Factcheck.org: judging Obama's presidency based on FACTS not hyperbole or rhetoric

[Ernie S.]

Billy's only interested in "some" facts while eager to avoid others. It's why his original premise that this string would be an attempt to judge the Obama Presidency without hyperbole or rhetoric is so amusing since he immediately used hyperbole and rhetoric to defend Barack.

I'm not quite sure WHY people like Billy think that simply declaring the ACA an accomplishment while ignoring how flawed it is, bolsters Obama's resume? The deficiencies in that legislation are only now becoming apparent to the American people and they are reacting to those deficiencies with anger. This is the signature piece of legislation that Barack Obama has given America and it turns out that he lied about what it was and how it will affect us. That's the President of the United States telling bald faced lies over and over to the American people because he KNEW that if he told that truth about ObamaCare that it would never be passed by Congress.

Take note that Billy's response to someone questioning "his" take on the Obama Presidency is to rain insults on them rather than rebutting what they've said. So much for an examination free from hyperbole and rhetoric! If anyone takes exception to Billy's hyperbole and rhetoric, Billy flips out.

"You are such an idiot. My "take" was completely balanced. I acknowledged that the unemployment was still high and that Obama could possibly have done more. And no, it is not just republicans in congress that could have done more, it was also Bush. He was president for 8 years yet 2.5 times less jobs were created under his administration than Obama's 5 years. You are the biased one you dumbshit. You won't give Obama credit for ANYTHING. You keep going on about this cap and trade, EPA standards yet they didn't even go into practice! That makes those points moot. God you are pathetic. I started this thread because of the alarming amount of people who gave him an F. I made it clear in that thread Obama did not deserve an A. I gave him a B. Call that bias if you want, but ill say it again, you won't give him credit for ANYTHING. That is what makes you bias. You are a partisan hack who is in serious denial."

If the ACA is an "accomplishment", then the last flight of the shuttle Challenger was a larger accomplishment. At least IT got off the ground without a hitch.

 

[S.J.]

Well gee whiz...Bush had to deal with the aftermath of the Dot Com boom's collapse...the post 9/11 economic crash and the bubble crash in 2007...yet you're somehow shocked that his numbers are worse than Obama's? Bush had quite a bit on his plate. Obama managed to almost match Bush's poor numbers even though when he took over we were bottoming out of the recession and were in the process of throwing trillions of dollars in stimulus at the economy. Historically there is a bounce following a recession. Barack Obama's numbers should have been helped by that but his policy choices turned our economy into a basketball with half the air let out. We never got a bounce...we got a "splat".

The first Bush recession did not begin until March 2001.

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

Bush inherited peace, prosperity, and a growing budget surplus. Bush wrecked everything by cutting taxes while starting two expensive and unnecessary wars he could not win.

Cutting taxes while starting two wars was grotesquely irresponsible. Unfortunately, that is the Republican way.

Obama has been a disappointment. I do not know any Democrats who are enthusiastic about him, or who ever called him the "Messiah." Nevertheless, he inherited a mess. Bush created one.

And Obama turned it into a disaster.

 

[Ernie S.]

Bush's unemployment rate was barely ever over 5 percent if that.

During George W. Bush's first month in office the unemployment rate was 4.2 percent. During his last full month in office unemployment was 7.3 percent.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

When Bush was president, an average of 375,000 jobs were created per year. In the words of The Wall Street Journal that was, "the worst track record on record." This is what The Wall Street Journal has to say about Bush's economic performance:

"President George W. Bush entered office in 2001 just as a recession was starting, and is preparing to leave in the middle of a long one. That’s almost 22 months of recession during his 96 months in office.

"His job-creation record won’t look much better. The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton‘s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office."
Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

This is what the Atlantic has to say about the Bush years: "Thursday's annual Census Bureau report on income, poverty and access to health care-the Bureau's principal report card on the well-being of average Americans-closes the books on the economic record of George W. Bush.

"It's not a record many Republicans are likely to point to with pride.

"On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially."
Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy - Ronald Brownstein - The Atlantic

When Reid/Pelosi took over, unemployment was 4.6%. 2 years later when obama took office, it was 8%. 2 years later, it was 9.8% when the GOP retook the House. Now it is 7.3%

Explain THAT!

 

[Edgetho]

Well gee whiz...Bush had to deal with the aftermath of the Dot Com boom's collapse...the post 9/11 economic crash and the bubble crash in 2007...yet you're somehow shocked that his numbers are worse than Obama's? Bush had quite a bit on his plate. Obama managed to almost match Bush's poor numbers even though when he took over we were bottoming out of the recession and were in the process of throwing trillions of dollars in stimulus at the economy. Historically there is a bounce following a recession. Barack Obama's numbers should have been helped by that but his policy choices turned our economy into a basketball with half the air let out. We never got a bounce...we got a "splat".

