Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Obama and the August jobs report



So, straight in line with expect, really! Now for longer trends.



https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/casselman-datalab-sepjobs-1.png



So, unemployment participation- could be better, but improving and on a good course.

Now, what about those employed?



Wages are growing faster than inflation, but at a slow rate, and it's steady at that rate, not accelerating. Should be better, but we're still in the positive.


What about work hours, part time vs full?



https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/casselman-datalab-sepjobs-41.png?w=773&h=546

So continuing on this path would be good, but we're definitely still in major growth here, so that's fine.

There's also been a decline in employment-to-population ratio that peaked at 62.7 percent, fell to 58.2 percent, and then a small rebound began, increasing up to 59.4. This is attributed to several things- part of which is baby boomers retiring, part of which is people staying in college, but part of which is simply a sign that there's room for continued improvement in the economy- no surprise there, though it may also be a sign of longer trends which won't change even if the economy gets better.


So, a positive but mixed bag, most numbers are definitely in the good range and/or heading in a good direction, but there's also a 'room for improvement' on most.



Oh yes, and a final note: Last presidential election, Newt Gingrich promised to get gas down to 2.50 a gallon, Romney promised unemployment down to 6% (which even by the more conservative measurement criteria like Gallup uses has us at). Gas is 2.42 a gallon and Employment is 5.1%. Neither spelled out plans on how exactly they were going to achieve this, but it's kinda funny how Obama beat even their pie in the sky promises.

oh, and on the subject of income inequality.




Unions help income *noticeably* compared to states with anti-union laws, and Obama has taken action to try and help- but right now not too much is being done, which is likely for the reason for that 'only a little faster than inflation' number above.

The usual bs, the country has about a 40-50% unemployment rate.

40-50%?!?! If true, that would be gigantic news. 1 out of every 2 people without a job strains credulity, imo, but that's your claim. Source?

93 million people out of work, you do the math.

Ok, but at the moment, that's just a number that you typed. Again, source?

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2015/01/09/workforce-participation-rate-hits-record-low/

You know you could just do your own research.

Your own article states that the major contributing factor to that number is old people (read: boomers) retiring and no longer wanting/needing to work.

That isn't unemployment. You have to want to work and be unable to get a job in order to be unemployed.

The article also lists unemployment as being 5.5%.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Your own article states that the major contributing factor to that number is old people (read: boomers) retiring and no longer wanting/needing to work.

That isn't unemployment. You have to want to work and be unable to get a job in order to be unemployed.

93 million people unemployed.

I should do my own research? Agreed, but I did:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

Thus my confusion. I have the unemployment rate peaking at 10% back in 2009.

I'm a bit confused by the terminology in your link. If 93 million didn't "make specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week," what exactly does that mean, and what's the difference between that and unemployment? It seems impossible for literally 50% of the population to be without work, so it's an odd concept to consider.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
93 million people unemployed. You'll notice that it does not state anywhere in the article that there are 93 million unemployed people. The article states that there are 93 million people not in the work force, which isn't the same thing.

Because 16 year olds and retired baby boomers aren't classified as "unemployed".

Oh so you think changing the definition can change the facts?

"This person stopped looking for work" so now he's what? Not unemployed?

Originally posted by Tzeentch
You'll notice that it does not state anywhere in the article that there are 93 million unemployed people. The article states that there are 93 million people not in the work force, which isn't the same thing.

Because 16 year olds and retired baby boomers aren't classified as "unemployed".

Do you have a job?

I do, sir.

Well, there's context to consider. Because, for example, I wouldn't consider a retired person or 16-year-old in the same class as, say, a 35-year-old who doesn't have a day job. Does it also consider minors under the age of 16? That seems an arbitrary cutoff point to me.

Also, the root source of the data for your article is the same site I just linked. Methinks there's a real difference between unemployment and what you're talking about.

I have a job too, for what it's worth. /srug

Your lucky, a lot of people don't. And those numbers Q99 posted are of coarse not accurate.

Taking out the retired baby boomers and 16 year olds, what we might go down to 60 million?

No, we'd go down to about 5.1%, which is what unemployment is right now. Any number is higher than the ideal, of course, but it's lower than it's been in a while (since early 2008, before the recession).

I don't accept that low numbers, and neither does anyone else, including wallstreet, which reeled last week about jobless claims.

Wall Street is a bit of an abstract entity. At the risk of repeating myself, source? I can't exactly search for "Wall Street angry at job numbers" and expect to get anything.

And the answer is 16.3 million. That's roughly 5.1% of the US population. Still a gaudy number to try to conceptualize, but, comparatively, small.

If 200-250k people a month claim unemployment, is that a good thing?

Any number claiming isn't good, and there could always be improvement, but don't change the subject. Unemployment is at its lowest point since before the recession. Do you dispute that? Also, I asked for a source about the Wall Street stuff. Do you have one?

