Prepare for tonight's State of the Union address -- which I know you will all watch live and in full -- by watching these clips of awkward moments from prior State of the Union addresses.
http://www.politico.com/multimedia/v...n-moments.html
Printable View
Prepare for tonight's State of the Union address -- which I know you will all watch live and in full -- by watching these clips of awkward moments from prior State of the Union addresses.
http://www.politico.com/multimedia/v...n-moments.html
Boy it's a good thing I don't drink, I'd go broke listening to the state of the union tonight.
I want to know more about the bars that show the State of the Union address.
Cheers would.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sotu Is also a live link if you can't access the OP.
Good thing I don't do drinking games, I would be dead after this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Boehner would rather be anywhere else and it looks like Biden can barely stay awake. I think he's reading a kindle.
http://cdn2.mocksession.com/wp-conte.../BIDENFACE.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Quote:
According to a snap CNN/ORC International poll, 44% of respondents had a "very positive" response to Obama's speech, while 32% described a "somewhat positive" response and 22% didn't like it at all.
Last year, 53% of respondents in a similar poll rated their response to the 2013 address as very positive.
Nobama's approval rating is *dropping like a rock* !!Quote:
The CNN/ORC poll indicated 59% of respondents thought Obama's policies as presented in the speech would help the economy, a lower figure than in recent years.
Gotta respect a guy who can say the same things in a different way six years running and people still stand and applaud like he's Elvis. That said, here's the Libertarian response: http://www.lp.org/news/press-release...-union-address
I want to vote for that guy in that article.
Quote:
Nearly an hour before President Obama began delivering the State of the Union address to the joint session of Congress, Rep. Randy Weber kicked off the night with a critique of the speech.
The first term Republican from Texas alluded to the president when he tweeted that he was on the floor waiting for the “socialist dictator” to arrive.
More...
I don't think they should allow phones on the House floor.
And what is "A-Lying"?
You know I was literally just thinking about this so I literally had to post about it in this literal thread.
Obama talked about how income inequality has gotten worse during his presidency in his state of the union speech. Okay now. Okay now wait. Hold up....how is he trying to spin that as if it's not his fault?
Seriously. He talks about something bad happening during his presidency but he's somehow trying to spin this into the Republican's fault. But everything good that is happening is because of him? Shouldn't people be lampooning him because income inequality has gotten worse during his term? He admitted it! But instead Democrats are taking that as a rallying cry.
"Obama said income inequality has gotten worse during his presidency! This is unacceptable, Republicans!"
Can you imagine if Bush had said something like that?
I can see the headlines now:
"Bush admits his presidency is a failure; Rich get Richer and Poor get Poorer."
Income inequality is a new political talking point. Obama's getting out and stumping on this topic. What's he supposed to say? "I've only got 2 years left so, basically it's a wrap. I'm done."Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Cruz mentioned this on CNN last night. He was trying to spin that the the dems are pro billionaire and anti poor people. I just don't think anyone's going to buy this line of reasoning. FOX, Limbaugh and the rest of that herd will try to spin this favorably for the GOP but it's not going to get any traction. It is going to be democrat ammunition for raising tax rates and not repealing that foreign bank account law.
I don't know how it's possible to not have income equality. Our world is not built for a strong middle class and it's getting worse. It's no one's "fault" but we are now able to do a hell of a more with a lot less. Technology's made lots of good jobs irrelevant and we're relying more and more on services with less reliance on manufacturing. We're shuffling money around but creating less things of value. This is why Wal-Mart's our biggest employer.
