Economically, many think this is the worst administration in history.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Economically, many think this is the worst administration in history.

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

     

     

     

    Employment DROPPED in the wake of the “Stimulus” and never recovered. In the first 3 years after the 2009 Obama Stimulus, the Employment-Population Ratio was 1 and seven-tenths LOWER than when the bill was signed. The “stimulus” did not “save or create” jobs, it destroyed them. THe “stimulus” did not improve employment, it made it worse.

    wordpress

     

     




     

     

    Oh causation, wherefore art thou.

    One might just as well point to that data and say that in fact, the economy would have been much worse but for the stimulus despite its many flaws.

     

     

     

     

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

     

     

     

    The Employment-Population Ratio had been dropping steadily from its high in April 2000 at 64.7%, because the Dot Com bubble had burst, and things only got worse when our nation’s fiscal and governmental capitals were hit by terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. By May 2003, the Employment-Population Ratio had dropped to 62.3%, and was still dropping. But the Bush tax cuts slowed the rate of descent, stopped the fall at a low of 62.0% and then turned it around and the rate started climbing again, reaching 62.3% again in May 2004, 62.8% in May 2005, and 63.1% in May 2006. So, in the first 3 years after the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts, the Employment-Population Ratio had been turned around and improved by eight-tenths of a point.

     

     



     

     

    Oh context, wherefore art thou.


    In the first three years after teh 2003 Bush Tax Cuts, you say? Well what did happen right aruond then?

    Oh yeah. The mortgage and financial crises caused a worldwide economic catastrophe.

    And what does this mean? It means that that which your source attributes to the Bush tax cuts was in fact fake wealth - it WAS the bubble.

     

     

     

     

     



    So, we borrow and spend a trillion dollars a year, the number of workers in the eocinomy drops sharply, and all you can come up with is that it would be worse?

     

    Well, at least with that position, you have to admit that the Obama Stimulus did not create any jobs, therefore, a failure.

    -or-

    You can take a crack at my standing question to you:  Explain how borrowing and spending  a trillion extra dollars a year indefinitley helps the economy.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Economically, many think this is the worst administration in history.

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    And yet many more think he's doing a great job...hence his re-election.

    Can't argue facts.

     

     

     



    So he got re-elected because he's doing a great job? I guess many more thought Bush was doing a great job...hence his re-election : )

     

     

     

     

     

     



    Yes, but many of those voters have since passed away.  

     

    Really? Based on what evidence?

     

    And a different kind of voter has taken their place.  You would say low-information,

    Except I've never used the "low-information" phrase...so there's that

     

    but we'll have to wait and see how history compares Obama to Bush.  I'm guessing favorably.

    Maybe so...but what does that have to do with the original point?

     




     



    Based on US life expectancy, the passage of nine years time, and an 8-point swing for Bush in the 2004 exit polls with the 65+ crowd.

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Economically, many think this is the worst administration in history.

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

     

     

     

    Employment DROPPED in the wake of the “Stimulus” and never recovered. In the first 3 years after the 2009 Obama Stimulus, the Employment-Population Ratio was 1 and seven-tenths LOWER than when the bill was signed. The “stimulus” did not “save or create” jobs, it destroyed them. THe “stimulus” did not improve employment, it made it worse.

    wordpress

     

     



     

     

    Oh causation, wherefore art thou.

    One might just as well point to that data and say that in fact, the economy would have been much worse but for the stimulus despite its many flaws.

     

     

     

     

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

     

     

     

    The Employment-Population Ratio had been dropping steadily from its high in April 2000 at 64.7%, because the Dot Com bubble had burst, and things only got worse when our nation’s fiscal and governmental capitals were hit by terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. By May 2003, the Employment-Population Ratio had dropped to 62.3%, and was still dropping. But the Bush tax cuts slowed the rate of descent, stopped the fall at a low of 62.0% and then turned it around and the rate started climbing again, reaching 62.3% again in May 2004, 62.8% in May 2005, and 63.1% in May 2006. So, in the first 3 years after the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts, the Employment-Population Ratio had been turned around and improved by eight-tenths of a point.

     

     


     

     

    Oh context, wherefore art thou.


    In the first three years after teh 2003 Bush Tax Cuts, you say? Well what did happen right aruond then?

