obummer hits a dubious milestone

[Pens1566]

Well, he's up to 41% today.

 

[fskimospy]

You tell me dude.

You tell me what Obama is spending $800 billion on this year year that Bush didn't spend in 2008 and you tell me that it is worth the spending.

The numbers are all in that link. Nearly everything you want to know about spending is included in the historical tables.

I can tell you this: you will NOT find $800 billion in spending caused by the recession.

The clear implication of your post is that Obama has somehow engaged in policies that led to a large increase in federal spending. I'm simply asking you to tell us what he did that led to that spending. It's a really simple question, and no... nothing I am asking you is present in those tables.

What's the problem, why can't you answer such a simple request? Could it possibly be that your entire point would be revealed as bullshit if you did?

 

[HomerJS]

The clear implication of your post is that Obama has somehow engaged in policies that led to a large increase in federal spending. I'm simply asking you to tell us what he did that led to that spending. It's a really simple question, and no... nothing I am asking you is present in those tables.

What's the problem, why can't you answer such a simple request? Could it possibly be that your entire point would be revealed as bullshit if you did?

Doubt you'll get an answer. Like when they blame Obama for the 8.9-9.1% unemployment. "But...but it was in the 7s when Bush left office." Bring up the fact we were losing 800K jobs/month when Obama took office and their argument turns to vapor

 

[woolfe9999]

C'mon Wolf. He didn't arbitrarily pick 7.2%, it's where the data reaches an apparent asymptote. Picking 9% and 2/3 would be totally arbitrary. Picking the highest unemployment percentage at which a Presidential candidate was re-elected, with the noted exception of FDR who in fact had achieved a notable if stalled reduction in unemployment in the midst of an unprecedented event, is the least arbitrary point one could possibly pick.

I don't think it's the least arbitrary point. I think all are arbitrary. A better approach is to bring in the entire sample of all elections by correlating the unemployment rate with re-election and avoid picking a "threshold."

In any event, you ducked my other points. Do you really think 4 out of a total of 6 shows a statistical trend from which you can draw conclusions as firm as PJ has drawn? On a sample size that small, you're best off looking at all the individual factors that impacted those specific elections, like I did with GHWB. Yet even if it was 40 of 60 instead of 4 of 6, all that would do is increase the demonstrated importance of the variable of unemployment from being statistically insignificant (which it currently is), to being statistically significant. It *still* wouldn't support the conclusion that "he's definiately going to lose with a 9.1 unemployment rate."

Riddle me this. What would someone like PJ, or any other typical partisan GOPer, have said was the major cause of GHWB's defeat? Would they have said it was because unemployment was high, or because Perot sucked away his votes? Well we don't really have to speculate on that, do we? This was an actual historical event and anyone here old enough can recall the GOP's narrative of that election result. Yet suddenly, when Obama has a 9.1% unemployment rate, it's all about the unemployment rate, stupid. Notice something it also isn't any longer about: the quality of the opposing candidate. Could it be that PJ realizes that the GOP isn't about to field a quality candidate?

- wolf

 

[Pocatello]

Obama is doing what he does best, campaigning.

 

[Ausm]

Do the actual math and all of those things don't add up to much compare to the spending spree Obama has gone on since being elected.

The wars: $150 billion a year
Tax cuts: $120 billion a year (10 year average)
Medicare D $50 billion in 2008

So grand total of $320 billion a year. This years deficit $1.6 trillion...

So now that we have found the source of 20% of this years deficit what do we do about the other $1.3 trillion?

More facts for you...
Excess spending under Obama $1.4 trillion in 3 years (excess being defined as spending above and beyond the previous baseline)

That is MORE than the 10 year cost of the Bush cuts OR the entire cost of the Iraq war or DOUBLE the 10 year cost of Part D.

Perhaps you should stop trying to score cheap debate points and start digging into the actual numbers. You might be shocked at what you find. Such as 2008 spending $2.9 trillion 2011 spending $3.8 trillion <-- $800 trillion increase in spending in 3 years. That is a 30% increase! That is a 10% increase EVERY year.