Probably because there's not an enacted policy of his that you can point to that exacerbated income inequality. Otherwise, you're right, he should've been clobbered for that type of line.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
My brother-in-law insists tow truck drivers have a starting wage of 35 dollars an hour in California. I don't know why everyone doesn't just take the 6 week class to get the license they need then move to California and make 75k a year. It would solve the poverty crises in this country overnight. My brother-in-law is a tow truck driver thinking of moving to California if no one caught on to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Since when do we overlook a president's lack of action when assigning blame? What policy of Bush's can we look to that actually led to the financial crises and high unemployment? I hear Democrats all of the time screaming it was due to the "Failed Bush policies" but does anyone have any specifics?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
I'd wager that the best paid tow truck drivers are incentive based.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Bush tax cuts, War in Iraq. I'll let Fareed explain:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Quote:
“The ‘Bush tax cuts,’ passed in 2001 and 2003, remain the single largest cause of America’s structural deficit — that is, the deficit not caused by the collapse in tax revenue when the economy goes into recession. The Bush administration inherited budget surpluses from the Clinton administration. What turned these into deficits, even before the recession? There were three fundamental new costs: the tax cuts, the Medicare prescription-drug bill and post-9/11 security spending (including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). Of these the tax cuts were by far the largest, adding up to $2.3 trillion over 10 years. According to the Congressional Budget Office, nearly half the cost of all legislation enacted from 2001 to 2007 can be attributed to the tax cuts.” [Zakaria, Washington Post, 8/2/10]
Making 35 dollars an hour?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
That all sound like reasons for our high deficit. The recession is only mentioned twice and neither time does it cite these reasons as the cause of the recession.Quote:
“The ‘Bush tax cuts,’ passed in 2001 and 2003, remain the single largest cause of America’s structural deficit — that is, the deficit not caused by the collapse in tax revenue when the economy goes into recession. The Bush administration inherited budget surpluses from the Clinton administration. What turned these into deficits, even before the recession? There were three fundamental new costs: the tax cuts, the Medicare prescription-drug bill and post-9/11 security spending (including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). Of these the tax cuts were by far the largest, adding up to $2.3 trillion over 10 years. According to the Congressional Budget Office, nearly half the cost of all legislation enacted from 2001 to 2007 can be attributed to the tax cuts.” [Zakaria, Washington Post, 8/2/10]
I also don't understand how a war can lead to a recession and job losses. Likewise I don't understand how tax cuts (which literally gives people more money to spend) leads to a recession and job losses either.
You're asking for failied policies. Greenspan's got a lot of guilt in this one too. Here's another one:
Quote:
From his earliest days in office, Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own homes with his conviction that markets do best when left alone. Bush pushed hard to expand home ownership, especially among minority groups, an initiative that dovetailed with both his ambition to expand Republican appeal and the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.
Bush did foresee the danger posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage finance giants. The president spent years pushing a recalcitrant Congress to toughen regulation of the companies, but was unwilling to compromise when his former Treasury secretary wanted to cut a deal. And the regulator Bush chose to oversee them - an old school buddy - pronounced the companies sound even as they headed toward insolvency.
As early as 2006, top advisers to Bush dismissed warnings from people inside and outside the White House that housing prices were inflated and that a foreclosure crisis was looming. And when the economy deteriorated, Bush and his team misdiagnosed the reasons and scope of the downturn. As recently as February, for example, Bush was still calling it a "rough patch."
I asked for failed Bush policies that led to the recession and high unemployment.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
So we're blaming Bush for his inaction?Quote:
Bush did foresee the danger posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage finance giants. The president spent years pushing a recalcitrant Congress to toughen regulation of the companies, but was unwilling to compromise when his former Treasury secretary wanted to cut a deal.
Good lord, I have never seen people defend a fuck up so much in my life. The one thing I've noticed out of all the political threads I've read here is... The "Republicans" of PC can at least admit Bush did wrong on some aspects and that they themselves are sometimes wrong. The "Democrats" of PC can do no wrong and either can Obama. It's actually rather scary that there is such radical faithfulness to one man (Politically, let's keep it in topic.).
