Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AEI Ideas)   Let's take a wee look back at the Obama Administration economic predictions with and without the Stimulus. 5.3% unemployment? That would be absolutely Bush league   (aei-ideas.org) divider line 164
    More: Fail  
•       •       •

2451 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Jul 2012 at 12:09 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



164 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-07-06 10:33:43 AM  
I wholeheartedly support Republicans taking up the banner of George W Bush's economic record.
 
2012-07-06 10:38:57 AM  
Wait, you mean economists got a prediction wrong?????? Say it ain't so!!! Economic predictions are about as useful as prayer.

Link
 
2012-07-06 10:39:17 AM  
The American Enterprise Institute is not "Some Guy", Submitter.
 
2012-07-06 10:40:33 AM  
It's too bad our great leader spent 1.5 years cramming a bloated welfare plan down the throats of the American people when he should have been focused on jobs and the economy.
 
2012-07-06 10:40:45 AM  
whoo boy, freeper friday is coming fast and hard this morning.

a) the obama administration underestimated the severity of the bush recession
b) they revised their estimates accordingly and admitted making a mistake (when was the last time you heard a republican admit a mistake?)
c) without the stimulus (which every single republican in the house voted against), unemployment would've peaked well north of 11 percent, perhaps nearer 16 percent

so, yes, obama predicted that the recovery would greet us as liberators. turns out it requires quite a fight. pretty sad, though, that the enemy we're fighting is the goddamned republican party.
 
2012-07-06 10:40:57 AM  
Let's take a look at who we could have had as our President and VP instead.

Yeesh. Yeah. Obama and Biden still look great.
 
2012-07-06 10:49:57 AM  

BillCo: It's too bad our great leader spent 1.5 years cramming a bloated welfare plan down the throats of the American people when he should have been focused on jobs and the economy.


I love "cramming". Love it, love it. It isn't like health care reform wasn't a major plank on Obama's platform. Who could have saw it coming?

As far as the economy, what percentage of it is related to health care? 20%? Totally unrelated, apparently.

Republicans are children with vision no further than the end of their noses.
 
2012-07-06 10:58:42 AM  
That assumed immediate implementation and without crippling it with minimally productive tax cuts, both of which happened. Also, that prediction was made before the crippling losses of 4Q 2008 that were far worse than anticipated.
 
2012-07-06 10:59:04 AM  
I was thinking 15-20% and deflation without the stimulus. Of course, I probably underestimated the motivation that would have been provided to 30 million American workers feeding their families with bark scraped from trees. We aren't French, after all. Instead of rioting, we probably would have set to work and founded millions more of successful businesses, bringing a new dawn to America.
 
2012-07-06 10:59:23 AM  
And Republicans have done nothing to encourage job growth. Instead, they've focused on attacking women and gays.

The Teabaggers who came to power in 2010 only made things worse by deliberately refusing to raise the debt ceiling until the last possible second, causing the U.S. credit rating to be downgraded. Now they're pulling the same shiat again.
 
2012-07-06 11:03:45 AM  
i149.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-06 11:21:41 AM  
Looks like the economy would have recovered much better if Obama had just done nothing. He really messed things up.
 
2012-07-06 11:22:39 AM  
I disagree with Obama's economic solutions for a variety of reasons. But I can't help but point out that if his economic team got the dark-blue line wrong, they could just as easily have gotten the light-blue line wrong. Yet it seems as if the politically expedient thing is to pretend the light-blue line was an objective Truth upon which every economist agreed, and it's the dark-blue line alone that was wrong.
 
2012-07-06 11:36:21 AM  

SkinnyHead: Looks like the economy would have recovered much better if Obama had just done nothing. He really messed things up.


wow, that's just farking stupid - even for you, SH. most economists think that unemployment would've peaked at between 11 and 16 percent had we not passed the ARRA.

the only "do nothing" thing that might've worked would be to let the bush tax cuts expire - all of them. but that would've effectively raised taxes on the middle class during a tenuous recovery, and that wasn't an option. now we are in recovery, keynesian theory (which, unlike supply-side theory, has actually worked in the past) dictates we start paying this shiat back, which means letting them expire now.
 
2012-07-06 11:59:38 AM  

djkutch: I love "cramming". Love it, love it. It isn't like health care reform wasn't a major plank on Obama's platform. Who could have saw it coming?


Elections have consequences, or so I hear.
 
2012-07-06 12:12:46 PM  

Communist_Manifesto: Wait, you mean economists got a prediction wrong?????? Say it ain't so!!! Economic predictions are about as useful as prayer.

Link


"The only thing worst than an armchair economist...is a professional economist."
 
2012-07-06 12:15:06 PM  

SkinnyHead: Looks like the economy would have recovered much better if Obama had just done nothing.


What exactly are you looking at?
 
2012-07-06 12:15:20 PM  
This shiat again?

These projections were made in January of 09. The 4th quarter GDP contraction was later revised up. And later still the overall 2008 job losses were revised up. In short, the projections were made off of the best available data at the time and that data was an underestimation of how bad things were.

So what you're arguing, Subby, is that the stimulus plan should have been even bigger.
 
2012-07-06 12:17:23 PM  
I, too, am shocked that a stimulus package passed after unemployment numbers went past the predicted high unemployment was not somehow able to go back in time and be instituted in mid-December.
 
2012-07-06 12:17:25 PM  

Arkanaut: SkinnyHead: Looks like the economy would have recovered much better if Obama had just done nothing.

What exactly are you looking at?


If the past is any indication, his anus.
 
2012-07-06 12:17:54 PM  

Arkanaut: SkinnyHead: Looks like the economy would have recovered much better if Obama had just done nothing.

What exactly are you looking at?


Knowing Skinnyhead? The lining of his own colon.
 
2012-07-06 12:18:02 PM  

Aarontology: I wholeheartedly support Republicans taking up the banner of George W Bush's economic record.


FTFA: If the size of the U.S. labor force as a share of the total population was the same as it was when Barack Obama took office-65.7% then vs. 63.8% today-the U-3 unemployment rate would be 10.9%. Even if you take into account that the LFP should be declining as America ages, the unemployment rate would be 10.5%.

Do you really think the unemployed gives a shiatt about a guy who hasn't been president in over 3 years?
 
2012-07-06 12:18:28 PM  

FlashHarry: SkinnyHead: Looks like the economy would have recovered much better if Obama had just done nothing. He really messed things up.

wow, that's just farking stupid - even for you, SH. most economists think that unemployment would've peaked at between 11 and 16 percent had we not passed the ARRA.

the only "do nothing" thing that might've worked would be to let the bush tax cuts expire - all of them. but that would've effectively raised taxes on the middle class during a tenuous recovery, and that wasn't an option. now we are in recovery, keynesian theory (which, unlike supply-side theory, has actually worked in the past) dictates we start paying this shiat back, which means letting them expire now.


But look at what Obama promised. Obama's graph warned that unemployment would go up to 9% if he didn't get his stimulus plan. He promised that spending $800 billion on stimulus would hold unemployment under 8%. That didn't happen. By his own prediction, the stimulus plan made things worse. We would be under 6% right now if it wasn't for Obama failed stimulus plan.
 
2012-07-06 12:18:46 PM  
At this point, we need a Chinese style of government and managed economy.

/sorry
 
2012-07-06 12:21:19 PM  

Cat Food Sandwiches: Aarontology: I wholeheartedly support Republicans taking up the banner of George W Bush's economic record.

FTFA: If the size of the U.S. labor force as a share of the total population was the same as it was when Barack Obama took office-65.7% then vs. 63.8% today-the U-3 unemployment rate would be 10.9%. Even if you take into account that the LFP should be declining as America ages, the unemployment rate would be 10.5%.

Do you really think the unemployed gives a shiatt about a guy who hasn't been president in over 3 years?


This above, No one cares who the President was 3.5 years ago. They care about what this guy, Obama, promised and what he delivered.
 
2012-07-06 12:21:50 PM  

BillCo: It's too bad our great leader spent 1.5 years cramming a bloated welfare plan down the throats of the American people when he should have been focused on jobs and the economy.


You sound awfully bushed Bill.
 
2012-07-06 12:22:13 PM  

SkinnyHead: FlashHarry: SkinnyHead: Looks like the economy would have recovered much better if Obama had just done nothing. He really messed things up.

wow, that's just farking stupid - even for you, SH. most economists think that unemployment would've peaked at between 11 and 16 percent had we not passed the ARRA.

the only "do nothing" thing that might've worked would be to let the bush tax cuts expire - all of them. but that would've effectively raised taxes on the middle class during a tenuous recovery, and that wasn't an option. now we are in recovery, keynesian theory (which, unlike supply-side theory, has actually worked in the past) dictates we start paying this shiat back, which means letting them expire now.

But look at what Obama promised. Obama's graph warned that unemployment would go up to 9% if he didn't get his stimulus plan. He promised that spending $800 billion on stimulus would hold unemployment under 8%. That didn't happen. By his own prediction, the stimulus plan made things worse. We would be under 6% right now if it wasn't for Obama failed stimulus plan.


Yes. That is precisely what can be inferred from that prediction. Its not at all being disingenuous. In no way are you being a complete jackass.
 
2012-07-06 12:22:52 PM  
The best thing the government can do in the face of a recession or economic downturn is NOTHING. Spending other people money - especially borrowed money - just makes it worse.
 
2012-07-06 12:23:56 PM  
We need to subsidize and spur R&D and investment towards developing the quantum computing power necessary to simulate alternate timelines and definitively and conclusively prove that Obama made the wrong decisions at every point in his presidency.
 
2012-07-06 12:24:59 PM  

SkinnyHead: FlashHarry: SkinnyHead: Looks like the economy would have recovered much better if Obama had just done nothing. He really messed things up.

wow, that's just farking stupid - even for you, SH. most economists think that unemployment would've peaked at between 11 and 16 percent had we not passed the ARRA.

the only "do nothing" thing that might've worked would be to let the bush tax cuts expire - all of them. but that would've effectively raised taxes on the middle class during a tenuous recovery, and that wasn't an option. now we are in recovery, keynesian theory (which, unlike supply-side theory, has actually worked in the past) dictates we start paying this shiat back, which means letting them expire now.

But look at what Obama promised. Obama's graph warned that unemployment would go up to 9% if he didn't get his stimulus plan. He promised that spending $800 billion on stimulus would hold unemployment under 8%. That didn't happen. By his own prediction, the stimulus plan made things worse. We would be under 6% right now if it wasn't for Obama failed stimulus plan.


