ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
  Search
 
 
Users Threads  
  Forums  
SHORTNEWS
SUPPORT
WHAT'S NEW?
POLL
AUTOMOTIVE
CURRENT EVENTS
ECONOMY
ENTERTAINMENT
HEALTH
HIGH TECH
POLITICS
RECREATION
REGIONAL
SCIENCE
SOCIETY AND CULTURE
SPORTS
ShortNewser of the month
  40 comments
      Back to Forum
 
  Obamanomics = Longest Period of 9%+ Unemployment  
  
Obama now holds the not-so-envious distinction for breaking the record for the longest period unemployment has been at or above 9%.

To put the icing on the cake, the November unemployment numbers came out.

Our unemployment has risen from 9.6% to 9.8%.

This is just disgusting.

To make matters worse...

"More than 500,000 Americans have left the labor force since September -- a shocking rise in such a short period of time for a so-called "recovery." If you combine the number of unemployed Americans with those workes who are not in the labor force, the total is by far the highest on record. In fact, it is 7.2 million higher than when Obama became president. And while things started improving for the first several months of this year, 2 million Americans have either become unemployed or left the labor force since April.

Not surprisingly, while many of those who have left the labor force have completely given up looking for work, about 4 million say they want a job now. They have simply not been actively looking for a job because they had gotten too discouraged or could only find part-time work. Add that to figure the 15.1 million unemployed and you have over 19 million people who want a full-time job -- that´s a 1 million increase since June.

The untold story that isn´t being covered is how many Americans have stopped actively looking for work. At this writing, the number of unemployed plus those not in the labor force is at 99.83 million, just below 100 million and 10 million above what it was just two years ago. President Obama seems posed to claim the dubious distinction of breaking through that 100 million barrier."
http://www.foxnews.com/...


When will this man cease his destructive policies? Is he *intentionally* trying to destoy America?

Jimmy Carter is having a party, right now. He´s celebrating the fact that he no longer holds the title of "The Worst President Ever".

Everyone, put on your seat belts.
It´s going to be a long an rough ride before we reach the 2012 elections.
 
 From: carnold     12/04/2010 10:48 AM     
  And Now For The Rest Of The Story  
  

1. Bill Clinton - From January 1993 until January 2001
Unemployment rate January 1993 - 7.3%<b>Unemployment rate January 2001 - 4.2%<b>
2. George Walker Bush - from January 2001 until January 2009
Unemployment rate January 2001 - 4.2%<b>Unemployment rate January 2009 - 9.7%<b>
3. Barrack Obama From January 2009
Until October 2010

Unemployment rate January 2009 - 9.7%<b>Unemployment rate October 2010 - 9.6%<b>

[ edited by ichi ]
 
  by: ichi     12/04/2010 09:47 PM     
  Now For The Rest Of The Story  
  
1. Bill Clinton - From January 1993 until January 2001
Unemployment rate January 1993 - 7.3%
Unemployment rate January 2001 - 4.2%

2. George Walker Bush - from January 2001 until January 2009
Unemployment rate January 2001 - 4.2%
Unemployment rate January 2009 - 9.7%

3. Barrack Obama From January 2009
Until October 2010
Unemployment rate January 2009 - 9.7%
Unemployment rate October 2010 - 9.6%

This should be a little easier to read.
 
  by: ichi     12/04/2010 09:53 PM     
  Story, indeed...  
  
Nice story, ichi. Which fantasy novel did you copy it out of?

Is your memory really *that* short, or are you really *that* uninformed?
Do you genuinely believe the misinformation your spread, or do you intentionally propagate what you know to be untrue?

When Obama was inaugurated into office on January 2009, the latest reports placed unemployment at 7.4% (remember, the unemployment numbers for a month are released the following month). Then, in a few weeks after he entered into office, January’s national unemployment statistics had risen to 7.7%.
Not the 9.7% you falsely claimed in your “story”, above.

Seriously, ichi. We’re talking about 2-yrs ago --- not 2 decades ago.
Do you not remember the fear-mongering tactics Obama used to manipulate the Americans into supporting his “Stimulus” bill? He promised the Americans that if we passed his stimulus bill, unemployment would *not* go over 8%. Less than a month after that, unemployment hit 8.2%. Obama couldn’t keep his word for a whole month!! It continued to soar, hitting his administration’s high of 10.1% in Oct. ’09.

What’s more ironic about your “story” is that you attempt to compare Bush to Obama. Heh.
Unemployment *never* hit 8% throughout Bush’s 8 years in office… and unemployment has never been *below* 8% since Obama’s been in office (unless you count the 10 days he was in office in Jan. 09).

Ichi, this is ShortNews.com. Not ShortStories.com. Readers want read the facts… not fantasy.

All these numbers and statistics can be verified at the Bureau of Labor Statistics official website, at this page:
http://data.bls.gov/...


At that link, there is a chart that shows unemployment rates from Jan. 2000 through Nov. 2010.
 
  by: carnold     12/04/2010 10:45 PM     
  How´s *this* for a hockey-stick graph?  
  
It´s amazing how much Obama´s unemployment graph resembles the global warming alarmist´s own hockey-stick graph.

One big difference, though: This graph isn´t based on fictional or fudged data.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/...
 
  by: carnold     12/04/2010 10:49 PM     
  @carnold  
  
Ahh yes, the omnipresent blog-fact-check-link. I generally consult the blogosphere when I´m looking for accurate information.

What if we look to the US Bureau of Labor? According to this here handy dandy graph...

http://www.google.com/...

We see that when Obama took office in January of 2009, unemployment was at 8.5%. 1 Year later, in January of 2010, unemployment was at 10.6%. An increase of 2.1%. Since January 2010, as we can see from the graph, unemployment is on the decline. So, in the course of 2 years, unemployment rose 2.1% and has since dropped to within .8% of where it was initially.

Now, let´s look at W´s numbers. Bush took office with unemployment at 4.7%. When he left office, unemployment was at 8.5%. That´s an increase of 3.8% over 8 years.

