To all Obama apologists on the economy. You need to go fuck yourself today.

[Saint Cad]

Now going into a third straight year of budget and staff cuts, the district staff at my school district have just been told about massive staff cuts (me included). Why don't you pull some more numbers out of Obama's ass (they're in there next to your head) and explain again about how the economy is recovering and has been for some time. Explain how real unemployment has gone down.

Look, the economy is in the shitter and everyone except you and your President know it. So out of respect for me being laid off for the second summer in a row (ya know, last hired = first fired), I order a 24 hour morotorium on any statement implying the economy has been getting better under your President.

[Ludovic]

Now going into a third straight year of budget and staff cuts, the district staff at my school district have just been told about massive staff cuts (me included).How's that starvey beastie thing working out for ya?

[DianaG]

Couldn'ta happened to a nicer, more rational guy.

[Vinyl Turnip]

I'm sorry to hear you're losing your job, your idiotic OP notwithstanding.

[Saint Cad]

I'm sorry to hear you're losing your job, your idiotic OP notwithstanding.

Oh I know it's an idiotic rant. It comes from minutes after finding out about the (job) massacre we're having here I hear on talkradio about out we are in our 3rd year of recovery and unemployment is at its lowest point and it's all thanks to Obama and I'm thinking, "You know, that is exactly the antithesis of what I want to hear right now."

[Rigamarole]

Cool story, bro.

[Rhythmdvl]

I'm sorry, I have plans for today. Can I go fuck myself tomorrow?


Meanwhile, enjoy a delightful--and insightful--cartoon from the Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Monitor-Political-Cartoons/%28photo%29/470979).

Oh, and spot on, Ludovic.

[otternell]

I'd be curious as to what state the OP is in, and whether their state budget may have been a little teeny tiny factor in the layoffs.

That said, I can appreciate that hearing that news on the radio, right after being shit-canned, would tend to unleash an irrational rant.

[Kimstu]

It comes from minutes after finding out about the (job) massacre we're having here I hear on talkradio about out we are in our 3rd year of recovery and unemployment is at its lowest point and it's all thanks to Obama

Eh, if the same thing were happening with McCain as President the same sources would be saying it's all thanks to McCain.

The fact is, we got hit in 2008 with the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression, and no administration without superhuman powers would be able to turn that around completely in a mere few years. Minor improvements are worth being thankful for, but we're nowhere near out of the woods yet.

Which is why, as you note, a lot of people are still getting hurt in the current state of the economy. Sorry to hear about your job situation, and I hope it works out okay.

[stpauler]

According to this, the unemployment rate is getting better. (http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&fdim_y=country:US&fdim_y=seasonality:S&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment+rate#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=unemployment_rate&fdim_y=country:US&fdim_y=seasonality:S&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:US&ifdim=country&tdim=true&tstart=1289368800000&tend=1328853600000&hl=en_US&dl=en) YMMV.

No presidents or ownerships of presidents mentioned in this post, so the moratorium doesn't apply to me.

[Icarus]

So let me get this straight - Obama issued you a layoff? Wow, that sucks.

[The Great Sun Jester]

Schools get their funds cut even when times are good. Not sure how having a hockey mom and a zombie puppet in charge would have helped at all.

Life's handed you a shit sandwich. Direct your anger appropriately, but stop undercutting someone who, at worst, has nothing to do with it.

[Ludovic]

Schools get their funds cut even when times are good. Not sure how having a hockey mom and a zombie puppet in charge would have helped at all.They would have been a whole lot better for public sector employment, that's for sure. Burn, village, and all that.

[black rabbit]

How are those tax cuts working out for you now, you dumb motherscratcher?

[Philliam]

I realize it's a personal bummer for you and your family. Are you just now getting the message that you happen to be in that segment of the 'Gummint' that Grover Norquist and his ilk want to "drown in the bathtub"? If you happen to be a true conservative you might applaud the efforts to get rid of these over-reaching government programs.

Again, man, I do feel for 'ya - a lot of 'us' are in the same boat, but you do need to remember the old saying:

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

[Vinyl Turnip]

I didn't like hearing "Sugar, Sugar" right after my girlfriend dumped me, but not enough to put a contract hit out on the Archies.

[Fear Itself]

I support President Obama, the country is better off with him in the White House, and with any luck, the entire Republican Party will implode this November so we can finish what needs to be done to repair the damage caused by two terms of conservative misadventure. Tax cuts don't create jobs.

I hope that makes you feel better. OK, not really.

[silenus]

I didn't like hearing "Sugar, Sugar" right after my girlfriend dumped me, but not enough to put a contract hit out on the Archies.

That would be a lot more justified than the OP.

[Cat Whisperer]

Eh, if the same thing were happening with McCain as President the same sources would be saying it's all thanks to McCain.

The fact is, we got hit in 2008 with the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression, and no administration without superhuman powers would be able to turn that around completely in a mere few years. <snip>When I hear things like the OP here, I am a little boggled - you think President Obama managed to dump the global economy in 2008, before he was even President? Wow, he really IS the most powerful man alive! What, he hasn't completely fixed everything in three years, with the Republicans dragging their feet on every motion? I guess he's completely useless then.

ETA: And I really am sorry that you're about to lose your job, Saint Cad. Regardless of the circumstances or the politics, that sucks.

[elucidator]

...but not enough to put a contract hit out on the Archies.


You didn't have the money. You aren't fooling anybody here, Vinny. Bloodthirsty motherscratcher.

[The Great Sun Jester]

They would have been a whole lot better for public sector employment, that's for sure. Burn, village, and all that.If you're implying the US could make bank burning more villages I would remind you of the failure of that policy for 9+ years now. We actually spend more to burn villages than we ever reap from the profits of doing so.


ETA: The Archies so have it coming to them. No jury in the land....

[Koxinga]

According to this, the unemployment rate is getting better. (http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&fdim_y=country:US&fdim_y=seasonality:S&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment+rate#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=unemployment_rate&fdim_y=country:US&fdim_y=seasonality:S&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:US&ifdim=country&tdim=true&tstart=1289368800000&tend=1328853600000&hl=en_US&dl=en) YMMV.

No presidents or ownerships of presidents mentioned in this post, so the moratorium doesn't apply to me.

A smaller percentage of the workforce is classified as unemployed because the workforce is shrinking. If you include discouraged workers and those marginally attached to the labor force, the unemployment rate is still close to 10%.

[suranyi]

I feel sorry for your situation and all, but anecdotes are just that. I just started a new job last week.

[stpauler]

A smaller percentage of the workforce is classified as unemployed because the workforce is shrinking. If you include discouraged workers and those marginally attached to the labor force, the unemployment rate is still close to 10%.

I would love to see a comparative graph with those figures included over the last 3 years since you've mentioned it.

[Hal Briston]

Losing your job absolutely sucks.

Not realizing that the more localized the government base, the more it affects your life, sucks even more.

If you're looking to lay blame, here's a handy primer:
Your local school board > your state's education department >>>>>>> Obama

[JKellyMap]

(huff huff HUFF HUFF HUUUUFFHH contented sigh)

That felt great! Thanks for giving me the green light.

[Koxinga]

Here's a pretty good explanation (http://seekingalpha.com/article/483981-u-s-employment-in-plain-english), with graphs; note especially this one (http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2012/4/8/1103530-13339088408507755-Macro-and-Cheese.jpg).

[elucidator]

(huff huff HUFF HUFF HUUUUFFHH contented sigh)

That felt great! Thanks for giving me the green light.

That part's OK, the tough part is talking to yourself and pretending to listen.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Hail to the Chief we have chosen for the nation,
Hail to the Chief! We salute him, one and all.
Hail to the Chief, here's your slip of separation
Clean out your desk, there's some boxes in the hall!

[stpauler]

Here's a pretty good explanation (http://seekingalpha.com/article/483981-u-s-employment-in-plain-english), with graphs; note especially this one (http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2012/4/8/1103530-13339088408507755-Macro-and-Cheese.jpg).

I'll be honest, I don't know enough about it to argue, but it seems that the peak between 97 and 02 would be when the baby boomers starting hitting 55 (early retirement) or am I just extrapolating two random points?

[Frylock]

Now going into a third straight year of budget and staff cuts, the district staff at my school district have just been told about massive staff cuts (me included). Why don't you pull some more numbers out of Obama's ass (they're in there next to your head) and explain again about how the economy is recovering and has been for some time. Explain how real unemployment has gone down.

Look, the economy is in the shitter and everyone except you and your President know it. So out of respect for me being laid off for the second summer in a row (ya know, last hired = first fired), I order a 24 hour morotorium on any statement implying the economy has been getting better under your President.

A. No individual's personal experience is a reliable indicator of the state of the economy.

B. As a conservative, you should not be complaining about what other people did to put you in your current job situation, you should be affirming that this is a mere temporary setback, a learning opportunity, and that with hard work and pluck, you will be on your feet in a couple of weeks.

[Truman Burbank]

I too am sorry you are losing your job, and that education has been taking such a hit.
I assume you will be eschewing any government handouts as we continue to shrink the public sector?

[silenus]

It's sad that Saint Cad lost his job. It's a bloody miracle that his school board actually made cuts where they should be made, ie at the District level rather than the site level. The teachers and aides are usually the ones who get it in the neck, not bureaucrats in Admin.

[SteveG1]

I realize it's a personal bummer for you and your family. Are you just now getting the message that you happen to be in that segment of the 'Gummint' that Grover Norquist and his ilk want to "drown in the bathtub"? If you happen to be a true conservative you might applaud the efforts to get rid of these over-reaching government programs.

Again, man, I do feel for 'ya - a lot of 'us' are in the same boat, but you do need to remember the old saying:

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

This. I guess it sucks to be the OP.

I don't give a shit. Sometimes a person who is so eager to put other people on a chopping block or toss them out like garbage, gets "a little taste" for himself. I just can't bring myself to feel bad at all.

So how IS that starvy beasty thing working out?

I too am sorry you are losing your job, and that education has been taking such a hit.
I assume you will be eschewing any government handouts as we continue to shrink the public sector?

This too. After all, only liberal scum and lazy bums take money from the nanny state.

[Sister Vigilante]

I'm sorry about your job loss. But anecdotal evidence doesn't cut it. Our entire company got raises last year and my husband (who works for the local school district) is finally getting a raise for the first time in 4 years. We're also hiring for a temp position, a full time position, and (if Mr. Worker's Comp doesn't ever come back), another full time position.

It sucks to not have a job and be on unemployment. Blaming Obama for it is silly, since he just got into office when the whole thing tanked. He didn't cause that. And it's hard to try to fix anything when the opposite party is stonewalling him at every turn, just for the fuck of it.

[mhendo]

I don't give a shit. Sometimes a person who is so eager to put other people on a chopping block or toss them out like garbage, gets "a little taste" for himself. I just can't bring myself to feel bad at all.
This seems to be a fairly common sentiment in this thread. Can anyone point me to the discussions you're thinking of? I was generally aware of the OP before this, but i don't recall any specific run-ins with him over issues of the economy and government policy.

[Biffy the Elephant Shrew]

ETA: The Archies so have it coming to them. No jury in the land....

What's the penalty for Reggiecide?

[elucidator]

Oh my God! Reggie is Mitt Romney!

[cosmosdan]

If it makes you feel any better, I fuck myself almost every day

[Lamar Mundane]

It sucks getting drowned in the bathtub.

[Chefguy]

The feds fund your schools? How did you manage that, and how do we get on board?

[Biggirl]

This seems to be a fairly common sentiment in this thread. Can anyone point me to the discussions you're thinking of? I was generally aware of the OP before this, but i don't recall any specific run-ins with him over issues of the economy and government policy.

It is probably the 'go fuck yourself Obama apologist" that has this thread filled with that sentiment. Especially since Obama has been against killing government jobs during the bad economy and the Republicans are all for cutting taxes and reducing nanny state programs like, oh, education. Some are actively trying to abolish the Department of Education. So yeah, there is a lot of schadenfreude in this thread.

[The Second Stone]

I'm sorry you are losing your job. But let's face it, it is a job sucking at the government teat, and if I am not mistaken, you are all in favor of reducing the number of such jobs. I'd be a little more impressed if you were a job creator rather than a burden to the rest of us.

[mhendo]

It is probably the 'go fuck yourself Obama apologist" that has this thread filled with that sentiment. But the comments give the impression that Saint Cad has some sort of longer history on this topic.

[Cheesesteak]

A smaller percentage of the workforce is classified as unemployed because the workforce is shrinking. If you include discouraged workers and those marginally attached to the labor force, the unemployment rate is still close to 10%.Actually, if you look at the U6, which includes discouraged and marginally employed, it's 14.5%, the lowest since Obama took office, down a half point since January, and down 2.5 points from its high of 17%. That rate is usually 7-8% when things are good, and jumped from 9 to 15% during Bush's last year.

Good? No, but it's moving in the right direction.

[Smapti]

This last weekend I got a raise and made the last payment on my car.

Thanks, Obama!

[Biggirl]

But the comments give the impression that Saint Cad has some sort of longer history on this topic.

Why would anyone need to look into posting history when the poster has invited all Obama economy apologists to go fuck themselves in this very thread?

[YogSosoth]

Without Obama, you probably wouldn't have had a job to lose in the first place. I'm sorry for your loss, but you're blaming the wrong person

[Rhythmdvl]

Why would anyone need to look into posting history when the poster has invited all Obama economy apologists to go fuck themselves in this very thread?
Curiosity, really. I too have seen the name enough to recognize a Doper, but don't think I've read anything egregious (prior to the OP).

There are a handful of RW posters here who you know are right wing, but they'd never blather on like this. Then there are some RW posters who do so much similar blathering that you can almost guess the poster by the OP. This one is in the middle.

So without having to prove anything other than curiosity, has Cad spouted Norquistesque lines or libertarian-like LaRuchian rantings?

[Fear Itself]

I don't understand all the sympathy. If more conservatives lost their jobs as a direct result of government cutbacks, maybe they would reconsider their politics. It is hard for me to feel much sympathy when someone votes against their own self interest, and then blames the wrong guy for his misfortune.

[Gatopescado]

This last weekend I got a raise and made the last payment on my car.

Thanks, Obama!

I pay cash for my cars.

Thanks, Bush!

;)

[Saint Cad]

Let's get this straight right now. My rant was directed to the people who talk about how the economy has recovered under Obama. I didn't pit Obama directly so all of you who think that this was directed to Obama can go back to school and learn to read from your now probably fired teacher.

To point it out again, this was directed to people that turn some government-issued numbers into this picture of everything being great and wonderful economically and give Obama an almost Messianic reverence on how he has changed everything in the last three years. The economy still sucks despite any marginal improvement that may or may not be Obama's doing.

