Debate Now Non-partisan discussion: What's so bad/good about the state of "things" in the U.S?

[320 Years of History]

I am not among those who think "the sky is falling," so to speak. I don't care who is responsible for the current state of our nation, but as I look at where it is as shown by several key metrics, I find assertions (and their supporting arguments) that the U.S. is "a mess" downright empty, little more than a scare tactic to manipulate action in one way or another.

What are some of the key metrics of how our nation has changed over the past eight years?
FWIW, the adult population is ~245M and of them, ~35M are retirement age.

The Good:

• Jobs -- Increased by 6.3M
• Unemployment rate -- down by 5.3% to what is essentially structural levels
• S&P 500 -- Up 156%
• Real weekly earnings -- Up by 1.7%
• Corporate profits -- up 182%
• Petroleum imports -- Down 55%
• Wind and solar production -- Up 248%
• Exports of goods and services -- Up 39%

The Bad:

• Consumer prices -- Up by 11.6%
  
• Food stamp recipients -- Up 46%
• Long term unemployed people -- Up 86K
• Average health insurance premium -- Up 2%

The Neutral -- Stuff that doesn't on the face of things ring to me as being unequivocally good or bad, but rather just is:

• Number of health insurers -- Up 25%
• Public debt -- Up 106%
  • "How Much Debt is Too Much?"
    
  • New research suggests debt’s trajectory affects growth more than its level
• U.S. crude oil production -- Up 76%
• Gun buyer background checks -- Up 46% (I can see calling this good, I don't know what is bad about it, but I put it in this group because maybe someone thinks it's bad)

While the pic above refers to the figures as "Obama's numbers," I used it because the data sources "out there" almost invariably cast their observations with reference to Mr. Obama. That is also the reason for the eight year window. That said, this thread is not intended to be a discussion about Mr. Obama or his adversaries for three reasons:

• There's enough of that already on the forum.
• For a good many of the metrics, the President's influence on them is marginal and or debatable at best, no matter who the President is.
• Mr. Obama is leaving office and what he's done, influenced or affected is all but irrelevant at this point; if there's to be any long term impact with regard to the figures cited above, now is not when that will be shown to be so or not so.

Thread discussion topic/question:

• With regard to the information above, what about it indicates the country is "a mess" or whatever term/phrase you may care to use that implies that, as a nation, we are overall worse off than we were eight years ago? How so and why?

Thread rules:

1. All posts must either:
   1. Answer the thread questions asked (both the main question and the "how so and why" question), or
   2. Respond to others answers to the the thread question.
2. No discussion of who is to blame or who should get credit for the observed metrics or any other metrics cited. This is a discussion about observed facts and one's interpretation of and value assessments about them. Who's to blame and who gets credit, as well as identifying who one thinks those individuals/groups be is off limits.
   
   Posters are free to identify policies, actions, and ideas -- the "what" -- that have positive, neutral, or negative impacts on observed facts and inferred conclusions.
3. Provide references for any cited facts or ideas that are not widely and well understood and/or accepted.

 

[pinqy]

ummm did you realize your numbers are a year old? Why haven't you used the current data?

 

[320 Years of History]

ummm did you realize your numbers are a year old? Why haven't you used the current data?

Off Topic:
Because the picture using more recent numbers is even rosier overall and I thought that would make it even harder for folks who feel the country is "a mess" to offer a well developed answer.

Now that you have my answer, please answer the thread question. I don't care whether you answer with regard to the figures in the OP or the ones below. Just note that this is not a thread about comparing either year with any point in time other than eight years ago.

 

[rightwinger]

I turn 60 this year and compared to conditions I have seen over my lifetime, we are not doing that badly

While far from perfect, our economy is strong. We have a strong dollar, low unemployment and have the strongest economy in the world

The global situation is relatively peaceful. While we still have the threat of terrorism, its impact is more sensational than substantial. There are no major conflicts in the world and our military is retracting due to a lessened threat

The biggest global threat I see is not terrorism but the wide disparity in economies. Starvation is still a major threat and can lead to global conflicts if not reduced. What happens when the starving masses flood better developed countries and are turned away?

