Obama Flops at Knox

[windowdressing]

A speech that lasted over an hour. A bit full of ourselves, are we? Here's the link to the speech: Full Text: Obama’s Remarks on Middle-Class Prosperity - Washington Wire - WSJ

Google "sequester" and you will see that Republicans are at fault for that. Google "Obamacare" and you will find President Obama telling us that Obamacare is largely responsible for creating a jobs recovery. Google "phony" and you'll find that Benghazi, the IRS controversy, the NSA goings-on are phony scandals ginned up by Republicans. Google "rebuilding our manufacturing base" and you'll see Obama advocating for more government spending in the next budget, insinuating that only government spending can train workers and upgrade transportation and technology networks. (Hold onto your wallets.)

Google "middle class in America" and you'll see that only government can provide job security with good wages, a good education and a home to call your own. Google "executive authority" and you will find Obama's promise to use Executive Orders to bypass Congress at every opportunity. Google "good jobs" and you will find that Obama intends to continue to create jobs in wind and solar. (Until they go bankrupt?)

And that's just through Page Six of a 20-page speech.

I'm surprised anyone was left awake. Way too long. And more to come.

More to come? absolutely! More than three years left Maggie ... get yourself a drink, find a comfy place to sit, and watch ... and when 2016 rolls around, don't get up right away ... you may be sitting there for another 8 years ...

 

[a351]

I misremembered this. Your persistence made me go back and look. Actually what happened is that there was a sharp drop in the GDP for two to three quarters in 1992 to 1993, the immediate effects of Clinton's announcement of a tax hike, and the economy grew much slower after the hike was enacted than it should have before Clinton agreed with Republicans to cut the rates in his second term. Essentially, "the Reaganesque sweet spot" was restored.

Several points here. There was not a single quarter worth of negative growth in either of the years mentioned, but rather a sluggish job market incapable of coping with an increasing work force. Also, attributing what you feel to be an economic downturn in 1992 to tax hikes enacted in the latter half of 1993 would be quite the stretch, no?

I don't dispute the half of a percent figure. I took your word for it. Go back and read my post again. Though I disagree with your overall analysis, you struck me as a man who knows what he’s talking about, at least in terms of the technicalities.

Fair enough

As for spending and growth of government? No. Stop it. Clinton would have pushed through HillaryCare and would have spent much more than "below the historical norm" on other domestic programs in addition to it with a Democratically controlled Congress. I think you know that's true.

I'm not aware of the cost projections at the time for Hillary's proposed health reform, so I won't even speculate. What is evident however, is the overall moderation in Clinton's budget requests. Both parties reflect on the period as one of fiscal sanity, and failing to give Clinton a shred of credit though his propositions were well within line with Congress is rather naive.

Come on! HillaryCare alone would have sent the national debt soaring. So much for the surge in revenues during his second term, mostly due to the 1995 tax cut championed by the Republican Congress. And surpluses? What surpluses? They never would have happened had his wife gotten her way.

Conjecture at this point. Also consider the fact that the short term budget effects of health reform may have not been significant enough to overwhelm what was at the end of Clinton's term, a rather sizable surplus. Corporate and Capital gains tax receipts did in fact increase, but attributing the gain in revenue to those sources alone doesn't add up. In fact, revenues derived from individual income taxes increased by a greater amount and proportion during the period.

No. I don't give him credit for that. The credit for that goes to the electorate and the Republican Party! He proposed what he did because that's the best he could expect to pass. And he agreed to cut taxes in his second term for the same reason he sheepishly dropped HillaryCare: because it was politically expedient for him to do so in response to Republican control of Congress and the electorate's disdain for HillaryCare and his tax hike. The resulting boom vindicated the position of the Republicans and the electorate. Clinton was not the leader in this wise, but the one who was corrected!

I'll agree with you here. Clinton was many things, but Politically illiterate was not one of them.

Once again, the roughly 20-year economic boom of the 80's and 90's, interrupted by the historically mild, cyclical recession of 1991, goes to the Reagan revolution, i.e., the legacy of his approach to government, not Clinton's. Republicans held Clinton's feet to the fire. That's all. And by the way, in spite of the high effective rates and Reagan's increases in military spending which served, along with certain geostrategic moves, to bring the former Soviet Union down, revenues soared during his tenor of booming economic growth too. Naturally.

Reagan can be credited for Clinton's success insofar as carving out a decade of relative stability in foreign affairs. The economy I would argue, had much less to do with Reagan than with the financial and technological innovation of the era, in addition to the expansion of trade. Again, if Reagan is to be credited for the success of the late 90's, he can also be saddled with the ineffectiveness of the early part of the decade.

