Election 2012

[bosk1]

What's so incredible to me, is that people still want to blame the President for everything and anything that happens in the Government, while he is in office. Or that he even has the power to prevent all damage from happening. You think damage has been done while Obama has been President? Great - then vote out your congressmen and congresswoman.

I agree with all of that.  But this thread has focused on the exec. branch, hence the comments relating to the presidency.  And your post in particular was focused on a presidential candidate, hence my comments on the current president.

[kirksnosehair]

It's really kind of incredible that the argument against Obama that I seem to hear most often from conservatives is "we just want someone who is not Obama"

I think that's a bit of a misread.  I think antigoon is closer to the point.  It's not that any other candidates are great, but that they are better choices than him (although pretty much anyone who has run for president in the last century or so has been a better choice for president than Obama, so that is not surprising).  What is incredible to me is that there are still many we are unwilling to acknowledge the damage that has been done under his watch.

It wasn't really directed at anyone here in particular, just a general observation.  I rarely hear (or read) a compelling argument in support of all of this alleged "damage" that has been done under his watch.  Damage to what, exactly?  The guy before him conducted what is arguably the biggest blunder in United States Foreign Policy history (Iraq) and got us into a pattern of borrowing a billion dollars a week from Communist China to finance that along with tax breaks for rich people who don't need them.  The end result of all of that after 8 years was an economy on the brink of collapse.  Boy, he sure was good, eh?     Obama comes in and immediately engages economic policies that have now resulted in 25 consecutive months of economic growth, 17 consecutive moths of non-farm job growth, an improving economic picture all around.  Meanwhile, he's extricated us from a costly and idiotic war we never should have gotten into and found and killed the guy responsible for the 9/11 attacks (a guy the the previous president said he "didn't think about much") but conservatives are wringing their hands about "damage" that they really never seem to be able to articulate in anything but vague partisan talking points memo type stuff.   

Yeah, color me somewhat baffled by this.

I get that conservatives want a conservative as president, but the narrative about "damage" as it relates to Obama is kind of silly.

[Dark Castle]

It's really kind of incredible that the argument against Obama that I seem to hear most often from conservatives is "we just want someone who is not Obama"

I think that's a bit of a misread.  I think antigoon is closer to the point.  It's not that any other candidates are great, but that they are better choices than him (although pretty much anyone who has run for president in the last century or so has been a better choice for president than Obama, so that is not surprising).  What is incredible to me is that there are still many we are unwilling to acknowledge the damage that has been done under his watch.

It wasn't really directed at anyone here in particular, just a general observation.  I rarely hear (or read) a compelling argument in support of all of this alleged "damage" that has been done under his watch.  Damage to what, exactly?  The guy before him conducted what is arguably the biggest blunder in United States Foreign Policy history (Iraq) and got us into a pattern of borrowing a billion dollars a week from Communist China to finance that along with tax breaks for rich people who don't need them.  The end result of all of that after 8 years was an economy on the brink of collapse.  Boy, he sure was good, eh?     Obama comes in and immediately engages economic policies that have now resulted in 25 consecutive months of economic growth, 17 consecutive moths of non-farm job growth, an improving economic picture all around.  Meanwhile, he's extricated us from a costly and idiotic war we never should have gotten into and found and killed the guy responsible for the 9/11 attacks (a guy the the previous president said he "didn't think about much") but conservatives are wringing their hands about "damage" that they really never seem to be able to articulate in anything but vague partisan talking points memo type stuff.   

Yeah, color me somewhat baffled by this.

I get that conservatives want a conservative as president, but the narrative about "damage" as it relates to Obama is kind of silly.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Scheavo]

What's so incredible to me, is that people still want to blame the President for everything and anything that happens in the Government, while he is in office. Or that he even has the power to prevent all damage from happening. You think damage has been done while Obama has been President? Great - then vote out your congressmen and congresswoman.

I agree with all of that.  But this thread has focused on the exec. branch, hence the comments relating to the presidency.  And your post in particular was focused on a presidential candidate, hence my comments on the current president.