I think your figures are a little off

The U.S. budget situation has deteriorated significantly since 2001, when the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast average annual surpluses of approximately $850 billion from 2009&#8211;2012. The average deficit forecast in each of those years as of June 2009 was approximately $1,215 billion. The New York Times analyzed this roughly $2 trillion "swing," separating the causes into four major categories along with their share:
Recessions or the business cycle (37%);
Policies enacted by President Bush (33%);
Policies enacted by President Bush and supported or extended by President Obama (20%); and
New policies from President Obama (10%).
CBO data is based only on current law, so policy proposals that have yet to be made law are not included in their analysis. The article states that "President Obama&#8217;s agenda ... is responsible for only a sliver of the deficits", but that he "...does not have a realistic plan for reducing the deficit..."[73] Presidents do not, acting alone, have constitutional authority to levy taxes or spend money; all such proposals must originate in Congress, but the President has a veto over new laws, and his priorities influence Congressional action.[74]
Peter Orszag, the OMB Director under President Obama, stated in a November 2009 that of the $9 trillion in deficits forecast for the 2010&#8211;2019 period, $5 trillion are due to programs from the prior administration, including tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 and the unfunded Medicare Part D. Another $3.5 trillion are due to the financial crisis, including reductions in future tax revenues and additional spending for the social safety net such as unemployment benefits. The remainder are stimulus and bailout programs related to the crisis.[75]
The Pew Center reported in April 2011 the cause of a $12.7 trillion shift in the debt situation, from a 2001 CBO forecast of a cumulative $2.3 trillion surplus by 2011 versus the estimated $10.4 trillion public debt we actually face in 2011. The major drivers were:
Revenue declines due to the recession, separate from the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003: 28%
Defense spending increases: 15%
Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003: 13%
Increases in net interest: 11%
Other non-defense spending: 10%
Other tax cuts: 8%
Obama Stimulus: 6%
Medicare Part D: 2%
Other reasons: 7%[76]

The Obama Administration also made four significant accounting changes to more accurately report the total spending by the federal government. The four changes were: 1) accounting for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (&#8221;overseas military contingencies&#8221 in the budget rather than through the use of supplemental appropriations; 2) assuming the Alternative Minimum Tax will be indexed for inflation; 3) accounting for the full costs of Medicare reimbursements; and 4) anticipating the inevitable expenditures for natural disaster relief. According to administration officials, these changes will make the debt over ten years look $2.7 trillion larger than it would otherwise appear.[79]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt#2001_vs._2009

 

[ProfJohn]

I don't think it's the least arbitrary point. I think all are arbitrary. A better approach is to bring in the entire sample of all elections by correlating the unemployment rate with re-election and avoid picking a "threshold."

In any event, you ducked my other points. Do you really think 4 out of a total of 6 shows a statistical trend from which you can draw conclusions as firm as PJ has drawn? On a sample size that small, you're best off looking at all the individual factors that impacted those specific elections, like I did with GHWB. Yet even if it was 40 of 60 instead of 4 of 6, all that would do is increase the demonstrated importance of the variable of unemployment from being statistically insignificant (which it currently is), to being statistically significant. It *still* wouldn't support the conclusion that "he's definiately going to lose with a 9.1 unemployment rate."

Riddle me this. What would someone like PJ, or any other typical partisan GOPer, have said was the major cause of GHWB's defeat? Would they have said it was because unemployment was high, or because Perot sucked away his votes? Well we don't really have to speculate on that, do we? This was an actual historical event and anyone here old enough can recall the GOP's narrative of that election result. Yet suddenly, when Obama has a 9.1% unemployment rate, it's all about the unemployment rate, stupid. Notice something it also isn't any longer about: the quality of the opposing candidate. Could it be that PJ realizes that the GOP isn't about to field a quality candidate?

- wolf

GHWB lost because of the economy, period.

And I don't know where you get this who 4 out of 6 business.
The chart shows EVERY election since 1912!