SkinnyHead: FlashHarry: SkinnyHead: Looks like the economy would have recovered much better if Obama had just done nothing. He really messed things up.

wow, that's just farking stupid - even for you, SH. most economists think that unemployment would've peaked at between 11 and 16 percent had we not passed the ARRA.

the only "do nothing" thing that might've worked would be to let the bush tax cuts expire - all of them. but that would've effectively raised taxes on the middle class during a tenuous recovery, and that wasn't an option. now we are in recovery, keynesian theory (which, unlike supply-side theory, has actually worked in the past) dictates we start paying this shiat back, which means letting them expire now.

But look at what Obama promised. Obama's graph warned that unemployment would go up to 9% if he didn't get his stimulus plan. He promised that spending $800 billion on stimulus would hold unemployment under 8%. That didn't happen. By his own prediction, the stimulus plan made things worse. We would be under 6% right now if it wasn't for Obama failed stimulus plan.


img209.imageshack.us
 
2012-07-06 12:25:37 PM  

Wicked Chinchilla: SkinnyHead: FlashHarry: SkinnyHead: Looks like the economy would have recovered much better if Obama had just done nothing. He really messed things up.

wow, that's just farking stupid - even for you, SH. most economists think that unemployment would've peaked at between 11 and 16 percent had we not passed the ARRA.

the only "do nothing" thing that might've worked would be to let the bush tax cuts expire - all of them. but that would've effectively raised taxes on the middle class during a tenuous recovery, and that wasn't an option. now we are in recovery, keynesian theory (which, unlike supply-side theory, has actually worked in the past) dictates we start paying this shiat back, which means letting them expire now.

But look at what Obama promised. Obama's graph warned that unemployment would go up to 9% if he didn't get his stimulus plan. He promised that spending $800 billion on stimulus would hold unemployment under 8%. That didn't happen. By his own prediction, the stimulus plan made things worse. We would be under 6% right now if it wasn't for Obama failed stimulus plan.

Yes. That is precisely what can be inferred from that prediction. Its not at all being disingenuous. In no way are you being a complete jackass.


How is repeating what this President promised being a Jackass? Why are you so angry?
 
2012-07-06 12:27:16 PM  
I blame Obama for not signing the job creating legislation that reached his desk in the last 18 months.
 
2012-07-06 12:27:56 PM  
Hmmm, "some guy" is saying this? This sounds like something NewsBusters or FloorHumper Daily would say. Let's mouse over that link... ahhh, yes, the American Enterprise Institute. Sneaky mods, tricks are for kids!
 
2012-07-06 12:28:17 PM  
Without the stimulus, we'd be absolutely power-f*cked right now.

We know this, because the right-wing alternative is exactly what f*cked us in the first place.

The argument that since the stimulus didn't have the best possible outcome, that we thus should return to digging our own graves with supply-side nonsense policies, is the epitome of wall-licking retarded.
 
2012-07-06 12:28:56 PM  

Rashnu: We need to subsidize and spur R&D and investment towards developing the quantum computing power necessary to simulate alternate timelines and definitively and conclusively prove that Obama made the wrong decisions at every point in his presidency.


You don't need a super computer to prove that. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
 
2012-07-06 12:29:06 PM  
poop
 
2012-07-06 12:29:43 PM  
Too bad about McCain Palin losing. We'd have boots on the ground in Libya looking for Qaddafi, operation Georgian Freedom, a large troop buildup on the Iran border and Osama would still be alive.

A mandatory draft would be required for our military operations freeing up a large number of jobs domestically. Unemployment would be near an all time low.
 
2012-07-06 12:30:19 PM  

BillCo: It's too bad our great leader spent 1.5 years cramming a bloated welfare plan down the throats of the American people when he should have been focused on jobs and the economy.


And yet, you'll be the first to attack him for saving the American auto industry.

F*ck you.
 
2012-07-06 12:31:17 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: The American Enterprise Institute is not "Some Guy", Submitter.


Judging by the comments on that article, it might as well be.
 
2012-07-06 12:31:39 PM  

FlashHarry: whoo boy, freeper friday is coming fast and hard this morning.

a) the obama administration underestimated the severity of the bush recession
b) they revised their estimates accordingly and admitted making a mistake (when was the last time you heard a republican admit a mistake?)
c) without the stimulus (which every single republican in the house voted against), unemployment would've peaked well north of 11 percent, perhaps nearer 16 percent

so, yes, obama predicted that the recovery would greet us as liberators. turns out it requires quite a fight. pretty sad, though, that the enemy we're fighting is the goddamned republican party.


Let's not forget that Europe's woes are a drag on our recovery.
 
2012-07-06 12:35:32 PM  

LarryDan43: Too bad about McCain Palin losing. We'd have boots on the ground in Libya looking for Qaddafi, operation Georgian Freedom, a large troop buildup on the Iran border and Osama would still be alive.

A mandatory draft would be required for our military operations freeing up a large number of jobs domestically. Unemployment would be near an all time low.


Don't leave out Yemen and Somalia.
 
2012-07-06 12:35:39 PM  

Cat Food Sandwiches: Aarontology: I wholeheartedly support Republicans taking up the banner of George W Bush's economic record.

FTFA: If the size of the U.S. labor force as a share of the total population was the same as it was when Barack Obama took office-65.7% then vs. 63.8% today-the U-3 unemployment rate would be 10.9%. Even if you take into account that the LFP should be declining as America ages, the unemployment rate would be 10.5%.

Do you really think the unemployed gives a shiatt about a guy who hasn't been president in over 3 years?


how about IF the size of the labor force as a share of the total population was the same as it was when George Washington took office, then what would the unemployment rate be?
 
2012-07-06 12:35:52 PM  
man, if only Obama could be like Bush and allow the largest terrorist attack on american soil to take place on his watch... then invaded a country that had nothing to do with it spending trillions of dollars WHILST cutting taxes.

history's greatest monster...
 
2012-07-06 12:36:56 PM  

theknuckler_33: FlashHarry: whoo boy, freeper friday is coming fast and hard this morning.

a) the obama administration underestimated the severity of the bush recession
b) they revised their estimates accordingly and admitted making a mistake (when was the last time you heard a republican admit a mistake?)
c) without the stimulus (which every single republican in the house voted against), unemployment would've peaked well north of 11 percent, perhaps nearer 16 percent

so, yes, obama predicted that the recovery would greet us as liberators. turns out it requires quite a fight. pretty sad, though, that the enemy we're fighting is the goddamned republican party.

Let's not forget that Europe's woes are a drag on our recovery.


All of the above does not matter to the average voter. All they care about is how the economy is doing right now and if they have work. You can scream every prediction there was and say see its better. It is not better to most of the American people and that is Obama's problem in November. I don't know if he will win or lose but if the economy does not get any better anytime soon it doesn't look good.
 
2012-07-06 12:37:02 PM  

FlashHarry: SkinnyHead: Looks like the economy would have recovered much better if Obama had just done nothing. He really messed things up.

wow, that's just farking stupid - even for you, SH. most economists think that unemployment would've peaked at between 11 and 16 percent had we not passed the ARRA.

the only "do nothing" thing that might've worked would be to let the bush tax cuts expire - all of them. but that would've effectively raised taxes on the middle class during a tenuous recovery, and that wasn't an option. now we are in recovery, keynesian theory (which, unlike supply-side theory, has actually worked in the past) dictates we start paying this shiat back, which means letting them expire now.


Real Unemployment rate is currently ~15%:
Link
 
2012-07-06 12:38:21 PM  
When all your predictions turn out to be wrong, people should stop listening to your predictions. Democrats just can't accept the blame for their failures.

They're the guy who when asked "what his biggest flaw is" responds with how they're just too darn awesome.
 
2012-07-06 12:39:31 PM  

Mrbogey: When all your predictions turn out to be wrong, people should stop listening to your predictions. Democrats just can't accept the blame for their failures.

They're the guy who when asked "what his biggest flaw is" responds with how they're just too darn awesome.


Is that like "they will greet us as liberators"?

Or is that more like "the war will pay for itself"?

Or, perhaps I'm confused, but maybe it is "I want Osama dead or alive?"

Please let me know
 
2012-07-06 12:40:05 PM  

Arkanaut: SkinnyHead: Looks like the economy would have recovered much better if Obama had just done nothing.

What exactly are you looking at?


probably some undigested fortune cookie residue next to his colon polyps
 
2012-07-06 12:40:21 PM  

FlashHarry: c) without the stimulus (which every single republican in the house voted against), unemployment would've peaked well north of 11 percent, perhaps nearer 16 percent


^^^ this is what Obama apologists actually believe ^^^^


/there is no way to measure a "job saved". When you factor underemployment and others, you see that today's unemployment is really way north of 8.2%. Who here really believes the government reports?
 
2012-07-06 12:41:09 PM  

praymantis: theknuckler_33: FlashHarry: whoo boy, freeper friday is coming fast and hard this morning.

a) the obama administration underestimated the severity of the bush recession
b) they revised their estimates accordingly and admitted making a mistake (when was the last time you heard a republican admit a mistake?)
c) without the stimulus (which every single republican in the house voted against), unemployment would've peaked well north of 11 percent, perhaps nearer 16 percent

so, yes, obama predicted that the recovery would greet us as liberators. turns out it requires quite a fight. pretty sad, though, that the enemy we're fighting is the goddamned republican party.

Let's not forget that Europe's woes are a drag on our recovery.

All of the above does not matter to the average voter. All they care about is how the economy is doing right now and if they have work. You can scream every prediction there was and say see its better. It is not better to most of the American people and that is Obama's problem in November. I don't know if he will win or lose but if the economy does not get any better anytime soon it doesn't look good.


Do you have anything to support this assertion, or are you going by your gut instinct? All indicators right now look very good for Obama.
 
2012-07-06 12:41:48 PM  
I am outraged that President is unable to perform the duties delegated to the legislative branch.

STUPID LIBERAL CONSTITUTION!
 
2012-07-06 12:41:48 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: The argument that since the stimulus didn't have the best possible outcome, that we thus should return to digging our own graves with supply-side nonsense policies, is the epitome of wall-licking retarded.


I absolutely love hearing that from people, in all its forms of stupid.

"Well, we can't get rid of all pollution, so we should just deregulate everything."
"Somebody is going to abuse the unemployment insurance program no matter what we do, so let's get rid of it."
"Our public schools aren't perfect, so we should do away with them and move to a private voucher program."

And my personal favorites are when these people assume that everyone else is stupid enough to follow the same logic.

"Obama didn't get young people their unicorn and puppy, so they'll vote for Romney."
"Immigrants didn't get every last thing they could ever want from Obama, so they'll vote for more Republicans."
"Obama didn't fix every last bit of the mess created by his predecessor, so everyone will vote him out."
"He's not really a friend of the homosexual community, so the gays will vote for Romney."
 
