Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > How, exactly, has Obama failed?

How, exactly, has Obama failed? (Page 3)
Thread Tools
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2012, 10:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Ya know, you have to actually make an argument before someone can be blind to it.

Like, in your own words and shit.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2012, 10:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post

Am I Nancy Pelosi? No, I'm not. You fail.
Well, we don't know that for absolute fact. You could be Nancy Pelosi, in theory.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2012, 11:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post

Well, we don't know that for absolute fact. You could be Nancy Pelosi, in theory.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2012, 11:48 AM
 
I'm willing to admit that I did say that stuff about Bush's buddies in Big Oil. Heck, wasn't that why we started a war? Or was that to give Cheney's buddies in the mercenary companies more work? Seems so long ago. But I'm willing to concede I was wrong. Maybe.

I recall Obama released some of the reserves and prices went down for a while.

However, watching the gas prices go up and down lately... it seems random.

Sure we need new refineries... why was the corn harvest so low this year? (I watched your video. )
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2012, 11:58 AM
 
Halliburton did make big money on oil – though I believe I was told they were the only American company capable of running in Iraq. That aside, I don't think the Iraq War was started with the goal of destabilizing oil prices (Or the oil itself). Just having contracts on those fields alone would have been worth $$$.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2012, 02:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
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.
The stat wasn't junk and is commonly used when citing avg gas prices by Administration. You considered it selective and selected your own stat.

After my first bulleted list I claimed; "For those most critical of the Bush Administration using many of these same metrics for gauging his failures; what has Obama done differently than Bush that would change course?" I'm not sure why you tend to go out of your way not to understand me, particularly when I explain myself. If you're going to assume I'm full of sh!t regardless, I'm not sure why you even bother.

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.
They are ugly stats. Even the "kinder" stat you posted for the apologetic is ugly. I wasn't trying to irritate you, but the feeling is mutual interestingly. A President's contribution to any measure of job performance is arguable for those compelled to argue them. You took issue with the gas price citation and we both came out of it feeling vindicated. All of the bulleted metrics I cited are commonly used to judge a President's performance. You can call that intellectual dishonesty and get upset about it if you want, but I'm more inclined to believe they simply offended your partisan sensitivities.

What do you think has a bigger impact on oil prices in the global economy? Speculation or the President's energy policy?
Speculation, but then speculation is comprised of a host of factors up to and including energy policy.

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.
I've not argued that it's not speculation. I've argued that we're not as big a player in the global commodity as we once were and that speculation is not as dependent upon US behaviors as it once was; which is why you can have domestic factors generally favorable to the supply/demand paradigm while meaning less in light of increased consumption everywhere else.

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.

Probably because there was speculation that oil supply would become more constricted during said conflict.
Again, you cited domestic factors regarding a global commodity. Yes, a constricted supply is cause for speculation and higher prices and this constriction can and does occur independent of what's going on in the US. The main point however, is below and should not be disconnected from my prior statements.


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.
I disagree. This is a partisan argument based on what you'd like to see, but there is a great deal of disagreement here. Whether we like it or not, oil is not going anywhere for a very long time and it's used for a wealth of things, including alternative energy production, that have nothing to do with burning fossil fuels. The argument has not been "less reliance on oil", it has been "less reliance on foreign sources of energy" which means more domestic development. This includes alternative sources true, but a minuscule percentage. I don't see that our opportunities for energy development including natural gas and coal (and oil for that matter) is limited. We have a wealth of oil at our disposal. Also, do have something to substantiate the claim that it's getting more expensive to produce? This sounds to me like there would be some important governmental intrusion factor here as the means of extracting the commodity have only improved over time.

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.
I would suggest not getting too fired up over whatever it is feeding you information as it sounds to me like you're parroting talking points you heard from a leftist zealot. I won't call it intellectually dishonest, but it does ignore the fact that a great many health care reform initiatives have been offered up by conservatives. There is a Senate that has to finally pass a bill you know. It's not like Democrats are altruistic peaceniks out to care for the world while obstructionist, evil Republicans are all cigar-chomping fat-cats trying to kick walkers out from under the elderly and infirm.

