GOP's Lost ObamaCare Rage

reply to post by longlostbrother


Would you care to elaborate or is a one line insult the extent of your comment on this?

Has ATS really reached a low where we cannot HAVE political discussion without personal animosity and viciousness coming into everything, all the time? I didn't make this personal..and rarely, if EVER do. On anything. Is it too much to ask that staying above the personal be returned as a baseline to start from here?

Perhaps on political topics right now, it is.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

Would you care to elaborate or is a one line insult the extent of your comment on this?

Has ATS really reached a low where we cannot HAVE political discussion without personal animosity and viciousness coming into everything, all the time? I didn't make this personal..and rarely, if EVER do. On anything. Is it too much to ask that staying above the personal be returned as a baseline to start from here?

Perhaps on political topics right now, it is.

It wasn't an insult.

I have read many of your posts and while I often think your opinions are nutso I've never had a hard time comprehending you. Until now.

I literally couldn't make out half of that.

Thus the question.

I'd apologize, but there's a decent enough chance that you're just being overly dramatic.

reply to post by longlostbrother

Ahh.. Well, I can make it much simpler then, just not quite as tactful.

Obama is among the very worst Presidents the nation has ever seen, bar none and this goes back to Washington himself. He's tripled annual deficits to bring over 30% more to the national debt then he found when he arrived in 2008. Projections are the stuff of fiscal nightmares and that is by THEIR OWN "good" estimates.

Combined, the man has doomed me, my children and my children's children to financial ruin on a national level without a remuneration or redemonination of the currency. As interesting as those terms may be, the reality is WORSE than the crisis that requires it when it usually comes to that. ...and it will almost certainly HAVE to come to that now. Thank You Mr. President.

The accountants, as the post I was replying to mentioned, tell the tale because the sheer complexity of how doom comes here damn near DOES require a degree in accounting to delve into and fully see. The media fails but who ought to be surprised? They care as much as one 7 second sound byte or 7 minute segment requires them to and probably can't recite the facts they DO tell us...a couple hours later.


Obamacare IS core to that doom, as it happens, because as bad as 1.5 TRILLION DOLLAR yearly shortfalls have been for all 4 years of his Presidency, the next years require far MORE to come in money.......his budgets show it...to 5+ trillion base line federal budgets within a few years. It just comes from taxes in Obamaland going forward, instead of outright debt. Jan. 1 and "Taxmegeddon" starts that radical shift from DEBT to TAX base spending.....as the budget spells out. Personally, I think it's going from bad to worse.....

.....and for the record, I don't see Romney applauding and almost being happy about what January is about to do to this nation. In fact, he's been reported as asking Obama to *STOP* doing harmful things like QE-3 until after the election at least determines who has the right to do this level of insane damage.


Now, Romney MAY BE just as bad. MAY BE worse in fact... Who knows. I'm betting on a hair better than the same 'ol and the difference to survive nationally to 2016. Either way though, and regardless...

Re-electing Obama is REWARDING THE MAN for being one of the WORST President's in pure numbers, if nothing else, we've ever had. Being the SECOND worst to Bush doesn't make him any BETTER...or deserve 4 more years of the 'high life' and White House parties any more.

Ahh... Hence... If Obama wins this election, the nation truly has lost it's mind and it's gone for good. We'll have chosen what amounts to one of two with little or no difference...BUT we'll have rewarded the flaming incompetence of the last 4 (and 8 before that) years. That *IS* changed by which one wins.

* Oh...and as an added note, I stopped drinking anything stronger than 5hr Energy drinks a couple years ago. it's a sore subject. Kinda like Obama winning a second time.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Exactly what bad has come to you and your children as a result of Obama's policies.
EXACTLY.
Can you spell any of them out?
Can you do it factually?