Don't think it was my post, but regardless, I don't think it's fair to use the President as a scapegoat. To add to what Kirk said, as someone who follows current events pretty closely, I have absolutely no idea what damage you are referencing to, that should somehow be Obama's responsibility.

The worst thing I think that can factually be said about Obama's policies is that they haven't gone far enough, or that they haven't helped enough - but to call them damaging just seems to be an outright fabrication.

[hefdaddy42]

That's what I think as well.

[TL]

Why?  If I think Romney would make a bad president, but I think Obama has made a terrible president, should I not validly prefer Romney?

If you think that Romney would be better than Obama, while I disagree, it's a valid opinion. If you think both are bad choices, but that Romney is better comparatively, that's a valid opinion.

What I'm talking about is silly, hyperbolic statements like 'Obama is literally the worst choice for the presidency out of every major candidate in the past one hundred years'. He's not. To make a statement like that requires a staggering lack of perspective and objectivity.

[bosk1]

What I'm talking about is silly, hyperbolic statements like 'Obama is literally the worst choice for the presidency out of every major candidate in the past one hundred years'. He's not. To make a statement like that requires a staggering lack of perspective and objectivity.

It's only "silly" and "hyperbolic" if made with no perspective whatsoever about other candidates.  In this case, I literally cannot think of a worse candidate during that timeframe.  I cannot think of a single president who damaged the country more than Obama has, or a candidate who seemed likely to have the potential to do so.

[hefdaddy42]

What "damage" has he done?

[TL]

I think two costly wars, massive tax cuts that caused a skyrocketing deficit, and removal of banking regulations almost causing an international economic collapse are more damaging than attempted health care reform, but that's just me.

As others have said, I honestly don't know what this 'overwhelming damage' is that you keep referring to. If you were saying that you had significant political disagreements with Obama, or strongly disapproved of his policies, that would be something people could understand. Damage though?

To paraphrase Bob Dole referring to Clinton in the 1996 election; "He's my political opponent, not my enemy".

[antigoon]

I mean, I think his presidency has done some damage but as usual I'm sure my reasons are completely different than Bosk's.

[Super Dude]

From what I've seen of conservative discourse lately, "I disagree with your policies/views" and "You're destroying the country!!" are now fairly synonymous.

[antigoon]

I mean that's certainly true of a lot of folks but I think we should give Bosk the benefit of the doubt. Just not sure what he's referring to.

Not defending DOMA in courts?
Obamacare?
left-leaning rhetoric?
DADT repealed under his watch?

[bosk1]

massive tax cuts that caused a skyrocketing deficit, and removal of banking regulations almost causing an international economic collapse

I know, but why are you even bringing Clinton into the discussion?

[TL]

massive tax cuts that caused a skyrocketing deficit, and removal of banking regulations almost causing an international economic collapse

I know, but why are you even bringing Clinton into the discussion?

See, it's funny, because you probably think you're being witty, or making a good argument.
Clinton had several budget surpluses under his watch, and, you know, didn't start two full scale wars.

Are you going to actually answer any of the questions people are asking you, or continue being evasive and hope no one notices?

[antigoon]

To be fair, the Clinton Administration endorsed the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

THANKS RUBIN.

[bosk1]

massive tax cuts that caused a skyrocketing deficit, and removal of banking regulations almost causing an international economic collapse

I know, but why are you even bringing Clinton into the discussion?

See, it's funny, because you probably think you're being witty, or making a good argument.
Clinton had several budget surpluses under his watch, and, you know, didn't start two full scale wars.

Are you going to actually answer any of the questions people are asking you, or continue being evasive and hope no one notices?

Dude, calm down.  (1) It was actually witty and funny, whether you disagree with the premise or not.  And you'll notice, if you paid attention, that I'm not defending GWB either.  (2) If you have a question you would like me to answer, ask it.  I'm not trying to evade anything.  There are no questions on the table, best I can tell.  We're having a "discussion."  You don't agree with my positions, and that's fine.  I'm not trying to persuade anybody, and I'm not really inclined to get into it in a whole lot of detail, because I don't see much to be gained from that.  But knock off the attitude.  Nobody is evading anything, but you are injecting a lot of attitude into the discussion that doesn't need to be part of this.

