Obama Top 50 accomplishments

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Amazing how much bullsti.t she pulls out of her asz, and parades it as fact.

Now it's 4.6 million jobs? Gee, Obama only took credit for 4.5 million, and that was laughed away when proven by fact that when the dust settled, it was only 300K. Oh, that cost almost a trillion dollars.

Where did this latest flood of jobs come from? I'm guessing you had some accounting help by the 99.9% of economists that also supposedly believe the cool trillion was worth it. SMH.

you have to count 'saved' jobs too.

on the bolded, what?!

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...timulus-worked

"But in a survey by the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business, 80 percent of the 40 or so economists surveyed agreed with the Congressional Budget Office, known as the CBO, that the unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus law. The survey asked a second question about whether—accounting for future costs arising from financing the stimulus with debt—its benefits would end up exceeding its costs. Here, 46 percent thought that they would and another 27 percent were uncertain, leaving only a small percentage that did not."

.........so, less than half think it will turn out to have been beneficial long-term.

yeah, i haven't seen 99.9% anywhere. obviously a made up figure. that can't be!


and i found this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...bibJ_blog.html

"If you ask the Obama administration, economists are virtually united in thinking the 2009 stimulus package worked. “I’m absolutely convinced, and the vast majority of economists are convinced, that the steps we took in the Recovery Act saved millions of people their jobs or created a whole bunch of jobs,” Obama declared at a press conference last month. Or, to quote NEC chair Gene Sperling from an interview a few weeks ago, “There is no question that the evidence is showing that the type of things the president did to help state and local governments really mattered, were really helpful in pulling us from the brink of depression to a recovery.”

But the stimulus’ critics allege that this evidence isn’t reliable. The studies the administration is relying on depend on models that “substitute assumptions for identification,” Harvard economist Robert Barro writes today in the Wall Street Journal. “To figure out the economic effects of transfers one needs ‘experiments,’” Barro writes, “in which the government changes transfer in an unusual way—while other factors stay the same—but these events are rare.”

The truth is, both studies of the type Barro prefers, and studies using models, which he criticizes, have been conducted to determine the effect of the stimulus on employment and output. Of the nine studies I’ve found, six find that the stimulus had a significant, positive effect on employment and growth, and three find that the effect was either quite small or impossible to detect."


not exactly 99.9%....

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Danzig

you have to count 'saved' jobs too.

on the bolded, what?!

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...timulus-worked

"But in a survey by the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business, 80 percent of the 40 or so economists surveyed agreed with the Congressional Budget Office, known as the CBO, that the unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus law. The survey asked a second question about whether—accounting for future costs arising from financing the stimulus with debt—its benefits would end up exceeding its costs. Here, 46 percent thought that they would and another 27 percent were uncertain, leaving only a small percentage that did not."

.........so, less than half think it will turn out to have been beneficial long-term.

yeah, i haven't seen 99.9% anywhere. obviously a made up figure. that can't be!


and i found this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...bibJ_blog.html

"If you ask the Obama administration, economists are virtually united in thinking the 2009 stimulus package worked. “I’m absolutely convinced, and the vast majority of economists are convinced, that the steps we took in the Recovery Act saved millions of people their jobs or created a whole bunch of jobs,” Obama declared at a press conference last month. Or, to quote NEC chair Gene Sperling from an interview a few weeks ago, “There is no question that the evidence is showing that the type of things the president did to help state and local governments really mattered, were really helpful in pulling us from the brink of depression to a recovery.”

But the stimulus’ critics allege that this evidence isn’t reliable. The studies the administration is relying on depend on models that “substitute assumptions for identification,” Harvard economist Robert Barro writes today in the Wall Street Journal. “To figure out the economic effects of transfers one needs ‘experiments,’” Barro writes, “in which the government changes transfer in an unusual way—while other factors stay the same—but these events are rare.”

The truth is, both studies of the type Barro prefers, and studies using models, which he criticizes, have been conducted to determine the effect of the stimulus on employment and output. Of the nine studies I’ve found, six find that the stimulus had a significant, positive effect on employment and growth, and three find that the effect was either quite small or impossible to detect."


not exactly 99.9%....

Exactly, Ziggy... The entire farce is a joke. Everything from Romney's plan to "save the country", to how "wonderful everything is due to Obama mortgaging us into fiscal collapse" is based on assumptions that neither side would believe with a straight face.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Exactly, Ziggy... The entire farce is a joke. Everything from Romney's plan to "save the country", to how "wonderful everything is due to Obama mortgaging us into fiscal collapse" is based on assumptions that neither side would believe with a straight face.

it is a farce.

as long as folks go with the two big parties, we will continue to deal with all this bs. we need to all vote C. everyone. just think what would happen if the dems and reps both were kicked to the curb! my oh my. that would be awesome.


won't happen. too many, on each side, still thinks their side is the one. wrong. both parties are owned by the same group of people. most big corporations donate similar amounts to both parties to hedge their bets.
like gore vidal said, people need to recognize there aren't two parties. there is one party, run for 4% of the people.

