The President Obama Thread: "Election Year" Edition III

[Arc-Light]

Because we are still in the hole, and the policies of both of these men will simply dig the hole deeper. He hasn't gotten us out of anything, he has spent more than all of his predecessors combined....so "not a good standing..." still holds.

Hmm sometimes i think am i the only person in the us that understood when BO took over in 2008 that he would have the biggest, worst economic rebuilding job than all of his predecessors combined.......i think i am the only one who took to heart when he said " this wont be easy or fast" in terms of recovery...if anyone thought this would be quick is down right moronic...i see a 10-15 year recovery.....and for me it is the math, Mittens math DOESN'T ADD UP TO A FASTER RECOVERY THAN OBAMA'S...

 

[Spider‐Man]

Unemployment went up this month because more people have entered the labor force due to the positive upswing the economy has taken.

This sentence makes absolutely no sense.

Since you like to use unbiased links, I'll hook you up with this one from an outlet that is historically fiscally conservative.
http://www.economist.com/news/leade...-fit-bill-which-one?fsrc=scn/rd_ec/which_one_

Here's is part of the ecnomist's mandate:
When the newsmagazine was founded, the term "economism" denoted what would today be termed "economic liberalism". The Economist generally supports, free trade, globalisation,[21] and free immigration, legalised drugs and prostitution.[citation needed] It has been described as neo-liberal

Sounds really fiscally conservative to me!

And I ****ing hate the word entitlement. Why do we live in a society that praises those who exploit tax loopholes to become rich, yet look down upon people who need help? I just don't get republicans. "Want to not have that child? Well, we're going to force you to have it. Want some help when you have to raise that child? Well then you're a lazy moocher who needs a job."

I'm not even going to respond to your misunderstanding of the stance that conservatives have on the unplanned pregnancy issue. This is the wrong thread. I'll just say your view is very myopic.

At least it becomes clearer where you stand. I don't praise anyone who 'exploits' tax loopholes. That's like saying I 'exploit' the tax loophole that let's me right off my kid's daycare expenses. Did obama close any of those loopholes? No.

So you believe it is acceptable for all of the people who are currently on social programs to be so? Legal citizens and illegal citizens all? Over 40% of the country? If this is acceptable to you, obama is certainly the person you should vote for.

 

[warhorse78]

I've been saying the same thing for years That has never made sense to me. Force the woman to have the child but if she has no family or support network to raise that kid they're going to get demonized as "takers" when she needs government assistance.

George Carlin has a really funny stand up. Just youtube George Carlin on Abortion.

 

[enterthemadness]

This sentence makes absolutely no sense.

.

Unemployment only counts people who are looking for work and/or receive unemployment checks. Thus more people look for work, rate goes up.

 

[TheOnlyOmega]

Here's is part of the ecnomist's mandate:
When the newsmagazine was founded, the term "economism" denoted what would today be termed "economic liberalism". The Economist generally supports, free trade, globalisation,[21] and free immigration, legalised drugs and prostitution.[citation needed] It has been described as neo-liberal

Sounds really fiscally conservative to me!

Because an outlet that endorsed Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole, and George W. Bush is neo-liberal.

I'm not even going to respond to your misunderstanding of the stance that conservatives have on the unplanned pregnancy issue. This is the wrong thread. I'll just say your view is very myopic.

Misunderstand? I understand it pretty clearly, conservatives have no grasp on how the human body works and their religious views cloud their judgement.

At least it becomes clearer where you stand. I don't praise anyone who 'exploits' tax loopholes. That's like saying I 'exploit' the tax loophole that let's me right off my kid's daycare expenses. Did obama close any of those loopholes? No.

There's a big difference between 10,000 people saving $200 and one person saving $2,000,000 via a tax loophole.

So you believe it is acceptable for all of the people who are currently on social programs to be so? Legal citizens and illegal citizens all? Over 40% of the country? If this is acceptable to you, obama is certainly the person you should vote for.

Do you believe it is acceptable for millions of people to suffer because they can't get food, can't pay their bills, and have to endure poverty while a president cuts their benefits to save the rich more money? If this is acceptable to you, Romney is the person you should vote for.

 

[dnno1]

You'd be surprised how many minds can be changed in the last day with an ad blitz announcing job growth or unemployment rate rising.