2012-07-06 12:43:03 PM  
Raharu: [TC.jpeg]

In that scenario, does that mean that Obama is Jessie and Tulip is Keynesian Economics?
 
2012-07-06 12:43:47 PM  
The job creators haven't been creating jobs.

Repeal the Bush tax cuts for the top 10% of Americans.
 
2012-07-06 12:44:56 PM  
The economy created just 80,000 jobs in June, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday. But that same month, 85,000 workers left the workforce entirely to enroll in the Social Security Disability Insurance program, according to the Social Security Administration

The U-6 unemployment rate is now up to 14.9%

780,000 more women unemployed today than when Obama took office

Give President Peace Prize (Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, The "Kill List" etc.) a Nobel Prize in Economics.
 
2012-07-06 12:45:55 PM  
Are we in "Recovery Summer" yet?
 
2012-07-06 12:46:46 PM  

qorkfiend: praymantis: theknuckler_33: FlashHarry: whoo boy, freeper friday is coming fast and hard this morning.

a) the obama administration underestimated the severity of the bush recession
b) they revised their estimates accordingly and admitted making a mistake (when was the last time you heard a republican admit a mistake?)
c) without the stimulus (which every single republican in the house voted against), unemployment would've peaked well north of 11 percent, perhaps nearer 16 percent

so, yes, obama predicted that the recovery would greet us as liberators. turns out it requires quite a fight. pretty sad, though, that the enemy we're fighting is the goddamned republican party.

Let's not forget that Europe's woes are a drag on our recovery.

All of the above does not matter to the average voter. All they care about is how the economy is doing right now and if they have work. You can scream every prediction there was and say see its better. It is not better to most of the American people and that is Obama's problem in November. I don't know if he will win or lose but if the economy does not get any better anytime soon it doesn't look good.

Do you have anything to support this assertion, or are you going by your gut instinct? All indicators right now look very good for Obama.


http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

Nate gives him just under 70% odds of winning it today. I wouldn't say the odds look "very good" I would say they look good though (it is still a long ways till november though)
 
2012-07-06 12:46:46 PM  

Stile4aly: This shiat again?

These projections were made in January of 09. The 4th quarter GDP contraction was later revised up. And later still the overall 2008 job losses were revised up. In short, the projections were made off of the best available data at the time and that data was an underestimation of how bad things were.

So what you're arguing, Subby, is that the stimulus plan should have been even bigger.


IIRC, there was talk of Obama wanting a larger stiumulus, but a package that size would have been soundly rejected by Congress
 
2012-07-06 12:48:18 PM  
Republicans are upset that we are not following the Bush model for of lowering unemployment by letting 3,000 citizens get murdered in NYC by terrorists.
 
2012-07-06 12:50:13 PM  

pacified: Republicans are upset that we are not following the Bush model for of lowering unemployment by letting 3,000 citizens get murdered in NYC by terrorists.


0/10
 
2012-07-06 12:50:31 PM  

qorkfiend: praymantis: theknuckler_33: FlashHarry: whoo boy, freeper friday is coming fast and hard this morning.

a) the obama administration underestimated the severity of the bush recession
b) they revised their estimates accordingly and admitted making a mistake (when was the last time you heard a republican admit a mistake?)
c) without the stimulus (which every single republican in the house voted against), unemployment would've peaked well north of 11 percent, perhaps nearer 16 percent

so, yes, obama predicted that the recovery would greet us as liberators. turns out it requires quite a fight. pretty sad, though, that the enemy we're fighting is the goddamned republican party.

Let's not forget that Europe's woes are a drag on our recovery.

All of the above does not matter to the average voter. All they care about is how the economy is doing right now and if they have work. You can scream every prediction there was and say see its better. It is not better to most of the American people and that is Obama's problem in November. I don't know if he will win or lose but if the economy does not get any better anytime soon it doesn't look good.

Do you have anything to support this assertion, or are you going by your gut instinct? All indicators right now look very good for Obama.


Very good really? Right now according to RealClearPolitics, it is going to come down to about 11 states and that is before the news came out about unemployment today. I am not saying he is going to lose but this election will be much tighter than the average MSNBC watcher may think.
 
2012-07-06 12:51:10 PM  

smedley89: pacified: Republicans are upset that we are not following the Bush model for of lowering unemployment by letting 3,000 citizens get murdered in NYC by terrorists.

0/10


You're right, gotta let thousands more die in Iraq and New Orleans.
 
2012-07-06 12:51:35 PM  
Judging by the number of idiots out in force parroting this, I think we just found the Romney campaign talking point for the weekend.
 
2012-07-06 12:51:50 PM  

SkinnyHead: Rashnu: We need to subsidize and spur R&D and investment towards developing the quantum computing power necessary to simulate alternate timelines and definitively and conclusively prove that Obama made the wrong decisions at every point in his presidency.

You don't need a super computer to prove that. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.


Counterfactuals don't work like that. I was hoping to trick the GOP into supporting scientific inquiry but have obviously been foiled by a trite, old-timey saying masquerading as profound. I'd only argue that despite Obama's shortcomings, at this point in the river it'd be foolish to trade horses. Plus he'd likely drown if we did.

/'cause he's black
 
2012-07-06 12:52:25 PM  

praymantis: qorkfiend: praymantis: theknuckler_33: FlashHarry: whoo boy, freeper friday is coming fast and hard this morning.

a) the obama administration underestimated the severity of the bush recession
b) they revised their estimates accordingly and admitted making a mistake (when was the last time you heard a republican admit a mistake?)
c) without the stimulus (which every single republican in the house voted against), unemployment would've peaked well north of 11 percent, perhaps nearer 16 percent

so, yes, obama predicted that the recovery would greet us as liberators. turns out it requires quite a fight. pretty sad, though, that the enemy we're fighting is the goddamned republican party.

Let's not forget that Europe's woes are a drag on our recovery.

All of the above does not matter to the average voter. All they care about is how the economy is doing right now and if they have work. You can scream every prediction there was and say see its better. It is not better to most of the American people and that is Obama's problem in November. I don't know if he will win or lose but if the economy does not get any better anytime soon it doesn't look good.

Do you have anything to support this assertion, or are you going by your gut instinct? All indicators right now look very good for Obama.

Very good really? Right now according to RealClearPolitics, it is going to come down to about 11 states and that is before the news came out about unemployment today. I am not saying he is going to lose but this election will be much tighter than the average MSNBC watcher may think.


You sound...concerned. Very concerned.
 
2012-07-06 12:53:01 PM  
It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future. -- Yogi Berra.
 
2012-07-06 12:53:44 PM  

Sensual Tyrannosaurus: Judging by the number of idiots out in force parroting this, I think we just found the Romney campaign talking point for the weekend.


Reality is the new talking point.
 
2012-07-06 12:54:25 PM  
pacified

Republicans are upset that we are not following the Bush model for of lowering unemployment by letting 3,000 citizens get murdered in NYC by terrorists.


Are you always this stupid or are you making a special effort today?
 
2012-07-06 12:54:39 PM  
Republicans cheer as the economy continues to struggle. More poor, unemployed people with no or inadequate health insurance and other essentials is completely awesome to Republicans because all that matters is beating Obama.
 
2012-07-06 12:55:28 PM  
3599
 
2012-07-06 12:56:09 PM  

patrick767: Republicans cheer as the economy continues to struggle. More poor, unemployed people with no or inadequate health insurance and other essentials is completely awesome to Republicans because all that matters is beating Obama.


It is their stated number one goal, as long as they get that, Rome can burn.
 
2012-07-06 12:59:30 PM  

praymantis: theknuckler_33: Let's not forget that Europe's woes are a drag on our recovery.

All of the above does not matter to the average voter. All they care about is how the economy is doing right now and if they have work. You can scream every prediction there was and say see its better. It is not better to most of the American people and that is Obama's problem in November. I don't know if he will win or lose but if the economy does not get any better anytime soon it doesn't look good.


I would argue it is better to most of the American people. People who didn't lose their job but lost 1/2 the value in their 401K have pretty much been made whole again. Many of the people who lost jobs as of about September 2009 have gotten jobs... roughly 3 million IIRC, we're out of Iraw, OBL is dead, and we're dwindling down in Afghanistan... and our alternative is a guy who is proposing a carbon-copy of Bush's economic agenda.

Sorry, you are right that the economy isn't where most would like it to be, but the other side is basically offering to take us back to 2008, 'the good old days'. No thanks. The other side is going to have to have something to offer, they have offered zilch other than "Obama sucks". That's not going to go far (just like it didn't for Kerry in 2004).
 
2012-07-06 12:59:36 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: BillCo: It's too bad our great leader spent 1.5 years cramming a bloated welfare plan down the throats of the American people when he should have been focused on jobs and the economy.

And yet, you'll be the first to attack him for saving the American auto industry.

F*ck you.


Yep, he sure saved it alright... with TAXPAYERS money.... have you even glanced at GM stock recently? The US Treasury owns around 30% of that crap. It opened at 34.26, rose to as much as 38 and is sitting at 20.22 as of 12:45pm July 6... according to CNN the stock needs to reach 51 before taxpayers break even.

So... who saved the Auto industry? Taxpayers, not Obama... he just had the Treasury write the check.

And he gave how much to Chrysler who then turned around and sold a huge chunk to Fiat, who just the other day increased their share of Chrysler to 61.8% ownership. http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120703-705610.html

Is that how you save the US auto industry? By giving much of Chrysler to Fiat for pennies on the dollar?

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/14/news/economy/romney_gm/index.htm
 
2012-07-06 12:59:44 PM  

pacified: smedley89: pacified: Republicans are upset that we are not following the Bush model for of lowering unemployment by letting 3,000 citizens get murdered in NYC by terrorists.

0/10

You're right, gotta let thousands more die in Iraq and New Orleans.


Oh, the sentiment was interesting, but I think you needed to make your post a bit more drawn out, use some flamboyance.

Republicans are upset that we weren't able to get thousands more off of the unemployment role, such as Obama's predecessor did. Simply crashing more planes into buildings, or ignoring dykes (heh heh, he said dyke) going bad would do the trick nicely.

Still, I think that would be more like a 1/10... lol. But, you see where I'm headed. Not the message, the delivery!
 
2012-07-06 01:00:58 PM  
I don't get what republicans are saying Obama should have done differently. I mean, I gather that they think if he would have cut taxes, then we'd be at 4% unemployment right now.

But that's just stupid. And cutting taxes responsibly means cutting government spending, which will hurt the economy even more. So basically, the republicans must be saying that Obama should have run larger deficits to fix the economy.