And in everyone, except for FDR, ANY President with unemployment above 7.2% losses!

And the correlation is clear as can be.
7.2% Reagan wins
7.4% GHWB loses
7.5% Carter loses
7.8% Ford loses
5.6% Clinton wins
5.3% Nixon wins
4.8% Johnson wins
4.3% Eisenhower wins

That is every President who has faced re-election since the end of WW 2 and in every case if you are above 7.2% you lose and if you are below you win. 3 losers and 5 winners.

If Obama wins with unemployment above 7.2% he will be the FIRST president to do so since FDR in 1940.


BTW the BS about 'quality candidate' is BS. When did Obama become a quality candidate?

 

[thraashman]

I think your figures are a little off

The U.S. budget situation has deteriorated significantly since 2001, when the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast average annual surpluses of approximately $850 billion from 2009–2012. The average deficit forecast in each of those years as of June 2009 was approximately $1,215 billion. The New York Times analyzed this roughly $2 trillion "swing," separating the causes into four major categories along with their share:
Recessions or the business cycle (37%);
Policies enacted by President Bush (33%);
Policies enacted by President Bush and supported or extended by President Obama (20%); and
New policies from President Obama (10%).
CBO data is based only on current law, so policy proposals that have yet to be made law are not included in their analysis. The article states that "President Obama’s agenda ... is responsible for only a sliver of the deficits", but that he "...does not have a realistic plan for reducing the deficit..."[73] Presidents do not, acting alone, have constitutional authority to levy taxes or spend money; all such proposals must originate in Congress, but the President has a veto over new laws, and his priorities influence Congressional action.[74]
Peter Orszag, the OMB Director under President Obama, stated in a November 2009 that of the $9 trillion in deficits forecast for the 2010–2019 period, $5 trillion are due to programs from the prior administration, including tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 and the unfunded Medicare Part D. Another $3.5 trillion are due to the financial crisis, including reductions in future tax revenues and additional spending for the social safety net such as unemployment benefits. The remainder are stimulus and bailout programs related to the crisis.[75]
The Pew Center reported in April 2011 the cause of a $12.7 trillion shift in the debt situation, from a 2001 CBO forecast of a cumulative $2.3 trillion surplus by 2011 versus the estimated $10.4 trillion public debt we actually face in 2011. The major drivers were:
Revenue declines due to the recession, separate from the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003: 28%
Defense spending increases: 15%
Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003: 13%
Increases in net interest: 11%
Other non-defense spending: 10%
Other tax cuts: 8%
Obama Stimulus: 6%
Medicare Part D: 2%
Other reasons: 7%[76]

The Obama Administration also made four significant accounting changes to more accurately report the total spending by the federal government. The four changes were: 1) accounting for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (”overseas military contingencies”) in the budget rather than through the use of supplemental appropriations; 2) assuming the Alternative Minimum Tax will be indexed for inflation; 3) accounting for the full costs of Medicare reimbursements; and 4) anticipating the inevitable expenditures for natural disaster relief. According to administration officials, these changes will make the debt over ten years look $2.7 trillion larger than it would otherwise appear.[79]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt#2001_vs._2009

Well ProfJohn, I believe your questions have been answered. I believe they've been answered in a way that show that this is actually not Obama's fault. In addition this shows Obama at least attempting in his Presidency to be more transparent. And overall you've been proven pretty much completely wrong with everything you've said in this thread.

So, ready to admit you're faults yet?

 

[fskimospy]

Well ProfJohn, I believe your questions have been answered. I believe they've been answered in a way that show that this is actually not Obama's fault. In addition this shows Obama at least attempting in his Presidency to be more transparent. And overall you've been proven pretty much completely wrong with everything you've said in this thread.

So, ready to admit you're faults yet?

As I said, there's a reason why Pro-Jo couldn't answer my extremely simple question.

 

[ProfJohn]

I think your figures are a little off

Wiki is a horrible source for stuff about the debt and budget, except for actual dollar figures.

There is an insane amount of bias in such articles. Just read the discussion part to see what I mean.