I keep hearing people like you cry and the best you can usually do is some nonsense that either never happened to anyone or will never apply to you.

reply to post by wascurious

Okay, fair enough... We'll just start with being unemployed myself since November of 2010. Now there are a lot of reasons for that, but the underlying one certainly has been NO JOBS. There are always SOME jobs for SOME people naturally. Why, you always have fast food and contrary to concepts of age blind society, they do aim for Teens and younger students....for good reasons. Qualified jobs always exist too, and largely DUE to the unemployment nightmare we live in today, I'm back in College for that very reason. Although, picking up part time work even while in school has so far been quite a challenge and for all, not just myself. Placement rates, as a decent indicator are way down. If it weren't for Sallie Mae as a roommate, many of us would be in the cardboard box crowd. Just what does one do? We can't PRINT money as citizens...it must be so nice for those who CAN.

Lest anyone think I'm just fun'in or making anything up though, the Bureau of Labor Stats is the Government agency whose whole job in life is to track things, make sense of data and pump out reports and numbers......do they say I'm imagining the Obama years being hard?



Nope... I'd say a real serious and major change came right around Xmas of 2009. Hmm.. What could that have.....Oh, nvm. The folks at the BLS have more to add on why it HURTS in Obamaland.

These data show that the median length of time an unemployed person searched before finding a job increased sharply between 2007 and 2010, from 5.2 to 10.4 weeks; in 2011, it edged down to 10.0 weeks. Unemployed individuals looked much longer for work in 2011, compared with 2007, before giving up and leaving the labor force, 21.4 weeks versus 8.7 weeks, respectively.

Source

Or we can go by Obama's BLS Dept's new and handy way of looking at the numbers. I'm not sure why they came up with this, now of all times because it does them absolutely no favors. Perhaps we can just hope it means at least one area of Government isn't lost to the politics. However, the following link is downright instructive by their new system:

Alternative Measures of Labor Underutilization for States

Those numbers DO count the people who gave up looking, took jobs far below the basic needs to live by lack of any other choices and the like. The U-3 number is the main one used for years and always seen on TV. The U-4 number is the number unemployed estimated to include those who gave up. U-5 and U-6 are variations of looking at under-employed along with the rest.

So...What has Obama done to hurt me? Well, focus on *ANYTHING* other than fixing an economy Bush helped break and he's now FINISHED BREAKING has insured I will have to be twice as good and work twice as hard to get any work at all....with a competition pool that sees 10's of thousands apply at job fairs with mere hundreds of openings.

Right now, if it meant Obama being fired for the job he's done on us? I'd elect Howdy Doody and call him Sir. Romney will do just fine for a start.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


So it's Obama's fault you don't have a job? You must be one of those personal responsibility republicans.

reply to post by DarkKnight76

Hmmm.... I did note, there were a lot of reasons for it, didn't I? I absolutely noted...It's not just me but reflected in placement rates and jobless rates nationwide.

That absolutely IS Obama's fault, just as much as the run up and final pop of the Real Estate market blowing to pieces was Bush's baby. That one started under Clinton, but Bush was holding it well into his term. His Baby. it works on both sides.

If unemployment had generally been crappy all through the years prior to Obama coming to power and "fundamentally transforming America" as he said after the election in '08, then my point would be entirely unfair and cherry picking statistics, However, they aren't my statistics here and I showed them as far back as that page on the BLS site goes. 2002. That shows quite clearly that the unemployment as a national crisis has, indeed, been Presidential related in timing if not caused by policies.

Kinda like....Bush inherited a comfy budget surplus per year....and left with a half a trillion in deficit. BAD Bush.

Now ....Obama closes his first term with a number pushing hard on 1.5 Trillion in deficit. BAD Obama.

Bad Romney? Who knows....but the last two sure don't deserve the respect even having an opinion ought to bring. They both did everything to make this mess happen. Time for some of that change The One keeps talking about, while playing like he wasn't the system himself for the last 4 years.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

Ahh.. Well, I can make it much simpler then, just not quite as tactful.

Obama is among the very worst Presidents the nation has ever seen, bar none and this goes back to Washington himself. He's tripled annual deficits to bring over 30% more to the national debt then he found when he arrived in 2008. Projections are the stuff of fiscal nightmares and that is by THEIR OWN "good" estimates.

Combined, the man has doomed me, my children and my children's children to financial ruin on a national level without a remuneration or redemonination of the currency. As interesting as those terms may be, the reality is WORSE than the crisis that requires it when it usually comes to that. ...and it will almost certainly HAVE to come to that now. Thank You Mr. President.

