State of the Union 2014

[Kembal]

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?

Financial crises -> Picking appointees that didn't pay attention and regulate the financial system
High unemployment -> I actually don't blame Bush directly on this, though not regulating the financial system is the proximate cause.

[Tgo01]

Financial crises -> Picking appointees that didn't pay attention and regulate the financial system

That would be blaming Bush administration's lack of action, not their action.

High unemployment -> I actually don't blame Bush directly on this, though not regulating the financial system is the proximate cause.

Again, we're assigning blame for Bush's inaction. Why don't we extend Obama the same courtesy?

It's because he's black, isn't it?

[cwolff]

On a side note....

"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]"

Yep Iraq was ALL Obama. He also single-handedly won the war by himself, captured Hussein and tore down that statue.

This is a fascinating argument. It's akin to asking a judge for more lenient sentencing because the defendant stopped stabbing the victim.

[cwolff]

That would be blaming Bush administration's lack of action, not their action.

Again, we're assigning blame for Bush's inaction. Why don't we extend Obama the same courtesy?

I still don't understand this argument TG. Yes, Presidents get blamed for lack of action.

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".

[Tgo01]

Yes, Presidents get blamed for lack of action.

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.

[cwolff]

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) specifically made it worse.

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".

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.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I can't speak to what values you saw, but unemployment by month is available as far back as 1948.

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.

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.

[cwolff]

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.

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?

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).

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

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.