I really don't see any policies promoted by Romney that would lead me to believe that he would "fix" the economy any better than Obama.
 
2012-07-06 01:01:46 PM  

soy_bomb: Are we in "Recovery Summer" yet?


www.diff.net
 
2012-07-06 01:02:00 PM  

BillCo: It's too bad our great leader spent...


... getting what little he could through congress amid much gnashing of teeth and wailing of teabaggers (before they realized what their interesting choice in moniker referred to).
 
2012-07-06 01:02:35 PM  

trey101: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: BillCo: It's too bad our great leader spent 1.5 years cramming a bloated welfare plan down the throats of the American people when he should have been focused on jobs and the economy.

And yet, you'll be the first to attack him for saving the American auto industry.

F*ck you.

Yep, he sure saved it alright... with TAXPAYERS money.... have you even glanced at GM stock recently? The US Treasury owns around 30% of that crap. It opened at 34.26, rose to as much as 38 and is sitting at 20.22 as of 12:45pm July 6... according to CNN the stock needs to reach 51 before taxpayers break even.

So... who saved the Auto industry? Taxpayers, not Obama... he just had the Treasury write the check.

And he gave how much to Chrysler who then turned around and sold a huge chunk to Fiat, who just the other day increased their share of Chrysler to 61.8% ownership. http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120703-705610.html

Is that how you save the US auto industry? By giving much of Chrysler to Fiat for pennies on the dollar?

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/14/news/economy/romney_gm/index.htm



What should he have done differently, and how would it have improved the economy?
 
2012-07-06 01:02:49 PM  

patrick767: Republicans cheer as the economy continues to struggle. More poor, unemployed people with no or inadequate health insurance and other essentials is completely awesome to Republicans because all that matters is beating Obama.


The only things that have been shovel ready in Obama's economy are bullshait excuses like this from his brown nosers.
 
2012-07-06 01:04:08 PM  

soy_bomb: patrick767: Republicans cheer as the economy continues to struggle. More poor, unemployed people with no or inadequate health insurance and other essentials is completely awesome to Republicans because all that matters is beating Obama.

The only things that have been shovel ready in Obama's economy are bullshait excuses like this from his brown nosers.



What should Obama have done differently, and how would it have improved the economy?
 
2012-07-06 01:04:08 PM  
In other words, the Obama administration (and, by the way, the consensus among independent economists including the Chicago rat pack and their ideological prodigies who conservatives fall over themselves blowing...who, I can't help but point out, were by and large the same people from whom the administration got their numbers) grossly underestimated the impact of the financial crisis and its fallout.

So, Obama's stimulus plan merely stopped a deflationary spiral opposed to bring us Job Creator Unicorn Hopey Changey Rainbow Fascism Stalin Magic or whatever the fark it is conservatives are babbling about this time in the time span of three years. So Sarah Palin is automatically president, Obama is permakenyan and goes to Guantanamo Bay, we build Real American camps instead of FEMA camps, guns for everyone and the poor, downtrodden Job Creators can come back to American and enjoy FREEDOM and LIBERTY (and by that I mean onshore tax havens galore)?
 
2012-07-06 01:06:06 PM  

Wicked Chinchilla: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

Nate gives him just under 70% odds of winning it today. I wouldn't say the odds look "very good" I would say they look good though (it is still a long ways till november though)


I'd be curious what you'd be saying about how good/bad things look for him if Nate had his odds at just over 30%.
 
2012-07-06 01:07:42 PM  

dosboot: The economy created just 80,000 jobs in June, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday. But that same month, 85,000 workers left the workforce entirely to enroll in the Social Security Disability Insurance program, according to the Social Security Administration

The U-6 unemployment rate is now up to 14.9%

780,000 more women unemployed today than when Obama took office

Give President Peace Prize (Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, The "Kill List" etc.) a Nobel Prize in Economics


It's almost as if an entire political party has brought all its might (including a 24hr media empire) to bear on not only making Obama a one term president (and, in fact, admitting that's their primary goal, not the economy) but also have been purposely trying to wreck the economy toward that end.

No, that's crazy talk...no political body could be so evil as to wish America fails just so the other side doesn't hang on to the White House. Why, those folks would be so evil, they'd spend most of their time trying to limit civil rights and waging a war on the female gender while simultaneously trying to force religion (THEIR religion only) into Government. Nobody is that evil. That's Disney villain bad. That's Doctor Doom level bad. No political party could become so corrupt as to honestly wish harm on millions of Americans...could they?
 
2012-07-06 01:08:36 PM  

Dr. Whoof: dosboot: The economy created just 80,000 jobs in June, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday. But that same month, 85,000 workers left the workforce entirely to enroll in the Social Security Disability Insurance program, according to the Social Security Administration

The U-6 unemployment rate is now up to 14.9%

780,000 more women unemployed today than when Obama took office

Give President Peace Prize (Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, The "Kill List" etc.) a Nobel Prize in Economics

It's almost as if an entire political party has brought all its might (including a 24hr media empire) to bear on not only making Obama a one term president (and, in fact, admitting that's their primary goal, not the economy) but also have been purposely trying to wreck the economy toward that end.

No, that's crazy talk...no political body could be so evil as to wish America fails just so the other side doesn't hang on to the White House. Why, those folks would be so evil, they'd spend most of their time trying to limit civil rights and waging a war on the female gender while simultaneously trying to force religion (THEIR religion only) into Government. Nobody is that evil. That's Disney villain bad. That's Doctor Doom level bad. No political party could become so corrupt as to honestly wish harm on millions of Americans...could they?


No way. If that were true, we'd see employers saying they won't hire until Obama is out of office.
 
2012-07-06 01:08:59 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: The American Enterprise Institute is not "Some Guy", Submitter.


www.biography.com
Corporations are Some Guys, my friend.
 
2012-07-06 01:11:38 PM  

theknuckler_33: Wicked Chinchilla: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

Nate gives him just under 70% odds of winning it today. I wouldn't say the odds look "very good" I would say they look good though (it is still a long ways till november though)

I'd be curious what you'd be saying about how good/bad things look for him if Nate had his odds at just over 30%.


That would be bad.

If it were october and his odds were at 68 I would say they were very good.

Having double the odds of your competitor is a great place to be in. My expectations are tempered by the fact we have most of July, and all of August and September to sit through whilst being inundated by bullshiat.
 
2012-07-06 01:11:41 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: The American Enterprise Institute is not "Some Guy", Submitter.


You must not submit much. Some Guy is the default if there is no Fark Tab for that site. I don't think there is one for American Enterprise Institute.

Must be a conspiracy to confuse and infuriate though.
 
2012-07-06 01:13:34 PM  

trey101: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: BillCo: It's too bad our great leader spent 1.5 years cramming a bloated welfare plan down the throats of the American people when he should have been focused on jobs and the economy.

And yet, you'll be the first to attack him for saving the American auto industry.

F*ck you.

Yep, he sure saved it alright... with TAXPAYERS money.... have you even glanced at GM stock recently? The US Treasury owns around 30% of that crap. It opened at 34.26, rose to as much as 38 and is sitting at 20.22 as of 12:45pm July 6... according to CNN the stock needs to reach 51 before taxpayers break even.

So... who saved the Auto industry? Taxpayers, not Obama... he just had the Treasury write the check.

And he gave how much to Chrysler who then turned around and sold a huge chunk to Fiat, who just the other day increased their share of Chrysler to 61.8% ownership. http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120703-705610.html

Is that how you save the US auto industry? By giving much of Chrysler to Fiat for pennies on the dollar?

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/14/news/economy/romney_gm/index.htm


You speak as if "saving the Auto industry" has no effect other than...what, exactly? Entrenching socialism and a nice feather in Obama's bid for reelection?

Millions of people directly or indirectly work for the Auto industry. Letting that go would mean a further drop in employment and US GDP. Taxpayer INVESTMENT in GM is not a bad thing, especially considering we can hold it until the stock hits 102 (double the break-even point) if we want. The US can hold that stock basically in perpetuity - I'm betting we have many other assets we can sell for beer money before touching the GM nest egg. It's only a loss if we sell under $51; will you be singing Obama's praises if it hits $60 next year?
 
2012-07-06 01:14:01 PM  

dosboot: The U-6 unemployment rate is now up to 14.9%


Love it! It was 16.2% a year ago.
 
2012-07-06 01:16:14 PM  

SkinnyHead: Looks like the economy would have recovered much better if Obama had just done nothing. He really messed things up.


Oh, hey...Where the hell have you been? I thought you were dead. Though now that I think about it, aneurysm ,advanced syphilis, and brain cancer would all explain both your absence and stupidity.


azazyel: Communist_Manifesto: Wait, you mean economists got a prediction wrong?????? Say it ain't so!!! Economic predictions are about as useful as prayer.

Link

"The only thing worst than an armchair economist...is a professional economist."


I second the...
Nah. Worse than a pro economist is an Austrian-school "economist" At least the pros back their shiat up with facts and figures.
 
2012-07-06 01:16:37 PM  
praymantis
Very good really? Right now according to RealClearPolitics, it is going to come down to about 11 states

Oh yeah, Romney's chances in Pennsylvania, Michigan they're lookin' good. And his stance on the auto bailout no doubt will give him a last minute suge in Ohio. Plus, given what a brilliant orator and charismatic guy Romney is, why, anything could happen.

But I was down at the dry cleaners, picking up my brown shirts, and the Small Business Owner slipped me the memo that, just in case that doesn't work out, there's a new plan:

Start saying things like, "if Democrats don't steal the election," and "if they don't commit Chicago-style vote fraud."

That way when...uh, I mean, *if* the dynamic duo of Romney and Gene Eric Whiteguy should lose, we have a narrative. The election was stolen! They didn't let us purge those illegals off the rolls!

And those libby libs, who all cried foul in 2000, why they'll have to accept that we can do the same this time.

So really, when we lose in November, we will have won. Because we have the will. A Triumph of the Will, you could say.
 
2012-07-06 01:17:46 PM  

theknuckler_33: dosboot: The U-6 unemployment rate is now up to 14.9%

Love it! It was 16.2% a year ago.


Heh.

I did see that 85,000 went on disability last month. That seems high doesn't it? Lot of disabled people who just happen to have reached the end of their unemployment benefits....coincidence?

http://news.investors.com/article/617233/201207060945/disability-clim b s-faster-than-jobs-under-obama.htm
 
2012-07-06 01:20:14 PM  

Chummer45: trey101: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: BillCo: It's too bad our great leader spent 1.5 years cramming a bloated welfare plan down the throats of the American people when he should have been focused on jobs and the economy.

And yet, you'll be the first to attack him for saving the American auto industry.

F*ck you.