Bush gets blame for a lot of shit, foreign and domestic. He's not worth defending. Why would you? What did he do that was good for the U.S.? His Dad was great. His Presidency started out on a high and ended on a low.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Dude, you've got to be joking. Pull your head out of your ass and read.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Five
I'm not defending Bush. I'm asking for which policy of his actually led to the recession and high unemployment? Remember his lack of policies do not count.
I'm not joking at all actually. Yourself and certain others on here defend him to no end while redirecting any question actually posed at you. You are defending a president that received a broken system and instead of trying to fix it he keeps adding to the broken system. Obama is good for social works but as far as being a economic leader he is a joke. But you'll just redirect me to some link about how bad Bush was.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Don't lump all the democrats based on cwolff's posts. And I think that you're perceiving what you want if you're ignoring that the forum republicans have been equally zealous about following party lines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Five
Oh they are. I'm sure the next republican president to be in office it will surely be a table flip. But just the posts I've read, which probably doesn't contain a majority of the democratic PC base is just crazy. Not one of them will admit Obama is at fault for anything. Unemployment, healthcare.gov, foreign policy...Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirlin
Google'd resultsQuote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
http://www.google.com/publicdata/exp...l=en&ind=false
https://www.google.com/#q=unemployme...es+US&safe=off
I wouldn't say Bush policies specifically... however, we do see a peak when Obama hit office... Considering every republican on the forum basically said he didn't do anything during his first term, I'm not sure if the spike is specific to Obama Policies, or more just as a result of any chance in presidency. As we're seeing an increasingly politically polarized time, I think we will continue to see big peaks associated with governmental changes, regardless of policy.
Taking a look at historical figures, it appears that there are similar peaks within ~1 year of a new administration. When Bush took office, unemployment appears to have been at 4%, but up to 5.9% by the end of his first year. In 1980-1982, we saw a hike from 6% to 10.2%.
Apparently Clinton is an outlier, which didn't seem to have any substantial change as a result of presidency.
You've read posts from a majority of the active board democrats then, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Five
I blame the policies of Milliard Fillmore. Fucking Whig party.
Thank you :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Whirlin
Don't republican up that post. Address all of it!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
If you're willing to accept that Bush's year 0 high unemployment rate is due to the change in presidency, are you willing to accept the hike in year 0 high unemployment for Obama is based on the change rather than any particular policy?
The war directly lead to people buying homes they couldn't afford with money they didn't have to try to make a profit by selling them to some other moron who didn't have money either. Duh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I have no idea. My whole point has been Kembal's assertion that Obama gets a pass on income inequality because none of his policies specifically made it worse. What's good enough for Obama is good enough for Bush.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirlin
Or are you racist and you don't believe black people are equal to whites?
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirlin
Pretty massive hike.
I tried to pull from 2000 but that data was extracted already from the site so I couldn't access it.
I'll accept Obama wasn't at fault for the 2009 unemployment rate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirlin
If you will accept that 2010-2014 is all his fault.
Depends if racists believes that cat avatars are better than dog avatars.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
But, why are you bringing up income inequality when your previous questions/assertions/discussions were about unemployment? Don't Romney the subject on me.
Right... Just like your republican arguments for climate change, take a look as long as labor statistics have been gathered. There have been hikes associated with every change in presidency.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Five
The rate of decrease has been consistent with previous presidents. Bush's peak was 6.1 in May of 2003, He got it to 4.4 in Dec 2006, a reduction of 27.8% over 42ish months.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
If we don't look at the initial peaks, and we take Obama's peak unemployment after year 0 of 9.8% in Nov 10, the latest figures put it at 7.2 in Sept 13, a reduction of 26.5% over ~36 months
They're still marginally similar.
I posted that I found it ironic that Obama admits income inequality has gotten worse during his presidency because you would think that would prove to his supporters what a failure he is but instead his supporters are using that as proof that Republicans are assholes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirlin
Kembal posted that Obama gets a pass on income inequality getting worse during his presidency because (supposedly) none of his policies specifically made income inequality worse.