    Oh yeah. The mortgage and financial crises caused a worldwide economic catastrophe.

    And what does this mean? It means that that which your source attributes to the Bush tax cuts was in fact fake wealth - it WAS the bubble.

     

     

     

     

     



    So, we borrow and spend a trillion dollars a year, the number of workers in the eocinomy drops sharply, and all you can come up with is that it would be worse?

     

    Well, at least with that position, you have to admit that the Obama Stimulus did not create any jobs, therefore, a failure.

    -or-

    You can take a crack at my standing question to you:  Explain how borrowing and spending  a trillion extra dollars a year indefinitley helps the economy.



    Concluding that the Obama stimulus was a failure is like concluding that medical care isn't necessary for gunshot wounds.  How do you know things would have been fine without the stimulus?  We were losing nearly a million jobs a month - a number that began to drop immediately upon the passage of the stimulus.  How do you perceive that as a failure?  Maybe if we had had more of that, the recovery would be stronger?  Nah - too logical; better to paint a Hitler Mustache on Obama posters because he's trying to cram well visits down your throat.

     

     

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Economically, many think this is the worst administration in history.

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

     

     

     

    Employment DROPPED in the wake of the “Stimulus” and never recovered. In the first 3 years after the 2009 Obama Stimulus, the Employment-Population Ratio was 1 and seven-tenths LOWER than when the bill was signed. The “stimulus” did not “save or create” jobs, it destroyed them. THe “stimulus” did not improve employment, it made it worse.

    wordpress

     

     


     

     

    Oh causation, wherefore art thou.

    One might just as well point to that data and say that in fact, the economy would have been much worse but for the stimulus despite its many flaws.

     

     

     

     

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

     

     

     

    The Employment-Population Ratio had been dropping steadily from its high in April 2000 at 64.7%, because the Dot Com bubble had burst, and things only got worse when our nation’s fiscal and governmental capitals were hit by terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. By May 2003, the Employment-Population Ratio had dropped to 62.3%, and was still dropping. But the Bush tax cuts slowed the rate of descent, stopped the fall at a low of 62.0% and then turned it around and the rate started climbing again, reaching 62.3% again in May 2004, 62.8% in May 2005, and 63.1% in May 2006. So, in the first 3 years after the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts, the Employment-Population Ratio had been turned around and improved by eight-tenths of a point.

     

     

     

     

     

    Oh context, wherefore art thou.


    In the first three years after teh 2003 Bush Tax Cuts, you say? Well what did happen right aruond then?

    Oh yeah. The mortgage and financial crises caused a worldwide economic catastrophe.

    And what does this mean? It means that that which your source attributes to the Bush tax cuts was in fact fake wealth - it WAS the bubble.

     

     

     

     

     



    So, we borrow and spend a trillion dollars a year, the number of workers in the eocinomy drops sharply, and all you can come up with is that it would be worse?

     

    Well, at least with that position, you have to admit that the Obama Stimulus did not create any jobs, therefore, a failure.

    -or-

    You can take a crack at my standing question to you:  Explain how borrowing and spending  a trillion extra dollars a year indefinitley helps the economy.

     



    Concluding that the Obama stimulus was a failure is like concluding that medical care isn't necessary for gunshot wounds.  How do you know things would have been fine without the stimulus?  We were losing nearly a million jobs a month - a number that began to drop immediately upon the passage of the stimulus.  How do you perceive that as a failure?  Maybe if we had had more of that, the recovery would be stronger?  Nah - too logical; better to paint a Hitler Mustache on Obama posters because he's trying to cram well visits down your throat.

     

     

     

     



    Right.  Yet another vote for the " it could have been worse" camp.

     

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Economically, many think this is the worst administration in history.

    This administration essentially viewed the "stimulus" as yet another way to reward it's supporters and punish it's opponents. In fairness, as stimuluses go, this one never had a chance.

    -

    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

     

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Economically, many think this is the worst administration in history.

    "Concluding that the Obama stimulus was a failure is like concluding that medical care isn't necessary for gunshot wounds"

    Concluding the Obama stimulus was a success is like a medieval physician taking credit for a cure by bleeding the patient.

    Fact: Obama recovery from recession by far the worst since the 1930s. Facts are facts.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Economically, many think this is the worst administration in history.

