Obama's accomplishments.... - Page 2

The problem is that cherry picking doesn't make the case or prove anything. Anyone with 30 minutes to spare and so inclined could assemble a similarly random list of accusations (and some of those are clearly distortions in any case) about any US President. Or is that the point you are making, in which case nicely done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

The problem is that cherry picking doesn't make the case or prove anything. Anyone with 30 minutes to spare and so inclined could assemble a similarly random list of accusations (and some of those are clearly distortions in any case) about any US President. Or is that the point you are making, in which case nicely done.

I'll let you conclude what you will.

Why does Obama need 4 more years to implement the same plan he promised to implement 4 years ago?

Curious that the PR is trending down like that - what do you conclude from that? It's never seemed like a very useful measure to me. UR seems like a simpler and better indicator.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Curious that the PR is trending down like that - what do you conclude from that? It's never seemed like a very useful measure to me. UR seems like a simpler and better indicator.

 

I actually think the PR rate is more useful than the UR for the simple fact that the UR has been tweaked and tuned and often ignores some actual unemployment. In fact I've read that if UR was calculated the same way it was during the Great Depression it would be reporting closer to 15-17% right now. That's not to say that method was better...but it illustrates the difficulty in comparing time periods (when the method of calculating the number has changed so much) and also illustrates how the statistic could be manipulated (either way) to be worse or better.

I like the PR a bit more because it's a little more straightforward: Here's the working age people who are working vs. not working. Now the reasons for not working might not all be because of involuntary unemployment but I think it's probably a pretty decent proxy.

I think perhaps you have misunderstood the derivation of the participation rate. It's not the ratio of employed to labor pool, it's the ratio of employed plus unemployed to labor pool.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

I think perhaps you have misunderstood the derivation of the participation rate. It's not the ratio of employed to labor pool, it's the ratio of employed plus unemployed to labor pool.

Then, depending on how unemployed are counted in that figure, perhaps it's subject to the same problems as the UR.

According to Investopedia:

I think they are both subject to manipulation, as are any statistics. My point was that I really don't understand why (E + U)/Lpop is a useful short term economic metric, because, with E + U in the numerator, it says nothing about how many people are unemployed. It's measuring how many people are working or looking for work. Its only value is as a long-term socio-economic indicator of the maximum potential workforce.

E - number of employed

U - number actively looking for work

Lpop - non-institutionalized population 15 - 64

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

I think they are both subject to manipulation, as are any statistics. My point was that I really don't understand why (E + U)/Lpop is a useful short term economic metric, because, with E + U in the numerator, it says nothing about how many people are unemployed. It's measuring how many people are working or looking for work. Its only value is as a long-term socio-economic indicator of the maximum potential workforce.

 

E - number of employed

U - number actively looking for work

Lpop - non-institutionalized population 15 - 64

Fair point.

But there's nothing that we're seeing here that is really looking good in employment numbers.

Here's one that has three charts: http://www.shadowstats.com/charts/employment/unemployment/labor-force-and-population-ratios

The "Employment-population ratio.  This represents the proportion of the population that is employed." chart is probably what you're looking for. It doesn't look good either.

Having said that, if you look at the Urate chart there is pretty good correlation of the rate with recessions, and at this point the rate is starting to come down again fairly well in line with previous similar events. Too early to judge success yet, but I'm not sure that it is especially damning either.

Obama's "Accomplishments"... in no specific order

* Signed the National Defense Authorization Act – authorizing indefinite detention of U.S. citizens - which he said he would veto unless the 'indefinite detention clauses", 1021-1022 were retained

* Lied to the people regarding the future status of Guantanamo Bay

* Expanded executive authority to include assassination of U.S. citizens

* Waged war on Libya without congressional approval

* Started and continues covert drone wars in Yemen, Djibouti, Somalia, and Iran

* Escalating the proxy war in Somalia

* Escalating the CIA drone war in Pakistan

* Supporting and enabling Al-Qaeda and other terror organizations and mercenary gangs slaughtering civilians in Syria

* Supporting and enabling Al-Qaeda and other terror organizations and mercenary gangs slaughtering civilians in Libya

* Supporting and enabling a State Dept. listed terrorist group - the Mojahedin e Khalq - in its activities in Iran

* Substantially expanding the persecution of medical marijuana providers that operate in compliance with state laws

* Ordering vicious FDA entrapments and prosecutions of raw milk and other natural food providers

* Metastasizing of TSA goons, thieves, and perverts to bus stations, rail stations, and newly-constructed illegal highway checkpoints

* Presiding over a health reform program that was underwritten by the industry middlemen, to benefit the industry middlemen

* Signed legislation that authorizes use of drones within the United States, against U.S. citizens

* Expanding the enormous, brutal, and covert mercenary U.S. occupation of Iraq while claiming he is ending the war

* Escalating the war / occupation in Afghanistan

* Increasing domestic use of secret evidence and secret courts (FISA – Foreign Intelligence Security Act)

* Secretly deploying US Special Forces to dozens of countries

* Signed the USA Patriot Act extension into law

* Approved the Justice Department prosecution of environmental and animal rights groups as "domestic terrorists" under the USA PATRIOT Act, using secret investigations

* Expanded the Bush warrantless wire tap program, and gave immunity to telecom companies that collaborated

* Expanding the use of secret National Security letters for domestic investigations by FBI and CIA

* Continuing Bush's extraordinary rendition program (kidnapping and torture outside the U.S.) 