The first Bush recession did not begin until March 2001.

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

Bush inherited peace, prosperity, and a growing budget surplus. Bush wrecked everything by cutting taxes while starting two expensive and unnecessary wars he could not win.

Cutting taxes while starting two wars was grotesquely irresponsible. Unfortunately, that is the Republican way.

Obama has been a disappointment. I do not know any Democrats who are enthusiastic about him, or who ever called him the "Messiah." Nevertheless, he inherited a mess. Bush created one.

Wowee-zowee, batfink!!!

Bush was in Office a whole 40 Days and he caused the recession?

You really are an ignorant ****.

 

[Billy000]

And promptly made it worse.

How? 2.5 times more jobs were created under Obama than Bush in all his 8 years.

Man, you cons are such children. You can't accept you lost the argument.

That is a lie

And yet the evidence is in my thread's link. Yes, I understand facts that don't confirm your bias are scary, but eventually you will have to accept them.

 

[The T]

We don't know what obama's record on job creation is since he's had the agencies reporting on job creation lie about it consistently.

What objective facts can squeeze out from all the lies, is that most of the job creation were part time jobs with a loss in full time jobs.

And what is the unemployment rate in the government sector versus the private sector?

 

[The T]

How? 2.5 times more jobs were created under Obama than Bush in all his 8 years.

Man, you cons are such children. You can't accept you lost the argument.

That is a lie

And yet the evidence is in my thread's link. Yes, I understand facts that don't confirm your bias are scary, but eventually you will have to accept them.

Just because YOU say so? Really?

 

[Billy000]

Well gee whiz...Bush had to deal with the aftermath of the Dot Com boom's collapse...the post 9/11 economic crash and the bubble crash in 2007...yet you're somehow shocked that his numbers are worse than Obama's? Bush had quite a bit on his plate. Obama managed to almost match Bush's poor numbers even though when he took over we were bottoming out of the recession and were in the process of throwing trillions of dollars in stimulus at the economy. Historically there is a bounce following a recession. Barack Obama's numbers should have been helped by that but his policy choices turned our economy into a basketball with half the air let out. We never got a bounce...we got a "splat".

The first Bush recession did not begin until March 2001.

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

Bush inherited peace, prosperity, and a growing budget surplus. Bush wrecked everything by cutting taxes while starting two expensive and unnecessary wars he could not win.

Cutting taxes while starting two wars was grotesquely irresponsible. Unfortunately, that is the Republican way.

Obama has been a disappointment. I do not know any Democrats who are enthusiastic about him, or who ever called him the "Messiah." Nevertheless, he inherited a mess. Bush created one.

And Obama turned it into a disaster.

And yet the evidence says otherwise.

 

[Billy000]

That is a lie

And yet the evidence is in my thread's link. Yes, I understand facts that don't confirm your bias are scary, but eventually you will have to accept them.

Just because YOU say so? Really?

Um, no because the evidence says so.

 

[The T]

And yet the evidence is in my thread's link. Yes, I understand facts that don't confirm your bias are scary, but eventually you will have to accept them.

Just because YOU say so? Really?

Um, no because the evidence says so.

What evidence? Still haven't seen it.

 

[Billy000]

Well gee whiz...Bush had to deal with the aftermath of the Dot Com boom's collapse...the post 9/11 economic crash and the bubble crash in 2007...yet you're somehow shocked that his numbers are worse than Obama's? Bush had quite a bit on his plate. Obama managed to almost match Bush's poor numbers even though when he took over we were bottoming out of the recession and were in the process of throwing trillions of dollars in stimulus at the economy. Historically there is a bounce following a recession. Barack Obama's numbers should have been helped by that but his policy choices turned our economy into a basketball with half the air let out. We never got a bounce...we got a "splat".

The first Bush recession did not begin until March 2001.

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

Bush inherited peace, prosperity, and a growing budget surplus. Bush wrecked everything by cutting taxes while starting two expensive and unnecessary wars he could not win.

Cutting taxes while starting two wars was grotesquely irresponsible. Unfortunately, that is the Republican way.

Obama has been a disappointment. I do not know any Democrats who are enthusiastic about him, or who ever called him the "Messiah." Nevertheless, he inherited a mess. Bush created one.

In terms of the economy, Obama has been a success. In other ways? Yes. Obama has been a disappointment.

 

[Billy000]

Just because YOU say so? Really?

Um, no because the evidence says so.

What evidence? Still haven't seen it.

Dude come on. Can we be adults about this? The evidence is in the OP. Man up and accept the truth

 

[S.J.]