Domestically, our biggest problem is the widening animosity between political extremes. Bipartisanship is a relic of the past and the tone of political rhetoric is getting more and more provocative

 

[MarcATL]

Great thread. Any such thread discussing the current greatness of America will not be popular, particularly to those on the right. It simply doesn't fit their narrative. Notwithstanding the truth.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[Ringel05]

I turn 60 this year and compared to conditions I have seen over my lifetime, we are not doing that badly

While far from perfect, our economy is strong. We have a strong dollar, low unemployment and have the strongest economy in the world

The global situation is relatively peaceful. While we still have the threat of terrorism, its impact is more sensational than substantial. There are no major conflicts in the world and our military is retracting due to a lessened threat

The biggest global threat I see is not terrorism but the wide disparity in economies. Starvation is still a major threat and can lead to global conflicts if not reduced. What happens when the starving masses flood better developed countries and are turned away?

Domestically, our biggest problem is the widening animosity between political extremes. Bipartisanship is a relic of the past and the tone of political rhetoric is getting more and more provocative

We've gone through these political cycles throughout our entire history as have every country/society throughout history.

 

[rightwinger]

I turn 60 this year and compared to conditions I have seen over my lifetime, we are not doing that badly

While far from perfect, our economy is strong. We have a strong dollar, low unemployment and have the strongest economy in the world

The global situation is relatively peaceful. While we still have the threat of terrorism, its impact is more sensational than substantial. There are no major conflicts in the world and our military is retracting due to a lessened threat

The biggest global threat I see is not terrorism but the wide disparity in economies. Starvation is still a major threat and can lead to global conflicts if not reduced. What happens when the starving masses flood better developed countries and are turned away?

Domestically, our biggest problem is the widening animosity between political extremes. Bipartisanship is a relic of the past and the tone of political rhetoric is getting more and more provocative

We've gone through these political cycles throughout our entire history as have every country/society throughout history.

Politically, I've never seen the animosity we see today

 

[320 Years of History]

I turn 60 this year and compared to conditions I have seen over my lifetime, we are not doing that badly

While far from perfect, our economy is strong. We have a strong dollar, low unemployment and have the strongest economy in the world

The global situation is relatively peaceful. While we still have the threat of terrorism, its impact is more sensational than substantial. There are no major conflicts in the world and our military is retracting due to a lessened threat

The biggest global threat I see is not terrorism but the wide disparity in economies. Starvation is still a major threat and can lead to global conflicts if not reduced. What happens when the starving masses flood better developed countries and are turned away?

Domestically, our biggest problem is the widening animosity between political extremes. Bipartisanship is a relic of the past and the tone of political rhetoric is getting more and more provocative

We've gone through these political cycles throughout our entire history as have every country/society throughout history.

Politically, I've never seen the animosity we see today

I suggest, if it airs again, that you watch "Race for the White House." Yesterday's episode, the second one, was about the 1860 election. There were a lot of similarities between that election cycle and this one. Plus, there was far shadier "stuff" going on in and around the primaries leading to the election than there are in the 2016 primary process.

 

[rightwinger]

I turn 60 this year and compared to conditions I have seen over my lifetime, we are not doing that badly

While far from perfect, our economy is strong. We have a strong dollar, low unemployment and have the strongest economy in the world

The global situation is relatively peaceful. While we still have the threat of terrorism, its impact is more sensational than substantial. There are no major conflicts in the world and our military is retracting due to a lessened threat

The biggest global threat I see is not terrorism but the wide disparity in economies. Starvation is still a major threat and can lead to global conflicts if not reduced. What happens when the starving masses flood better developed countries and are turned away?

Domestically, our biggest problem is the widening animosity between political extremes. Bipartisanship is a relic of the past and the tone of political rhetoric is getting more and more provocative

We've gone through these political cycles throughout our entire history as have every country/society throughout history.

Politically, I've never seen the animosity we see today

I suggest, if it airs again, that you watch "Race for the White House." Yesterday's episode, the second one, was about the 1860 election. There were a lot of similarities between that election cycle and this one. Plus, there was far shadier "stuff" going on in and around the primaries leading to the election than there are in the 2016 primary process.