The accountants, as the post I was replying to mentioned, tell the tale because the sheer complexity of how doom comes here damn near DOES require a degree in accounting to delve into and fully see. The media fails but who ought to be surprised? They care as much as one 7 second sound byte or 7 minute segment requires them to and probably can't recite the facts they DO tell us...a couple hours later.


Obamacare IS core to that doom, as it happens, because as bad as 1.5 TRILLION DOLLAR yearly shortfalls have been for all 4 years of his Presidency, the next years require far MORE to come in money.......his budgets show it...to 5+ trillion base line federal budgets within a few years. It just comes from taxes in Obamaland going forward, instead of outright debt. Jan. 1 and "Taxmegeddon" starts that radical shift from DEBT to TAX base spending.....as the budget spells out. Personally, I think it's going from bad to worse.....

.....and for the record, I don't see Romney applauding and almost being happy about what January is about to do to this nation. In fact, he's been reported as asking Obama to *STOP* doing harmful things like QE-3 until after the election at least determines who has the right to do this level of insane damage.


Now, Romney MAY BE just as bad. MAY BE worse in fact... Who knows. I'm betting on a hair better than the same 'ol and the difference to survive nationally to 2016. Either way though, and regardless...

Re-electing Obama is REWARDING THE MAN for being one of the WORST President's in pure numbers, if nothing else, we've ever had. Being the SECOND worst to Bush doesn't make him any BETTER...or deserve 4 more years of the 'high life' and White House parties any more.

Ahh... Hence... If Obama wins this election, the nation truly has lost it's mind and it's gone for good. We'll have chosen what amounts to one of two with little or no difference...BUT we'll have rewarded the flaming incompetence of the last 4 (and 8 before that) years. That *IS* changed by which one wins.

* Oh...and as an added note, I stopped drinking anything stronger than 5hr Energy drinks a couple years ago. it's a sore subject. Kinda like Obama winning a second time.

edit on 29-9-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: added note

This is more like it: lucid and misinformed...

The change in the National Debt, in the last 10 years is down, mostly to a few main factors:

$3.5 trillion – Economic changes (including lower than expected tax revenues and higher safety net spending due to recession)
$1.6 trillion – Bush Tax Cuts (EGTRRA and JGTRRA), primarily tax cuts but also some smaller spending increases
$1.5 trillion - Increased non-defense discretionary spending
$1.4 trillion – Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
$1.4 trillion - Incremental interest due to higher debt balances
$0.9 trillion - Obama stimulus and tax cuts (ARRA and Tax Act of 2010)

Now if you go here:

www.cbo.gov...

You see several of your irrational fears debunked.

If you however listen to Mitt Romney, who has REPEATEDLY lied about the state of the economy, you continue to stay uninformed.

As for him being the worst President since Adam and Eve, tell me, if the financial crisis, under the Republicans and the two wars launched, under the Republicans, hadn't happened before Obama, where would the deficit be? You know, no economic bailouts, no wars, where would we be financially?

As for your whole hair-brained belief that ROMNEY should be rewarded for Obama not getting us out of the huge problems Bush created, eight years worth, including the worst financial collapse in decades, in about three years, in two budgets, that's ludicrous. He's only had one real budget where his political opponents weren't declaring that THEY'D destroy the governement if he didn't do what they wanted, and on top of that, they have REPEATEDLY said, publicly, that they're out to destroy him politically, damn the cost to the country.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by wascurious

 

Okay, fair enough... We'll just start with being unemployed myself since November of 2010. Now there are a lot of reasons for that, but the underlying one certainly has been NO JOBS. There are always SOME jobs for SOME people naturally. Why, you always have fast food and contrary to concepts of age blind society, they do aim for Teens and younger students....for good reasons. Qualified jobs always exist too, and largely DUE to the unemployment nightmare we live in today, I'm back in College for that very reason. Although, picking up part time work even while in school has so far been quite a challenge and for all, not just myself. Placement rates, as a decent indicator are way down. If it weren't for Sallie Mae as a roommate, many of us would be in the cardboard box crowd. Just what does one do? We can't PRINT money as citizens...it must be so nice for those who CAN.