One of the other things you might need to address is ratios of the stats you've cited. You threw out 93 million earlier, which it turns out is the number not in the workforce. Which is very different than unemployment for reasons mentioned. But - and here might be the more important point - even if the number without a job is higher than 5.1%, wouldn't that number still be the lowest its been since before the recession? One would have to assume that the percentage of people not in the workforce would be the highest when unemployment is highest, no? Your statistics, therefore, probably fail to make a point about unemployment. But even if they succeeded on that front, they'd fail to make a point of comparative value between political administrations. Which, in this thread specifically about Obama, that was the point, yeah? At best it's an indictment of, well, everything regardless of political affiliation. At worst, it's a statistic with little relevance to actual economic and unemployment variables.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2015/01/09/workforce-participation-rate-hits-record-low/

You know you could just do your own research.

That's a really disingenuous number. You are counting retired people, you're counting children in school and young adults in university, you are counting home makers....that has never been a measurement that anyone used, it's just used because the actual unemployment numbers that have been used for the better part of a century look really good for Obama.

TI is for child labour and having people work until they die. Because Trump told him to.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's a really disingenuous number. You are counting retired people, you're counting children in school and young adults in university, you are counting home makers....that has never been a measurement that anyone used, it's just used because the actual unemployment numbers that have been used for the better part of a century look really good for Obama.

Seriously with that word "disingenuous", its so old. You act like everything said here is taken literally. Its a discussion, not life or death. Maybe time to just put you back on ignore.

Originally posted by jaden101
TI is for child labour and having people work until they die. Because Trump told him to.

It worked well in Greece paying everyone for shining nobs. I don't recall Trump saying that, do you have a source to back up your insult, or you just talking out your ass as usual?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
It worked well in Greece paying everyone for shining nobs. I don't recall Trump saying that, do you have a source to back up your insult, or you just talking out your ass as usual?

You're quoting his bullshit figure. Just one more bit of spoon-fed shit you're willing to swallow

93 million people seems pretty low, TI, you should also start including dead people in your figure.

Agree to disagree, if you really believe Obama is responsible for jobs gained, that's a lol. Of coarse I could say he added thousands of government jobs, which is just more strain on our economy.

Do you have the figure for government jobs added in the last 8 years? Is it really significant enough to make a dent on the national unemployment rate?

Also, do you now realize the 93 million is a bogus stat? If not, why not?

Still also waiting on that Wall Street source, too.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
The usual bs, the country has about a 40-50% unemployment rate.
...or 10.3%

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

TI's suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome. When shown proof of a possible positive that the President has done for the country, his ODS causes him to claim the opposite and then compound it.

Originally posted by Robtard
TI's suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome. When shown proof of a possible positive that the President has done for the country, his ODS causes him to claim the opposite and then compound it. While that may be true, when it is factually pointed out that his first 5-6 years were a financial catastrophe, the only response is, "it's Bush's fault!"

Originally posted by psmith81992
While that may be true, when it is factually pointed out that his first 5-6 years were a financial catastrophe, the only response is, "it's Bush's fault!"

Well maybe not Bush's fault per se, but Obama definitely isn't to blame for the financial crisis.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well maybe not Bush's fault per se, but Obama definitely isn't to blame for the financial crisis.

So let me get this straight. 0 to blame for the 5-6 years of financial crisis, and 100% credit for the current pseudo recovery?

Originally posted by psmith81992
So let me get this straight. 0 to blame for the 5-6 years of financial crisis, and 100% credit for the current pseudo recovery?

No 100% credit for how he handled the crisis in the first few years, and continued credit now that the recovery is going very well.

You mean played golf more then any other president combined and let the free economy fix itself.

Sure Im fine with you giving him the credit, since he did nothing.

He's taken ridiculously much less vacation days than Bush. Golf can be a great way to get things done with certain people, and even if he does it just to relax, that's fine as well, he has a very high pressure job, and to play around of Golf in his spare time is perfectly fine.


You are also lying about him playing more Golf than any other president combined, Eisenhower alone is in the same ballpark. You are so disingenuous it's sickening.

Your first link is broken, mate.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Your first link is broken, mate.

Thanks, mate. This is the link: http://www.factcheck.org/2014/08/presidential-vacations/

125 to 407. Jesus.

Yeah, Bush just took a year off....but Obama golfs "too much"

(Obama has golfed less than Bush has taken days off, btw)

Originally posted by Bardock42
No 100% credit for how he handled the crisis in the first few years, and continued credit now that the recovery is going very well. you mean 100% blame for how he handled the crisis the first 5 to 6 years and credit for the pseudo recovery

Why do you think he handled the crisis badly? What should he have done differently in your opinion?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why do you think he handled the crisis badly? What should he have done differently in your opinion? If he gets credit for stopping the crisis or at least slowing it down, he gets the blame for ballooning the national debt, increasing the number of people on welfare, etc. We've been over this repeatedly. He's not going to get credit for one thing and not get blame for another.

Yeah, and it didn't make sense last time either. People get credit for what they do in the circumstances they are in. Obama has done very well considering the dire circumstances he has been in.

Increasing people on welfare is not a good indication either, because Obama is someone in favour of extending welfare to more people.