Oh and for all of you accusing me of being part of the government bloat, remember that your complaining about someone willing to babysit kids and try and teach them math as they tell me to fuck off. I saw a math teacher try to wake up a kid in class today during the lesson and the kid punched the teacher in the stomach for disturbing him. But I guess that the consquence of pulling down such huge paychecks. Maybe some of you need to start a thread: Reduce Big Government: Fire a Teacher.

[Biggirl]

Curiosity, really. I too have seen the name enough to recognize a Doper, but don't think I've read anything egregious (prior to the OP).

There are a handful of RW posters here who you know are right wing, but they'd never blather on like this. Then there are some RW posters who do so much similar blathering that you can almost guess the poster by the OP. This one is in the middle.

So without having to prove anything other than curiosity, has Cad spouted Norquistesque lines or libertarian-like LaRuchian rantings?

You know there is a search function that'll help satisfy anyone's curiosity on that score. I'm almost sure most people in this particular thread are responding to, well, this particular thread. In particular, getting told to go fuck themselves just because he's getting fired and is blaming all the wrong people for it.

[Biggirl]

Let's get this straight right now. My rant was directed to the people who talk about how the economy has recovered under Obama. I didn't pit Obama directly so all of you who think that this was directed to Obama can go back to school and learn to read from your now probably fired teacher.

To point it out again, this was directed to people that turn some government-issued numbers into this picture of everything being great and wonderful economically and give Obama an almost Messianic reverence on how he has changed everything in the last three years. The economy still sucks despite any marginal improvement that may or may not be Obama's doing.

Oh and for all of you accusing me of being part of the government bloat, remember that your complaining about someone willing to babysit kids and try and teach them math as they tell me to fuck off. I saw a math teacher try to wake up a kid in class today during the lesson and the kid punched the teacher in the stomach for disturbing him. But I guess that the consquence of pulling down such huge paychecks. Maybe some of you need to start a thread: Reduce Big Government: Fire a Teacher.

Dude, you are mad at the wrong people. The economy is improving no matter what your personal situation is. Calling people "Obama apologists" and telling them to go fuck themselves for stating facts is a pretty fucking stupid thing for an educator to do.

[The Great Sun Jester]

LeReduce Big Government: Fire a Teacher.To be fair, nobody here thinks teachers need to be fired (if my speed-reading skills I was taught in 8th grade are still working). You're getting poked at for being an administrator who doesn't didn't serve the immediate cause of, well, teaching.

Now if you wanna get busy on a flamefest about ill-behaved brats in schools who appear to fear no repurcssions at home you will probably get plenty of good loving from left- and right-wingers alike. Few people posting here are of the sort to tolerate that kind of nonsense.

[Lobohan]

Today I learned: Conservatives are so stupid, they can retard the recovery by insisting on cuts during it, and still be pissed off that the recovery is taking so long.

I'd like to add, that there are certainly stupid liberals. But it isn't a requirement.

[DianaG]

Oh and for all of you accusing me of being part of the government bloat
I submit that most of the people chiding you being part of government bloat are doing so ironically, if you really want to discuss reading comprehension.

[Lamar Mundane]

Let's get this straight right now. My rant was directed to the people who talk about how the economy has recovered under Obama. I didn't pit Obama directly so all of you who think that this was directed to Obama can go back to school and learn to read from your now probably fired teacher.

To point it out again, this was directed to people that turn some government-issued numbers into this picture of everything being great and wonderful economically and give Obama an almost Messianic reverence on how he has changed everything in the last three years. The economy still sucks despite any marginal improvement that may or may not be Obama's doing.

Oh and for all of you accusing me of being part of the government bloat, remember that your complaining about someone willing to babysit kids and try and teach them math as they tell me to fuck off. I saw a math teacher try to wake up a kid in class today during the lesson and the kid punched the teacher in the stomach for disturbing him. But I guess that the consquence of pulling down such huge paychecks. Maybe some of you need to start a thread: Reduce Big Government: Fire a Teacher.

Get your government hands off my Medicare!

[Ludovic]

an almost Messianic reverenceWho are those people?

[magellan01]

Why would anyone need to look into posting history when the poster has invited all Obama economy apologists to go fuck themselves in this very thread?

Because they should. There's huge difference between someone who thinks/thought he was the right man for the job, or is a fan, and being an apologist for him.

[magellan01]

Dude, you are mad at the wrong people. The economy is improving no matter what your personal situation is. Calling people "Obama apologists" and telling them to go fuck themselves for stating facts is a pretty fucking stupid thing for an educator to do.

Well, if you think he called you an Obama apologist its because you consider yourself an Obama apologist. He didn't say that all Obama supporters were apologists. See, you should have stuck it out with the logic course.

[Fear Itself]

Let's Maybe some of you need to start a thread: Reduce Big Government: Fire a Teacher.I am in favor of Big Government. Don't blame me if they did what you told them to in the last midterm election.

[Lobohan]

Who are those people?I suspect that modern conservatives generally think everyone is as stupid as they are. Since many conservatives thought Bush was especially Godly (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ucv1-PJVT4), to them, Obama must be as holy to liberals.

[Biggirl]

Because they should. There's huge difference between someone who thinks/thought he was the right man for the job, or is a fan, and being an apologist for him.

What? Posters to this board should research the OP of threads they respond to to find out if he is the right man for the job/a fan or being an apologist? English, do you speak it, motherlover?

[Lobohan]

See, you should have stuck it out with the logic course.Aren't you the guy who thinks gay marriage will magically destroy society?

[Biggirl]

Well, if you think he called you an Obama apologist its because you consider yourself an Obama apologist. He didn't say that all Obama supporters were apologists. See, you should have stuck it out with the logic course.

Me? He called anyone who says the economy is improving an Obama economic apologist. So yeah, I guess he did tell me to go fuck myself.

[magellan01]

Me? He called anyone who says the economy is improving an Obama economic apologist. So yeah, I guess he did tell me to go fuck myself.

I think you misread. Here's the salutation identifying who he is talking to:

To all Obama apologists on the economy. You need to go fuck yourself today.

So, unless you already consider yourself an Obama apologist, he wasn't talking to you.

[magellan01]

Aren't you the guy who thinks gay marriage will magically destroy society?

Magically? No. Destroy? A bit too strong. In the short run anyway.

Sigh. But, Chucklehead, you make things sooo easy:

I'd like to add, that there are certainly stupid liberals. But it isn't a requirement.

In fact, too easy... tsk, tsk, tsk.

Yawn.

[Lobohan]

Magically? No. Destroy? A bit too strong. In the short run anyway.You haven't given the mechanism for it, and are simply relying on your assertion to prove it true. Sounds like magical thinking to me.

Sigh. But, Chucklehead, you make things sooo easy:



In fact, too easy... tsk, tsk, tsk.

Yawn.I don't think I left the opening you think I left there. Let me hear the devastating whammy you're too good to use on me. I'll never learn if no one hits back.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Who are those people?

Not me. My opinion of Obama at the moment is hovering somewhere between "yeah... nah" and "wouldn't piss on him if he were on fire," but not for reasons related to the economy, over which he doesn't have a hell of a lot of control.

So, unless you already consider yourself an Obama apologist, he wasn't talking to you.

Funny thing about Obama apologists: like bad drivers, negligent parents, and oatmeal-brained knuckle-dragging dittohead troglodytic conservative assclowns, everyone knows they're out there but nobody thinks they are one. Given the OP's situation I understand if he wants to rage at an auditorium of strawmen, but if the economy is improving it isn't necessary to be an "Obama apologist" to acknowledge it.

[Biggirl]

So, unless you already consider yourself an Obama apologist, he wasn't talking to you.

He further identified Obama apologists as those who say the economy is improving. Just like all the major indicators indicate. So, not only did he call me an Obama apologist, he called actual facts Obama apologists. And we can all go fuck ourselves today.

[Lobohan]

And we can all go fuck ourselves today.Well, then this Obama apologist is already ahead of the game. :D

[TonySinclair]

I would just like to note that I am barely old enough to remember the glorious late 1950's, when schools, police, firemen, etc. got almost anything they wanted. And when the marginal tax rate for the richest Americans was over 90%.

Instead of blaming Obama for doing the best he can with an intransigent Congress, blame the people fighting for millionaires to have their taxes cut even more.

[magellan01]

You haven't given the mechanism for it, and are simply relying on your assertion to prove it true. Sounds like magical thinking to me.

I full believe that anything that requires forethought or doesn't have as immediate a cause:effect relationship as you winding up shit on your hand when you wipe your ass without toilet paper falls under the category of "magic". I'm not questioning that one bit.

I don't think I left the opening you think I left there. Let me hear the devastating whammy you're too good to use on me. I'll never learn if no one hits back.

Oh you did. But, like I said, too easy. Plus, I'll let the bitch slap above enjoy the spotlight for now. Enjoy. :D

[Lobohan]

I full believe that anything that requires forethought or doesn't have as immediate a cause:effect relationship as you winding up shit on your hand when you wipe your ass without toilet paper falls under the category of "magic". I'm not questioning that one bit.That doesn't explain the mechanism you think will cause damage to society if gay marriage is allowed.

Oh you did. But, like I said, too easy. Plus, I'll let the bitch slap above enjoy the spotlight for now. Enjoy. :DIn other words, you are just pretending you have a zinger, because you kinda thought you saw one, but can't figure it out now?

[magellan01]

He further identified Obama apologists as those who say the economy is improving. Just like all the major indicators indicate. So, not only did he call me an Obama apologist, he called actual facts Obama apologists. And we can all go fuck ourselves today.

Check your reading. Again, his salutation was: (emphasis mine)

To all Obama apologists on the economy. You need to go fuck yourself today.

So, was it addressed to you or not?

[Rhythmdvl]

Biggirl, you need to take a few moments from your OP-mandated self fucking to bite my shiny metal ass. Then, with or without the blessing of the OP, go back to knitting yourself a hat (I think saying GFY directly to a poster is against Board rules.)

I assume you put "find me instances of Saint Cad being an economic douche" into a search field to avoid slogging through every post of his or reading every thread he's been involved in. But not everyone has access to your magical search engine. We'd rather ask the many posters here who may have participated in some thread to volunteer it. Here, let me give you an example:

Random Poster: That's strange. Biggirl normally is pretty chill. Anyone remember a time when she made a complete ass out of herself?

Rhythmdvl: Yeah, it is an anomaly, but it's not the first time. Check out this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=647949)thread, maybe posts 47, 53 and 64. Aside from otherwise good points about the OP itself, her other responses will leave the taste of santorum in your mouth.

So ... anyone else (besides Biggerl, who should be crotch-deep in yarn at the moment) recall Saint Cad posting love notes to Norquist?

My friend wants to know.

[magellan01]

That doesn't explain the mechanism you think will cause damage to society if gay marriage is allowed.


Go reread all those threads if you'd like. It was explained more than once. Or not. I really don't care either way.

In other words, you are just pretending you have a zinger, because you kinda thought you saw one, but can't figure it out now?

Ooo000oo, yeah, that's it. You sooooo got me.

We both know that not even you believe that, but what the hell.

[Biggirl]

Biggirl, you need to take a few moments from your OP-mandated self fucking to bite my shiny metal ass. Then, with or without the blessing of the OP, go back to knitting yourself a hat (I think saying GFY directly to a poster is against Board rules.)

I assume you put "find me instances of Saint Cad being an economic douche" into a search field to avoid slogging through every post of his or reading every thread he's been involved in. But not everyone has access to your magical search engine. We'd rather ask the many posters here who may have participated in some thread to volunteer it. Here, let me give you an example:

Random Poster: That's strange. Biggirl normally is pretty chill. Anyone remember a time when she made a complete ass out of herself?

Rhythmdvl: Yeah, it is an anomaly, but it's not the first time. Check out this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=647949)thread, maybe posts 47, 53 and 64. Aside from otherwise good points about the OP itself, her other responses will leave the taste of santorum in your mouth.

So ... anyone else (besides Biggerl, who should be crotch-deep in yarn at the moment) recall Saint Cad posting love notes to Norquist?

My friend wants to know.

Are you mad because I told you to look it up yourself? Sorry I hurt your feelings.

[Lobohan]

Go reread all those threads if you'd like. It was explained more than once. Or not. I really don't care either way.I have read them. And you never offer mechanism there either.

You're just bigoted, why not admit it? It's not like the guys on your side would find that untoward.

Ooo000oo, yeah, that's it. You sooooo got me.

We both know that not even you believe that, but what the hell.I'm just pointing out that you were bullshitting.

[Rhythmdvl]

Ah, "umadbro." Great! I think you and magellan01 should have an insult throw-down. It would be pretty comical.

[River Hippie]

Ludovic nails it in post #2.

OP, sorry about your lay off, I've been there fairly recently and wouldn't wish that on anyone except maybe Republican Leaders.

I disagree on who's to blame for the economy and will vote for President Obama in November.

[Lobohan]

Biggirl, you need to take a few moments from your OP-mandated self fucking to bite my shiny metal ass. Then, with or without the blessing of the OP, go back to knitting yourself a hat (I think saying GFY directly to a poster is against Board rules.)

I assume you put "find me instances of Saint Cad being an economic douche" into a search field to avoid slogging through every post of his or reading every thread he's been involved in. But not everyone has access to your magical search engine. We'd rather ask the many posters here who may have participated in some thread to volunteer it. Here, let me give you an example:

Random Poster: That's strange. Biggirl normally is pretty chill. Anyone remember a time when she made a complete ass out of herself?

Rhythmdvl: Yeah, it is an anomaly, but it's not the first time. Check out this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=647949)thread, maybe posts 47, 53 and 64. Aside from otherwise good points about the OP itself, her other responses will leave the taste of santorum in your mouth.

So ... anyone else (besides Biggerl, who should be crotch-deep in yarn at the moment) recall Saint Cad posting love notes to Norquist?

My friend wants to know.Cad did post this nonsense railing against the inheritance tax: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=542622

I'd venture to guess he has little understanding of economic issues.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Check your reading. Again, his salutation was: (emphasis mine)



So, was it addressed to you or not?His salutation? Or is that just the title of the thread.

What he actually said was Now going into a third straight year of budget and staff cuts, the district staff at my school district have just been told about massive staff cuts (me included). Why don't you pull some more numbers out of Obama's ass (they're in there next to your head) and explain again about how the economy is recovering and has been for some time. Explain how real unemployment has gone down.

Look, the economy is in the shitter and everyone except you and your President know it. So out of respect for me being laid off for the second summer in a row (ya know, last hired = first fired), I order a 24 hour morotorium on any statement implying the economy has been getting better under your President.

So, it's actually a fact that the economy is recovering and unemployment has gone down. There's no two ways about that. However, it's also undeniable that things aren't good enough yet.

However, it's typically conservatives who think that austerity will help. So, someone has to get austeracized. Here's a graph showing the problems that public sector employment has caused on the overall recovery:

http://www.epi.org/publication/public-sector-job-losses-unprecedented-drag/

[Lobohan]

Ah, "umadbro." Great! I think you and magellan01 should have an insult throw-down. It would be pretty comical.Unfortunately I barely got "C"s in my Introduction to Rap Battles class.