Just look at any thread we have about the budget. You have eight different opinions from eight different people and everyone is correct.

From another thread. An honest attempt to determine how much of Obama's debt spending is due to his extra spending.

I'll even break the numbers for you...
Bush's expected revenue and spending:
2009 $2.69t $3.10t
2010 $2.93t $3.09t
2011 $3.07t $3.17t

Obama's actually revenue and spending (2011 is estimated)
2009 $2.10t $3.51t
2010 $2.16t $3.45T
2011 $2.17t $3.81t

So now all we have to do is figure out the difference.
Bush's estimated revenue minus actual revenue
$8.69t -
$6.43t
$2.26 trillion. That is how much of the Obama's debt comes from shrinking revenue.

Now spending
$9.36t-
10.77T
$1.41 trillion. That is how much comes from Obama's excessive spending. And remember that is spending above and beyond what Bush had already planned on spending.

And you guys bitched about Bush's spending.

Bush's 2009 budget
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf
Obama's 2012 budget
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist.pdf
Monthly treasure statement for 2011 figures
http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0711.pdf

 

[mchammer187]

You tell me dude.

You tell me what Obama is spending $800 billion on this year year that Bush didn't spend in 2008 and you tell me that it is worth the spending.

The numbers are all in that link. Nearly everything you want to know about spending is included in the historical tables.

I can tell you this: you will NOT find $800 billion in spending caused by the recession.

The answer is entitlements and baseline budgeting that make everything go up no matter who is in office.

Social Security + 100 Billion
Medicare +70 Billion
Medicaid +90 Billion
DoD + 40 Billion
190 Billion Other Mandatory Programs
----------------------------------
490 Billion Dollars More if you do nothing

2010 Budget = 3.55 Trillion

2008 Budget = 2.9 Trillion

650 Billion - 490 Billion = 160 Billion - other baseline budgeting is likely less than 50 Billion.



There you have it. You can definitely say Obama did nothing to curb spending that was already going to happen but to say that he is on a personal spending campaign is a downright lie.

 

[ProfJohn]

Well ProfJohn, I believe your questions have been answered. I believe they've been answered in a way that show that this is actually not Obama's fault. In addition this shows Obama at least attempting in his Presidency to be more transparent. And overall you've been proven pretty much completely wrong with everything you've said in this thread.

So, ready to admit you're faults yet?

What are you talking about?

A wiki article doesn't prove anything.

You want to prove something find the original sources and do the math yourself as I did.
Or find something written by a believable source such as a major new source.

Obama has increases spending by $1.4 trillion ABOVE and beyond the previous baseline.

 

[ProfJohn]

The answer is entitlements and baseline budgeting that make everything go up no matter who is in office.

Social Security + 100 Billion
Medicare +70 Billion
Medicaid +90 Billion
DoD + 40 Billion
190 Billion Other Mandatory Programs
----------------------------------
490 Billion Dollars More if you do nothing

2010 Budget = 3.55 Trillion

2008 Budget = 2.9 Trillion

650 Billion - 490 Billion = 160 Billion - other baseline budgeting is likely less than 50 Billion.



There you have it. You can definitely say Obama did nothing to curb spending that was already going to happen but to say that he is on a personal spending campaign is a downright lie.

That is assuming that everything included in those figures is baseline budgeting, but it isn't.

A more accurate number would be to look at the proposed budgets from the past and compare them to actual budgets since the past budgets would have included baseline spending increases.

In that case Bush expected to spend $3.09 trillion in 2010
Obama actually spent $3.45 trillion.
About $350 billion more which is very close to the cost of the stimulus for that year.
For 2009 Obama exceed the total by another $400 billion, which again was close to the cost of the stimulus. (two year cost was $700ish billion)

In 2011 Obama is spending $640 billion more than Bush expected. The stimulus is gone, but the increase in baseline spending caused by it still exists which is why the 2011 spending is still higher than 2009 & 2010 even though those two years included $700 billion in extra spending caused by one bill.

