Obamateurism of the Year ?

[mudwhistle]

57 states is still pretty epic.

And didn't he call us all "enemies" @ 1 point?

Turning NASA into a Muslim outreach program was pretty funny too.

 

[MaggieMae]

The best disinfectant is Sunlight. If a media outlet provides false information, it is sure as heck going to be outed by others.

The President advocating for less choice just betrays his regret that there is no longer a media oligarchy that can be co-opted by Progressives.

Except I don't think he was talking about media outlets (although we all know they too get away with false information every day, don't we). I think he was talking about the FALSE information being portrayed as truth and the gullibility of many Americans who believe it.

Wrong again.

"Interviewed on CNBC Tuesday, President Obama vented his displeasure with FOX News, the cable network whose own senior vice president of programming has called it "the voice of the opposition" to the Obama administration. "
President Obama Attacks FOX News -- Politics Daily

Of course Fox had already announced it was going to be the voice of opposition.

The Los Angeles Times reported on March 6 that according to Glenn Beck, in a meeting with him, Fox News chief executive Roger Ailes "shared a message of his own: The country faced tough times, he said, and Fox News was one of the only news outlets willing to challenge the new administration." From the article:

"I wanted to meet with Roger and tell him, 'You may not want to put me on the air. I believe we are in dire trouble, and I will never shut up,' " said the conservative radio host.

But before Beck could say anything, Ailes shared a message of his own: The country faced tough times, he said, and Fox News was one of the only news outlets willing to challenge the new administration.

"I see this as the Alamo," Ailes said, according to Beck. "If I just had somebody who was willing to sit on the other side of the camera until the last shot is fired, we'd be fine."

"After the Democratic convention, Obama campaign lawyer Robert Bauer warned TV stations against airing a TV ad that was embarrassing to Barack Obama. The commercial focused on the longtime relationship between Obama and Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. Bauer sent letters to the Justice Department imploring the agency to pursue criminal action against those behind the ads. It was not lost on anyone at that time that Bauer was considered a candidate to be the next U.S. Attorney-General. "
The American Spectator : Obama's Enemies List

So? The constant carping about some bogus ongoing relationship with Bill Ayers was an obvious attempt to discredit the president by whatever means, even if it meant making up shit. As to enemies lists, they all have them. Nothing new there. Nothing at all.

"Another Czar WHO WANTS TO DESTROY YOUR FREEDOMS.

Mr. Lloyd’s actual title is FCC Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer. Lloyd plans to implement what I call the reincarnation of the Fairness Doctrine. Lloyd is a staunch proponent on the enforcement of the FCC regulations known as “media diversity” and “localism.”
Obama FCC Czar Mark Lloyd wants to Shut Down Dissenting Media

And it never happened, did it... Here's what you get when you cherry pick.

White House: Obama Opposes 'Fairness Doctrine' Revival - FoxNews.com

 

[boedicca]

The White House doesn't have to support the Fairness Doctrine. The powers the FCC is seizing via Net Neutrality accomplish much of the objective, without that annoying hassle of having to get Congressional Approval.

 

[MaggieMae]

Wrong again.

"Interviewed on CNBC Tuesday, President Obama vented his displeasure with FOX News, the cable network whose own senior vice president of programming has called it "the voice of the opposition" to the Obama administration. "
President Obama Attacks FOX News -- Politics Daily


"After the Democratic convention, Obama campaign lawyer Robert Bauer warned TV stations against airing a TV ad that was embarrassing to Barack Obama. The commercial focused on the longtime relationship between Obama and Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. Bauer sent letters to the Justice Department imploring the agency to pursue criminal action against those behind the ads. It was not lost on anyone at that time that Bauer was considered a candidate to be the next U.S. Attorney-General. "
The American Spectator : Obama's Enemies List

"Another Czar WHO WANTS TO DESTROY YOUR FREEDOMS.