The real initiatives were passed by the Republican Congress--three in all. They didn't come out of the White House. Clinton vetoed the first two, hemmed and hawed, hemmed and hawed. He wanted to veto the third bill (The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996), but decided that wouldn't be politically expedient in an election year in which the electorate was demanding it.

I'd still argue the main hindrance was bringing his own party to the table. Clinton had no intention of letting a staple campaign platform fall victim to infighting, but Gingrich's demands were simply too draconian to cave to immediately and would likely lose him favor with a chunk of the electorate and his base.

Downturns happen. That's the economic cycle. Clinton wasn't allowed to do the kind of damage the Messianic One did to our economy. And the economic downturn that Clinton faced was nothing compared to what Reagan lead this nation out of it. The entrenched stagflation years of the seventies and early eighties were devastating, exacerbated by staggeringly high tax rates, double-digit unemployment, inflation and interest rates. In truth, Reagan faced a worse economy than Obama.

I'd agree that the economy inherited by Reagan was in a worse state than that of Clinton's. Obama's is an entirely different matter and will be viewed as markedly worse by any economic historian worth his salt.

 

[Rawlings]

Opinion. And a poor one at that.

If you say so. Make sure you have gold and silver in your portfolio.

In addition to the stabilization in terms of employment, personal wealth and both the financial and housing industries.

Stabilization in terms of employment!? More on that later as you try to portray my analysis as an error below without understanding what I'm actually talking about.

Obama's Keynesianism unnecessarily prolonged the recession and continues to keep the economy on the ropes, but it's the specter of his healthcare boondoggle, his war on the energy industry and his stifling, 20-something-times-negative-benefit government regulation via executive order that continue to cripple the recovery.

Stabilization in the face of an economy where unemployment is creeping back up again, an economy that remains, once again, but a breath or two away from another recession And don't forget the 5- to 6-trillion in new debt. Stabilization? That's your standard? Yours is the praise of pathetically low expectations particularly when no truly conservative president would have so stupidly employed discredited Keynesian spending and would have had this economy unmistakably roaring back well before the end of his first term.

We're now into the seventh month of this dingbat's second term. The ongoing saga of economic trauma continues.

That is incorrect. The economy has expanded to the tune of 2 trillion dollars since Obama assumed office.

You're talking about overall expansion in GDP since he assumed office?! LOL! And of course nearly half of that 2 trillion is against economic shrinkage, with absolute growth past the red ink only about half of that (July, 2013). Dismal. I'm talking about the size of the economy in terms of real growth in wealth, wages, investment and employment.

[url="http://www.policymic.com/articles/11952/gdp-growth-obama-presides-over-second-slowest-economic-recovery-since-world-war-ii" ]GDP Growth: Obama Presides Over Second Slowest Economic Recovery Since World War II[/url]

More to the point. . . .

Growth

When Obama took office, the economy was shrinking at roughly 8% annually. For most of Obama's term, it's been growing, as the chart below shows. In absolute terms, the economy is now $853 billion larger than it was before Obama was inaugurated. So, yes, we're better off.

But if you're a little disappointed, you're not alone.

Coming out of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, ending a 20-year dependence on credit-fueled growth and in the wake of a delayed response to the crisis by the administration of then-President George W. Bush, the recovery was always going to be fitful. So it's no surprise that, 18 quarters after the pre-recession peak in GDP activity, the economy has managed to grow only 1.8% over the pre-recession high.

According to Credit Suisse economists, that's far from where we should be if this had been a normal recession -- the kind people have experienced before. On average, 18 months into a mild recession, GDP should be 10.4% larger than it is now. For a severe recession, it should be nearly 14% larger. That's almost $2 trillion in lost output, lost wages and lost prosperity.

Are we better off under Obama? - 1 - - MSN Money

Again, a blatant error. In net form, over 2 million positions have been added under his term, with a gain of nearly 7 million since the end of 2009.

Again, a blatant disregard for the concerns that truly matter in the real world in terms of long-term economic health and stability, particularly with regard to the overall, frightful state of government dependency and real unemployment.

Are you kidding me? Measurable employment? Two million net after more than four years? That's your nah nah nah nah nah? More praise of low expectations.

I'll tell ya what, a351, you go back to sleep while I apprise the reader of the long-term realities of Obama's disastrous presidency with regard to generational unemployment. . . .