 

[ProfJohn]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt#2001_vs._2009

You left off this part...

The Pew Center reported in April 2011 the cause of a $12.7 trillion shift in the debt situation, from a 2001 CBO forecast of a cumulative $2.3 trillion surplus by 2011 versus the estimated $10.4 trillion public debt we actually face in 2011. The major drivers were:
Revenue declines due to the recession, separate from the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003: 28%
Defense spending increases: 15%
Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003: 13%
Increases in net interest: 11%
Other non-defense spending: 10%
Other tax cuts: 8%
Obama Stimulus: 6%
Medicare Part D: 2%
Other reasons: 7%

And that was only through April this year.

Notice the 10 year cost of the Bush tax cuts was 13% of the debt while the two year costs of the Obama stimulus is 6%...

In dollar terms.
Bush tax cuts: $1.3 trillion over 10 years.
Obama stimulus $700 billion over 2 years.
Cost per year:
Tax cuts $130 billion
Obama spending $350 billion

Bottom line...
Bush sucked
Obama sucks worse.

 

[khon]

I love the mind of a liberal - "Obama approvals stink"

But that's because of Reagan and Bush and has zero to do with his 2.5+ years in office! If only Obama had complete control and a democrat house and senate could the wonders of his greatness come to fruition!

What you're describing is not the mind of a liberal, it's the mind of a democrat.

Liberals know Obama sucks, and it is very much his fault. He needs to stop being such a pussy, and actually do the things he was elected to do.

Chances are he probably couldn't, but I'd feel a whole lot better if I at least saw him trying.

 

[werepossum]

The clear implication of your post is that Obama has somehow engaged in policies that led to a large increase in federal spending. I'm simply asking you to tell us what he did that led to that spending. It's a really simple question, and no... nothing I am asking you is present in those tables.

What's the problem, why can't you answer such a simple request? Could it possibly be that your entire point would be revealed as bullshit if you did?

One more time: CONGRESS spends money. The President is at most complicit, such as when his party also controls Congress and/or he refuses to veto excessive spending. Clinton gets some credit because, although he did veto the Republicans' lower budgets, he could have fought more. Bush gets some blame because he did not fight at all, regardless of which party controlled Congress. Obama likewise. Even war requires Congressional approval, absent Obama's war on Libya. But no President gets a free pass because of a predecessor's policies, except for the additional cost in interest for the increased debt. Don't like a predecessor's policies? Change them, don't just use them for political cover. In this case Obama wants 90&#37; of the Bush tax cuts while blaming Bush for 100% of their cost. There is no honest way you can give him that point.

I don't think it's the least arbitrary point. I think all are arbitrary. A better approach is to bring in the entire sample of all elections by correlating the unemployment rate with re-election and avoid picking a "threshold."

In any event, you ducked my other points. Do you really think 4 out of a total of 6 shows a statistical trend from which you can draw conclusions as firm as PJ has drawn? On a sample size that small, you're best off looking at all the individual factors that impacted those specific elections, like I did with GHWB. Yet even if it was 40 of 60 instead of 4 of 6, all that would do is increase the demonstrated importance of the variable of unemployment from being statistically insignificant (which it currently is), to being statistically significant. It *still* wouldn't support the conclusion that "he's definiately going to lose with a 9.1 unemployment rate."

Riddle me this. What would someone like PJ, or any other typical partisan GOPer, have said was the major cause of GHWB's defeat? Would they have said it was because unemployment was high, or because Perot sucked away his votes? Well we don't really have to speculate on that, do we? This was an actual historical event and anyone here old enough can recall the GOP's narrative of that election result. Yet suddenly, when Obama has a 9.1% unemployment rate, it's all about the unemployment rate, stupid. Notice something it also isn't any longer about: the quality of the opposing candidate. Could it be that PJ realizes that the GOP isn't about to field a quality candidate?

