Will Republicans ever admit the mess they left President Obama?

[healthmyths]

Obama had approval number highs of around 67% back when he first came into office...that's down substantially now. What's startling though is his disapproval numbers that were at 13% when he took office and have now hovered between the high 40's and low 50's for most of his Presidency. THOSE are the Gallop Poll numbers that jump out at you!

Again... MSM bias influences people polled!
Why is it so hard to understand that the MSM made Obama!
I'm going to repeat again and again for people who still don't comprehend the gross misperception provided by the MSM!
THESE ARE FACTS...


1) In 2008 85% of media donated money to Democrats!
1,160 (85%) of the 1,353 of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democrats candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters

2) 130,213 stories can't be swept under the rug that show that the Democrat Bias is very evident!
Study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election BY PAUL BEDARD | MARCH 16, 2015 | 10:49 AM
A sweeping study of some 130,213 news articles on the 2012 presidential match between President Obama and Mitt Romney has proven anew
that there was a strong pro-Democratic bias in the U.S. and international press.
The study, published in the authoritative journal Big Data Society, also tested the campaign themes the media focused on and determined that Obama succeeded in stealing the economic issue from Republican Romney.
"Overall, media reporting contained more frequently positive statements about the Democrats than the Republicans.
Overall, the Republicans were more frequently the object of negative statements," wrote the study authors, Their conclusion:
"The Republican Party is the most divisive subject in the campaign, and is portrayed in a more negative fashion than the Democrats."
Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted at [email protected].
Smooch: Study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election

So in simple terms...why would the MSM if they donated money to elect Obama write any negative stories about Obama? They wouldn't! They gave money so why then
would they turn around and publish news that would be harmful? And in 2012 the above analysis of 130,213 stories shows a pro-Democrat bias!
Why do you people have a problem in understanding how manipulated you were regarding Obama?

 

[Faun]

Imbecile.... the recession ended nearly 7 years ago...

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

The NBER determines periods of recession -- not you.

What's idiotic is anyone who thinks a recession has really ended simply because you had a minor uptick during one quarter followed by more bad quarters. The Obama Recession did not end 7 years ago...it's still grinding along. If you want proof of it simply look at what the Fed has done with interest rates.

Again, because you're hard of reading. The NBER defines recessions, not you. Words have meaning even if you can't understand them. And a nobody like you does not get to define what a recession is.

So you like a little kid are intent on contending a GDP is up on 2/28/01 and then the next day 3/1/01 GDP down.
You like a little kid say the NBER says so, so it must be the employment was up on 2/28/01 then the next day employment goes down on 3/1/01.

It never works that way. Recessions aren't like a water faucet on/off. Water - no water. Recessions take a while of declines as this is what
The most common definition of a recession is two or more quarters of a shrinking economy; the nation's gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic activity, fell 0.4 percent in the third quarter and many analysts said it is probably declining more sharply in the current quarter.
Econbrowser: The 2001 recession revisited:
In a recent post, Greg Mankiw cites Hamilton and Chauvet in support of his view that a good argument could be made that the recession of 2001
actually began in 2000.... As some readers may recall, the 2004 Economic Report of the President contained this box, which states:

The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) uses a variety of economic data to determine the dates of business-cycle peaks and troughs.... [T]he four data series that the NBER used to determine the timing of the recession have been revised....
=== Real personal income less transfers... peaked in October 2000.
=== Nonfarm payroll employment... peaked in February 2001.
=== Industrial production['s] peak came even earlier, in June 2000.
=== Manufacturing and trade sales... the most recent data show a peak in June 2000....
=== [M]onthly GDP reached a high point in February 2001....
The median date of the peak for the five series discussed here is October 2000....
The 2001 recession revisited | Econbrowser

You've already proven you're batshit insane. You're now ignoring five separate links you posted as well as the NBER official determination for what constitutes a recession -- just so you can backdate a recession which started while Bush was president.

That just goes to prove how deranged you really are.

As far as the claim that some of the numbers have been revised -- leave it to a tool like you to just accept that on its face and not even bother to research if it's true or not.

... it's not.

Real personal income less transfers peaked in March, 2001, not October 2000...

Industrial production did peak in September, not June...

