heckofajobbrownie Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 Steve, will you join the crankier members of the board who dismiss evidence that's not in their favor as irrelevant or somehow a lie? Those are the official figures, both in the graphs, and the ones I quoted. It doesn't mean you have to like Obama, or what he did. I just want to see if you can acknowledge reality. Is the economy worse now, after three years of Obama, as you contended? Or is it better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 "Whether he made it worse or not he's been president for 3 years and it is worse. Simple fact." Well, no. Let's try again, Steve, because there's plenty to critique Obama on. It just can't be ridiculously simplistic and from talking point land. That's where you are right now. Let's take a look at private sector job creation since 2008. url]. So, obviously, no one would ever contend that the economy or the jobs market is doing worse now than when Obama took office. It's doing better. But hey, if you want to win an election - and you talk like a guy running for office, or shilling on Fox - you Shilling? I think the word you're searching for is spinning. The state of the union was quite the little dog and pony show. But word 1 of you guys going to give me a list of the grand plans that the republicans have scuttled? And why you just couldn't see your way clear to bring them up for the first 2 years? That's why it sounds like bullshit when you're railing about the bush tax cuts. Because, well, it is. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 Steve, come on. Answer the question. No more rabbit holes. (And no, I meant shilling.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 Heck, come on. No more rabbit holes. Answer the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 There are much better things we could put effort into than a moon base... You can say, "Oh Woody, you're just too young" w/e, that moon base is still dumb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 Steve, come on. Answer the question. No more rabbit holes. (And no, I meant shilling.) I know what you meant. But what's actually going on is spinning. But, sure, if you guys do your share of both... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 There are much better things we could put effort into than a moon base... You can say, "Oh Woody, you're just too young" w/e, that moon base is still dumb Do you think the space program has been a bad thing over the years? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 I know what you meant. But what's actually going on is spinning. But, sure, if you guys do your share of both... No, Steve, you're the one spinning. Those are facts I presented you with. Economic data. Now answer the question. "Whether he made it worse or not he's been president for 3 years and it is worse. Simple fact." Is it worse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 Of course it's worse. "well, it depends on what the definition of "is" is". "it isn't a war on terror anymore. It's an international physical disagreement" "there isn't any more "illegal immigrantion". It's now :"foreigners trying to vacation, then settling here" I honestly think Heck and others get paid to figure out how to warp semantics to undercut other's different beliefs. Here, dammit. Nobody ever has said Bush didn't start to make the deficit. But he started up the war on terror in response to 9/11. Note that this article is only up to July, last year. Now, read these words, Heck: Is, or is NOT, BUSH's 400 BILLION LESS than Obamao's 1.3 TRILLION ? If the rest of us (with the exception of HeckWoody probably), multiply 400 billion by 3, we get 1.2 Trillion. So, 1.2 TRILLION is LESS than the debt Obamao accrued by JULY, 2011. It's worse and worse. Any sane individual can figure that Obamao wants to create a worse crisis for his own benefit, whatever the hell that is (political Chavez power anyone?) And there are more folks on food stamps than ever before. And our gov is getting heavy handed, law-breaking, Constitution ignoring, civil rights ignoring (well, unless you're black), and the scandals are increasing 9 .... like the deliberate attempted undermining of our 1st and 2nd Amendment rights... And the disgraced, UNAmerican "occupiers" than Obamao "ran for office for"... are disgracing him. But to Heck, that's BETTER? Oh, with libs, nothing is everything, black is white and up is down. They believe that so they are special. Their challenge is trying to figure out how to convince other people to play along. It's a freakin honest, excellent article. Hell yeah, WORSE. ********************************************************* http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-07-11/news/30013193_1_budget-deficit-government-spending-tax-collections This recession clobbered federal revenues (tax receipts--red line), which still have not regained their 2007 bubble highs. President Obama's stimulus, meanwhile, helped add about $600 billion to federal spending (blue line). The combination of these two factors ballooned the deficit from $400 billion when President Bush left office to ~$1.3 trillion now. Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-07-11/news/30013193_1_budget-deficit-government-spending-tax-collections#ixzz1l39A7enK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 Dow Jones Industrial Average when Obama took office: 7949 Stock market today: 12,601 Why is this hard for you? Your "simple fact" was, in fact, incorrect. The economy is doing far better than it was when Obama took office. Stabilizing it has come at a cost (increased debt) and not everything in the economy can or should be attributable to the actions of a president, or Congress. Nor is anyone contending that the economy is in great shape. But the data is clear: the economy and jobs market are vastly improved from early 2009. Obama has not made it worse. You really shouldn't say something is a "simple fact" and get the "simple fact" part wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 One graph, eh? Well, honest people like a little more info about Obamao making things worse. The correct simple fact is, you should give up some of your paychecks - you aren't convincing anybody of your crap. Too bad for you, you're only hope is Woody. For some legit thought on the subject: ***************************************** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 Say, you like blogs, here's one from an angry libertarian: **************** http://davidswanson.org/content/obama-even-worse-bush "Well, well, yeah, but he closed Guantanamo!" Obama never intended to free prisoners or put them on trial. He always intended to keep people in prison without any due process. He just thought he might do some of it in Illinois instead of Cuba. He's been unable to make that move, but frankly who cares? The question is not how many people we're lawlessly imprisoning in Afghanistan and how many in Virginia. The question is whether we will lawlessly imprison people. Apparently we will. Secret abuses under Bush have become public formal policies under Obama. Whether to lock someone up, and even whether to torture them, has become a matter of policy preference, not of law. Even the power to assassinate anyone, including Americans, has now become -- by Obama's decree -- a matter purely of presidential whim, with no authorization from any other person or court or legislature required. Obama announced the end of torture, not its prosecution in court. But he continued to claim the privilege to torture if he chose to, as Leon Panetta and David Axelrod made clear. And he openly claimed the power of extraordinary rendition, that is, the power to kidnap people and send them off to be secretly tortured in other countries. We don't know if this has happened. But we wouldn't. We do know that torture has continued in Guantanamo, in Bagram, and in the US-backed Iraqi government. Warrentless spying, likewise, continues and grows, while Obama has assured corporate co-conspirators of immunity. This is the magic, the disastrous magic, of having a president of the other political party pick up the baton. Obama gave a Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in which he glorified war. He gave a speech on wars from the Oval Office in which he embraced a whole series of lies about Iraq. He stood in front of the U.S. Constitution in the National Archives and tossed habeas corpus into the trash bin. Can you imagine the raging inferno of outrage had Bush done any of those things? The process of normalizing crimes is not purely one of repetition and expansion. It's also one of fading the crimes into the background, making them part of the national furniture, forgetting collectively that we ever got along without them. I mentioned the power to create new powers. This is where we risk exponentially worse damage -- to our system of government and to the world -- in the coming years. We don't guarantee it, but we do risk it. Avoiding it would require unprecedented steps of restraint and reversal. Obama came into office advertising himself as the president of sunshine, transparency, and openness. The age of secrecy was at an end! I'm not measuring Obama against the standard of his campaign promises, although it seems fair to do so. I'm measuring Obama against the standard of Bush, and noting that part of how Obama operates is through deceptive propaganda. Obama has refused to release White House visitor logs from the period when he met with health insurance corporations, has maintained the right to hide any others he chooses, but released some and announced this as a breakthrough. Meanwhile, he sends staff to meet with lobbyists just off the White House grounds in order to avoid writing anything in the visitors' logs. This is Bush-Cheney-level secrecy with the pretense that it isn't. And it's worse. Obama has set records for rejecting Freedom of Information Act requests and for prosecutions of whistle blowers -- not to mention the lawless imprisonment and torture of alleged whistleblower Bradley Manning, a policy Obama has defended by reference to unnamed secret standards set by the military. Just as Obama escalates wars when and how the military publicly tells him to, he takes responsibility for torturing a prisoner on the military's say-so. This rhetoric is not just rhetoric. It threatens civilian rule. Obama campaigned on the constitutional idea that the legislature makes laws. He denounced Bush's practice of altering laws with signing statements. As president, Obama, for a while, used signing statements just as Bush had, to claim more powers for the president (and every future president), including this power to claim more powers. Then Obama established the practice of assuming that prior signing statements or executive orders or secret legal memos could be used in place of new signing statements. This is even worse and more secretive than Bush's practice of announcing which laws he would violate. Obama announced that he would review Bush's signing statements and decide which ones to keep, but not whether those decisions would be public, and with no explanation of how that process was any more constitutional than Bush's. Obama also began making law, including "law" on lawless imprisonment by executive order. Congressional Republicans like Buck McKeon want that particular law to be even worse, and so have objected to its imperial announcement. But they won't push that balance-of-powers fight very far. Both parties have now established as flawless heroes people who engage in some of the same abuses. And whoever's next will be hard pressed to even call those abuses abuses, should he or she miraculously want to. The U.S. Supreme Court accepts powers used without opposition by multiple presidents as established presidential powers. Signing-statementing laws