It is still a rise in unemployment and that is what people will see. Unemployment rose despite 171,000 new jobs? Whatever the reason, the average voter is not an economist who will rationalize it. They will see Romney's last minute blitz and panic and that is what the Romney camp will count on.

I warned this might happen. More jobs go up, and people think things are great, so participation goes up. So greater job growth, unemployment starts spiking. Comical paradox. It's what you get for gaming the numbers.

Since Obama's term, something to the effect, for every job created, 8 people stopped participating in the labor force (not counted as unemployed).

I am pretty sure that most voters had their minds made up before the first debate and that anyone who claims to be undecided today are either not really interested in voting or are just saying that to avoid being partisan. it is doubtfull that any new ads are going to change people's minds now.

As far as the jobs numbers go, the reason why unemployment ticked up by one tenth of a percentage point is because 500,000 people re-entered the job market after seeing the last two month's rise in employment. It is really sad that there are people who try to spin the increase as a negative instead of actually analyzing the fact surrounding the increase. If more people have decided to go back into the job market it obviously means that job seekers have more confidence in the job market and that people are getting jobs. It would be a different story if the economy lost jobs and the unemployment numbers corresponded with increase. That's not what happened last month.

 

[SV Fan]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

Going by some recent polls I am guessing New Hampshire will go Obama, giving O the entire northeast

Gravis Marketing Obama 50, Romney 49 Obama +1
New England College Obama 50, Romney 44 Obama +6

RCP has Obama up an average of 1.8

 

[Fading]

Unemployment only counts people who are looking for work and/or receive unemployment checks. Thus more people look for work, rate goes up.

Yeah. 100 ppl looking, 10 ppl not working = 10% unemployment. Suddenly 50 new ppl join the hunt for a job. 150 ppl looking, 60 ppl (the old 10 + the new 50 who just entered the data) not working = over 33% unemployment. More ppl were included in the data this month as more ppl are now looking for work again. These ppl don't enter the data already employed, as they're still looking, when they weren't before.

Half a year ago we were adding 67k jobs a month. This month we added 177k, with the expectation being 125k. A lot of those new ppl who were added to unemployment data this month are ppl who were previously discouraged from looking for work. Suddenly they started looking again, which means they think it's worth job hunting again.

This is actually better than expected news, despite the unemployment number taking a .1% dip. It's still not great though, but I doubt it hurts/helps Obama or Romney. Atleast not in the election. It's still under 8%, so it can't really be used as a talking point as 8% seems to be the go to number, for whatever reason, apparently .1% or .2% is a huge difference, lol.

 

[Fading]

You do understand that the value of money changes over time correct? Reagans spending worked out well, what is the basis for your view that Obama's won't?

My reasoning for the economy being out of the hole, is because, it just is. Do you remember how bad the economy was in 2008? How about the stock market? Banks? The Auto Industry? The housing market?

What is you're reasoning that the economy isn't better? I'd like to hear one legitimate reason that isn't crying about debt.

Agreed about the economy being better. It's not great, and it could have been better, but it's improving. We still have a long way to go. When you compare it to what Obama came in to though. We were losing 250k+ jobs a month, now we're gaining 175K+ jobs a month. We were on a spiral to a second great depression, yet we never actually entered it. As you said, several industries on the verge of failure are now thriving, or atleast doing better.

Things have improved, I think the question to most is if it's enough. It's easy to forget where we were, and get impatient for things to improve faster. Personally, I'd take some improvement over everything having continued down the road we were on. Which I think is why Ohio is trending Obama. Saving the auto industry put Ohio in a much better place than they were when Bush left office.

That said, the debt does worry me. We're 6 trillion more in debt than we were. So 6 trillion more to dig out of. Even if some of that spending helped, it's still not good to be that much deeper in debt. Also, a lot of jobs added aren't paying as well as jobs that left. We do have a long way to go, and aren't in an ideal situation. However, I'm not seeing everything in a negative light as a lot of ppl are. 4 years ago we were talking about how the US was heading towards complete failure, now we're talking about how it's not recovering fast enough. That atleast says something.

 

[TheOnlyOmega]

While the debt is bad, its like everyone just sees that number and none of the progress the country has made since 2008.

 

[Paradoxium]

I am pretty sure that most voters had their minds made up before the first debate and that anyone who claims to be undecided today are either not really interested in voting or are just saying that to avoid being partisan. it is doubtfull that any new ads are going to change people's minds now.