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

     

     

    The Employment-Population Ratio had been dropping steadily from its high in April 2000 at 64.7%, because the Dot Com bubble had burst, and things only got worse when our nation’s fiscal and governmental capitals were hit by terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. By May 2003, the Employment-Population Ratio had dropped to 62.3%, and was still dropping. But the Bush tax cuts slowed the rate of descent, stopped the fall at a low of 62.0% and then turned it around and the rate started climbing again, reaching 62.3% again in May 2004, 62.8% in May 2005, and 63.1% in May 2006. So, in the first 3 years after the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts, the Employment-Population Ratio had been turned around and improved by eight-tenths of a point.

    By comparison, the Obama “Stimulus”, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, was signed into law by President Barack Obama on February 17, 2009. The Employment-Population Ratio in February 2009 was 60.3% A year later, in February 2010 it was 58.5%. A year later, in February 2011 it was 58.4%. A year later, in February 2012 it was 58.6%.

    Employment DROPPED in the wake of the “Stimulus” and never recovered. In the first 3 years after the 2009 Obama Stimulus, the Employment-Population Ratio was 1 and seven-tenths LOWER than when the bill was signed. The “stimulus” did not “save or create” jobs, it destroyed them. THe “stimulus” did not improve employment, it made it worse.

    wordpress

     

     




    Heh, heh, heh.... you been busy surfing the echo chambers, I see.

     

    How about looking at your own links once in awhile.

    If you did you would see that if you use the same metrics on the Bush admin as the Obama admin, you know apples-to-apples, you would get a surprising result. Well 'surprising' to the ideologues anyway.

     

    Bush takes office Emp/Pop ratio was 64.7%

    Bush does all his "magic" for 8 yrs.

    At the end of his term, the Emp/Pop ratio was 60.6%

    That equals a drop in the Emp/Pop ratio of 4%.

    Obama takes office the Emp/Pop ratio was 60.6%

    Obama does his "magic" for 4 yrs.

    And at the end of his first term the ratio is 58.6%

    That equals a drop in the Emp/Pop ratio of 2%. Half of what Bush accomplished.


    That was easy.



    Of what relevance is Bush?  You childish progressives continue with the "yah, well Bush did it, too" as if that innoculates Obama.

    They are all bad. But, I must say this, Obama supporters show a complete lack of positive support for the ideas and policies of their chosen leader when they compare him wiht their chosen devil.  It is kinda like they are admitting that Obama is a failure, just not as big a failure as Bush.

    that's some praise.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Economically, many think this is the worst administration in history.

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    "Concluding that the Obama stimulus was a failure is like concluding that medical care isn't necessary for gunshot wounds"

    Concluding the Obama stimulus was a success is like a medieval physician taking credit for a cure by bleeding the patient.

    Fact: Obama recovery from recession by far the worst since the 1930s. Facts are facts.

     




     

    Well considering this was the worst wingnut-led recession since the Depression then it stands to reason.

    Oh sorry, logic has no place in the neo-con lexicon, just like 'testicular fortitude' et al.




    But, but, BUSH was worse...

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Economically, many think this is the worst administration in history.

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    "Concluding that the Obama stimulus was a failure is like concluding that medical care isn't necessary for gunshot wounds"

    Concluding the Obama stimulus was a success is like a medieval physician taking credit for a cure by bleeding the patient.

    Fact: Obama recovery from recession by far the worst since the 1930s. Facts are facts.



    So you think that recessions since 1930 have simply healed themselves with no government intervention whatsoever?  And the fact that this recession was began correction the moment the stimulus passed is a coincidence?

    You can test that theory - how are countries that did not pass a stimulus, or adopted austerity measures, doing today?  They would have been hit with the same downturn at the same time as the US.  Did they begin self-correcting in February, 2009?

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from doozy-day. Show doozy-day's posts

    Re: Economically, many think this is the worst administration in history.

    Actually, this is the worst "overall" administration in history, and that's only the first four-and-a-half years!

    Can you imagine the situation by 2016?

     

    Bartender.........another round.......put it on my EBT please........don't forget something for yourself, heck i'm not paying for it.........

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Economically, many think this is the worst administration in history.