Mr. Lloyd’s actual title is FCC Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer. Lloyd plans to implement what I call the reincarnation of the Fairness Doctrine. Lloyd is a staunch proponent on the enforcement of the FCC regulations known as “media diversity” and “localism.”
Obama FCC Czar Mark Lloyd wants to Shut Down Dissenting Media

It was so important to squash that story wasn't it? And still the leftist elites from New Yawk poo poo it as irrelevant.

Not just media...any criticism or info that isn't positive....

remember this one?

"Democrats are turning their fire on Scott Rasmussen, the prolific independent pollster whose surveys on elections, President Obama’s popularity and a host of other issues are surfacing in the media with increasing frequency. "

Read more: Low favorables: Democrats rip Rasmussen - Alex Isenstadt - POLITICO.com

You wouldn't be suggesting that conservative outlets don't ALSO "rip" liberal outlets, would you? Now you're just being hypocritical in addition to looking like all the other world-class cherry pickers. Please stop. You're really smarter than that.

 

[MaggieMae]

It's not odd. He hardly has an unscripted, un-teleprompted moment.

How many press conferences did he hold this year? The last one he punted to Clinton. Very telling.

Very telling indeed--as to where you get your "news" that you like to parrot. This only goes up through September, and Obama had at least 5 other press conferences since then that I can recall. But his numbers are hardly low, comparatively.

First Read - Fact Check: Obama 'less' press conferences 'than any recent president'?

Regarding his time in office, President Obama, through Sept. 10, 2010, has held 37 press conferences (16 solo and 21 joint), according to data compiled by Dr. Martha Joynt Kumar, a political science professor at Towson University. Obama has held 67 short question-and-answer sessions, 216 interviews and 820 addresses and remarks.

He has averaged about two press conferences per month. Where does that rank when it comes to "any recent president?"

It's slightly less than former President George W. Bush, who average 2.2 per month over eight years; it's the same as former President Clinton, who also averaged 2.0 per month; and four times as many as former President Reagan, who held just an average of 0.5 per month. In fact, Obama in less than two years, has given just 10 fewer total press conferences than Reagan did in eight years (36 vs. 46).

Statements to the press without an open Q&A period do not qualify as press conferences.

Try again.

Got a reading problem?

 

[MaggieMae]

She's also neglecting that Obama did a bunch at the start of his Presidency, and then cut way back in 2010.

This is so odd. I seem to recall when Obama began his term in office all the screeching by you people that you wanted him to SHUT THE FUCK UP, get out of your faces, stop talking. So he finally did, and you complained. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

And ya know what? THAT's the reason I still remain in his corner. When you hatemongers finally shut the fuck up yourselves over the petty shit, then perhaps that would leave more time to actually discuss in a civil manner issues of importance. Ya think? And don't come back and sob to me that Bush got the same treatment. It didn't come close, but even if it did, acting like little children playing tit for tat has gotten real old.

 

[MaggieMae]

"...right wing noise machine..."

You mean these guys?

Dan Rather, Katie Couric, Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, Edward R. Murrow, Ted Koppel, Andy Rooney, Leslie Stahl, George Stephanopoulos, Mike Wallace, Barbara Walters, Ed Bradley, Campbell Brown, Jack Cafferty, Walter Cronkite, Jim Lehrer, Roger Grimsby, Soledad O’Brien, Keith Olbermann, Cokie Roberts, Diane Sawyer, Bob Schieffer, Paula Zahn, Sam Donaldson, Brian Williams, Judy Woodruff, David Shuster, Bernard Shaw, Jessica Savitch, Harry Reasoner, Sally Quinn, Gwen Ifill, Douglas Kiker, Charles Kuralt, Roger Mudd, Robert MacNeil, Charles Osgood, Douglas Edwards, John Chancellor, Charles Gibson, Christiane Amanpour, Anderson Cooper, Ann Curry, Marvin Kalb, Bryant Gimbel, Andrea Mitchell, Jeanne Moos, Bill Schneider, Daniel Schoor, Richard Threlkeld, Jake Tapper, Ann Compton, Lester Holt, Michael Beschloss, Norah O’Donnell, Chris Matthews, Joy Behar, Jon Stewart, Ric Sanchez, Rachel Maddow, Bill Moyers, Fareed Zakaria, Oprah Winfrey, Arianna Huffington, Paul Krugman, Ed Schultz, Paul Begala, James Carville, Linda Douglas, Howie Kurtz, Phil Donohue, Tavis Smiley, Mark Shields, Bill Press, Larry O’Donnell, Joe Conason, Margaret Carlson, Bob Beckel, Larry King, Alan Colmes,