As far as the jobs numbers go, the reason why unemployment ticked up by one tenth of a percentage point is because 500,000 people re-entered the job market after seeing the last two month's rise in employment. It is really sad that there are people who try to spin the increase as a negative instead of actually analyzing the fact surrounding the increase. If more people have decided to go back into the job market it obviously means that job seekers have more confidence in the job market and that people are getting jobs. It would be a different story if the economy lost jobs and the unemployment numbers corresponded with increase. That's not what happened last month.

I find it humorous people try to downplay participation, but when it cuts the other way against Obama, it becomes important. At least I pointed this out months ago, maybe even last year. It cuts both way.

Employment rate is still low, and when more people start re-entering the market based on the false idea of jobs recovery, all that BS people were spinning the last couple months? It's gonna come back and bite them in the ass.

Why else am I rooting for Obama. I want him to live down his actions, along with all the people who were carrying water for him. Going to love watching the spin.


Hello Lady Karma.

 

[Paradoxium]

Soooooo where were all you people, when participation was plummeting? Why so serious when it goes up now?

 

[kaypain]

[YT]KdHVf2jUcko[/YT]

I got to shake his hand!


Is it me, or does the video look likes it's green screen ...

 

[ShaDynasty]

Objectively saying that the U.S. is in a better place now than it was four years ago is preposterous. The left will make cases for it being better, the right will make cases for it being worse. There are arguments for both sides.

Omega, you do realize that your argument for re-electing Obama contradicts itself, right? Obama is basically Bush 2.0, moreso than Romney would be, so I don't see the argument.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Objectively saying that the U.S. is in a better place now than it was four years ago is preposterous. The left will make cases for it being better, the right will make cases for it being worse. There are arguments for both sides.

Omega, you do realize that your argument for re-electing Obama contradicts itself, right? Obama is basically Bush 2.0, moreso than Romney would be, so I don't see the argument.

Which United States where you in four years ago?

I was in the one where they were losing 800,000 jobs every month.

 

[Kelly]

I think Biden might want to take back this "But, I mean what I say." quote from the Biden-Ryan debate after this little gaffe today....

"There has never been a day in the last four years, that I've been proud to be his Vice-President"
Biden

LMAO, he cracks me up...

 

[Excel]

I think Biden might want to take back this "But, I mean what I say." quote from the Biden-Ryan debate after this little gaffe today....

"There has never been a day in the last four years, that I've been proud to be his Vice-President"
Biden

LMAO, he cracks me up...

Hahaha t:

 

[hippie_hunter]

Hmm sometimes i think am i the only person in the us that understood when BO took over in 2008 that he would have the biggest, worst economic rebuilding job than all of his predecessors combined......

Really dude? Because I kind of think that FDR inheriting the Great Depression kinda beats what Obama inherited. By like a lot.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Really dude? Because I kind of think that FDR inheriting the Great Depression kinda beats what Obama inherited. By like a lot.

They say FDR had a nervous breakdown on his first day when they showed him the books.

Then he went to work.

 

[Spider‐Man]

Because an outlet that endorsed Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole, and George W. Bush is neo-liberal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist

Argue with the wiki

Misunderstand? I understand it pretty clearly, conservatives have no grasp on how the human body works and their religious views cloud their judgement.

So because one idiot makes a remark about what a woman's body 'can do', you stereotype all conservatives like that? Your bigotry is showing.

As a Christian, I have no desire to control a woman's body. But I believe that in the case of a woman becoming irresponsibly pregnant, the life of the child is more important than her not wanting to take responsibility for her actions. BUT as I said before this isn;t the forum for this discussion.

AS I've stated earlier, in this and other things such as social programs where not nearly everyone who partakes of the benefits actually needs them, we've become a society who wants to shirk personal responsibility and let others provide for us. Thanks for being an advocate of that philosophy.

There's a big difference between 10,000 people saving $200 and one person saving $2,000,000 via a tax loophole.

Not from the way I was presenting it which is that they are all recognized and accepted write offs for tax purposes and if you have a problem with them, blame obama for not doing something about it.