Lest anyone think I'm just fun'in or making anything up though, the Bureau of Labor Stats is the Government agency whose whole job in life is to track things, make sense of data and pump out reports and numbers......do they say I'm imagining the Obama years being hard?

Nope... I'd say a real serious and major change came right around Xmas of 2009. Hmm.. What could that have.....Oh, nvm. The folks at the BLS have more to add on why it HURTS in Obamaland.

These data show that the median length of time an unemployed person searched before finding a job increased sharply between 2007 and 2010, from 5.2 to 10.4 weeks; in 2011, it edged down to 10.0 weeks. Unemployed individuals looked much longer for work in 2011, compared with 2007, before giving up and leaving the labor force, 21.4 weeks versus 8.7 weeks, respectively.

Source

Or we can go by Obama's BLS Dept's new and handy way of looking at the numbers. I'm not sure why they came up with this, now of all times because it does them absolutely no favors. Perhaps we can just hope it means at least one area of Government isn't lost to the politics. However, the following link is downright instructive by their new system:

Alternative Measures of Labor Underutilization for States

Those numbers DO count the people who gave up looking, took jobs far below the basic needs to live by lack of any other choices and the like. The U-3 number is the main one used for years and always seen on TV. The U-4 number is the number unemployed estimated to include those who gave up. U-5 and U-6 are variations of looking at under-employed along with the rest.

So...What has Obama done to hurt me? Well, focus on *ANYTHING* other than fixing an economy Bush helped break and he's now FINISHED BREAKING has insured I will have to be twice as good and work twice as hard to get any work at all....with a competition pool that sees 10's of thousands apply at job fairs with mere hundreds of openings.

Right now, if it meant Obama being fired for the job he's done on us? I'd elect Howdy Doody and call him Sir. Romney will do just fine for a start.

your own graph shows that they are almost exactly the same as when he took office??

And btw: where's that chart from? Let's see the source of that as I suspect that you've edited it in the most dodgy way possible.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by DarkKnight76

 

Hmmm.... I did note, there were a lot of reasons for it, didn't I? I absolutely noted...It's not just me but reflected in placement rates and jobless rates nationwide.

That absolutely IS Obama's fault, just as much as the run up and final pop of the Real Estate market blowing to pieces was Bush's baby. That one started under Clinton, but Bush was holding it well into his term. His Baby. it works on both sides.

If unemployment had generally been crappy all through the years prior to Obama coming to power and "fundamentally transforming America" as he said after the election in '08, then my point would be entirely unfair and cherry picking statistics, However, they aren't my statistics here and I showed them as far back as that page on the BLS site goes. 2002. That shows quite clearly that the unemployment as a national crisis has, indeed, been Presidential related in timing if not caused by policies.

Kinda like....Bush inherited a comfy budget surplus per year....and left with a half a trillion in deficit. BAD Bush.

Now ....Obama closes his first term with a number pushing hard on 1.5 Trillion in deficit. BAD Obama.

Bad Romney? Who knows....but the last two sure don't deserve the respect even having an opinion ought to bring. They both did everything to make this mess happen. Time for some of that change The One keeps talking about, while playing like he wasn't the system himself for the last 4 years.

Sorry but no.

The Unemployment rate was 11% in 1982. In December of 1979 it was 6%. The vast majority of people on the right say that the 5% jump was in fact Carter's fault. I assume you disagree, yes?

Under Reagan the debt went from 40 Billion to 152 Billion (350%+).

Reagan also, if you remember, engaged in illegal wars, yes? Just like Romney saying he'll turn a blind eye to torture, just like Bush, even though Obama has declared torture illegal - Romney plans to reverse that.

Romney wants to bring back Reaganonics. And he, unlike Obama, has strongly signalled he'll be Israel's lapdog in an Iranian war. How much will that cost?

The CBO is projecting that, primarily, a rise in employment and a falling deficit (go read that cbo link). The auto industry was saved by Obama's spending (and the majority of that bailout money has already been repaid.

