Obama-haters: If Obama is such a terrible president, then why do you suppose his...

[Avatar4321]

There is no clear evidence that Obama has handled the economy wrong. No one here has been able to prove that. Americans just assume it is his fault unemployment is still high.

Im sure the unemployed and overtaxed would disagree with you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is no clear evidence that Obama has handled the economy wrong. No one here has been able to prove that. Americans just assume it is his fault unemployment is still high.

Sensitive about something? I did not mention the economy.

I'm sure that is what you were referring to. Don't bullshit. It's Obama's lowest specific approval rating

Actually, I was thinking about his wonderful foreign policy triumphs, so your mind reading skills are totally fucked.

 

[Billy000]

Sensitive about something? I did not mention the economy.

I'm sure that is what you were referring to. Don't bullshit. It's Obama's lowest specific approval rating

Actually, I was thinking about his wonderful foreign policy triumphs, so your mind reading skills are totally fucked.

Yes, Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq (maybe) are handled wonderfully. I'm glad you feel that way.

BTW, most Americans agree that pulling out of Iraq was the right decision.

 

[Billy000]

There is no clear evidence that Obama has handled the economy wrong. No one here has been able to prove that. Americans just assume it is his fault unemployment is still high.

Im sure the unemployed and overtaxed would disagree with you.

Who exactly is overtaxed? Corporations? No, their tax rate is at its lowest in US history.

 

[del]

I'm sure that is what you were referring to. Don't bullshit. It's Obama's lowest specific approval rating

Actually, I was thinking about his wonderful foreign policy triumphs, so your mind reading skills are totally fucked.

Yes, Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq (maybe) are handled wonderfully. I'm glad you feel that way.

BTW, most Americans agree that pulling out of Iraq was the right decision.

it was.

george bush made it in 2008.


facts are fun

 

[Avatar4321]

There is no clear evidence that Obama has handled the economy wrong. No one here has been able to prove that. Americans just assume it is his fault unemployment is still high.

Im sure the unemployed and overtaxed would disagree with you.

Who exactly is overtaxed? Corporations? No, their tax rate is at its lowest in US history.

Anyone who has to pay 1/3 of their income to the Government.

Which is just about everyone who works.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm sure that is what you were referring to. Don't bullshit. It's Obama's lowest specific approval rating

Actually, I was thinking about his wonderful foreign policy triumphs, so your mind reading skills are totally fucked.

Yes, Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq (maybe) are handled wonderfully. I'm glad you feel that way.

BTW, most Americans agree that pulling out of Iraq was the right decision.

You think those countries were handled wonderfully? I will admit that following the Bush timeline for getting out of Iraq instead of doing like he promised and coming home immediately was a good thing, but I am a realist. Surpised you agree with Bush about anything though.

As for Libya, or even Egypt, maybe you should pay attention to things that are going on outside the blogs you read.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-m...-another-great-us-foreign-policy-triumph.html

 

[Billy000]

Actually, I was thinking about his wonderful foreign policy triumphs, so your mind reading skills are totally fucked.

Yes, Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq (maybe) are handled wonderfully. I'm glad you feel that way.

BTW, most Americans agree that pulling out of Iraq was the right decision.

You think those countries were handled wonderfully? I will admit that following the Bush timeline for getting out of Iraq instead of doing like he promised and coming home immediately was a good thing, but I am a realist. Surpised you agree with Bush about anything though.

As for Libya, or even Egypt, maybe you should pay attention to things that are going on outside the blogs you read.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-m...-another-great-us-foreign-policy-triumph.html

Why in the hell is it Obama's fault that Egypt and Libya could have Islamic leadership? I am fascinated to hear your explanation on this.

 

[frazzledgear]

...polls do not reflect it?

His approval rating, while not good, really isn't as bad as it could be (Gallup has it at 46% right now).

On average, he is tied with Romney for a hypothetical election.

So why do think his approval ratings are not lower than they should be? Why isn't Romney crushing him in a hypothetical match-up?