But mostly, I think it's hysterical how you think Bush's staff now gets to backdate a recession to Clinton's presidency when the NBER, the official determining body, says it started under Bush.

Your FRED chart shows declining index starting in May 2000!
Again... the factors that lead up to 2/28/01 when there was NO recession and to 3/1/01 when NBER says recession started is the question.
FRED chart shows that a recession was starting... see the index WAS RECEDING from upward to downward starting in May 2000!
To me when something goes down i.e. FRED Index was declining it is "RECEDING" i.e. a RECESSION!

I see industrial production bouncing back up in September after declining in July and August. I don't know what you see and certainly can't account for your delusions.

 

[Faun]

Obama had approval number highs of around 67% back when he first came into office...that's down substantially now. What's startling though is his disapproval numbers that were at 13% when he took office and have now hovered between the high 40's and low 50's for most of his Presidency. THOSE are the Gallop Poll numbers that jump out at you!

And Reagan had a JAR of almost 70% a few months into his presidency. He was still at 50% at this point in his presidency. Bush was at about 90% during his first year. He holds the record for the biggest drop in approval as he was into the 20's at around this point in his presidency.

 

[Faun]

Obama had approval number highs of around 67% back when he first came into office...that's down substantially now. What's startling though is his disapproval numbers that were at 13% when he took office and have now hovered between the high 40's and low 50's for most of his Presidency. THOSE are the Gallop Poll numbers that jump out at you!

Again... MSM bias influences people polled!
Why is it so hard to understand that the MSM made Obama!
I'm going to repeat again and again for people who still don't comprehend the gross misperception provided by the MSM!
THESE ARE FACTS...


1) In 2008 85% of media donated money to Democrats!
1,160 (85%) of the 1,353 of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democrats candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters

2) 130,213 stories can't be swept under the rug that show that the Democrat Bias is very evident!
Study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election BY PAUL BEDARD | MARCH 16, 2015 | 10:49 AM
A sweeping study of some 130,213 news articles on the 2012 presidential match between President Obama and Mitt Romney has proven anew
that there was a strong pro-Democratic bias in the U.S. and international press.
The study, published in the authoritative journal Big Data Society, also tested the campaign themes the media focused on and determined that Obama succeeded in stealing the economic issue from Republican Romney.
"Overall, media reporting contained more frequently positive statements about the Democrats than the Republicans.
Overall, the Republicans were more frequently the object of negative statements," wrote the study authors, Their conclusion:
"The Republican Party is the most divisive subject in the campaign, and is portrayed in a more negative fashion than the Democrats."
Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted at [email protected].
Smooch: Study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election

So in simple terms...why would the MSM if they donated money to elect Obama write any negative stories about Obama? They wouldn't! They gave money so why then
would they turn around and publish news that would be harmful? And in 2012 the above analysis of 130,213 stories shows a pro-Democrat bias!
Why do you people have a problem in understanding how manipulated you were regarding Obama?

You can repeat it all you want... it's still moronic given the Internet is where people most often get their news.

 

[Oldstyle]

Obama had approval number highs of around 67% back when he first came into office...that's down substantially now. What's startling though is his disapproval numbers that were at 13% when he took office and have now hovered between the high 40's and low 50's for most of his Presidency. THOSE are the Gallop Poll numbers that jump out at you!

And Reagan had a JAR of almost 70% a few months into his presidency. He was still at 50% at this point in his presidency. Bush was at about 90% during his first year. He holds the record for the biggest drop in approval as he was into the 20's at around this point in his presidency.

Once again...WHY was Reagan at 50% at this point of his second term? Because of Iran - Contra...correct? What were Reagan's numbers at the end of his Presidency? Didn't his approval numbers rise substantially once again DESPITE Iran - Contra? So what do you think is going to make Barry's numbers rise like Ronnie's in this last year? His handling of the economy? Let's be honest here, Faun...Obama stopped trying to fix the economy years ago because he didn't know what to do when big government spending didn't create the jobs or the economic boom he naively thought it would! His handling of foreign affairs? Let's be honest again...Obama's "leading from behind" policies have created so many problems in so many regions of the world...problems that he has no clue how to fix...that all he's doing now is holding his breath and hoping nothing major happens until he's out of office. He's about as lame a lame duck President as there's ever been.