[Koxinga]

Let me see if I can summarize this thread's response to the OP's pain and economic distress:

1. Cool story bro. Sucks to be u.
2. But your experience doesn't mean anything, cause you're just one guy.
3. And look here! This chart says Obama has improved the economy!
4. You cannot hold the president responsible for the economy.
5. Whatever's still wrong with the economy is the fault of the previous president.
6. Either way, your unjust attack on Obama makes you sound like one of those conservatives!
7. So you're getting what you deserve! Ha ha!

Far from it for me to discourage you guys in this winning approach. As election day approaches, the economy continues to flounder along and one out of every six Americans remains unemployed or underemployed, I encourage you to redouble your efforts in getting this message out and educate voters about how they ought to feel about their crappy situations. If all Obama supporters take it to heart, I have some hope we will finally start to see things improve after November.

[Biggirl]

Ah, "umadbro." Great! I think you and magellan01 should have an insult throw-down. It would be pretty comical.

You really are that pissed off because I told you to look it up yourself. I'd apologize but you really should look it up yourself.

Also, my response wasn't only for you. mhendo seemed to think that something other than what was already in this thread was causing all the sarcastic replies. My position was and still is that there need be no other reason for the sarcastic replies than what was already in this thread.



This seems to be a fairly common sentiment in this thread. Can anyone point me to the discussions you're thinking of? I was generally aware of the OP before this, but i don't recall any specific run-ins with him over issues of the economy and government policy.

I am seriously a little flabbergasted at how badly you're taking my search it yourself post.

[The Second Stone]

Let's get this straight right now. My rant was directed to the people who talk about how the economy has recovered under Obama. I didn't pit Obama directly so all of you who think that this was directed to Obama can go back to school and learn to read from your now probably fired teacher.

To point it out again, this was directed to people that turn some government-issued numbers into this picture of everything being great and wonderful economically and give Obama an almost Messianic reverence on how he has changed everything in the last three years. The economy still sucks despite any marginal improvement that may or may not be Obama's doing.

Oh and for all of you accusing me of being part of the government bloat, remember that your complaining about someone willing to babysit kids and try and teach them math as they tell me to fuck off. I saw a math teacher try to wake up a kid in class today during the lesson and the kid punched the teacher in the stomach for disturbing him. But I guess that the consequence of pulling down such huge paychecks. Maybe some of you need to start a thread: Reduce Big Government: Fire a Teacher.

I'm generally against firing teachers. Kids need to see that teachers can sometimes be stupid adults, and thus we need conservative teachers like you. We all understood from your OP that you were pitting people who praised or in any measure approve Obama's handling of the economy. We understood it because we can read.

The federal government has very little to do with hiring and firing teachers. Local school districts do that.

If you are going to make a career out of babysitting at a public school, please give my condolences to the faculty that have to pick up your slack. It is a lot more difficult than just babysitting.

You are the one with a government job. There are private teaching jobs out there. Go get one. Yeah, it will be with less pay and less benefits, but you are against unions anyway, aren't you?

Your hypocrisy and stupidity are not just skin deep. It goes all the way to the bone. When you are a conservative trying to reduce the public payroll and destroy unions, stop crying so fucking much when it actually happens. Dumbfuck.
Dumbfuck.
Dumbfuck.
Dumbfuck.

Have you picked up on the fact that your politics support cutting off your own food supply? Most everyone else in this thread has.

[Fear Itself]

Let me see if I can summarize this thread's response to the OP's pain and economic distress:Swing and a miss. Where's the part about failing to connect tax cuts to education layoffs?

[DiosaBellissima]

The feds fund your schools? How did you manage that, and how do we get on board?

Uh, yeah. This.

[magellan01]

His salutation? Or is that just the title of the thread.

It was both. He used the thread title as a salutation, so the audience could self-define either in it or not.

This really seems pretty clear from the OP. As an analogy, if someone wrote a thread and had as the title,

"To all knee-jerk, liberal douche bags who rarely actually contribute to the the discussion"
And then went on to say that the mothers of these people are doberman-fucking cum sluts, I wouldn't be offended in the least, as the person is clearly not talking to me. But if, say, Lobohan, took issue with those comments and tried to rush to the defense of his mother, that would make perfect sense.

[Lobohan]

Lobohan[/B], took issue with those comments and tried to rush to the defense of his mother, that would make perfect sense.By the way, she wants you to stop sending her gifts, it's over.

[Rhythmdvl]

Thanks Lobhan. I pass/failed Rap Battles 101, but now that Biggirl has doubled down on the umadbro I know I'm way out of my league.


I kind of picture the OP as an accident victim (car, not pants). He's dizzy and reeling from shock, standing in the cold rain outside his car. As the tow-truck operator slowly pulls it from the ditch, he's bitching to his wife that they're scratching the paint on the way up and, and, though it's making it out of the ditch it's not going fast enough for him. Also, the truck operator's bastard cousin--and competition--is there slashing the OP's tires and doing his best to fuck things up so he can try "rescuing" the car.

Someone hand the OP an umbrella.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

Let me see if I can summarize this thread's response to the OP's pain and economic distress:

1. Cool story bro. Sucks to be u.
2. But your experience doesn't mean anything, cause you're just one guy.
3. And look here! This chart says Obama has improved the economy!
4. You cannot hold the president responsible for the economy.
5. Whatever's still wrong with the economy is the fault of the previous president.
6. Either way, your unjust attack on Obama makes you sound like one of those conservatives!
7. So you're getting what you deserve! Ha ha!

Far from it for me to discourage you guys in this winning approach. As election day approaches, the economy continues to flounder along and one out of every six Americans remains unemployed or underemployed, I encourage you to redouble your efforts in getting this message out and educate voters about how they ought to feel about their crappy situations. If all Obama supporters take it to heart, I have some hope we will finally start to see things improve after November.

Did you miss all the posts that said they were sorry for his situation, even f they disagreed with his argument?

[magellan01]

By the way, she wants you to stop sending her gifts, it's over.

Okay, thanks! But tell her I was unable to cancel the order for the pair of mastiffs she paid me for. They should be there any day now. But after this, she'll have to go back to stealing those junkyard dogs. Unless, of course, she can get her loving son to help her out.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Saint Cad--OK, fine. Stay home on Election Day and whine about how disappointed you are in Obama's first term, or vote for the Green Party, or even Mitt Romney, if you think Republicans give a goddamn about public employees. If you think taking money away from the schools in order to give vouchers to the upper class, knock yourself out. But you'll be pushing this country a little further down the road to being irredeemably right-wing and regressive in its political, social, cultural, and economic structure.

Never forget: Republicans vote. Every. Time.

[BigT]

Check your reading. Again, his salutation was: (emphasis mine)



So, was it addressed to you or not?

If I were to write a thread entitled "To all you Zimmerman apologists, go fuck yourselves" and included in the post the sentence: "Why don't you pull some shit out of your ass (right next to your head) about how we can't know who attacked who first," I would clearly be calling those with that opinion Zimmerman apologists, and you would have the right to mad at me, despite the fact that you don't consider yourself even pro-Zimmerman.

[magellan01]

If I were to write a thread entitled "To all you Zimmerman apologists, go fuck yourselves" and included in the post the sentence: "Why don't you pull some shit out of your ass (right next to your head) about how we can't know who attacked who first," I would clearly be calling those with that opinion Zimmerman apologists, and you would have the right to mad at me, despite the fact that you don't consider yourself even pro-Zimmerman.

Nope. As I think you'd agree, people can argue in good faith, and perhaps a mind will be changed once every ten years. ;) But the term apologist refers to a blind type of believer, someone who will never give an iota or admit fault on his or her side—even if a particular point of defense oct attack may be used by both groups. So, your logic falls there. Now, if he didn't write the title the way he did, I could see non-apologists being offended. But as it is, zero "Obama NON-apologists should be offended.".

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

But the term apologist refers to a blind type of believer, someone who will never give an iota or admit fault on his or her side

No it doesn't (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apologist).

[magellan01]

No it doesn't (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apologist).

I don't disagree with the dictionary definition, though it really is somewhat antiquated, harkening back to when science/philosophy books were published with an Apologia. Now, technically, a kid who apologizes to another kid for hitting him is also an apologist. But when it comes to people being "apologists" for causes, etc., it takes on the flavor of what I said. I'm pretty sure you know that. And know what I meant.

[sqweels]

As election day approaches, the economy continues to flounder along and one out of every six Americans remains unemployed or underemployed, I encourage you to redouble your efforts in getting this message out and educate voters about how they ought to feel about their crappy situations. If all Obama supporters take it to heart, I have some hope we will finally start to see things improve after November.
Ah, but you see the flip side of "Obama apologists on the economy" are the Republicans who have been relentlessly campaigning on the idea the Obama is to blame for the bad economy. But:

1. Obama is not to blame for the bad economy.
2. The economy is not as bad as it might have been.

So while the Repubs have been able to convince people that Obama is to blame for a bad economy, they'll be damned if he'll get any credit for any improvements.

5. Whatever's still wrong with the economy is the fault of the previous president.
I submit that it's a lot easier for a president to screw up an economy than it is to fix one.

[Fear Itself]

Now, technically, a kid who apologizes to another kid for hitting him is also an apologist.Because you say so? No he isn't. But when it comes to people being "apologists" for causes, etc., it takes on the flavor of what I said. I'm pretty sure you know that. And know what I meant.Words have meanings.

[magellan01]

Because you say so? No he isn't.

You are correct. I originally used the word in a way that is commonly used, but I then added the thing about the kid, who is an "apologizer". I should have left the kid thing out of it. I was wrong about that. My apologies. ;)

Words have meanings.

Ah, so all my work has not been for naught after all...;);)

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

You are correct. I originally used the word in a way that is commonly used
Err...no. Words do have meanings, inasmuch as people use them in a particular way, but sometimes people use them according to the dictionary. You were chastising people who were using the dictionary denotation of the word because they weren't using the connotation you attach to the word. That's absurd.

It's fine to suggest that a word has certain connotations for you. But it's silly to suggest that it has those same connotations for everyone, when the ultimate descriptivist device, the dictionary, disagrees.

[magellan01]

Err...no. Words do have meanings, inasmuch as people use them in a particular way, but sometimes people use them according to the dictionary. You were chastising people who were using the dictionary denotation of the word because they weren't using the connotation you attach to the word. That's absurd.

No I don't think I was. I was explaining how it was used in the OP. The word is often used imbued with the blind partisanship I described. Do you not agree with that? Do you not agree that the way I described it was the way it was being used in the OP. I mean, it seems to be a pretty common take on the word.

[L. G. Butts, Ph.D.]

I was laid off at the end of 2008 after close to a decade of wage stagnation. Since the 2008 election, I have had my salary grow more than in the previous 8 years and I have had my stock portfolio double. Thanks Obama.




Of course, neither he nor Bush were responsible for any of the above, but that obviously does not stop any conservatives from being morons as demonstrated in this thread.

[HMS Irruncible]

Now going into a third straight year of budget and staff cuts, the district staff at my school district have just been told about massive staff cuts (me included). Why don't you pull some more numbers out of Obama's ass (they're in there next to your head) and explain again about how the economy is recovering and has been for some time. Explain how real unemployment has gone down.

Look, the economy is in the shitter and everyone except you and your President know it. So out of respect for me being laid off for the second summer in a row (ya know, last hired = first fired), I order a 24 hour morotorium on any statement implying the economy has been getting better under your President.
You're complaining about getting fired from... a government job? And you're blaming Obama? Elect one of these Republican yahoos who wants to defund education and see how THAT works out for you. Moron.

[BrainGlutton]

Look, the economy is in the shitter and everyone except you and your President know it. So out of respect for me being laid off for the second summer in a row (ya know, last hired = first fired), I order a 24 hour morotorium on any statement implying the economy has been getting better under your President.

Oh, I wouldn't dream of hinting.

But I understand the economy has been getting wow-better under your president.

::d&r::

[Truman Burbank]

to suggest that we recognize the complicated reality that the economy is getting better, but still isn't where we want it? I don't think anybody is saying "the economy is great!" as your strawman assertion suggests. In fact, the last time I heard anybody assert that it was Bush and McCain.
Besides, I was given to understand that if an individual finds themselves unemployed it reflects either a defect of character or the bad choices they've made in their life...

[Euphonious Polemic]

Saint Cad, what folks seem to be getting at is that you don't seem to understand what the various parties stand for. You seem to be railing against the wrong person (Obama).

As far as my limited knowledge goes, the Democrats generally like to see services provided for people, including those who cannot afford them. Education in particular is highly valued, and a publicly funded education system is seen as something that is good for the country. Democrats generally feel that tax rates should be set so that the public systems are well funded, and staffed appropriately by public employees (paid out of tax dollars).

Republicans, on the other hand, have a different approach to both government employment and taxation. In general, they feel that taxes should be lower. Government should be smaller, and those who get a paycheck from a government source should be fewer in numbers.

In general terms, Republicans would be cheering your downsizing (smaller government, less taxes), while Democrats would be not impressed with your downsizing (sacrificing public education for short-sighted gains of tax cuts).

You seem to be confused about the part where Obama is a president with the Democrat party. His party is currently being fought tooth and nail by other branches of government controlled by the Republican Party. These branches are in agreement with what happened to you. Yet you rail against a Democrat president.

You seem confused.

[PandaBear77]

Saint Cad -- I'm really sorry you're going through this :(

Seriously.

[BrainGlutton]

to suggest that we recognize the complicated reality that the economy is getting better, but still isn't where we want it?

That is not too subtle or complicated to recognize, but it is too subtle and complicated to enjoy, therefore it is rejected and is a lie, shut up.

[Koxinga]

to suggest that we recognize the complicated reality that the economy is getting better, but still isn't where we want it?

This is just the break the Carter '80 Bush '92 Obama '12 campaign has been waiting for!

[Stink Fish Pot]

Couldn'ta happened to a nicer, more rational guy.

Classy. I don't know the OP or your history with him, but man... can't you cut him a break for one day, instead of being a superior bitch?

So let me get this straight - Obama issued you a layoff? Wow, that sucks.

Does it ever end? The sarcasm! the wit!

I support President Obama, the country is better off with him in the White House, and with any luck, the entire Republican Party will implode this November so we can finish what needs to be done to repair the damage caused by two terms of conservative misadventure. Tax cuts don't create jobs.

I hope that makes you feel better. OK, not really.

The country is better with him in the white house? Cite? You can love yourself some Obama and you can love the fact that your guy got in (and a black man to boot! How liberal of you all!), but Obama has not done a bang up job on the economy. In fact, the economy sucks, and I think it may cost him the election later this year, regardless of what stiff suit the pubbies put up.

