Obama as one of the Greatest Presidents Ever

[Gimmesometruth]

Yes he was and Democrats controlled the Congress thus the purse strings and legislative process. Interesting how basic civics is ignored by the left and it was Bush's fault alone that caused the economy to turn downward and yet at the end of 2008 the GDP was 14.7 trillion or up 4.5 trillion in the 8 years of Bush. Obama added 842 billion in federal spending thus additions to the GDP and still has 3.3 trillion in 7 years.

Yes, Obama is one of America's Greatest and Bush one of America's worst yet Bush has better numbers than Obama. Liberal logic?

By the way when did the Republicans take control of Congress? How does that fit into the liberal narrative about the numbers

Okay, you don't want to debate black u3, yer going off onto the same insane, disjointed nuttery you have spewed for years, that has been torn apart before, I'm not interested in playing ground hog day all over again with you this morning.

 

[Conservative]

Everyone and their mother who works with unemployment data knows it is a lagging indicator, it is not as if layoffs instantly happen as a result of asset price or banking collapses. There is a time lag for the effect to work through an economy, and it is the same for the hiring side. You have been doing this long enough to know this, stop with the stupid posts

I am really not sure what it is going to take to get liberals to think with their brain rather than their heart. It is rather frustrating dealing with people who are totally ignorant of civics and history plus the typical liberal arrogance. You see we have a 19+ trillion dollar debt created mostly by social engineering and yet that isn't enough with the liberal logic being that the last group of liberals didn't spend the money right but this group of liberals will. The liberal Groundhog day continues over and over again until the transformation or destruction of this country is complete.

 

[Conservative]

Okay, you don't want to debate black u3, yer going off onto the same insane, disjointed nuttery you have spewed for years, that has been torn apart before, I'm not interested in playing ground hog day all over again with you this morning.

It is all part of the same problem an Obama stimulus that failed at all levels and what you want to do is claim the failure was the result of the lagging indicator. Whether it was total unemployment or African American unemployment the results were the same, a spike up AFTER the stimulus taking years to get back to what it is today. This to a liberal leads to liberals creating threads like this one as they totally live for today and ignore the failed policies of yesterday.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

It is all part of the same problem an Obama stimulus that failed at all levels and what you want to do is claim the failure was the result of the lagging indicator. Whether it was total unemployment or African American unemployment the results were the same, a spike up AFTER the stimulus taking years to get back to what it is today. This to a liberal leads to liberals creating threads like this one as they totally live for today and ignore the failed policies of yesterday.

Even the freshwater crowd, a very tough audience for Keynesian ideas, grudgingly approved:


In 2012, the IGM Forum poll conducted by the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business found 80% of leading economists agree unemployment was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus. Regarding whether the benefits of the stimulus outweighed its costs, responses were more varied: 46% "agreed" or "strongly agreed" that the benefits outweighed the costs, 27% were uncertain, and 12% disagreed or strongly disagreed.[3] IGM Forum asked the same question to leading economists in 2014. This new poll found 82% of leading economists strongly agreed or agreed that unemployment was lower in 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus. Revisiting the question about the benefits outweighing the costs, 56% strongly agreed or agreed that it did, 23% were uncertain, and 5% disagreed.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009

 

[Conservative]

Even the freshwater crowd, a very tough audience for Keynesian ideas, grudgingly approved:


In 2012, the IGM Forum poll conducted by the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business found 80% of leading economists agree unemployment was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus. Regarding whether the benefits of the stimulus outweighed its costs, responses were more varied: 46% "agreed" or "strongly agreed" that the benefits outweighed the costs, 27% were uncertain, and 12% disagreed or strongly disagreed.[3] IGM Forum asked the same question to leading economists in 2014. This new poll found 82% of leading economists strongly agreed or agreed that unemployment was lower in 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus. Revisiting the question about the benefits outweighing the costs, 56% strongly agreed or agreed that it did, 23% were uncertain, and 5% disagreed.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009

lol, love it, totally ignorance of reality and poll numbers. Liberals love to make predictions to justify their policy failures. How do you know that things would have been worse without the stimulus? Looks to me like things were worse WITH the stimulus which was for shovel ready jobs based upon actual Govt spending. If you spend money how quickly do you get results?