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

     

     

    The Employment-Population Ratio had been dropping steadily from its high in April 2000 at 64.7%, because the Dot Com bubble had burst, and things only got worse when our nation’s fiscal and governmental capitals were hit by terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. By May 2003, the Employment-Population Ratio had dropped to 62.3%, and was still dropping. But the Bush tax cuts slowed the rate of descent, stopped the fall at a low of 62.0% and then turned it around and the rate started climbing again, reaching 62.3% again in May 2004, 62.8% in May 2005, and 63.1% in May 2006. So, in the first 3 years after the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts, the Employment-Population Ratio had been turned around and improved by eight-tenths of a point.

    By comparison, the Obama “Stimulus”, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, was signed into law by President Barack Obama on February 17, 2009. The Employment-Population Ratio in February 2009 was 60.3% A year later, in February 2010 it was 58.5%. A year later, in February 2011 it was 58.4%. A year later, in February 2012 it was 58.6%.

    Employment DROPPED in the wake of the “Stimulus” and never recovered. In the first 3 years after the 2009 Obama Stimulus, the Employment-Population Ratio was 1 and seven-tenths LOWER than when the bill was signed. The “stimulus” did not “save or create” jobs, it destroyed them. THe “stimulus” did not improve employment, it made it worse.

    wordpress

     

     




    Heh, heh, heh.... you been busy surfing the echo chambers, I see.

     

    How about looking at your own links once in awhile.

    If you did you would see that if you use the same metrics on the Bush admin as the Obama admin, you know apples-to-apples, you would get a surprising result. Well 'surprising' to the ideologues anyway.

     

    Bush takes office Emp/Pop ratio was 64.7%

    Bush does all his "magic" for 8 yrs.

    At the end of his term, the Emp/Pop ratio was 60.6%

    That equals a drop in the Emp/Pop ratio of 4%.

    Obama takes office the Emp/Pop ratio was 60.6%

    Obama does his "magic" for 4 yrs.

    And at the end of his first term the ratio is 58.6%

    That equals a drop in the Emp/Pop ratio of 2%. Half of what Bush accomplished.


    That was easy.

     



    Of what relevance is Bush?  You childish progressives continue with the "yah, well Bush did it, too" as if that innoculates Obama.

     

    They are all bad. But, I must say this, Obama supporters show a complete lack of positive support for the ideas and policies of their chosen leader when they compare him wiht their chosen devil.  It is kinda like they are admitting that Obama is a failure, just not as big a failure as Bush.

    that's some praise.




    Who do you want us to compare a president's performance to?  George Clooney?  If Obama's economy is better than the last guys, and the last guy had a budget surplus, an 8% federal funds rate and a co-operative congress, then he's doing a great job relative to the last guy who had his job.  Who else can you compare him to - the fictional utopian ideal you've built up in your mind?  If we were supermodel-dating millionaires paying no taxes and getting great health care, you'd find some reason why Obama was the worst president in history.

     

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Economically, many think this is the worst administration in history.

    In response to slomag's comment:


    How do you know things would have been fine without the stimulus?  We were losing nearly a million jobs a month - a number that began to drop immediately upon the passage of the stimulus.   



    The TRUTH is that drop started well before any stimulous money ever left Washington

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Economically, many think this is the worst administration in history.

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     


    How do you know things would have been fine without the stimulus?  We were losing nearly a million jobs a month - a number that began to drop immediately upon the passage of the stimulus.   

     



    The TRUTH is that drop started well before any stimulous money ever left Washington

     

     




    It didn't have to - a third of the stimulus was tax breaks, including incentives for retaining employees, that would have changed behavior immediately.  Two-thirds flowed through to the states, and helped stabilize massive layoffs in the public sector at the time.  

    But again - what is it that you guys are saying?  The turn-around had nothing to do with the stimulus, and was purely co-incidental?  Government spending and reducing interest rates have had no effect on recoveries throughout history?  Countries that adopted rejected stimulus or adopted austerity recovered just as quickly as the US?

    The only thing I'm hearing in support of the idea that the stimulus did not work is that other recoveries from far more shallow recessions, addressed by far more drastic stimulus, worked faster.  And that's obviously an idiotic argument.

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Economically, many think this is the worst administration in history.

    In response to slomag's comment:


    But again - what is it that you guys are saying?  