Last time I checked, 3.8% was a bigger number than 2.1%. Given the financial sink hole Bush left Obama, I´d say the Kenyan is doing okay.
 
  by: zirschky     12/04/2010 11:32 PM     
  Yep,  
  
how´s that Bush/Reagan trickle-down BS workin´ for ya?
 
  by: lurker     12/05/2010 12:16 AM     
  I Make It A Point Not To Feed the Troll, BUT  
  
My first source:
http://www.miseryindex.us/...
Back Up Source source:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/...
The last is based on the U.S. Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics.


Now start the verbiage running with with the usual hysterics.
 
  by: ichi     12/05/2010 02:01 AM     
  @CA  
  
pwnd

nice try, come again.
 
  by: ludwitr   12/06/2010 09:24 PM     
  @zirsh  
  
You should really get something to treat your bad case of foot-in-mouth.

“Ahh yes, the omnipresent blog-fact-check-link…”
The “blog” belongs to John Lott -- the author of the article I quoted in my initial post. If you had read the post, you’d know that. He had a link in it to his blog where he offered further analysis.

Who is John Lott?
"John Richard Lott Jr. (born May 8, 1958) is an American senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, College Park. He has previously held research positions at other academic institutions including the University of Chicago, Yale University, and the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, and at the non-academic American Enterprise Institute. He holds a Ph.D. in economics from UCLA, and his areas of research include econometrics, law and economics, public choice theory, industrial organization, public finance, microeconomics, labor economics, and environmental regulation.

Lott is an author in both academia and in popular culture. He is a frequent writer of opinion editorials, has published over 90 articles in peer-reviewed academic journals related to his research areas, and has authored five books."
http://en.wikipedia.org/...


Looks like this guy’s credentials speak for themselves.
I don’t reference frivolous sources. Don’t ever question them again.

“What if we look to the US Bureau of Labor?”
The link I gave in my response to ichi went directly to their web-site. The numbers I’m using come *directly* from the source – not a proxy. How many times are we going to post links to the same results?

“We see that when Obama took office in January of 2009, unemployment was at 8.5%.”
You and ichi obviously went to the same school. Unemployment was at 7.4% when he took office in January.
If you insist that it was 8.5%, then you’re conceding that Obama was selling snake oil with no intent on keeping his promise when he declared passing the stimulus bill would contain unemployment below 8%.
Bad arguments, on your part. Reference my link. Then come back.

“Bush took office with unemployment at 4.7%. When he left office, unemployment was at 8.5%.”
Your math isn’t any better. One more time, read the link that goes *directly* to the US BLS. Unemployment was at 7.4%, as I and the Bureau of Labor have stated. That’s an increase of 2.7%.

I understand you don’t want to hear the truth. You Obama fan-bois hate it when your idol is shown to be inept. If you feel the need to lie to yourself to feel better, go right ahead. However, you should keep your self-deceit off these threads. Readers want to read facts --- not fabricated bunk.

“I´d say the Kenyan is doing okay.”
I realize that dealing in facts is not your forte, so allow me to shed a few facts for you:

“The 2.7 percentage-point increase in unemployment rate during his presidency, to 9.7 percent from 7.4 percent, is the third-worst since World War II. Dwight Eisenhower and Gerald Ford saw bigger increases.
GDP growth under Obama, an abysmal 3 percentage points so far, is the fourth-worst in the postwar period. Eisenhower, Ford and Ronald Reagan all began their terms with worse GDP growth."
http://www.businessweek.com/...


We´ve lost over 4-million jobs since he´s been in office.
Analysts have predicted that 9.6% was as high as unemployment would go. Now it´s at 9.8%. Obama has literally beat all the odds against making things worse.

Keep fabricating and fudging the facts to keep life sane inside your little bubble. Meanwhile, I´m going to be realistic... and deal in the facts.
 
  by: CArnold     12/06/2010 11:16 PM     
  @ichi  
  
Nice sources. The data seems accurate… and proves that I am, as well.

It also indicates that you have a difficult time reading.

Go back to your own sources. Find the line that points to when Obama became president. What does the number say?
Share your findings with zirsch --- he need some help reading, too.

Glad I could help.
 
  by: CArnold     12/06/2010 11:20 PM     
  @ludwitr  
  
It´s so very kind of you to wear don your miniskirt and pom-poms to cheer on a losing team.

Next time, shave your legs first.
 
  by: CArnold     12/06/2010 11:21 PM     
  Its all bull anyways  
  
Real unemployment is around 23%. You guys are arguing unemployment beneficiaries numbers, not actual unemployment, which has in fact skyrocketed since Obama took office.
 
  by: Tetsuru Uzuki     12/07/2010 12:36 AM     
  @TU  
  
"You guys are arguing unemployment beneficiaries numbers, not actual unemployment..."

I´m not sure what the others in this thread are arguing for or against. Especially since they can´t even correctly identify published facts --- even when I give them a link directly to the US Bureau of Labor and Statistics.

I´m actually arguing both, TU.
My quoted excerpt (in my first post) briefly goes into what you mentioned. I didn’t go too deeply into it because I didn’t want to over-complicate things in this thread. After seeing the difficult time some people have just grasping simple facts, you probably understand why.

Nonetheless, you are very correct, sir.
I recommend everyone to read the source I quoted in my first post. It explains the difference between the “unemployment rate” measured and reported each month by the US BLS, and “actual employment”. It also explains how these numbers are calculated and the significance of each.

Thanks for pointing that out, TU. It’s nice to have at least one other intelligent person post in these threads.
 
  by: CArnold     12/07/2010 01:02 AM     
  free comments  
  
Hey CA, or anyone else who wants to answer this go ahead...