Originally posted by psmith81992
pseudo recovery

without evidence that the recovery was somehow fake, this ad nauseum 'point' amounts to nothing more than a popcorn fart.

Originally posted by BackFire
93 million people seems pretty low, TI, you should also start including dead people in your figure.

Great post.

Everyone here should be like this guy, fun and lighthearted

To bad yall are not and buncha ewimps.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
without evidence that the recovery was somehow fake, this ad nauseum 'point' amounts to nothing more than a popcorn fart. Unfortunately, claiming the recovery is real without reaching is the same ad nauseum point.

If you ignore the first 5 years, sure.

Originally posted by Bardock42
He's taken ridiculously much less vacation days than Bush. Golf can be a great way to get things done with certain people, and even if he does it just to relax, that's fine as well, he has a very high pressure job, and to play around of Golf in his spare time is perfectly fine.


You are also lying about him playing more Golf than any other president combined, Eisenhower alone is in the same ballpark. You are so disingenuous it's sickening.

Im glad you are sick, and then had to go scour the internet to find a president from 50 years ago who played as much as him.

Sounds very disingenuous indeed.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, Bush just took a year off....but Obama golfs "too much"

(Obama has golfed less than Bush has taken days off, btw)



http://obamagolfcounter.com/

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Im glad you are sick, and then had to go scour the internet to find a president from 50 years ago who played as much as him.

Sounds very disingenuous indeed.

Well, you are the one that lied.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Unfortunately, claiming the recovery is real without reaching is the same ad nauseum point.

If you ignore the first 5 years, sure.

He has done very well the first 5 years as well.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, you are the one that lied.



He has done very well the first 5 years as well.

So its a lie because Eisenhower played more then him, I would call that being incorrect, tard.

No he didn't

You didn't care about being honest. You are just trying to attack Obama.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You didn't care about being honest. You are just trying to attack Obama.

Are you slow? You clearly missed the point because you have zero common sense. I said I was incorrect, what you are doing is sharpshooting because you think you are some self righteous internet cleric.

Originally posted by psmith81992
No he didn't

Okay, I guess we disagree, though tbh, I think the economic recovery speaks for itself.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Are you slow? You clearly missed the point because you have zero common sense. I said I was incorrect, what you are doing is sharpshooting because you think you are some self righteous internet cleric.

Your point is to lie to attack Obama, you have no honor whatsoever, and everyone can see that, it's pathetic you're stooping so low really.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Okay, I guess we disagree, though tbh, I think the economic recovery speaks for itself.

Yes Obama was hands off, while he tried to instill much socialism the free market will always overcome.

You failed bardock.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Your point is to lie to attack Obama, you have no honor whatsoever, and everyone can see that, it's pathetic you're stooping so low really.

Prove I knew Eisenhower played more then Obama.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Prove I knew Eisenhower played more then Obama.
Disingenuous.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Okay, I guess we disagree, though tbh, I think the economic recovery speaks for itself.

You and I have a different definition of "recovery" then, and this is 2015, not 2008-2013 we were discussing.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Disingenuous.

Look how mad you are.

Prove I knew Eisenhower played more then Obama

Originally posted by psmith81992
You and I have a different definition of "recovery" then, and this is 2015, not 2008-2013 we were discussing.

We may also have different opinions on how long economic policy takes to change things.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Look how mad you are.

Prove I knew Eisenhower played more then Obama

Well you know now, so I'm sure you'll drop your lies, cause you are a honest, honorable...hahahahaha, right.

Prove it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well you know now, so I'm sure you'll drop your lies, cause you are a honest, honorable...hahahahaha, right.


Judging by your "Obama can do no wrong" attitude, I suppose so.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Judging by your "Obama can do no wrong" attitude, I suppose so.

I think he's done a lot wrong, and I wish he'd achieved more. But he's been good for the economy, and he has some decent achievements under his presidency.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think he's done a lot wrong, and I wish he'd achieved more. But he's been good for the economy, and he has some decent achievements under his presidency. I have never heard you mention anything negative about him. I've given him proper credit and proper blame, while the blame usually is Bush's fault.

So we're pretending that Obama was handed a recession and poor economy when he took office. Alright then.

Originally posted by Robtard
So we're pretending that Obama was handed a recession and poor economy when he took office. Alright then.

Uh...typo?

Originally posted by Robtard
So we're pretending that Obama was handed a recession and poor economy when he took office. Alright then. Lol I guess we're also pretending that when he made the recession worse, it was Bush's fault but when we began slowly getting out of it 6 years later, all Obama! Alright then.

You have this odd "you want to blame Bush!" defense mechanism. But hey, you've agreed the recession improved and it was while under Obama's eye. Works for me and gels with reality

That's what the discussion always was but hey you often have to rationalize to make yourself feel better so bravo

PSmith, can you answer my earlier questions:

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why do you think he handled the crisis badly? What should he have done differently in your opinion?

Originally posted by psmith81992
Lol I guess we're also pretending that when he made the recession worse, it was Bush's fault but when we began slowly getting out of it 6 years later, all Obama! Alright then.


When did he make it worse?