- wolf

I'd agree that every election is going to be spun and that this metric is not definitive proof that Obama is going to lose. I think he's probably going to win, probably with unemployment substantially above 8%. (That would then replace 7.2% as the new bar.) However, that doesn't make less valid ProfJohn's point, that historically no President has been re-elected with more than 7.2% unemployment or with less than 49% approval, and while the other candidate is important, so are these factors. Obama may well blow out the bottom, but that merely sets a new bottom for how unpopular and/or unsuccessful a President can be and win re-election. That new bar will still be a firm bar set by the data themselves, not an arbitrary point.

I'd also disagree that the GOP isn't going to field a quality candidate. Granted, the GOP isn't going to field a quality candidate by your standards, but if the GOP fielded a quality candidate by your standards we would be a single-party nation. Every candidate in the debate except Herman Cain has more federal government experience than did Obama when he ran. Most have more executive experience, and all have more private sector business experience. Every Republican candidate has created more jobs than had Obama in 2008. Every Republican candidate has a better claim to understand economic theory, having actually lived and died by it in the private sector. Every Republican candidate has the gonads to release his or her academic records, even though none of them are running on their academic achievements. Every Republican candidate has demonstrable, real world achievements. By contrast, '08 Obama had very little - a lackluster state senate career, a bit over a year of Senate service before he went on the road to campaign, status as a black, supposed high intelligence based on academic performance he refused to release, two books about himself, and the ability to read a TelePrompter well. The only way he is a quality candidate and the current Republican candidates are not is if one places progressive ideals as by far the most important factor in determining candidate quality.

EDIT: I will say one more thing about Obama's re-election chances: No American President has ever been re-elected by whining "It's not my fault!" I think he will be re-elected, due mostly to the mainstream media, but he'll have to find something on which to campaign.

EDIT TOO: One other thing that's pertinent: After the debt ceiling debate and subsequent downgrading of our nation, everyone associated with the federal government is down.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I'd also disagree that the GOP isn't going to field a quality candidate. Granted, the GOP isn't going to field a quality candidate by your standards, but if the GOP fielded a quality candidate by your standards we would be a single-party nation. Every candidate in the debate except Herman Cain has more federal government experience than did Obama when he ran.

Your point is well taken but this is false. Neither Romney nor Perry (the GOP front runners) has any federal government experience whatsoever.

Most have more executive experience, and all have more private sector business experience.

I don't know that it's fair to say that either Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry has any significant private sector business experience (though Bachmann continually takes credit for her husband's gay conversion clinic, er, I mean, Christian counseling facility). They've both been sucking at the government teat for a long time.

Every Republican candidate has created more jobs than had Obama in 2008.

This is essentially a meaningless piece of puffery, unless you are able to identify how any of the other candidates other than Cain (who seems to me to be operating at the level of a slow adult) have ever actually created jobs through their actions. Romney, the most successful of all of the candidates in business, has certainly taken away more than his share of jobs, as a management consultant, and his work as a private equity firm manager was not of a type to lead to a lot of job creation.

Every Republican candidate has a better claim to understand economic theory, having actually lived and died by it in the private sector.

Again, I am not aware of any meaningful private-sector experience by either Bachmann or Perry. I do think Romney has significant credibility in this area, however.

Every Republican candidate has the gonads to release his or her academic records, even though none of them are running on their academic achievements.

Where are these records available? The only ones I have seen are Perry's horrific undergrad transcripts. I'm not sure how this is relevant anyway, but in any case dopes don't end up as Editor in Chief of the Harvard Law Review, as President Obama did (the selection process is a blind one, lest you play the affirmative-action card).

Every Republican candidate has demonstrable, real world achievements. By contrast, '08 Obama had very little - a lackluster state senate career, a bit over a year of Senate service before he went on the road to campaign, status as a black, supposed high intelligence based on academic performance he refused to release, two books about himself, and the ability to read a TelePrompter well.

Again, these are fairly meaningless platitudes. By way of illustration, Michele Bachmann, the candidate I know best as a fellow Minnesotan) is and always has been a high-profile but accomplishment-free US Representative, just as she was in the state legislature here. She has never sponsored a major piece of legislation, and is known more for her death grip on President Bush at the State of the Union than for any legitimate legislative accomplishments. You can say all you want about President Obama but if you maintain he's not a bright guy I have a hard time taking your posts seriously.

