[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

Do you know Obama's decision to remove the mandatory work requirements from the welfare program was illegal?
The law was written so ANY attempt to do what Obama has just done would be prohibited by law. But this preaident just does as he pleases, like a dictator.

Did you know that this claim by Romney and his supporters has been REPEATEDLY debunked? Obviously not. Why don't you try doing an OUNCE of research on your own before spouting off partisan talking points with no factual basis?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/08/tiny-explainer-welfare-work-requirements/261357/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/romney-obama-welfare-ads_n_1823462.html

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/08/22/159791065/despite-fact-checks-romney-escalates-welfare-work-requirement-charge

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

Do you know that Obama has racked up deficits of ONE TRILLION DOLLARS A YEAR every year since he's been in office?

Yes. And did you know because of that we avoided another depression? And did you know that Obama can't spend money on his own and needs the approval of congress to do so? So, the House and Senate have to take some responsibility for the deficit, no? Hmmm, which party has control of the House?

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

When Obama took office, soon afterwards he said if unemployment rose above 8% he conceded he'd be looking at a "one-term proposition."
Well, it's been 43 months in a row and unemployment hasn't dipped BELOW 8% in that time!

I got nothing. The unemployment rate is going to be the biggest problem for Obama in this election.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

And did you know because of that we avoided another depression?

How did racking up the debt, which damaged our credit rating and causes our money to be worth less actually help avoid another depression?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

How did racking up the debt, which damaged our credit rating and causes our money to be worth less actually help avoid another depression?

C'mon, man. Everyone knows that's free money. We don't really have to pay it back, do we?

Seriously, I'll bet there are people on this forum who pay on their credit card bills by getting cash advances from other credit cards.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

C'mon, man. Everyone knows that's free money. We don't really have to pay it back, do we?
Seriously, I'll bet there are people on this forum who pay on their credit card bills by getting cash advances from other credit cards.

So you agree with VP Dick Cheney he said "President Reagan proved deficits don't matter"?

No wonder why Republicans' favorite president is Saint Reagan, the only president to tripled the national debt during peace time.

No wonder why Republicans believe in trickle down economics which does nothing but create a large deficit.

Republicans believe money comes from tree and that's why they are big deficit spenders.

Example:

Reagan
Bush Sr.
Bush Jr.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

Do you know Obama's decision to remove the mandatory work requirements from the welfare program was illegal?
The law was written so ANY attempt to do what Obama has just done would be prohibited by law. But this preaident just does as he pleases, like a dictator.

Do you know that you are wrong and always wrong?

It's the opposite of what you claim. Pres. Obama gave the states more control over welfare work requirements. So giving more power to the states means more power for Pres. Obama?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/07/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obamas-plan-abandons-tenet/

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

How did racking up the debt, which damaged our credit rating and causes our money to be worth less actually help avoid another depression?

Credit rating was downgraded because Republicans refuse to raise the debt limit.

So stop lying. You trying to copy Lying Paul Ryan?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I....I just don't see how you blame Obama for rising gas prices.

That's a worldwide phenomenon, isn't it? Not only that, but the only apparent solution to that problem I can see - a more aggressive government intervention into oil company gas pricing - would seem to be contradictory to the conservative "no regulations, free market" ideology. Or is the argument that gas prices are so high because more extraction points are not being made accessible within the US? I mean, sure, it's one argument - but I see nothing to indicate that's any sort of reasonable solution to the problem (especially not on a long-term basis, as my understanding is that US oil reserves are a drop in the proverbial bucket) and it would almost certainly make zero difference to the price of oil anyway.

I mean....saying that Canada's Prime Minister should be ousted because of the rising cost of oil since 2006 would just seem so......weird to me.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

No better strategy to getting Romney elected than insulting half the population!

Oh, How about asking the Democrat leaders and even Owe-bama himself about the disparity between men and womens salaries within the offices of the senators and congressmen and White House. Perhaps a little less hypocrisy, and a little more TRUE fairness, not the idiotic concept the left has for what is 'fair'. The Polls seem to disagree with your assumption as to what women want.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Selective stat quoting? The avg cost of a gallon of gasoline when Obama took office in January of 2009 was $1.79/gallon. It's what, $3.82 now right? You want me to apologize for being low? CNN cites an 83% increase in gas prices as of December 2011 @ $3.29/gallon. This is a fairly straight forward means of figuring a percentage increase right? What are you googling?

Average gas prices:


[deletes unhelpful endless sarcasm]

Ahem, let me try again. The graph shows two things – a sharp increase in prices during early to mid 2008 followed by a very sharp decrease from mid to late 2008. Now, I'm going to risk getting burned and assume that oil production during that period wasn't varying that wildly and that the price change must have been caused by something else – speculation. I've also heard that right now the US is a net exporter of fuel, and yet prices still are going up. So it would appear to me that gas prices aren't effected by supply nearly as much as speculation. If you have a suggestion for how the President could discourage and stabilize that speculation, I'm all ears.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Of course not, but we're not in a vacuum.

That depends on perspective. By mine, judging on facts alone leaves you in a vacuum. But yes, thanks to politics we are not in a vacuum.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The economy is one of the most important challenges our leadership faces. Our leadership generally shapes the policies and the tone of the debate that produces either a net-positive impact or negative impact on the economy.

Well, I'm glad you went with leadership and not just solely the President. I think the short of it is I think what little Romney has shown (or I can remember) I don't see as living up to the hype.

Or given his ridiculous claims, anywhere close to it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What can I say Dakar, our perspectives here are just completely different. Businesses have liquidity yes, but the market is not fine and people are holding.

And all the justification for this is I've heard is because... Obama? What's the uncertainty? That he may yet get re-elected?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There is a certain amount of growth necessary just to remain at baseline to account for population growth and other factors. If you have growth, but not enough to maintain a solid baseline, you're barely apace with the factors that necessitate growth.

I acknowledge and agree with all of this.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Economists and policy-wonks of another perspective refer to this growth as anemic and reiterate that it's also the slowest recovery in US history.

I also acknowledge this, but I think it's a logical side-effect for what just happened. As bad as the recession was, it could have been far, far worse. We propped it up with bailouts and extended benefits, giving it an artificial bottom. The upside is the pain could have been far sharper. The down-side is the dulled pain lasts longer.

Do you think the jobs numbers will get worse if Obama gets re-elected? Because I think regardless of who makes it, they'll continue to improve.

[kimosABE]

US Slips to 7th; Fourth Year of Decline

CNBC.com | September 05, 2012 | 04:06 AM EDT

The United States has slipped further down a global ranking of the world's most competitive economies, according to a World Economic Forum (WEF) survey released on Wednesday.

The world's largest economy, which was placed 5th last year, fell two positions to the 7th spot - marking its fourth year of decline.

A lack of macroeconomic stability, the business community’s continued mistrust of the government and concerns over its fiscal hea

http://m.cnbc.com/us_news/48905756/1?refresh=true

[kimosABE]

Sep 5, 8:49 AM EDT SOME OBAMA PROGRAMS EMBELLISHED BY DEMOCRATS

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CVN_DEMOCRATS_FACT_CHECK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&T EMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-09-04-23-35-49



CNN Fact Check: About those 4.5 million jobs ... By the CNN Wire Staff updated 7:33 AM EDT, Wed September 5, 2012

Meanwhile, the jobs that have come back aren't the same ones that were lost...there are still fewer people working now than when Obama took office at the height of the recession.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/05/politics/fact-check-obama-jobs/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

The Hill Poll: Voters say second term for Obama undeserved, country is worse off By Sheldon Alberts - 09/04/12 05:00 AM ET

A majority of voters believe the country is worse off today than it was four years ago and that President Obama does not deserve reelection, according to a new poll for The Hill.

Fifty-two percent of likely voters say the nation is in “worse condition” now than in September 2008, while 54 percent say Obama does not deserve reelection based solely on his job performance.

Only 31 percent of voters believe the nation is in “better condition,” while 15 percent say it is “about the same,” the poll found. Just 40 percent of voters said Obama deserves reelection.

http://thehill.com/conventions-2012/dem-convention-charlotte/247263-hill-poll-voters-think-second-term-undeserved

[kimosABE]

16,015,769,788,215.80 $5.4 trillion added under Obama.

Video: Debbie Wasserman Schultz lies to Fox News


The United States Treasury reports that the total public outstanding debt is: $16,015,769,788,215.80. This is the first time in American history debt has eclipsed the $16 trillion mark.

The debt has increased approximately $5.4 trillion since President Obama took office on January 20, 2009.

Here's a chart, from the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee detailing the increase in national debt over the last dozen years:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/1601576978821580_651649.html

By Terence P. Jeffrey September 4, 2012

U.S. Debt Now $136,260 Per Household—Up 50% Under Obama

(CNSNews.com) -The U.S. government debt, which topped $16 trillion for the first time at the close of business on Friday, now equals approximately $136,260 for every household in the country.