is now one of those powers. So is secret and imperial war-making. John Kerry and John McCain want Libya bombed. John Yoo, not yet prosecuted for having "legalized" aggressive war, agrees with them. Obama, to his great credit, has not yet taken that step. But the debate is over policy choices, not laws. The fact that bombing another country is illegal is no longer considered a fact in Washington, D.C. It's a fringe opinion. And that is what scares me. So why not impeach Obama? I clamored for the impeachment of Bush. I say Obama is as bad or worse. Why am I such a corrupt hypocrite that I haven't built a movement to impeach Obama? Well, I'll tell you, as I've told people more times than I can count. Obama should be impeached and convicted and removed from office. Obama should be prosecuted for his crimes. So should his subordinates. So should his predecessor, his subordinates, and all corporate co-conspirators. The reason I can't get 20 people into the streets to demand Obama's impeachment (and if I did, they'd want him impeached for being born in Africa to aliens from Planet Socialism) is that nobody in Congress is even pretending to give a damn. We were able to produce a sizeable movement for impeachment when Bush was in office, because a lot of Democrats in Congress, especially in 2005 and 2006, pretended they were on our side. I say "pretended" as a way to indicate not that they didn't agree with us, but that they were not committed to trying very hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 One graph, eh? Well, honest people like a little more info about Obamao making things worse. The correct simple fact is, you should give up some of your paychecks - you aren't convincing anybody of your crap. Too bad for you, you're only hope is Woody. For some legit thought on the subject: ***************************************** See, Steve? You got one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 Even Paul Wolf disses Obamao at being much worse than Bush. gosh, sounds like we are a lot less respected in the world, too. I guess Obama HAS made everything worse, well, except for the stock market for now. Soros and obamao and all want their investments to remain safe, you know. *************************************** Press TV has conducted an interview with Paul Wolf, human rights and international lawyer, to share his opinion on this issue. What follows is a rough transcription of the interview. I think President Obama has been a disappointment to just about everybody. We have not seen any change. In many cases, he has gone further than George Bush went, and I think that the most recent legislation you are talking about - where we could have really no legal process at all- if the military determines that someone is the danger -a national security threat- they can simply grab them and lock them up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 One graph, eh? Well, honest people like a little more info about Obamao making things worse. The correct simple fact is, you should give up some of your paychecks - you aren't convincing anybody of your crap. Too bad for you, you're only hope is Woody. For some legit thought on the subject: ***************************************** Have you seen graphs of predator-prey relations? The ones that show the population of like foxes and the population of, say, mice over time. When there are spikes or drops in the population of one over time the other follows suit, but not instantaneously. example, I feel like this situation is similar. The instant Obama took office wasn't the instance his changes started making an impact. Most things, especially legislation and policy changes, to take effect instantaneously. From the looks of that graph, it seems like policy changes made during Bush's term had a negative affect on the economy and any changes made after that (end Bush or Obama) didn't start decreasing the unemployment rate until later in Obama's term. A more informative graph would be the second derivative of that graph. The change of the change in unemployment per some unit of time. This would let us see when the unemployment rates started to slow down in growth and start working their way to decreasing. A little more complicated than "how polls work," but I hope you follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 That's pretty stupid. I guess I could respond with a graph about garter snakes activity and the weather... College kids. bah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choco Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 i cant read that graph...it looks to me that the red section on the left side all of a sudden makes a sharp turn north right before the blue line begins. then the blue line starts to round off and go steadily back down. there is no logical explanation other than scared employers laying off millions of americans cause they were afraid of the democrats. ill admit, im a bit confused that the GOP wasn't up in arms when dubya raised the debt ceiling 7 times and doubled the debt. couldn't be that war they had to pay for, could it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 Well if we want to add in some more material from other blogs here we go... this one spells it out pretty good. Obamacare Discourages Hiring In March 2010, Congress passed President Obama’s health care reform legislation. The bill had appeared in serious jeopardy, and after the upset special election victory of Senator Scott Brown (R–MA), many analysts expected the bill to fail. Instead, it became law. The law discourages employers from hiring in several ways: •Businesses with fewer than 50 workers have a strong incentive to maintain this size, which allows them to avoid the mandate to provide government-approved health coverage or face a penalty; •Businesses with more than 50 workers will see their costs for health coverage rise—they must purchase more expensive government-approved insurance or pay a penalty; and •Employers face considerable uncertainty about what constitutes qualifying health coverage and what it will cost. They also do not know what the health care market or their health care costs will look like in four years. This makes planning for the future difficult. Recovery Stalls Post–Obamacare Within two months of Obamacare’s passing, the recovery stalled. Figure 1 shows net private-sector job creation from January 2009 onward. The red line shows the trend in job creation before and after April 2010. Private-sector job creation improved by an average of 67,600 jobs per month before April 2010.