88 million out of work and not looking for a job - SFGate

Financial Armageddon: One Ugly Picture, a Few Sad Words

Blog: Net job gain under Obama: 28,000

Obama’s Economic Sleight of Hand | FactCheck.org

Our View - Republican.Senate.Gov

Our View - Republican.Senate.Gov

18 Facts That Dispute Obama's Lies About the Economy | CatchKevin.com

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

Average (Mean) Duration of Unemployment (UEMPMEAN) - FRED - St. Louis Fed

 

[Rawlings]

Reagan can be credited for Clinton's success insofar as carving out a decade of relative stability in foreign affairs. The economy I would argue, had much less to do with Reagan than with the financial and technological innovation of the era, in addition to the expansion of trade. Again, if Reagan is to be credited for the success of the late 90's, he can also be saddled with the ineffectiveness of the early part of the decade.

This is the only thing I need to respond to here. The rest of your post hinges on it.

Hogwash. You've been roundly refuted. First, you failed to understand that my observation was an abstraction, though based on indisputable political realities. Now you dissemble. Everything praiseworthy about the economic policies and outcomes of the historically unprecedented growth and prosperity of the 1980's and '90's were strictly conservative in nature and initiative, ultimately owing to the Goldwater-Reagan transformative revolution of the Republican Party. The credit for stopping what would have clearly been a devastating blow to the economy, HillaryCare and increases in the size and scope of government and government spending during the 90's, goes to the American electorate and the Republican-controlled Congress who didn't let Clinton do what he clearly wanted to do.

Low tax rates.
Low capital gains taxation.
Lowered rates of governmental growth and spending.
Free trade.
Welfare reform.

Conservative!

That sums it all up, and except for the decidedly ill-advised immigration reform of Reagan's presidency, Captain Adverse's post is a litany of anecdotal claptrap that utterly disregards the ongoing economic trends and the historically deplorable state of our nation's military due to more than a decade of destructive economic policy and neglect during the Nixon-Carter era of brain-dead Keynesianism, price controls and Détente.

Here's an idea: we don't coexist with these thugs and continue the staggeringly expensive arms race and/or phony negations to our detriment, we defeat them, Reagan determined and did!

American leftists have never forgiven Reagan for defeating the Soviet Union.

Bottom line: well before 1984, it was clear that the economy was roaring back after nearly 13 years of malaise and loss; growth soared, unemployment eventually dropped to historical lows and the Soviet Union was defeated in short order as a result of Reagan's foreign policy and defense spending, the major part of the increase in government spending during his tenure, allowing this nation to save tons of revenue on defense ever since, many times more than what was spent to rebuild and defeat that criminal regime.

What's hilarious about all of this is all you guys defending the policies of Democrats come hell or high water. Obviously, the economic policies of the prosperous 80's and 90's were Reaganesque, entailing the utter repudiation of decades of Keynesianism, while the clear disaster that is Obama's presidency is sheer Keynesianism. LOL!

Conservative policies were the right ones and worked during the Clinton years, but not the Reagan years?

LOL!

Clearly, they obviously did work during the Reagan years, and the 80's and 90's where essentially 20 years of "Reaganomics."

The American electorate knew very well they worked and eschewed the prattle about the alleged Teflon Presidency and the historical revisionism of that time, granting Reagan a second term in another landslide decision.

Where's the beef? Remember that? LOL!

Conservative policies were the right ones and worked during the Clinton years, but, apparently, would be all wrong during the Obama years?!

New flash for you guys: the fundamentals of reality never change. The economic and political liberty of classical liberalism will always be superior to collectivistic statism.

You guys are all screwy, flip-flopping, knee-jerk-Democrat-supporting voters.

 

[Rawlings]

More falsehoods. The dollar today is roughly the same against the Euro as it was when Obama was inaugurated. The dollar is higher against the yen.

Everything you guys don't like are falsehoods. LOL! I strongly advise you stock up on precious metals.

It amazes me how blind people like you are to your team politics. When things went well under Reagan, it was because of Reagan. When they went well under Clinton, it was because of Republican Congress. And now, even though things are getting better, you blame the current shortcomings on Obama.

It amazes me how obtuse some people are. Not. Clearly, the successful policies of the 80's and 90's were conservative in nature and initiative. You guys have unwittingly conceded this. Obama himself made it clear that he despised the policies of the 80's and 90's and was going to turn back to Keynesianism: the current economy is clearly a mess of dismal growth, trillions squander for nothing, and entrenched, long-term dependency and unemployment.

In other words, it doesn't matter what happens, the good is because of Republicans and the bad is Democrats. You're so pathetically transparent it astounds me.

Right...Republicans always good, Democrats always bad.

Just admit you're a cheerleader for the Republican Party and move on. Obviously facts don't concern you, you're only interested in cheering for your team.

Once more, you show your true colors.

I'm not on anyone's team. Unlike you, I prefer to think for myself, to evaluate facts and truth, not partisan spin. So go put your cheerleader costume on and move along.

Utter tripe. The only bimbos around here knee-jerkingly defending Democrats no matter their policies are you guys.

The Democrat Clinton's conservative economic policies . . . are good. The Democrat Obama's dunderheaded and obviously failed collectivistic economic policies . . . are good.

Common factor: party affiliation. LOL!

I am a classical liberal, a Lockean, a proponent of Laissez-faire. My allegiance goes to the sociopolitical ethos of this nation's founding and to no other person or party whatsoever.

In practical political terms what does that mean?

It means I'm not going to vote for the likes of collectivistic, statist thugs like Obama. I'm not going to vote for any lame-brained Democrat.

I suppose I could squander my vote on candidates of the Constitutional or Libertarian Party . . . but wait, let me think about this for a moment. . . .

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

What party most faithfully reflects my political ideology and has the best chance of thwarting the designs of the America-hating and America-destroying left?

I can almost hear the Rush Limbaugh reverberating in your head...

*crickets chirping*

Leftyism—from that of the Rousseauian savage, the Robespierrean Jacobin, the Marxist, the Fascist, to that of the unwashed, drooling duh of Occupy Wall Street—is not a political philosophy, really, but a collection of mindless slogans, obscenities and atrocities . . . trickling up Chris Matthews' leg.




I have cravenly suffered the sentimental drivel of the career politician—
The pandering fop, the trailer-trash clone,
The glib picaro who would do anything at all to be somebody,
Except be somebody who would do something useful.
I have felt his pudgy fingers foraging in my pockets—
The easy smile, the evasive speech, the beguiling eyes that woo the timid sheep . . .
The stuff and the skinny of Orwellian nightmares.

And I have seen the feverish glint
That lights the eyes of the campus policemen
(The goose bumps on their hairy arms!),
Who train our sensitivities, arrest our moral zeal.
I Have heard the awkward silence of hounded thoughts and speeches;
Have seen the spittle that files off the rhetoric of the mindless Jacobins . . .
The unwashed, slogan-spouting cutouts reared by academic leeches.
And moreover, I have choked on the gall and the licentious,
toe-jam-funk-smellin' rot of pretentious celluloid gods.

And the nanny state, the meddler, bewitches so easily!
Conceived by venal men, contrived by ruthless means . . .
That ancient human misery loosed again on you and me,
Watching, prying . . . or it smothers,
The self-anointed class, the deified regime. —Rawlings


Later.

 

[Slyfox696]

Everything you guys don't like are falsehoods.

No, just the things which are provably false, as you continue to post.

It amazes me how obtuse some people are. Not. Clearly, the successful policies of the 80's and 90's were conservative in nature and initiative. You guys have unwittingly conceded this. Obama himself made it clear that he despised the policies of the 80's and 90's and was going to turn back to Keynesianism: the current economy is clearly a mess of dismal growth, trillions squander for nothing, and entrenched, long-term dependency and unemployment.

Right. When good things happens, it is because of Republicans when bad things happen it's because of Democrats. Got it. :roll:

By the way, you didn't answer my question. Who was responsible for the economic collapse in Bush's last year as President?

Utter tripe. The only bimbos around here knee-jerkingly defending Democrats no matter their policies are you guys.

What are you talking about, I'm not defending anyone except the sanctity of truth, which you consistently violate with your team politics posting.

It means I'm not going to vote for the likes of collectivistic, statist thugs like Obama. I'm not going to vote for any lame-brained Democrat.

:lamo

Thank you for proving my point. Tell me, does your jersey still fit well?

What party most faithfully reflects my political ideology and has the best chance of thwarting the designs of the America-hating and America-destroying left?

What's it like to live in such a fictional reality?

By the way, I just want to point out you have insulted (I don't mean criticize, I mean insulted) our President multiples times in this post, and yet you claim others are "America-hating". I'm not sure I could come up with a better illustration of your blind political allegiances if I tried.

 

[Rawlings]

No, just the things which are provably false, as you continue to post.

Right. When good things happens, it is because of Republicans when bad things happen it's because of Democrats. Got it. :roll:

By the way, you didn't answer my question. Who was responsible for the economic collapse in Bush's last year as President?
What are you talking about, I'm not defending anyone except the sanctity of truth, which you consistently violate with your team politics posting.

:lamo

Thank you for proving my point. Tell me, does your jersey still fit well?

What's it like to live in such a fictional reality?

By the way, I just want to point out you have insulted (I don't mean criticize, I mean insulted) our President multiples times in this post, and yet you claim others are "America-hating". I'm not sure I could come up with a better illustration of your blind political allegiances if I tried.