[Scheavo]

People have repeatedly asked for information on what kind of damage Obama has done. I know previously, you said the list was so long that you didn't feel like putting it up here, but it's hard to know what damage you're talking about when you don't even point to it.

[hefdaddy42]

I'm not trying to evade anything.  There are no questions on the table, best I can tell. 

What "damage" has he done?

[bosk1]

I'm not trying to evade anything.  There are no questions on the table, best I can tell. 

What "damage" has he done?

Yes, and as to what I can tell is the only "question" on the table, as I said:

I'm not trying to persuade anybody, and I'm not really inclined to get into it in a whole lot of detail, because I don't see much to be gained from that. 

I'm not sure why people seem to get so worked up over not wanting to get into an issue that isn't going to go anywhere other than each side thinking the other is out of its mind.

[antigoon]

I can only speak for myself, but I wasn't looking to judge or anything, I'm genuinely curious. It's interesting to see how people with views very different than your own think.

Obviously you're under no obligation to answer it but surely you realize that people will expect some follow up to a claim they find to be a bit...extreme?

[bosk1]

I can only speak for myself, but I wasn't looking to judge or anything, I'm genuinely curious. It's interesting to see how people with views very different than your own think.

Obviously you're under no obligation to answer it but surely you realize that people will expect some follow up to a claim they find to be a bit...extreme?

No, that's fine.  Some of the reasons I feel that way are:

-Court appointments:  It's looking like two pretty bad ones on the S.Ct., and many more in the lower courts.  Not that this is worse than other democratic court appointments, but it continues a very, very bad trend.

-Economics:  I largely feel it is completely disingenuous to bring up economics, for the most part, because other than helping drive the creation of the budget and approving the budget, the White House is not directly responsible for the economy.  However, since Obama so vocally ran on promises to right the ship and is quick to take credit whenever there are successes, it at least deserves mentioning that problems have only grown.  The debt has never been so high.  Never. 

Unemployment rate, non-farm, overall, was up 27% as of this time last year from when he took office (not sure what the overall rates are as of today).

-Government has grown by leaps and bounds with a record number of federal employees (not including military) topping 3 million.  Which means, more debt.

-Bailouts:  Ugh.  Does this even need explanation?

-Military has been further reduced, making the U.S. weaker and more vulnerable, and an unprecedented amount of government land that was once military bases has been sold off, making it impossible to reopen those bases if we ever needed to expand again.

-Foreign policy is a mess because of a general attitude and policy of appeasement.

-Lies, lies, and more lies when addressing the American people.

Those are some of the things that bother me personally.  And, yeah, for a lot things I could bring up, you can point to presidents who were as bad, if not worse.  But when you combine them all in one person, the total package is just very lacking to me--more so than probably any president we have had in the past century, IMO.

So to put the above in terms of "damage," IMO, our relations with other countries have further deteriorated; our economy has further deteriorated and, despite recent short-term gains, I believe may have reached a point of no turning back in terms of long-term permanent damage; our military has been weakened, again, possibly irreparably; the government has reached such a bloated size and is so inextricably intertwined with private enterprise that I do not believe there is a feasible way to reduce its size without it being scrapped entirely (not that we weren't past the point of no return on that one already, but, again, the ball has been advanced farther down field at an unprecedented rate); and any perceived integrity high government offices within the exec., leg., and judiciary have been severely undermined (again, he's not the first, but the ball has certainly been advanced on his watch).

[Scheavo]

I don't really expect you to respond, but I thought I'd deal with your complaints, one by one (except for the first one, as that's probably just a genuine disagreement).