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?
Because they feel the law is sloppy and destructive, there's no reason to leave it out there being destructive. Kill it and build something better before it goes into affect in 2014.

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).
There's absolutely nothing to suggest that General Motors would've endured an inevitable, sudden demise. It was FUD for funds.

I'm not patronizing you, at worst I'm being condescending.
Which irritates the hell out of me.
ebuddy
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2012, 11:20 PM
 
The latest jobs report.



The number of Americans whom the U.S. Department of Labor counted as “not in the civilian labor force” in August hit a record high of 88,921,000.

The Labor Department counts a person as not in the civilian labor force if they are at least 16 years old, are not in the military or an institution such as a prison, mental hospital or nursing home, and have not actively looked for a job in the last four weeks. The department counts a person as in “the civilian labor force” if they are at least 16, are not in the military or an institution such as a prison, mental hospital or nursing home, and either do have a job or have actively looked for one in the last four weeks.

In July, there were 155,013,000 in the U.S. civilian labor force. In August that dropped to 154,645,000—meaning that on net 368,000 people simply dropped out of the labor force last month and did not even look for a job.

There were also 119,000 fewer Americans employed in August than there were in July. In July, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 142,220,000 Americans working. But, in August, there were only 142,101,000 Americans working.

Despite the fact that fewer Americans were employed in August than July, the unemployment rate ticked down from 8.3 in July to 8.1. That is because so many people dropped out of the labor force and stopped looking for work. The unemployment rate is the percentage of people in the labor force (meaning they had a job or were actively looking for one) who did not have a job.

The Bureau of Labor Statistic also reported that in August the labor force participation rate (the percentage of the people in the civilian non-institutionalized population who either had a job or were actively looking for one) dropped to a 30-year low of 63.5 percent, down from 63.7 percent in July. The last time the labor force participation rate was as low as 63.5 percent was in September 1981.
45/47
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 9, 2012, 03:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
The last time the labor force participation rate was as low as 63.5 percent was in September 1981.
Pres. Obama, almost as bad as Pres. Reagan.

Except Pres. Reagan increase spending and increase national debt by a far greater percentage.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 9, 2012, 06:03 AM
 
Reagan inherited that from Jimmy Carter.
45/47
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 9, 2012, 02:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Reagan inherited that from Jimmy Carter.
Jimmy Carter created more jobs per year than 5 of the last 5 Republican presidents.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 9, 2012, 02:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post

Jimmy Carter created more jobs per year than 5 of the last 5 Republican presidents.
I'm not sure these sorts of comparisons are appropriate, no matter who is made to look good with them.

During the era of Jimmy Carter we didn't have the so-called flattening of the earth, and the global economy that we have now largely thanks to technological advances.

If your main point here is simply to blow the typical Republican blather out of the water, so be it, but looking at any one stat and trying to paint a complete picture with it is about as accurate as looking at a baseball player's RBI or saves stat, and coming to conclusions about his/her overall value.

These are all complicated matters, I think we should be inviting this sort of complexity into our debates rather than reducing things to silly back and forth mudslinging. This of course is directed at Chongo too, who is quite guilty of perpetuating this.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 9, 2012, 02:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I'm not sure these sorts of comparisons are appropriate, no matter who is made to look good with them.
I see a animated gif of a dog running in this thread and you are complaining about factual data on job creation?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 9, 2012, 03:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post

I see a animated gif of a dog running in this thread and you are complaining about factual data on job creation?
Wait, that thing is a dog?
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 9, 2012, 05:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
I keep seeing this posted on various threads, i.e., that Obama failed. There is never any substance to these passing remarks, only that he "failed".
He failed because he made (and still makes) a lot of stupid, ignorant remarks that just make him look like, well, like he failed.