Just since President Barack Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009, the debt has increased by $45,848 per household—or about 50 percent per household.

As of Friday, the debt was 16,015,769,788,215.80. According to the Census Bureau, there were approximately 117,538,000 households in the country in 2010. Thus, the current debt equals about $136,260 per household.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-debt-now-136260-household-50-under-obama

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

So you agree with VP Dick Cheney he said "President Reagan proved deficits don't matter"?
No wonder why Republicans' favorite president is Saint Reagan, the only president to tripled the national debt during peace time.
No wonder why Republicans believe in trickle down economics which does nothing but create a large deficit.
Republicans believe money comes from tree and that's why they are big deficit spenders.
Example:
Reagan
Bush Sr.
Bush Jr.

You're obviously one of those boobs who still believes I'm a Republican. Q-tips are cheap, use them.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Ahem, let me try again. The graph shows two things – a sharp increase in prices during early to mid 2008 followed by a very sharp decrease from mid to late 2008. Now, I'm going to risk getting burned and assume that oil production during that period wasn't varying that wildly and that the price change must have been caused by something else – speculation. I've also heard that right now the US is a net exporter of fuel, and yet prices still are going up. So it would appear to me that gas prices aren't effected by supply nearly as much as speculation. If you have a suggestion for how the President could discourage and stabilize that speculation, I'm all ears.

So by selective stat-quoting, what you meant is that I should not have begun calculating gas prices upon Obama entering office in January 2009 to measure Obama's performance, but that I should've included the latter-half of Bush's last term in office. In the interest of being non-selective, why stop at the last 6 years and not look at say, the last 12?

To your point, you do see some wild variation within that 72-month picture, but that's not what you see from 2009. From 2009 you see a much longer, steady incline in gas prices and longer, sustained elevation at the higher prices. And if this is a problem of speculation, what is it they're seeing here that would be unique to the latter half of Bush's 2nd term? To be clear, I'm not blaming Obama for high gas prices per-se, I'm blaming him for domestic policies including a lame energy policy that over time can and does affect gas prices. We've seen the affect of speculation around announcements of opening the strategic reserve or aggressive statements on the development of domestic sources for example and while the affect of speculation often shows spikes and drops, that's not what your chart shows for Obama's term.

That depends on perspective. By mine, judging on facts alone leaves you in a vacuum. But yes, thanks to politics we are not in a vacuum.

I'd say human nature over politics and in this, no one has integrity I'm afraid.

Well, I'm glad you went with leadership and not just solely the President. I think the short of it is I think what little Romney has shown (or I can remember) I don't see as living up to the hype.

I don't recall a lot of hype around Romney, but fair enough.

Or given his ridiculous claims, anywhere close to it.

Right because of course lowering the rising tides and saving the planet wasn't hype or ridiculous at all. Otherwise I'm not sure what ridiculous claims you're talking about, but to be clear, I'm not interested at this point.

And all the justification for this is I've heard is because... Obama? What's the uncertainty? That he may yet get re-elected?

If this is all you're hearing, you're not paying attention. I just don't know any other way to say it. You can disagree with this point or that in terms of the cited failures of this Administration without taking it personally right? I mean, there's plenty of blame to go around. The overwhelming majority of hedging going on right now is due to the uncertainty of the costs per employee under the Health Care Act.

I also acknowledge this, but I think it's a logical side-effect for what just happened. As bad as the recession was, it could have been far, far worse. We propped it up with bailouts and extended benefits, giving it an artificial bottom. The upside is the pain could have been far sharper. The down-side is the dulled pain lasts longer.

The bail-outs differed very little from your typical, structured-bankruptcies in terms of pumping liquidity back into a company Dakar. Massive bailouts and intrusion weren't necessary to "save" the corporations.

Do you think the jobs numbers will get worse if Obama gets re-elected? Because I think regardless of who makes it, they'll continue to improve.

I do not see enough foundational indicators that would show the type of robust growth we're going to need to begin to heal the economy and I see nothing in the missing budgets that would give me confidence that the problems are being addressed.

[Chongo]

Gas prices are up so that oilman in the Whitehouse and his buddies in big oil can make obscene profits.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

So by selective stat-quoting, what you meant is that I should not have begun calculating gas prices upon Obama entering office in January 2009 to measure Obama's performance, but that I should've included the latter-half of Bush's last term in office.