-Economics:  I largely feel it is completely disingenuous to bring up economics, for the most part, because other than helping drive the creation of the budget and approving the budget, the White House is not directly responsible for the economy.  However, since Obama so vocally ran on promises to right the ship and is quick to take credit whenever there are successes, it at least deserves mentioning that problems have only grown.  The debt has never been so high.  Never. 

Obama's policies, and policies enacted under Obama, have added very little to our deficit. Most of the increase in the deficit that has occurred during his watch is a result of previous policies (mostly Bush), and a decrease in tax revenues due to the economic troubles he inherited, and a horrible tax code. Also, debt is not the end all be all of an economy - for instance, the downgrading of our credit rating was due to our political system, it didn't have as much to do with our theoretical possibility to repay our debt.

Then there's "Obamacare," which at worst doesn't increase our debt one bit, but which get's attacked for being some massive spending bill.

Unemployment rate, non-farm, overall, was up 27% as of this time last year from when he took office (not sure what the overall rates are as of today).

That, for the most part, occurred in the first 6 months of his Presidency, before his policies could possibly have an effect.



You can say it hasn't grown quickly enough, but you cannot say that things are worse becuase of him.

-Government has grown by leaps and bounds with a record number of federal employees (not including military) topping 3 million.  Which means, more debt.

This is just flat out false.

Three years into his presidency, he has exceeded Reagan in one area: reductions in government jobs.

-Bailouts:  Ugh.  Does this even need explanation?

The banks, I'll mostly agree with you. I will just say, though, that Obama did make sure that bailouts were more in the taxpayers favors, working to protect taxpayers more than Bush did. The auto-bailout? That was Bush, who bypassed a congress who didn't want to bail out the industry. Obama simply renegotiated the terms.

-Military has been further reduced, making the U.S. weaker and more vulnerable, and an unprecedented amount of government land that was once military bases has been sold off, making it impossible to reopen those bases if we ever needed to expand again.

You complain about the debt, and then you complain about extremely modest changes to our spending - which still has us spending an increasing amount of money on the military. A lot of the rest of it is simply a transition away from the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars (which need to end, and our present there really does only harm America), and is changing focus to the Pacific, and possible rising issues with China (imagine that, planning for the future...).

ALso, remember... there's eminent domain. If we need to build military bases, we will build military bases, and it doesn't mater who owns the land. And also, if our military is too big, and we had too much and, wouldn't selling some of it off be the rather intelligent thing to do?

-Foreign policy is a mess because of a general attitude and policy of appeasement.

Negotiating is not appeasement, and there's really nothing Obama has done that can be considered appeasement. He's been fairly strong-fisted (angering quite a few liberals in the process, in fact), he's just made it clear he's willing to negotiate, and is geniune about wanting peace.

-Lies, lies, and more lies when addressing the American people.

You can ignore the rest of the post, but what lies are he telling the American people?


So really, most of what you say just doesn't seem to be factually correct. I follow "conservative" and "liberal" news sources

[hefdaddy42]

All of that, and to somehow think our foreign policy status is worse now than before simply baffles me.

[Super Dude]

Has there really been 27% unemployment at some point? I thought it hadn't reached 20% yet?

[hefdaddy42]

Has there really been 27% unemployment at some point? I thought it hadn't reached 20% yet?

He didn't say the rate was 27%.  He said it was up 27% over where it had been.

[Super Dude]

Was there a time of negative unemployment at some point? I'm not sure how unemployment can increase by 27% without reaching the absolute value.

[bosk1]

I don't really expect you to respond

Good because, as I said, I'm not really interested in that, and I don't think it pertains to the discussion in this thread.


But I will respond quickly to one thing, because it is very characteristic of the way you tend to argue.

-Government has grown by leaps and bounds with a record number of federal employees (not including military) topping 3 million.  Which means, more debt.

This is just flat out false.

Three years into his presidency, he has exceeded Reagan in one area: reductions in government jobs.

