So, I think it's interesting that you purposely found the lowest unemployment rate we hit (which was caused largely by economic conditions that have nothing to do with Obama) to cite as "damage" supposedly caused by Obama.
Barry, you can disagree with me, but don't accuse me of purposefully doctoring the numbers, because I wouldn't do that. When I was putting my post together, I did a quick google search, and those dates (the date Obama assumed office, and the first date two years later that data was publicly available) were in a comparison chart by the BLS in the very first link that came up. I'm just has happy to look at the numbers you gave as well. The present 8.3% unemployment rate is still an increase over the 7.6% rate when he took office--which was already at a problematic level. So, again, call me out of my facts are wrong. But don't accuse me of being dishonest with the facts because I wouldn't do that.
But at the end of the day, as I said in my first post leading into when I brought up that area, it's not even really fair to lay that at the president's feet. I don't even say that that fact alone is indicative of the damage being done to the country. Again, as I pointed out, the only reason I bring it up is because, from Obama's campaign up to the present, he has tried to take ownership of the issue and tried to portray it as something the White House can and does directly influence. I would much rather he (and his predecessors) was honest about it and just acknowledged that it is a problem, and not one the White House can directly impact for better or worse.
I didn't accuse you of doctoring anything. (edit: but I apologize for my wording if you were offended. That was not my intention at all) But your cited facts are pretty selectively chosen to paint Obama in a bad light. When you look at the
entire set of facts surrounding the unemployment situation things look quite a bit different than what you're asserting here. I think your assertion of "damage" caused by Obama is, frankly, not really supported by the facts. There was a time when the unemployment rate
was as high as you wrote. In fact, it was even higher. When Obama was inaugurated, the rate was 7.9% but it had already begun a slow steady climb in 2008 as the recession had begun. According to the BLS it actually
peaked at 10% in October 2009. (9 months after Obama's inauguration)
Now, I think it's fair to say that after only 9 months in office we were still experiencing a recession that did not commence under Obama's watch and therefor could not possibly have been caused by any policy initiatives that he brought to the table. I don't see how anyone could disagree with that.
Now then, with the exception of a couple of small fluctuations here and there, that rate of unemployment has actually gone down
steadily since October 2009 (or since 9 months after Obama was inaugurated). What I take issue with is the fact that you categorize this as part of the "damage" that Obama has supposedly done. Obama did not cause the recession, nor have his policies caused any damage with respect to unemployment.
Your other points are matters of ideology. If you think of liberal judicial appointees as "damaging" I don't have any problem with that at all, because from a conservative perspective that is to be expected and actually makes sense. I consider Bush's judicial appointees in the same fashion, since I am a more liberal person.
Topic: Election 2012 (Read 235965 times)