-t
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 9, 2012, 05:42 PM
 
Eh, Barry's not so bad. Personally I think he's a closet capitalist, but he doesn't want his homies to find out. God knows he's learned the way to building personal wealth. Like Al Gore, he can sniff out money like a hog after truffles.

However, he was woefully equipped to handle the presidency, waaay over played his hand on numerous occasions, and has never tried to work with the other side of the aisle on anything of importance. He isn't treacherous, I sincerely believe that, he's just out of his depth and incompetent.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 9, 2012, 05:42 PM
 


At the moment, I'd say Washington Times graph beats Internet chain macro, but I'm open minded.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 9, 2012, 05:58 PM
 
P.S. the money spent at the beginning of Obama's administration wasn't spent by Obama.

Total bullshit to just do the math from the second he took office.

Please share.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2012, 01:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
he was woefully equipped to handle the presidency, waaay over played his hand on numerous occasions, and has never tried to work with the other side of the aisle on anything of importance. He isn't treacherous, I sincerely believe that, he's just out of his depth and incompetent.

Would you prefer competent but treacherous?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2012, 03:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
P.S. the money spent at the beginning of Obama's administration wasn't spent by Obama.
Total bullshit to just do the math from the second he took office.
Please share.
The chart you posted is interesting to me. As far as I understand it, Obama had always supported Afghanistan and ramped up Iraq and subsequent pull-out on Bush's time-table. I think part of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars should be attributed to Obama. Most of the appropriations bills had not been passed, and the stimulus bill was signed into law after Obama took office. You can say "policy changes", but that strikes me as a means of justifying fuzzy-math. As President, I think you'd generally take credit for that which you signed, regardless of who originally authored the measure. I also understand Obama ultimately supported TARP, but even if that weren't the case; isn't the argument that most if not all the TARP money has been paid back with interest?

Also, The correct figure to use is the CBO’s analysis of the president’s 2013 budget, which clocks in at $3.72 trillion.
So this is what Washington Post's Fact-Checker came up with using the CBO Analysis:
2008: $2.98 trillion
2009: $3.27 trillion
2010: $3.46 trillion
2011: $3.60 trillion
2012: $3.65 trillion
2013: $3.72 trillion

Obama’s numbers get even higher if you look at what he proposed to spend, using CBO’s estimates of his budgets:
2012: $3.71 trillion (versus $3.65 trillion enacted)
2011: $3.80 trillion (versus $3.60 trillion enacted)
2010: $3.67 trillion (versus $3.46 trillion enacted)

So... he didn't get everything he asked for, but this does make him slightly more treacherous.

When accounting for population growth, inflation and other factors that affect spending. Here’s what the White House’s own budget documents show about spending as a percentage of GDP:
2008: 20.8 percent
2009: 25.2 percent
2010: 24.1 percent
2011: 24.1 percent
2012: 24.3 percent
2013: 23.3 percent
ebuddy
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2012, 03:40 AM
 
Shaddim, who are you kidding man. You are as much as a Democrat as Mitt Romney is poor.

You have criticize and insulted the Left, Liberals, Dems, Obama, Kerry, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Kennedy, Gore, Carter, Rachel Maddow, and so forth, usually in defense of Bush, conservatives, and Republicans.

I bet you never ever voted for a Democrat for president in your life.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2012, 04:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
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.
Shaddim voted for:

1992: Perot
1996: Perot
2000: Bush
2004: Bush
2008: McCain

Shaddim wil vote for:

2012: Romney
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2012, 05:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Would you prefer competent but treacherous?
Depends on the job at hand.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2012, 05:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Shaddim voted for:
1992: Perot <-- correct
1996: Perot <-- correct
2000: Bush <-- correct
2004: Bush <-- Bullshit
2008: McCain <-- Bullshit
Shaddim wil vote for:
2012: Romney <-- Highly doubtful
So, got anything else?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2012, 05:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Shaddim, who are you kidding man. You are as much as a Democrat as Mitt Romney is poor.
You have criticize and insulted the Left, Liberals, Dems, Obama, Kerry, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Kennedy, Gore, Carter, Rachel Maddow, and so forth, usually in defense of Bush, conservatives, and Republicans.
I bet you never ever voted for a Democrat for president in your life.
I criticized GWB more often than I praised him (I've called him an idiot >300 times on this forum). All the others? Yep, a good portion of those folks are useless, and some just did something stupid and I called them on it. Much like I do with you.