While Bush's approval ratings were decent in his first term, they were terrible in his second.

Personally, I think the reason why his approval ratings are lower than they should be is because people expected him to be a cure-all for the economy. They figure since job growth has been slow, it must be ALL Obama's fault.

That, of course, is not true.

His approval ratings are low because people hate his policies. In spite of Obama apologists twisting stats and insisting things have really improved and are doing so much better now, people aren't dummies and know it's bullshit. Unemployment rate is down because tens of thousands of people are just giving up every month now. Its a hokey number now -and even the Bureau of Labor Statistics says it does not reflect REALITY. The drop on paper when the only reason it dropped is because they don't count another 120,000 people every month who just gave up looking does NOT mean things have gotten better no matter how much you insist otherwise. More people are not employed than before -fewer people bother to look anymore. The real unemployment rate is above 12% now and in several major cities among blacks it is close to 20%. And let's just ignore the fact that LAST YEAR under THIS President, poverty sharply increased to its highest level in more than 50 years. The only thing that has really grown under Obama -is the ranks of the poor while the highest economic classes have SHRUNK. The ranks of the rich have been thinned out -just like liberals wanted. And the ranks of the middle class have been thinned out as well just as liberals wanted. And the ranks of the poorest have exploded. When liberals keep seeking the same policies in spite of seeing and knowing how they ALWAYS result in thinning the ranks of the middle class and wealthy and increase the ranks of those at the bottom, how long before you realize this is EXACTLY what they wanted all along? Liberals ALWAYS want more people dependent on government -not FEWER. And they got it. Obama was successful in doing exactly what he wanted all along -grow the ranks of the poor in the belief it grows the Democrat base.

The notion that voters turned over two branches of government to total Democrat control but even YEARS later they aren't responsible for a ******* thing -is so ludicrous only a moron could fall for it. Oops. So liberals can spew all the perverted stats they want, people know from their own lives and those around them what is really going on. Like the fact I just had three different extended family members in three different states in three different occupations all lose their jobs just in the last TWO WEEKS. And one of them has a wife who is 5 months pregnant so you can imagine how happy they are about that. But sure -I'll pass on the liberal message to them that the appearance things are going downhill for themselves and everyone they know is an ILLUSION -because liberals want us all to pretend THIS is what "good" looks like. Seriously do you really think people are going to be so stupid as to ignore what they SEE firsthand just because liberal morons insist we must pretend otherwise? Obama's approval ratings are low because people can SEE for themselves that in reality everything he has done -made everything even WORSE. Do you really not get that one? Yes, they know it was bad when he took office -but a President owns the trend AFTER that. And what he and a super majority Democrat Congress did -MADE IT UNDENIABLY WORSE. No matter how often liberals insist otherwise.

Why would you expect any Republican candidate to be "crushing" Obama in this far in advance? But the fact that ALREADY more than one Republican candidate either beats him outright or is within the margin of error is a very, very bad sign.

Carter won in all hypothetical match-ups against every Republican candidate running for the nomination for nearly all of 1980. Even after Reagan won the nomination in late summer, Carter still won those "if the election were today" polls until the first week in October when Reagan pulled even. And then in November Reagan kicked his ass all over the country in one of the biggest blow outs in history.

Carter ran on the platform that Americans needed to tighten their belts even more. Obama is running on "things could be worse". It will be another terrific sell to voters, no doubt.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why in the hell is it Obama's fault that Egypt and Libya could have Islamic leadership? I am fascinated to hear your explanation on this.

Because he is the President who supported the overthrow of both of the regimes. Or did you somehow think you can do that and yet at the same time avoid responsibility for the consequences of that?

It's completely disgraceful how we supported Al Qaeda in Libya.

 

[Billy000]

Why in the hell is it Obama's fault that Egypt and Libya could have Islamic leadership? I am fascinated to hear your explanation on this.