I watched the other night with Kennedy/Nixon

While our political rancor is bad now, I don't think it reaches the levels of 1860. We had better hope not

 

[320 Years of History]

Great thread. Any such thread discussing the current greatness of America will not be popular, particularly to those on the right. It simply doesn't fit their narrative. Notwithstanding the truth.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Red:
Thank you for saying so.

Blue:
You may be correct. Indeed, for now, it appears you are.

For all the outcry from the I've heard -- be it from the right, left or elsewhere -- about "this is messed up" and "that is messed up and wrong to boot," I'd have thought folks who feel that way would jump at the chance to discuss the plausibility and merit of their claims/understanding to that effect. I thought that

• by opening the thread with a balanced presentation of "the good, the bad and the neutral" facts at hand, and
• by structuring the thread discussion so that posters may, with pinpoint focus, identify the nature and extent of failure shown by the observed facts, considered in total, and the corresponding policy approaches/decisions that produced them...

...members who are greatly dismayed by the overall results our nation has produced as a consequence of "everything" that's happened during the past eight years would be thrilled with the opportunity to discuss clearly and objectively what about those results, in and of themselves, rightly should disconcert those of us who, unlike them, haven't "seen the light," so to speak. I had thought members would welcome the opportunity to discuss and stand behind their claims that the nation is indeed in a state of decay and discuss the strength and merit of that claim in light of the totality of results that have been attained.

Apparently I am mistaken. When called to "put up or shut up," the latter is apparently the preferred course of action "Chicken Little" these days takes when she "arrives in Missouri" and is asked to show us how it is that "the sky is falling."

 

[Ringel05]

I turn 60 this year and compared to conditions I have seen over my lifetime, we are not doing that badly

While far from perfect, our economy is strong. We have a strong dollar, low unemployment and have the strongest economy in the world

The global situation is relatively peaceful. While we still have the threat of terrorism, its impact is more sensational than substantial. There are no major conflicts in the world and our military is retracting due to a lessened threat

The biggest global threat I see is not terrorism but the wide disparity in economies. Starvation is still a major threat and can lead to global conflicts if not reduced. What happens when the starving masses flood better developed countries and are turned away?

Domestically, our biggest problem is the widening animosity between political extremes. Bipartisanship is a relic of the past and the tone of political rhetoric is getting more and more provocative

We've gone through these political cycles throughout our entire history as have every country/society throughout history.

Politically, I've never seen the animosity we see today

I would hope not, that would make you a couple of hundred years old........
The Jeffersonians vs the Hamiltonians, the vitriol exchanged in that one makes today's pale by comparison, Lincoln vs Douglas and the lead up to the Civil War are just two of the most famous.

 

[rightwinger]

I turn 60 this year and compared to conditions I have seen over my lifetime, we are not doing that badly

While far from perfect, our economy is strong. We have a strong dollar, low unemployment and have the strongest economy in the world

The global situation is relatively peaceful. While we still have the threat of terrorism, its impact is more sensational than substantial. There are no major conflicts in the world and our military is retracting due to a lessened threat

The biggest global threat I see is not terrorism but the wide disparity in economies. Starvation is still a major threat and can lead to global conflicts if not reduced. What happens when the starving masses flood better developed countries and are turned away?

Domestically, our biggest problem is the widening animosity between political extremes. Bipartisanship is a relic of the past and the tone of political rhetoric is getting more and more provocative

We've gone through these political cycles throughout our entire history as have every country/society throughout history.

Politically, I've never seen the animosity we see today

I would hope not, that would make you a couple of hundred years old........
The Jeffersonians vs the Hamiltonians, the vitriol exchanged in that one makes today's pale by comparison, Lincoln vs Douglas and the lead up to the Civil War are just two of the most famous.

Just look at the Alexander Hamilton/Aaron Burr duel

 

[Ringel05]

Great thread. Any such thread discussing the current greatness of America will not be popular, particularly to those on the right. It simply doesn't fit their narrative. Notwithstanding the truth.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Red:
Thank you for saying so.

Blue:
You may be correct. Indeed, for now, it appears you are.