A smaller percentage of the workforce is classified as unemployed because the workforce is shrinking. If you include discouraged workers and those marginally attached to the labor force, the unemployment rate is still close to 10%.

This is a very big part of it. But 10% figure is a joke. Just got my taxes done, and the woman who does them (and has been doing them for a decade now) said she has seen a surprising number of people come in with reduced incomes from last year, some of them being on unemployment the entire year. The fact is, when a person goes off the unemployment roles, he's no longer visible by the system. So presto! Everyone can talk about how the economy is turning around, albeit slowly. The economy sucks. I don't care what party you are affiliated with. You all need to pull your heads out of your asses and take a look around at your communities, friends and relations. If you are still lucky enough to be employed, I'm happy for you. This is beyond party politics at this point.

When I hear things like the OP here, I am a little boggled - you think President Obama managed to dump the global economy in 2008, before he was even President? Wow, he really IS the most powerful man alive! What, he hasn't completely fixed everything in three years, with the Republicans dragging their feet on every motion? I guess he's completely useless then.

ETA: And I really am sorry that you're about to lose your job, Saint Cad. Regardless of the circumstances or the politics, that sucks.

This sounds like any Republican rant when the Democrats run congress and the Repubs own the white house. It's an exercise in futility. It's just a finger pointing exercise that has grown old for me.

I don't blame Obama for the mess he inherited. I do blame him for the mess that is attributable to him, however. He certainly kept the Bush bailout/checkbook solution philosophy alive and well.


When things get worse and worse, the masses tend to cling to their religion more. If Romney takes the Nomination, I'm guessing he'll become much more overtly religious to the country than he is today. Santorum is already there. Obama will be spotted walking in and out of some house of religion on a more frequent basis.

Sorry about your job loss. I don't know who you are your your political affiliation (although based on the comments in the thread I can guess).

I wish any and all of you best of luck in keeping your jobs, or finding one if you are on the bench.


Personal note- I honestly don't care who wins the WH this year. But whoever does, I'd like to see them stay out of another war, get us out of afghanistan, and let any investment bank that is heading for bankruptcy go down like Frasier vs. Ali.

[waterj2]

Treating this as a political thread on public sector job losses, I figure it's worth flagging this article (http://www.thenation.com/article/167050/states-went-red-2010-massive-public-sector-job-losses-came-next) comparing states where Republicans took over in 2010 to the rest of the country:Nearly all of the job losses took place at the state and local level, and they were most severe in a handful of GOP-controlled states. In other words, erosion of public sector employment isn’t a problem affecting the entire country equally—it’s a problem in particular states, thanks to very particular legislators.Here's a pdf (http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/sites/all/files/GOPProjectSlashingPublicWorkforce.pdf) of a research paper by the same authors with a little more data. I don't know where Saint Cad lives, but perhaps he ought to look at a different level of government if he wants to bitch at government officials. Speaking as someone who defends Obama on the economy, at least as compared to the Republicans, we've been the ones saying that the government shouldn't be firing public sector workers, so I don't think we're the top people to be telling to go fuck ourselves.

[waterj2]

Actually, if you look at the U6, which includes discouraged and marginally employed, it's 14.5%, the lowest since Obama took office, down a half point since January, and down 2.5 points from its high of 17%. That rate is usually 7-8% when things are good, and jumped from 9 to 15% during Bush's last year.

Good? No, but it's moving in the right direction.Here's a chart (http://www.democraticunderground.com/12518934) showing all measures of employment from U3 (the one generally referred to as “the unemployment rate”) to U6 declining slowly in tandem.

[Rachellelogram]

You'd do better to blame your state legislature rather than the President--they're the ones who determine education budgets, not the federal government. I'm sorry you lost your job, but I'm not seeing a correlation. Lots of people get laid off even in a booming economy. You're a data point, not a statistic.

[rogerbox]

Edit: I'm going to be nicer. Sorry you lost your job, but you need to re-think your OP because it does not do you any favors.

[splatterpunk]

Classy. I don't know the OP or your history with him, but man... can't you cut him a break for one day, instead of being a superior bitch?

Maybe if the OP wasn't such a superior asshole.

Does it ever end? The sarcasm! the wit!

The brainless retort by Stink Fish Pot!



The country is better with him in the white house? Cite? You can love yourself some Obama and you can love the fact that your guy got in (and a black man to boot! How liberal of you all!)

And you hate the fact that a black man was elected president. How conservative of you!


... , but Obama has not done a bang up job on the economy. In fact, the economy sucks, and I think it may cost him the election later this year, regardless of what stiff suit the pubbies put up.

Wanna bet?


This is a very big part of it. But 10% figure is a joke. Just got my taxes done, and the woman who does them...

Jesus fucking Christ. What kind of stupid asshole are you if you can't even do your own taxes?


... (and has been doing them for a decade now) said she has seen a surprising number of people come in with reduced incomes from last year, some of them being on unemployment the entire year.

Yeah, this is nothing new. So what? Ooohh, it must be the fault of that nigger in the White House. Is that your point?


The fact is, when a person goes off the unemployment roles, he's no longer visible by the system. So presto! Everyone can talk about how the economy is turning around, albeit slowly. The economy sucks.

Wow. Someone has been listening to right wing talk radio and nothing else!


I don't care what party you are affiliated with.

*snort* Of course you don't.


This is beyond party politics at this point.

Unless your name is Stink Fish Pot, in which case it's all about party politics.


I don't blame Obama for the mess he inherited.

Yes, you do.


When things get worse and worse, the masses tend to cling to their religion more. If Romney takes the Nomination, I'm guessing he'll become much more overtly religious to the country than he is today. Santorum is already there. Obama will be spotted walking in and out of some house of religion on a more frequent basis.

??? So fucking what?


Personal note- I honestly don't care who wins the WH this year.

Sure you don't, pal. As long as he's not some filthy Negro.

[elucidator]

Did I miss the part where he said he had an objection to Obama's complexion?

[JKellyMap]

How did Sherlock Holmes put it? "When you have eliminated the impossible..."

[Measure for Measure]

The fact is, we got hit in 2008 with the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression, and no administration without superhuman powers would be able to turn that around completely in a mere few years. No. Obama made a tactical error by not asking for a $1.5 trillion stimulus package, which is 3/4 of what the situation called for, though he didn't know it at the time. In the end, Olympia Snowe (R) cut $100 billion from aid to states and localities, which were some of the most efficient forms of stimulus proposed (highest multipliers). So we got only ~800 billion, less than half of what we needed.

Obama also should have proposed better people for the Federal Reserve. When we faced depression, it was a crisis. But 8% unemployment isn't considered a big deal, which is an outrage. I don't understand all the sympathy. If more conservatives lost their jobs as a direct result of government cutbacks, maybe they would reconsider their politics. It is hard for me to feel much sympathy when someone votes against their own self interest, and then blames the wrong guy for his misfortune. I agree. Saint Cad has been hit hard with a 2x4, but I doubt whether he will consider supporting textbook economics. So fuck him. It's not karma though, it's just the Republican Party. Let's get this straight right now. My rant was directed to the people who talk about how the economy has recovered under Obama. I didn't pit Obama directly so all of you who think that this was directed to Obama can go back to school and learn to read from your now probably fired teacher.

To point it out again, this was directed to people that turn some government-issued numbers into this picture of everything being great and wonderful economically and give Obama an almost Messianic reverence on how he has changed everything in the last three years. The economy still sucks despite any marginal improvement that may or may not be Obama's doing. Fact: the economy has improved, and not in a merely marginal way. It is also, however, still awful in a postwar sense.

But just because you lost your job now, doesn't mean the economy isn't expanding.

Here are some good charts of the existing situation. See especially the last one to get a sense of the horror. Look at the first one to see the immediate beneficial effects of the stimulus package. http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2012/04/march-employment-report-120000-jobs-82.html The hole Obama inherited was exceptionally deep. Unfortunately, he also inherited an exceptionally viciously partisan Republican Party. You can see that in the record number of cloture votes they supported, in addition to the way they blocked executive appointments --without ideological objection-- even to the US treasury during the worst financial crisis in post war history. Chart here: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/04/pushback-on-false-equivalence-and-the-filibuster/255634/ Oh and for all of you accusing me of being part of the government bloat, remember that your complaining about someone willing to babysit kids and try and teach them math as they tell me to fuck off. Props for teaching math though.

[Cheesesteak]

This is a very big part of it. But 10% figure is a joke. Just got my taxes done, and the woman who does them (and has been doing them for a decade now) said she has seen a surprising number of people come in with reduced incomes from last year, some of them being on unemployment the entire year. The fact is, when a person goes off the unemployment roles, he's no longer visible by the system. So presto! Everyone can talk about how the economy is turning around, albeit slowly. I'm really fucking sick of this pseudo-gotcha "I read half a magazine article" analysis of the unemployment rate. It's stupid, and you're stupid. You're not breaking new ground, you're not telling anyone with half a brain something they don't already know, and your tax lady's anecdotes aren't fucking data.

They already measure what you're thinking about, discouraged workers, marginal workers, underemployed workers, in addition to the traditional unemployed. Look it up, and quit being a fucking moron. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment#United_States_Bureau_of_Labor_Statistics)

Here's a handy dandy website (http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp) that has all the various unemployment rates, right up to the March figures, so you can see their historical averages, the run up to the Great Recession during Bush's presidency, and where it's going right now (hint.... it's down).

[Measure for Measure]

The fact is, when a person goes off the unemployment roles, he's no longer visible by the system. False. The unemployment statistics are derived from a monthly telephone survey. Whoever told you this is a bad source of information. Or maybe you just jumped to a conclusion. I don't blame Obama for the mess he inherited. I do blame him for the mess that is attributable to him, however. He certainly kept the Bush bailout/checkbook solution philosophy alive and well. I blame chowderheads who think that their folksy economics has anything to do with reality. Hey, I don't pontificate about chemistry and I wade into physics threads with great hesitancy.

Put in another way: what do you want Obama to do? Balance the budget? We tried that approach in the mid 1930s and the economy had a seizure. It is the exact opposite of what is required during recession, at least according to college level textbook economics. When things get worse and worse, the masses tend to cling to their religion more. No, what they cling to is folk economics, which is to say crackpot stuff. Personal note- I honestly don't care who wins the WH this year. But whoever does, I'd like to see them stay out of another war, get us out of afghanistan, and let any investment bank that is heading for bankruptcy go down like Frasier vs. Ali. Heh. That's what Tim Geitner thought in 2008 -- then Lehman collapsed and took the economy with it. The investment bank oligarchy has the rest of us by the balls: if you want to change that situation, it must be via boring reform and not during a crisis. As it is, the Republicans fought the very watered down Graham/Dodd with tooth, nail, ax and club.


ETA: What Cheesesteak said. Oh, and every critique of the unemployment rate, uses the statistics of these guys (http://www.bls.gov/) anyway.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Damn, Stink Fish Pot, but I just did not realize how ignorant you are. Bummer. I do have hope you might educate yourself, but if you have not yet done so, why would anything change.

The one hope I do have is that this is a very empirical matter. You can look for yourself. The data is readily available. Some of the stuff, like why the stimulus was not bigger, is a matter of some debate, but otherwise...

[Ludovic]

Speaking as someone who defends Obama on the economy, at least as compared to the Republicans, we've been the ones saying that the government shouldn't be firing public sector workers, so I don't think we're the top people to be telling to go fuck ourselves.This is word for word what I should have written were it not in the Pit.

[Rune]

Congratulation on being work-free. Work sucks. Take the time off to enjoy life until you have to enter the rat race again.

[What the .... ?!?!]

Nothing that stonger unions, 299 weeks of unemployment, and the new "un-earned no-income credit" won't fix. Keep voting Democrat baby!

[Fear Itself]

The country is better with him in the white house?

...

In fact, the economy sucks...These two statements are not mutually exclusive.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Nothing that stonger unions, 299 weeks of unemployment, and the new "un-earned no-income credit" won't fix. Keep voting Democrat baby!

House burned, fire's smoldering... time for another splash of Raging Elephant® brand gasoline!

[Fear Itself]

Nothing that stonger unions, 299 weeks of unemployment, and the new "un-earned no-income credit" won't fix. Keep voting Democrat baby!The Earned Income Tax Credit was enacted under Gerald Ford (R) with bipartisan support, and expanded under Ronald Reagan (R), with bipartisan support. I know the concept of bipartisanship is foreign to you, but there was a time, a long time ago, when Republicans based their policies on what was good for the country as a whole, instead of what was good for the special interests to whom they owed fealty.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

It sucks getting drowned in the bathtub.

I will always love you.

[Lobohan]

This thread is so multi-faceted. We've got Cad biting the hand that feeds him, Magellan screaming at clouds and taking liberal dictionaries to task, and SFP stumbling in and incoherently shitting all over himself.

Cad, I hope you see your way through this. Although, it would be nice if you learned that the people you vote for caused it. And because of the misinformation you believe is true, you have been thanking them for it.

[Death of Rats]

an almost Messianic reverence

Who are those people?

Mostly the OP and the talking heads at Fox News and talk radio and thier followers, who all believe in the God-like powers of Obama to personally affect everthing in the country.

Note to OP: the next time you community wants to reaise property taxes, vote "YES". That was what was paying your salary.

[Gangster Octopus]

My favorite part of the OP is where he offered alternative policies to the ones Obama enacted.

[kaylasdad99]

Biggirl, you need to take a few moments from your OP-mandated self fucking to bite my shiny metal ass. Then, with or without the blessing of the OP, go back to knitting yourself a hat (I think saying GFY directly to a poster is against Board rules.)

I assume you put "find me instances of Saint Cad being an economic douche" into a search field to avoid slogging through every post of his or reading every thread he's been involved in. But not everyone has access to your magical search engine. We'd rather ask the many posters here who may have participated in some thread to volunteer it. Here, let me give you an example:

Random Poster: That's strange. Biggirl normally is pretty chill. Anyone remember a time when she made a complete ass out of herself?

Rhythmdvl: Yeah, it is an anomaly, but it's not the first time. Check out this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=647949)thread, maybe posts 47, 53 and 64. Aside from otherwise good points about the OP itself, her other responses will leave the taste of santorum in your mouth.

So ... anyone else (besides Biggerl, who should be crotch-deep in yarn at the moment) recall Saint Cad posting love notes to Norquist?

My friend wants to know.A search for posts where Saint Cad uses the term "Norquist" reveals no posts.

A similar search of his posts using the word "Obama" makes it clear that he never wanted President Obama in the office, and suggests that in his opinion every economic policy action President Obama ever took was wrong.

[kaylasdad99]

P.S. Good luck with your upcoming job search, Saint Cad.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Isn't it ironic that someone who names himself Saint would complain about messianic reverence for Obama? Or is that just jealousy?

[SteveG1]

i'm generally against firing teachers. Kids need to see that teachers can sometimes be stupid adults, and thus we need conservative teachers like you. We all understood from your op that you were pitting people who praised or in any measure approve obama's handling of the economy. We understood it because we can read.

