State of the Union 2014

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Exactly. Obama actively didn't negotiate to make income inequality better so it's all on him.

My point has thusly been proven again.

I'm on a roll.

---

No. You're just being silly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

I'd suggest that Congress is far more to blame than either.

---

Would this also mean that Congress is far more to be credited when something goes right? If they are to be blamed for bad policies, or lack thereof, should they also not be praised for good policies?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarvan

Would this also mean that Congress is far more to be credited when something goes right? If they are to be blamed for bad policies, or lack thereof, should they also not be praised for good policies?

---

Sometimes yes. I think both Clinton and Reagan get credit for things that were boosted by their Congresses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

I questioned why Obama gets a pass on that from Democrats when just a few years ago (in some cases a few days ago) they were bashing Bush for the recession and high unemployment due to his "failed policies."

I asked for specifics of which failed policies of Bush's led to the recession and high unemployment and so far the closest I've received was Bush's inaction led to the recession and high unemployment.

---

Gotcha, I understand where you were coming from, and you're right, it's the same thing. Hell, everyone is gonna argue everything nowadays. Even on completely obvious things like, "What race is best for Sorcs" and other nonsense. The only challenge I would raise for Kembal's assertion is whether or not there were any attempted regulation subsequently voted down by senate/house. One could argue that the tax evasion reform thingy that was up for a vote could unevenly target the rich. But that'd really be a stretch to preach as a method of bridging the gap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

My point has thus been proven. Thusly.

Thank you and good night.

---

You forgot to drop the mic.

Best race for a sorc is halfling. My halfling sorc is level 49 and has died I think...twice? My margin of error is +- 2.

He laughs at glacei. Heck he laughs at avalanches too. He thinks they're fun.

Although to be fair my halfling ranger dies all the time to krag dwellers and he's above their level now :/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarvan

I wonder what it would be though if we dug up the real numbers, and not the "feel good" politician numbers. (This applies to all Presidents)

---

I was thinking this... but I was really hesitant to even go further back in the metrics/numbers than just Bush's time.

Realistically, the proliferation of news and speed of communication has grown so astronomically in the last 15 years and may be material in the timing of the impact of effects from a change in presidency. Both from a realization of the impact for the citizens, and for the turnaround time on actionable actions by subsequent individuals.

Furthermore, the labor market has changed drastically with the introduction of more women into the workplace, and the ability to poll and get statistics have only matured (although, per your comment, still likely equally tamperable).

I can agree, it's hard to ignore these factors entirely... however, based upon the information that we have available, the current rate of unemployment recovery is not THAT far behind what we've seen historically... assuming historical and current values are accurate, which you're right, is a relatively big assumption, but it's the best we have to rely on at the moment, and the potential for corruption is there consistently for any reporting cycle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Best race for a sorc is halfling. My halfling sorc is level 49 and has died I think...twice? My margin of error is +- 2.

He laughs at glacei. Heck he laughs at avalanches too. He thinks they're fun.

Although to be fair my halfling ranger dies all the time to krag dwellers and he's above their level now :/

---

Write your own damn guide!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

Sometimes yes. I think both Clinton and Reagan get credit for things that were boosted by their Congresses.

---

So basically, almost all of the "Clinton Era" policies were really enacted by the Republicans. So we should be praising them for the so called balanced budget, among other things.

Sorry WB, you can't have it both ways. Both parties are always to blame for everything, same as they are to be praised for anything. (note, praising is few and far between cause very few things are praise worthy really)

That being said.. Things not enacted by congress, but instead done entirely through the Executive branch ARE explicitly the area of the President.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whirlin

I was thinking this... but I was really hesitant to even go further back in the metrics/numbers than just Bush's time.

Realistically, the proliferation of news and speed of communication has grown so astronomically in the last 15 years and may be material in the timing of the impact of effects from a change in presidency. Both from a realization of the impact for the citizens, and for the turnaround time on actionable actions by subsequent individuals.

Furthermore, the labor market has changed drastically with the introduction of more women into the workplace, and the ability to poll and get statistics have only matured (although, per your comment, still likely equally tamperable).

I can agree, it's hard to ignore these factors entirely... however, based upon the information that we have available, the current rate of unemployment recovery is not THAT far behind what we've seen historically... assuming historical and current values are accurate, which you're right, is a relatively big assumption, but it's the best we have to rely on at the moment, and the potential for corruption is there consistently for any reporting cycle.

---

Well, I was referring to the U-5 rate.

The U-3 is shit really. If 10 million people say fuck it, I am not going to bother looking for a job, the U-3 rate goes down, and it looks like the President is doing his job. This thinking is fucking nuts, period. I am not a huge fan of the U-6 really. As working part time is still working. It doesn't say if they WANT full time, or just want part time, and it includes under down to 16 years of age, who couldn't/shouldn't work full time anyway.

http://portalseven.com/employment/un...nt_rate_u5.jsp

Looking at the U-3 vrs the U-5 there wasn't much difference pre 2008 in the rates, some but not huge. The rate of decline under Obama has been more significant.

Does all this comparison of presidential unemployment include normalization to account for the changes in the definition of how unemployment is calculated since Obama took office?