I mean, it was getting worse when Obama first took office before he did anything, but it stopped getting worse almost exactly when the stimulus hit, and once it started climbing it has not stopped improving since.



Like the article says, 59 straight months of job gains averaging 3 million jobs a year. It has been very steady from when Obama's policies took effect, with only small blips that were never enough to deflect us from a gradually upward path.


When did this 'make it worse' period even happen?

Originally posted by psmith81992
Unfortunately, claiming the recovery is real without reaching is the same ad nauseum point.

If you ignore the first 5 years, sure.

In the first five years he'd already drastically dropped unemployment from it's height.



Originally posted by psmith81992
I have never heard you mention anything negative about him. I've given him proper credit and proper blame, while the blame usually is Bush's fault.

The complaint seems to be your 'proper blame' looks to include things that, by the numbers, did not actually happen.



Look, this is a post about the numbers. The first post in this thread is about the numbers and precisely where we are.

Now you're claiming a completely different thing happened other than an average job growth of three miliion a year? Remember, the reason this job report was considered critical is because the Fed is considering the question of have we improved so much that we should raise interest rates.

Where are you getting your impression of what happened? Because it does not seem to fit what the standard economic measures say, which all seem to indicate that we've been improving for the last five years straight.

Your 'bad for the first five years' statement doesn't seem to come out of anywhere- We leveled off around one year into his administration (which was *entirely* expected, considering the scale of the problem), and by a year after that real improvement had begun and hasn't stopped since.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/jun/01/scorecard-economy-obama/


The welfare rate has been increasing.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2013/01/24/the-growth-of-the-federal-government-1980-to-2012/
The above link is what I think TI has been talking about in terms of government growth.

Also look at Bush unemployment numbers from 2005-2008
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

Here's another:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/08/04/have-most-economic-indicators-improved-under-president-obama/

Here are two others that I haven't fully looked at but will
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/07/facts-are-facts-obama-owns-worst-economic-numbers-in-80-years-since-1932/
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/04/obama-vs-reagan-big-government-socialism-proves-to-be-as-disastrous-as-expected/

Fact is while Obama has done better than W, you're being an apologist for all he got wrong.

And finally this:
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/obamas-numbers-july-2015-update/

Q99 has said that the welfare has been increasing.

The link about government growth you provided also pointed out that the government has been shrinking under Obama

Your link on Bush's unemployment numbers shows as well how unemployment now is much lower than what Bush left.

Your last link has this summary:




So there's two things in the summary that they hold as negatives, the home ownership is at a 25 year low (after a housing bubble)

And food stamps are up. But, Obama is a president who thinks social programmes needs to be extended. His standpoint would be that food stamps before were too low, and excluded too many people in need. So that's only a negative if you subscribe to a conservative worldview.


idk, I used to be hard on Obama in the beginning, thinking he should have been stronger, but as his presidency develops, it's starting to look very much like he'll be one of the best presidents, despite the Republican obstructionism. One of his main negative points in my opinion is the government surveillance and increases in drone strikes. Economically he has done extremely well, as your sources agree.

Which is continuing on Obama's watch. I gave you unemployment statistics to show what they were at Bush's peak, which, by the numbers, were better than current Obama numbers. That's not to say he was a better president, of course.


I don't think he'll be one of the best presidents by any stretch. His overall numbers are less than those of Reagan and Clinton and close to H.W. He will be considered a good one but there's always obstructionism when parties are divided, Obama is no exception.

Originally posted by psmith81992


The above link is what I think TI has been talking about in terms of government growth.

Did you read that link?

Obama Dec. 2012 21,925 315,255 6.9%
GWBush Dec. 2008 22,555 306,004 7.4%
Clinton Dec. 2000 20,804 283,696 7.3%
G Bush Dec. 1992 18,878 258,413 7.3%
Reagan Dec. 1988 17,736 246,056 7.2%

Look at the number on the right. That's the percentage of government employees per capita in the US. Look at the number in the middle column, that's the number of government employees- and it's rawly lower than under GWB.

It literally says Obama has a smaller government-to-population ratio than Reagan and smaller total than George W. Bush. It says we need more government hirees, honestly, because under Obama we have not been keeping up with population growth.



Ok, I'll do so. And I note that it's been going down consistently under Obama once he staunched the economic bleeding.

This is a graph that combines the Bush unemployment numbers with the Obama ones, with a line with the changeover, so you can see where they go up and down:
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/2012/Oct/US-unemployment-rate-presidents-sept2012.gif
It is from an article from 2013, so we're notably better now, but we'd clearly been going down for about three years by that point.




This one says we're doing better in most areas but there's still some we lag in- including some that the op article notes we are improving in, just slowly.

Or in other words, what I've been saying.



They're opinion pieces which are honestly pretty dumb, and draw their conclusions by blaming Obama for the Great Recession (the thing that started before he took office). The first one tries to blame the low-growth in Obama's first term- you know, when Obama stepped in on an economy in freefall in dire need of stabilization- on his policies somhow.

The second one is basically just saying that Reagan had heathier economic growth than Obama. Which is true, but he also didn't have a worldwide financial collapse of the same scale.





Which is.... what?

When I asked about what you specifically mean by 'making things worse for the first five years,' you instead posted links to stuff I specifically brought up and addressed- and in some cases were just flat-out the reverse of what you and Time are saying.

The same actions that raised the debt lowered the unemployment, of which I give credit and blame on both sides. The reason welfare is high is because of the unemployment and other effects of the crash- all of which, it is noted, are something eventually solved by economic growth and jobs and wage growth, but not quickly, and as the original article of the thread points out he has been doing positively in.


Where's this 5 years of making things worse you're talking about? What things did he do that didn't help? How did he make things worse? You can't just make accusations and then when called on them try and deflect onto other topics- especially not when I've already addressed all of your deflections.

You are not saying what Obama did wrong beyond the stuff I've already talked about the pros and cons of, merely that I am apologizing for it. That's BS, Psmith.

You cannot keep up this beat-around-the-bush, accusing others of not holding Obama accountable for (mumblemumble) stuff when I specifically have talked about every single point you've brought up and responded with data, and posting stuff I've already done that with is just stalling.

And rule of thumb, posting stuff that agrees with me rarely helps if you are trying to disagree with me.

All I did was point you to where it shows Bush's peak unemployment numbers compared to Obama's.


I've brought up most of the things that were true, such as lower median incomes, higher federal debt, etc. The only response I got was, "Obama had to deal with Bush's crisis."


The only thing that agreed with you were the government employee numbers and I wasn't saying you were wrong, I was posting what I thought TI was arguing (incorrectly). Everything else you've tried to spin in a positive light. Even the negatives have all been "well it's because of the recession but getting better!"

Originally posted by jaden101
TI is for child labour and having people work until they die. Because Trump told him to.

Well we do have a nice rich history of forcing children to do horrible jobs:

http://www.cracked.com/article_18565_the-6-worst-jobs-ever-were-done-by-children.html

Here I was thinking the kids from "Newsies" had it rough.

Originally posted by psmith81992
All I did was point you to where it shows Bush's peak unemployment numbers compared to Obama's.

so basically you're deliberately being deceptive, or else you would have accounted for the start of the recession (pre-obama).
instead you just peddle a baseless raw number as proof because apparently you think you're cute.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
so basically you're deliberately being deceptive, or else you would have accounted for the start of the recession (pre-obama).
instead you just peddle a baseless raw number as proof because apparently you think you're cute.

Oh I see so you didn't read anything other than what supports your bias, correct? And in case you missed the argument (as you usually do), we are constantly arguing giving credit/blame regarding what happens on whose watch. Let the adults continue now

Originally posted by psmith81992
Oh I see so you didn't read anything other than what supports your bias, correct? And in case you missed the argument (as you usually do), we are constantly arguing giving credit/blame regarding what happens on whose watch. Let the adults continue now

nah, it's just you manipulating raw data to push a flatout lie. that's really all that is happening here. but feel free to get more buttmad and make this about me...even though you're the one being snake-like.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
nah, it's just you manipulating raw data to push a flatout lie. that's really all that is happening here. but feel free to get more buttmad and make this about me...even though you're the one being snake-like.

Mhm.. "Manipulating" data now. That's quite amusing. Good show.

Right, avoid the point about when the crisis started. Very mature.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
Right, avoid the point about when the crisis started. Very mature.

Right, so Bush was responsible for the financial crisis but we should just ignore what he did before that, great point

Before the financial crisis he built up to creating the financial crisis. Like he didn't just drop the ball one day, the guy was a moron 8 years straight.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Right, so Bush was responsible for the financial crisis but we should just ignore what he did before that, great point

you're trying to paint obama as having caused the crisis, because you're proud to be a lying snake. that's the sum total of what's going on here. that and you being the 'last word guy'

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
you're trying to paint obama as having caused the crisis, because you're proud to be a lying snake. that's the sum total of what's going on here. that and you being the 'last word guy'

How am I trying to paint Obama as having caused the financial crisis? That has to be one of the dumbest things ever said on here. Congratulations on being both emotional and incredibly biased to the point where you have to make things up


Sure, but numbers don't lie.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Before the financial crisis he built up to creating the financial crisis. Like he didn't just drop the ball one day, the guy was a moron 8 years straight.


Well yeah, financial crisis rarely happen overnight, it's a long buildup to the crash, just as the recovery to said crisis doesn't happen overnight.

Originally posted by psmith81992
How am I trying to paint Obama as having caused the financial crisis? That has to be one of the dumbest things ever said on here. Congratulations on being both emotional and incredibly biased to the point where you have to make things up


Sure, but numbers don't lie.

are you deliberately avoiding the point of what you were attempting, or are you just simple?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
are you deliberately avoiding the point of what you're attempting, or are you just simple?

Your incompetence seems to be consistent all day. Aside from crying about something, making stuff up and then claiming I'm the last word guy when you keep responding with utter nonsense, I'm not really sure why you're posting at all. Trolling maybe?