In this thread I see that while Obama is Office there is very high unemployment, agreed?
But what exactly has Obama etc done to cause this ?
I don´t follow economics all that heavy, so the things I´m aware of the stimulus bill that some say worked and others didn´t, the bail-out of auto-industry, The tarp deal, promotion of infrastructure, census jobs and very recently the extension of Bush Tax cuts and extension of unemployment benefits. Also The health care bill, but I think that does not go in effect until 2013 or something like that.

So I´m trying to figure out what has Obama done or not done to improve the economic atmosphere etc. Or in our type of economic system how much he is involved? Could the economy just be bad like a plateau, a change in whats in supply and whats in demand?

Anyone , I´d don´t mind who really, but give me their view.
 
  by: MannyisHere     12/07/2010 01:33 AM     
  Good question Manny.  
  
But first, let me clarify a few points...

Obama didn´t sign TARP into law, Bush did. Obama supported it of course, but technically TARP is not on his watch as president. Also, the auto industry bailout was actually a misuse of TARP funds and as such should be considered a part of the TARP bill rather than a separate undertaking. And lastly, parts of the the health care bill Obama signed into law went into effect immediately. Others took effect throughout 2010 and still others will continue to take effect through 2014.

So now, on to your questions of what Obama has done or not done for the economic welfare of the US and what part he actually plays in it. Last in first out... the president doesn´t officially have much at all to do with the creation of new laws but, since he must sign them, he does influence the process. Likewise, any president has a lot of influence on legislators in his own party so in the end, he has a good deal to do with new laws.

That said, Obama has done nothing at all to help this country from an economic standpoint and while a bit off topic, he´s done nothing at all to help this country socially. I short, he´s done nothing to promote liberty while at the same time doing almost everything to hurt it.

Speaking strictly from an economic sense, Obama´s agenda has caused the people who drive our economy to sit on their hands and wait. The people I speak of are of course, those who have wealth and who invest in this country by way of hiring others to work for them. And please understand, I´m not talking about GM, Chrysler or other multinational companies who maintain a higher level of influence over our government than they should. I´m talking about people who are barely millionaires or below. In other words, small businesses. People like the veterinarian who treats your critters and the guy who owns your local Ace hardware store and the woman who owns the daycare you send your kids to. It´s true that these entrepreneurs employ a very small number of people when compared to big business but their numbers are in the millions, so the people they employ number in the tens of millions. Also, the people they employ are actually taxpayers in the US.

These people are good at what they do but are, like yourself, not really aware of what bad can come from Obama´s stated agenda. So what do they do? They don´t hire and they don´t spend. After all, in their mind
s eye they´re better off if they wait to see how bad Obama´s policies will affect them than they are if they continue business as usual only to find themselves caught up in government mandates that cost them more than they earn. Are they correct in that thinking? Yes and no, depending on the circumstance. But ultimately, it doesn´t matter why the owner of the company you just applied for work with doesn´t hire you because in the end, you still don´t have a job.
 
  by: silencedmajority   12/07/2010 03:43 AM     
  @CArnold  
  
Everyone here can agree that you don´t post frivolous sources. Ever. That said, I´m not questioning the credentials of John Lott. They do, as you said, speak for themselves. I am however, questioning to what degree anything the man says can be considered factual. Had you not cherry picked from the Wikipedia article you linked to, you might have caught the sections on Lott fabricating data for a survey he claims to have conducted and creating a false persona to spread lies and shamelessly self-promote online. If you didn´t read that far, here´s your own link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...

I wish I didn´t have to believe the source :( I wish we could discredit it. But as we all know, you never post frivolous sources. Ever.

Now on to your unemployment numbers. Let´s refer to your link to the BLS data, which I am fine with. In fact, it was bad baseball on my part to not notice that the link I posted showed non-seasonally adjusted figures. My bad, I apologize. We can both agree the BLS numbers are accurate.

So, then Bush witnessed a 2.7% increase in unemployment and Obama has seen a 2.3% increase.

Let me put it another way. Bush entered office with a thriving economy, budget surplus and low unemployment. Bush witnessed a 2.7% increase in unemployment and left office with an economy in crisis forcing him to start the bailout ball rolling by signing TARP into law in October of 2008. Obama stepped into office in the middle of an economic meltdown, and witnessed only a 2.3% increase in unemployment.

Again, last time I checked, 2.7% was bigger than 2.3%.

So, go ahead and do your chicken-little routine and point the finger at the Kenyan devil, but please know that you´re the only one buying your bullshit. People remember who was running the place for most of the last decade.
 
  by: zirschky     12/07/2010 05:14 AM     
  @Lurker  
  
Quote:how´s that Bush/Reagan trickle-down BS workin´ for ya?

I guess it is 6 of one and a half dozen of another. It is easy to the blame for your own failures.

Big question is how´s that hope and change working for you? Seems not to well for many who believed in him.

http://www.politico.com/...

Face it, Obama is in way over his head, and if this historic remark wasn´t enough to make you see.
http://www.youtube.com/...

Perhaps this one will put things in perspective for you.
http://www.youtube.com/...

 
  by: hellblazer     12/07/2010 06:07 AM     
  @zirsch  
  
I don’t take kindly to being attacked and being called a liar… especially when false information is being presented as “proof” to such accusations.

If you want to have a factual discussion/debate on the topic, I’ll gladly oblige and accommodate you with that. But, if you’re going to attack me with BS, I’m going to relentlessly destroy your claims, misrepresented “facts”, and your credibility. Courtesy and respect run on two-way streets. It takes courtesy and respect to beget courtesy and respect.

It’s good to see that you found a civil tongue for your last response. I’m also glad to see that you’re one that’s capable of admitting his mistakes and moving on from them. If only others were capable of doing the same.

Moving on…

“I am however, questioning to what degree anything John Lott says can be considered factual.”
Within the context of this discussion, everything he’s made his assessments on is of public record and can be found at the Congressional Budget Office or the Bureau of Labor and Statistics. All of that information is open and free to the public. You don’t have to wait for it to appear on WikiLeaks to get it. If you see something that needs correction, please bring it to our attention.