You are right, I've never voted for a Democrat for President, but when there's one worth electing I'll hop right to it. I don't just click all the levers marked (D) or (R), like some simpletons.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2012, 05:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
So, got anything else?
Yeah. Why lie about being a Democrat when you hate liberals and Democrats so much?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2012, 05:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I criticized GWB more often than I praised him (I've called him an idiot >300 times on this forum).
You are right, I've never voted for a Democrat for President, but when there's one worth electing I'll hop right to it. I don't just click all the levers marked (D) or (R), like some simpletons.
Dude. 40% of your post involves calling people names or insults. Another 10% involves telling us how rich and how great you are.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2012, 05:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Yeah. Why lie about being a Democrat when you hate liberals and Democrats so much?
In >80% of local and state elections I vote (D), because many of the Democrats around here are actually worthwhile. Unlike most of the Northern and Western variety.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2012, 06:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Dude. 40% of your post involves calling people names or insults. Another 10% involves telling us how rich and how great you are.
and 100% of yours are angry self-indulgent hate-filled diatribes? Is that accurate?

Let me spell this out. I talk about things that happen to me. I have quite a bit of wealth. Many of the things that happen to me, don't happen to you. Now, I can just not talk about the things going on, or I can be myself and not worry about someone getting offended by me buying something expensive. There's no reason to get hostile or threatened, it's only a different perspective. It isn't going to cause you harm.

FYI, I'm not better than the people here, I'm not more capable, I'm not even more intelligent than many on this forum. If anything, I'm probably more focused and disciplined, in some ways. That's about it. Is it okay to have a differing POV?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2012, 06:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
and 100% of yours are angry self-indulgent hate-filled diatribes? Is that accurate?
Most of yours are angry self-indulgent hate-filled diatribes.

Just do a search for 'Shaddim' or 'MacNStein'. Most of your post are nothing but insults and name calling.

Again, why do you have to lie about being a Democrat when you constantly insult Democrats and liberals?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2012, 07:12 AM
 
edit
( Last edited by el chupacabra; Oct 23, 2013 at 11:36 PM. )
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2012, 07:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Most of yours are angry self-indulgent hate-filled diatribes.
No, they aren't.

Just do a search for 'Shaddim' or 'MacNStein'. Most of your post are nothing but insults and name calling.
I did, and the numbers don't support your claim. While I've argued on this forum, god knows that's true, most posts are just conversation.

Again, why do you have to lie about being a Democrat when you constantly insult Democrats and liberals?
Being a Democrat doesn't mean I have to like all Democrats, and being a Democrat doesn't mean you're liberal. Do you see that? I'm very far Left on matters of social policy, and pretty far Right fiscally. Technically, that makes me libertarian, but the Libertarian party can't field an electable candidate. So, for local and state elections, I usually vote Dem, because more often than not their positions are closer to mine. On a national level, I don't agree with the DNC platform.

I like my mayor, she's a Democrat. My state senator's capable, he's one too. I generally like Jim Cooper, even though he isn't my Rep. Yeah, overall, if you count my votes since I started voting at 18, you'd see that the vast majority have been for Democrat candidates.

Does that clear things up?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2012, 07:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
and 100% of yours are angry self-indulgent hate-filled diatribes? Is that accurate?
That's putting it nicely; I think turtles on the right track when he says just put this one on ignore. If there's only one person on macnn to ignore this is it. His posts aren't worth the .001 kb it takes to load on my computer. Are they worth the 60 seconds of time it takes you to read and argue with him?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2012, 09:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The chart you posted is interesting to me...
I wasn't considering that authoritative, only more authoritative than the macro. I could have posted a picture of my toe jamb for the same effect.