The federal government has very little to do with hiring and firing teachers. Local school districts do that.

If you are going to make a career out of babysitting at a public school, please give my condolences to the faculty that have to pick up your slack. It is a lot more difficult than just babysitting.

You are the one with a government job. There are private teaching jobs out there. Go get one. Yeah, it will be with less pay and less benefits, but you are against unions anyway, aren't you?

Your hypocrisy and stupidity are not just skin deep. It goes all the way to the bone. When you are a conservative trying to reduce the public payroll and destroy unions, stop crying so fucking much when it actually happens. Dumbfuck.
Dumbfuck.
Dumbfuck.
Dumbfuck.

Have you picked up on the fact that your politics support cutting off your own food supply? Most everyone else in this thread has.

standing ovation

[DMC]

I assume you put "find me instances of Saint Cad being an economic douche" into a search field to avoid slogging through every post of his or reading every thread he's been involved in.I'm pretty sure the below would qualify one as an "economic douche."

Despite what Obamaites think, Keynesian economics is far from a proven economic theory so I'll see your spending during a recession and raise you the supply-side economics that got us out of the stagflation of the 1970's and early 80's recession.

Also, one argument against social welfare programs is that it does nothing to promote revenue-generating infrastructure. The Republicans would argue that giving $10,000 to a business in tax break generates jobs and capital improvements while giving it to single mothers generates income for Colombian drug-lords as they buy crack with their welfare checks.

It may be the case that borrowing money is needed as an occassional stop-gap measure like paying for a war or a stimulus package but borrowing continually to make up a deficit as a normal course of business is a recipe for eventual disaster.

[rogerbox]

If he actually meant that quote, then I'm a lot less worried about him not being involved in any way in education anymore.

[Rhythmdvl]

:eek:

Thanks. Was "Obamites" on that long thread about terms that when used seriously instantly allow writing the poster off? Pit thread, I think.

Plus ... "supply-side economics that got us out of the stagflation"? I thought massive borrowing and government spending on military programmes and projects did that.

It's not that conservativism in general requires a stream of inanities. Pro life, smaller government, pro business ... these have rational, articulable arguments behind them. I don't find the reasoning persuasive enough to agree with, but wish there were more people dropping the Fox-like rhetoric for even mild hyperbole. Shame, really.

[Ludovic]

:eek:

Thanks. Was "Obamites" on that long thread about terms that when used seriously instantly allow writing the poster off?
Not sure, but railing against "Obama the Messiah" is.

[lawoot]

I saw a math teacher try to wake up a kid in class today during the lesson and the kid punched the teacher in the stomach for disturbing him. But I guess that the consquence of pulling down such huge paychecks. Maybe some of you need to start a thread: Reduce Big Government: Fire a Teacher.
And you didn't have the kid arrested for assault because... ?

[SteveG1]

This thread and others like it, remind me why I don't hang out here as much as I once did. It's always the same stupid partisan bullshit, from the same stupid partisan shills. Even when they are getting their throats cut by their OWN FUCKING PARTY.



Idiots.

[The Second Stone]

standing ovation

Thank you. My poison pen gets really good when I go off my nice guy meds.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Yeah, I gotta concur, Second Stone: you really knocked it outta the park with that post.

[chela]

Congratulation on being work-free. Work sucks. Take the time off to enjoy life until you have to enter the rat race again.

So true, all year I have been sitting on my couch that I bought with Bush's stimulus handout of 2007. Finally I got off the couch (an Eilerson) when Obama found me a job. Ok so cooking and delivering pizza's isn't all that, but dang the tips are good! Just last night delivered an order to the subsidized housing projects and she gave me a roll of quarters as a tip, that's ten bucks! Obama must've found her a job too!

[Carmady]

If only there was a party willing to follow the simple 3-step plan to save the economy:

1. Cut taxes for the most wealthy to some of the lowest levels in history, in defiance of economic sense
2. Threaten a default on all our loans
3. Aggressively obstruct anything Obama wants to do to help the economy

I feel certain the economy would be booming again if only such a brave party existed.

[Zebra]

The difference between a recession and a depressions is that it is a recession when you neighbor losses his job. It's a depression when you lose your job.


Ronald Reagan

[Scumpup]

If only there was a party willing to follow the simple 3-step plan to save the economy:

1. Cut taxes for the most wealthy to some of the lowest levels in history, in defiance of economic sense
2. Threaten a default on all our loans
3. Aggressively obstruct anything Obama wants to do to help the economy

I feel certain the economy would be booming again if only such a brave party existed.

Why don't you wish for a pony while you're at it?

[ralph124c]

The news is out-more people are filing for unemployemt benefits. Despite hundreds of billions spent on "stimulus" projects (including billions thrown away on "green" energy projects). Unemployment is still above 8.2%.
Of course, if you count discouraged job seekers, and people who have given up (and retired), the unemployment rate is probably over 16%.
I also notice that local lawyers are pushing SS Disability-its a way of getting SS without taxation-the rise in such claims is probably tied to the high unemployment rate.
It is all Bush's fault!

[runner pat]

I also notice that local lawyers are pushing SS Disability-its a way of getting SS without taxation-the rise in such claims is probably tied to the high unemployment rate.
It is all Bush's fault!

It's damn near impossible for the disabled to get SSDI in a timely manner, fat lot of good it will do an able-bodied person to try. Besides the fact it's fraud.

At least you finally admit it's Bush's fault.

[Lobohan]

The news is out-more people are filing for unemployemt benefits. Despite hundreds of billions spent on "stimulus" projects (including billions thrown away on "green" energy projects). Unemployment is still above 8.2%.
Of course, if you count discouraged job seekers, and people who have given up (and retired), the unemployment rate is probably over 16%.
I also notice that local lawyers are pushing SS Disability-its a way of getting SS without taxation-the rise in such claims is probably tied to the high unemployment rate.
It is all Bush's fault!It's interesting the particular level of stupid you're able to bring. There is so much you don't understand, it's intermeshing in this clockwork of nonsense.

Okay, thought experiment. Say Person A is removing a pile of sandbags. He's doing it very slowly, but he gets one or two put into the garbage chute. Right at the end of his shift, a sandbag truck overturns and increases the pile of sandbags to like 5 times its previous size.

Now Person B is hired to get rid of all these sandbags. He gets rid of them way faster than the first guy. In fact he spends some money on a wheelbarrow, that lets him do it faster still.

You do understand that Person B can be doing a better job than Person A even though there are more sandbags than there were before the truck overturned, right?

I mean you can't be so stupid that you think Person B needs to have the sandbags down to where they were before the truck overturned to be said to be doing a better job, can you?

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

let any investment bank that is heading for bankruptcy go down like Frasier vs. Ali.

I'm not entirely sure you phrased that right.

[Fear Itself]

Of course, if you count discouraged job seekers, and people who have given up (and retired), the unemployment rate is probably over 16%.If the government is cooking the books to show that unemployment is better than it really is, don't you think they would come up with a better number than 8.2% ?

[DianaG]

don't you think
Forget it, Fear Itself, it's ralphrandomnumbers.

Seriously, he's one of those people who make me embarrassed on behalf of humanity.

[Cheesesteak]

If the government is cooking the books to show that unemployment is better than it really is, don't you think they would come up with a better number than 8.2% ?
Hey, Obama cooked up this whole nonsense of the "official" unemployment rate, in order to make his pathetic policies look better. It's not like the Bureau of Labor Statistics have been measuring it for 70 years, or anything. It's a phony baloney number, except when Reagan got it to come down, back then, it was a really good way to measure the economy. Times are different now.

Today, once you include people who are discouraged, underemployed, not happy with their job, and angry at our usurping Kenyan Muslin president, it's like 83% unemployment. Shit, my barber told me that every single person who came into his shop this week is unemployed, even himself!

[RTFirefly]

Let's get this straight right now. My rant was directed to the people who talk about how the economy has recovered under Obama. No, it wasn't. It was directed to the people who say it is recovering under Obama:

Why don't you pull some more numbers out of Obama's ass (they're in there next to your head) and explain again about how the economy is recovering and has been for some time. Explain how real unemployment has gone down.

<snip>

I order a 24 hour morotorium on any statement implying the economy has been getting better under your President.Bolding mine in all cases.

Verb tense is important. I haven't heard a soul claim that the economy has recovered yet. We're not back to a normal economy; we're a long way from it, unfortunately.

But it is demonstrably improving (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/all-measures-of-unemployment-are-falling/2011/08/25/gIQAX5U5tQ_blog.html), just a lot more slowly than we'd like.

And we Dems would like to speed up our return to a healthy economy, but in the words of Stephen Stills, we're getting "so much resistance from behind."

Right now, we're in a situation where there really is such a thing as a free lunch, but the GOP doesn't want us to eat it.

Take infrastructure spending. Nationwide, there are trillions of dollars of infrastructure projects that will have to be done sooner or later: this money will eventually be spent if we want to continue to claim to be a first-world country.

And the cheapest time to spend it is now:

1) The Federal government can borrow money now at rates we're unlikely to see again.
2) Because people are out of work, labor costs are lower than they've been and are likely to be.
3) Since demand for everything is low, raw materials (excluding gasoline) are cheap to purchase, equipment rental is cheap, etc.

So we would save a bunch of money by doing any infrastructure maintenance and improvements now that we'd have done now or in the next several years if the economy was in good shape. AND we don't crowd out other use of the same resources, because everything from money to workers to asphalt are lying idle.

And by putting people to work, we'd be putting money in their pockets, which they'd spend, which would increase the demand for the things they buy, which would put other people back to work, and you get a nice virtuous cycle going.

And we'd be saving money over the long haul, even before we factored in the fact that those people we put back to work would pay taxes into the Treasury. So the workers would be better off, the Federal deficit/debt situation would be better over the medium term, etc.

It's fucking win-win-win. But the GOP wants us to lose, lose, lose.

Friends don't let friends vote Republican. I used to say that jokingly, but now I'm dead serious. Whatever their motives, this is a party that's acting in an evil and destructive manner.

[Voyager]

RTFirefly, you don't understand conservative economics. Business and government leaders who let our bridges collapse and our roads become full of potholes are job creators. Gravedigging jobs, front end alignment jobs, ...

[Hentor the Barbarian]

No, it wasn't. It was directed to the people who say it is recovering under Obama:

Bolding mine in all cases.

Verb tense is important. I haven't heard a soul claim that the economy has recovered yet. We're not back to a normal economy; we're a long way from it, unfortunately.

But it is demonstrably improving (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/all-measures-of-unemployment-are-falling/2011/08/25/gIQAX5U5tQ_blog.html), just a lot more slowly than we'd like.

And we Dems would like to speed up our return to a healthy economy, but in the words of Stephen Stills, we're getting "so much resistance from behind."

Right now, we're in a situation where there really is such a thing as a free lunch, but the GOP doesn't want us to eat it.

Take infrastructure spending. Nationwide, there are trillions of dollars of infrastructure projects that will have to be done sooner or later: this money will eventually be spent if we want to continue to claim to be a first-world country.

And the cheapest time to spend it is now:

1) The Federal government can borrow money now at rates we're unlikely to see again.
2) Because people are out of work, labor costs are lower than they've been and are likely to be.
3) Since demand for everything is low, raw materials (excluding gasoline) are cheap to purchase, equipment rental is cheap, etc.

So we would save a bunch of money by doing any infrastructure maintenance and improvements now that we'd have done now or in the next several years if the economy was in good shape. AND we don't crowd out other use of the same resources, because everything from money to workers to asphalt are lying idle.

And by putting people to work, we'd be putting money in their pockets, which they'd spend, which would increase the demand for the things they buy, which would put other people back to work, and you get a nice virtuous cycle going.

And we'd be saving money over the long haul, even before we factored in the fact that those people we put back to work would pay taxes into the Treasury. So the workers would be better off, the Federal deficit/debt situation would be better over the medium term, etc.

It's fucking win-win-win. But the GOP wants us to lose, lose, lose.

Friends don't let friends vote Republican. I used to say that jokingly, but now I'm dead serious. Whatever their motives, this is a party that's acting in an evil and destructive manner.Thanks very much for this clear and concise explanation of our present situation. Very well done, sir.

[RTFirefly]

Thanks very much for this clear and concise explanation of our present situation. Very well done, sir.You're quite welcome. I can't say it was a fun post to write, but there's a certain satisfaction and release in harnessing one's knowledge to a pent-up fury.

You know how the cultural conservatives are always talking about 'taking their country back'? Fuck 'em. It's our country too, they've gotten to play with it far too much over the past 30+ years, and by God we're taking it back from them, and with any luck we'll even take some of it back from the 0.1% who play those yahoos like a fiddle.

[SteveG1]

You're quite welcome. I can't say it was a fun post to write, but there's a certain satisfaction and release in harnessing one's knowledge to a pent-up fury.

You know how the cultural conservatives are always talking about 'taking their country back'? Fuck 'em. It's our country too, they've gotten to play with it far too much over the past 30+ years, and by God we're taking it back from them, and with any luck we'll even take some of it back from the 0.1% who play those yahoos like a fiddle.

It's my country too. No one is taking a damn thing from me. Back or otherwise. "They" had it for 8 years and it turned all to shit.

[Buck Godot]

It's interesting the particular level of stupid you're able to bring. There is so much you don't understand, it's intermeshing in this clockwork of nonsense.

Okay, thought experiment. Say Person A is removing a pile of sandbags. He's doing it very slowly, but he gets one or two put into the garbage chute. Right at the end of his shift, a sandbag truck overturns and increases the pile of sandbags to like 5 times its previous size.

Now Person B is hired to get rid of all these sandbags. He gets rid of them way faster than the first guy. In fact he spends some money on a wheelbarrow, that lets him do it faster still.

You do understand that Person B can be doing a better job than Person A even though there are more sandbags than there were before the truck overturned, right?

I mean you can't be so stupid that you think Person B needs to have the sandbags down to where they were before the truck overturned to be said to be doing a better job, can you?

You missed the part where Person A's friends cut a hole in the wheel barrow so Person A wouldn't look so bad.

[elucidator]

They would probably point out that Obama is stealing all that sand.

[The Second Stone]

Forget it, Fear Itself, it's ralphrandomnumbers.

Seriously, he's one of those people who make me embarrassed on behalf of humanity.

Hey, that's unfair. Ralph Wiggums is the king of geniuses on the conservative side of this board. Just because he pulls all of his numbers out of his ass doesn't mean that his hands stink, Ralph's shithooks smell due to the odor of Obama's policies!

[What the .... ?!?!]

The Earned Income Tax Credit was enacted under Gerald Ford (R) with bipartisan support, and expanded under Ronald Reagan (R), with bipartisan support. I know the concept of bipartisanship is foreign to you, but there was a time, a long time ago, when Republicans based their policies on what was good for the country as a whole, instead of what was good for the special interests to whom they owed fealty.