Billy000 is Obama's "Bagdad Bob".

 

[The T]

Billy000 is Obama's "Bagdad Bob".

One of many...

 

[Meister]

During George W. Bush's first month in office the unemployment rate was 4.2 percent. During his last full month in office unemployment was 7.3 percent.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

When Bush was president, an average of 375,000 jobs were created per year. In the words of The Wall Street Journal that was, "the worst track record on record." This is what The Wall Street Journal has to say about Bush's economic performance:

"President George W. Bush entered office in 2001 just as a recession was starting, and is preparing to leave in the middle of a long one. That’s almost 22 months of recession during his 96 months in office.

"His job-creation record won’t look much better. The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton‘s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office."
Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

This is what the Atlantic has to say about the Bush years: "Thursday's annual Census Bureau report on income, poverty and access to health care-the Bureau's principal report card on the well-being of average Americans-closes the books on the economic record of George W. Bush.

"It's not a record many Republicans are likely to point to with pride.

"On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially."
Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy - Ronald Brownstein - The Atlantic

Bush had uneployment below 5% nearly his entire tenure. Of that 5%, there was a % that wouldn't work. So he had full employment. Now, connect the dots with job creation between the two. You people just ignore the cold facts to try and bolster your messiah

And yet the unemployment was at 7.3% in Dec of 2008 and his job growth record was pathetic.

Facts are so inconvenient aren't they?

What was the unemployment rate in .... lets say June 2006, 6 years in his presidency? Hmmm?

 

[Billy000]

Bush had uneployment below 5% nearly his entire tenure. Of that 5%, there was a % that wouldn't work. So he had full employment. Now, connect the dots with job creation between the two. You people just ignore the cold facts to try and bolster your messiah

And yet the unemployment was at 7.3% in Dec of 2008 and his job growth record was pathetic.

Facts are so inconvenient aren't they?

What was the unemployment rate in .... lets say June 2006, 6 years in his presidency? Hmmm?

That's because he inherited a healthy economy.

 

[Ernie S.]

And yet the evidence is in my thread's link. Yes, I understand facts that don't confirm your bias are scary, but eventually you will have to accept them.

Just because YOU say so? Really?

Um, no because the evidence says so.

Like this evidence?

Labor Force Participation Under President Obama

Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows an unmistakable decline in the Labor Force Participation Rate under President Obama. The rate dropped from 65.7% in January 2009 to 63.6% in September 2012. The chart below depicts the decline during President Obama’s time in office, and it demonstrates that the job situation became worse under his leadership.

Running contrary to the notion that the problem was entirely inherited, the most precipitous drop began approximately six months into President Obama’s term. The data shows an acceleration in the number of individuals dropping out of the labor force beginning in July 2009, when the Labor Force Participation Rate was 65.6% with a quick drop to 64.6% by December 2009. By September of this year, the rate had fallen to 63.6%. The chart below compares the Labor Force Participation Rate under President Bush to the rate under President Obama and helps put the decline in perspective.

 

[The Rabbi]

And yet the unemployment was at 7.3% in Dec of 2008 and his job growth record was pathetic.

Facts are so inconvenient aren't they?

What was the unemployment rate in .... lets say June 2006, 6 years in his presidency? Hmmm?

That's because he inherited a healthy economy.

No, Billy. Actually Bush inherited an economic mess. Dot-com meltdown coupled with damage from 9/11 and the subsequent military response, which needed funding to make up for Bill Clinton's relentless cutting of the military.
See, if you don't know what you're talking about you look damn stupid every time you post.

 

[Ernie S.]

Another chart at the above link plots labor force participation under Bush and obama and shows an upward trend in EFP until around January of 07 when Reid/Pelosi (again those troublesome names) took over Congress.

 

[Billy000]

Just because YOU say so? Really?

Um, no because the evidence says so.

Like this evidence?

Labor Force Participation Under President Obama

Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows an unmistakable decline in the Labor Force Participation Rate under President Obama. The rate dropped from 65.7% in January 2009 to 63.6% in September 2012. The chart below depicts the decline during President Obama’s time in office, and it demonstrates that the job situation became worse under his leadership.

Running contrary to the notion that the problem was entirely inherited, the most precipitous drop began approximately six months into President Obama’s term. The data shows an acceleration in the number of individuals dropping out of the labor force beginning in July 2009, when the Labor Force Participation Rate was 65.6% with a quick drop to 64.6% by December 2009. By September of this year, the rate had fallen to 63.6%. The chart below compares the Labor Force Participation Rate under President Bush to the rate under President Obama and helps put the decline in perspective.

Yeah the economy was bad in his FIRST year. Obviously the downturn he inherited is going to spill over.