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Danzig

as long as folks go with the two big parties, we will continue to deal with all this bs. we need to all vote C. everyone.

I wonder when she'll be on The View?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...ial/57837680/1

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

I wonder when she'll be on The View?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...ial/57837680/1

i can't believe that show's still on, or that people watch it.


it irritates me that they still only have two candidates in these debates. but those with the money have the say so.

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it irritates me that they still only have two candidates in these debates. but those with the money have the say so.

More on Jill Stein:

It’s a hell of a thing when the nominee of the far-left Green Party espouses a stronger work ethic than the President of the United States. But that’s what we’ve come to.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...AwcXWVACadtQuL

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

More on Jill Stein:

It’s a hell of a thing when the nominee of the far-left Green Party espouses a stronger work ethic than the President of the United States. But that’s what we’ve come to.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...AwcXWVACadtQuL

i think that's where the stimulus that obama pushed thru failed. it should have been a works/infrstructure package, not a temporary fund to cities to hire more police/fire dept workers and teachers. cause when the money ran out, so did the jobs, because the states couldn't afford to keep them on the payroll.
see, there's not as much of a domino affect when you hire those employees. but when you work on highways, bridges, other infrastructure-purchases are made. equipment, supplies, etc. money flows for those projects in many directions. plus there's the bonus of fixing deteriorating structures.
oh well. maybe next time.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Exactly, Ziggy... The entire farce is a joke. Everything from Romney's plan to "save the country", to how "wonderful everything is due to Obama mortgaging us into fiscal collapse" is based on assumptions that neither side would believe with a straight face.

Really, Rude? Where has "Obama mortgaged us into fiscal collapse"?

Words have meanings, you know.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Riot

Really, Rude? Where has "Obama mortgaged us into fiscal collapse"?

Words have meanings, you know.

5 trillion dollars of unanswered debt in 3 years with zero plan on how to pay it back, only maybe...just maybe if, if all of his presumptions and assumptions of the future plays out exactly according to his gilded vision, will we he be able to pay a portion of the interest on the total debt in 10 YEARS.

I dunno, I guess when you are a shill, words don't have the same meaning.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

5 trillion dollars of unanswered debt in 3 years with zero plan on how to pay it back, only maybe...just maybe if, if all of his presumptions and assumptions of the futurs plays out exactly according to his gilded vision, will we he be able to pay a portion of the interest on the total debt in 10 YEARS.

I dunno, I guess when you are a shill, words don't have the same meaning.

First, show me exactly what "5 trillion Obama has caused in three years with zero plan to pay it back" in debt you are talking about. Be specific. List the programs and the cost. What 5 trillion dollars has Obama caused us?

Because it seems to me you are repeating a long-disproven RW talking point, that is referring actually to the ongoing cost of our debt created by George Bush (and previous to him), having zero to do with whoever is president now. You are merely quoting a chart of our national debt, and falsely assuming and falsely attributing that anything after 2008 is Obama's fault. That's false.

Correct me. List Obama's debt since he's been elected, that adds up to 5 trillion.

Let's see who's a shill.

[Rudeboyelvis]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...an-under-bush/

*National Debt has increased more under Obama in three years that the entire Bush 8 year Presidency

*The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.

*Mr. Obama has been quick to blame his predecessor for the soaring Debt, saying Mr. Bush paid for two wars and a Medicare prescription drug program with borrowed funds.

The federal budget sent to Congress last month by Mr. Obama, projects the National Debt will continue to rise as far as the eye can see. The budget shows the Debt hitting $16.3 trillion in 2012, $17.5 trillion in 2013 and $25.9 trillion in 2022.

So how is his plan paying down the debt again??!!

Took all of .1 seconds to find - I'm surprised you have such a difficult time with the facts.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...an-under-bush/

*National Debt has increased more under Obama in three years that the entire Bush 8 year Presidency

*The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.

Yes, Rude - but Obama didn't cause that debt, nor incur that debt - it's just the ongoing interest and debt from previous years. It would be that high if McCain were president.

Do you not understand that?

Again - Obama has not raised the national debt by starting programs that added $5 trillion to our national debt. If that were true, you would be able to show which programs those were. Can you?

Here: this is deficit spending that contributes to our debt. Obama's policies through 2017 only cost $1.44 trillion - and a lot of that is paid for, not debt.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...an-under-bush/

*National Debt has increased more under Obama in three years that the entire Bush 8 year Presidency

*The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.

*Mr. Obama has been quick to blame his predecessor for the soaring Debt, saying Mr. Bush paid for two wars and a Medicare prescription drug program with borrowed funds.

The federal budget sent to Congress last month by Mr. Obama, projects the National Debt will continue to rise as far as the eye can see. The budget shows the Debt hitting $16.3 trillion in 2012, $17.5 trillion in 2013 and $25.9 trillion in 2022.

So how is his plan paying down the debt again??!!

Took all of .1 seconds to find - I'm surprised you have such a difficult time with the facts.

25.9 trillion. christ. and when interest goes up, all our debt payments will have to increase.
but all the pols are acting like interest will remain low forever. that's hope, not proper planning.