Yep, he sure saved it alright... with TAXPAYERS money.... have you even glanced at GM stock recently? The US Treasury owns around 30% of that crap. It opened at 34.26, rose to as much as 38 and is sitting at 20.22 as of 12:45pm July 6... according to CNN the stock needs to reach 51 before taxpayers break even.

So... who saved the Auto industry? Taxpayers, not Obama... he just had the Treasury write the check.

And he gave how much to Chrysler who then turned around and sold a huge chunk to Fiat, who just the other day increased their share of Chrysler to 61.8% ownership. http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120703-705610.html

Is that how you save the US auto industry? By giving much of Chrysler to Fiat for pennies on the dollar?

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/14/news/economy/romney_gm/index.htm


What should he have done differently, and how would it have improved the economy?


You come into the conversation with questions? Not a single statement meant to illicit a thoughtful response, just a simple question that would be on a History test for the 6th grade and is completely irrelevant and subject to many interpretations. Sounds much like a question that they ask a Miss America contestant, loaded, no true answer only opinions.

So you have nothing to offer?
 
2012-07-06 01:24:40 PM  
Well Some GuyThe American Enterprise Institute also spent a lot of money and sweat selling the mandatory purchase of health insurance from private vendors as the answer to rotten health care so take everything from them with a grain of salt, AEI's sure to flop on this one too.
 
2012-07-06 01:27:50 PM  

I_C_Weener: theknuckler_33: dosboot: The U-6 unemployment rate is now up to 14.9%

Love it! It was 16.2% a year ago.

Heh.

I did see that 85,000 went on disability last month. That seems high doesn't it? Lot of disabled people who just happen to have reached the end of their unemployment benefits....coincidence?

http://news.investors.com/article/617233/201207060945/disability-clim b s-faster-than-jobs-under-obama.htm


What is interesting from that link:

"fully 3.1 million workers signed up for disability benefits [during Obama's administration].

...

(Even after accounting for people who left the disability program because they died or aged into retirement, the disability ranks have climbed more than 1.1 million in the past three years.)"

2 million that were on SS disability have either died or retired in just the past 3.5 years. Just from the pool of people on SS disability! Yep, the boomer retirement is definitely ramping up and is definitely effecting that labor force participation rate that is so en vogue these days.

Not that any of this has anything to do with your point, I just thought it was interesting.
 
2012-07-06 01:30:28 PM  
patrick767


Republicans cheer as the economy continues to struggle. More poor, unemployed people with no or inadequate health insurance and other essentials is completely awesome to Republicans because all that matters is beating Obama.



That's cute - did you hear your mommy say that?
 
2012-07-06 01:31:19 PM  

I_C_Weener: theknuckler_33: dosboot: The U-6 unemployment rate is now up to 14.9%

Love it! It was 16.2% a year ago.

Heh.

I did see that 85,000 went on disability last month. That seems high doesn't it? Lot of disabled people who just happen to have reached the end of their unemployment benefits....coincidence?

http://news.investors.com/article/617233/201207060945/disability-clim b s-faster-than-jobs-under-obama.htm


It couldn't be that people like my father, who are approaching retirement and are injured aren't deciding to go on Disability to float until they can get Medicare? Naw, it's Obscene OFart Oboner right?
 
2012-07-06 01:31:29 PM  

I_C_Weener: I did see that 85,000 went on disability last month. That seems high doesn't it? Lot of disabled people who just happen to have reached the end of their unemployment benefits....coincidence?

http://news.investors.com/article/617233/201207060945/disability-clim b s-faster-than-jobs-under-obama.htm


Who killed the extension of unemployment benefits?
 
2012-07-06 01:32:54 PM  

Dr. Whoof: dosboot: The economy created just 80,000 jobs in June, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday. But that same month, 85,000 workers left the workforce entirely to enroll in the Social Security Disability Insurance program, according to the Social Security Administration

The U-6 unemployment rate is now up to 14.9%

780,000 more women unemployed today than when Obama took office

Give President Peace Prize (Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, The "Kill List" etc.) a Nobel Prize in Economics

It's almost as if an entire political party has brought all its might (including a 24hr media empire) to bear on not only making Obama a one term president (and, in fact, admitting that's their primary goal, not the economy) but also have been purposely trying to wreck the economy toward that end.

No, that's crazy talk...no political body could be so evil as to wish America fails just so the other side doesn't hang on to the White House. Why, those folks would be so evil, they'd spend most of their time trying to limit civil rights and waging a war on the female gender while simultaneously trying to force religion (THEIR religion only) into Government. Nobody is that evil. That's Disney villain bad. That's Doctor Doom level bad. No political party could become so corrupt as to honestly wish harm on millions of Americans...could they?


Well said, Doctor. Though I would have said "Dalek" bad instead of "Disney villain" bad. Disney villiains tend to show more restraint.

s2s2s2: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: The American Enterprise Institute is not "Some Guy", Submitter.

[www.biography.com image 402x402]
Corporations are Some Guys, my friend.


I have no idea where to put you, so you're purple now.
 
2012-07-06 01:36:46 PM  

pacified: Republicans are upset that we are not following the Bush model for of lowering unemployment by letting 3,000 citizens get murdered in NYC by terrorists.


10/10

The same Republican idiots that throw out hyperbolic statements are responding.

Kudos.
 
2012-07-06 01:43:51 PM  

RsquaredW: I_C_Weener: I did see that 85,000 went on disability last month. That seems high doesn't it? Lot of disabled people who just happen to have reached the end of their unemployment benefits....coincidence?

http://news.investors.com/article/617233/201207060945/disability-clim b s-faster-than-jobs-under-obama.htm

Who killed the extension of unemployment benefits?


Why was it necessary? From that same article...

"The unemployment level has been above 8% for 41 consecutive months. To put that in perspective, in the previous 60 years, the unemployment rate topped 8% in a total of only 39 months."

In the past 60 years we have not seen anything like this. Must be Bush' fault.
 
2012-07-06 01:45:22 PM  

I_C_Weener: Must be Bush' fault.


If you understand, then why are you so upset?
 
2012-07-06 01:46:58 PM  
Based on what I'm reading in this thread, there's nothing left on the barn floor but a red smear and a few feathers.
 
2012-07-06 01:53:32 PM  

Epoch_Zero: I_C_Weener: Must be Bush' fault.

If you understand, then why are you so upset?


I'm sad for America. I guess you aren't. Kind of makes you an inhuman monster. But you know. Not everyone can be a compassionate person hoping for change. :)
 
2012-07-06 01:53:46 PM  

Stile4aly: Based on what I'm reading in this thread, there's nothing left on the barn floor but a red smear and a few feathers.


I can only see those hairlike fibers. I can't even see the feathers themselves...
 
2012-07-06 01:59:00 PM  

I_C_Weener: RsquaredW: I_C_Weener: I did see that 85,000 went on disability last month. That seems high doesn't it? Lot of disabled people who just happen to have reached the end of their unemployment benefits....coincidence?

http://news.investors.com/article/617233/201207060945/disability-clim b s-faster-than-jobs-under-obama.htm

Who killed the extension of unemployment benefits?

Why was it necessary? From that same article...

"The unemployment level has been above 8% for 41 consecutive months. To put that in perspective, in the previous 60 years, the unemployment rate topped 8% in a total of only 39 months."

In the past 60 years we have not seen anything like this. Must be Bush' fault.


i121.photobucket.com

Must be Obama's fault.
 
2012-07-06 02:02:15 PM  

Stile4aly: Based on what I'm reading in this thread, there's nothing left on the barn floor but a red smear and a few feathers.


You were >.< close to receiving a bill for a new keyboard.
 
2012-07-06 02:06:42 PM  

ferretman: Real Unemployment rate is currently ~15%:
Link


FTA: Now here's the really bad news: The LFPR is now at its lowest level since 1983.

so it's at its lowest since reagan was president. that really is bad. and since we're trotting out U6 numbers, let's put them into historical perspective - because we know how "conservatives" love to say, "REAL UNEMPLOYMENT IS 15 PERCENT - THAT'S ONLY TEN PERCENT OFF THE GREAT DEPRESSION!11!!1!!1!!!".

i242.photobucket.com

so, yeah, unemployment isn't good right now. but you'd expect that just 4 years after the worst economic cataclysm since the crash of 1929, coupled with the fact that the republican party is actively trying to crater the US economy. in fact, i'd say it's a miracle it's as low as it is.
 
2012-07-06 02:11:02 PM  

GameSprocket: Must be Obama's fault.


I do put some blame on him and his policies for a less than stellar recovery and a possible double dip starting now. Europe's woes haven't really affected us yet. But they will. And that pretty much ensures a double dip.

And yet, the article and the headline here are simply pushing my point. The guy wasn't just wrong. He was spectacularly wrong and then wrong on the revised outlook. And worse, he uses the same tactics now to push his agenda that he did then, "If you don't pass this, then the sky will fall and dogs and cats will live together starting tommorrow." When tommorrow comes you find out that cats and dogs were already living together, and that his agenda has in fact increased the breeding of cats and dogs.
 
2012-07-06 02:14:31 PM  

Chummer45: soy_bomb: patrick767: Republicans cheer as the economy continues to struggle. More poor, unemployed people with no or inadequate health insurance and other essentials is completely awesome to Republicans because all that matters is beating Obama.

The only things that have been shovel ready in Obama's economy are bullshait excuses like this from his brown nosers.


What should Obama have done differently, and how would it have improved the economy?


Supply-side economics would say that there's not much he could have done. The Stimulus' tax cuts were good, and some "shovel-ready" construction projects. And investing in teachers. And R&D. But anything else was a waste.
 
2012-07-06 02:16:50 PM  
There's a reason economists don't use U-6.

Armchair economists are worse than armchair generals.
 
2012-07-06 02:18:19 PM  

dosboot: The U-6 unemployment rate is now up to 14.9%


Ah yes, the method that Republicans only started to use since January 20, 2009.

Wonder what happened that day which made Republicans so intellectually dishonest about unemployment numbers?
 
2012-07-06 02:18:49 PM  

trey101: Chummer45: trey101: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: BillCo: It's too bad our great leader spent 1.5 years cramming a bloated welfare plan down the throats of the American people when he should have been focused on jobs and the economy.

And yet, you'll be the first to attack him for saving the American auto industry.

F*ck you.

Yep, he sure saved it alright... with TAXPAYERS money.... have you even glanced at GM stock recently? The US Treasury owns around 30% of that crap. It opened at 34.26, rose to as much as 38 and is sitting at 20.22 as of 12:45pm July 6... according to CNN the stock needs to reach 51 before taxpayers break even.

So... who saved the Auto industry? Taxpayers, not Obama... he just had the Treasury write the check.