You're an idiot.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Who the hell do you think you are badmouthing a man just because he's black? There's one thing about a racist...you don't have to listen to or read their remarks more than a minute till they reveal their true belief system.

What is racist about what she wrote?

 

[Slyfox696]

You're an idiot.

No, I'm not someone who believes in team politics. I possess the ability to think for myself and not regurgitate party rhetoric which conforms to my pre-conceived notions.

That's the difference between me and far too many people in this country. You will vote for (or against) someone because of the letter behind their name. That's your primary concern. You aren't worried about facts, and anytime someone challenges you with facts, you say they hate America and are trying to ruin it. In my opinion, there's very few things more hypocritical than those who would insult our President by calling him an American-hating thug. To me, that's the very essence of being unpatriotic. Criticize his beliefs and actions if you wish, but be respectful of the man and the position.

 

[Rawlings]

No, I'm not someone who believes in team politics. I possess the ability to think for myself and not regurgitate party rhetoric which conforms to my pre-conceived notions.

That's the difference between me and far too many people in this country. You will vote for (or against) someone because of the letter behind their name. That's your primary concern. You aren't worried about facts, and anytime someone challenges you with facts, you say they hate America and are trying to ruin it. In my opinion, there's very few things more hypocritical than those who would insult our President by calling him an American-hating thug. To me, that's the very essence of being unpatriotic. Criticize his beliefs and actions if you wish, but be respectful of the man and the position.

No. You're a fool faulting a classical liberal because he doesn't vote for collectivists. :doh

I despise everything that Obama and his ilk stand for. Punks. Thugs. Liars. Demagogues. Whores.

Chow.

 

[Slyfox696]

No. You're a fool faulting a classical liberal because he doesn't vote for collectivists. :doh

I despise everything that Obama and his ilk stand for. Punks. Thugs. Liars. Demagogues. Whores.

Chow.

Your last two posts have been directed insults towards me for pointing out your partisan viewpoints and our President, and you call others America haters. I would suggest you re-adjust your thinking.

Also, check your messages.

 

[ItAin'tFree]

No, I'm not someone who believes in team politics. I possess the ability to think for myself and not regurgitate party rhetoric which conforms to my pre-conceived notions.

That's the difference between me and far too many people in this country. You will vote for (or against) someone because of the letter behind their name. That's your primary concern. You aren't worried about facts, and anytime someone challenges you with facts, you say they hate America and are trying to ruin it. In my opinion, there's very few things more hypocritical than those who would insult our President by calling him an American-hating thug. To me, that's the very essence of being unpatriotic. Criticize his beliefs and actions if you wish, but be respectful of the man and the position.

Well you have to give a little respect before you get a little respect. Obama has a very hard time in doing such as he places campaigning above governing. Remember when he gave the speech and called his fellow Americans "enemies"? What about his lack of respect in his words he used against members of the tea party before the scandal broke? We could go on and on about his failures as a leader and his many efforts to divide Americans but I doubt you would concern yourself with that. I think he gets every bit the respect he shows. That ranges from plenty to none. And none is what he has earned from example to those he disagrees with.

 

[Slyfox696]

Well you have to give a little respect before you get a little respect.

First of all, when did President Obama specifically disrespect you as a person? Second of all, the office of President deserves respect. And finally, I daresay if you have felt disrespected by the President, my guess is you likely disrespected him first. I've never once felt disrespected by President Obama, even as I've been upset with some of his actions and comments.

Obama has a very hard time in doing such as he places campaigning above governing.

Purely partisan nonsense.

Remember when he gave the speech and called his fellow Americans "enemies"?

I don't actually...how about you source it?

What about his lack of respect in his words he used against members of the tea party before the scandal broke?

You mean the same Tea Party which has consistently and constantly called him a Kenyan Muslim Marxist Socialist who is here to wage Muslim war against Christians and destroy America? Those guys?

But, out of curiosity, what lack of respect are you referring to specifically? You mentioned a couple of general and unsourced comments. I'd like specifics please.

We could go on and on about his failures as a leader

While I disagree completely with you on that, I have no problem with you critiquing his performance. I'm sure many of the things you would criticize I'd disagree with, but you can disagree with what the President has done and not be disrespectful.

and his many efforts to divide Americans but I doubt you would concern yourself with that.

I wouldn't, because it's an outright lie. I know in the Republican fairy tale land it's 100% confirmed truth, but in the real world, that's just purely partisan nonsense.

none is what he has earned from example to those he disagrees with.

Complete fiction. Again I ask...when has he ever disrespected you personally?