Posted by bad_luck on 10/24/2012 12:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/24/2012 11:47:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/24/2012 10:59:00 AM (view original):
23m under or unemployed.
49m requiring govt assistance.
House prices still down.

As for the economy improving, couldn't one argue that there was no place to go but up?

I've seen nothing on Romney "promising" to raise taxes on anyone making less than 200k a year.    Perhaps you have a source?

Tell those 72m how much better off we are.

Idiot. There is a HUGE overlap between the 23m and the 49m. You don't add them. Fuckin' genius over here.

When you have no argument left, maybe it's best to be insulting.   That seems to come from the Obama/Biden debate program.

But, hell, I'll play along.  Tell those 50m how much better off we are.   Better?

It's ridiculous to think the golden roads of Obama's America is lines with candy cane and chocolate chip cookies.   The US economy is a mess.    Who you want to blame is arguable.   However, the man in charge now isn't getting the job done.   If you want to keep slurping his balls, go ahead.   Time for Change and Hope.

23m under or unemployed is an outdated number.  Actual in September was 21.5m, down from a high of 25.5m.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/24/2012 12:11:00 PM (view original):
But, hell, I'll play along.  Tell those 50m how much better off we are.   Better?

It's ridiculous to think the golden roads of Obama's America is lines with candy cane and chocolate chip cookies.   The US economy is a mess.    Who you want to blame is arguable.   However, the man in charge now isn't getting the job done.   If you want to keep slurping his balls, go ahead.   Time for Change and Hope.

Once again, numbers without context. In August 2012, 35% of the population was on means tested government assistance (the 49 you keep referring to is probably the 49% Santorum quoted, but that includes Social Security).  That's roughly 115 million people.

None of this is as black and white as you'd like it to be.

Context:

Before the recession, when the economy was booming, about 25% of households were on means tested government assistance, roughly 80 million people. So, since the start of a the recession, roughly 35 million more people are on means tested government assistance. That number correlates pretty well with the unemployment numbers (the unemployed and their dependents).

Is that Obama's fault? Well, the recession wasn't his fault, the economy had already fallen apart before he took office. Should we have recovered faster? Yes (or at least Obama shouldn't have over promised on the recovery, knowing it would be a slow one). So that is at least partially his fault. But Republicans share some of that blame, Obama can't act unilaterally.

And then the big question, would we be better off had a Republican been in office? In my opinion, based on the policies advocated by Republican leadership, no, we wouldn't. I'd guess we'd be worse off. In a demand driven recession, cutting spending is one of the worst things the government can do. In other words, what were the actual policy failures? I think we weren't liberal/stimulative/Keynesian enough. It's unlikely that a Republican president would have done what was necessary to end the recession and recover faster.

I guess it's very easy to point out what the other side might have done as a diversion to try to deflect attention away from what the side currently in charge has (or, more correctly, has not) done.

So while you can say that "It's unlikely that a Republican president would have done what was necessary to end the recession and recover faster", I can say that "it's likely that a Republican president would have turned the deficit into a suplus by shitting out golden eggs during his daily Oval Office briefings".

Kind of hard to prove or disprove what "might have been".

Republican ideology - Cut taxes (especially corporate) to create more jobs and more disposable income. Not borrow and spend until we riot in the streets like Greece and France. A republican would have spent the first two years in office championing jobs... not healthcare. Yeah... we'd be better off today w/o Obama.

The 49% from the past was households where at least on person living there was receiving govt assistance.    I saw the 49m(or it may have been 47m) on CNN.  Nonetheless, I went with 49m as I assumed someone would correct me if it was wrong.

Whether or not we'd be in a better situation under McCain is irrelevant.    McCain was never president. 

At the end of the day, Obama promised Hope and Change.   I never liked his policies, they seemed intent on turning the US into a welfare state(and it seemingly has) but I liked him.  I had to stop listening to his speeches because I always thought "WOW!  That sounds awesome" even though I knew what he was preaching. I took to reading them instead and they just didn't carry the same weight.   Nonetheless, he's no longer "Hope and Change" with well-delivered ideas.   He's the sitting President.    Things may be better now than they were in 2009.   Problem is, we had bottomed out.   They had to get better.   Now Obama has to defend his record.  That's a tougher sell.   We deserve a better America.   Will we get it with Romney?  Don't know.  But I do know we haven't gotten it with Obama.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/24/2012 1:16:00 PM (view original):
I guess it's very easy to point out what the other side might have done as a diversion to try to deflect attention away from what the side currently in charge has (or, more correctly, has not) done.

So while you can say that "It's unlikely that a Republican president would have done what was necessary to end the recession and recover faster", I can say that "it's likely that a Republican president would have turned the deficit into a suplus by shitting out golden eggs during his daily Oval Office briefings".

Kind of hard to prove or disprove what "might have been".

No, I'm making an educated guess based on public statements that politicians have made.

Republicans have advocated for tax cuts and spending cuts. Tax cuts are stimulative, spending cuts aren't. 

Posted by antoncresten on 10/24/2012 1:07:00 PM (view original):
THE DUBYA DISASTER ALMOST KILLEDUS. OBAMA SAVED THE NATION

TY

Not to interupt our technowonks with the numbers but lets get back to some stuff the masses can absorb...

Bush didnt destroy America.

The left likes to use it. Obama's main theme (after be afraid of successful people) is we can't go back to the Bush times. And when you ask a Dem how Bush destroyed the economy they get mad and talk about tax cuts for the rich, deregulation and 2 illegal wars.

And those are the things that the focus groups the Dems hired said made them mad about Bush so they repeat it as much as possible.

The only problem is none of those things caused the crash...

We can argue of the tax cuts helped or hurt the deficit, but I challenge anyone to do a 6 levels of seperation on the cuts and the crash.

And we can argue the merits of deregulation, but with the sole exception of Clinton eliminating Glass Steagall, and that is marginal, it is hard to tie anything recent to the crash.

And we can argue the merits of the War on terror. I assume we all accept that it didnt cause the crash.

So once again who did Bush cause the crash?

"Bush caused the crash" makes for good rhetoric from the left.  Facts are irrelevant when it comes to sound bites that pander to the uninformed.

Bush didn't cause the crash any more than Obama made it worse or slowed the recovery. President's don't act unilaterally.

But context is important. Expecting Obama to come in and turn things around immediately is unreasonable considering the economic situation he inherited.

So we shouldn't expect him to do what he says he'll do?

Posted by bad_luck on 10/24/2012 2:30:00 PM (view original):
Bush didn't cause the crash any more than Obama made it worse or slowed the recovery. President's don't act unilaterally.

But context is important. Expecting Obama to come in and turn things around immediately is unreasonable considering the economic situation he inherited.

Expecting a community organizer to turn around an economy seems a bit .... idiotic. In hindsight.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/24/2012 2:30:00 PM (view original):
Bush didn't cause the crash any more than Obama made it worse or slowed the recovery. President's don't act unilaterally.

But context is important. Expecting Obama to come in and turn things around immediately is unreasonable considering the economic situation he inherited.

I'm amused by the constant references, especially by Obama himself, of the situation he "inherited", as if the economy was some sort of unfortunate anchor that came along with the Presidency.

He didn't inherit anything.  He actively campaigned and asked for the right to take on the economic situation, fully aware of what was happening all around him.  He made promise after promise about what HE and HIS ADMINSTRATION were going to do to fix it.

Bottom line . . . he asked for this job based on his insistance that he would accomplish A, B, C, etc., and he failed to do so.