Originally posted by psmith81992

Sure, but numbers don't lie.

Well, numbers themselves may not lie, but people use numbers to lie all the time...

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, numbers themselves may not lie, but people use numbers to lie all the time...

Sure. But the numbers show that Bush kept the numbers pretty good (better than current Obama but without needing a recovery) up until he didn't. So the last year of his presidency. Doesn't make him a better president.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Your incompetence seems to be consistent all day. Aside from crying about something, making stuff up and then claiming I'm the last word guy when you keep responding with utter nonsense, I'm not really sure why you're posting at all. Trolling maybe?

aaaand there it is. remember kids, when you are caught spreading falsehoods and asserting nonesense, simply accuse your opponent of "trolling" and shift the topic to what a doodoo-head they are. baby

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
aaaand there it is. remember kids, when you are caught spreading falsehoods and asserting nonesense, simply accuse your opponent of "trolling". baby

Well, after all of those posts making stuff up and throwing out hilarious false accusations, this is a last desperation post. Great show

Originally posted by psmith81992
Sure. But the numbers show that Bush kept the numbers pretty good (better than current Obama but without needing a recovery) up until he didn't. So the last year of his presidency. Doesn't make him a better president.

Like what you say is technically correct, but it completely lacks context, to make it sort of meaningless, don't you think?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Like what you say is technically correct, but it completely lacks context, to make it sort of meaningless, don't you think?

No no, the context is there. You said the guy was a moron for 8 years. These numbers show you the exact opposite as far as one criteria is concerned.

Originally posted by psmith81992
No no, the context is there. You said the guy was a moron for 8 years. These numbers show you the exact opposite as far as one criteria is concerned.

That's exactly where the lack of context comes in. What you claim is not at all what the numbers show. For that you have to put them into context, context like what were the predecessor and successors numbers, what was the development during the 8 years, what was the state of the economy at the time, were there more public sector jobs than usual, etc.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's exactly where the lack of context comes in. What you claim is not at all what the numbers show. For that you have to put them into context, context like what were the predecessor and successors numbers, what was the development during the 8 years, what was the state of the economy at the time, were there more public sector jobs than usual, etc.

But you said the guy sucked for 8 years Bardock. If you want for argument sake, we'll include context but it's pretty clear that he sucked only part of the time and I am not arguing that he's a better president than Obama.

Originally posted by psmith81992
for argument sake, we'll include context

Originally posted by Bashar Teg


For calling someone the "last word guy", you sure love seeing your own text. Are you tired of looking ridiculous or continue? I figure you'd quit while behind but it appears you lack the self awareness

Originally posted by psmith81992
But you said the guy sucked for 8 years Bardock. If you want for argument sake, we'll include context but it's pretty clear that he sucked only part of the time and I am not arguing that he's a better president than Obama.

Oh, yeah, I suppose that was hyperbole, I also heard he once fed a pigeon, which is a nice, not sucky thing for him to do...

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh, yeah, I suppose that was hyperbole, I also heard he once fed a pigeon, which is a nice, not sucky thing for him to do...

I think we should start a "Bush by the numbers" thread to come up with some kind of accurate comparison, disregarding all hyperbole or left vs. right bias.

At any rate, if the numbers continue like this, it feels like it could be really good for the Democratic nominee. One of the Republicans talking points is how shit everything is, as it actually gets better and better though that will lose its appeal and make them look more foolish and out of touch.

Originally posted by Bardock42
At any rate, if the numbers continue like this, it feels like it could be really good for the Democratic nominee. One of the Republicans talking points is how shit everything is, as it actually gets better and better though that will lose its appeal and make them look more foolish and out of touch. I'm pretty sure that how shitty everything is and "could be better" are not the same. And the democrats don't have an Obama type candidate so the point is really moot.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I'm pretty sure that how shitty everything is and "could be better" are not the same. And the democrats don't have an Obama type candidate so the point is really moot.

Republicans pretty much talk about how bad things are under Obama all the time. You see that significant differences between Clinton and Obama?

Originally posted by psmith81992
For calling someone the "last word guy", you sure love seeing your own text. Are you tired of looking ridiculous or continue? I figure you'd quit while behind but it appears you lack the self awareness

how rude of me to snicker...and just after you decided out of the goodness of your heart to allow context to be applied to the figures which you were using to build a false narrative.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
how rude of me to snicker...and just after you decided out of the goodness of your heart to allow context to be applied to the figures which you were using to build a false narrative. Still making stuff up eh? At least you're still amusing


Significant? No, but enough of a different for the Republicans to win the white house.

Yeah, they may win of course, it's a completely different race. We don't even know if the completely crazy or somewhat reasonable wing of the Republicans is going to win yet (though crazy is having a headstart).

Crazy isn't going to win it. I don't see anyone other than Bush beating hilary.

Originally posted by psmith81992

I've brought up most of the things that were true, such as lower median incomes, higher federal debt, etc. The only response I got was, "Obama had to deal with Bush's crisis."