But no, let's return to the Regan years: spiralling debt, on the back of the poor, illegal wars and an enshrining of the class system. Perfect solution.

reply to post by longlostbrother

As for him being the worst President since Adam and Eve, tell me, if the financial crisis, under the Republicans and the two wars launched, under the Republicans, hadn't happened before Obama, where would the deficit be? You know, no economic bailouts, no wars, where would we be financially?

Well, where would Obama be, indeed? Bush left him with -458 Billion in deficit when he came into Office. He walked into one war well into the winding down phase so lets drop the nonsense about war spending.

The worst of the war spending that came under Bush ran budget deficits we screamed about at -377 Billion in 2003 and -412 Billion in 2004. The height of the build up in expenses and initial fighting of the Iraq War.

In fact, TOTAL spending as of 2010 for Iraq as a combined total came to 715 Billion Dollars. HALF of Obama's 1st year, single year deficit. Total spending for Afghanistan as of 2010 was estimated at 297 billion. The TWO WARS TOGETHER come, in TOTAL COST, well under Obama's first year budget deficit of -1.412 * TRILLION *.

Military has nothing to do with this and it's a red herring to keep throwing it out there.

The WHOLE WAR EFFORT could have been paid with some bonus money to the troops in JUST what Obama WENT OVER the budget in 2009 alone, as noted there. He ran -1.2, -1.2 and -1.326 TRILLION in deficits in 2010, 2011 and projected to close out 2012 respectively. It's fiscal madness and I don't care what party he is. He's out of control. Totally.

He's allowed his whole Government to run out of control as the GAO spending scandals....the guys IN CHARGE OF FINDING WASTE AND FRAUD...show like nothing else CAN.

This is the Federal Debt vs.Budget chart I put together.

This is the Military chart I put together.

both of them are a part of the thread linked in my signature. All of it is sourced to an extreme and listed across two posts on Page 2 of that thread. I spent weeks in the numbers of the Congressional Budget Office, White House, General Accounting Office and of course...Obama's own Fiscal Year 2013 budget proposal, line by bloody line, many times over. I'm real familiar with the CBO figures.....my thread down there is largely based on data they produced.

As for your whole hair-brained belief that ROMNEY should be rewarded for Obama not getting us out of the huge problems Bush created, eight years worth, including the worst financial collapse in decades, in about three years, in two budgets, that's ludicrous.

If there is an award for taking a statement out of context around here, you get it there. It's amazing you'd do it so blatantly. I'm a little stunned by that. I said:

Re-electing Obama is REWARDING THE MAN for being one of the WORST President's in pure numbers, if nothing else, we've ever had.

How you got that to mean I wish to see Romney rewarded is one of those twists of logic I occasionally see that are just too sharp for me to follow.

I'd jump right now on another choice for a viable candidate. I wish Hillary had turned and ran. I think she'd have won and would have had my support over Romney, to be honest. I don't care who saying that pisses off....her husband made the budget work and maybe she can too. Obama couldn't balance a checkbook, and it shows.

What part of the last 4 years am I supposed to WANT to see repeated, anyway? It's been Bush's THIRD term with a warped version of socialism thrown in for spice.

He's only had one real budget where his political opponents weren't declaring that THEY'D destroy the government if he didn't do what they wanted, and on top of that, they have REPEATEDLY said, publicly, that they're out to destroy him politically, damn the cost to the country.

Well, Actually, HE has never passed a thing for a budget. The NATION hasn't had a budget since Obama passed BUSH's last carry-over budget in 2009. They've been deem/pass spending bills and stop-gap measures run back to back to back, ever since. We're actually in one of, if not the longest periods WITHOUT an official and complete legal federal budget in U.S. History...but lets not let facts get in the way. You figure I don't have any...and must just make this all up as I go.

Page two of my budget thread...it's sourced MAJORITY into U.S. Government sources for their OWN numbers....that is what I draw from. If they don't KNOW their OWN numbers well enough, they need FIRED on that basis ALONE.

your own graph shows that they are almost exactly the same as when he took office??

And btw: where's that chart from? Let's see the source of that as I suspect that you've edited it in the most dodgy way possible.

Integrity may mean little and honorable action may be a funny joke to many. I'm not among them and that was insulting beyond all call here. You owe an apology as far as I'm concerned. No one has yet to show a place where I've so much as corrected/edited a post and changed factual meaning in the process without noting it.

