Samson
Póg Mo Thóin
Post #30: Pull the Race Card......I was hoping you'd hold it a tad longer, but I suppose you've run out of legitimate arguments.
Our President Has Done A Good Job
- Thread starter Rinata
- Start date
Post #30: Pull the Race Card......I was hoping you'd hold it a tad longer, but I suppose you've run out of legitimate arguments.
Samson
Póg Mo Thóin
Correct.
Obama has been as good a president as an empty suit could be.
But I wouldn't say that he's the first, or even the last president that occupied the white house while stats changed, and then was able to reap accolades from adoring, mindless "dupes." The real measure of success is not the effects, but the causes: What did Obama actually DO? Effectively Administer the VA? Make the world a safer place for Americans and their ambassadors? Encourage foreign and domestic investment in America?
elektra
Diamond Member
Obama has done a good job of being a permanent stain on the USA's history.
Obama's intention was to show a Republic is a bad form of government.
Obama's intention was to show a Republic is a bad form of government.
Mojo2
Gold Member
- Oct 28, 2013
- 6,210
- 1,026
- 190
Why are so many of your fellow Americans crying out in pain and woe at his policies and actions?
Racism, you think?
What if your POTUS was producing results for certain groups, but you weren't doing well?
What if the economic blessings you point to stopped at your door and did not offer YOU any relief?
Would you be as rosy and optimistic in your appraisal of his performance?
Millions of Americans might feel they have a grudge against YOU because YOU are doing well and they aren't.
That sort of thing was kept to a minimum before Obama.
Class warfare and a sense of resentfulness towards ones neighbor and his standard of living is more prevalent than I've ever noticed it.
If America was doing well you'd have a right to be triumphant and buoyant.
As it is, just be thankful for your own good fortune.
And hopeful for the rest of your fellow Americans.
I wouldn't be happy with a POTUS whose policies left ME to do well but you were desperate.
Outside of your pleasant little world people are suffering and America is sliding into oblivion.
There are those who didn't want to or couldn't mentally cope with the reality of the situation they faced as the Titanic went down. Some became obsessed with inconsequential matters. I've heard that syndrome described as 'rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.'
The ship is sinking. The thing you are focused on is not going to help you survive the impending disaster.
Aside from the economic figures you seem to take solace from, are you aware of the number of crises, the variety of the crises, how quickly they are happening, how they seem to have mutated to the point of being virtually unsolvable this country is going through now?
It never used to be this chaotic and frantic and unnerving all at once and with no end and few solutions in sight.
Obama is definitely NOT good for America.
The economic figures you point to are those he HAD to make good on or else he would have been shit canned long ago.
Your optimistic numbers accomplishes one thing.
It gives Obama breathing room so he can go to the next challenge facing America and make it worse before he leaves office, is kicked out of office or before the MSM discovers his game and has enough proof to nail him on it.
Just like when your Mom asks if you've done your homework but you have been playing video games all evening and in answer to her you hold up your notebook with some nonsense written on it so she thinks you are doing what you should be.
Obama is trying to accomplish his secret agenda. But while he does THAT he ALSO has to give a decent accounting of himself and his actions for those who still believe he is earnestly trying to be a good and dutiful POTUS...
Which he MAY not be.
Here's what Rush thinks of Obama's performance.
Compare your notes to his why don't cha?
RUSH: Pete Wehner, Commentary Magazine, "Obama’s Staggering Record of Failure." Just some pull quotes here. "It’s not simply that Mr. Obama has fallen short of what he promised; it’s that he has been, in so many respects, a failure. Choose your metrics. Better yet, choose Mr. Obama’s metrics:
Job creation." Failure."
Economic growth." Failure.
"Improving our health-care system." Failure.
"Reducing the debt." Failure.
"Reducing poverty." Failure.
"Reducing income inequality." Failure.
"Slowing the rise of the oceans." Failure.
"Healing the planet." Failure.
"Repairing the world." Failure.
"The Russian 'reset.'" Failure.
"Peace in the Middle East." Failure.
"Red lines in Syria." Failure.
"Renewed focus on Afghanistan." Failure.
"A new beginning with the Arab world." Failure.
"Better relations with our allies." Failure.
"Depolarizing our politics." Big failure.
"Putting an end to the type of politics that 'breeds division and conflict and cynicism.'" Failure.
"Working with the other party." Failure.
"Transparency," i.e., honesty. Failure.
"No lobbyists working in his administration." Failure.
"His commitment to seek public financing in the general election." Failure.
"The list goes on and on.
"Barack Obama was among the least prepared men to ever serve as president. It shows. He has been overmatched by events right from the start. He is an excellent campaigner but unusually inept when it comes to governing."
Man, this is the Limbaugh Theorem, is it not?
This is the Limbaugh Theorem to a tee and Mr. Wehner has swerved into it. He survives by constantly campaigning against what he has caused. He makes it look like he is opposed to what's happening, except he is the one making it happen. He does not govern. He cannot be seen as governing. That's the point of the Limbaugh Theorem.