Note how I never say 'Bush's crisis,' I always say the crisis or the crash. Bush helped with the crisis with the critical TARP, it's in his 'win' column even though it caused the numbers to go bad at the end of his term. You're projecting something I didn't say.

But at the same time, Obama did have to deal with the crisis and if you are not counting "Has to deal with a financial crisis bigger in percentage-of-money-lost terms than the great depression," as an obstacle that he gets credit for working past and are instead counting it against him because 'the unemployment numbers were high,' then that's either just not understanding things, or actively misrepresenting them.

That's like blaming a fire fighter who arrived at a fire-in-progress for a house having fire and water damage.

Note how I also specifically point out how our recovery compares to other recoveries- both US ones in the past and other country's responses to the same crisis- Where several other countries did what the Republicans recommended, namely austerity, and thus did not have our steady recovery.

Our recovery has been one of the more solid in the world, we have comparison points there.



Now here's a question for you- If the numbers say a problem is caused by a recession, but are getting better at a solid rate, what is wrong with saying that?

Why are you rejecting that as a possible explanation out of hand? Because it makes Obama look good? Because in a lot of cases, that is exactly what the numbers say happened.

When a recession hits, the debt goes up whether you spend on stimulus or do austerity. When unemployment goes way up, job participation goes down whether you spend on stimulus or do austerity. What actions that he did do that hurt?

You can't just say 'numbers were high at the time, must be his fault,' not when you know there was a crisis that started before him and when economic policies take time to work. That's highly misleading and disingenuous.


Also, you did specifically say Obama was making things worse and/or not helping for the first several years, but have yet to name specifically what you think he did to make things worse, when the numbers say his early policies had a notable effect in the early years. Like I know we've discussed before in other threads, the stimulus was calculated to be responsible for 3 million or so jobs.


You keep asserting it was bad, but then when we go over point-for-point why each number did what when, you reject the explanations and also don't explain what policies you think were bad, instead just low-balling that we aren't holding Obama accountable enough for (mumblemumbletrailoff) because the numbers were bad when he started.



Originally posted by psmith81992
How am I trying to paint Obama as having caused the financial crisis? That has to be one of the dumbest things ever said on here. Congratulations on being both emotional and incredibly biased to the point where you have to make things up

Sure, but numbers don't lie.

Well, you're getting on Obama's case for the numbers being bad at the start, which is caused by the crisis, while trying to minimize that he's been making the numbers better, first by stopping them from going up, then by having five years strait of them going down.

The numbers don't lie, and the numbers say Obama's policies either been stopping things from getting worse or making them get better with abnormal consistency.


Originally posted by psmith81992
Sure. But the numbers show that Bush kept the numbers pretty good (better than current Obama but without needing a recovery) up until he didn't. So the last year of his presidency. Doesn't make him a better president.


Note the trending- Obama's been dropping the numbers more.

Note that after the dot com bubble (which I also do not blame Bush for) but before the Great Depression, he never got as low as where he started out, while Obama is noticeably lower than where he started even after a much bigger hit.


By the numbers, Obama did more. To use an analogy, if they're both filling holes, Obama filled a bigger one.

And you're blaming every negative Obama statistic on the crisis while crediting everything else he did.


I was never arguing that Obama was a better president than Bush. I have said that statement repeatedly.

Obama's biggest failure may end up being the Iran deal.

I think the Iran deal will turn out to be a good thing.

At this point I doubt it. At best, it may turn out to be meh for everything. Lets see if the Ayatollah keeps chatting away.

Well, the Ayathollah can say many things, it's really more the young Iranians we need to get on the side of the west.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, the Ayathollah can say many things, it's really more the young Iranians we need to get on the side of the west.

I will acknowledge that the deal is ok but potentially terrible if you acknowledge the possibility that the ayatollah and his religious followers gaining traction and leadership.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I will acknowledge that the deal is ok but potentially terrible if you acknowledge the possibility that the ayatollah and his religious followers gaining traction and leadership.

It puts us in no worse position than if the deal wasn't there, it still gives us additional intel and them less centrifuges and uranium stockpiles.


Originally posted by psmith81992
And you're blaming every negative Obama statistic on the crisis while crediting everything else he did.

One, the specific numbers you point out were largely caused by the crisis, as evidenced by most of them already being on the rise before he even took office.

Two, I am then pointing out what Obama did that affected those numbers, usually pointing them in a good direction (with exception of the ones I have acknowledged as not going in a good direction, something you keep on ignoring. Stuff like the debt, which went up but I'm ok with because it was in exchange for jobs and thus a reasonable long-term strategy), and what others in the same situation have done and how it affected the numbers in their cases.

Look, you are not actually linking the bad numbers to Obama, you're playing semantic games to try and paint him as doing the opposite of what he did, and/or outright stating falsehoods. For the third or fourth time, you said he made things worse for the first five years. I then asked you to back that up- you then accused.

Your refusal to actually explain what, specifically, he did wrong rather than wave your hands and grunt negatively says to me you know full well he is responsible for helping, not hurting, unemployment and economic numbers,

Messing around with words is not an argument. Being vague and not supporting your points is not an argument. When someone points out to you specifically why X happened with heavy evidence, grumbling about how it's still some other person's fault somehow and that we're not giving proper blame to that person is a really crappy argument.