The most interesting way to slice it seems to come from the Cato Institute article in Forbes quoted by the WP. It actually gives you a bunch of different slices.

If you take raw growth in spending you get:

Bush: 7.7%
Obama: 1.4%

Adjust that for inflation you get:

Bush: 5.0%
Obama: 1.8%

Strip out interest payments it becomes:

Bush: 5.5%
Obama: 1.7%

Strip out defense it becomes:

Bush: 5.5%
Obama: 2.0%

And then strip the bailouts:

Bush: 3.7%
Obama: 7.0%


That last one is obviously notable, especially considering Obama's had half the time.
     
Charles Martin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Maitland, FL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2012, 08:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by kimosABE View Post
How can anyone support this guy???
Because even if everything you said were true (and it isn't), he would STILL be better than the previous Republican, and is STILL better than the current Republican nominee.

Don't like that truth? Get some additional political parties going.

When you only have two choices, both of them tend to be less than ideal.

Other countries can manage it ... you guys have been WHINING for YEARS that neither party really represents you ... why don't you FIX THAT?
Charles Martin
MacNN Editor
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2012, 08:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by chas_m View Post
... why don't you FIX THAT?
Because neither of the political parties are telling their voters that they *should* want to fix that?
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 12, 2012, 02:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by chas_m View Post
Because even if everything you said were true (and it isn't), he would STILL be better than the previous Republican, and is STILL better than the current Republican nominee.
That's like saying diphtheria is better than smallpox.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 12, 2012, 03:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by chas_m View Post
Because even if everything you said were true (and it isn't), he would STILL be better than the previous Republican, and is STILL better than the current Republican nominee.
Don't like that truth? Get some additional political parties going.
When you only have two choices, both of them tend to be less than ideal.
Other countries can manage it ... you guys have been WHINING for YEARS that neither party really represents you ... why don't you FIX THAT?
Other countries can manage what, multiple parties and candidates falling in line behind either big labor or big corporation? At the end of the day, that's essentially what you get and the problem is primarily one of the nature of those who would seek office. Unless you're talking dictatorship, (which may explain your support of Obama) adding more politicians doesn't solve anything and no one has figured how to manage this.
ebuddy
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2012, 03:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
P.S. the money spent at the beginning of Obama's administration wasn't spent by Obama.
Total bullshit to just do the math from the second he took office.
Please share.
Meh, does it matter ?

Suppose Romney won, he'd be held accountable for everything starting the second he takes office.

Including all of Obama's blunders.

Do you really think anyone else would get away with blaming his predecessor for 4 years ?

-t
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2012, 08:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Meh, does it matter ?
Suppose Romney won, he'd be held accountable for everything starting the second he takes office.
Including all of Obama's blunders.
Do you really think anyone else would get away with blaming his predecessor for 4 years ?
-t
If Romney was held accountable that would be incorrect.

The four year argument is a big, fat, flaming strawman from hell.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2012, 05:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Do you really think anyone else would get away with blaming his predecessor for 4 years ?
Are you kidding? There are still conservatives today who whine about how the politics of the 60s ruined America.

Complaining that Obama couldn't fix everything wrong with an economy destroyed by Bush and his allies is like complaining the firefighters didn't completely rebuild your home after stopping it from burning down, then claiming the firefighters didn't really stop the fire at all, but just happened to be present when the fire went out on it's own.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2012, 05:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Are you kidding? There are still conservatives today who whine about how the politics of the 60s ruined America.
Actually, it goes back to the New Deal, but your ignorance of US politics usually speaks for itself without me correcting you. i.e. carry on.