Now, I told everyone in the post you misread, precisely where that chart came from. It is a piece taken from a larger chart at THIS location:

Bureau of Labor Statistics - National Unemployment Figures

I find it sad when members can't even take a piece, say outright where it came from and let that stand for what it shows without being implied fabricators. This is getting totally out of hand around here.

In terms of not showing a difference? How do you figure it shows no difference?? Here is the full and complete chart as produced by the United States Bureau Of Labor Statistics at the above cited link.



As anyone can see here, the Unemployment has some ups and downs under Bush...and gets into that 6 range. That got a bit scary...then settles back down and generally remained in the 4-5% range for his Presidency. It starts a steady and regular rise as the final stretch to Obama's election comes, the breaks the 6.5 on the way up as he's elected. It has then remained in the 8.1-9.9 range ever since.

I didn't say he had the worst unemployment ever..I know Mr Peanut set up a catastrophe that Reagan was digging out of for a year or so...I said Obama was the worst PRESIDENT overall. Unemployment is but one factor to figure, although the more you've given me reason to dig, the more it shows how loudly that one statistic alone screams, actually. Nothing quite says it as loud as near 1.5 trillion ....TRILLION...dollar deficits every single year of his whole 4...never done before, or even close..and I pray, when he's gone, never done again. It's DOOM in 72pt script on page one headlines.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Sorry, but the Iraq war cost 280 Billion a year, even while "winding down"

The idea that you'd casually throw out 1 trillion plus in debt, as unimportant, underscores how much your REAL goal in these discussions is POLITICAL.

On top of that, it's BS:

Indirect and delayed costs

According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money. The CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq, or $6,300 per U.S. citizen.

en.wikipedia.org...

So that's 2.4 Trillion dollars you think is... what were your words again - "a red herring". Yeah, 2.4 Trillion dollars is a red herring, when discussing the US deficit. You should put that on a bumpersticker and stick it next to your Romney/Ryan one...

Oh and that's just Iraq.

Add in Afghanistan and guess what:

The final bill will run at least $3.7 trillion and could reach as high as $4.4 trillion, according to the research project "Costs of War" by Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies.

www.reuters.com...

That makes war spending, started under Bush, to be over 25% of the TOTAL deficit.

On top of that, the MAIN cost in US spending, by far, is "security and defence" which in 2011 was over 50% of the budget... but yeah, it's not the military - no it's...it's ... Obamacare?

As for Obamacare, the latest projections say that Obamacare will reduce, that's right, REDUCE the deficit by over 100 billion in 10 years.

www.forbes.com...

Bush spending, in Billions:

Bush:$612.8-billion = Iraq War Direct Spending ($190/year)
Bush:$312.9-billion = Iraq War Indirect Spending ($98/year)
Bush:$724.5-billion = Bush Recession Caused Drop in taxes ($227/year)
Bush:$194-billion = Bush Medicare Part-D (Drug)($60.8/yr)
Bush:$175.2-billion = Bush Meicare Advantage ($54.9/yr)
Bush:$954.3-billion = Bush Tax Cuts ($299/yr)
Bush:$1,366-billion = Interest on Bush Debt ($428/yr)
Bush:$89.3-billion = 2005 Energy Policy Act Coal/Oil/Nuke subsides ($28/yr)

The CBO said (in 2010) that if we let the Bush tax cuts expire the budget would be balanced by 2014.

In fact:

"Based on figures from the CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation, federal taxes would increase by a total of $423 billion in 2013, if the tax cuts are allowed to expire."

en.wikipedia.org...

On top of that, the Obama policies in 2008 actually LOWERED the defecit:

An analysis from the Office of Management of Budget pointed out that the deficit is "roughly 24% lower for the year than when the budget first set the forecast for 2009, a fact due largely to the economic stabilization and recovery."

content.usatoday.com...

Love your BS military chart btw... [rolls eyes]

If you put in the ACTUAL cost of Iraq and Afghanistan it's actually more than that of WW2... but sure... have fun spreading your propaganda.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


You know the last Bush budget ended in Sept 2009, when the unemploment rate was at 9.8%...? Yes?

