Obama reelection 2012

[Judge Jude]

CBO's not perfect, but they're not seen as partisan, either.
It's a good stat for Obama.

Here's the shenanigans on the attacks re "you didn't build that."

http://factcheck.org/2012/07/you-didnt-build-that-uncut-and-unedited/

"There’s no question Obama inartfully phrased those two sentences, but it’s clear from the context what the president was talking about. He spoke of government — including government-funded education, infrastructure and research — assisting businesses to make what he called “this unbelievable American system that we have.”"

bingo

[onejayhawk]

I believe the Congressional Budget Office said 3.3 million.

I was aware. The key words are "or saved", which implies that the CBO knows that unemployment was going to rise, and by how much. As I said, gymnastics.

This is the year in question. The period is April through June.
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 9.7 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.8 9.4

If unemployment was reduced by 1.8%, as the report claims, it is very hard to see where. The obvious interpretation is that it had negligible effect.

J

[OaklandA's]

If unemployment was reduced by 1.8%, as the report claims, it is very hard to see where. The obvious interpretation is that it had negligible effect.

Sorry, you are wrong. You are confusing the unemployment rate with the jobs numbers. Just to maintain unemployment at a steady rate, around 150,000 jobs need to be created per month. So to keep the unemployment rate steady for a year, almost 2 million jobs need to be created. If the unemployment rate went from 9.7% down to 9.4%, that easily puts the number around 3 million jobs created.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Raise your hand if you trust the CBO more than 1J when it comes to the facts.


Sorry, J. I'm gonna go with the professionals on this one.

OneJay doesn't let facts get in the way of an opinion.

[chancellor]

Sorry, you are wrong. You are confusing the unemployment rate with the jobs numbers. Just to maintain unemployment at a steady rate, around 150,000 jobs need to be created per month. So to keep the unemployment rate steady for a year, almost 2 million jobs need to be created. If the unemployment rate went from 9.7% down to 9.4%, that easily puts the number around 3 million jobs created.

If it were only true...

The "created or saved" metric was shown to be more bogus than number of wins indicating quality of pitcher early on. Your article dates well into 2010, the flaw being that the initial official "created or saved" metric was abandoned in 2009. Linky: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...stimulus-jobs/

Money quote: In its November report, titled “Recipient Reported Jobs Data Provide Some Insight into Use of Recovery Act Funding, but Data Quality and Reporting Issues Need Attention,” GAO specifically made recommendations as to how to change the counting procedures, saying the Obama administration should “consider being more explicit that ‘jobs created or retained’ are to be reported as hours worked and paid for with Recovery Act funds.”

In government-speak "Data Quality and Reporting Issues Need Attention" translates pretty simply to "your methodology sucks and is politically motivated".

By the administration's own metrics, the stimulus packages were to have reduced unemployment below 6.5% by now. Official unemployment is 8.2%, even liberal media outlets concede the real unemployment rate is well into the teens, and the economy, based on recent data, is continuing to weaken.

Total failure as measured by their own metrics.

By common metrics, the story is even more harsh - increased debt load at a rate almost 2.5 times faster than the Bush administration, slowing economic growth, growing long-term job loss, and a huge number of failed small businesses.

[OaklandA's]

By the administration's own metrics, the stimulus packages were to have reduced unemployment below 6.5% by now.

Just curious, did the GOP economists accurately predict that their policies would take the unemployment rate from 4.4% in March 2007 all the way up to 8.7% just two years later?

[onejayhawk]

"College grades are completely irrelevant. Tax returns aren't. Trying to equate them is pathetic."

I'm not equating them. But politically, any recent Obama camp speech about "transparency" can get sideswiped by this anyway in the media/blogosphere. Pretending it's not so is not really analyzing politics.

This is not the first time here that analyzing political strategy has gotten confused with approval/disapproval of a tactic. If there's anything that most of us agree on, it's that both camps are engaged in political warfare. And we discuss as such.

A recent poll shows that 20 pct of likely American voters don't know which candidate is 'more likely to raise taxes on those making more than 250K.'
If you think that the average disengaged Joe isn't going to say, "Hey, that seems fair - why is he hiding those college grades, anyway" - then you're not accepting the real world.

This might have something to do with it. The following is an email that was forwarded. The original date is January 2010, so this issue has been hanging around for a while.

Could you please help me find these things, Sir?

1. Occidental Collegerecords -- Not released
2. Columbia Collegerecords -- Not released
3. ColumbiaThesis paper -- "Not available"
4. Harvard Collegerecords -- Not released
5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released
6. Medical records -- Not released
7. IllinoisStateSenate schedule -- Not available
8. Your IllinoisStateSenate records -- Not available
9.. Law practice client list -- Not released
10. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate -- Not released
11. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth -- Not released
12. Record of your baptism -- Not available
13. Why your wife, Michelle, can no longer practice law as an attorney?
14. Why your wife has 22 assistants, when other First Ladies had one?
15. Why were you getting "foreign student aid" as a college student?
16. Which country's "passport" did you have when you visitedPakistanin 1981?
Oh and one more thing Mr. President, I can't seem to find any articles you published as editor of the Harvard Law Review, or as a Professor at the University of Chicago. Can you explain that to me, Sir?

Oh, but hey -- listen! I know you're busy! If this is too much for you right now -- I mean -- tell you what. I'll come back tomorrow. Give you some time to get these things together, you know? I mean, I know you're busy. I'll just let myself out. I'll be back tomorrow. And the day after....
What's that Mr. President? Who wants to know these things?

We the People of theUnited States of America!