“…you might have caught the sections on Lott fabricating data for a survey he claims to have conducted…”
I saw where he was *accused* of fabricating data. Obama is also *accused* of being Muslim. Do you always find fact where you find accusations?

The accusation was that he didn’t take a survey at all, but just made up some numbers. However…
“Following extensive publicity, James Hamilton, a retired detective in Tennessee, came forward saying that he had taken the survey. David Gross, a former city prosecutor and former NRA board member came forward to say that he had been interviewed for a gun survey…”
(link is the same that you and I have already supplied)

As for him using an online alias to give his book a good review on Amazon.com…
Bill Clinton went on national television to tell everyone he didn’t “have sexual relations with that woman”, only to come back a few months later to say that he lied to hundreds of millions of people on live television and admit that he did.

Let’s compare:
1) Some guy made a fictitious account to promote his book on Amazon.com
Vs
2) Some guy that lied to hundreds of millions of his constituents to save his own a$$.

I suppose if you’re a devout Democrat, dishonesty #1 would rank higher than lying to the nation.
Like I said, I don’t post links to frivolous sources. If you can factually prove my sources wrong, then it go for it. This is just trivial stuff from the Clinton era. Literally.

“My bad, I apologize. We can both agree the BLS numbers are accurate.”
Agreed. Thank you for your acknowledgement of this.

“So, then Bush witnessed a 2.7% increase in unemployment and Obama has seen a 2.3% increase… Again, last time I checked, 2.7% was bigger than 2.3%.”
Slow down. Bush saw a 2.7% increase after an 8-yr term. Obama hasn’t even been in office for 2 years and look at how fast he’s caught up.

Did you go to school? Did you get a report-card? Do you remember how your teachers would grade you on those report cards? That’s right… they took an average. It was a cumulative view of your overall performance for a given period.

If we took Bush’s 2.7% and spread it across 96 months… what would that number be?
Now, let’s do the same with Obama’s 2.4% and spread it across 8 months when unemployment hit 10.1%.
Yeah… that average just made Bush look like a Valedictorian.

But, let’s be generous and spread Obama’s 2.4% over 22 months --- the entire time Obama has been in office.
Guess what? Bush still looks like a Valedictorian and Obama is still looking like a guy that needs to repeat a few grades.

How big does Bush’s 2.7% look, now?

Regardless of what percentage entails, we hired Obama to fix the problem. Not compound it.
As I said earlier, unemployment *never* reached 8% when Bush or Clinton were in office. Since Obama has been in office, unemployment has *always* been above 8%. How you find solace in this is amazing.
 
  by: carnold     12/07/2010 08:27 AM     
  @  
  
@manny
As SM said, that is a very good question. I´ll get back with you tomorrow with a take on that...

@sm
That was actually a decent nut-shell answer.

[ edited by carnold ]
 
  by: carnold     12/07/2010 08:32 AM     
  @Carny  
  
Please don´t sit there and pretend that you care about officials "lying to the nation." http://www.youtube.com/...
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     12/07/2010 02:41 PM     
  @Ben  
  
Wow.
You´re not going to try to defend Obama? Are you feeling like the lady that addressed him at a town hall meeting? Are you exhausted from defending him and his policies, too?

As a faithful loyalist to Obama´s failed policies, I thought you´d have more to offer than a sidebar YouTube video.

Speaking of sidebar...
Did you notice how zirsch was able to man-up and admit when he was wrong? Because he displayed great character, we were able to move past it and continue our conversation.
You should take a few notes and try doing it sometime.

[ edited by CArnold ]
 
  by: CArnold     12/07/2010 05:48 PM     
  @CArnold  
  
"As I said earlier, unemployment *never* reached 8% when Bush or Clinton were in office. Since Obama has been in office, unemployment has *always* been above 8%. How you find solace in this is amazing."

The reason I find solace in this situation is because I´m not naive enough to believe that every presidency occurs in it´s own separate vacuum devoid of effects from the policies of the previous administration. Unemployment *never* reached 8% under Bush or Clinton but has under Obama. So, are you telling me that the state of the economy under every president has been a direct result of that president´s policy? We have seen 8%+ unemployment from the second Obama took office because of his policy? I suppose FDR was responsible for the state of the economy when he took office as well?

Furthermore, your vague attempt to make Bush look better by calculating an annual percentage increase over 8 years as opposed to calculating Obama´s over 22 months is just shenanigans. Did you go to school? Did you get a report card? Was your report card averaged over the same period of time as all the other students?

Your comic routine is wearing thin, my friend. The numbers simply aren´t on your side unless you resort to twisting them with fair and balanced math. Your conservative McCarthyism won´t work here.
 
  by: zirschky     12/07/2010 08:44 PM     
  @Carnold  
  
I don´t take your posts seriously! Were you under that impression? If so, I apologize.

I just wanted to take a few quick moments to point out that you pretend to be deeply offended about a president lying about a BJ to stay out of trouble with his wife but whole-heartedly supported a president who told hundreds of lies to get us into a war that has cost thousands of American soldiers and billions of dollars.

That´s hypocritical and psychotic, and it shows how completely and dangerously disconnected you and people like you have become from anything resembling a moral compass.

[ edited by Ben_Reilly ]
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     12/07/2010 08:53 PM     
  @zirsch  
  
“So, are you telling me that the state of the economy under every president has been a direct result of that president´s policy?”
That’s just a wordy way of saying: “It’s Bush’s fault”.
We’ve grown tired of this mantra. Obama is halfway through his presidency and we’re seeing unemployment rise towards double-digit unemployment for the second time in two years. Is two years not long enough to expect to see *some* sort of measurable progress? Just *some* progress would be nice… don’t you think?