Obama's non-accountability rests on the fact that he's not seen as governing. He's seen as campaigning and being constantly against all of this stuff.
But this line, "Barack Obama was among the least prepared men to ever serve as president."
How did we get here then?
Because I maintain that it was known in 2008 that he was among the least prepared to ever seek the presidency. So why is it that some only now, in 2014, feel comfortable saying so?
Well, there are all kinds of answers for that.
Do you remember David Brooks? David Brooks, one of the learned class, a conservative columnist of the New York Times, remember what he said:
Obama's crease in his slacks told him that he was going to be a great president. And I am not making that up.
We had our own intellectual class fail us by signing on to this, because Obama was one of them.
He was a Harvard man. He was a Columbia man. He was the first African-American president. He could speak. He could articulate. He sounded intellectual. He sounded smart. He sounded erudite. He sounded sophisticated. He sounds like us, they said.
But, if it is safe to say that he was among the least prepared men to ever serve as president today, it was true in 2007 and it was true in 2008, because there has been nothing that has changed. It has only gotten worse. The New York Times has their own version of the Washington Post's. Gotta take a break here, but there's another attempt at Time Magazine: "Obama's Foreign Policy Failures Are Proving His Critics Right."
END TRANSCRIPT
It s Suddenly Cool to Use the Word Fail - The Rush Limbaugh Show
Last edited:
Mojo2
Gold Member
- Oct 28, 2013
- 6,210
- 1,026
- 190
Check out Post #104 for a list of Obama's FAILURES.
Harry Dresden
Only Adamantium Member
seems like every President is famous for creating someone who doesnt like us....No, carter allowed our ambassador to Afghanistan to be killed with no response leading to the eventual formation of the Taliban as well as the birth of Al Quieda.
Harry Dresden
Only Adamantium Member
didnt we just see this same shit with the last guy?....
Harry Dresden
Only Adamantium Member
thats because he is a politician.....he aint no different in that respect than the guys you like....
Harry Dresden
Only Adamantium Member
with Matt that may be true......
Synthaholic
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2010
- 83,421
- 76,079
- 3,605
Psst! They're not!
Shrimpbox
Gold Member
Consumer Confidence Index The Conference Board
Read the whole article and get the rest of the story. Growth rate is incorrect too if doing on a yearly basis. The op is too selective to be taken seriously.
Read the whole article and get the rest of the story. Growth rate is incorrect too if doing on a yearly basis. The op is too selective to be taken seriously.
Bull shit. I'd sooner spit on him than shake his hand. I wouldn't shake his hand for 2million dollars.
Who do you think I like?
Andylusion
Platinum Member
For those of you who are economically illiterate.... Printing money, making it less valuable.... doesn't mean it suddenly becomes completely worthless.
It means the value of the money is dropping. How can you tell if the value of the money is going down? By the cost of goods going up.
In 2006, you could buy a chicken burrito at Chipotle, for $4.75. Today it's $6.50. In 2006, you could buy one pound of ground beef, for 99¢. Today it's $2.19/lbs. In 2006, you could buy a double cheese burger at Wendy's, with a large fry and drink, for $5.25. Today it's $7.25.
The average price of a one bedroom apartment in Columbus Ohio, in 2009, was only $580. Today the average is $720.
Now I openly admit I have no proof, no evidence, and no one I have heard about yet, has indicated this.... but the governments inflation numbers keep saying that inflation is low and/or falling. Yet what I see out here in the real world, verse what the inflation index says, it simply doesn't match up.
Either the CPI (Consumer product index, what they use to determine inflation), is completely screwed up somehow, or the government is intentionally fudging the numbers.
The prices that I have to deal with in the real world, are increasing drastically, even while the CPI says inflation is only 1% or 2%.
But back to the point... this is your money becoming 'worth less'. It's worth.... is less. That's why it takes more and more money to buy the same products and services.
Now I don't know exactly how this is all going to play out, but one thing is for sure... this can't continue.
Mojo2
Gold Member
- Oct 28, 2013
- 6,210
- 1,026
- 190
Ronald Reagan — 'It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.'
Well, let's start with the group of Americans who will REALLY feel the pain of this generation's crazy Obama infatuation phase!
Under Obama Youth Misery Index Hits All-Time HighUNDER OBAMA, YOUTH MISERY INDEX HITS ALL-TIME HIGH
by JENNIFER KABBANY - FIX EDITOR on JANUARY 9, 2014
FIX FEATURE
A Youth Misery Index that measures young Americans’ woes has skyrocketed under President Barack Obama and hit an all-time high.
The index, released Wednesday, was calculated by adding youth unemployment and average college loan debt figures with each person’s share of the national debt. While it has steadily grown over the decades, under Obama the figure has shot up dramatically, from 83.5 in 2009 to 98.6 in 2013.
The index has increased by 18.1 percent since Obama took office, the highest increase under any president, making Obama the worst president for youth economic opportunity, according to the nonprofit that released the figure.
“Young people are suffering under this economy,” said Ashley Pratte, program officer for Young America’s Foundation, which developed the index and calculates it annually using federal statistics. “They’re still living in their parent’s basements, unable to find full-time jobs that pay them what they need in order to pay back their debt.”
Youth unemployment in 2013 was 16.3 percent, and student loan debt came in at a record-breaking average of $29,400 last year, the foundation points out; what’s more, each person’s share of the roughly $17 trillion dollar national debt stands at its highest level ever: $52,948.
“We are racking up this huge tab,” Pratte said in an interview Wednesday withThe College Fix. “Young people have no part of this debt, but it’s the generation that has to deal with it.”
The foundation added 16.3, which represents youth unemployment, with 29.4 – the average 4-year- college loan debt – and 52.9, each person’s national debt burden, to generate its 2013 figure of 98.6.
In 2012 it was 95.1, and the year before that 90.6. When Obama first took office in 2009, it was 83.5.
When President George Bush left office in 2008 – the index was 69.3. When the figure debuted in 1993, it came in at 53.1.
The foundation argues “there appears to be a statistically significant relationship between government expenditures and the Youth Misery Index.”
“Under the Obama administration alone, the YMI has increased by 18.1 percent, the highest increase under any president, making Obama the worst president for youth economic opportunity—not quite the hope and change many young people were looking for.”
Pratte said this represents a prime opportunity for conservatives.
“This entitlement society is perpetuated by the Obama administration,” she said. “You want health care, we’ll give it to you for free. That was a promise, and young people are inclined to expect these things.”
“When they realize, ultimately, they have to pay for it, this is an opportunity for conservatives to get their message out there. … Young people are really adverse to government intrusion.”
Last edited:
I can't wait 'til January 20, 2017.
Mojo2
Gold Member
- Oct 28, 2013
- 6,210
- 1,026
- 190
6/02/2013 @ 8:00AM 136,651 views
Economically, Could Obama Be America's Worst President?
Comment Now
(Image credit: AFP/Getty Images via @daylife)
The recession ended four years ago, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. So Obamanomics has had plenty of time to produce a solid recovery. In fact, since the American historical record is the worse the recession, the stronger the recovery, Obama should have had an easy time producing a booming recovery by now.
Obama likes to tout that we are doing better now than at the worst of the recession. But every recovery is better than the recession, by definition. So that doesn’t mean much.
The right measure and comparison for Obama’s record is not to compare the recovery to the recession, but to compare Obama’s recovery with other recoveries from other recessions since the Great Depression. By that measure, what is clear is that Obamanomics has produced the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression, worse than what every other President who has faced a recession has achieved since the Great Depression.
In the 10 previous recessions since the Great Depression, prior to this last recession, the economy recovered all jobs lost during the recession after an average of 25 months after the prior jobs peak (when the recession began), according to the records kept by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. So the job effects of prior post Depression recessions have lasted an average of about 2 years. But under President Obama, by April, 2013, 64 months after the prior jobs peak, almost 5½ years, we still have not recovered all of the recession’s job losses. In April, 2013, there were an estimated 135.474 million American workers employed, still down about 2.6 million jobs from the prior peak of 138.056 million in January, 2008.
Ronald Reagan suffered a severe recession starting in 1981, which resulted from the monetary policy that broke the back of the roaring 1970s inflation. But all the job losses of that recession were recovered after 28 months, with the recovery fueled by traditional pro-growth policies. By this point in the Reagan recovery, 64 months after the recession started, jobs had grown 9.5% higher than where they were when the recession started, representing an increase of about 10 million more jobs. By contrast, in April, 2013, jobs in the Obama recovery were still about 2% below where they were when the recession started, about 2 ½ million less, or a shortfall of about 10 million jobs if you count population growth since the recession started, as discussed below.
Obama’s so-called recovery included the longest period since the Great Depression with unemployment above 8%, 43 months, from February, 2009, when Obama’s so-called stimulus costing nearly $1 trillion was passed, until August, 2012. It also included the longest period since the Great Depression with unemployment at 9.0% or above, 30 months, from April, 2009, until September, 2011. In fact, during the entire 65 yearsfrom January, 1948 to January, 2013, there were no months with unemployment over 8%, except for 26 months during the bitter 1981 – 1982 recession, which slayed the historic inflation of the 1970s. That is how inconsistent with the prior history of the American economy President Obama’s extended unemployment has been. That is some fundamental transformation of America.
Economically Could Obama Be America s Worst President - Forbes
asterism
Congress != Progress
Similar threads
- Poll
New Topics
-
Jasmine Crockett’s Security Guard Fatally Shot By Dallas SWAT In Standoff – What We Know- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 0
-
-
Illegal immigrant was discovered to have been voting for more than a decade in Philadelphia- Started by DonGlock26
- Replies: 8
-