For what what it is worth, the person forwarding it was raised in Thailand.

J

[onejayhawk]

Raise your hand if you trust the CBO more than 1J when it comes to the facts.


Sorry, J. I'm gonna go with the professionals on this one.

When did this become about facts. What facts? I showed you some facts, show me the facts you are citing. You will not because you cannot.

The point here is that these numbers have more to do with assumptions than facts. The CBO will very professionally crunch whatever numbers you give them.

J

[Judge Jude]

no time to pick off every myth there on Snopes, but per "foreign aid" - it was a deliberate hoax to make right-wing idiots look like even bigger idiots:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/occidental.asp

I also picked one other, for fun:
14. Why your wife has 22 assistants, when other First Ladies had one?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/firstlady.asp

short answer: Michelle Obama has about an average number of assistants for a First Lady; Jacqueline Kennedy had about 40 and Laura Bush pretty much the same as Mrs. Obama.

[onejayhawk]

no time to pick off every myth there on Snopes, but per "foreign aid" - it was a deliberate hoax to make right-wing idiots look like even bigger idiots:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/occidental.asp

I also picked one other, for fun:
14. Why your wife has 22 assistants, when other First Ladies had one?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/firstlady.asp

short answer: Michelle Obama has about an average number of assistants for a First Lady; Jacqueline Kennedy had about 40 and Laura Bush pretty much the same as Mrs. Obama.

I know several right wingers. This one was born in Chicago, to an American airman and his Thai wife. Her father died when she was 2-3 years old, and her mother took her to Thailand for the rest of her childhood. She came back to the USA for college, and stayed, though she goes to Thailand to visit family as often as she can afford it. We last met at Bagram AFB in Afghanistan. I think she finds military bases comfortable. She has left a string of broken hearts, is practicing Buddist and likes that I talk about my wife to her. I suspect most married men try to conceal that part of their life.

In any event, she felt this was worth forwarding to me. I do not endorse the contents

J

[nots]

Just curious, did the GOP economists accurately predict that their policies would take the unemployment rate from 4.4% in March 2007 all the way up to 8.7% just two years later?

So because the GOP economists were bad, the President gets a free pass on the faulty predictions of his economists?
I think the far easier argument for both sides to make is that economists aren't demonstrably more accurate in their predictions than most well informed people and citing their predictions as a way to win an argument is folly.
Unless you really believe that Bushs prescription drug plan and Obama care will turn out to be revenue neutral, lol.

[GwynnInTheHall]

So because the GOP economists were bad, the President gets a free pass on the faulty predictions of his economists?
I think the far easier argument for both sides to make is that economists aren't demonstrably more accurate in their predictions than most well informed people and citing their predictions as a way to win an argument is folly.
Unless you really believe that Bushs prescription drug plan and Obama care will turn out to be revenue neutral, lol.

Not a free pass, but an acknowledgement that #1--he was saddled with the biggest financial crisis since the great depression and has been cock blocked by the GOP at every turn during his 1st term.

You guys dug the hole, forgive him if it was deeper than he first though and if you really want the right to bitch-- Pick up a damn shovel and help.

[chancellor]

Just curious, did the GOP economists accurately predict that their policies would take the unemployment rate from 4.4% in March 2007 all the way up to 8.7% just two years later?

You mean 5 months after Obama was elected, and two months after he took office? No, they didn't make any prediction.

The issue here, which you're artfully dodging, is the Obama administration trotted out their prediction to help pass a mammoth addition to the national debt. This addition to the national debt was greater than any individual year of debt piled up by the Bush administration. This prediction - again, very important to getting the stimulus passed - was made by....the Obama administration. Not the Cato Institute or some other clearly right-leaning group. And, lest I remember incorrectly, the president himself was quoted to a reporter (matt Lauer, if I remember right) that if "this proposition" failed - over time, like 2-3 years, that he would be a one-term president.

To Obama's credit, he's the first president with the balls to commit to real economic numbers based on his planned economic policy since Reagan. However, that does not excuse the fact that his administration failed - dismally - to meet their committed goals.

[OaklandA's]

The issue here, which you're artfully dodging, is the Obama administration trotted out their prediction to help pass a mammoth addition to the national debt.

Honestly, I can't find any reference to this prediction in any of Obama's speeches. Can you help me find it? What I do find, over and over again, is that the stimulus was supposed to create or save 3-4 million jobs. That seemed to be the main point in the stimulus speeches.

Edit: While searching for it, I came across this article from Politifact yesterday:

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/article/2012/jul/27/ad-watch-gop-accuses-obama-breaking-vows-improve-e/

[onejayhawk]

Honestly, I can't find any reference to this prediction in any of Obama's speeches. Can you help me find it? What I do find, over and over again, is that the stimulus was supposed to create or save 3-4 million jobs. That seemed to be the main point in the stimulus speeches.

Edit: While searching for it, I came across this article from Politifact yesterday:
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/a...ows-improve-e/

You know that article shreds your position dont you?

Claim: "What did we get? … Unemployment above 8 percent for 40 straight months."

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the last time unemployment sat below 8 percent was in January 2009, when it was 7.8 percent. Unemployment rose to 8.3 percent the next month and continued on that track until it hit 10 percent in October 2009. From there, it dropped gradually, reaching 8.2 percent in May 2012, making that the 40th consecutive month the rate had been at 8 percent or higher. June also rolled in at 8.2 percent.

Not that this matters. unemployment is at best a secondary issue and more likely a nonissue. The economy the causes the unemployment is the correlating factor.

J