 

[fskimospy]

You left off this part...

And that was only through April this year.

Notice the 10 year cost of the Bush tax cuts was 13% of the debt while the two year costs of the Obama stimulus is 6%...

In dollar terms.
Bush tax cuts: $1.3 trillion over 10 years.
Obama stimulus $700 billion over 2 years.
Cost per year:
Tax cuts $130 billion
Obama spending $350 billion

Bottom line...
Bush sucked
Obama sucks worse.

Guys, this one has to be quoted for a new level of insane, fact free stupidity.

By Pro-Jo's logic if you paid me $100 over 10 days, and I paid you $50 over two days, you actually got a deal 2.5 times better than mine because you got twice as much per day. Who knew that something increased the deficit by $700 billion was actually worse from a deficit standpoint than something that increased it by almost twice that amount!?

I mean this flailing is so pathetic even you should be embarrassed, Pro-Jo.

 

[Jaskalas]

badb0y is right. Obama is bad, the alternatives are worse.

Obama's bad, the alternatives you like are the same as him, the ones you fear are true conservatives. The Left is so far gone the mere concept of a champion for the people against big gov is frightening to you.

 

[woolfe9999]

GHWB lost because of the economy, period.

And I don't know where you get this who 4 out of 6 business.
The chart shows EVERY election since 1912!

And in everyone, except for FDR, ANY President with unemployment above 7.2% losses!

And the correlation is clear as can be.
7.2% Reagan wins
7.4% GHWB loses
7.5% Carter loses
7.8% Ford loses
5.6% Clinton wins
5.3% Nixon wins
4.8% Johnson wins
4.3% Eisenhower wins

That is every President who has faced re-election since the end of WW 2 and in every case if you are above 7.2% you lose and if you are below you win. 3 losers and 5 winners.

If Obama wins with unemployment above 7.2% he will be the FIRST president to do so since FDR in 1940.


BTW the BS about 'quality candidate' is BS. When did Obama become a quality candidate?

Oh sorry, I wasn't taking your cutting off the chart at WWII, to exclude FDR, just like I wasn't taking your cutting it off at 7.2%. Let's be clear about this: your chart shows 6 times in a century a candidate runs with an unemployment rate above your arbitrarily chosen 7.2% number. 4 of 6 they lose. Your sample is too small to be scienfitic, and the sample itself is determined by arbitrary criteria selected to support the conclusion you desire. If you think sampling supports the certainty of your conviction in this particular outcome then you're a fool.

 

[zinfamous]

"but if his pastor's views are anything like his views he can go suck it because those are some of the most UN-American things I have ever heard. " Sounds like Rev.Wright and Eldumbo.

lol. I mentioned it a week or two ago, just waiting for someone to bring this asinine comparison up.

1) the infamous Rev Wright clips were from what--the 70s-80s, before Obama was even in Chicago? There is simply no record of Obama attending or even supporting such ridiculous sermons
2) Just two weeks ago, Perry invited and hosted these people to his big nutcase event. Let me say that again-- he invited them. This means that he is familiar with them. He likes the cut of their gib. This is real association. He embraces their message, as this is the type of event that he wanted and approved.

the two associations can't be further apart. it's hilarious, but I know you nutters will just plug your ears and claim that you don't get it...

 

[woolfe9999]

One more time: CONGRESS spends money. The President is at most complicit, such as when his party also controls Congress and/or he refuses to veto excessive spending. Clinton gets some credit because, although he did veto the Republicans' lower budgets, he could have fought more. Bush gets some blame because he did not fight at all, regardless of which party controlled Congress. Obama likewise. Even war requires Congressional approval, absent Obama's war on Libya. But no President gets a free pass because of a predecessor's policies, except for the additional cost in interest for the increased debt. Don't like a predecessor's policies? Change them, don't just use them for political cover. In this case Obama wants 90&#37; of the Bush tax cuts while blaming Bush for 100% of their cost. There is no honest way you can give him that point.