I personally have no problem with raising taxes on billionaires. Of course I'm not deluded that it will make some huge difference to anyone in any way. It won't help with the debt or deficit, it won;t put one more cent into your or my pocket, it will just seem like some sort of social justice that those who have more are forced to pay some more. I also know the economical implications. What do you think a rich business owner will do if his taxes increase? He'll look to offset it by cutting expenses. What's one of the first ways business owners cut expenses? That's right, they lay people off. At least then you'll still have something to complain about: the heartless business owner who thoughtlessly lays people off in these tough economic times.

Do you believe it is acceptable for millions of people to suffer because they can't get food, can't pay their bills, and have to endure poverty while a president cuts their benefits to save the rich more money? If this is acceptable to you, Romney is the person you should vote for.

Again, raising taxes on the rich won't make a noticeable difference to anyone. If you believe that, you live in fantasyland.

The problem with democrats is they take a good thing and blow it all out of proportion where it isn't sustainable and creates a culture of, yes, entitlement.

I'll give just one example: My ex-wife worked woth a girl. She told her that she couldn't work more than 30 hours a week. My wife asked her why and she said that she had 2 kids and lived in a 2 bedroom apartment. When she had a 3rd kid, they gave her a bigger apartment. Her husband lived there but they couldn't disclose that or she would lose her benefits. She also got a check for the electric bill each month. When she got the bigger apartment she got a bigger check. They just found out how much her bill was and sent her a check for the amount. I always wondeed why they wsted postage on the stamp and didn't just send the check straight to the electric company but then I guess they weren't really concerned about whre they threw the money in the first place. She was often asked to work over and she adamantly refused because they tracked her hours and she said if she went over 30 a week she would lose her benefits. So basically everything was paid for for her and all the money she made at the store was for whatever she wanted to do with it. It was more profitable for her to play the system than actually work full-time like myself and maybe some others on here do. That is what I believe is not acceptable. So you're right, if Romney will do something about this blatant abuse of a good system, he is the person I and anyone else who works hard to fund these programs should vote for.

Lastly let me just add, you asked earlier if anyone could show any reason other than the debt, since to you that's obviously nothing to be concerned about, why obama's policies would not work. I gave you QE3 and how it leads to the same situation we got in a few years ago. You have yet to respond.

 

[Spider‐Man]

I find it humorous people try to downplay participation, but when it cuts the other way against Obama, it becomes important. At least I pointed this out months ago, maybe even last year. It cuts both way.

Employment rate is still low, and when more people start re-entering the market based on the false idea of jobs recovery, all that BS people were spinning the last couple months? It's gonna come back and bite them in the ass.

Why else am I rooting for Obama. I want him to live down his actions, along with all the people who were carrying water for him. Going to love watching the spin.


Hello Lady Karma.

DAMN YOU, Paradox!

I laid the trap and you come along and spring it!

Well, I'm still gonna get my quip in! 'Funny how you seem so ignorant of this piece of how figuring unemployment works works until it seems to turn the tables in your favor and suddenly the light goes on.'

THere, I said it.

Hello lady karma indeed! Of course when all else fails, it'll just be bush's fault.

 

[Spider‐Man]

Hmm sometimes i think am i the only person in the us that understood when BO took over in 2008 that he would have the biggest, worst economic rebuilding job than all of his predecessors combined.......i think i am the only one who took to heart when he said " this wont be easy or fast" in terms of recovery...if anyone thought this would be quick is down right moronic...i see a 10-15 year recovery.....and for me it is the math, Mittens math DOESN'T ADD UP TO A FASTER RECOVERY THAN OBAMA'S...

Obama said he'd reduce the deficit and have unemployment at 5% in his first term. Was he being a moron or just lying? Did you take him to heart on these things?

 

[Darthphere]

I think thats why you see more and more politicians refusing to give actual numbers because it will come back to bite them. I think Obama really thought he could get it down to 5% but things move slow in Washington. He failed.

 

[Kelly]

I think thats why you see more and more politicians refusing to give actual numbers because it will come back to bite them. I think Obama really thought he could get it down to 5% but things move slow in Washington. He failed.

I agree, he put far too many expectations on himself, and they could bite him in the ass in the end....

 

[SV Fan]

I agree, he put far too many expectations on himself, and they could bite him in the ass in the end....

Here is one thing I don't get. I understand saying Obama failed and he should be booted but why don't those people also say most house and senate members should get booted as well for failing us.

I can understand wanting to have a change in Washington, but in that case you probably want to get rid of both the President and the control of the House