Many of those people are legitimate reporters, dear. But it seems to me that all of those voices still aren't successful in drowning out the lead OPINION voices from the right: Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly (and all their "guests"). There's something wrong with that picture.

"...all of those voices still aren't successful in drowning out the lead OPINION voices from the right..."

Yaaaa! Let's hear it for TRUTH gettin' through!

What truth? When the embellishments, lies, innuendo outweigh any actual reporting of TRUTH by people like Glenn Beck, it's very difficult for a sane and intelligent person to weed out the difference. Google "lies of Obama administration" and you get 87,000 published items. Google "lies of Glenn Beck" and you'll see over 7 million.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It was so important to squash that story wasn't it? And still the leftist elites from New Yawk poo poo it as irrelevant.

Not just media...any criticism or info that isn't positive....

remember this one?

"Democrats are turning their fire on Scott Rasmussen, the prolific independent pollster whose surveys on elections, President Obama’s popularity and a host of other issues are surfacing in the media with increasing frequency. "

Read more: Low favorables: Democrats rip Rasmussen - Alex Isenstadt - POLITICO.com

You wouldn't be suggesting that conservative outlets don't ALSO "rip" liberal outlets, would you? Now you're just being hypocritical in addition to looking like all the other world-class cherry pickers. Please stop. You're really smarter than that.

Hey, let's go over the rules, here.

I post stuff that criticizes the left, and you guys post stuff that criticizes the right...or rebuts my stuff.

This is the idea behind 'the marketplace of ideas.' My stuff is going to be more powerful, more dispositive than yours...

You do your own homework.
I'm not 'Scrubbing Bubbles'......"we work hard so you don't have to!"

 

[MaggieMae]

You're not actually going to make this serious, are you???

Well, you started it...your post is less than historically correct. The last election in which ideology was not a factor was 1924, when both parties ran true conservatives as candidates. And both parties had progressive and conservative wings.

Since then, parties both assumed the political positons that we see today, as progressives migrated to the Dems, and conservatives to the GOP.

Party and ideology became the coin of the realm.

Now, could you just finish that drink in the avatar...you're too darned wired.

Strict ideology translated into revenge politics did not become extreme until Bill Clinton was elected. And I have plenty of evidence to prove that statement (but I'll have to do it later because I've run out of time).

robert bork? clarence thomas...?REAGAN? KENNEDY?DUKAKIS?


come now...

Nobody is claiming there weren't conflicts. Of course there were. PC was correct about only one thing, and that is that there is basic ideology differences between the parties. I'm claiming that it didn't start getting ugly until Clinton was elected and knocked out a second term for Bush41.

Even long before the Lewinsky scandal, Republicans had set out to destroy him. The held hundreds of hearings to "investigate" all manner of things. The House oversight committee took more than 140 hours of testimony to investigate whether the Clinton White House misused its holiday card database, whether the Clinton administration sold burial plots in Arlington National Cemetery for campaign contributions. They examined whether the White House doctored videotapes of coffees attended by President Clinton. They spent two years investigating who hired Craig Livingstone, the former director of the White House security office. And they looked at whether President Clinton designated coal-rich land in Utah as a national monument because political donors with Indonesian coal interests might benefit from reductions in U.S. coal production. All that not to mention the 18 million pricetag to investigate Hillary's "Whitewater" thing. Shall I go on?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Many of those people are legitimate reporters, dear. But it seems to me that all of those voices still aren't successful in drowning out the lead OPINION voices from the right: Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly (and all their "guests"). There's something wrong with that picture.