[7]That month, private-sector employers added 229,000 net jobs. Source Might we add that most peoples health insurance has doubled since Obama's commie care became law. And just think of all of those government employees (city/county/state/federal) that all of us tax payers employ and the costs of healthcare have sky-rocketed and know we have to cover the costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAl_13DtQ1w&feature=related Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 I really Allen West had run for pres. I mean, he's my hero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 Same here, I believe that Allen West would've brought back some integrity to the Oval office. He is a man of great character and has a passion to serve this nation unlike what we have to put up with these past 3 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 i cant read that graph...it looks to me that the red section on the left side all of a sudden makes a sharp turn north right before the blue line begins. then the blue line starts to round off and go steadily back down. there is no logical explanation other than scared employers laying off millions of americans cause they were afraid of the democrats. ill admit, im a bit confused that the GOP wasn't up in arms when dubya raised the debt ceiling 7 times and doubled the debt. couldn't be that war they had to pay for, could it? That's certainly an interesting point. what makes W's debt even worse is the fact that it occurred during decent times and not necessarily during a recession. Deficit spending is more acceptable during times of recession for a variety of reasons. Anyway, this country has been in debt since the day it was born. The problem with the debt recently is that is has grown to be over 100% of the GDP. Which, during times of recession, is somewhat understandable, but not necessarily acceptable. That's my only guess as to why R's are up in arms over the national debt. But one has to look at the problem in context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 "Take your message of equality of achievement, take your message of economic dependency, take your message of enslaving the entrepreneur will and spirit of the American people, somewhere else. You can take it to Europe, you can take it to the bottom of sea, you can take it to the North Pole, but get the hell out of the United States of America." This is hysterical. You guys hear someone say this and you get all fired up. The rest of us hear someone say this and think, "What the fuck is he talking about?" Not a word of this is accurate, or even close to being accurate. And then we realize that it's coming from a member of Congress, not some crank on a message board, and we think, "Oh, dear God. What's happened to the Republican Party?" It just gets crazier and crazier, angrier and angrier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 And the enraged, discredited, embarrassments to the Dem party now... are so angry, and don't make any sense? I think you are an "occupier", Heck. The rest of us wonder "why do they like to be flea-bitten, and hate America so much?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 I already explained what that graph meant... but whateva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 come on, you know that equal opportunity should only be allowed to exist between rich white folks. Who are these occupiers and why are they asking for equal opportunity between everyone, not just rich, white fucks?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 come on, you know that equal opportunity should only be allowed to exist between rich white folks. Who are these occupiers and why are they asking for equal opportunity between everyone, not just rich, white fucks?? The president of the United States is Negro. That means he is the leader of the free world and probably more responsible for the economy of the planet than any 1 single person. I assume you aren't as rich and successful as you'd like to be, right? Exactly what opportunities have been denied you? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Westside Steve, I've noticed you don't answer stuff or contribute facts that often. You just ask questions. That is that you do, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 The president of the United States is Negro. That means he is the leader of the free world and probably more responsible for the economy of the planet than any 1 single person. I assume you aren't as rich and successful as you'd like to be, right? Exactly what opportunities have been denied you? WSS I pay a higher tax rate than Mitt Romney. I have less money to invest and therefore make more money off of. If I had paid Romney's tax rate I would have had more money to reinvest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Westside Steve, I've noticed you don't answer stuff or contribute facts that often. You just ask questions. That is that you do, right? Sometimes woody but not always. For instance in the previous post I responded to a charge that's only rich white people succeed with the fact that the most powerful and one of the richest people in america is black. But I try to answer any question anyone asks me as honestly as I can. Ask away. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.