Marketing is an incredible tool to change people's minds and divert from very poor economic numbers. In other words they can make people believe just about anything and you fit that bill.

 

[Thrilla]

I predict that in 40-50 years historians(Most of them are liberals.) will rank Obama somewhere in the middle of all the USA's presidents. And G.W. Bush will be mighty close to the bottom.

Wait 50 years and see.

In 50 years, I'll be 114 years old.... i'm not thinking i'll get to see those numbers... I'll probably be 30 years shy of seeing them.:lol:

I think you're right about Obama, but not about Bush... i think they'll both be in the middle somewhere... depending on how the whole middle east thing progresses.

 

[Conservative]

In 50 years, I'll be 114 years old.... i'm not thinking i'll get to see those numbers... I'll probably be 30 years shy of seeing them.:lol:

I think you're right about Obama, but not about Bush... i think they'll both be in the middle somewhere... depending on how the whole middle east thing progresses.

I agree, what we have here is an incredible marketing campaign to destroy the GW Bush name based solely on the 2008 economic results of which blame should be on both Bush and the DEMOCRAT controlled Congress who saw an opportunity to regain the WH thus created terms like the GREAT recession along with statements like having to pay for tax cuts or people keeping more of what they earn.

If Obama is ranked in the middle or towards the top what does that say about the ability to research and verify results?

It has been stated that Bush lost 700,000 per month but when asked to list the months I get silence.

When asked to provide the data supporting Obama's record you get cherry picked data such as employment growing from 138 million to 151 million ignoring that he took office with 142 million employed

Then there is the debt which Obama inherited at 10.6 on January 21, 2009. There was no budget for 2009 so Bush spending authority ended in March 2009 when the budget was signed BY OBAMA. At that time the debt was 11.0 trillion of which 450 billion were TARP Loans most of which were repaid in 2009 AFTER March 31. Current debt is 19.2 trillion dollars.

Bush economic growth 10.2 trillion to 14.7 trillion including 2008 or 4.5 trillion

Obama economic growth 14.7 trillion to 18.0 trillion or 3.3 trillion including stimulus spending

Guess results don't really matter whereas feelings do

 

[Slyfox696]

It has been stated that Bush lost 700,000 per month but when asked to list the months I get silence.

In November 2008, 768,000 jobs were lost. In December 2008, 695,000 jobs were lost. In January 2009 (which Bush was still President and his policies were still in effect), 791,000 jobs were lost. This comes to an average of 751,000 jobs lost.

Now that you've been provided the data, you accept the fact that Bush lost 700,000 jobs per month, correct?

Source

When asked to provide the data supporting Obama's record you get cherry picked data such as employment growing from 138 million to 151 million ignoring that he took office with 142 million employed

A) Because the recession started before he took office.
B) If we accept your 142 million and ignore the recession which was in effect before he took office, is 9 million jobs created while dealing with a horrible recession not worthy of praise?

Then there is the debt which Obama inherited at 10.6 on January 21, 2009. Current debt is 19.2 trillion dollars.

And Republicans have been in control of the House since 2010 and all of Congress since 2014. Since you tried to project equal blame on Democrat Congress for the recession, can I rightly assume you place equal blame on Republicans for the debt increase (the majority of which happened because of the recession, which you know)?

 

[Conservative]

In November 2008, 768,000 jobs were lost. In December 2008, 695,000 jobs were lost. In January 2009 (which Bush was still President and his policies were still in effect), 791,000 jobs were lost. This comes to an average of 751,000 jobs lost.

Now that you've been provided the data, you accept the fact that Bush lost 700,000 jobs per month, correct?

Source


A) Because the recession started before he took office.
B) If we accept your 142 million and ignore the recession which was in effect before he took office, is 9 million jobs created while dealing with a horrible recession not worthy of praise?