"...all of those voices still aren't successful in drowning out the lead OPINION voices from the right..."

Yaaaa! Let's hear it for TRUTH gettin' through!

What truth? When the embellishments, lies, innuendo outweigh any actual reporting of TRUTH by people like Glenn Beck, it's very difficult for a sane and intelligent person to weed out the difference. Google "lies of Obama administration" and you get 87,000 published items. Google "lies of Glenn Beck" and you'll see over 7 million.

Checked...and seems to me that 'he was wrong' is more appropriate in many of the instances mentioned...but you guys on the left have 'HE LIED' pretty much trademarked...

which leads to this query: if lying is pretty much the litmus test that differentiates a good guy from a bad guy....then why did so many of you lefties vote for Clinton?
And still give him props?


"...any actual reporting of TRUTH..."
Now, as far as the fourth estate, would you argue that they weren't guilty of malpractice in both supporting this empty suit in the White House, or neglecting to vet him?

 

[boedicca]

She's also neglecting that Obama did a bunch at the start of his Presidency, and then cut way back in 2010.

This is so odd. I seem to recall when Obama began his term in office all the screeching by you people that you wanted him to SHUT THE FUCK UP, get out of your faces, stop talking. So he finally did, and you complained. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

And ya know what? THAT's the reason I still remain in his corner. When you hatemongers finally shut the fuck up yourselves over the petty shit, then perhaps that would leave more time to actually discuss in a civil manner issues of importance. Ya think? And don't come back and sob to me that Bush got the same treatment. It didn't come close, but even if it did, acting like little children playing tit for tat has gotten real old.

Many of us were certainly tired of the dozens of fluff and staged interviews. Far less of those and a few more proper press conferences with real Q&A would have been preferable.

 

[MaggieMae]

Stop being so one sided.

And covering it with the rest of the speech doesn't detract from the racism of " when white will embrace what is right."

It is just as despicable as if he had said 'when black folks will stop assaulting and robbing."

Would you have said that was 'cherry-picking'? I think not.
You would have been less inclined to poo-poo the comment.

Tell you what, when you try not being so one-sided, I'll try too. As for comments about race during the benediction, it should really come as no surprise to anyone that blacks continue to be discriminated against and it doesn't matter if they are as high-profile as Thomas Sowell (whom I've seen you quote before and I know you, personally, admire) or some street slob wearing low riders and sporting a weapon.

Changing the subject?

The Reverend personally selected by the President of ALL the people might take a lesson from the following:

Peter Marshall, D.D.
Denomination: Presbyterian
Date of Appointment: January 4, 1947
Note: Died in office on January 24, 1949.
Chaplain of the US Senate, offered the following words:

"Our Father which art in heaven, we pray for all the people of our country, that we may learn to appreciate more the goodly heritage that is ours. We need to learn, in these challenging days, that to every right there is attached a duty and to every privilege an obligation."

Would you like to compare the two:

"We ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around..."
"When yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen."


And, for the record, I don't believe that this is 1950 nor do I subscribe to "it should really come as no surprise to anyone that blacks continue to be discriminated against..."

It looks to me like your highlighted part must have struck a nerve, especially since the rest of his prayer obviously does embrace ALL people.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Strict ideology translated into revenge politics did not become extreme until Bill Clinton was elected. And I have plenty of evidence to prove that statement (but I'll have to do it later because I've run out of time).

robert bork? clarence thomas...?REAGAN? KENNEDY?DUKAKIS?


come now...