Because he is the President who supported the overthrow of both of the regimes. Or did you somehow think you can do that and yet at the same time avoid responsibility for the consequences of that?

It's completely disgraceful how we supported Al Qaeda in Libya.

I mean this in the nicest way possible: you are completely ignorant.

 

[Billy000]

...polls do not reflect it?

His approval rating, while not good, really isn't as bad as it could be (Gallup has it at 46% right now).

On average, he is tied with Romney for a hypothetical election.

So why do think his approval ratings are not lower than they should be? Why isn't Romney crushing him in a hypothetical match-up?

While Bush's approval ratings were decent in his first term, they were terrible in his second.

Personally, I think the reason why his approval ratings are lower than they should be is because people expected him to be a cure-all for the economy. They figure since job growth has been slow, it must be ALL Obama's fault.

That, of course, is not true.

His approval ratings are low because people hate his policies. In spite of Obama apologists twisting stats and insisting things have really improved and are doing so much better now, people aren't dummies and know it's bullshit. Unemployment rate is down because tens of thousands of people are just giving up every month now. Its a hokey number now -and even the Bureau of Labor Statistics says it does not reflect REALITY. The drop on paper when the only reason it dropped is because they don't count another 120,000 people every month who just gave up looking does NOT mean things have gotten better no matter how much you insist otherwise. More people are not employed than before -fewer people bother to look anymore. The real unemployment rate is above 12% now and in several major cities among blacks it is close to 20%. And let's just ignore the fact that LAST YEAR under THIS President, poverty sharply increased to its highest level in more than 50 years. The only thing that has really grown under Obama -is the ranks of the poor while the highest economic classes have SHRUNK. The ranks of the rich have been thinned out -just like liberals wanted. And the ranks of the middle class have been thinned out as well just as liberals wanted. And the ranks of the poorest have exploded. When liberals keep seeking the same policies in spite of seeing and knowing how they ALWAYS result in thinning the ranks of the middle class and wealthy and increase the ranks of those at the bottom, how long before you realize this is EXACTLY what they wanted all along? Liberals ALWAYS want more people dependent on government -not FEWER. And they got it. Obama was successful in doing exactly what he wanted all along -grow the ranks of the poor in the belief it grows the Democrat base.

The notion that voters turned over two branches of government to total Democrat control but even YEARS later they aren't responsible for a ******* thing -is so ludicrous only a moron could fall for it. Oops. So liberals can spew all the perverted stats they want, people know from their own lives and those around them what is really going on. Like the fact I just had three different extended family members in three different states in three different occupations all lose their jobs just in the last TWO WEEKS. And one of them has a wife who is 5 months pregnant so you can imagine how happy they are about that. But sure -I'll pass on the liberal message to them that the appearance things are going downhill for themselves and everyone they know is an ILLUSION -because liberals want us all to pretend THIS is what "good" looks like. Seriously do you really think people are going to be so stupid as to ignore what they SEE firsthand just because liberal morons insist we must pretend otherwise? Obama's approval ratings are low because people can SEE for themselves that in reality everything he has done -made everything even WORSE. Do you really not get that one? Yes, they know it was bad when he took office -but a President owns the trend AFTER that. And what he and a super majority Democrat Congress did -MADE IT UNDENIABLY WORSE. No matter how often liberals insist otherwise.

Why would you expect any Republican candidate to be "crushing" Obama in this far in advance? But the fact that ALREADY more than one Republican candidate either beats him outright or is within the margin of error is a very, very bad sign.

Carter won in all hypothetical match-ups against every Republican candidate running for the nomination for nearly all of 1980. Even after Reagan won the nomination in late summer, Carter still won those "if the election were today" polls until the first week in October when Reagan pulled even. And then in November Reagan kicked his ass all over the country in one of the biggest blow outs in history.

Carter ran on the platform that Americans needed to tighten their belts even more. Obama is running on "things could be worse". It will be another terrific sell to voters, no doubt.