Complaining that Obama couldn't fix everything wrong with an economy destroyed by Bush and his allies is like complaining the firefighters didn't completely rebuild your home after stopping it from burning down, then claiming the firefighters didn't really stop the fire at all, but just happened to be present when the fire went out on it's own.
That's not what they're complaining about. Again, Obama and his economic team took a good, long, hard look at the economy. He and his team must've spent a great deal of time assessing and discussing our state of affairs. He must've felt he and his team could have an appreciable impact on the factors that comprise a healthy economy in spite of what he inherited.

From this information, Obama then made a series of promises to the American people. These promises included where unemployment would be and where the debt and deficit would be and gave the public a series of metrics and benchmarks for judging his success or failure. After all, when you hit lows such as those upon the recessionary levels he faced at inauguration, you historically have a very robust rubber-band affect and the actual recession is typically very short-lived. Well... the numbers have come in and none of them meet the benchmarks Obama himself provided. Either he and his team had no idea what they were looking at, and well into his term mind you... or his policies and leadership have failed.
ebuddy
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2012, 08:24 AM
 
Remember that on October 9, 2007, 11 months before our “economic crisis” occurred
(that was actually created), the Dow hit its highest point ever, closing at 14,164.53
and reaching 14,198.10 intra-day level 2 days later. Unemployment was steady at 4.7%.
But things were already being put in place to create the havoc we’ve all been

The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007, which was the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress. The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this: January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the
Senate and the Congress.

At the time:
The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTH

Remember the day...
January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee. The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy? BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!

Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!
Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.

And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac?
OBAMA. And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? OBAMA and the Democrat Congress. So when someone tries to blame Bush. REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007....THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party. Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.

In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office.
At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.


And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009.

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama,
who voted for the budgets.

If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is
I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2012, 09:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Remember that on October 9, 2007, 11 months before our “economic crisis” occurred
(that was actually created), the Dow hit its highest point ever, closing at 14,164.53
and reaching 14,198.10 intra-day level 2 days later. Unemployment was steady at 4.7%.
But things were already being put in place to create the havoc we’ve all been
The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007, which was the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.
I love how the statement above is posted shortly after the statement below.

Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Meh, does it matter ?
Suppose Romney won, he'd be held accountable for everything starting the second he takes office.
Including all of Obama's blunders.
Do you really think anyone else would get away with blaming his predecessor for 4 years ?
-t
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2012, 07:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Are you kidding? There are still conservatives today who whine about how the politics of the 60s ruined America.
Uhm, so what ?

There will always be individuals (Democrats as well as Republicans) that will whine about the past.

Obama is the first POTUS to do so throughout his term.
THAT is the main difference.


-t
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2012, 07:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If Romney was held accountable that would be incorrect.
The four year argument is a big, fat, flaming strawman from hell.
I hope I could prove you right.

Alas, we will see Obama blame Bush for another 4 years. So in a sense, I will be right.

-t
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2012, 07:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post

Uhm, so what ?
There will always be individuals (Democrats as well as Republicans) that will whine about the past.
Obama is the first POTUS to do so throughout his term.
THAT is the main difference.
-t
In your mind is there a distinction between whining and setting expectations based on what had happened before? I mean, it's not like we have depressions as nasty as the one Obama inherited every day.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2012, 08:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
I hope I could prove you right.
Alas, we will see Obama blame Bush for another 4 years. So in a sense, I will be right.
-t
We're arguing different things. There's no debate politicians do it, the question is whether that's an accurate representation of the facts.

The answer is no, whether it's Romney, Obama, some Tea-Party person on Facebook, or Joe Mama.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2012, 03:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
I love how the statement above is posted shortly after the statement below.
Yeah, but do you disagree with BadKosh's statement and citations?
ebuddy
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2012, 03:53 AM
 
If Owe-bama wins a second term, Imagine what a mess he'll be stuck with!
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2012, 04:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Yeah, but do you disagree with BadKosh's statement and citations?
Do I agree that, as of January 3rd 2007, Bush could no longer be held responsible for the actions of his government? Because of Democrat control in the House and the Senate? That sounds an awful lot like the argument being used by liberals for why many of Obama's initiatives weren't passed.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:03 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,