I don't know if you saw the context of the prices or your source did, but again I sensed something wrong with the portrayal and was vindicated. I'm no statistician, but I'd have to think 4 year averages would be less susceptible to short-term fluctuations. (No I didn't see any after a price google)

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

In the interest of being non-selective, why stop at the last 6 years and not look at say, the last 12?

You're more than welcome to. I chose 6 because if I did 4, this happened:


...and I thought it utterly misrepresented the facts and would have undermined my point by demonstrating the same selective stat hypocrisy.


To be clear, I'm not saying gas prices haven't gone up during Obama's term (They probably have as they've been trending upwards forever, moreso the past 10 years). What I'm saying is claiming they've doubled is a hot load of BS that ignores what occurred during 2008.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

To your point, you do see some wild variation within that 72-month picture, but that's not what you see from 2009. From 2009 you see a much longer, steady incline in gas prices and longer, sustained elevation at the higher prices. And if this is a problem of speculation, what is it they're seeing here that would be unique to the latter half of Bush's 2nd term?

An onslaught of speculation following by the massive crash in oil prices in 2008. Naturally, seeing as the price had bottomed out, it had no where to go but up.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

To be clear, I'm not blaming Obama for high gas prices per-se, I'm blaming him for domestic policies including a lame energy policy that over time can and does affect gas prices. We've seen the affect of speculation around announcements of opening the strategic reserve or aggressive statements on the development of domestic sources for example and while the affect of speculation often shows spikes and drops, that's not what your chart shows for Obama's term.

If we are producing more gas now than four years ago, consuming less in relation to it, why are gas prices so damn high? I don't see what that has to do with Obama.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Right because of course lowering the rising tides and saving the planet wasn't hype or ridiculous at all. Otherwise I'm not sure what ridiculous claims you're talking about, but to be clear, I'm not interested at this point.

I – oh, that's fine.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If this is all you're hearing, you're not paying attention. I just don't know any other way to say it. You can disagree with this point or that in terms of the cited failures of this Administration without taking it personally right? I mean, there's plenty of blame to go around. The overwhelming majority of hedging going on right now is due to the uncertainty of the costs per employee under the Health Care Act.

It's not so much that I'm not paying attention, it's as I've stated before the amount of things you need to remember to be well informed on every facet is just overwhelming. I cop that I probably haven't prioritized this facet of politics.

So... companies are sitting on piles of cash because of the ACA? So it's just a waiting game then. Doesn't matter who the President is because once the costs are realized the outcome is set.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The bail-outs differed very little from your typical, structured-bankruptcies in terms of pumping liquidity back into a company Dakar. Massive bailouts and intrusion weren't necessary to "save" the corporations.

They were there not for the corporations so much as all the people they employ. Massive layoffs would have just plunged the economy further into recession. I don't recall the numbers, but a significant percentage of the population worked for or in relation to the car industry. Having a significant percentage of the population out of work would have devastating to the economy. As if the economy wasn't already in bad enough shape already.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I do not see enough foundational indicators that would show the type of robust growth we're going to need to begin to heal the economy and I see nothing in the missing budgets that would give me confidence that the problems are being addressed.

The question was "Do you think the jobs number will get worse if Obama gets re-elected?" That is a yes or no question.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I don't know if you saw the context of the prices or your source did, but again I sensed something wrong with the portrayal and was vindicated. I'm no statistician, but I'd have to think 4 year averages would be less susceptible to short-term fluctuations. (No I didn't see any after a price google)

...and I thought it utterly misrepresented the facts and would have undermined my point by demonstrating the same selective stat hypocrisy.
To be clear, I'm not saying gas prices haven't gone up during Obama's term (They probably have as they've been trending upwards forever, moreso the past 10 years). What I'm saying is claiming they've doubled is a hot load of BS that ignores what occurred during 2008.
An onslaught of speculation following by the massive crash in oil prices in 2008. Naturally, seeing as the price had bottomed out, it had no where to go but up.

I get that you think it's unfair an incumbent Administration would be held to account in this way, but it's fairly common to figure gas prices by administration, in just that context. For what it's worth, I cited a CNN article to vindicate myself. To be clear, it was never my intention to get into the whole "gas prices are Obama's fault" argument anyway. I originally brought this up in context of many other things for which incumbent Administrations are held to account. While I do think an Administration has a role in crafting energy policy that can have a positive impact on fuel prices, I realize there is an awful lot of nuance that goes into public perception of gas prices as they relate to the economy and a compilation of policies and behaviors stretched over many years that contribute to the cost of gasoline.

