some other numbers that do!

enough with the name calling.. Forbes is certinaly not "wing nut".. You obviously have nothing ...

 

[AdamT]

enough with the name calling.. Forbes is certinaly not "wing nut".. You obviously have nothing ...

Yeah, okay, Mr. B. Hussein Obama. :lol:

What I have is the actual, official unemployment rate, which, last time I checked, was 8.2%. Not great, but an improvement.

The reason we use U-3 as the official number is so that we can do apples<->apples comparisons over time. It's not helpful in that regard if people cherry pick their favorite statistic, or add/subtract from the number based on one factor or another. That's not to say that it can't be instructive for some purpose, but it's simply incorrect to make up your own metric and then call that the "real" unemployment rate.

 

[Travis007]

What I have is the actual, official unemployment rate, which, last time I checked, was 8.2%. Not great, but an improvement.

The reason we use U-3 as the official number is so that we can do apples<->apples comparisons over time. It's not helpful in that regard if people cherry pick their favorite statistic, or add/subtract from the number based on one factor or another. That's not to say that it can't be instructive for some purpose, but it's simply incorrect to make up your own metric and then call that the "real" unemployment rate.

You are a hypocrite... its a bore.. and you have 10,000 posts in 9.5 months.. something seems off to me.

again.. the Forbes article was on the bullseye.. nobody ( ..well adults) believe that the economy or jobs are returing to the private sector, the numbers as per that article shows all that.

at least be honest and change your lean to "uber liberal Obama lacky".. because its painfully obvious..

again how much stimulus money was spent on the lie it would not go above 8%...