Nobody is claiming there weren't conflicts. Of course there were. PC was correct about only one thing, and that is that there is basic ideology differences between the parties. I'm claiming that it didn't start getting ugly until Clinton was elected and knocked out a second term for Bush41.

Even long before the Lewinsky scandal, Republicans had set out to destroy him. The held hundreds of hearings to "investigate" all manner of things. The House oversight committee took more than 140 hours of testimony to investigate whether the Clinton White House misused its holiday card database, whether the Clinton administration sold burial plots in Arlington National Cemetery for campaign contributions. They examined whether the White House doctored videotapes of coffees attended by President Clinton. They spent two years investigating who hired Craig Livingstone, the former director of the White House security office. And they looked at whether President Clinton designated coal-rich land in Utah as a national monument because political donors with Indonesian coal interests might benefit from reductions in U.S. coal production. All that not to mention the 18 million pricetag to investigate Hillary's "Whitewater" thing. Shall I go on?

Clinton???

Another post like this and I may have to remove any cache you have with regards to a knowledge of history...

Recall this about Cleveland, 1884: "Ma, Ma, Where’s my Pa, Gone to the White House, Ha, Ha, Ha" about his possibly having a child out of wedlock....

Do you need to be remided about stuff written about Jefferson???

And, this pretty well sums it up about Clinton:

"…every Democrat who voted for Bill Clinton feels the need to defend duplicity, adultery, lying about adultery, sexual harassment, rape, perjury, obstruction of justice, kicking the can of global Islamofascism down the road for eight years, and so on."
Coulter

 

[MaggieMae]

No he wasn't. He was attacking media outlets that don't promote the Progressive Memes.

Evidence: his frequent attacks on Fox and conservative radio.

Bingo! Thank you. CNN doesn't "promote" progressive agendas, nor do any of the 3 half-hour networks.

What??


If you have the time, you might pick up Arnaud de Borchgrave's "The Spike" which is an entertaining example of how news media slant the news, not only by what they say...but what they don't report.

I think Orwell said the same.

So will you admit that Fox does an excellent job of spiking? It's such common knowledge that they have a blatant, inyourface conservative agenda. I'm truly shocked that this argument is even necessary.

I defend CNN, because they report a LOT of "news," in addition to their panels which are intentionally chosen from opinionators from the left and right. If you can tear yourself away from Fox for awhile, just try to catch John King's USA at 7PM eastern and you'll probably get to see such conservative pundits as Erick Erickson of Redstatenation.com. Following that is the new point/counterpoint political program with Elliot Spitzer and Kathleen Parker going head to head. ALL of CNN's political panels are balanced.

The half-hour news shows don't have time to spew opinions. A half-hour actually equates to about 20 minutes, and there's a lot to cover in addition to politics.

 

[MaggieMae]

I call Shenanigans.

Please provide a credible economic analysis which proves that Obamanomics is a success.

PolitiFact | A stimulus report card

In a report released on Jan. 13, 2010, the president's Council of Economic Advisers estimated that between 1.77 million jobs and 2.07 million jobs were created or saved by the stimulus through the fourth quarter of 2009.

To back up that claim, the council's report cited four independent analyses of the same question. These estimates were by the Congressional Budget Office, an independent agency that does the number-crunching for Congress, as well by three private sector economic-analysis firms. Here's what those groups found:

-- CBO: Between 800,000 jobs and 2.4 million jobs.

-- IHS/Global Insight: 1.25 million jobs

-- Macroeconomic Advisers: 1.06 million jobs

-- Moody's economy.com: 1.59 million jobs

So Obama has cherry-picked the highest number of the most favorable estimates. For him to be right about 2 million jobs having been created or saved would mean using the highest end of the administration's own range, or the highest end of the CBO's range. Indeed, leaving the CEA's analysis out of it and looking only at the independent estimates, you get an average of 1.38 million jobs created or saved, which is about 30 percent lower than the president's 2 million-job-benchmark.