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.
My point has thus been proven. Thusly.
Thank you and good night.
I'd suggest that Congress is far more to blame than either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
That is an incorrect statement. The average peak of high unemployment only peaks for maybe 2-4 years. Clinton received a huge spike before he even became president and it barely took him a year (after his initial year, since we are giving it to the presidents) to drop it down to reasonable levels.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirlin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
So what is Obama doing then? Can we give him credit for Obamacare or is that because of Congress too? Higher corporate profits; Obama or Congress? War ending in Iraq; Obama, Congress or Bush?Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Five
Obama actively negotiated with industry to make ACA happen. That's him, for good or ill. Higher corporate profits? Corporate America, though both Obama and Bush should probably get some credit for bailouts which no one will give them. War ending in Iraq? Slightly Obama, but he extended the stupidity. I'd say credit America getting tired of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
He doesn't need congress. He just makes it happen, snaps his fingers you now make $10.10 an hour!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Yeah cause Detroit is in great shape right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Chicken Little time. Shockingly enough he's not the first President to use an executive order.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Five
Exactly. Obama actively didn't negotiate to make income inequality better so it's all on him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
My point has thusly been proven again.
I'm on a roll.
This was an actual decent conversation till you came along. OVER AND OUT!
Stop being so mean to Tgo01.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Five
Notably, some parts of the auto industry are doing well. If it has issues I don't think you can blame them on Obama. They're a combination of Corporation/Union problems.
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)Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirlin
No. You're just being silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
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 Warriorbird
Sometimes yes. I think both Clinton and Reagan get credit for things that were boosted by their Congresses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
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
You forgot to drop the mic.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 :/
I was thinking this... but I was really hesitant to even go further back in the metrics/numbers than just Bush's time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
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.
Write your own damn guide!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
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.
Well, I was referring to the U-5 rate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirlin
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?
I am not sure if it counts the 2 trillion jobs he "saved" or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
Did Obama save those jobs or did Congress?
It's when you're fitted from shoulders to waist and bow out from there.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
A recession is not determined by private sector spending alone. It turns out that the rate of government efficiency is higher than the rate of trickle-down follow-through, empirically speaking. This is one of many reasons why supply side economics fail in practice and Keynesian succeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Um, President Bush isn't black...Quote:
Or are you racist and you don't believe black people are equal to whites?
Deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Hey look! Unemployment fell every year of 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. Look guys, when Jarvan's right he's right: Obama has a 100% success rate in lowering unemployment. I for one laud Jarvan for reaching across the aisle on this issue.
It's really funny when you pretend I say partisan stuff when I'm not. You can't stop though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
When every President since Reagan took office you mean? You guys need your own MoveOn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
BREAKING NEWS!!!!
Thread: State of the Union 2014
go fuck yourself. I'm a dem and certainly can and do admit that he's made mistakes. way to make a gross generalization.
Put a frame around it.
Unsigned rep admitting he/she thinks Obama has made mistakes. Gotta love it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Five
I tend to think most unsigned rep is a product of a few trolls that don't belong to either party. Most of us don't have any trouble being obviously impolite to each other.
I admit that the rate has gone down at a steady pace. Then again, it's hard to not go down when it's so fucking high. His "Shovel Ready Jobs" didn't do shit for it though. Actually, it wasn't until Repubs took the house that we saw the sharpest decline. So once again, it's all due to the Republicans. It's their fault the Unemployment rate has gone down, those Bastards!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
I'm speaking to the seasonally adjusted numbers being calculated annually in the past, changed to monthly since about mid-Obama first term, and the labor department not releasing the revised figures until the next year. Or that the BLS adds 50k jobs each month to the report and has since the 90's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
Tell that to Hoover.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
What happened to 2010-14 is all his fault?Quote:
His "Shovel Ready Jobs" didn't do shit for it though. Actually, it wasn't until Repubs took the house that we saw the sharpest decline. So once again, it's all due to the Republicans. It's their fault the Unemployment rate has gone down, those Bastards!!!