For all the outcry from the I've heard -- be it from the right, left or elsewhere -- about "this is messed up" and "that is messed up and wrong to boot," I'd have thought folks who feel that way would jump at the chance to discuss the plausibility and merit of their claims/understanding to that effect. I thought that

• by opening the thread with a balanced presentation of "the good, the bad and the neutral" facts at hand, and
• by structuring the thread discussion so that posters may, with pinpoint focus, identify the nature and extent of failure shown by the observed facts, considered in total, and the corresponding policy approaches/decisions that produced them...

...members who are greatly dismayed by the overall results our nation has produced as a consequence of "everything" that's happened during the past eight years would be thrilled with the opportunity to discuss clearly and objectively what about those results, in and of themselves, rightly should disconcert those of us who, unlike them, haven't "seen the light," so to speak. I had thought members would welcome the opportunity to discuss and stand behind their claims that the nation is indeed in a state of decay and discuss the strength and merit of that claim in light of the totality of results that have been attained.

Apparently I am mistaken. When called to "put up or shut up," the latter is apparently the preferred course of action "Chicken Little" these days takes when she "arrives in Missouri" and is asked to show us how it is that "the sky is falling."

The problem with politics (and religion) is when it comes up even some of the most rational people tend to become irrational blithering idiots, it's the nature of the beast. You're also attempting to present this discussion opportunity during a very hot election cycle, good luck.
Oh and why am I not emotionally off the deep end politically? All of your statistics aside people will be people and I know this grand experiment is doomed to ultimate failure based on past historical patterns. Glubb's Fate of Empires, it's inevitable, humankind loves to repeat history over and over.
Sorry to go a little off topic.

 

[Ringel05]

Oh and there's one other problem with attempting to incite a rational discussion, you're using statistics. Have you ever heard the old saying; lies, damn lies and statistics? If you know how the raw data is categorized and correlated (defined) by those utilizing it you'll understand how that applies.

 

[320 Years of History]

Oh and there's one other problem with attempting to incite a rational discussion, you're using statistics. Have you ever heard the old saying; lies, damn lies and statistics? If you know how the raw data is categorized and correlated (defined) by those utilizing it you'll understand how that applies.

Well, I did provide the link for the source of the figures cited. Anyone who cares to engage on the topic can and should look at the source information to determine for themselves whether the stats presented have flaws in their composition that would materially compromise their validity.

 

[Ringel05]

Oh and there's one other problem with attempting to incite a rational discussion, you're using statistics. Have you ever heard the old saying; lies, damn lies and statistics? If you know how the raw data is categorized and correlated (defined) by those utilizing it you'll understand how that applies.

Well, I did provide the link for the source of the figures cited. Anyone who cares to engage on the topic can and should look at the source information to determine for themselves whether the stats presented have flaws in their composition that would materially compromise their validity.

I understand but sources typically do not publish their data processes (what is included, what is omitted and why) which is why I take all statistics with a large block of salt the size of Connecticut and politically utilized statistics with a block of salt the size of the USA.
Like I said before, I'll say it in another way, people are perspective driven creatures and those perspectives become more narrowly focused within the realm of politics so again, good luck.

 

[320 Years of History]

Oh and there's one other problem with attempting to incite a rational discussion, you're using statistics. Have you ever heard the old saying; lies, damn lies and statistics? If you know how the raw data is categorized and correlated (defined) by those utilizing it you'll understand how that applies.

Well, I did provide the link for the source of the figures cited. Anyone who cares to engage on the topic can and should look at the source information to determine for themselves whether the stats presented have flaws in their composition that would materially compromise their validity.

I understand but sources typically do not publish their data processes (what is included, what is omitted and why) which is why I take all statistics with a large block of salt the size of Connecticut and politically utilized statistics with a block of salt the size of the USA.
Like I said before, I'll say it in another way, people are perspective driven creatures and those perspectives become more narrowly focused within the realm of politics so again, good luck.

That may be for some groups and individuals, but the data presented comes from the government, by way of Politifact, and the government most certainly does present its methodology for the data it publishes.

 

[Ringel05]

Oh and there's one other problem with attempting to incite a rational discussion, you're using statistics. Have you ever heard the old saying; lies, damn lies and statistics? If you know how the raw data is categorized and correlated (defined) by those utilizing it you'll understand how that applies.