To your point though, I understand that a longer range makes the issue appear less dire, but I don't think it is from looking at the same data. What your chart shows is a much more steady incline to a sustained elevation, fluctuating very little, near what used to be short-term peaks in variation. Again, not entirely Obama's fault, but I don't think he's helping.

If we are producing more gas now than four years ago, consuming less in relation to it, why are gas prices so damn high? I don't see what that has to do with Obama.

It's not about what the US is consuming or producing at this point Dakar. It's a global commodity and the US matters a lot less in it. China is using more, Japan is using more... We don't get a drop of oil from Libya for example, yet our prices at the pump spiked during their conflict. We're only producing about 11% of the world's oil and we have an excellent opportunity to be a much larger player in that global commodity while employing a whole bunch of people here to do it. *gripe -- right now about 53% of the gas we're pumping here is domestic supply and I can't imagine why that's not absurd. Of course, among many things that I believe affect the price of gas and are not immediately Obama's fault.

It's not so much that I'm not paying attention, it's as I've stated before the amount of things you need to remember to be well informed on every facet is just overwhelming. I cop that I probably haven't prioritized this facet of politics.

The only thing I try to remember is to be sure to really read and listen to what others are saying. What your point means to me is that you're not rehearsing your views here; that you've come to a place where you're comfortable enough to assume a side of an issue based on principles you feel are of greater, fundamental importance.

So... companies are sitting on piles of cash because of the ACA? So it's just a waiting game then. Doesn't matter who the President is because once the costs are realized the outcome is set.

There are many (myself included) who believe the ACA is sloppy and destructive and should be dismantled and replaced. I'm hoping we'll all wait less and that we can avoid the outcome entirely.

They were there not for the corporations so much as all the people they employ. Massive layoffs would have just plunged the economy further into recession. I don't recall the numbers, but a significant percentage of the population worked for or in relation to the car industry. Having a significant percentage of the population out of work would have devastating to the economy. As if the economy wasn't already in bad enough shape already.

The answer was a structured bankruptcy Dakar and there's nothing to suggest there would've been massive layoffs. A company with a failed business model should only be given so much leeway and I firmly believe they'll return, hat in hand for more. It's only a matter of time and this level of interference only provides a false sense of security and distorts the behaviors that a company interested in survival would otherwise engage. i.e. It's welfare. There will always be a too big to fail and the only way the ones with failed business models get this big is with the perpetual help of the government.

The question was "Do you think the jobs number will get worse if Obama gets re-elected?" That is a yes or no question.

Don't patronize me Dakar, I was pretty clear. I am not clairvoyant, but I do not see the type of indicators I'd want to see to believe the economy will grow. The jobs number will be worse among a host of other things.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Gas prices are up so that oilman in the Whitehouse and his buddies in big oil can make obscene profits.

I see what you did there!

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

You're obviously one of those boobs who still believes I'm a Republican. Q-tips are cheap, use them.

Where would I put the Q-tips? Up your behind?

You keep mentioning how you are a Democrat, how much money you have, what a nice car you drive, what a beautiful wife you have, what a beautiful baby you have, how generous you are with your money, how gay guys are attracted to you, and so forth.

Talk about you being vain and needing others' reassurance.

Just say, I don't give a f*ck. Go brag and seek attention somewhere else.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Don't patronize me Dakar, I was pretty clear. I am not clairvoyant, but I do not see the type of indicators I'd want to see to believe the economy will grow. The jobs number will be worse among a host of other things.

But the economy IS growing. It may be growing slower than some people want, but it is growing none the less. I like what Clinton said and I agree: no President could undue the damage left by Bush in 4 years. And let's not forget that House Republicans have been actively working AGAINST Obama the last two years. Despite that, the U.S. economy is doing better than it was when he took office.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

How did racking up the debt, which damaged our credit rating and causes our money to be worth less actually help avoid another depression?

A) We did avoid another depression didn't we? So it did work.

B) That money was needed to STABILIZE the economy. If we hadn't spent that money we'd still be in the middle of a depression worst than the Great Depression.

C) Obama has presented a specific plan to lower the deficit by 4 trillion over 10 years. What's Romney's plan? Oh that's right - we don't know because he won't give us any specifics. What specific loop holes is he closing? Mortgage tax credits? Child credits? That will go over well with voters. What programs is he cutting? Medicare? Medicaid? That will go over well with voters. He doesn't want to tell us because he knows if he does he won't get elected.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

But the economy IS growing. It may be growing slower than some people want, but it is growing none the less.