And Republicans have been in control of the House since 2010 and all of Congress since 2014. Since you tried to project equal blame on Democrat Congress for the recession, can I rightly assume you place equal blame on Republicans for the debt increase (the majority of which happened because of the recession, which you know)?

Last time I checked a year was 12 months not three and wonder why it is that BLS. Further wonder why BLS doesn't show that data on the following chart?

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS13000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 1980 to 2015

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2007 7116 6927 6731 6850 6766 6979 7149 7067 7170 7237 7240 7645
2008 7685 7497 7822 7637 8395 8575 8937 9438 9494 10074 10538 11286
2009 12058 12898 13426 13853 14499 14707 14601 14814 15009 15352 15219 15098
2010 15046 15113 15202 15325 14849 14474 14512 14648 14579 14516 15081 14348
2011 14013 13820 13737 13957 13855 13962 13763 13818 13948 13594 13302 13093
2012 12755 12818 12718 12641 12655 12697 12662 12475 12140 12135 12011 12299
2013 12417 11954 11681 11743 11641 11750 11362 11284 11302 11158 10796 10399
2014 10192 10375 10415 9699 9719 9470 9651 9617 9296 8989 9053 8704
2015 8920 8646 8557 8523 8619 8262 8249 8018 7925 7899 7924 7904
2016 7791 7815 7966 7920

What you want to do is ignore the stimulus which was GOVT. SPENDING thus should have created shovel ready jobs thus employment. That didn't happen

 

[Conservative]

In November 2008, 768,000 jobs were lost. In December 2008, 695,000 jobs were lost. In January 2009 (which Bush was still President and his policies were still in effect), 791,000 jobs were lost. This comes to an average of 751,000 jobs lost.

Now that you've been provided the data, you accept the fact that Bush lost 700,000 jobs per month, correct?

Source


A) Because the recession started before he took office.
B) If we accept your 142 million and ignore the recession which was in effect before he took office, is 9 million jobs created while dealing with a horrible recession not worthy of praise?

And Republicans have been in control of the House since 2010 and all of Congress since 2014. Since you tried to project equal blame on Democrat Congress for the recession, can I rightly assume you place equal blame on Republicans for the debt increase (the majority of which happened because of the recession, which you know)?

Oh, by the way, the left has touted a 75% decrease in the deficit, when did that decrease occur, who was in charge of the purse strings, and why did it happen?

 

[Slyfox696]

Last time I checked a year was 12 months not three

I see you've forgotten what you asked. Allow me to help you remember:

It has been stated that Bush lost 700,000 per month but when asked to list the months I get silence.

You didn't say anything about "a year" you asked for "the months".

I guess when facts don't align with one's rhetoric, one just lies about what was originally said.

Further wonder why BLS doesn't show that data on the following chart?

Umm...because it's completely different data?

What you want to do

What I want to do is to see how honest you are. You asked for the months when Bush lost 700,000 jobs and I provided it. So now you can admit you've seen where Bush lost 700,000 jobs a month.

Don't be dishonest, just admit you've been shown what you were asking to see. Do you now admit Bush was President when ~700,000 jobs were lost a month?

Oh, by the way, the left has touted a 75% decrease in the deficit, when did that decrease occur, who was in charge of the purse strings, and why did it happen?

I'm sorry, but you did not answer the question. I'll ask my question again. Since you tried to blame the recession equally on the Democratic controlled Congress and the Republican President, do you place equal blame on the Republican controlled Congress and the Democratic President for the debt increase?

It's a simple question. How do you respond?

 

[Roger1]

You can debate Obamanomics until the cows come home, but the proof in the BADLY spoiled pudding.
What really amazes me is how Obama escaped impeachment and assassination (well, so far anyway)

 

[Empirica]

Um, no. While Reagan's significantly-increased defense spending did affect the overall deficit, it was nowhere near enough to account for how much the deficit went up under Reagan. Here's a list of federal budgets as compared to defense budgets during that decade:

If you'll check, while there was one year (83-84) where defense spending almost accounted for all the total increase in federal spending, and one other year (86-87) where the budget for both was decreased, but decreased less on defense (thus the negative result), far and away, the majority of the increases were on NON-defense spending.