You are very below evidence, aren't you? No one here (including yourself) has been able to come up with any evidence that Obama is the reason for the high unemployment rate.

Show me some evidence.

You know what there is evidence of? Obama's stimulus SUCCESS:

Did the stimulus work? A review of the nine best studies on the subject - The Washington Post

 

[Avatar4321]

Why in the hell is it Obama's fault that Egypt and Libya could have Islamic leadership? I am fascinated to hear your explanation on this.

Because he is the President who supported the overthrow of both of the regimes. Or did you somehow think you can do that and yet at the same time avoid responsibility for the consequences of that?

It's completely disgraceful how we supported Al Qaeda in Libya.

I mean this in the nicest way possible: you are completely ignorant.

Clearly understanding that actions have consequences is completely ignorant.

Conveniently you remember this when you want to brag about how Obama "took out" Qaddafi.

 

[FA_Q2]

You are very below evidence, aren't you? No one here (including yourself) has been able to come up with any evidence that Obama is the reason for the high unemployment rate.

Show me some evidence.

You know what there is evidence of? Obama's stimulus SUCCESS:

Did the stimulus work? A review of the nine best studies on the subject - The Washington Post

And again and again your side drones on about evidence that simply does not exist. Let me help you, from your own link.

If you bothered to read your own link you would note that it states the following concerning the 'model' form of study:

This avoids the messiness of econometric evaluation, as it allows the creation of a ready, stimulus-less counterfactual with which one can compare the results of the stimulus bill. But it also doesn’t take into account the actual changes in employment and output that occurred after the stimulus was passed.

To put that in a simpler way, those studies declare that the stimulus was a success NO MATTER WHAT THE ACTUAL OUTCOME IS. Yes, they determined the stimulus was a success in absence of any factual outcomes. If the entire country fell in upon itself, those studies would say the EXACT same thing. If the country entered into unprecedented success, again, they would STILL state the EXACT same thing. They are worthless as they are based upon assumptions of complex systems that cannot be proven. One of those assumptions that I believe is complete bunk is that this downturn has any resemblance to previous downturns. There are major differences in today's world than there have been in previous iteration of economic stress that have shaped this beast into a completely different problem.

As far as the remaining studies that ACTUALLY TAKE FACTS INTO ACCOUNT, they are not all that convincing when you take into account 3 state it worked and 2 state it was a complete failure. Further, the Gabriel Chodorow-Reich study, one of the three that stated success, only covered 88 billion of the 787 billion in spending. So it left out 89% of the stimulus spending. It is meaningless in determining the success of the overall program.

Who did it: Gabriel Chodorow-Reich (Berkeley), Laura Feiveson (MIT), Zachary Liscow (Berkeley), and William Gui Woolston (Stanford).
What it says: The state fiscal aid portion of the stimulus, which specifically increased federal Medicaid matching funds, had significant positive effects on employment. The additional matching funds increased employment by 3.5 job-years per $100,000 spent, and the multiplier for the funds is around 2.

I see nowhere that they is a preponderance of evidence the stimulus succeeded unless we turn to studies that simply ignore reality in their statements. Such studies are dubious at best.

 

[Billy000]

You are very below evidence, aren't you? No one here (including yourself) has been able to come up with any evidence that Obama is the reason for the high unemployment rate.

Show me some evidence.

You know what there is evidence of? Obama's stimulus SUCCESS:

Did the stimulus work? A review of the nine best studies on the subject - The Washington Post

And again and again your side drones on about evidence that simply does not exist. Let me help you, from your own link.

If you bothered to read your own link you would note that it states the following concerning the 'model' form of study:

This avoids the messiness of econometric evaluation, as it allows the creation of a ready, stimulus-less counterfactual with which one can compare the results of the stimulus bill. But it also doesn’t take into account the actual changes in employment and output that occurred after the stimulus was passed.