You are just blaming him for the crisis here. You aren't using those words, but 'These numbers are bad, must be Obama's fault' when the numbers were, one, going in that direction before him, and two, he was visibly doing something to turn those numbers around and that something succeeded.

This is just disingenuous wordplay on your part.




I assume you mean 'wasn't' there, I don't see why anyone would think you were arguing Obama was better when you keep accusing him of being the reason unemployment and economic numbers were bad even when the biggest world-wide economic crash since the great depression had started just before he took office.



Seems rather difficult for that to be the case, because it's designed to help out even if Iran breaks it, and it's something the Republicans heavily pursued during their term as well.

Name one foreign policy Obama has succeeded because he sunk Syria.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Name one foreign policy Obama has succeeded because he sunk Syria.


The Iran nuclear deal, something that Bush wanted but was unable to get.

Improving relations with, oh, most of the world compared to the Bush years (he improved ratings with Africa, Europe, etc.).

Killed Bin Laden.

Granted, Syria was not a success, mainly in that he didn't act there. He wanted to it seemed, but the public pressure was against him. So yea, minus point there.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I will acknowledge that the deal is ok but potentially terrible if you acknowledge the possibility that the ayatollah and his religious followers gaining traction and leadership.
I'm not sure how much traction they have to gain...they basically run the country already.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'm not sure how much traction they have to gain...they basically run the country already.

Ok so then the Iran deal isn't a good one.


Simply making a deal with Iran doesn't constitute a success.


He also made relations worse with other countries, so "most of the world" is biased hyperbole.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Ok so then the Iran deal isn't a good one.

Who said that? Just because George W. Bush did it doesn't mean it's bad at all.

Remember, I'm also the one who thinks Bush's support of the TARP is awesome, I don't blame the economic crash on GWB (it happened on his watch, but it's origin is much older and no-one was moving to head it off, and he acted properly when it happened. It not being his fault just doesn't make it Barack's either), and say Trump has some points I agree on with economics. Don't project your 'you always blame Bush/etc.' stuff onto me.



It is when it's designed so that it helps us whether or not they follow it, and it's something both parties have pursued for years, and it's a multi-national deal where all the other nuclear powers support it, and one of the biggest sources of opposition are Iran's hardcore US-haters.




The only countries our relations have gotten worse with, are ones who've taken actions that have soured much of the world community, like Russia's move on the Ukraine.

On average, our world wide approval rating is much higher. Heck, aside from Russia, I'm hard pressed to think of any where our rating went down.



And since you're in the thread again-

To continue what I was saying to you before about numbers, I showed you numbers of the economy that were shifting in positive directions around when his policies took effect, and never stopped going in that direction. The numbers that didn't shift good, are either the ones that came as direct cost of moving the other numbers (i.e. the direct monetary to improve other numbers raises debt, or in other words acceptable cost in my book), or comes as a result of the bad numbers being high in the first place, and are still moving in the right direction, but are just lagged or moving too slowly, and no attempt has been made to tie these numbers to his policies directly, just noting they were high during his turn, which, well, duh, that's why he spent so much effort fighting the bad numbers and tried to do more.



Let me tell you about an experience I had at another forum. There was a poster there who's general stance was, "Well, I'm on the fence between the Democrat and Republican, but this time I'll go with the Republican."

"Eh, I'll give credit for Obama doing the recovery when it reaches 9%."

"8%".

"7%".

Then he stopped giving specific unemployment number deadlines, but still insisted Obama was doing horrible on the economy period, that he would've given credit if Obama had just done *better*, and we should've gone with Republican austerity, wouldn't explain why when confronted with numbers, and also insisted he was just giving credit/blame where it was due.

Eventually everyone on the board realized he was just as fanatical and unwilling to change as the board's Times/Star equivalents, he just more dishonest about it and would always-always-always blame Obama even if he'd phrase it as if he was a moderate when he was not, ask people into making long responses, ignore the responses and the next time the topics came up act totally ignorant as to what these 'numbers that disagreed with his conclusion' were, ask people to post 'em again, and eventually gained a reputation as the most worthless to actually try and debate person on the board with everyone regardless of side.


So, I may have some bleed-over from that, but suffice to say, I don't have overly much patience for "I give credit to both sides where it's due, but only actually take one side in practice."

Especially when you don't back up any of your assertions that Obama didn't help for the first five years, and Obama has outdone the 2012 Republican candidate's pie-in-the-sky promises they had made for achieving by 2016.

It remains to be seen, so you can't jump the gun.


Yet the Obama lovers on this site try to spin everything positively for him, and anything negative is attributed to Bush. How is that any different? It's all confirmation bias.


I don't have to back up assertions that Obama didn't do something. All numbers are down the first 5 years and you'll either blame it on Bush or something else. This is evident by the fact that you quickly jump into "Obama has done better than Bush or the 2012 candidates), as if anyone was arguing this.