I can't speak to what values you saw, but unemployment by month is available as far back as 1948.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
You're viewing this forum through Red colored glasses and maybe you're haven't been keeping up on the Politics folder. I don't often link back to Bush but I'll certainly point out his fuck ups if it's germain to the discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Five
I will defend Obama. I like the things he's done. I voted for him twice and I hope we elect a democrat in the next cycle. I'm a big fan of ACA and I want it to succeed then eventually be replaced by a single payer system. I'm pissed that the ACA rollout was such a fuck up. I'm glad we're out of Iraq. Glad that our economy is improving and I'm pleased with the way he handled Syria.
Conversly I'm disgusted with what passes for "conservatism" these days. The GOP's in utter disarray, their message is extreme and they still think they represent the "norm" or the center. All in all, Obama's doing a good job and the GOP has no real bones to pick. If they did they'd be longer on substance and shorter on Benghazi, 40+ votes to repeal ACA, this red herring about "imperialist president", Gov't shutdowns and the Tea Party. My posts will reflect these beliefs. Don't confuse that with slavish devotion.
Rarely is a direct question posted to me. Most are statements with a ? at the end followed by a challenge like "Then how do you answer that!" They are almost never directly related to the topic at hand and are typically just an ad hominem attack or a straw man argument. These do not deserve recognition much less a response.
If you have felt slighted by me not responding directly to honest questions that you've posed to me, then I apologize and will look for your posts more closely. If any of these oversights have been especially egregious feel free to PM me with the links so I can go back and make sure you get the answers you were looking for.
Maybe you should take off the Blue colored glasses then?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
So.. questions you don't like are an attack, or a strawman argument. Got ya.
On a side note....
Yep Iraq was ALL Obama. He also single-handedly won the war by himself, captured Hussein and tore down that statue.Quote:
"The withdrawal of American military forces from Iraq began in June 2009 and was completed by December 2011, bringing an end to the Iraq War.
The withdrawal of American military forces from Iraq was a contentious issue in the United States for much of the 2000s. As the war progressed from its initial invasion phase in 2003 to a nearly decade-long occupation, American public opinion shifted towards favoring a troop withdrawal; in May 2007, 55% of Americans believed that the Iraq War was a mistake, and 51% of registered voters favored troop withdrawal.[8] In late April 2007 Congress passed a supplementary spending bill for Iraq that set a deadline for troop withdrawal but President Bush vetoed this bill soon afterwards.[9][10] All American military forces were mandated to withdraw from Iraqi territory by 31 December 2011 under the terms of a bilateral agreement signed in 2008 by President Bush. The last U.S. troops left Iraq on 18 December 2011.[1]"
This isn't a tit for tat. There aren't always two legitimate sides to the debate. That's like giving equal time to the theory of intelligent design because the big bang is just a "theory" too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Post legit questions and you'll get legit answers.
I wear purple colored glasses.
Bronco colors are orange and navy, actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Are you back on your meds yet or still trying to order the new black and white furniture?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Nope, sorry, you fail.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
If I was a republican, and looked at everything thru red colored glasses, and you are a dem and tell me I am wrong because of it. Then you are guilty of looking thru blue colored glasses. The fact that you think Obama is doing a great job proves it.
Broncos suck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
That's why OJ didn't get away. Fucker should have used an Escape.
You're in too deep. Even if he said something bipartisan you wouldn't be able to comprehend it and you'd just claim he didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
That's what I'm talking about. Most responses are some sort of fallacy. Good example brother. Thanks for posting that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
+1 to Jarvan. This made me laugh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Financial crises -> Picking appointees that didn't pay attention and regulate the financial systemQuote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
High unemployment -> I actually don't blame Bush directly on this, though not regulating the financial system is the proximate cause.