To put that in a simpler way, those studies declare that the stimulus was a success NO MATTER WHAT THE ACTUAL OUTCOME IS. Yes, they determined the stimulus was a success in absence of any factual outcomes. If the entire country fell in upon itself, those studies would say the EXACT same thing. If the country entered into unprecedented success, again, they would STILL state the EXACT same thing. They are worthless as they are based upon assumptions of complex systems that cannot be proven. One of those assumptions that I believe is complete bunk is that this downturn has any resemblance to previous downturns. There are major differences in today's world than there have been in previous iteration of economic stress that have shaped this beast into a completely different problem.

As far as the remaining studies that ACTUALLY TAKE FACTS INTO ACCOUNT, they are not all that convincing when you take into account 3 state it worked and 2 state it was a complete failure. Further, the Gabriel Chodorow-Reich study, one of the three that stated success, only covered 88 billion of the 787 billion in spending. So it left out 89% of the stimulus spending. It is meaningless in determining the success of the overall program.

Who did it: Gabriel Chodorow-Reich (Berkeley), Laura Feiveson (MIT), Zachary Liscow (Berkeley), and William Gui Woolston (Stanford).
What it says: The state fiscal aid portion of the stimulus, which specifically increased federal Medicaid matching funds, had significant positive effects on employment. The additional matching funds increased employment by 3.5 job-years per $100,000 spent, and the multiplier for the funds is around 2.

I see nowhere that they is a preponderance of evidence the stimulus succeeded unless we turn to studies that simply ignore reality in their statements. Such studies are dubious at best.

There is no denying that the stimulus created 2.5 million jobs. The "yes" studies confirm that. There is always going to be studies that conflict, but more say "yes" than "no".

 

[FA_Q2]

You are very below evidence, aren't you? No one here (including yourself) has been able to come up with any evidence that Obama is the reason for the high unemployment rate.

Show me some evidence.

You know what there is evidence of? Obama's stimulus SUCCESS:

Did the stimulus work? A review of the nine best studies on the subject - The Washington Post

And again and again your side drones on about evidence that simply does not exist. Let me help you, from your own link.

If you bothered to read your own link you would note that it states the following concerning the 'model' form of study:

To put that in a simpler way, those studies declare that the stimulus was a success NO MATTER WHAT THE ACTUAL OUTCOME IS. Yes, they determined the stimulus was a success in absence of any factual outcomes. If the entire country fell in upon itself, those studies would say the EXACT same thing. If the country entered into unprecedented success, again, they would STILL state the EXACT same thing. They are worthless as they are based upon assumptions of complex systems that cannot be proven. One of those assumptions that I believe is complete bunk is that this downturn has any resemblance to previous downturns. There are major differences in today's world than there have been in previous iteration of economic stress that have shaped this beast into a completely different problem.

As far as the remaining studies that ACTUALLY TAKE FACTS INTO ACCOUNT, they are not all that convincing when you take into account 3 state it worked and 2 state it was a complete failure. Further, the Gabriel Chodorow-Reich study, one of the three that stated success, only covered 88 billion of the 787 billion in spending. So it left out 89% of the stimulus spending. It is meaningless in determining the success of the overall program.

Who did it: Gabriel Chodorow-Reich (Berkeley), Laura Feiveson (MIT), Zachary Liscow (Berkeley), and William Gui Woolston (Stanford).
What it says: The state fiscal aid portion of the stimulus, which specifically increased federal Medicaid matching funds, had significant positive effects on employment. The additional matching funds increased employment by 3.5 job-years per $100,000 spent, and the multiplier for the funds is around 2.

I see nowhere that they is a preponderance of evidence the stimulus succeeded unless we turn to studies that simply ignore reality in their statements. Such studies are dubious at best.

There is no denying that the stimulus created 2.5 million jobs. The "yes" studies confirm that. There is always going to be studies that conflict, but more say "yes" than "no".

Go back and read what I typed and address the comments or admit that you have no interest in actual intelligent conversation.