Back in the 80’s, the Japanese automakers were stomping their American competitors. The Americans couldn’t quite figure out what the Japanese were doing better than them. After a few years, automakers from both sides of the Pacific agreed to an exchange-program where administrative staff from each side would spend a few weeks observing the other’s facilities, processes, and production methods. After the conclusion of this exchange program, the Americans felt extremely enlightened. One of the biggest differences they saw between the Japanese’s way of doing things, and their own, was the corporate culture.
In the American companies, when something broke, the first question that was asked was, “Who broke it?”
In the Japanese companies, when something broke, the first question that was asked was, “How do we fix it?”

This is why the Japanese kicked Detroit’s butt for over a decade, and it’s the same reason why Obama is failing to get things done. Instead of taking on our issues head-on, he tries to distance himself from to maintain the illusion that it’s not “his fault”. He wants to make cheap political points by playing the blame-game. He’s not worried about fixing it because he’s too busy saying, “He broke it!”

Instead of focusing on jobs and the economy, he’s squandered money, time, and efforts on a healthcare bill that the majority of Americans didn’t want. Instead of addressing the peoples’ agendas, he selfishly concentrated on his own personal ones… and the Congressional Dems went along for the ride. That’s why they took such a savage beating this past November.

I’ve got a question for you…
Anytime I post this question, the Obama supporters flee the scene because they don’t know what to say --- their dried up excuse-machine isn’t able to handle the question without throwing something preposterous out there, like, “Maybe his second term.” Hopefully you’ll be able to give me a straight answer where nobody else has been able to.

Question: When do *you* think Obama should begin taking responsibility and assuming accountability for the economy?

All we’ve been hearing from this administration is how it’s Bush’s fault. The Americans spoke loudly on November 2nd. We’re tired of these excuses. Obama made campaign promises of hope, change, and an improved economy. He’s failed on all three.

“We have seen 8%+ unemployment from the second Obama took office because of his policy?”
Unemployment was at 7.7% when he took office. His “stimulus” bill, his open “spread the wealth” policy, and his eat-the-rich stances created an uncertain atmosphere for businesses. Nobody had confidence in him… and still doesn’t.

Do you remember when he claimed that passing the Stimulus Bill would contain and keep unemployment below 8%? Less than one month later, it went above 8% and hasn’t come down since.

Do you remember when Obama said his Stimulus Bill would reinvigorate the economy, thanks in part to infrastructure development and “shovel ready” jobs? All we heard from Obama was how great things were going to be because we were putting money into the economy via “shovel ready” jobs. BUT, in an interview with Time, he confessed that “there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects” and perhaps should have “let the Republicans insist on the tax cuts” in the stimulus.
http://www.nytimes.com/...


As you can plainly see, this guy has lied, swindled, and said any and every thing to get his way. When “his way” inevitably fails, he pushes the buck back onto Bush. Never mind the fact that he, himself, admits that there really were no “shovel ready” jobs to kick-start the economy, as he had misleadingly promoted.

“Your comic routine is wearing thin, my friend.”
What’s so comedic about pointing out that for two whole years, Obama has done nothing but sell Americans a big con-game? What’s comedic is your failed attempts of hairsplitting percentages and trying to dole up new excuses for an old story.

When do *you* think Obama should begin assuming responsibility and taking accountability for the economy?
 
  by: CArnold     12/07/2010 09:58 PM     
  @Upset Ben  
  
Hey... cool down. No need to get all worked up.
I was just pointing out that zirsch was able to be a man and admit to his mistakes. Being able to do such a thing is a great character trait to have, don´t you agree?

You´re getting all upset as if I was implying that you were incapable of doing the same. Ummmm... you *are* capable of doing the same... aren´t you? [snicker, snicker]

"...you pretend to be deeply offended..."
Who said anything about being offended?
I was simply using Bill as a subject of contrast and comparison. Jeez... you get worked up pretty easily these days. It´s not my fault that your prayers to Obama go unanwered; quit taking it out on little ole´ me.

"...but whole-heartedly supported a president who told hundreds of lies to get us into a war..."
Lies? He repeated what the intelligence reports relayed AND what the previous administrion was saying --- *years* before he ever campaigned for president.

Need I remind you of the awful butt-thumping you took the last time you started down that path? Here´s the link to serve as a reminder:
http://www.shortnews.com/...

That thread was classic carnold PWNAGE! I encourage everyone to read it.

[ edited by CArnold ]
 
  by: CArnold     12/07/2010 10:10 PM     
  @Ben  
  
quote:supported a president who told hundreds of lies to get us into a war that has cost thousands of American soldiers and billions of dollars.

And you support a president that is furthering the war and cost. If Bush did everything you say, why after two years under Obama are we still there?
 
  by: hellblazer     12/08/2010 07:11 AM     
  @SM  
  
So were those sub-millionaire entrepreneurs firing 2.6 million Americans in 2008 because they were afraid Bush would rescind his own tax cuts for their income strata, or pass health care reform?
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     12/08/2010 05:46 PM     
  @Ben  
  
No, that was called the Recession.
Something that Obama has had 2 years to address and alleviate... but has only succeeded in making it worse.

Look at manny´s question, a few posts above. SM was addressing his question -- not your fixation with Bush.

If you feel you can do a better job at answering it, then you should do so.

Despite your insistence to the contrary, "It´s Bush´s fault" isn´t the answer to every question and it certainly isn´t going to fix anything.

Hate it or love it, the reason unemployment has remained so high for two years is because "It´s Obama´s fault."

The reason we´ve had a stagnant economy with very little GDP growth for the past two years is because, "It´s Obama´s fault."

Do you remember all those posts you made where you declared Obama´s Stimulus Package was the silver-bullet answer to our problems? Do you remember how you argued that infrastructure development and "shovel ready" jobs were the keys to our economy´s ailments?

How did it make you feel when Obama said, “there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects”?
 
  by: CArnold     12/08/2010 07:30 PM     
  @HB  
  
Ask Arnold what happen to vietnam once we pulled out.
 
  by: kmazzawi     12/08/2010 08:33 PM     
  @CArnold  
  
"Despite your insistence to the contrary, ´It´s Bush´s fault´ isn´t the answer to every question and it certainly isn´t going to fix anything.