No, Scheavo, it's not false.  You are selectively picking and choosing what you want from that article.  The quote you picked is a nice statement.  But the article says that the only areas in which government jobs are down as a whole over Obama's term are at the state and local levels, which he has nothing to do with.  As far as the federal government, the article actually directly supports what I said if you read a little farther down to where it actually supplies facts:

Federal employment fell 1.3 percent in 2011, but for the three years it is up 1.3 percent, while the total fell by the same amount in Mr. Reagan’s first three years.

In other words, the number of federal jobs was up by a LOT in 2009 and up a LOT again in 2010.  And despite cutbacks in 2011,¹ it is still up over the entire term.

^1.  Assuming the numbers for 2011 are correct.  I have not seen the final numbers for 2011.  I know earlier in the year, the projections were looking like there was going to be more growth or simply a flatline.  If the cutbacks for 2011 actually happened as that article suggests, then that mitigates my argument somewhat, and I apologize for overstating it (except that there really isn't much to apologize for, since I said more than once that I am not putting these points out there to argue or to prove a point, but simply because antigoon asked me if I wouldn't mind saying why I felt the way I did).  But still, a 1.8% increase over his total term means he still added a net of 33,000-34,000 government jobs over 3 years to a government that was ALREADY bloated and huge thanks in large part to the prior two administrations.  So, no, what I said is not "flat out false."  I may have slightly overstated it, but it is 100% true.  The numbers don't lie.

[bosk1]

Was there a time of negative unemployment at some point? I'm not sure how unemployment can increase by 27% without reaching the absolute value.

First, it should be 23.7%, not 27%.  Typo.  My bad.

Second,   Where are you getting "negative numbers" from?  In January 2009, the rate was 7.6%.  Two years later, it was 9.4%.  That is a 23.7% increase.  /math

[AcidLameLTE]

False.

It's maths.

[bosk1]

I believe I done been math'd. 

[kirksnosehair]

Was there a time of negative unemployment at some point? I'm not sure how unemployment can increase by 27% without reaching the absolute value.

First, it should be 23.7%, not 27%.  Typo.  My bad.

Second,   Where are you getting "negative numbers" from?  In January 2009, the rate was 7.6%.  Two years later, it was 9.4%.  That is a 23.7% increase.  /math

Well, this is just mostly spin, really.  When Obama took office he inherited an economy in complete disarray.  You can't blame him for the continued slide in the first two years and I think deep down you know that's true.  The current unemployment rate is 8.3% and has been in steady (albeit slow) decline ever since his policies began taking effect.  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.  This is one of the reasons I have to mostly kind of do this  at the claims that most conservatives make about Obama with respect to this alleged "damage" he's supposed to have caused.  It's really a lot of spin and not a whole lot of substance.

This, however, is not spin.  It's plain, statistical fact, backed up by the Bureau of Labor Statistics chart posted below it:

Net jobs created since March 2010:  2.3 Million

Net jobs created in George W. Bush's entire 8 years: 1 million




If I were working in the Office of the Democratic Leader, I'd use this chart as wallpaper.  If we're going to assign blame and responsibility to presidents for the economy citing "damage" as a result of policies they propose and implement, then that works both ways.  They also get credit for economic achievement.  So, Republicans are essentially saying, the guy responsible for the data on the right side of the chart above should be removed from office and replaced with someone who would choose to take us back in the direction of the guy who netted less than half the amount of jobs as the current guy.

I think I'm gonna pass on that idea and stick with what's working. 

[bosk1]

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.

[PraXis]

88 million Americans are no longer in the labor force... a record high.. and unemployment "falls" to 8.2%. Gotta love gubmint math! 

[Super Dude]

Just fixin' your mess for ya.

[bosk1]

With regard to my previous post, let me also just say that I am "taking off my mod/admin hat" for that one, so in case it was an issue, please don't feel like you can't respond just because I run the site.  I'm saying please don't attack my motives, because you don't know what my motives are, and that's not cool.  Attack my facts if they are wrong, or attack my arguments if they are off base.  But don't attack my motives or my integrity.  I have given you no reason to do so.  And I say that is just another person posting on the forum, not as the admin., so please feel free to disagree or to point out where I am wrong.