You did not bring up one point or address anything I brought up. Fail.

 

[Billy000]

And again and again your side drones on about evidence that simply does not exist. Let me help you, from your own link.

If you bothered to read your own link you would note that it states the following concerning the 'model' form of study:

To put that in a simpler way, those studies declare that the stimulus was a success NO MATTER WHAT THE ACTUAL OUTCOME IS. Yes, they determined the stimulus was a success in absence of any factual outcomes. If the entire country fell in upon itself, those studies would say the EXACT same thing. If the country entered into unprecedented success, again, they would STILL state the EXACT same thing. They are worthless as they are based upon assumptions of complex systems that cannot be proven. One of those assumptions that I believe is complete bunk is that this downturn has any resemblance to previous downturns. There are major differences in today's world than there have been in previous iteration of economic stress that have shaped this beast into a completely different problem.

As far as the remaining studies that ACTUALLY TAKE FACTS INTO ACCOUNT, they are not all that convincing when you take into account 3 state it worked and 2 state it was a complete failure. Further, the Gabriel Chodorow-Reich study, one of the three that stated success, only covered 88 billion of the 787 billion in spending. So it left out 89% of the stimulus spending. It is meaningless in determining the success of the overall program.

I see nowhere that they is a preponderance of evidence the stimulus succeeded unless we turn to studies that simply ignore reality in their statements. Such studies are dubious at best.

There is no denying that the stimulus created 2.5 million jobs. The "yes" studies confirm that. There is always going to be studies that conflict, but more say "yes" than "no".

Go back and read what I typed and address the comments or admit that you have no interest in actual intelligent conversation.

You did not bring up one point or address anything I brought up. Fail.

You took a few sentences and based a loose premise off of them. Both the "Yes" and the "No" studies used the "model" method. Therefore, your point is moot. Also, it does not say the modeling approach is ineffective - it just isn't perfect:

Some critics have discounted the CBO’s studies on the stimulus as, in Reason writer Peter Suderman’s words, “pre-cooked”, because the multiplier estimates are based on evidence known before the stimulus was passed, and thus are sure to produce similar results before and after the stimulus was enacted. However, this is arguably a strength of the CBO approach. Attempts to determine the effect of the stimulus by comparing spending and employment data have to control for other factors are affecting employment, which can be tricky. A modeling approach avoids these pitfalls.

 

[FA_Q2]

You took a few sentences and based a loose premise off of them. Both the "Yes" and the "No" studies used the "model" method. Therefore, your point is moot. Also, it does not say the modeling approach is ineffective - it just isn't perfect:

No, it says that the modeling approach DOES NOT USE ANY ACTUAL OUTCOMES. NONE. ZERO. ZILCH.

Those models completely and totally ignore the actual numbers after the fact. The studies would say the same thing NO MATTER WHAT ACTUALLY, IN REALITY, OCCURRED.


And yet you still fail to address that whatsoever.

 

[Conservative]

There is no denying that the stimulus created 2.5 million jobs. The "yes" studies confirm that. There is always going to be studies that conflict, but more say "yes" than "no".

you just contradicted yourself, dip-shit.

There is no denying that the stimulus created 2.5 million jobs. The "yes" studies confirm that.

and

There is always going to be studies that conflict

are conflicting statements. You state there is 'no denying', then continue on to say 'studies conflict', indicating they do not agree.

Your debate skills are seriously bad. Stick to trolling... it's your thing.

 

[JoeB131]

There is no clear evidence that Obama has handled the economy wrong. No one here has been able to prove that. Americans just assume it is his fault unemployment is still high.

Im sure the unemployed and overtaxed would disagree with you.

Unemployment was 7.8 when he took office, reached a high of 10%, and now it is down to 8.5. It's closer to where he started than where he was.

By November, it could be down to 7%. If that's the case, he'll get re-elected, easily.

Hell, Bush found an economy with 4.2 unemployment, and got re-elected with 5.5%.