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
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.
Originally posted by Bardock42I'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.
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 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 TegStill making stuff up eh? At least you're still amusing 😂
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.
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
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.
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!"
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.
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.
By the numbers, Obama did more. To use an analogy, if they're both filling holes, Obama filled a bigger one.
Obama's biggest failure may end up being the Iran deal.