Well, I did provide the link for the source of the figures cited. Anyone who cares to engage on the topic can and should look at the source information to determine for themselves whether the stats presented have flaws in their composition that would materially compromise their validity.

I understand but sources typically do not publish their data processes (what is included, what is omitted and why) which is why I take all statistics with a large block of salt the size of Connecticut and politically utilized statistics with a block of salt the size of the USA.
Like I said before, I'll say it in another way, people are perspective driven creatures and those perspectives become more narrowly focused within the realm of politics so again, good luck.

That may be for some groups and individuals, but the data presented comes from the government, by way of Politifact, and the government most certainly does present its methodology for the data it publishes.

And that methodology can be debated which is why I refuse to debate statistics, it's an exercise in futility.

 

[Holos]

"With regard to the information above, what about it indicates the country is "a mess" or whatever term/phrase you may care to use that implies that, as a nation, we are overall worse off than we were eight years ago? How so and why?"

There is no concise, brief, binding multilateral agreement of what a nation is, except of course, by absent Constitutional references and procedures. That being noticed, the whole OP is the mess itself, and not in anyway the country, not even a partial description of it.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I am not among those who think "the sky is falling," so to speak. I don't care who is responsible for the current state of our nation, but as I look at where it is as shown by several key metrics, I find assertions (and their supporting arguments) that the U.S. is "a mess" downright empty, little more than a scare tactic to manipulate action in one way or another.

What are some of the key metrics of how our nation has changed over the past eight years?
FWIW, the adult population is ~245M and of them, ~35M are retirement age.

The Good:

• Jobs -- Increased by 6.3M
• Unemployment rate -- down by 5.3% to what is essentially structural levels
• S&P 500 -- Up 156%
• Real weekly earnings -- Up by 1.7%
• Corporate profits -- up 182%
• Petroleum imports -- Down 55%
• Wind and solar production -- Up 248%
• Exports of goods and services -- Up 39%

The Bad:

• Consumer prices -- Up by 11.6%
  
• Food stamp recipients -- Up 46%
• Long term unemployed people -- Up 86K
• Average health insurance premium -- Up 2%

The Neutral -- Stuff that doesn't on the face of things ring to me as being unequivocally good or bad, but rather just is:

• Number of health insurers -- Up 25%
• Public debt -- Up 106%
  • "How Much Debt is Too Much?"
    
  • New research suggests debt’s trajectory affects growth more than its level
• U.S. crude oil production -- Up 76%
• Gun buyer background checks -- Up 46% (I can see calling this good, I don't know what is bad about it, but I put it in this group because maybe someone thinks it's bad)

While the pic above refers to the figures as "Obama's numbers," I used it because the data sources "out there" almost invariably cast their observations with reference to Mr. Obama. That is also the reason for the eight year window. That said, this thread is not intended to be a discussion about Mr. Obama or his adversaries for three reasons:

• There's enough of that already on the forum.
• For a good many of the metrics, the President's influence on them is marginal and or debatable at best, no matter who the President is.
• Mr. Obama is leaving office and what he's done, influenced or affected is all but irrelevant at this point; if there's to be any long term impact with regard to the figures cited above, now is not when that will be shown to be so or not so.

Thread discussion topic/question:

• With regard to the information above, what about it indicates the country is "a mess" or whatever term/phrase you may care to use that implies that, as a nation, we are overall worse off than we were eight years ago? How so and why?

Thread rules:

1. All posts must either:
   1. Answer the thread questions asked (both the main question and the "how so and why" question), or
   2. Respond to others answers to the the thread question.
2. No discussion of who is to blame or who should get credit for the observed metrics or any other metrics cited. This is a discussion about observed facts and one's interpretation of and value assessments about them. Who's to blame and who gets credit, as well as identifying who one thinks those individuals/groups be is off limits.
   
   Posters are free to identify policies, actions, and ideas -- the "what" -- that have positive, neutral, or negative impacts on observed facts and inferred conclusions.
3. Provide references for any cited facts or ideas that are not widely and well understood and/or accepted.

The good


Obama only has 6 more months in office



The bad

American idiots will elect another moron to replace him



That's where we can start the discussion.