And he gave how much to Chrysler who then turned around and sold a huge chunk to Fiat, who just the other day increased their share of Chrysler to 61.8% ownership. http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120703-705610.html

Is that how you save the US auto industry? By giving much of Chrysler to Fiat for pennies on the dollar?

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/14/news/economy/romney_gm/index.htm


What should he have done differently, and how would it have improved the economy?

You come into the conversation with questions? Not a single statement meant to illicit a thoughtful response, just a simple question that would be on a History test for the 6th grade and is completely irrelevant and subject to many interpretations. Sounds much like a question that they ask a Miss America contestant, loaded, no true answer only opinions.

So you have nothing to offer?



That's a pretty solid troll, and pretty much sums up the GOP way of handling any serious question asking for solvency to their argument. I applaud you.
 
2012-07-06 02:20:34 PM  

Mrtraveler01: dosboot: The U-6 unemployment rate is now up to 14.9%

Ah yes, the method that Republicans only started to use since January 20, 2009.

Wonder what happened that day which made Republicans so intellectually dishonest about unemployment numbers?


I'm Republican. I don't use U-6. Its usefulness is in extremely narrow employment studies, and it's why economists don't use it as the input for studies that aren't explicitly about employment.
 
2012-07-06 02:22:14 PM  

GameSprocket: Must be Obama's fault.


pjmedia.com
He was in the Senate majority when his party held Congress. So I guess, he could take a little credit.
 
2012-07-06 02:22:21 PM  

Ricardo Klement: There's a reason economists don't use U-6.

Armchair economists are worse than armchair generals.



The punditsphere and internet are chock full of armchair economists who know a tiny bit of economic theory, and use their meager knowledge to drum up whatever arguments/conclusions they want.

Seriously, everyone in America is an expert these days. It's a country where everyone is a sociologist, constitutional scholar, economist, criminal justice expert, climatologist, anthropologist, historian, and political philosopher.
 
2012-07-06 02:22:32 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Mrtraveler01: dosboot: The U-6 unemployment rate is now up to 14.9%

Ah yes, the method that Republicans only started to use since January 20, 2009.

Wonder what happened that day which made Republicans so intellectually dishonest about unemployment numbers?

I'm Republican. I don't use U-6. Its usefulness is in extremely narrow employment studies, and it's why economists don't use it as the input for studies that aren't explicitly about employment.


A Republican who isn't intellectually dishonest?

You're a dying breed. I think you need to go on "endangered" status or something.

And since when did we start treated Investors Business Daily like it's an actual legitimate source?
 
2012-07-06 02:23:47 PM  

soy_bomb: GameSprocket: Must be Obama's fault.

[pjmedia.com image 461x315]
He was in the Senate majority when his party held Congress. So I guess, he could take a little credit.


Why did it take Democrats more than a year to finally kill job numbers?

/stupid talking point is stupid
 
2012-07-06 02:26:02 PM  
My favorite part of all of this is that Romney just talks about his "business experience" to distract everyone from the obvious fact -- his policy positions are mostly indistinguishable from those of George W. Bush.
 
2012-07-06 02:26:28 PM  
Maybe if the Republicans hadn't fought Stimulus every turn of the way and insisted upon time limits and tax cuts, we wouldn't be talking about this.

Oh wait. We would. We're talking about an opposition that finds outrage in Obama putting brown mustard on his hamburgers.
 
2012-07-06 02:28:59 PM  

soy_bomb: GameSprocket: Must be Obama's fault.

[pjmedia.com image 461x315]
He was in the Senate majority when his party held Congress. So I guess, he could take a little credit.



Republicans have had control of the House and have gridlocked the Senate since 2010. They've helped the economy a lot by trying to defund planned parenthood, downgrading U.S. debt over the debt ceiling increase, and voting to find the attorney general in contempt.
 
2012-07-06 02:30:08 PM  

trey101: Chummer45: trey101: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: BillCo: It's too bad our great leader spent 1.5 years cramming a bloated welfare plan down the throats of the American people when he should have been focused on jobs and the economy.

And yet, you'll be the first to attack him for saving the American auto industry.

F*ck you.

Yep, he sure saved it alright... with TAXPAYERS money.... have you even glanced at GM stock recently? The US Treasury owns around 30% of that crap. It opened at 34.26, rose to as much as 38 and is sitting at 20.22 as of 12:45pm July 6... according to CNN the stock needs to reach 51 before taxpayers break even.

So... who saved the Auto industry? Taxpayers, not Obama... he just had the Treasury write the check.

And he gave how much to Chrysler who then turned around and sold a huge chunk to Fiat, who just the other day increased their share of Chrysler to 61.8% ownership. http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120703-705610.html

Is that how you save the US auto industry? By giving much of Chrysler to Fiat for pennies on the dollar?

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/14/news/economy/romney_gm/index.htm


What should he have done differently, and how would it have improved the economy?

You come into the conversation with questions? Not a single statement meant to illicit a thoughtful response, just a simple question that would be on a History test for the 6th grade and is completely irrelevant and subject to many interpretations. Sounds much like a question that they ask a Miss America contestant, loaded, no true answer only opinions.

So you have nothing to offer?


It's a good question. Why won't you answer it? Is it that you have nothing to offer other than "hur hur 0bama"?
 
2012-07-06 02:37:23 PM  
You people are slipping. I searched the whole thread for the word "inherited" and didn't find it once.
 
2012-07-06 02:38:21 PM  

whidbey: Maybe if the Republicans hadn't fought Stimulus every turn of the way and insisted upon time limits and tax cuts, we wouldn't be talking about this.
Oh wait. We would. We're talking about an opposition that finds outrage in Obama putting brown mustard on his hamburgers.


When "The Stimulus" passed, Democrats controlled the House, Democrats controlled the Senate and Democrats controlled the White House. If "The Stimulus" failed, it is a Democrat(ic) failure.
 
2012-07-06 02:47:12 PM  

Dr Dreidel: trey101: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: BillCo: It's too bad our great leader spent 1.5 years cramming a bloated welfare plan down the throats of the American people when he should have been focused on jobs and the economy.

And yet, you'll be the first to attack him for saving the American auto industry.

F*ck you.

Yep, he sure saved it alright... with TAXPAYERS money.... have you even glanced at GM stock recently? The US Treasury owns around 30% of that crap. It opened at 34.26, rose to as much as 38 and is sitting at 20.22 as of 12:45pm July 6... according to CNN the stock needs to reach 51 before taxpayers break even.

So... who saved the Auto industry? Taxpayers, not Obama... he just had the Treasury write the check.

And he gave how much to Chrysler who then turned around and sold a huge chunk to Fiat, who just the other day increased their share of Chrysler to 61.8% ownership. http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120703-705610.html

Is that how you save the US auto industry? By giving much of Chrysler to Fiat for pennies on the dollar?

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/14/news/economy/romney_gm/index.htm

You speak as if "saving the Auto industry" has no effect other than...what, exactly? Entrenching socialism and a nice feather in Obama's bid for reelection?

Millions of people directly or indirectly work for the Auto industry. Letting that go would mean a further drop in employment and US GDP. Taxpayer INVESTMENT in GM is not a bad thing, especially considering we can hold it until the stock hits 102 (double the break-even point) if we want. The US can hold that stock basically in perpetuity - I'm betting we have many other assets we can sell for beer money before touching the GM nest egg. It's only a loss if we sell under $51; will you be singing Obama's praises if it hits $60 next year?


People don't understand how the supply chain works. It's as if GM existed in a vacuum.
 
2012-07-06 02:52:17 PM  

Job Creator: trey101: Chummer45: trey101: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: BillCo: It's too bad our great leader spent 1.5 years cramming a bloated welfare plan down the throats of the American people when he should have been focused on jobs and the economy.

And yet, you'll be the first to attack him for saving the American auto industry.

F*ck you.

Yep, he sure saved it alright... with TAXPAYERS money.... have you even glanced at GM stock recently? The US Treasury owns around 30% of that crap. It opened at 34.26, rose to as much as 38 and is sitting at 20.22 as of 12:45pm July 6... according to CNN the stock needs to reach 51 before taxpayers break even.

So... who saved the Auto industry? Taxpayers, not Obama... he just had the Treasury write the check.

And he gave how much to Chrysler who then turned around and sold a huge chunk to Fiat, who just the other day increased their share of Chrysler to 61.8% ownership. http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120703-705610.html

Is that how you save the US auto industry? By giving much of Chrysler to Fiat for pennies on the dollar?

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/14/news/economy/romney_gm/index.htm


What should he have done differently, and how would it have improved the economy?

You come into the conversation with questions? Not a single statement meant to illicit a thoughtful response, just a simple question that would be on a History test for the 6th grade and is completely irrelevant and subject to many interpretations. Sounds much like a question that they ask a Miss America contestant, loaded, no true answer only opinions.

So you have nothing to offer?

It's a good question. Why won't you answer it? Is it that you have nothing to offer other than "hur hur 0bama"?



I honestly cannot think of any upside to a GOP takeover of the government. They're going to keep running deficits, cutting taxes for the rich, enacting more handouts to corporate and special interests, and may (but probably won't, because it would be too unpopular) gut social services. And, we'll go back to the lax regulation that led to the financial sector chaos in 2007/2008.

Seriously, what does the GOP have to offer nowadays except for vitriolic attacks on and criticism of Obama? I honestly would like to know. I'd much rather have an opposition party with legitimate ideas for solving the country's problems.
 
2012-07-06 02:55:30 PM  

soy_bomb: whidbey: Maybe if the Republicans hadn't fought Stimulus every turn of the way and insisted upon time limits and tax cuts, we wouldn't be talking about this.
Oh wait. We would. We're talking about an opposition that finds outrage in Obama putting brown mustard on his hamburgers.

When "The Stimulus" passed, Democrats controlled the House, Democrats controlled the Senate and Democrats controlled the White House. If "The Stimulus" failed, it is a Democrat(ic) failure.


Pretty sure it was Republican threats to filibuster and demand what they wanted that killed it.

If there was a failure in the Democratic party, it's that they did not purge the Blue Dogs and other conservative elements out of the party.

But you're welcome to keep repeating the lie that the Democrats had Absolute Control over the US government. We'll keep laughing.
 
2012-07-06 03:01:35 PM  
If they have ideas, they aren't telling us. They have no plan, no ideas. If they win and have control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency, look for all Roosevelt-era programs to be defunded. They have no plan for the proles other than "die quickly."

I read a book about the Bush presidency that stated that in 1993, Republicans regarded Clinton's presidency as illegitimate and did what they could to undermine it. Multiply it by a billion now.
 