    Yous guys? lol

    Im saying that the argument of "it would have been much worse" is just as unprovable as the argument of "the stimulous did nothing".

    The fact is 4 years and a trillion dollars and counting later our economy is still in very bad shape.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Economically, many think this is the worst administration in history.

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    Facts are facts, cant be disputed by sistersledge's goofy left wing cartoons.Obama presided over the absolute worst recovery from a recession. Obama is in his 5th year as President, his economic policies have failed abysmally.

    Obama was reelected, is Concerned Citizens response. 

    Hey, Concerned, Bush was reelected too, does that by definition make him a good President?

    Bush didnt double food stamps and give away free cell phones to get reelected, either.



    And congress was re-elected at their usual ~90% clip...due in part to their local electoral advantages...despite overall postive approval (and re-election) of POTUS.

    Surely, they're innocent in this whole thing seeing as they control the purse strings.

    But don't say it's because people want congress to be a check on the executive, because: 1) they approve of congress much, much less, 2) they want things to get done and obstructionism to end, and 3) people aren't that sophisticated about political fights, hearing only the garbage spewed out by the broadcast media.

     

     

     

     

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Economically, many think this is the worst administration in history.

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

    This administration essentially viewed the "stimulus" as yet another way to reward it's supporters and punish it's opponents. In fairness, as stimuluses go, this one never had a chance.

     

     



    Does that include the 1/3 of the stimulus bill that were tax cuts...?

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Economically, many think this is the worst administration in history.

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    And congress was re-elected at their usual ~90% clip...due in part to their local electoral advantages...despite overall postive approval (and re-election) of POTUS.

    But don't say it's because people want congress to be a check on the executive, because: 1) they approve of congress much, much less, 2) they want things to get done and obstructionism to end, and 3) people aren't that sophisticated about political fights, hearing only the garbage spewed out by the broadcast media. 

     



    POTUS has a huge advantage as the incumbant too.

     

    Regardless of what anyone thinks; the legislative branch is to provide "check" on the executive branch which creates a political "balance" in the two branches.

    People on the left what left things to get done and the right to stop obstructing.

    People on the right want right things to get done and the right to stop obstructing.

    You are one of those "people" lol

     

     

     

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Economically, many think this is the worst administration in history.

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    And congress was re-elected at their usual ~90% clip...due in part to their local electoral advantages...despite overall postive approval (and re-election) of POTUS.

    But don't say it's because people want congress to be a check on the executive, because: 1) they approve of congress much, much less, 2) they want things to get done and obstructionism to end, and 3) people aren't that sophisticated about political fights, hearing only the garbage spewed out by the broadcast media. 

     



    POTUS has a huge advantage as the incumbant too.

     

    Regardless of what anyone thinks; the legislative branch is to provide "check" on the executive branch which creates a political "balance" in the two branches.

    People on the left what left things to get done and the right to stop obstructing.

    People on the right want right things to get done and the right to stop obstructing.

    You are one of those "people" lol

     

    And the executive is there to provide check on the moronic, perpetually-campaigning congress with its hair spray, sound bites and crazy notions attributable to their crazy constitutents.

    Look, I would be fine with the repubs in the house getting something - anything - done that does not include personal attacks on and vows to impeach POTUS.  

    The unserious IRS hearings trying to link serious allegations of bureaucratic malfeasance on the Prez without ANY evidence whatsoever is just another empty boxcar on this train called a legislature.  

    With every new imagined slight to their delicate sensibilities, congress critters like Issa prove themselves more ridiculous than before.  Some of them have quite clearly lost their minds, and other repubs are noticing.

     

     

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: Economically, many think this is the worst administration in history.

    I am currently reading a book called "The Longest Winter' about the Korean War years and it is amazing the way Republicans truly hated FDR, and his successor Harry Truman. I see a huge parallel in the way Republicans treat Obama amd have treated him right along. General McArthur was a staunch Republican and refused to accept Truman as his Commander- In -Chief to the point where his miscalulations cost many American lives , a very stubborn man who was a legend in his own mind. Sadly, that stubborness exists today as it did in 1950. Democrats will say that teh Bush administration was the "worst" , Repblicans say the Obama administration is "worse", days turn to weeks, weeks to months, months to years, and nothing gets done but a bunch of finger pointing.

    I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it.- Mitch Hedberg.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share