However, if you fast-forward the employment estimates by one quarter -- to the first quarter of 2010 -- the numbers creep closer to what Obama and other Democrats are suggesting. Using updated estimates provided to PolitiFact, IHS/Global Insight estimates that 1.7 million jobs will be created or saved during the first quarter of 2010. And Moody's economy.com estimated that 1.9 million jobs will be created or saved by that quarter.

maggie, if I told you that I was going to hire you and your pay would be between 8 and 24 dollars, what would you say to me?

The cbo's estimate is, well, not very 'good'. IF they cannot narrow this down below a400% fudge factor, I'd say those stats are not worth using. I saw one from them where in they said 1.4 mill to 3.4 mill.

Thats not a calculus I would make a bet on or use .and yes, thats me.*shrugs*

Now did the gov. create jobs? Yes in the gov. and I am sure they added a couple hundred thousand in the gov, and perhaps 2-300 k in the private sector, but a data set with a variance that huge is next to worthless, and they should just stay out if it imho. They apparently cannot quantify the number and they know it, so they gave us this. They cannot provide a list of these jobs, which is why the estimate is so huge.

And I am sure they saved jobs as well, this we know. and that has its own blow back.




In the end lets say okay we'll use the figure that illustrates a high degree of oomph. so lets use the mid way mark of 1.6.now, at a trillion dollars, how much a job is that?
AND we do not know what the jobs are so we don't know how long they HAVE lasted or WILL last.

Here are the points to consider.

First, a job is a job is a JOB. Without those government "created or saved" jobs, the unemployment number would have been far greater. That's a no-brainer.

Second, when projects begun under the stimulus continue and end by eventual hiring from the private sector, it's another plus that they were even begun in the first place. I can't tell you the number of road projects just in my tiny state that had been put on hold for seemingly forever because there was no money to finish them, and they are now complete.

Third, even if some of those jobs were temporary, a person has enhanced his/her resume to include that work. The longer a person remains unemployed, the harder it is for him to compete once private sector jobs reopen because the hiring employer looks at the most current experience.

Finally, without the federal government stepping in to help state governments who were also suffering from loss of anticipated revenue (there's that forecasting thingie again, which apparently you don't believe should be a consideration but of course it must be), the employees the states would have had to lay off would have sucked both federal and state social umbrella programs (welfare, if you must) dry. In other words: Help out up front or pay for it at the end.

There are any number of factors that the naysayers will attempt to show which simply do not prove true.

 

[MaggieMae]

I call Shenanigans.

Please provide a credible economic analysis which proves that Obamanomics is a success.

PolitiFact | A stimulus report card

In a report released on Jan. 13, 2010, the president's Council of Economic Advisers estimated that between 1.77 million jobs and 2.07 million jobs were created or saved by the stimulus through the fourth quarter of 2009.

To back up that claim, the council's report cited four independent analyses of the same question. These estimates were by the Congressional Budget Office, an independent agency that does the number-crunching for Congress, as well by three private sector economic-analysis firms. Here's what those groups found:

-- CBO: Between 800,000 jobs and 2.4 million jobs.

-- IHS/Global Insight: 1.25 million jobs

-- Macroeconomic Advisers: 1.06 million jobs

-- Moody's economy.com: 1.59 million jobs

So Obama has cherry-picked the highest number of the most favorable estimates. For him to be right about 2 million jobs having been created or saved would mean using the highest end of the administration's own range, or the highest end of the CBO's range. Indeed, leaving the CEA's analysis out of it and looking only at the independent estimates, you get an average of 1.38 million jobs created or saved, which is about 30 percent lower than the president's 2 million-job-benchmark.

However, if you fast-forward the employment estimates by one quarter -- to the first quarter of 2010 -- the numbers creep closer to what Obama and other Democrats are suggesting. Using updated estimates provided to PolitiFact, IHS/Global Insight estimates that 1.7 million jobs will be created or saved during the first quarter of 2010. And Moody's economy.com estimated that 1.9 million jobs will be created or saved by that quarter.