It's growing more slowly than anybody wants, from the President - down. And there's a good reason for it. It's not growing fast enough to keep up with a growing population. In other words, it's not growing enough to maintain baseline which is a net-loss. That's not growth.

I like what Clinton said and I agree: no President could undue the damage left by Bush in 4 years. And let's not forget that House Republicans have been actively working AGAINST Obama the last two years. Despite that, the U.S. economy is doing better than it was when he took office

With all due respect, the above comes off as meaningless whining at this point. I don't see that he had that much more an easy time with a majority (D) House and Senate. No one is acting AGAINST anything other than what they feel is bad policy, just like the other side of the aisle. Quit pretending one side is as clean as the driven snow and the other blood-lets snow seal pups.

After a recession, there is only one direction to go; up. Again, the economy needs to grow a certain amount just to maintain baseline and when it isn't, that's not better. It is only better when compared to a standard we should not be using IMO.

[ebuddy]

Obama and his team of economists and advisors took a look at the economy Bush left them, decided it was very bad, and used harsh language to describe it. Obama and his team must have discussed the state of the economy at great length and they must have been reasonably certain of what they thought they saw. From that information Obama made a series of bold economic promises to the American people. He broke them. Either he and his advisors had no clue what they were looking at, (well into his Presidency), Obama is not reasonable, or their solutions didn't work. None of this shows the kind of leadership worthy of 4 more years.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Obama and his team of economists and advisors took a look at the economy Bush left them, decided it was very bad, and used harsh language to describe it. Obama and his team must have discussed the state of the economy at great length and they must have been reasonably certain of what they thought they saw. From that information Obama made a series of bold economic promises to the American people. He broke them. Either he and his advisors had no clue what they were looking at, (well into his Presidency), Obama is not reasonable, or their solutions didn't work. None of this shows the kind of leadership worthy of 4 more years.

But this is a very circular way of looking at this. If he made tepid promises he wouldn't have gotten himself elected, so no politician makes tepid promises.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

But this is a very circular way of looking at this. If he made tepid promises he wouldn't have gotten himself elected, so no politician makes tepid promises.

Eesh, you've got it bad. I didn't expect that he'd heal the planet or lower the rising tides besson, but I don't think it's circular to hold the President accountable for finishing so vastly off his own benchmark.

[Waragainstsleep]

You've got it just as bad if you think Romney will do more than find a way to make it look better than it is by fiddling the stats.

[andi*pandi]

What is the worst case scenario that could have happened after the economy imploded?

Did that happen?

No?

Then Obama must have done something right to help the economy.


What's the worst that could happen after 9/11?

Did that happen?

Then Bush must have done something right to fight the terrorists.


Could both of them have done better? Sure, rose-colored glasses.

[The Final Dakar]

Jesus, this blew up over night.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

What is the worst case scenario that could have happened after the economy imploded?
Did that happen?
No?
Then Obama must have done something right to help the economy.

A very good point

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

What's the worst that could happen after 9/11?
Did that happen?
Then Bush must have done something right to fight the terrorists.

Not so sure about this one. Maybe the worse that could have happened was draconian security measures and a couple of invasions resulting in 10 year wars/foreign occupations. In which case the answer would have been yes, the worst did happen.

All the information about the economy has been in the public domain. The information about terrorist attacks or potential attacks is all classified. Or made up (by the administration at the time). We'll never know for sure.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Eesh, you've got it bad. I didn't expect that he'd heal the planet or lower the rising tides besson, but I don't think it's circular to hold the President accountable for finishing so vastly off his own benchmark.

I wish that candidates wouldn't promise as much as they do, but anymore their promises seem more like their wish lists. What is Romney promising he will do?

[Chongo]

I found this to be an interesting stat.

[The Final Dakar]

What do you think it means?

[Chongo]

He needs to give back his Grammy for best new artist.

[andi*pandi]

I'm not surprised by that, after we exited Iraq, wasn't the plan to ramp up in Afghanistan?

Better comparison to add both fronts for both presidents, perhaps.

Then again, perhaps either statistic is... sad for any party.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

He needs to give back his Grammy for best new artist.

Why are you responding with sarcasm? You find it "interesting". Why won't you come out and say what you mean or what you're thinking?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

That's because he doesn't know what he means, and isn't thinking. He's simply parroting what he sees somewhere else. In other words: absolutely nothing new is happening with Chongo.

So, let's play that game, shall we?

TOTAL DEATHS IN IRAQ

Under Bush: 4231

Under Obama: 257



......