And just to twist the dagger a little bit more, you know Forbes', right? You know that magazine is no friend of the Obama administration, right? Well, here's what they have to say about how Obama's economy has performed as compared to Reagan's (hint - you won't like it, and since it says stuff you won't want to hear, you'll probably ignore it anyway). The article was written in 2014, and the difference has only grown greater since then.

:failpail:

Really? Do you not see the egregious error in your train of logic? Your entire refutation rests upon the assumption that "the "red state welfare" argument appears to be entirely based only on how each state voted in the most recent presidential election"...and your assumption is flat wrong. It has NOTHING to do with how a state "voted in the last election" - that claim makes no sense at all. Are you trying to say that the states in the Deep South are only red because of how they voted in the last election? If so, are you stoned? The Deep South has ALWAYS been deeply conservative, regardless of what party they voted for (which mostly changed in the last three decades of the last century), and most of the blue states mentioned have been blue for a long, long time.

What your source did was to build a strawman and beat the hell out of that strawman. For instance, in the 44 years since Reagan was first elected governor of California until Jerry Brown was elected in 2011, only 12 years - a slight bit over 25% - were under a Democratic governor. Does that mean that California is a red state? No, of course not. Even from my youth, California has been seen as a blue state regardless of who lived in the governor's mansion. The point is, states and regions may change parties that they support, but the general leanings of those states and regions do not change - or if they do, they do very slowly indeed. Again, look at the Deep South - at one point, they were strongly Democratic, and now they're strongly Republican...but they have ALWAYS been strongly conservative...or do you not know that at one point it was the Republicans who were the liberals, and the Democrats who were the conservatives?

:failpail:

Um, no, they are not. You simply used an obviously strawman argument to make the claim that I 'cherry-picked' numbers...and you might even have a point if it weren't for the fact that I have not just the overall numbers to back up my statements, but also the CAUSES that result in those higher numbers for red states. Why do red states require more in federal spending? It's really rather simple. Red states generally (though not always) have lower educational attainment rates, higher divorce rates, higher teenage pregnancy rates, lower percentages of health care coverage, higher homicide rates, higher violent crime rates...and I could go on. The only metric I could find where blue states were generally worse off was in drug use. All the worse rates for red states that I listed above costs money - taxpayer money, much of it in the form of state tax dollars, and the rest of it in the form of federal tax dollars.

THAT, ma'am, is why red states generally require more federal tax dollars coming in than they pay out.

And you know something? It's NOT the fault of conservative governance. That's right - read that again - it's NOT the fault of conservative governance. I'm not being snarky or sarcastic - I honestly mean it - it's not the fault of conservative governance.

Before I tell you the real reason, I want you to answer this: if I'm such a wrong-headed partisan who only looks for how to make Republicans and conservatives look bad, and I've got all those metrics that would obviously make Republicans and conservatives look bad, WHY would I say that it's not their fault? Please answer that first...and then I'll give you the answer that a strong conservative beat into my brain several years ago.

:failpail:

Wow; you seriously just don't get it GC_

 

[Glen Contrarian]

:failpail:

:failpail:

:failpail:

Wow; you seriously just don't get it GC_

Well, I guess you just showed me, didn't you, with your infallible logic and irrefutable rhetoric, huh? I guess your post is a wonderful example of how conservatives believe debates should be conducted!

*sigh*

 

[Empirica]

Well, I guess you just showed me, didn't you, with your infallible logic and irrefutable rhetoric, huh?

"Logic" is an exercise in futility when dealing with illogical minded radicals_

I guess your post is a wonderful example of how conservatives believe debates should be conducted!

*sigh*

I seriously doubt I would qualify as a "conservative"_ :giggle1:

 

[Glen Contrarian]

"Logic" is an exercise in futility when dealing with illogical minded radicals_

I see. So please feel free to show me how the comprehensive facts and figures I provided are wrong.

I seriously doubt I would qualify as a "conservative"_ :giggle1:

I quite agree.

 

[Frank Apisa]

I quite agree.

That is the true fly in the ointment!