Not credible. The CBO is only allowed to score according to the assumptions its given.

Created or Saved is a bullshit metric invented to distract attention from the abysmal lack of job creation.

The real picture is provided by BLS stats.

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

At the end of 2008, total non-farm employment was 134M. At the end of November 2010, it decreased to 130.5M.

The economy needs to create 130K jobs per month just to keep up with population growth. Obamanomics is not even meeting this low threshold.

And, any jobs that were saved by the Stimulus fall into the category of bloated, public employee sector jobs which are bleeding the country dry.

Need your streets snow plowed? Don't hold your breath if you live in Queens.

You asked for independent economic analyses, and I gave them to you yet you still chose to comment only on the CBO number. Why am I not surprised?

Your statement about how many jobs need to be created is like fog. You seem to think that those jobs can just magically appear out of the mist, and that the OA should have waved its wand but instead chose to force unemployment to remain low for some selfish reason. How stupid is that?

Regarding your standard set of numbers from the BLS, how many of those non-farm jobs were part time or minimum wage, which add to the total? When did unemployment begin rising by whole percentage points? In 2007, dear. So what began to go wrong? Those are the questions you should be investigating, not making blanket statements based on generalized numbers.

As for not plowing your streets in Queens, I suppose that's Obama's fault too, eh?

 

[MaggieMae]

It's really very simple.

Which number is bigger: 134M or 130.5M?

You're simple, all right. Trajan actually has a point when he speaks of the VALUE of said jobs as opposed to the numbers.

tax.com: So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?

Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels.

That much additional income would have more than made up for the lack of demand that keeps us mired in the Great Recession. That would mean no need for a stimulus, although it would not have affected the last administration's interfering with market capitalism by bailing out irresponsible Wall Streeters instead of letting the market determine their fortunes.

In only two years was total income up, but even when those years are combined they exceed the declines in only one of the other six years.

Even if we limit the analysis by starting in 2003, when the dividend and capital gains tax cuts began, through the peak year of 2007, the result is still less income than at the 2000 level. Total income was down $951 billion during those four years.

Average incomes fell. Average taxpayer income was down $3,512, or 5.7 percent, in 2008 compared with 2000, President Bush's own benchmark year for his promises of prosperity through tax cuts.

Had incomes stayed at 2000 levels, the average taxpayer would have earned almost $21,000 more over those eight years. That's almost $50 per week.

The changes in average and total incomes are detailed on the next page in Table 1, the first of four tables analyzing the whole data.

 

[MaggieMae]

Not credible. The CBO is only allowed to score according to the assumptions its given.

Created or Saved is a bullshit metric invented to distract attention from the abysmal lack of job creation.

The real picture is provided by BLS stats.

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

At the end of 2008, total non-farm employment was 134M. At the end of November 2010, it decreased to 130.5%.

The economy needs to create 130K jobs per month just to keep up with population growth. Obamanomics is not even meeting this low threshold.

And, any jobs that were saved by the Stimulus fall into the category of bloated, public employee sector jobs which are bleeding the country dry.

Need your streets snow plowed? Don't hold your breath if you live in Queens.

Link's broken.
In any event, the fact that aggregate unemployment continued to rise for a time is not relevant. We're gauging what actually happened vs what would have happened in the absence of stimulus. Still a negative number, but a lower negative number. How much lower?
As Maggie states:
-- CBO: Between 800,000 jobs and 2.4 million jobs.

-- IHS/Global Insight: 1.25 million jobs

-- Macroeconomic Advisers: 1.06 million jobs

-- Moody's economy.com: 1.59 million jobs



The jobs trending improved almost immediately, while the bleeding was so severe that even slower losses still pushed the aggregate higher for a time.

This dog and pony show is pointless with you, however, because you will simply abruptly declare any analysis that doesn't support your Obamamanic POV to be biased.

Then go to the BLS yourself and search for total non-farm employment by month.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics


I do realize it's pointless to provide any real data to a moron like you - but am suggesting that others not believe the bullshit you are spinning.

Statistics and analyses are two entirely different things. Every working American could be earning minimum wage, and that would NOT make the economy strong, but the numbers sure would look good!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Bingo! Thank you. CNN doesn't "promote" progressive agendas, nor do any of the 3 half-hour networks.

What??


If you have the time, you might pick up Arnaud de Borchgrave's "The Spike" which is an entertaining example of how news media slant the news, not only by what they say...but what they don't report.

I think Orwell said the same.

So will you admit that Fox does an excellent job of spiking? It's such common knowledge that they have a blatant, inyourface conservative agenda. I'm truly shocked that this argument is even necessary.

I defend CNN, because they report a LOT of "news," in addition to their panels which are intentionally chosen from opinionators from the left and right. If you can tear yourself away from Fox for awhile, just try to catch John King's USA at 7PM eastern and you'll probably get to see such conservative pundits as Erick Erickson of Redstatenation.com. Following that is the new point/counterpoint political program with Elliot Spitzer and Kathleen Parker going head to head. ALL of CNN's political panels are balanced.

The half-hour news shows don't have time to spew opinions. A half-hour actually equates to about 20 minutes, and there's a lot to cover in addition to politics.

"It's such common knowledge that they have a blatant, inyourface conservative agenda. "
No, it's not...in fact your post smacks of the bygone times when there was only the MSM around to provide such 'common knowledge.'

Fox is pretty much right-center, and the scary thing about it for you lefties is...well, here's Coulter nailing it again:

"Fox News isn’t conservative (despite liberals repeating that to themselves over and over again). But it does promote something liberals fear more than anything other than the FBI being able to see the porn sites they’ve visited: debate. What really distinguished Fox News is that its prime-time lineup is predicated on conservatives and liberals debating, which regularly results in liberals being trounced."


It unnerves you lefties when Fox allows it to get out that the Tea Parties aren't racist or violent...heck, it was so much better when your networks could cast aspirsions and walk away leaving viewers with the impression that it was truth they were the purveyor of the only truth....

Isn't it telling that you only want one side of a story to be allowed?


"I defend CNN, ..."
Do you attach any significance to the precipitous fall in their viewership?
The mass escape of tons of their anchors?

BTW, I watch John King...far better than the Fox show with a lib name Shep....
I also watch Maddow on MSNBC...she is the most professional that they have.

Hey, did you notice that we on the right never call for opposition voices to be shut down, unlike the apparachiks in the White House?

C'mon, Maggie...leave the darkside and come out into the light.

 

[MaggieMae]

Then go to the BLS yourself and search for total non-farm employment by month.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics


I do realize it's pointless to provide any real data to a moron like you - but am suggesting that others not believe the bullshit you are spinning.

No, you silly ass. You will not spin this.

I AM AWARE THAT UNEMPLOYMENT CONTINUED TO RISE FOR A PERIOD OF TIME - But the jobs TREND began reversing immediately.

Again, it's really not that complicated. We're not comparing a simple "A to B." We're comparing "B to B if there had been no stimulus."

You are a complete and utter idiot.

The Job trend did not begin to reverse immediately. Over 3M jobs were lost during Obama's first term. His Big Government policies have forestalled a recovery which should be much more robust than the feeble 2.5% growth rate that doesn't even generate enough jobs to keep up with population growth.

This is how Obamnomics compares to policies tried during other downturns:

How wow. Now THERE'S a reliable source. Clusterstock? A blog? It resembles one of Beck's power point easel displays!!

For one thing, anyone foolish enough to try to compare THIS recessionary period with any other going all the way back to the great depression has already lost credibility.