And since Obama has started passing budgets it has fallen from 9.8% to 8.1%.

Under Bush it went from 4.0% to almost 10%.

Under Obama it's dropped.

www.nidataplus.com...

as for "telling everyone where the data came from" - you didn't link it though did you? And in your original version it looked like unemployment went from 5% in 2008 to almost 8% in 2009...

however, when you include all the data, you see the majority of that increase came under Bush, in fact in 2008 (Bush) the unemployment rate leapt from 5% to 7.3%...

Now if you want to pretend that Obama was somehow in charge of the budget for most of 2009 (he wasn't, but let's pretend), the ACTUAL rise from Jan 2009 to now is 0.3%.

From 2001 - 2004 it went up 1.5%.




Oh and one last thing:

The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has estimated that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, together with the Bush tax cuts, will account for almost half of the projected $20 trillion debt in 2019.

10 trillion in debt caused by Bush policies... Ah yeah, but Obama destroyed America...

www.usnews.com...

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

Ahh.. Well, I can make it much simpler then, just not quite as tactful.

Obama is among the very worst Presidents the nation has ever seen, bar none and this goes back to Washington himself. He's tripled annual deficits to bring over 30% more to the national debt then he found when he arrived in 2008. Projections are the stuff of fiscal nightmares and that is by THEIR OWN "good" estimates.

If you are a good faith intellectual, how does Ronald Reagan rate having increased the national debt
180%?

Would this factoid not make him 6 times worse than Obama? Or 3 times, if you compare a 4 year
term to an 8 year term?

Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

You know the last Bush budget ended in Sept 2009, when the unemploment rate was at 9.8%...? Yes?

And since Obama has started passing budgets it has fallen from 9.8% to 8.1%.

Under Bush it went from 4.0% to almost 10%.

Under Obama it's dropped.

You mean Bush's economic policies were worse than Obama's

Originally posted by campanionator

Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

You know the last Bush budget ended in Sept 2009, when the unemploment rate was at 9.8%...? Yes?

And since Obama has started passing budgets it has fallen from 9.8% to 8.1%.

Under Bush it went from 4.0% to almost 10%.

Under Obama it's dropped.

You mean Bush's economic policies were worse than Obama's

A little bit.

Bush was Regan bad. Illegal wars funded by massive debt, huge and crippling tax cuts for the wealthy.

And let's not forget the 20B Reagan funnelled to the Taliban...

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by longlostbrother

Okay, now we've crossed into falsehood, and I'm leaving that there, because I'm not biting any further into your need to make this personal. The facts speak for themselves, they speak clearly, and if you'd take the time to do more than quote Wikipedia (Good god...you actually used it twice ) You'd see the numbers in my "silly chart" aren't my numbers at all. They come from the Congressional Budget Office Report :Costs of Major U.S. Wars, Dated June, 29 of 2010.

CBO Report of Costs of United States Military Engagements 1775-2011

In that report, and on page 2, you will find a breakdown of the costs of Major United States Military Engagements clear back to the Revolutionary war in 1775. 715 Billion was, at the time of that report, the accumulative cost of the Iraq war. 297 Billion was, as of that report, the cost of Afghanistan. Combined totals, as they state it are : 1,046 billion in 2010 and estimated at 1.147 in Fiscal 2011.

By the way, according to that same report and for the record...in ADJUSTED DOLLARS to match dollar for dollar in an even comparison of cost, the total combined cost for World War II, for the United States was $4.104 Billion Dollars.

As of that report, the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan combined had just crossed over 1/4 of the cost of World War II. Facts are important. Verifying them is absolutely critical. It does take work to find them, and that is why I spent weeks...literally weeks...building that budget thread and the 10 graphic boards that comprise it. I didn't use Wikipedia and I didn't use Forbes....and for precisely this reason. I wanted to establish the baseline of fact for budgetary matters directly from the source of all the data themselves.

I believe I accomplished that goal fairly well, actually.

In the balance, it goes to show Obama is one very poor President. The data...not the politics...just pure data and cold numbers show that.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Taking your ball and going home?