I'd agree that every election is going to be spun and that this metric is not definitive proof that Obama is going to lose. I think he's probably going to win, probably with unemployment substantially above 8%. (That would then replace 7.2% as the new bar.) However, that doesn't make less valid ProfJohn's point, that historically no President has been re-elected with more than 7.2% unemployment or with less than 49% approval, and while the other candidate is important, so are these factors. Obama may well blow out the bottom, but that merely sets a new bottom for how unpopular and/or unsuccessful a President can be and win re-election. That new bar will still be a firm bar set by the data themselves, not an arbitrary point.

I'd also disagree that the GOP isn't going to field a quality candidate. Granted, the GOP isn't going to field a quality candidate by your standards, but if the GOP fielded a quality candidate by your standards we would be a single-party nation. Every candidate in the debate except Herman Cain has more federal government experience than did Obama when he ran. Most have more executive experience, and all have more private sector business experience. Every Republican candidate has created more jobs than had Obama in 2008. Every Republican candidate has a better claim to understand economic theory, having actually lived and died by it in the private sector. Every Republican candidate has the gonads to release his or her academic records, even though none of them are running on their academic achievements. Every Republican candidate has demonstrable, real world achievements. By contrast, '08 Obama had very little - a lackluster state senate career, a bit over a year of Senate service before he went on the road to campaign, status as a black, supposed high intelligence based on academic performance he refused to release, two books about himself, and the ability to read a TelePrompter well. The only way he is a quality candidate and the current Republican candidates are not is if one places progressive ideals as by far the most important factor in determining candidate quality.

EDIT: I will say one more thing about Obama's re-election chances: No American President has ever been re-elected by whining "It's not my fault!" I think he will be re-elected, due mostly to the mainstream media, but he'll have to find something on which to campaign.

EDIT TOO: One other thing that's pertinent: After the debt ceiling debate and subsequent downgrading of our nation, everyone associated with the federal government is down.

Yeah, that's your one sided and selective view of the GOP candidates. And it doesn't matter which points I agree and disagree with.

When I was referring to the "quality" of the candidate, I meant what matters politically: the candidate's abilities as a campaigner. By that score, Clinton and Obama have been good to great candidates. Mondale and Dukakis, terrible. Gore and Kerry, somewhere in between. Similarly Reagan was excellent as a campaigner, Bob Dole, not so much. And that isn't just based on results, but based on the impression they made on the campaign trail and how well their campaigns were run. Regardless of how you feel about Bob Dole as a public servant or as a person, do you really think he was a strong candidate for POTUS? Bob Dole could even have been a better POTUS than Reagan, but that isn't what we're discussing here.

Remember, the point of the thread is about election probabilities, nothing else. I'm saying the abilities of the opposing candidate to campaign well matter in an election. There are more variables than just the unemployment rate and approval ratings before the campaign starts, much less over a year before it starts. Yet PJ wants to predict Obama's demise even before we know who the GOP candidate will be.

BTW I'm doubtful that Obama is going to win, perhaps even more so than you are. I just don't buy PJ's constant spinning of everything to support conclusions to which he's emotionally attached.

- wolf

 

[MotF Bane]

Obama's bad, the alternatives you like are the same as him, the ones you fear are true conservatives. The Left is so far gone the mere concept of a champion for the people against big gov is frightening to you.

Huh?

 

[zinfamous]

Obama's bad, the alternatives you like are the same as him, the ones you fear are true conservatives. The Left is so far gone the mere concept of a champion for the people against big gov is frightening to you.

true conservatives?

you have none in your party, let alone as any sort of candidate.

none.

every major so-called conservative president of the last decade has outspent every democratic president over that time period.

I still don't know what happened to these guys, b/c one has not been in power for more than 30 years. lol.

 

[zinfamous]

Well, he's up to 41% today.

The Googles!

they did...something?

:hmm: