[QUOTE=Randall Terry]
I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good … if a Christian voted for Clinton, he sinned against God. It’s that simple. Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that’s the kind of guy who goes down real well with Democratic voters.
He’s a frothing loon, a religious hatemonger. Why should I care about his views on economics?
[QUOTE=Chronos]
You’ve got that backwards, yorick73. If one could see the problem in 20 seconds, then there’d be no need to argue. But given that folks apparently can’t, maybe we need someone to point out the problems.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure exactly what yorick73 was getting at, but looking at the first two charts I’d say what jumps out at me is that the good parts are projections/estimates. Check the timeline. Unless it’s 2012+ and no one told me. I have been laying off the booze lately, but I don’t think I misplaced a year or 3.
The only problem I see (in 20 seconds) with the 3rd chart is that unemployment still seems to be around 9%, and is double that if we use the standard ‘but what about all the guys who have given up??’ argument…so projecting that Obama ‘added’ a ton of jobs via the stimulus is just that…projecting, based on an assumption that the downward trajectory under Bush et al would have just continued along that same negative path, but for Obama and the stimulus. Looking in my 20 seconds at the chart it seems a standard distribution, i.e. it most likely would have followed that same trajectory regardless of who was president.
I’ve seen a lot of mixed opinions on the stimulus and it’s effect or non-effect on jobs or the lack of jobs among economists, so I’m not really sure what the 'dope is on that…not my forte. Anyway, that’s my 20 second take…the data seems to be skewed to try and project a rosier picture than what may be the case, using estimates of possible future goodness (that may or may not happen) in at least two of the charts.
Voyager would prefer a buffoon smart enough to know how stupid he is, while Boyo Jim thinks the most blatantly stupid buffoon will do least damage. I find both these positions plausible, and am not sure which is correct.
One thing is clear: That sane, intelligent people need to rate the GOP candidates on such criteria as Voyager and Boyo Jim use is dismally sad. I’m no longer able to make jokes about whether modern America is epic tragedy or epic farce.
Well, the first chart lists 2009 as Bush’s spending. Of course the last budget under Bush is included in this spending but so is ARRA passed in Feb. 09, spending on distressed homeowners (75 billion in Feb 09), Fannie and Freddie bailout (200 billion in Feb 09), toxic assets spending in march 09 (1 trillion) and the auto bailouts in march 09. Of course, even if you didn’t know that, the chart is misleading. The percentage increase is not related to anything. By their numbers Bush increased spending by 88%…presumably over Clintons final budget. Obama has increased this an additional 7.2%…of what? 7.2% increase over Bush’s last, inflated budget (which, of course, contains the above spending under Obama).
The second chart suffers from the same problems as the first. 2009 is counted exclusively as Bush’s deficit. Of course, the deficit has gone up from that point. In addition, the projected decrease in the deficit is, I’m sure you are aware, full of problems…including economic growth projections that no economist outside of the White House believes.
The third chart starts in 2008! The wikipedia link upthread shows the total jobs created under Bush. While certainly not stellar there was a net positive gain.
I believe you are in the Sciences. One of the basic tools of science is the ability to look at graphs and critically analyze the data. When you see a percent increase you have to ask what is the baseline. Also, looking at half a data set (chart 3) is an obvious attempt to hide data that disagrees with the hypothesis. Leaving out the specific numbers listed above I could see these problems in 20 seconds.
Of those currently in the running, that may actually have a chance, I’d say Perry. And the governor of my state went down to Texas and sucked up to him at that “prayer rally.”
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a Christian and all in favor of prayer. But that was not for prayer, that was political grandstanding, which I found abhorrent.
I was incorrect when I called it an error. It is a manipulation of data in order to fit a preconceived conclusion. The fact that is was not pointed out just shows there are plenty of useful idiots willing to accept such garbage at face value.
Perhaps you were still in high school when Bush was elected. he was handed a balanced budget, actually a surplus, with huge job creation and essentially no unemployment. He set into place a lot of policies that developed a huge unemployment problem and an enormous debt. Then one of his last acts was the TARP program and a banking crisis. That is when Obama entered. It is pretty near impossible to understate the economic damage that Bush brought us. What actually is unfair, is expecting a new president to turn that shitpot into positive anything in a short time. Especially when the Repubs have stopped him from doing anything about it.
Bachman. Not necessarily for policy reasons, but because I tend to view presidential elections as a statement the US makes about how we want to look.
Electing Obama, regardless of the outcome, felt like, “We want to hope things will improve, we want to believe progress is being made as a nation, and we embrace dialogue and cooperation.”
Electing Bachman seems like it would just say, “I like turtles.”
Well, I’m at least glad to see you backpedaling away from that ridiculous link…even if you have to take a cheap shot on the way back. You have a very selective memory of history.
There is nothing wrong with that link. Bush was bleeding jobs at an incredible rate . Obama turned it around and now he is bad because there are not enough jobs being created. Different standards. Bush dropped 800 thousand jobs in one fucking month. Obama has had no negative months at all. Can you figure out which bis better?
I already explained what was wrong with that link. There is no doubt that Obama inherited a shitty economy…it’s what he has done since entering office that is debatable. The boost from stimulus spending only lasted about as long as the stimulus spending did. Now the hangover starts. Markets correct and input from the government only delays the inevitable. The stimulus was not targeted, Obama fought for health care reform rather than focusing on the economy, wants to raise taxes on the job creators, and is trying to hamstring the energy sector. I’m glad to see that he is backing away from the jobs killing EPA regulations…to his credit. My guess is that if Obama did nothing the economy would have bounced back much quicker but, instead, we are experiencing a malaise reminiscent of the Carter administration. He will be hoist by his own petard unless he starts backing away from his own policies.
Because it was far too small by a factor of three, thanks to Republicans in the Senate.
“Job creators” are sitting on trillions of dollars of cash; lack of captal is not what is depressing job creation.
My guess is that we would be far deeper in a true Depression. That is what Republicans wanted, to tar him with in 2012. They were too clever by half, and now it will bite them in the ass.
Yes, Obama inherited a bad economy from Bush, but things are not any better. I wanted Hillary, voted for Obama. Would I vote for him again, no not at this moment.
The country needs a strong, experienced, President. So far I would not vote for any of the candidates. The women are pretty but I don’t vote for pretty…
Obama did not inherit a shitty economy. He inherited a bunch of rules and regulations that caused it , with an economy in collapse and potentially going into depression. He should have great credit for bringing it back. The stimulus was a huge part of saving the disaster from being much worse.
Then the asshole Repubs that caused the mess, immediately went into stopping Obama from instituting policies that would clean it up properly. Now they are sabotaging every move he makes.
People who can think, know who fucked the economy up and know who is deliberately holding it back.