Hate it or love it, the reason unemployment has remained so high for two years is because ´It´s Obama´s fault.´

The reason we´ve had a stagnant economy with very little GDP growth for the past two years is because, ´It´s Obama´s fault.´"

So, let me get this straight. In one and the same breath, you tell us the blaming Bush solves nothing but that it *is* Obama´s fault? How does blaming Obama help the situation, just out of curiousity? I mean, your first two posts in this thread do essentially nothing more than blame Obama. Which is pointless and gets us nowhere, as you pointed out in the case of Bush.

Do you remember saying, "In the American companies, when something broke, the first question that was asked was, ´Who broke it?´
In the Japanese companies, when something broke, the first question that was asked was, ´How do we fix it?´"

Now, of course, you´re going to claim that your assertion was directed at Obama. He´s not getting anything done because he claims, "It´s Bush´s fault." Please, cite ANYWHERE Obama has said, "It´s Bush´s fault," or has unjustly attributed the generation of any problem he has attempted to tackle to the previous administration. Second, you tell Ben and I that blaming Bush is counterproductive and wrong headed. Then why are you wasting time blaming Obama? Are you shirking your duty as an American to actually DO something rather than playing the blame game. Which I will point out, when was the last time you offered a solution to any problem around here, other than, "It´s Obama´s fault?"

Finally, to answer your previous and much-overwrought question...

"When do *you* think Obama should begin assuming responsibility and taking accountability for the economy?"

About the same time Bush starts taking responsibility for TARP, the deficit he jacked up, and the state of the economy. I´m not saying that Obama is hasn´t taken responsibility for some of the failings of his administration. He has. But what difference would it make if he said, today, that, "I screwed up the economy pretty bad." What difference would that make to you? Would that fix the problem in your eyes?
 
  by: zirschky     12/08/2010 08:41 PM     
  @kmazzawi  
  
Do I intimidate you? Why can´t you ask me directly?

Secondly, you appear to be lost. The thread you´re looking for is here:
http://www.shortnews.com/...


The question was answered, and then some.

Your tactic to derail the topic of this thread isn´t going to work.
 
  by: CArnold     12/08/2010 08:55 PM     
  @zirsch (1)  
  
“So, let me get this straight. In one and the same breath, you tell us the blaming Bush solves nothing…”
Correct.

“…but that it *is* Obama´s fault”
Correct, again.

“How does blaming Obama help the situation, just out of curiousity?”
It’s a matter of accountability. He needs to wake up and realize that *he* is the President of the US. Not George Bush. He needs to pull his head out and realize that solving this problem requires more than throwing money at it – as he’s already tried and failed.
We didn’t hire him do finger-pointing. We hired him to fix the problem. He’s been doing a lot of the former and none of the latter.

“…your first two posts in this thread do essentially nothing more than blame Obama. Which is pointless and gets us nowhere, as you pointed out in the case of Bush.”
You seem to be oblivious as to what is painfully obvious to everyone else:

1 – Bush is not in office. He hasn’t been in office for two years. There is nothing he can do for us or the economy. Period. Therefore, pushing blame onto a man with no power or influence does nothing to fix the problem. It’s just a feeble excuse as to why things still aren’t fixed.

2 – Obama *is* the President. Insofar as the state of the nation and the citizens’ welfare are concerned, the buck stops with him. He is the one that sets the agenda in Washington. He is the one that has squandered nearly a trillion dollars in a failed attempt to fix the economy. His “plan” has produced a record deficit, has run up record debt, and has set a new record for the longest period unemployment has been at or above 9%. That’s right, Obama has set 3 new records within his 2 years in office and they weren’t for enviable achievements. Things have gotten worse in 2 years – not better. This is *his* economy. The failures have been *his* fault.

“Please, cite ANYWHERE Obama has said, "It´s Bush´s fault,””
Huh? What?? You’re kidding… right?? I can’t believe I’m debating with someone that just asked that question…

Google “Obama blames Bush”. Take your pick from the *thousands* of articles.
Meanwhile, here are a few for you to review:

Videos of Obama blaming Bush:
http://www.breitbart.tv/...

http://www.youtube.com/...

http://www.youtube.com/...


Articles:

"Obama blames financial woes on Bush"
http://www.politico.com/...


"New Strategy for Obama: Blame Bush"
http://www.newser.com/...


"Obama blaming Bush.....again"
http://www.examiner.com/...


"Note to Obama: Quit blaming Bush for your prolifigate spending"
http://washingtonexaminer.com/...


"Why Obama Will ´Own´ the Recession"
http://money.usnews.com/...


"Obama Sharpens His Reminders That He Inherited Fiscal ´Mess´ From Bush"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...


"President Barack Obama Blames Bush & GOP for Weak Economy"
http://www.newsopi.com/...


"Obama lays into Bush again on economy"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/...


Get your read on.
 
  by: CArnold     12/08/2010 11:06 PM     
  @zirsch (2)  
  
“With four simple words — "Give it to me!" — President Barack Obama took possession of the economy.

For months, the White House and Obama´s economic team have laid the economic crisis at the feet of President George W. Bush. But there comes a point in a presidency when inheritance becomes ownership. Obama made that pivot Tuesday in Michigan, the state suffering the worst unemployment in the nation.

"I love these folks who helped get us in this mess and then suddenly say, ´Well, this is Obama´s economy,´" the president said in a pointed deviation from his prepared text. "That´s fine. Give it to me!"”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...


“Give it to me.” He said this in Michigan on July 15, 2009.
Yet, he hasn’t done anything to show he was serious about it. All he’s done is lay more blame on Bush while simultaneously destroying our economy. Compare that date with the dates in the articles I linked for you.

As to your answer to my question… That was lame. Very lame. I’m not trying to be rude or insulting; I’m just being brutally honest.