Thanks for the history lesson but...... what's that got to do with the Democrat solution to this mess: stonger unions, unemployment as far as the eye can see and more and more handouts?

[Fear Itself]

Thanks for the history lesson but...... what's that got to do with the Democrat solution to this mess: stonger unions, unemployment as far as the eye can see and more and more handouts?Why should it have anything to do with anything but the EITC?

[Euphonious Polemic]

Thanks for the history lesson but...... what's that got to do with the Democrat solution to this mess: stonger unions, unemployment as far as the eye can see and more and more handouts?

Ohhh, the strawman game! Can I play?

... It's better than the Republican solution, which is tax cuts, unemployment as far as the eye can see and more and more pain and sorrow to 99% of the country.

[The Second Stone]

Thanks for the history lesson but...... what's that got to do with the Democrat solution to this mess: stonger unions, unemployment as far as the eye can see and more and more handouts?

Here's a history lesson for you. Since FDR unemployment has been lower at the end of a Republican's term or Democrat's term in the White House by a large margin? Name the one exception.

The largest handouts by the Federal Government in history took place during the financial crisis of 2008. What President asked Congress to immediately hand out nearly a trillion dollars to what institutions too large to fail. Hint: it wasn't unions that were the institutions, and it was Hank Paulson's boss.

Time's up. Republican presidents leave unemployment at twice the rate that Democratic presidents do on a consistent basis. The exception was Jimmy Carter.

Bonus question: which party's presidents run up bigger deficits starting since the Reagan era? Name the exception.

[Shayna]

I don't blame Obama for the mess he inherited. I do blame him for the mess that is attributable to him, however. He certainly kept the Bush bailout/checkbook solution philosophy alive and well.

I just have to jump in here with this because it's so utterly devoid of any knowledge of economics and how recessions, and particularly balance sheet recessions, work.

Richard Koo: The Ratings Agencies May Destroy The Global Economy Once Again
(http://www.businessinsider.com/richard-koo-the-ratings-agencies-may-destroy-the-global-economy-once-again-2011-8)
"[E]xperiences demonstrate that during a balance sheet recession, when businesses and households are struggling to deleverage, the correct policy—fiscal stimulus—is exactly the opposite of what is needed under normal circumstances. Active application of stimulus will ultimately minimize the fiscal deficit.
AUSTERITY DOESN’T SHRINK THE DEFICIT IN A BALANCE SHEET RECESSION… (http://pragcap.com/austerity-doesnt-shrink-the-debt-in-a-balance-sheet-recession)

"Despite the continuing woes in Europe there are still people out there who think the USA should cut off its arm in order lose weight. Well, that’s not quite how it works during a balance sheet recession. During a balance sheet recession the reduction in private sector aggregate demand leaves a hole in the economy. As we know from the sectoral balances, someone must spend because the private sector’s savings (which they now demand due to high debt levels) must come from the foreign sector or the government sector. It doesn’t just magically appear out of nowhere. And if the government folds up shop we get what is happening in Greece. The latest news shows that austerity is failing miserably."
And Richard Koo is out with a "Brand New Presentation On The Global Economic Crisis" (http://www.businessinsider.com/richard-koo-the-world-in-balance-sheet-recession-2012-4) complete with pretty little charts and graphs that prove definitively that austerity is flat out wrong and what we needed was much, much more stimulus.

Lose the partisan talking points from your thinking and study the economic facts. The country will be better for it.

As for the OP, you're an idiot. The party you prop up is entirely responsible for decimating jobs in education and yet you blame the party who's been fighting against that for years now. Sorry buddy, but you got exactly what you deserved by voting for the fuckers who told you that's exactly what they were going to do if you put them in office. What, you think they didn't mean you, but some other guy, like a "democrat union thug" so that was okay with you? Suck on it. Maybe next time you'll believe these assholes when they tell you that they want to destroy this country's education system, our environmental protections, our voting rights and every other right they can strip from us, recognize that it isn't just "other people" who suffer from those draconian policies, and start supporting the party who actually gives a fuck about human beings for once.

[Shayna]

Here's a history lesson for you. Since FDR unemployment has been lower at the end of a Republican's term or Democrat's term in the White House by a large margin? Name the one exception.

The largest handouts by the Federal Government in history took place during the financial crisis of 2008. What President asked Congress to immediately hand out nearly a trillion dollars to what institutions too large to fail. Hint: it wasn't unions that were the institutions, and it was Hank Paulson's boss.

Time's up. Republican presidents leave unemployment at twice the rate that Democratic presidents do on a consistent basis. The exception was Jimmy Carter.

Bonus question: which party's presidents run up bigger deficits starting since the Reagan era? Name the exception.

Wait. Sorry. I'm lost with your post. I think I'm agreeing with you, but I'm not certain. Let me spell this out either way:

Democratic President Truman left 2.5 percent unemployment to Eisenhower.
Republican President Eisenhower left recession and 6.5 percent unemployment to Kennedy.
Democratic President Johnson left 3.5 percent unemployment to Nixon.
Republican President Ford left recession and 7.5 unemployment to Jimmy Carter.
Democratic President Carter wasn't able to improve much on the recession he inherited
and neither were Republican Presidents Reagan and Bush, who left recession and 7.2 unemployment to Bill Clinton.
Democratic President Bill Clinton left 4.2 percent unemployment to Dubya
Republican President Dubya left recession and 7.6 percent unemployment to Democratic President Barack Obama.

[Shayna]

Also? Here's GDP Growth:

Democratic Presidents Kennedy/Johnson 4.8 % average annual GDP Growth.
Democratic President Truman 3.8%
Democratic President Clinton 3.7%
Republican President Reagan 3.4%
Democratic President Carter 3.3%
Republican President Eisenhower 2.9%
Republican President Nixon/Ford 2.8%
Republican President GW Bush 2.2%
Republican President GHW Bush 2.1%

And then there's the holy grail of the Right, the stock market:

Republican President Herbert Hoover -90% Thats MINUS 90%. The Dow lost 9/10ths of it's value at the end of the Gilded Age.
Democratic Presidents FDR/TRuman +525% From 41 to 290.
Republican President Eisenhower +120% From 290 to 630.
Democratic Presidents Kennedy/Johnson +51% From 630 to 950
Republican Presidents Nixon/Ford +2% From 950 to 970
Democratic President Carter +3% From 970 to 1000
Republican Presidents Reagan/Bush +244% From 1000 to 2440
Democratic President Clinton +264% From 2440 to 9880
Republican President GW Bush -25% From 9880 to 7600
Democratic President Barack Obama +68% From 7600 to 12800

Anyone who thinks the economy — by any measure — does better under Republicans than Democrats hasn't been paying attention to reality, but falling for lies fed to them by their party puppet-masters.

[Bryan Ekers]

Interesting challenge - find an economic metric where the last five Republican presidents overall did better than the last five Democrats.

[RTFirefly]

As for the OP, you're an idiot. The party you prop up is entirely responsible for decimating jobs in education and yet you blame the party who's been fighting against that for years now. Sorry buddy, but you got exactly what you deserved by voting for the fuckers who told you that's exactly what they were going to do if you put them in office. What, you think they didn't mean you, but some other guy, like a "democrat union thug" so that was okay with you? Suck on it. Maybe next time you'll believe these assholes when they tell you that they want to destroy this country's education system, our environmental protections, our voting rights and every other right they can strip from us, recognize that it isn't just "other people" who suffer from those draconian policies, and start supporting the party who actually gives a fuck about human beings for once. QFT.

[dngnb8]

One also must remember, the first 12 months of a new admin are left over effects of the previous admin. Consider it takes a good 9 months for a POTUS to get his admin in place.

So to see the true factors of the numbers previous posted, I would like to see start and end dates. If youre just picking from the days a POTUS takes office, your figures in terms of responsibility for effect are not accurate

[galen ubal]

Interesting challenge - find an economic metric where the last five Republican presidents overall did better than the last five Democrats.
Corporate profits? CEO salaries?

[Baal Houtham]

So to see the true factors of the numbers previous posted, I would like to see start and end dates.

Not trying to snark, but if you'd like to see those numbers, why don't you compile them and post them?

[dngnb8]

Time ...

Since they obviously had the time, and knowledge of the information, it seems an easy task for them to overlap the years

You see, Bush takes the heat (and I am no fan of W) for the poor market that was a direct result of 9/11

Bush had all of what, a month to stop it? Clinton had his whole 8 years, and Daddy Bush made Osama bin Laden who he was.

W brought the market back in his 8 years from a fiscal calamity.

Liars figure, and figures lie.

[Fear Itself]

Bush had all of what, a month to stop it?Please show your work.

[Biggirl]

Not trying to snark, but if you'd like to see those numbers, why don't you compile them and post them?

Now don't be so rude!

[TonySinclair]

You see, Bush takes the heat (and I am no fan of W) for the poor market that was a direct result of 9/11

Bush had all of what, a month to stop it? Clinton had his whole 8 years, and Daddy Bush made Osama bin Laden who he was.

W brought the market back in his 8 years from a fiscal calamity.

Liars figure, and figures lie.

Indeed.

9/11 did not create a fiscal calamity. The DJIA closed at 9605 on 9/10/11. It had fallen down to 8235 by 9/21, but it gained over 300 points the next day, and steadily increased after that, and was back to 9741 by 11/15/11, and was over 10,000 by Christmas. What happened after that was not due to trauma from 9/11, but to Bush's bungling --- starting two wars (which, when not fought locally, are generally good for the economy) while simultaneously cutting taxes, and then wondering why the debt skyrocketed.

As for Clinton having 8 years to catch Bin Laden, Bin Laden's first act of terrorism against the US was the 1998 embassy bombings on Africa. Clinton almost immediately ordered the CIA to apprehend him, and launched 60 cruise missiles against his camp the same month, missing him by a few hours.

I guess he could have done more, and I'm sure he would have if he had known what was coming, but we didn't know that Bin Laden was going to attack inside US borders until August of 2001. Too bad Bush ignored that intel.

On the other hand, after 9/11 Bush knew exactly what he had done, and he famously said that he didn't know or care where Bin Laden was, and disbanded the CIA unit that was focusing on him. HE was the one who had almost 8 years to get him, and didn't.

And Obama was the one who had the guts to ignore the sovereignty of Pakistan, and he kept his campaign promise to take Bin Laden out wherever he was. And didn't apologize for it.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

One also must remember, the first 12 months of a new admin are left over effects of the previous admin. Consider it takes a good 9 months for a POTUS to get his admin in place.

So to see the true factors of the numbers previous posted, I would like to see start and end dates. If youre just picking from the days a POTUS takes office, your figures in terms of responsibility for effect are not accurateThe claim that different effects would be seen if one were to examine lags is a common dodge from those who are interested in defending republicans or conservative ideology. If you are interested in actually learning,google "eriposte democrats versus republicans." They present averages for all available data for all available presidencies up to Bush. Even when accounting for lag, the data still clearly favor democratic presidencies. On every index.

If one makes decisions based on evidence, the decision isn't even close.

I do ask you one favor. Since nearly every time these data are presented to conservatives, they disappear from the discussion, could you at least do the courtesy of confirming that you did look at the data?

[elucidator]

.... And didn't apologize for it.

What about the "Fuck US! We're Really, Really Sorry!" World Tour Obama went on! Took his apologizin' teleprompter and everything!

[ElvisL1ves]

As for Clinton having 8 years to catch Bin Laden, Bin Laden's first act of terrorism against the US was the 1998 embassy bombings on Africa. Clinton almost immediately ordered the CIA to apprehend him, and launched 60 cruise missiles against his camp the same month, missing him by a few hours.But he was just trying to distract people from the blowjob story; don't you remember? That's what the Disloyal Opposition kept saying. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

[Crafter_Man]

It's damn near impossible for the disabled to get SSDI in a timely manner, fat lot of good it will do an able-bodied person to try. Besides the fact it's fraud.
I know three people on SSDI. Each is perfectly healthy. And each is a bullshit artist.

[Lobohan]

I know three people on SSDI. Each is perfectly healthy. And each is a bullshit artist.So call the SSDI admin and rat on them, you sideline-sitting, mopey, woe-is-me, complainer.

Also, you may just not be able to tell that they have a problem.

[An Arky]

I'm tired of people with limited education and unupdated skillsets in buggy whip towns complaining about the economy. Get the fuck out of your flyover shitholes and fucking better yourself; in the meantime, STFU about things your limited education and unupdated skillsets don't even begin to cover.

[kaylasdad99]

I know three people on SSDI. Each is perfectly healthy. And each is a bullshit artist.
Turn 'em in.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

I know three people on SSDI. Each is perfectly healthy. And each is a bullshit artist.You affiliate with a lot of criminals. I don't know anyone on SSDI who shouldn't be.

[Lobohan]

You affiliate with a lot of criminals. I don't know anyone on SSDI who shouldn't be.I imagine Crafter_Man's trailer park to be as wretched a hive of scum and villainy, as one is likely to find.

[runner pat]

I know three people on SSDI. Each is perfectly healthy. And each is a bullshit artist.

Unless their doctors are making up medical records, I can't believe they're perfectly healthy. I've been through the process and I have a very good idea of the documentation it takes just to get arbitrarily refused.

[Lobohan]

Unless their doctors are making up medical records, I can't believe they're perfectly healthy. I've been through the process and I have a very good idea of the documentation it takes just to get arbitrarily refused.How dare you question Crafter_Man's judgement!? He can glace at someone and tell in a heartbeat if they're sick or stealing his hard-earned tax-dollars.

A heartbeat!

[Crafter_Man]

Unless their doctors are making up medical records, I can't believe they're perfectly healthy. I've been through the process and I have a very good idea of the documentation it takes just to get arbitrarily refused.
Each is perfectly healthy.

#1 – A girl I went to HS with. She's been on SSDI for about 10 years. Lives with two other women who are also on SSDI. They run a business raising and selling goats in Tennessee. Cash only. Lots of physical labor.

#2 – Friend of my uncle. Has been on disability for a "bad back." My uncle works full-time restoring classic cars in his garage. His friend works for him. Lots of welding, sanding, etc. Cash only.

#3 – Wife of #2. Was envious of her husband, so she checked herself into a metal ward and convinced them she was crazy. She knows the system very well (she helped get her husband on disability), and knows what doctors to go to and what forms to fill out. She expects to be on disability sometime next year.

[runner pat]

Each is perfectly healthy.

#1 – A girl I went to HS with. She's been on SSDI for about 10 years. Lives with two other women who are also on SSDI. They run a business raising and selling goats in Tennessee. Cash only. Lots of physical labor.

#2 – Friend of my uncle. Has been on disability for a "bad back." My uncle works full-time restoring classic cars in his garage. His friend works for him. Lots of welding, sanding, etc. Cash only.