That CBO (Actually CRS, but sure, who cares, huh?) thing you linked doesn't show anything, but what's been currently appropriated, it doesn't show huge costs like interest on the debt used to pay for the war... and that report is two years old... so yeah, total fail...

As for the REAL cost:

Writing in these pages in early 2008, we put the total cost to the United States of the Iraq war at $3 trillion. This price tag dwarfed previous estimates, including the Bush administration's 2003 projections of a $50 billion to $60 billion war.

But today, as the United States ends combat in Iraq, it appears that our $3 trillion estimate (which accounted for both government expenses and the war's broader impact on the U.S. economy) was, if anything, too low. For example, the cost of diagnosing, treating and compensating disabled veterans has proved higher than we expected.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Report: Iraq, Afghanistan Wars Cost US Nearly $4 Trillion

A new report issued by Brown University says the cost of America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - and operations in Pakistan - will cost the country nearly $4 trillion.

www.voanews.com...

silly wrabbit, tricks are for kids, and partisan hacks...

Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

You know the last Bush budget ended in Sept 2009, when the unemploment rate was at 9.8%...? Yes?

And since Obama has started passing budgets it has fallen from 9.8% to 8.1%.

Under Bush it went from 4.0% to almost 10%.

Are we looking at the same chart? Are you reading it right at all? George W. Bush ceased being President on January 20th, 2009. Obama had been president for just over 9 months when October's peak 10% came for the national figure. Just how is that BUSH'S figure? Your logic leaves me outright baffled. I mean by that logic, 9/11 was Clinton's fault since Bush had only been in office 9 months himself and even had additional time delays by the selection of a cabinet after the 2000 election debacle. it's absurd thinking and logic in either case. :doh:

The point where unemployment broke a level previously known in the Bush years and never went back down again seems to have come in Jun/July of 2008. A few months prior to the elections and at the end of Bush's 8 year term. Prior to that he averaged 4-5%. There is NO comparison..and the mental gymnastics it takes to say 8 and 9 % is a GOOD and IMPROVING thing is beyond me. Good Lord what could Obama do that some might see as NEGATIVE? Just sell the whole country? Oh wait....printing money.. QE-.. Never mind.

If you had looked at the quote I cited and sourced to the BLS, they described how the time spent looking for a job rose dramatically from the Bush years to 2011 and at the time of their writing was at over 20 weeks before many gave up. Their adjusted LAU number index also supports it from BLS data. Oh the numbers have been dropping, but that same media you source and the Government sources generating the data agree there is a rise of people dropping out of the workforce entirely. Hell of a way to lower numbers, huh?

as for "telling everyone where the data came from" - you didn't link it though did you? And in your original version it looked like unemployment went from 5% in 2008 to almost 8% in 2009...

It DID go from 5.0% in Jan of 2008 to 7.8% in Jan of 2009. You read that fine...and that was under Bush since Obama didn't take Office until Jan 20 of 2009. About the same day that report came out for the past month, as it happens... It then rose to 10% on Oct of 2009 and, again, has sat in the 8's and 9's ever since.

Oh and one last thing:

The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has estimated that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, together with the Bush tax cuts, will account for almost half of the projected $20 trillion debt in 2019.

10 trillion in debt caused by Bush policies... Ah yeah, but Obama destroyed America...

www.usnews.com...

Well, I never have had a lot of respect for how USA Today portray's a story...but this is a little absurd. You cite the source though, so I'll blame THEM for being factually inaccurate and outright creative about dates of reports they used and ways they masssssaged those numbers to say what they seemingly wanted.

This is why sources matter so much....

United States Federal Budget Package for Fiscal Year 2013 - Projections and Assumptions through 2022

We don't cross 20 Trillion in debt in 2019 (and the use of that figure dates the story)...Oh if that were..PAST TENSE as old figures...still the case. The United States ought to cross the threshold of 20 TRILLION dollars by 2017. By 2022, the exponential nature of this nightmare of debt has us crossing TWENTY FIVE TRILLION. Now, this is projected from the numbers Obama's own people generated and built the 2013 budget from and with.

If that's somehow inaccurate, more than your personal opinion really will be needed.....and ahem..Wikipedia doesn't count.