So I take it you’re someone else who sees job approval as an absolute measure, rather than relative to the expected performance of the alternatives to Obama? If so, how do you calibrate your expectations? Are you implicitly comparing him to a President you liked, or what?
His rating right now is not relative to anything. Once we get Romney as the candidate, we will have something to compare it to.
Our country has been through some terrible times . He has been at the top during that time. So he takes some heat that he probably does not deserve.
And Gitmo is open and we’re in Libya and Africa.
AND nemployment is still 9 per cent, give or take. (Probably give, seeing as how some aren’t being counted.) It has been steadily going up since 2008.
And his education overhaul plans are worse than NCLB.
By the relevant measure – the number and pace of private sector job creation after Obama’s economic policies went into effect – Obama is doing just fine.
I get how low-information voters might have the sense that Obama has failed to create jobs. But my question is that, given that this is not factually correct, why does that notion persist?
Thats not true, unemployment maxed out at 10.1 % in Oct 2009. Its been improving since then, granted much more slowly then anyone would like.
Apologies. Rose, hit a peak, and there’s only an overall 1 per cent difference since October 2009.
It’s still really, really shitty.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/01/07/137866/obama-more-jobs-bush/ here is the graph on jobs since the Bush depression.
It has been a difficult battle to overcome the mess we were left by the Shrub.
I’m not a voter who thinks that Obama operates a Jobs Creating Machine or that you can blame the economy on him. I’m trying to answer the OP’s question.
I also reject that he ‘saved’ the economy in any such a way that a Republican president wouldn’t have. I mean, it’s his damned job to do the bare minimum.
As far as jobs go, I have seen conflicting reports on what jobs were being created and what kinds of jobs - NPR, Slate, and the standard Big Media have all posited it different ways. Depends on how you look it.
I don’t think the unemployment rate is recovering. I see it stagnating. I think that’s the word I’m looking for, anyway. It’s the word I’m thinking of for when something is just bobbing the water. Up/down, sure, but nothing really major.
You mean this?
I don’t think there’s any dispute about the basic facts. Private employment has been rising faster than population growth (meaning if all else were equal, the unemployment rate would drop). In fact, increases in private employment have been chugging along pretty consistently with previous financial recessions. But public employment has been dropping and dropping – that’s teachers, firefighters, etc.
This means the GOP’s explanations for low job creation – high taxes and new regulations – are factually incorrect. They would not explain the (relative) success of the private sector jobs market and the failure of the public sector jobs market.
Is this thread a joke?
Aside from the fact that I didn’t know the world or U.S. economy was bordering on a second Great Depression, how did he do that?
Politifact already rated this as half true.
While, technically, it might not be Obama’s fault they don’t have a job, the current POTUS always gets the blame when the economy goes south.
Last I checked, more people as a whole opposed the law than supported it.
How did he do that? If you’re going to give credit to Obama for saving the auto industry, then I believe you would need to give that credit to Bush since he was the one who initially authorized money to be sent to Chrysler/GM (or whoever it was).
Your average voter could not care less about whether gays serve openly in the military or not, as it has no practical effect on themselves or their livelihood. Middle class Joe Blow cares more about financial security than he does DADT. Repealing DADT wins Obama brownie points with his base, but otherwise it doesn’t matter.
The only thing he did was say “go”. A case of being in the right place at the right time, but hardly something to get someone reelected over.
When?
To what effect?
Again, numbers can be skewed either way. The public sector market is alarming if you single out just firefighters, teachers, and police officers. These are the kinds of people we need employed because if they aren’t, it means someone is suffering because of short-staffing. It’s not like there are too many teachers and not enough kids. There just isn’t enough cash. Oh but no worries, we can just apply for millions in federal grants to ‘train better teachers’ on how to handle a 45 kid classroom with not enough books. :rolleyes:
Pinky in the gaping hole at the bottom of the boat for some of these policies. What I’d like to know is how many of these people aren’t being counted - who is going back to school and taking out more loans because they can’t get a job? Who has graduated college since 2008 and isn’t employed? Or employed in a lower-paying job because that’s what’s available? Or how about people like me - a teacher who is underemployed, without benefits, and does not qualify for Medicaid or other help?
It’s very nice that such and such a factory worker is back on the payroll and getting the same hourly rate as I am, but there’s a bigger picture when it comes to unemployment. People will see it how it relates to them, their communities, and their family. Forget employment rates. How about underemployment?
Numbers, polls, stats, and biased newspapers are all tricky. But you can’t deny that things are bad.
It does not come as a shock that a GOP partisan disagrees with the OP. As I said, I’m more interested in what the moderates are thinking.
Is there anyone who disagrees with the BLS numbers that private employment has steadily increases since the summer of 2009 and that public sector jobs have steadily dropped? I don’t think there’s any disagreement there.
Of course not. Our esteemed repubs will not pass a jobs bill. They are sitting on potential economic recovery to get a repub president.
But Bush was losing jobs at an unprecedented rate. When Obama came in the jobs creation was on a steady incline. The repubs are hurting the recovery because they need a repub in office. There may be 2 or 3 Supreme Court appointments and they want even more far righties on the court. I have great fear of what they would do with that power.
I’m conflicted on whether or not I should deem that as a personal attack or an ad hominem. Either way, I find your claim of someone else being a partisan to be… ironic. You made some dubious claims and assertions, yet refuse to explain them. Such a raving non-partisan you are.
I leapt to the wild conclusion that someone with the username “Omg a Black Conservative” might be a solid conservative, rather than a moderate.
And it’s true, I’m not that interested in debating the facts I state in the OP. Sometimes, when people debate, they like to take a premise as true for the purpose of debating some other issues. I accept that you disagree with my assertions. If you mean to argue that moderate America agrees with your assessment of my facts, then your opinion is duly noted. Thank you.
"It’s very clear that private-sector jobs have been doing just fine; it’s the public sector jobs where we’ve lost huge numbers" - Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid
“Going back to 2008, the Labor Department reported 111.822 million employed private workers at the end of 2008. The number plunged during the recession, and as of September of this year overall private employment had climbed back to 109.349 million. But that’s still some 2.5 million fewer jobs than in 2008. If this is doing fine, we’d hate to see Mr. Reid’s definition of lousy.” - Wall St. Journal editorial, 10/20/11
What a silly editorial. I’m pretty sure the WSJ understands the difference between a fine rate of increase and a fine overall level. But maybe their readers do not.
I preferred Obama last election, but there are a couple issues I have:
(1) He folded like Superman on laundry day during the debt crisis. We now have a very dangerous precedent. It is now legitimate to hold the debt limit hostage to get what you want. By giving in, he showed that this tactic can work, and in doing so made it much more likely to happen in the future.
(2) Chrysler should not have been bailed out. It was a shitty company that deserved to die.
(3) His general lack of ability to set the tone for the national debate, and apparent unwillingness to hold Republican feet to the fire.
I value intelligent government over most political positions, and we’ve taken a huge step back in the level of intelligence demonstrated by the Federal Government. I recognize that that is mostly House Republican’s fault, but he his “be the grownup in the room” schtick has failed. I’m not silly enough to hand the reins over to Cain, Perry, or Bachman, but I’m willing to consider Romney.