2012-07-06 03:05:01 PM  

soy_bomb: whidbey: Maybe if the Republicans hadn't fought Stimulus every turn of the way and insisted upon time limits and tax cuts, we wouldn't be talking about this.
Oh wait. We would. We're talking about an opposition that finds outrage in Obama putting brown mustard on his hamburgers.

When "The Stimulus" passed, Democrats controlled the House, Democrats controlled the Senate and Democrats controlled the White House. If "The Stimulus" failed, it is a Democrat(ic) failure.


How do you know it failed? Look, our problems run a lot deeper than "we should have spent $1.2 trillion instead of $800 billion," or "taxes and regulations stifle growth." We have systemic underinvestment in education, infrastructure, science, and technology. We have health care costs that have run amok and devour a huge portion of our GDP. We have huge problems with racial segregation and income inequality. And Washington tends to sit by and do nothing about it. I can at least give Obama props for taking on the healthcare industry. It could cost him re-election, but damnit, at least he made a real effort to reform a sector of the economy that desperately needs reform.

The root of Washington not having many real solutions to the average person's problems is that big money influences elections like no other. A business like Comcast can donate millions of dollars to campaigns each year. Those donations allow it to perpetuate its monopoly and make a ton of money, while giving the shiattiest customer service ever. A firm like Bain capital can cannibalize troubled companies, make millions of dollars, then watch the company go bankrupt (thus imposing a huge cost on everyone else) and simply walk away. And just to sweeten the deal even more, they bought favorable tax treatment on that income through campaign contributions.

Those are just a few examples, but until we make a serious effort to clean up campaign finance (number one priority - get rid of citizens united), it's just going to keep getting worse. We'll have a republican, then democrat, then republican, then democrat, and so on. They'll get in pissing matches, argue about whose gaffes were worse, accuse each other of being fascist/communist/whatever, and the media will eat it all up while providing no substantive coverage. And nothing will get fixed.
 
2012-07-06 03:06:22 PM  

karnal: That's cute - did you hear your mommy say that?


Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Mike Turzai, tea party spokespeople who urged business owners and consumers to not hire or engage in unnecessary commerce until Obama is out of office, pick a conservative talk radio host...

Do we really need to keep a running tally? It'd go right there with the running Republican List of People who Hate America, and the running Full Title and Name of Obama...
 
2012-07-06 03:06:54 PM  

whidbey: soy_bomb: whidbey: Maybe if the Republicans hadn't fought Stimulus every turn of the way and insisted upon time limits and tax cuts, we wouldn't be talking about this.
Oh wait. We would. We're talking about an opposition that finds outrage in Obama putting brown mustard on his hamburgers.

When "The Stimulus" passed, Democrats controlled the House, Democrats controlled the Senate and Democrats controlled the White House. If "The Stimulus" failed, it is a Democrat(ic) failure.

Pretty sure it was Republican threats to filibuster and demand what they wanted that killed it.

If there was a failure in the Democratic party, it's that they did not purge the Blue Dogs and other conservative elements out of the party.

But you're welcome to keep repeating the lie that the Democrats had Absolute Control over the US government. We'll keep laughing.



This thread is full of GOP trolls. You can tell they are trolls because they haven't been able to identify a single goddamn thing that the republicans have pushed for in the past 2 years (while they controlled the house) that would have actually helped the economy more than anything Obama did.
 
2012-07-06 03:09:49 PM  

Chummer45: This thread is full of GOP trolls. You can tell they are trolls because they haven't been able to identify a single goddamn thing that the republicans have pushed for in the past 2 years (while they controlled the house) that would have actually helped the economy more than anything Obama did.


Well I dunno...according to Fark, there are no trolls, only people who disagree with you, and I have a habit of getting timeouts when I try to object to this policy, so I'm playing Debater these days, trying to at least shoot down a dumb argument when I hear it, ostensibly to great lulz and greasy keyboard noises on the other end.
 
2012-07-06 03:15:05 PM  
that bosnian sniper


karnal: That's cute - did you hear your mommy say that?

Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Mike Turzai, tea party spokespeople who urged business owners and consumers to not hire or engage in unnecessary commerce until Obama is out of office, pick a conservative talk radio host...

Do we really need to keep a running tally? It'd go right there with the running Republican List of People who Hate America, and the running Full Title and Name of Obama...



....from the warped mind of a clueless liberal.
 
2012-07-06 03:16:31 PM  

whidbey: Chummer45: This thread is full of GOP trolls. You can tell they are trolls because they haven't been able to identify a single goddamn thing that the republicans have pushed for in the past 2 years (while they controlled the house) that would have actually helped the economy more than anything Obama did.

Well I dunno...according to Fark, there are no trolls, only people who disagree with you, and I have a habit of getting timeouts when I try to object to this policy, so I'm playing Debater these days, trying to at least shoot down a dumb argument when I hear it, ostensibly to great lulz and greasy keyboard noises on the other end.


I don't debate their idiocy. Just point and laugh. I treat them the way I treat Holocaust-deniers and people that think the moon landing was staged. That and I have a heavy hand on the ignore button. I don't take their arguments seriously.

There are some thoughtful conservatives that post here from time to time but when the chips are down most default to derp.
 
2012-07-06 03:19:38 PM  
i457.photobucket.com

Seems like you need a Bachelor's degree to succeed these days...
 
2012-07-06 03:30:19 PM  
Job Creator

whidbey: Chummer45: This thread is full of GOP trolls. You can tell they are trolls because they haven't been able to identify a single goddamn thing that the republicans have pushed for in the past 2 years (while they controlled the house) that would have actually helped the economy more than anything Obama did.

Well I dunno...according to Fark, there are no trolls, only people who disagree with you, and I have a habit of getting timeouts when I try to object to this policy, so I'm playing Debater these days, trying to at least shoot down a dumb argument when I hear it, ostensibly to great lulz and greasy keyboard noises on the other end.

I don't debate their idiocy. Just point and laugh. I treat them the way I treat Holocaust-deniers and people that think the moon landing was staged. That and I have a heavy hand on the ignore button. I don't take their arguments seriously.

There are some thoughtful conservatives that post here from time to time but when the chips are down most default to derp.



What do the liberals do when the chips are down?

Tax and Spend?
Change the rules?
Bust out the race card?
Call for tolerance from the other side as they are intolerant of the other side?
Hit the ignore button?
 
2012-07-06 03:31:32 PM  

meat0918: Seems like you need a Bachelor's degree to succeed these days...


elitist!
 
2012-07-06 03:32:24 PM  

karnal: What do the liberals do when the chips are down?


Clean up the Republicans' mess?
 
2012-07-06 03:39:26 PM  

karnal: Job Creator

whidbey: Chummer45: This thread is full of GOP trolls. You can tell they are trolls because they haven't been able to identify a single goddamn thing that the republicans have pushed for in the past 2 years (while they controlled the house) that would have actually helped the economy more than anything Obama did.

Well I dunno...according to Fark, there are no trolls, only people who disagree with you, and I have a habit of getting timeouts when I try to object to this policy, so I'm playing Debater these days, trying to at least shoot down a dumb argument when I hear it, ostensibly to great lulz and greasy keyboard noises on the other end.

I don't debate their idiocy. Just point and laugh. I treat them the way I treat Holocaust-deniers and people that think the moon landing was staged. That and I have a heavy hand on the ignore button. I don't take their arguments seriously.

There are some thoughtful conservatives that post here from time to time but when the chips are down most default to derp.


What do the liberals do when the chips are down?

Tax and Spend?
Change the rules?
Bust out the race card?
Call for tolerance from the other side as they are intolerant of the other side?
Hit the ignore button?


And...another conservative proves they aren't to be taken seriously.
 
2012-07-06 03:44:44 PM  

Job Creator: karnal: Job Creator

whidbey: Chummer45: This thread is full of GOP trolls. You can tell they are trolls because they haven't been able to identify a single goddamn thing that the republicans have pushed for in the past 2 years (while they controlled the house) that would have actually helped the economy more than anything Obama did.

Well I dunno...according to Fark, there are no trolls, only people who disagree with you, and I have a habit of getting timeouts when I try to object to this policy, so I'm playing Debater these days, trying to at least shoot down a dumb argument when I hear it, ostensibly to great lulz and greasy keyboard noises on the other end.

I don't debate their idiocy. Just point and laugh. I treat them the way I treat Holocaust-deniers and people that think the moon landing was staged. That and I have a heavy hand on the ignore button. I don't take their arguments seriously.

There are some thoughtful conservatives that post here from time to time but when the chips are down most default to derp.


What do the liberals do when the chips are down?

Tax and Spend?
Change the rules?
Bust out the race card?
Call for tolerance from the other side as they are intolerant of the other side?
Hit the ignore button?

And...another conservative proves they aren't to be taken seriously.


What's sad is that you USED to be able to take him seriously, like cman. Unfortunately, they've both started walking up the retard red ladder. I tried to stop cman from going over the edge (or was that someone else?), but he's showing signs of stage two derpititis.
 
2012-07-06 03:50:35 PM  
Let's take a wee look back at the Obama Administration economic predictions with and without the Stimulus. 5.3% unemployment? That would be absolutely Bush league

Looks like someone did. Then tried to clean it up before posting it online.
 
2012-07-06 03:58:40 PM  

pacified: man, if only Obama could be like Bush and allow the largest terrorist attack on american soil to take place on his watch... then invaded a country that had nothing to do with it spending trillions of dollars WHILST cutting taxes.

history's greatest monster...


Since we are told to add the trillions of dollars added to the deficit on the war that had to be added during the Obama administration we might as well blame him for the war too. See the economy was much better when we simply didn't add that money to the budget report. Obama therefore is an evil multitrillion dollar money waster.

Heard that he also gave Delilah hairdressing lessons. That bastard.
 
MFL
2012-07-06 04:30:29 PM  

Chummer45

This thread is full of GOP trolls. You can tell they are trolls because they haven't been able to identify a single goddamn thing that the republicans have pushed for in the past 2 years (while they controlled the house) that would have actually helped the economy more than anything Obama did.

They passed a budget.
 
MFL
2012-07-06 04:50:10 PM  
Job Creator
If they have ideas, they aren't telling us. They have no plan, no ideas. If they win and have control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency, look for all Roosevelt-era programs to be defunded. They have no plan for the proles other than "die quickly."

That's just democrat talking point garbage. No plan? really...

I read a book about the Bush presidency that stated that in 1993, Republicans regarded Clinton's presidency as illegitimate and did what they could to undermine it. Multiply it by a billion now.

Democrats did the same thing to George W Bush. It's called politics.

but then again it's only considered "partisan" when the progressives lose.
 