Let’s pick this answer apart:

“About the same time Bush starts taking responsibility for TARP”
What’s there to take responsibility for? It was a *success*! He has proudly taken responsibility for it. In fact, the Dems are now trying to steal that credit away from Bush because it was so successful!
All but about $25-billion of the $700-billion has been paid back. Despite the outstanding $25-billion, we’ve *profited* from TARP. For instance, CitiGroup paid back their loan and then the US gov’t sold their shares in the company and *profited* a whopping $12-billion!
http://abcnews.go.com/...


TARP was a money-maker for the government. We got our money back and still have over $25-billion in debt and interest coming to us. Who *wouldn’t* want to take credit for that? Compare that to Obama’s Stimulus Bill which will *cost* us $12-trillion in 10 years.

Compare: 1) Bush’s TARP *made* money Vs 2)Obama’s Stimulus Bill will cost us more than our GDP!
Bush = WIN!
Obama = FAIL!

“…the deficit he jacked up…”
Deficits are annual/fiscal. They roll into the cumulative national debt – of which Obama *doubled* in his first 100-days in office.

“…and the state of the economy.”
The economy is worse now that when Bush left office. He’s not responsible for fixing it. Obama is.

Again, you’re reverting back to the old “It’s Bush’s fault.”
Just for argument’s sake, let’s suppose that it is Bush’s fault. Does that let Obama off the hook from fixing it? When his term ends and we’re still hovering near (or at) double-digit unemployment, is it still going to be Bush’s fault? You’re doing nothing but pouring on the excuses.

“I´m not saying that Obama is hasn´t taken responsibility for some of the failings of his administration.”
He’s only given lip-service to responsibility. What has he done to improve the economy? You can’t point to anything because nothing has improved. He’s a mere .3% away from his high of 10.1%. How do you find improvement with that?

“But what difference would it make if he said, today, that, "I screwed up the economy pretty bad." What difference would that make to you? Would that fix the problem in your eyes?”
As mentioned in the article at the top of this post, Obama has already “assumed responsibility”. So, no it won’t fix anything. Coming from that man, it’s just all talk and rhetoric -- just like those “shovel ready” jobs.

Extending Bush’s tax cuts is the only action I’ve seen this administration take towards improving things. Mark the date that happened. I can guarantee that the Republicans’ push for those extended tax cuts will have a positive effect on the economy. You can quote me on that.
 
  by: CArnold     12/08/2010 11:07 PM     
  Great Article  
  
This is from the 3rd article link I gave to zirsch:

"It appears that President Barack Obama, while out campaigning for the Democratic party before the November elections, has decided that his tactic will be to revert back to blaming former President George W. Bush for all the country´s ills....again. But it won´t be anything new since his presidential campaign was built on blaming Bush, and has continued to blame Bush for everything since taking office.

But are folks going to want to hear this? “First of all I think that his attempt to try to blame 10 percent unemployment on the past administration will be viewed as a – I was trying to think of some other word other than a joke, but – I just don’t think people buy it,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee

“At some point after you’ve been president for a while, knowing you have the substantial majorities in the House and the Senate, people are going to say, ‘You know what? This is your responsibility.’ And I think we’ve arrived at that point.”

Consider that when Bush left office the nations deficit was at $880 billion dollars, within Obama´s first three weeks that deficit rose to one trillion dollars and has kept rising since. And now he has his nationalized health care that experts say will take the country to a ten trillion dollar deficit over the next 8 to 10 years.

So is George Bush really to blame? It´s still not real clear exactly what people will be thinking as they hear the blame-game continue, because there is still a number of folks that do blame Bush for the current economy etc. But the American people get pretty tired pretty quick when all they hear is someone heaping all the blame on someone else.

At what point does Obama think he might want to start taking responsibility? Or is he afraid to? It´s well known that he´s very uncomfortable with hardball questions, or questions that call his policies into question. And it´s well known that Obama pre-screens questions before any press conference and hand picks that one´s he´ll answer, and usually limits them to 12 or 13. Then takes 10 to 15 minutes to give a non-answer so as to eat up the time.

One thing can be said about President Bush....he was able to handle the harsh criticisms that were apart of his daily life as president, not to mention the daily barrage of name-calling and just general disrespect he endured. But Obama is not that kind of man, he´s not used to being criticized, or being called into question. So the answer for someone like that is to shift blame to someone else....which is actually in the liberal handbook.

When Obama first took office and was telling people about the mess he inherited, which is very typical of all incoming presidents....everyone thought, well, it´s to be expected and lets see what Obama has in store. The "hope" and "change" chants were still fresh in everyone´s mind. But as the year wore on and Obama kept on blaming Bush for most all of the country´s problems, folks started to wonder: is George Bush really responsible for all of the messes?

The economy is cyclical, it always has been, and many factors go into the determination of a good or bad economy. Obama should know this. However....Bush was highly successful in his troop surge in Iraq, when the focus was there, President Obama attempted the same thing in Afghanistan, but because of his hemming and hawing over the number of troops to send there, it hasn´t worked.

Barack Obama while campaigning promised to close Guantanamo Bay, yet he had no plan as to what he would do with the some 200 prisoners still there. But he´s kept it open just as Bush would have done and so far it´s continued to work.

So maybe not everything Bush did was a mistake, but folks will never hear any praise for Bush for his accomplishments. And going back on the campaign trail campaigning for the Democratic party, and spending all his time blaming the former president will more than likely backfire on Obama, and then it´ll be too late to take it back.

It just seems like a very bad tactic to take at such a critical time for the Democrats."
 
  by: CArnold     12/08/2010 11:24 PM     
  Neither, Ben....  
  
they were responding to a loss in sales that is inherent to an oncoming economic recession.
 
  by: silencedmajority   12/09/2010 02:22 AM     
  @CArtman  
  
This is the Third time today you made me feel like I am reading stuff written from the moon.

"And it´s well known that Obama pre-screens questions before any press conference and hand picks that one´s he´ll answer,"
Bush hand picked the journalists that were allowed into the press conference, as well as cherry picking questions. It did not bother you then, so no one will care if it bothers you now. This is how it works by the way.

"One thing can be said about President Bush....he was able to handle the harsh criticisms that were apart of his daily life as president, not to mention the daily barrage of name-calling and just general disrespect he endured"
He took the barrage because he deserves it, but he handled the barrage? He spent a very high number of his paid workdays vacationing on a ranch.

"he´s not used to being criticized"
The entire lefty dogma is based on critisism and calling things into questions. Now all of a sudden lefties are not used to criticism? Get off the moon. I still remember when Hellblazer was surprised the lefties were not jumping to defend their boss from a criticism.

"The economy is cyclical, it always has been, ..However....Bush was highly successful in his troop surge in Iraq"
Bush sent your guys to war to distract you from his mistakes back home. Exactly how you are now distracting us by confounding bad home economy with a ´successful´ surge, ´job accomplished´ style. I can´t really blame you, this is what you were shown.

In fact I still remember when I read you the first time here on SN I kept thinking you are some sort of embedded blogger who will just go away. I figured you were embedded because you keep amplifying every single meme your party generates with a total disregard for its benefit or harm to you.

As for obama blaming bush, thanx for the link but obama already said it in public, something about how he can spend his entire term just reversing bush´s decisions and the people will like him for it.

Obama was correct. The only time we are upset with the Kenyan is when he fails to reverse a Bush decision. When he fails to implement enough health reforms. when he fails to close a prison because the countries the prisoners came from will now kill them if they are sent back to save face.
 
  by: kmazzawi     12/09/2010 06:35 PM     
  @kmazzawi  
  
I have to assume that by "we", you mean yourself and the mouse in your pocket, because I´m not happy with anything Obama has done to this country. That said, I would appreciate it if you didn´t generalize so freely.

I was sort of happy when he had Eric Holder say the that the feds were no longer going to raid and prosecute legal marijuana dispensaries in California but sadly, this was the only action he´s made toward the preservation of liberty and like everything else he´s claimed he would do to right the wrongs in this country he only really did enough so that he could say he´s working on it.
 
  by: silencedmajority   12/10/2010 03:45 AM     
  @Silenced  
  
By we i mean mostly canadians who are not from the centre of the country. I can not speak on behalf of hicks.

[ edited by kmazzawi ]
 
  by: kmazzawi     12/10/2010 05:34 AM     
  @silenced  
  
"..but sadly, this was the only action he´s made toward the preservation .."
yep, he did not do enough to reverse something bush was pushing for.
 
  by: kmazzawi     12/10/2010 05:37 AM     
  @kmazzawi  
  
The first part of your post is too easy. Vacationing on his own ranch vs spending *hundreds* of millions of tax-payer dollars to vacations to Hawaii, sending his wife to Spain at a cost of $75,000 p/day paid for by the taxpayers, his one-night $100,000 date in NY (also on the taxpayer dime), etc, etc. I’ll come back to those easy questions tomorrow. Tonight, I wanted to tackle the biggest mistake of your post.

“Obama was correct. The only time we are upset with the Kenyan is when he fails to reverse a Bush decision.”

I harp on Obama quite a bit. But, there are a lot of things I don´t really bother him about. Why? Because he´s taken Bush´s position on them. Many of these things are the same things you Liberals were griping about when Bush was in office... but since Obama has adopted them, you Libs have been pretty quiet about them.

Remember the Patriot Act that all of you claimed would end our freedoms and end the world? Obama criticized Bush heavily about that, as well.
Once he took office, guess what happened? He extended them. AND he´s added to them. When Bush was in office, the government could wiretap *international* calls to areas where terrorists where prevalent. Now, the Obama administration has extended its surveillance powers to include your e-mail and the internet. In fact, as of a few weeks ago, the government has been granted the authority to shut down site that it considers to provide illegal content (piracy, copyright infringement, etc.). That’s right. If you were to copy and paste an article on *this* site and forget to post the source to give credit to the source, this site could be shut down or blocked from the US.

Where’s the outrage? You liberals were complaining about how making a telephone call to Iran, Pakistan, or some other terrorist infested country was the pinnacle of Bush’s tyranny. But, let’s be realistic. How many people are on the phone with someone in Iran or Pakistan? Maybe 1 in 100,000 people? Now… how many use the internet and e-mail? Yeah. The double-standard strikes again, doesn’t it? Visit my Visiting Card. Click the link that shows the news I’ve submitted. The article is right there near the top. I reported it. When you visit that link, take notice to how many liberals weren’t there to protest it. Why? Because not one of you have any principles or values. If Bush had pulled this crap, you’d been swinging like monkeys in a tree to protest it. BUT, since a Liberal president did it… it’s suddenly acceptable to have Big Brother prying into our affairs. This is one of MANY reasons Liberals are a joke. And it’s one of MANY reason why voters rejected them and their socialist agendas on November 2, 2010.

Want more? Sure…
Guitanamo Bay – I supported. Libs detested. It’s still open and I don’t hear nearly as much crap about it as when Bush was in office. Double standards, again.

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell – You Liberals were bashing Bush over a policy that Clinton started. Now that Obama is in office, it gets a little airtime, but nothing near what it was when Bush was in office. Double standards again.

War in Iraq – “Bring Them Home!”, “End The War!”. These were just a few of the signs that were held in front of the White House when Bush was in office. Guess what? Obama has been in office for two years and our troops are still in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, where have the Libs been for the past two years with their “peace marches” and protests against the war? Again… silent. They seemed to have one almost every month when Bush was in office… but not one since Obama took office.

Liberals don’t have credibility. They have no firm foundation based on values or principles. To them, it’s all a political game for political gain. Damn Bush for doing it, but exonerate Obama when he does the same.

The Liberals’ messages, like your posts, are hollow. That’s why Pelosi will no longer Speaker of the House in January, and a Conservative will.
 
  by: carnold     12/10/2010 08:28 AM     
  40 comments
   Back to Forum
 
 
 
Copyright ©2017 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com