#3 – Wife of #2. Was envious of her husband, so she checked herself into a metal ward and convinced them she was crazy. She knows the system very well (she helped get her husband on disability), and knows what doctors to go to and what forms to fill out. She expects to be on disability sometime next year.

Then why haven't you reported them? Not only are they fraudulently on SSDI but they're working under the table and most likely not paying taxes on the income.

[madmonk28]

I took a seminar on fraud prevention taught by FBI agents, they told me that it is a felony not to report a felony. Turn them in.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Each is perfectly healthy.

#1 – A girl I went to HS with. She's been on SSDI for about 10 years. Lives with two other women who are also on SSDI. They run a business raising and selling goats in Tennessee. Cash only. Lots of physical labor.

#2 – Friend of my uncle. Has been on disability for a "bad back." My uncle works full-time restoring classic cars in his garage. His friend works for him. Lots of welding, sanding, etc. Cash only.

#3 – Wife of #2. Was envious of her husband, so she checked herself into a metal ward and convinced them she was crazy. She knows the system very well (she helped get her husband on disability), and knows what doctors to go to and what forms to fill out. She expects to be on disability sometime next year.Yet one more example as to why the North should secede from the union.

[elucidator]

Guys, give it up, he's got anecdata. Trumps pretty much everything.

[Euphonious Polemic]

I have anecdata that trumps Crafter Man's I swear that everything I say is true. You must trust me.

Each is perfectly healthy.

#1 – A girl I went to HS with. She's been on SSDI for about 10 years. Lives with two other women who are also on SSDI. They run a business raising and selling goats in Tennessee. Cash only. Lots of physical labor.

- they are not on SSDI. They are telling you this to stop you from hitting on them. They find you gross.

#2 – Friend of my uncle. Has been on disability for a "bad back." My uncle works full-time restoring classic cars in his garage. His friend works for him. Lots of welding, sanding, etc. Cash only.

- your uncle's friend actually works for the CIA. The truck fixing business is a cover. He's investigating a file that you know nothing about.

#3 – Wife of #2. Was envious of her husband, so she checked herself into a metal ward and convinced them she was crazy. She knows the system very well (she helped get her husband on disability), and knows what doctors to go to and what forms to fill out. She expects to be on disability sometime next year.

Wife is not actually his wife, but is in witness protection program after blowing the whistle on Columbian drug lords. Is personally responsible for ensuring 50 tons of cocaine was seized at the border. Awarded medal of honor (in secret). Also not on SSDI.


ETA: It's fun making shit up! Thanks Crafter Man for starting us off!

[mister nyx]

Did I read this right? Is the poster of this thread actually a Republican who is mad at Obama (and presumably other Democrats) because the Republicans that he voted for succeeded in trimming "big government" and so he and hundreds of thousands of other government employees are out of work?

It's the Democrats fault government is shrinking and government employees like him are losing their jobs? What, it's the Dems' fault for not being superhumanly capable in resisting the efforts of the people you voted for? Because every economic initiative from the GOP in the last twenty years seems to have involved laying off more government employees like the OP. So blaming the Dems because the GOP got a little power again and managed to enact parts of their agenda seems off-base.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Did I read this right? Is the poster of this thread actually a Republican who is mad at Obama (and presumably other Democrats) because the Republicans that he voted for succeeded in trimming "big government" and so he and hundreds of thousands of other government employees are out of work?

It's the Democrats fault government is shrinking and government employees like him are losing their jobs? What, it's the Dems' fault for not being superhumanly capable in resisting the efforts of the people you voted for? Because every economic initiative from the GOP in the last twenty years seems to have involved laying off more government employees like the OP. So blaming the Dems because the GOP got a little power again and managed to enact parts of their agenda seems off-base.

Yep. You read that right.

[Revtim]

It's sad when the hens keep voting for foxes to guard their own hen-house.

[Bayard]

"The Department of Education: I will either consolidate with another agency, or perhaps make it a heck of a lot smaller. I’m not going to get rid of it entirely,” Romney said, explaining that part of his reasoning behind preserving the agency was to maintain a federal role in pushing back against teachers’ unions. (NBC, yesterday (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/15/11216845-romney-offers-policy-details-at-closed-door-fundraiser?lite)).

You might want to tuck that fact away for later.

[mister nyx]

Yep. You read that right.
Anyone know what state he lives in? Because I'm totally curious now what the partisan makeup of the legislature that decided to shrink their education budget was.

[Dag Otto]

It's sad when the hens keep voting for foxes to guard their own hen-house.

The curse of the birdbrain.

[Kolga]

Did I read this right? Is the poster of this thread actually a Republican who is mad at Obama (and presumably other Democrats) because the Republicans that he voted for succeeded in trimming "big government" and so he and hundreds of thousands of other government employees are out of work?



This is what the Republicans I know can't really explain. How are they going to scream for smaller government and NOT hold the resulting unemployment numbers that include the newly-laid-off government workers against Obama and the Democrats? They want smaller government, but when those former workers don't have a job anymore, it's "the Dems aren't worried about jobs!" But when the Dems DON'T shrink the size of government, it's "too much spending and too much government!"

People, pick one. You don't get to hold the consequences of your pet policies against those people who implemented your pet policies at YOUR DIRECTION.

[rogerbox]

Where'd the OP go?

[miss elizabeth]

Yeah, he's out of a job now. He should have plenty of time to goof off on The Dope...

[dngnb8]

Indeed.

9/11 did not create a fiscal calamity. The DJIA closed at 9605 on 9/10/11. It had fallen down to 8235 by 9/21, but it gained over 300 points the next day, and steadily increased after that, and was back to 9741 by 11/15/11, and was over 10,000 by Christmas. What happened after that was not due to trauma from 9/11, but to Bush's bungling --- starting two wars (which, when not fought locally, are generally good for the economy) while simultaneously cutting taxes, and then wondering why the debt skyrocketed.

Wow. Are you telling me that 9/11 had zero impact on the market? Bush wasnt in office long enough to have that impact. Bush policies werent even in place yet. He barely just got a staff in place by August. One doesnt take office fully staffed. You are aware the market was already falling in Clintons last years, right?

Chart (http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/historical/djia2000.html)

Clinton Served until 2001. You will notice the 1200 point drop at the end of 2000. Also consider the time of admin change over and you will see the market is mixed to the tune of about 2000 points. Then 9/11 and the market hit just above 8200. It did recover some before Bush and Cheney decided to make Halliburton rich. To say 9/11 didnt have an impact on the market is purely an obtuse observation.

One more thing. Are you aware of the GASBO changes? The same accounting principals that said ENRON was solvent, were used by all of executive America, including our Government.

As for Clinton having 8 years to catch Bin Laden, Bin Laden's first act of terrorism against the US was the 1998 embassy bombings on Africa. Clinton almost immediately ordered the CIA to apprehend him, and launched 60 cruise missiles against his camp the same month, missing him by a few hours.

I guess he could have done more, and I'm sure he would have if he had known what was coming, but we didn't know that Bin Laden was going to attack inside US borders until August of 2001. Too bad Bush ignored that intel.

Let me see if I understand you. In the Presidential Daily Brief, Clinton informed Bush of Bin Laden (Augest 2001). So, am I to understand that Clinton didnt know until that day? Is that your presumption?

The fact is, Clinton knew of Bin Laden, made 1 attempt at him that failed. Couldnt find him for how many years? Then dropped it in Bushs lap and gave him 30 days to act. LOL. Too Funny. Forget that Bush used the attack to get back at Hussein instead of going for bin laden. Clinton failed. Forget that W failed to get bin laden in those 30 days, Daddy Bush made bin laden.

You see, this isnt a partisan issue. This is a political issue, and a failure of the executive branch of both parties.

On the other hand, after 9/11 Bush knew exactly what he had done, and he famously said that he didn't know or care where Bin Laden was, and disbanded the CIA unit that was focusing on him. HE was the one who had almost 8 years to get him, and didn't.

Oh I agree here. Bush used Bin laden as an excuse to go after Hussein. I think you missed where I said, I was no fan of Bush.

And Obama was the one who had the guts to ignore the sovereignty of Pakistan, and he kept his campaign promise to take Bin Laden out wherever he was. And didn't apologize for it.

Not sure what that has to do with my points earlier. You seem to have taken my statement as some sort of partisan attack. Store your party diatribe. I wasnt lauding Bush and poo pooing Clinton.

Knee Jerk responses arent necessary.

[Measure for Measure]

Let me see if I understand you. In the Presidential Daily Brief, Clinton informed Bush of Bin Laden (Augest 2001). So, am I to understand that Clinton didnt know until that day? Is that your presumption?

The fact is, Clinton knew of Bin Laden, made 1 attempt at him that failed. Couldnt find him for how many years? Then dropped it in Bushs lap and gave him 30 days to act. LOL. Too Funny. Forget that Bush used the attack to get back at Hussein instead of going for bin laden. Clinton failed. Forget that W failed to get bin laden in those 30 days, Daddy Bush made bin laden.

You see, this isnt a partisan issue. This is a political issue, and a failure of the executive branch of both parties. Um, the hell? Sorry if I misunderstand, but Bill Clinton had his last day in office in Jan 2011. During the hand-over of power Clinton administration officials warned the incoming administration that they would be spending much more time on terrorism than they anticipated. The Bushies thought that their predecessors were obsessed. History shows otherwise.

In June, intelligence reports indicated that Al Q was planning something very soon. Richard Clarke wanted an all points bulletin declared. The GW Bush admin refused. Richard Clarke had worked for the Reagan administration as well, but it was his opinion that Al Gore understood American security challenges in a way that Bush never did. You can see that in the days after 9/11: GW Bush asked his intelligence contacts to show a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. This left Richard Clarke and other professionals gob-smacked.

Cite: Against All Enemies (http://www.amazon.com/Against-All-Enemies-Inside-Americas/dp/B000WMJ6TC/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1334645065&sr=1-3)

The Democratic Party is a coalition of liberals, conservatives and moderates. Republicans only embrace conservatism and quite frankly crankery. The key distinction between the two parties is that the GOP has abandoned empiricism, which tends to lead to poorly thought out policy and execution.

[elucidator]

OK, who's gonna tell him?

[saje]

Bill Clinton had his last day in office in Jan 2011

Alternate reality much?

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Alternate reality much?Yeah. Sounds like a better one than we had.

[ElvisL1ves]

Did I read this right? Is the poster of this thread actually a Republican who is mad at Obama (and presumably other Democrats) because the Republicans that he voted for succeeded in trimming "big government" and so he and hundreds of thousands of other government employees are out of work?

Yep. It never occurred to him that the huge number of useless parasites, sucking the government tit, that he was outraged about might not be only other people.

Too bad about his dependents, but he's whining about getting exactly what he wanted.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

dngnb8, I do hope you are not just slinking off without any follow up. Given your interest and thoughtful concern in advance of the actual data, I do hope you'll be as free to share your thoughts now.

Orherwise it looks like you're concerned with the matter only to the degree that it fits in with your current schema, or perhaps agenda.

[Measure for Measure]

Heh.



After --er-- Jan 2001, what was the Bush admin thinking about? They wanted to ramp up Star Wars, and there was a diplomatic crisis when a PRC jet fighter collided into a US spy plane on the coast of China. It was later called the Hainan Island Incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident). It put conservatives into a lather as seen by this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=66076). Liberals stayed cool and collected and ultimately the steady hand of Colin Powell prevailed . Small potatoes by 911 standards, but there you go.


Citations for previous post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_All_Enemies
Richard Clarke: "Having been attacked by al Qaeda, for us now to go bombing Iraq in response would be like our invading Mexico after the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor."
Powell shook his head. "It's not over yet."



It was not over. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Bush wanted a war. Here's what happened on September 12th, 2001:

George Bush: "Look. I know you have a lot to do and all ...but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way..."

I [Clarke] was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But Mr. President, al Qaeda did this."

"I know, I know, but... see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred..."

"Absolutely, we will look... again." I was trying to be more respectful, more responsive. "But you know, we have looked several times for state sponsorship of al Qaeda and not found any real linkages to Iraq. Iran plays a little, as does Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, Yemen"

"Look into Iraq, Saddam", the President said testily and left us. http://books.google.com/books?id=8kdIMPo0ZE0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=against+all+enemies&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rrKPT4buJaesjAK2i-CaAw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=iraq&f=false
Quotes from page 32.

[Measure for Measure]

This is what the Republicans I know can't really explain. How are they going to scream for smaller government and NOT hold the resulting unemployment numbers that include the newly-laid-off government workers against Obama and the Democrats? They want smaller government, but when those former workers don't have a job anymore, it's "the Dems aren't worried about jobs!" But when the Dems DON'T shrink the size of government, it's "too much spending and too much government!"

People, pick one. You don't get to hold the consequences of your pet policies against those people who implemented your pet policies at YOUR DIRECTION. I prefer a Parliamentary system of government, because it provides accountability. When Reagan passed tax cuts and initiated the biggest peacetime expansion of the military since WWII, I spoke to a lot of modern conservatives who actually blamed the Democratic Congress for the deficits. This was delusional of course, but when designing systems of government, you go with conservatives you have, not the ones you wish for. Heck, even when a Republican Congress and Republican Presidency reversed budget surpluses as they spent on pointless wars and cut taxes on big donors, you still heard a fair number of Americans pompously referring to themselves as fiscally conservative. I say put the Executive and Legislature automatically in sync and let the chips fall where they may. I opine that this would have a moderating influence, as seen from the European case. I concede the controversy of this position.


ETA: Re: The OP. I can't help but think of the book What's the matter with Kansas?

[dngnb8]

Um, the hell? Sorry if I misunderstand, but Bill Clinton had his last day in office in Jan 2011.

I think I said that.

During the hand-over of power Clinton administration officials warned the incoming administration that they would be spending much more time on terrorism than they anticipated. The Bushies thought that their predecessors were obsessed. History shows otherwise.

What youre missing is Clinton knew of this before 2001. Clinton had plenty of time to be successful. But we will just ignore that and expect Bush to handle this is the 30-60 days because Slick Willie said he should.

In June, intelligence reports indicated that Al Q was planning something very soon. Richard Clarke wanted an all points bulletin declared. The GW Bush admin refused. Richard Clarke had worked for the Reagan administration as well, but it was his opinion that Al Gore understood American security challenges in a way that Bush never did. You can see that in the days after 9/11: GW Bush asked his intelligence contacts to show a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. This left Richard Clarke and other professionals gob-smacked.

I see, so let me get this straight. June, July, August, Sept 11. Giving the benefit of the doubt and say June 1. Bush had 102 days to how many years Clinton had, and 9/11 is Bushes fault.

Too funny. BTW, Im using your data here so dont ask me to cite.


The Democratic Party is a coalition of liberals, conservatives and moderates.

Republicans only embrace conservatism and quite frankly crankery. The key distinction between the two parties is that the GOP has abandoned empiricism, which tends to lead to poorly thought out policy and execution.

Got it, Dems are everyone, Reps are extremists. Knee Jerk catagorizations to the left please. I laugh at the My Party is Good, Your Party is Evil defenses.

Seriously, if youre gonna spew partisan hackery, try fox or huffpo. They would love to read your posts.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Got it, Dems are everyone, Reps are extremists. Knee Jerk catagorizations to the left please. I laugh at the My Party is Good, Your Party is Evil defenses.

Seriously, if youre gonna spew partisan hackery, try fox or huffpo. They would love to read your posts.Great. So, by the same token, care to address the data on economic performance under dem vs rep presidents?

[miss elizabeth]

Seriously, if youre gonna spew partisan hackery, try fox or huffpo. They would love to read your posts.

Why don't you go to fucking fox or huffpo? You joined, what, a whole 10 minutes ago? And you've been nothing but an ignorant fuckface in all your posts.

Measure for Measure has been here since the boards started, and is a well respected, valuable member of the community. Again, you are an idiot. If anyone ought to leave and find a dumber board to post on, believe me, it's you.

[Measure for Measure]

I see, so let me get this straight. June, July, August, Sept 11. Giving the benefit of the doubt and say June 1. Bush had 102 days to how many years Clinton had, and 9/11 is Bushes fault. According to Clarke's eyewitness testimony, June 2001 is about right.

From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_All_Enemies Clarke argues that he made numerous urgent requests for a meeting about dealing with terrorism, had CIA Director George Tenet include numerous details about Al-Qaeda in daily briefings, found an unprecedented level of terrorist "chatter" before September 11. ...but the Bush administration wasn't interested. Clarke seems to believe that Al Gore might have ordered an all government shakedown in response.

...which he acknowledges might not have worked. The point is it wasn't tried. And when GWBush was given a briefing in August 2001, he responded IIRC, "All right, you've covered your ass."

Prior to 9/11, the Bush admin simply didn't take terrorism especially seriously. And after it, they leveraged it to attack Iraq. Heck, Bush even dismantled the CIA unit tasked with hunting down Bin Laden (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/washington/04intel.html?_r=1), for reasons that aren't clear to me. In 2006. That unit was only reconstructed by President Barack Obama.

Look Bush had different priorities. It would be nice if modern conservatives were willing to discuss them, rather than blowing smoke.

[dngnb8]

According to Clarke's eyewitness testimony, June 2001 is about right.

From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_All_Enemies Clarke argues that he made numerous urgent requests for a meeting about dealing with terrorism, had CIA Director George Tenet include numerous details about Al-Qaeda in daily briefings, found an unprecedented level of terrorist "chatter" before September 11. ...but the Bush administration wasn't interested. Clarke seems to believe that Al Gore might have ordered an all government shakedown in response.

...which he acknowledges might not have worked. The point is it wasn't tried. And when GWBush was given a briefing in August 2001, he responded IIRC, "All right, you've covered your ass."

Prior to 9/11, the Bush admin simply didn't take terrorism especially seriously. And after it, they leveraged it to attack Iraq. Heck, Bush even dismantled the CIA unit tasked with hunting down Bin Laden (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/washington/04intel.html?_r=1), for reasons that aren't clear to me. In 2006. That unit was only reconstructed by President Barack Obama.

Look Bush had different priorities. It would be nice if modern conservatives were willing to discuss them, rather than blowing smoke.

Im not blowing smoke, Im blowing facts. Sorry you dont like them. Bush had 100 odd days to do what Clinton couldnt do in years. Funny how you dont hold Clinton as responsible as Bush.

[dngnb8]

Why don't you go to fucking fox or huffpo? You joined, what, a whole 10 minutes ago? And you've been nothing but an ignorant fuckface in all your posts.

LOL. Got it, if I dont drink your kool aid, I dont know what Im talking about. How typical of partisan hakery.

Measure for Measure has been here since the boards started, and is a well respected, valuable member of the community. Again, you are an idiot. If anyone ought to leave and find a dumber board to post on, believe me, it's you.

So, let me get this straight. Intelligence is a direct measure of board date?

Im laughing at you, not with you.

[dngnb8]

Great. So, by the same token, care to address the data on economic performance under dem vs rep presidents?

Im not defending Reps, Bush tanked the economy by using 9/11 to get revenge for Daddy. Since 9/11, the market is mixed. Those are the facts.

Im just pointing out this isnt a Partisan issue. Apparently, people here will only accept

Republican evil, Democrat Good.

The issue isnt Dems or Reps, the issue is a corrupt political system that rewards lack of performance. The media which was supposed to keep them in check, is now the tool for greater misinformation.

[Voyager]

Im not blowing smoke, Im blowing facts. Sorry you dont like them. Bush had 100 odd days to do what Clinton couldnt do in years. Funny how you dont hold Clinton as responsible as Bush.

You mean stop a plot which hadn't been started when Clinton left office? We aren't holding Bush accountable for not killing bin Laden from June to September, just for not being very interested in the intelligence he got. The first meeting about it didn't happen until early September. Maybe if he gave more of a shit about that than about taking vacation it could have been stopped. Maybe not, but at least he could have tried.
He didn't spend a lot more effort catching bin Laden after 9/11 either. Saddam was far more of a threat, right?

[Voyager]

Got it, Dems are everyone, Reps are extremists. Knee Jerk catagorizations to the left please. I laugh at the My Party is Good, Your Party is Evil defenses.

Please let us know where these moderate Republicans are hanging out. The ones not quitting in disgust, I mean.

[SteveG1]

Im not blowing smoke, Im blowing facts. Sorry you dont like them. Bush had 100 odd days to do what Clinton couldnt do in years. Funny how you dont hold Clinton as responsible as Bush.

Here's a thought, how bout you just blow it out your ass.

[SteveG1]

... Bush tanked the economy by using 9/11 to get revenge for Daddy. ....

That part you got right. But all that other "the other guys are bad too", you can still blow out your ass.

[elucidator]

Cranial obstruction makes that difficult.

[dngnb8]

That part you got right. But all that other "the other guys are bad too", you can still blow out your ass.

Theyre evil, Im not. EPEEN

Got it. LOL

[dngnb8]

You mean stop a plot which hadn't been started when Clinton left office? We aren't holding Bush accountable for not killing bin Laden from June to September, just for not being very interested in the intelligence he got. The first meeting about it didn't happen until early September. Maybe if he gave more of a shit about that than about taking vacation it could have been stopped. Maybe not, but at least he could have tried.
He didn't spend a lot more effort catching bin Laden after 9/11 either. Saddam was far more of a threat, right?

I dont disagree with your perception of Bush, but how does that change Clintons performance?

[dngnb8]

Please let us know where these moderate Republicans are hanging out. The ones not quitting in disgust, I mean.

I wouldnt be too proud of the Democratic performance. I dont understand why both sides dont quit in disgust.

But hey, you continue with the

Theyre evil were not

Kool aid.

[dngnb8]

Here's a thought, how bout you just blow it out your ass.

Oh my! How dare I talk poorly about your party. For shame on me! Looks like you can dish, but have an issue taking it.

I enjoyed your

You dont think like me so I hate you

Response

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f155/tacksharp/Miscellaneous2/Kool_Aid_blue.jpg

here, Im pouring

Gratz on living up to my expectations.

[TonySinclair]

9/11 did not create a fiscal calamity. The DJIA closed at 9605 on 9/10/11. It had fallen down to 8235 by 9/21, but it gained over 300 points the next day, and steadily increased after that, and was back to 9741 by 11/15/11, and was over 10,000 by Christmas. What happened after that was not due to trauma from 9/11, but to Bush's bungling --- starting two wars (which, when not fought locally, are generally good for the economy) while simultaneously cutting taxes, and then wondering why the debt skyrocketed.

Wow. Are you telling me that 9/11 had zero impact on the market? Bush wasnt in office long enough to have that impact. Bush policies werent even in place yet. He barely just got a staff in place by August. One doesnt take office fully staffed.

Um, no. I didn't say it had no impact, in fact I said it caused the market to fall almost 1400 points. But it was clearly not a "fiscal calamity," as you claimed, because the DJIA was back up to pre-9/11 levels within a couple of months. And since you have very eloquently argued that Bush was ineffective during his first eight months in office, he obviously had nothing to do with the recovery, and therefore it couldn't have been a "fiscal calamity" if no action was required for a strong recovery.

Americans were justified in being outraged and saddened at the attack, but in the grand scheme of things, it took out a few buildings. Of course it was a personal tragedy for anyone who knew any of the victims, but in strictly financial terms, it wasn't a pimple on the ass of the true fiscal calamity that Obama inherited from Bush.

To say 9/11 didnt have an impact on the market is purely an obtuse observation.

I agree. And to say I said it didn't is even more obtuse, when I gave the actual closing DJIA numbers before and after, showing a 1400 point drop.


Let me see if I understand you. In the Presidential Daily Brief, Clinton informed Bush of Bin Laden (Augest 2001). So, am I to understand that Clinton didnt know until that day? Is that your presumption?

No, going by your posts, you don't seem to understand much of anything that you are lecturing us on. It is not the custom of former Presidents to give daily briefings to their successors, seven months into their term. The daily brief in August was given by Bush's national intelligence staff. But the Clinton staff did warn Bush, back in January or probably even in late 2000, that Bin Laden was going to be a huge problem, and that he should concentrate on him. Bush blew them off.

The fact is, Clinton knew of Bin Laden, made 1 attempt at him that failed.

That is not a fact, any more than the "fact" in your previous post that Clinton had 8 whole years to get him. Bin Laden was not wanted for crimes against Americans until 1998, and Clinton made three major attempts to get him that we know of, and probably several others that we don't. The fact that Bush DID have eight whole years to get him, and failed, indicates that he's not that easy to find, even when everyone in America considers him the devil incarnate, as opposed to a small number of wonks who had heard of him during the Clinton administration.

Couldnt find him for how many years?

Two and a half, not 8.

Then dropped it in Bushs lap and gave him 30 days to act.

Yes, Bush took office on August 11, 2001. Just as accurate as the rest of your "facts."

You see, this isnt a partisan issue. This is a political issue, and a failure of the executive branch of both parties.

Both admins failed to capture or kill Bin Laden. But I would say that anyone who maintains that there is any comparison between the magnitude of the failures is either very partisan, or very ignorant of the facts. Or both.

You seem to have taken my statement as some sort of partisan attack.

I'll take your word for it that it was not. I do maintain that it was woefully ignorant of facts.


Knee Jerk responses arent necessary.

IMO correcting misinformation IS necessary.

[dngnb8]

Um, no. I didn't say it had no impact, in fact I said it caused the market to fall almost 1400 points. But it was clearly not a "fiscal calamity," as you claimed, because the DJIA was back up to pre-9/11 levels within a couple of months.

And back down in the following months. Short upswings is not a correction, it is instability.

And since you have very eloquently argued that Bush was ineffective during his first eight months in office, he obviously had nothing to do with the recovery, and therefore it couldn't have been a "fiscal calamity" if no action was required for a strong recovery.

Market instability is not a sigh of a safe economy. There were several 2000 point swings, then the war.

Americans were justified in being outraged and saddened at the attack,

Oh well thank you for allowing us that. We appreciate it

but in the grand scheme of things, it took out a few buildings. Of course it was a personal tragedy for anyone who knew any of the victims, but in strictly financial terms, it wasn't a pimple on the ass of the true fiscal calamity that Obama inherited from Bush.

Oh we dont disagree here. But Bush did not inherit a stable economy from Clinton. You can attempt to gloss over it all you wish, but 2000 point swings are not a sign of confidence.

I agree. And to say I said it didn't is even more obtuse, when I gave the actual closing DJIA numbers before and after, showing a 1400 point drop.

I disagree. Youre being obtuse. Youre attempting to paint the economy at that time as no big deal. Check the chart.

9800
11300
10000
11000
9400
11300


Those arent stable numbers.

No, going by your posts, you don't seem to understand much of anything that you are lecturing us on. It is not the custom of former Presidents to give daily briefings to their successors, seven months into their term.

Agreed. There is an approx 9 month change over where 2 admins are working together sharing info.

The daily brief in August was given by Bush's national intelligence staff. But the Clinton staff did warn Bush, back in January or probably even in late 2000, that Bin Laden was going to be a huge problem, and that he should concentrate on him. Bush blew them off.

I dont think Ive disputed that.


That is not a fact, any more than the "fact" in your previous post that Clinton had 8 whole years to get him. Bin Laden was not wanted for crimes against Americans until 1998, and Clinton made three major attempts to get him that we know of, and probably several others that we don't. The fact that Bush DID have eight whole years to get him, and failed, indicates that he's not that easy to find, even when everyone in America considers him the devil incarnate, as opposed to a small number of wonks who had heard of him during the Clinton administration.



Two and a half, not 8.

Okay, 912 days vs, at best, 100 days. Youre still not seeing the point.


Yes, Bush took office on August 11, 2001. Just as accurate as the rest of your "facts."

Ah yes the rebuttal of what wasnt said. If you have to make up what I say, then we dont need to discuss this. You can just start posts and talk to yourself.


Both admins failed to capture or kill Bin Laden. But I would say that anyone who maintains that there is any comparison between the magnitude of the failures is either very partisan, or very ignorant of the facts. Or both.

Yes, because 912 days is a moderate failure, and 100 days is pure fail.

I'll take your word for it that it was not. I do maintain that it was woefully ignorant of facts.

As woefully ignorant as the market recovering.


IMO correcting misinformation IS necessary.

Oh we agree. Thank goodness I was here to correct your post.

[Measure for Measure]

Simplifying somewhat, we've pointed to specific bad decisions that GWBush made. One was ignoring warnings about increased Al Qaeda activity from June-Aug 2001. Two was dismantling the CIA group tasked with finding Bin Laden in 2006, reversed by Barack Obama. Third was letting Bin Laden slip through his hands in Tora Bora, which admittedly is comparable to some of Clinton's failed attempts to get Bin Laden. Though why we expected our Afghan allies to fight The Battle of Tora Bora (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tora_Bora) for us remains unclear to me. I can't see any sort of specificity to the critiques of Clinton: what precisely should he have done?

There are more diffuse criticisms of course: 6 months after 9/11 GWBush said that the whereabouts of Bin Laden weren't important to him. I thought that was PR or bravado at the time, but now I take him at his word. Bush was pivoting to Iraq at the time and was relying on Pakistan to fight the Taliban. Those were 2 strategic errors in my view. Any military attack on the US costing thousands of lives should not be countenanced: if hunting down Bin Laden required us to break some crockery in Pakistan, then so be it. But I'm willing to discuss that inclination.

Unfortunately, it's very difficult to have a serious conversation with a modern conservative on national security. It seems that they can't bring themselves to acknowledge foreign policy tradeoffs. Instead, we just get bluster and tu quoque.