* Continuing Bush administration's use of "State Secrets" defense to prevent domestic war crimes prosecutions

* Substantially expanding the persecution of domestic whistleblowers

* Signing into law the power to outlaw any protest against Secret Service Protected individuals, or near federal buildings

* Expanded the previous administration's appeasement and protection of serial criminality within the financial sector, and doling out $Trillions in taxpayer funded largesse to those who were largely responsible for the 2008-2009 crash...

Obama has tried to "outBush Bush" - and largely succeeded, in only 4 years. Republicans and 'authoritarian' type conservatives (as opposed to libertarian type conservatives) should *love* this guy.

The problem is - Obama is (half) black and wears the "democratic" label.. and he has stepped on the right wing's beloved turf. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Having said that, if you look at the Urate chart there is pretty good correlation of the rate with recessions, and at this point the rate is starting to come down again fairly well in line with previous similar events. Too early to judge success yet, but I'm not sure that it is especially damning either.

Maybe. Maybe not. But for a guy who came out and claimed that UR would be around 5.5% at this time (and never even rise above 8%) after all of his Keynesian shenanigans. I'd say he has some 'splainin' to do.

If I were Romney, I'd be showing this chart all the time:

He'll keep up with blaming Bush though I'm sure. It's kind of become his trademark. And it may even work for him. It has so far.

As for the Keynesian stuff - right or wrong there was substantial international consensus on that approach.

...and Bush's bailouts were Keynesian too.

Nice comment posted over at HuffPo-

Unfortunately for you and your boss this is not about comparing the last years of these two presidents. It is about what is, what could be, what could have been, what was promised, what has happened on Obama's watch, and what policies will work for the next 4 years. The time for blaming Bush is over. The time for explaining why Obama's policies have not enabled more people to be back working is at hand.

I suspect that this painful and destructive national experiment with "historical" president's who have no real applicable experience and simply give good speech may be over also.

Nice comment posted over at HuffPo-

Obama is much more your boss than mine.

You live in America, I don't.

You've also spent your life there (as far as I know), helping to create the environment where a leader like Obama can become elected.

If there was no injustice in the US I don't think Obama would have run for POTUS.

Ever since Obama got elected he's been moving job growth in the right direction.

If he'd have had his way more often we'd be seeing even higher job growth. The Dems need to win back congress to have the biggest impact. Trickle down is for greedy idiots. Obama understands that wealth needs to reach the average person to create jobs, he knows that a good education system creates jobs, that affordable healthcare helps creates jobs and he knows that decreasing taxes on over 90% of the population and increasing them on the top 5% is the best way to create jobs and pay down the debt. 

Obama versus Romney? Romney loses, big time.

That's not really a fair comparison though, without noting that in President Bush's last year he was facing a deepening recession, whereas now President Obama has an economy that is (slowly) recovering.

There are still many factors at play regarding job growth. Bush isn't worth talking about in relations to jobs. His policies should only be used as an example of how not to do things.

Here's an interesting article from the New York Times, showing some of the influencing factors at play here-

"Without this hidden austerity program, the economy would look very different. If state and local governments had followed the pattern of the previous two recessions, they would have added 1.4 million to 1.9 million jobs and overall unemployment would be 7.0 to 7.3 percent instead of 8.2 percent."

~ http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/11/americas-hidden-austerity-program/

He ain't my boss. But I thought you were working for him. Sorry. Honest mistake.

Don't remind me. :-(

That's an interesting claim.

 Yes! That's it! Obama ran for POTUS to correct all of the injustices in this country. Which explains why he seems to have increased them. Oops.

That's simply not true.

And you say you're not working for Obama. 

Strange, I thought Bush did the first round of stimulus/bailouts, which Obama then continued and expanded upon.

There have been a lot of cuts at the local level despite that.

Honduras are planning a city using a lot of private capital, making it's own laws, including it's tax rates. It's being done under a right wing president. You should check it out. It might be right up your street-

"Honduras is set to host one of the world's most radical neo-liberal economic experiments under a plan to build from scratch the rules, roads and rafters of a "charter city" for foreign investors.

The Central American nation hopes the plan for model development zones, which will have their own laws, tax system, judiciary and police, will emulate the economic success of city states such as Singapore and Hong Kong.

The Honduran president, Porfirio Lobo – a landowner from the rightwing National party – has given his full backing to the plan, which was inspired by US economic advisers.

In regards to job growth Obama first of all consistently reduced the number of jobs being lost each month to then consistently adding jobs.

He's had congress block some of his progress...

Sounds interesting. I'll read more about it.

Not true.

So like you're boss, all the credit for the good stuff goes to him while blame for the bad stuff goes to someone else. Nice work if you can get it.

P.S. I find any claim of any "austerity measures" in the US to be laughable if not downright dishonest and a clear disconnection from reality.

I agree with you about the austerity to a degree. A lot of cutbacks have happened, even when borrowing has been high. What they need to do is focus on tax cuts for the average man and dramatically cut defence and DHS spending. It doesn't make any economical sense either, to cut money to those most in need. 

What I said about jobs is fact. That's how it's been. Look it up if you don't believe me. Here's the graph-

Your chart supports what I said.

Geez.

Here's what I said-

The graph shows exactly what I said.

First, there's no consistency to it at all.

Second, the first claim you made:

Is also wrong.

Finally, I'd be reticent about giving Obama credit for moving anything. Obama doesn't create jobs. I'd venture to say he hasn't created a single job his whole life.

Whether his policies created the conditions for job creation is a matter of big debate.