2012-07-06 04:58:25 PM  
according to Fark, there are no trolls

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA no.
 
2012-07-06 05:01:18 PM  
hey subby, no need to call 0bama out on his predictions and lack of results.

we get it, he's a hack
 
2012-07-06 05:02:44 PM  

GameSprocket: karnal: What do the liberals do when the chips are down?

Clean up the Republicans' mess?


remind me again who controlled the house and senate since Jan 2007?
 
2012-07-06 05:39:30 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: GameSprocket: karnal: What do the liberals do when the chips are down?

Clean up the Republicans' mess?

remind me again who controlled the house and senate since Jan 2007?


The mess started before then, you tool.

Remind me again who's been playing "obstructionist farks" since Jan 2009?
 
2012-07-06 05:41:30 PM  
Has Romney indicated what he's going to do to fix it?

His record of sending jobs overseas doesn't make me confident.
 
2012-07-06 05:53:17 PM  

MFL: That's just democrat talking point garbage. No plan? really...


LOL! You need to include the handy flowchart.

images2.dailykos.com
 
2012-07-06 06:33:55 PM  

Fart_Machine: MFL: That's just democrat talking point garbage. No plan? really...

LOL! You need to include the handy flowchart.

[images2.dailykos.com image 308x444]


HOW did I miss his post earlier...looks like I have a new red guy...
 
2012-07-06 07:16:33 PM  
img837.imageshack.us
 
2012-07-06 07:24:17 PM  
Somebody pointed out today that in 2004 Obama was decrying Bush for touting jobs numbers at precisely this same point in his presidency.

Those numbers being 315,000 as compared the 85,000 Obama can "boast" for the same period.

The entire summer campaign of 2004 was dedicated to Democrats running ads about Bush record on jobs and nobody seemed to remember the tech bubble that burst right before Bush took office or the economic problems created by the 9/11 attacks... No, it was clearly ALL Bush.

These days of course Obama isn't to blame for anything what so ever.
 
2012-07-06 09:06:51 PM  
Obama administration repeats same jobs line-for the 30th month
By Chris Moody, Yahoo! News

When the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced the nation's latest national employment figures Friday, the Obama administration stressed that people should not "read too much" into the data.

Mitt Romney's campaign pounced, and flagged the fact that the White House has repeated that same line nearly every month since November 2009.

See below for the roundup of articles from WhiteHouse.gov that Romney's campaign posted on its site. In many of the posts, the authors for the administration do acknowledge that they repeat themselves:

June 2012: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is informative to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/07/06/employment-situation-june)
May 2012: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/06/01/employment-situation-may)
April 2012: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/05/04/employment-situation-april)
March 2012: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/04/06/employment-situation-march)
February 2012: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report; nevertheless, the trend in job market indicators over recent months is an encouraging sign." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/03/09/employment-situation-februar y)
January 2012: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report; nevertheless, the trend in job market indicators over recent months is an encouraging sign." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/02/03/employment-situation-january )
December 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/01/06/employment-situation-decembe r)
November 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/12/02/employment-situation-novembe r)
October 2011: "The monthly employment and unemployment numbers are volatile and employment estimates are subject to substantial revision. There is no better example than August's jobs figure, which was initially reported at zero and in the latest revision increased to 104,000. This illustrates why the Administration always stresses it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/11/04/employment-situation-october )
September 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/10/07/employment-situation-septemb er)
August 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/09/02/employment-situation-august)
July 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/08/05/employment-situation-july)
June 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/07/08/employment-situation-june)
May 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/06/03/employment-situation-may)
April 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/05/06/employment-situation-april)
March 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/01/employment-situation-march)
February 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/03/04/employment-situation-februar y)
January 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/02/04/employment-situation-january )
December 2010: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/01/07/employment-situation-decembe r)
November 2010: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/12/03/employment-situation-novembe r)
October 2010: "Given the volatility in monthly employment and unemployment data, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/11/05/employment-situation-october )
September 2010: "Given the volatility in the monthly employment and unemployment data, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/10/08/employment-situation-septemb er)
July 2010: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.  It is essential that we continue our efforts to move in the right direction and replace job losses with robust job gains." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/08/06/employment-situation-july)
August 2010: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/09/03/employment-situation-august)
June 2010: "As always, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/07/02/employment-situation-june)
May 2010: "As always, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/06/04/employment-situation-may)
April 2010: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/05/07/employment-situation-april)
March 2010: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/04/02/employment-situation-march)
January 2010: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/02/05/employment-situation-january )
November 2009: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/12/04/employment-situation-novembe r)

Moral: NEVER send a community organizer to do a PRESIDENT's job!
 
2012-07-06 09:45:45 PM  

tony41454: I cannot read where it tells me to look at all the reports in an aggregate, so I'll just say that Obama says not to care what the numbers say.


Yeah, I noticed. Lucky for you, I found a graph and table that lists them as an aggregate total. Wouldn't ya know it, Unemployment rates have been going down slowly but surely ever since we got out of the recession in the middle of '09, and it even looks like it might be picking up speed.
 
2012-07-06 09:53:40 PM  

pacified: You're right, gotta let thousands more die in Iraq and New Orleans.


Okay, 1/10 for effort.
 
2012-07-06 11:46:05 PM  

randomjsa: Somebody pointed out today that in 2004 Obama was decrying Bush for touting jobs numbers at precisely this same point in his presidency.

Those numbers being 315,000 as compared the 85,000 Obama can "boast" for the same period.

The entire summer campaign of 2004 was dedicated to Democrats running ads about Bush record on jobs and nobody seemed to remember the tech bubble that burst right before Bush took office or the economic problems created by the 9/11 attacks... No, it was clearly ALL Bush.

These days of course Obama isn't to blame for anything what so ever.


People were upset with Bush because he took a relatively mild recession and turned it into multi year unemployment. It would have taken some very simple government measures to turn things around, but instead he pushed tax cuts for the rich.

Obama inherited an economy in freefall and has produced nearly 30 straight months of private sector growth. If the Republicans would agree to any form of additional spending to help states retain teachers and government employees, unemployment would drop by 1% overnight. Instead, they've made the political calculation that if they sit on their hands they can blame the President for the anemic growth.
 
2012-07-07 12:16:35 AM  

Stile4aly: randomjsa: Somebody pointed out today that in 2004 Obama was decrying Bush for touting jobs numbers at precisely this same point in his presidency.

Those numbers being 315,000 as compared the 85,000 Obama can "boast" for the same period.

The entire summer campaign of 2004 was dedicated to Democrats running ads about Bush record on jobs and nobody seemed to remember the tech bubble that burst right before Bush took office or the economic problems created by the 9/11 attacks... No, it was clearly ALL Bush.

These days of course Obama isn't to blame for anything what so ever.

People were upset with Bush because he took a relatively mild recession and turned it into multi year unemployment. It would have taken some very simple government measures to turn things around, but instead he pushed tax cuts for the rich.

Obama inherited an economy in freefall and has produced nearly 30 straight months of private sector growth. If the Republicans would agree to any form of additional spending to help states retain teachers and government employees, unemployment would drop by 1% overnight. Instead, they've made the political calculation that if they sit on their hands they can blame the President for the anemic growth.


B-b-b-but-but Soshulizms!!!1!1!one!1eleventyone!1!!!
 
2012-07-07 01:14:56 AM  

friday13: Wouldn't ya know it, Unemployment rates have been going down slowly but surely ever since we got out of the recession in the middle of '09, and it even looks like it might be picking up speed


Oh..... *SNAP*
 
2012-07-07 02:52:22 AM  

Lando Lincoln: Let's take a look at who we could have had as our President and VP instead.

Yeesh. Yeah. Obama and Biden still look great.


THIS.

/seriously we all expected McCain to have jumped on the Senile Express by now, leaving us with President Caribou.
 
2012-07-07 03:08:04 AM  

SkinnyHead: We would be under 6% right now if it wasn't for Obama failed stimulus plan.


I'm sure you have proof of that claim. (who am I kidding?)

I have yet to see anyone explain how they know that we'd have a peachy keen economy right now if Obama had just done [whatever]. The 2008 recession was the second worst in American history, so someone surely can explain why we should expect to have recovered in only a couple of years, when the Great Depression recovery took over a decade.

What I see is corporations hoarding cash and refusing to hire, because Obama might raise their taxes or some nonsense. Instead of taking a lead in moving the recovery along, they're acting like a 10 year old who tells the neighborhood kids that if he doesn't get to be quarterback, he's going to take his ball and go home.
 
2012-07-07 05:45:52 AM  

ImpendingCynic: SkinnyHead: We would be under 6% right now if it wasn't for Obama failed stimulus plan.

I'm sure you have proof of that claim. (who am I kidding?)

I have yet to see anyone explain how they know that we'd have a peachy keen economy right now if Obama had just done [whatever]. The 2008 recession was the second worst in American history, so someone surely can explain why we should expect to have recovered in only a couple of years, when the Great Depression recovery took over a decade.

What I see is corporations hoarding cash and refusing to hire, because Obama might raise their taxes or some nonsense. Instead of taking a lead in moving the recovery along, they're acting like a 10 year old who tells the neighborhood kids that if he doesn't get to be quarterback, he's going to take his ball and go home.


Ok, there's some right here and some wrong here. Your first paragraph is pretty much correct. The supply-side, classic economics model says, in fact, that government should do basically nothing in response to short-term recessions, with perhaps the exception of spending and tax cuts. Even then, though, it sggests that if spending and taxes are where they are supposed to be, then nothing at all.

So, really, they should be complaining that Obama should do nothing, not something.

But the notion of sitting on cash is really mired in not thinking through what that means. They don't stuff it into mattresses, because miney loses value due to inflation. So they deposit it in a bank. Banks don't like to sit on money for the same reason. In a year, that's how you turn $1,000,000,000 into $975,000,000. Successful banks try to avoid doing that. So they lend it out. And loans to businesses either save or create jobs. Loans to consumers mean they spend money and save or create jobs.

Sitting on cash being responsible for the problem is a bit of a myth.
 
2012-07-07 10:34:28 AM  

whidbey: friday13: Wouldn't ya know it, Unemployment rates have been going down slowly but surely ever since we got out of the recession in the middle of '09, and it even looks like it might be picking up speed

Oh..... *SNAP*


Is that a "dammit, he beat me to it" or a "Dayum, you just got told" snap?
 
2012-07-07 06:59:45 PM  

BillCo: It's too bad our great leader spent 1.5 years cramming a bloated welfare plan down the throats of the American people when he should have been focused on jobs and the economy.


Hey Billco, can I interview you for a story about the right-wing's perspective on why Obama shouldn't be re-elected?
 
Displayed 164 of 164 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report