..............................


INTERESTING STAT? I THINK SO...

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Where would I put the Q-tips? Up your behind?
You keep mentioning how you are a Democrat, how much money you have, what a nice car you drive, what a beautiful wife you have, what a beautiful baby you have, how generous you are with your money, how gay guys are attracted to you, and so forth.
Talk about you being vain and needing others' reassurance.
Just say, I don't give a f*ck. Go brag and seek attention somewhere else.

A personal attack? From you? I'm shocked.

I talk about my life, and my life involves those things, with the exception of the gay guys part, not sure where in the hell that came from. I'm not going to water things down, this is who I am. My perspective and experiences are going to be different because I do have some money. How much? I've been asked that on here before, and it's a little complicated, essentially more than Chris Slater but less than Nick Mason. The interesting part of that is, when I started posting here back in 2003 I didn't have anywhere near that kind of money, but you behaved the same way towards me then as you do now. That means that my wealth isn't the issue, you're just the same sad, angry person as you were a decade ago. Only you can sort that out, and I hope you do before it's too late.

[besson3c]

Chongo just loves to hurl that spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks.

Stop throwing your spaghetti at the wall Chongo, and start making it into a meal we can eat, and please, no mustard...

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I'm not surprised by that, after we exited Iraq, wasn't the plan to ramp up in Afghanistan?
Better comparison to add both fronts for both presidents, perhaps.
Then again, perhaps either statistic is... sad for any party.

That's the truth, right there. We shouldn't be in either place.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

A personal attack? From you? I'm shocked.
I talk about my life, and my life involves those things, with the exception of the gay guys part, not sure where in the hell that came from. I'm not going to water things down, this is who I am. My perspective and experiences are going to be different because I do have some money. How much? I've been asked that on here before, and it's a little complicated, essentially more than Chris Slater but less than Nick Mason. The interesting part of that is, when I started posting here back in 2003 I didn't have anywhere near that kind of money, but you behaved the same way towards me then as you do now. That means that my wealth isn't the issue, you're just the same sad, angry person as you were a decade ago. Only you can sort that out, and I hope you do before it's too late.

You weren't supporting Bush in 2003?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

You weren't supporting Bush in 2003?

I dunno, I seem to remember praising him sometimes and insulting him others, never did I keep it a secret that I thought he was an idiot. Ultimately I voted 3rd party.

[subego]

My bad then. I thought you had voted for him at least once.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I get that you think it's unfair an incumbent Administration would be held to account in this way, but it's fairly common to figure gas prices by administration, in just that context. For what it's worth, I cited a CNN article to vindicate myself. To be clear, it was never my intention to get into the whole "gas prices are Obama's fault" argument anyway. I originally brought this up in context of many other things for which incumbent Administrations are held to account. While I do think an Administration has a role in crafting energy policy that can have a positive impact on fuel prices, I realize there is an awful lot of nuance that goes into public perception of gas prices as they relate to the economy and a compilation of policies and behaviors stretched over many years that contribute to the cost of gasoline.

The title of the thread is "How had Obama failed." You posted several bullet points, including the increase in gas prices. At no point in your post do you post a caveat that "this is generally regarded as a good way to measure the success or failure of a presidency." Now you're using "that's the way it's been done" as an excuse for pointing out that the stat you cited was a statistical anomaly. I won't hold you responsible for not knowing that stat was junk, but I will hold you responsible for thinking this is some kind of fair measure before the folly of the stat was introduced.

To wit, you chose a bunch of ugly stats to put forth an argument that Obama failed and now you're admitting that on at least one of them he doesn't have nearly as much control as you'd have let everyone believe had the post gone unchallenged. On the other you explained it away as "Well, people are gonna blame someone." These strike me as borderline intellectual dishonesty, the former much more so and it irritates the hell out of me.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

To your point though, I understand that a longer range makes the issue appear less dire, but I don't think it is from looking at the same data. What your chart shows is a much more steady incline to a sustained elevation, fluctuating very little, near what used to be short-term peaks in variation. Again, not entirely Obama's fault, but I don't think he's helping.

What do you think has a bigger impact on oil prices in the global economy? Speculation or the President's energy policy?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It's not about what the US is consuming or producing at this point Dakar.