That would be blaming Bush administration's lack of action, not their action.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
Again, we're assigning blame for Bush's inaction. Why don't we extend Obama the same courtesy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
It's because he's black, isn't it?
This is a fascinating argument. It's akin to asking a judge for more lenient sentencing because the defendant stopped stabbing the victim.Quote:
On a side note....
Yep Iraq was ALL Obama. He also single-handedly won the war by himself, captured Hussein and tore down that statue.Quote:
"The withdrawal of American military forces from Iraq began in June 2009 and was completed by December 2011, bringing an end to the Iraq War.
The withdrawal of American military forces from Iraq was a contentious issue in the United States for much of the 2000s. As the war progressed from its initial invasion phase in 2003 to a nearly decade-long occupation, American public opinion shifted towards favoring a troop withdrawal; in May 2007, 55% of Americans believed that the Iraq War was a mistake, and 51% of registered voters favored troop withdrawal.[8] In late April 2007 Congress passed a supplementary spending bill for Iraq that set a deadline for troop withdrawal but President Bush vetoed this bill soon afterwards.[9][10] All American military forces were mandated to withdraw from Iraqi territory by 31 December 2011 under the terms of a bilateral agreement signed in 2008 by President Bush. The last U.S. troops left Iraq on 18 December 2011.[1]"
I still don't understand this argument TG. Yes, Presidents get blamed for lack of action.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I am blaming him for action though. I'm blaming Bush for pushing home ownership for everyone which is 1 reason why we had the mortgage collapse as part of the "great recession".
That's been my whole point. Kembal thinks Obama should get a pass on income inequality going up during his presidency because none of Obama's enacted policies (supposedly) made it worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I see what you're saying now. Truthfully I don't even know how much credit a President deserves. More and more I think they should be judged on how little they fuck up compared to how much they do. That's one reason I really like GHW Bush. Of course I like Obama too and no one can claim that ACA isn't a BIG thing which means it has big potential to go bad. Mostly I think the 1st responsibility of the President is "Do No Harm".Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Feel free to blame the President for bad shit during his term, but if we do then we have to be willing to credit him for the good stuff too.
True story. My point is more along the lines that the press (liberal or otherwise) really only has an attention span of right now... and by recalculating the seasonal adjustments every month it allows for skewed numbers to be published, and when the real (typically higher) numbers are restated, no one cares.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Nevermind that the unemployment percentage is based only on those who've actively tried to find a job in the last 4 weeks I think, and if you haven't tried you don't count in the numerator or the denominator. So technically, the more people you can get to give up, the better your unemployment rate looks.
How do they capture this information? Polling? Telephone/online interviews?Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
Who is counted as unemployed?
Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work. Actively looking for work may consist of any of the following activities:
Contacting:
An employer directly or having a job interview
A public or private employment agency
Friends or relatives
A school or university employment center
Sending out resumes or filling out applications
Placing or answering advertisements
Checking union or professional registers
Some other means of active job search
Passive methods of job search do not have the potential to result in a job offer and therefore do not qualify as active job search methods. Examples of passive methods include attending a job training program or course, or merely reading about job openings that are posted in newspapers or on the Internet.
Workers expecting to be recalled from temporary layoff are counted as unemployed, whether or not they have engaged in a specific jobseeking activity. In all other cases, the individual must have been engaged in at least one active job search activity in the 4 weeks preceding the interview and be available for work (except for temporary illness).
It's a small sample, like 50-100k IIRC, through interviews and I'm not sure the method. It's been years since I read up on it beyond a cursory interest and old government/political classes, but again IIRC they extrapolate that out for the analysis. Since the sample is so small, restating the seasonal adjustments allows for huge swings month to month, which has a big impact when you are say... leading up into an election, and the restated numbers will be after the election. I'll be the first to tell you that I frankly think that's a bit of a stretch and conspiracy theory sounding.
It doesn't affect my opinion that the number published monthly is bullshit though.