Sure it is. We have cheaper gas relative to other countries because we produce it ourselves. Via the laws of supply and demand if we're both supplying more of own and demanding less ourselves prices should be falling locally. They're not. That indicates to me that something else is influencing the price. I posit it's speculation. The previous graph I posted that showed prices cratering in 2008 even though no significant change in production or consumption could have occurred would lend credence to my theory.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It's a global commodity and the US matters a lot less in it. China is using more, Japan is using more... We don't get a drop of oil from Libya for example, yet our prices at the pump spiked during their conflict.

Probably because there was speculation that oil supply would become more constricted during said conflict.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

We're only producing about 11% of the world's oil and we have an excellent opportunity to be a much larger player in that global commodity while employing a whole bunch of people here to do it.

This strikes me as a completely backwards approach. We know the amount of oil we have is limited, getting more expensive to extract, and supposedly want alternative energy resources. So why would we want to expand an industry we've been talking about trying to rely less on when I was a kid? For some job gains? That's short-term corporate thinking.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The only thing I try to remember is to be sure to really read and listen to what others are saying. What your point means to me is that you're not rehearsing your views here; that you've come to a place where you're comfortable enough to assume a side of an issue based on principles you feel are of greater, fundamental importance.

Thanks, I think.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There are many (myself included) who believe the ACA is sloppy and destructive and should be dismantled and replaced. I'm hoping we'll all wait less and that we can avoid the outcome entirely.

I understand that view, and while you are decent enough to advocate that reform is needed, those running for office are primarily concerned with only repealing it and have not put forth anything on replacing it. I can't know whether or not I'd like their non-existent replacement, but I do know that I'm completely against their platform as it is now and can't support going to the previous system just 'cause. Replace then repeal would be more reasonable (if not logical knowing how the system works), but no one is proposing that.



Of course, your hypothesis is pretty much undermined if the Democrats retain control of the Senate. Assuming Romney got elected, but the Republicans couldn't repeal ACA, how would his position in regards to the "economic uncertainty" that ACA is a pretext for be any better?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The answer was a structured bankruptcy Dakar and there's nothing to suggest there would've been massive layoffs. A company with a failed business model should only be given so much leeway and I firmly believe they'll return, hat in hand for more. It's only a matter of time and this level of interference only provides a false sense of security and distorts the behaviors that a company interested in survival would otherwise engage. i.e. It's welfare. There will always be a too big to fail and the only way the ones with failed business models get this big is with the perpetual help of the government.

Perhaps this is silly, but I think it's better for the economy that even if GM dies, it's a slower death that slowly puts americans in the job market than the more sudden outcome that seemed inevitable in 2008. I consider it preventing a shock the (economic) system (One that was already hurting).

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Don't patronize me Dakar, I was pretty clear. I am not clairvoyant, but I do not see the type of indicators I'd want to see to believe the economy will grow. The jobs number will be worse among a host of other things.

I'm not patronizing you, at worst I'm being condescending. The way I interpreted your original answer was "It's not growing enough and I don't see it getting better," which implies the answer was "Yes, but I don't like it."

To me "I do not see the type of indicators I'd want to see to believe the economy will grow" looks like a "No" instead. You don't need to be clairvoyant; Maybe this looked like a gotcha in waiting but its not, I'm just asking for your perception, man. I think I already revealed my endgame which was I think both Presidents will see growth regardless. Today's jobs numbers undermine the basis of my perception.

[Chongo]

Gas prices rise under W: so his buddies in big oil can make a killing.

Gas prices rise under Big O: market forces and speculators.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Gas prices rise under W: so his buddies in big oil can make a killing.
Gas prices rise under Big O: market forces and speculators.

Unless you have text of me saying such a thing, shut the hell up.

My argument is not invalid based on the idiotic arguments of random people almost a decade ago. Stop with the gutless sniping and sarcasm and post a real argument.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

My bad then. I thought you had voted for him at least once.

I wouldn't think that politics alone would cause someone to act like a rabid animal for 10 years.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Unless you have text of me saying such a thing, shut the hell up.
My argument is not invalid based on the idiotic arguments of random people almost a decade ago. Stop with the gutless sniping and sarcasm and post a real argument.

Nancy Pelosi is an Idiotic person?

Pelosi Blames "Two Oil Men in the White House"

CNN last month

What's driving gas prices?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Nancy Pelosi is an Idiotic person?

Am I Nancy Pelosi? No, I'm not. You fail.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

What's driving gas prices?

Hey great, a video! I'll not watch that like every other video you post, because it's a tedious inefficient way of trying to have discussion or display facts and figures.

[Chongo]

[The Final Dakar]

If only you'd spend more time looking for articles that support your position than trolling me.