President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[slucero]

Ah, I see. So when it rose to 8.8% in January of 2009 (when Dumbya was still "President"), that was the ACTUAL figure, which is now "adjusted" to 17%. Nice math. Typical.

Sorry Nancy.. no cigar..

Here's statistics for ya... focus and pay attention...



In January 2009... real unemployment was 14%...


The Bureau of Labor Statistics has 6 measures of unemployment:

• U1: This is the proportion of the civilian labor force that has been unemployed for 15 weeks or longer. This unemployment rate measures workers who are chronically unemployed. During business-cycle expansions, this rate captures structural unemployment. However, during lengthy business-cycle contractions, this rate is also likely to include a significant amount of cyclical unemployment. U1 tends to be relatively small, in the range of 1-2 percent.
  
• U2: This is the proportion of the civilian labor force that is classified as job losers (workers who have been involuntarily fired or laid off from their jobs) and people who have completed temporary jobs. During business-cycle expansions, this rate is likely to capture some degree of frictional unemployment. However, during business-cycle contractions, this rate is most likely to consist of cyclical unemployment. U2 is larger than U1, but still remains substantially less than the official unemployment rate (U3).
  
• U3: This is the official unemployment rate, which is the proportion of the civilian labor force that is unemployed but actively seeking employment.
  
• U4: This is the official unemployment rate that is adjusted for discouraged workers. In other words, discouraged workers are treated just like other workers who are officially classified as unemployed, being included in both the ranks of the unemployed and the labor force. It is technically specified as the proportion of the civilian labor force (plus discouraged workers) that is either unemployed but actively seeking employment or discouraged workers. The addition of discouraged workers generally adds a few tenths of a percentage point to the official unemployment rate.
  
• U5: This augments U4 by including marginally-attached workers to the unemployment rate calculation. Marginally attached workers are potential workers who have given up seeking employment for various reasons. One of these reasons is that the workers believe such effort would be futile, which places them in the discouraged worker category. Those who have other reasons for not seeking employment are placed in the broader marginally-attached workers category. The addition of marginally-attached workers adds a few more tenths of a percentage point to the official unemployment rate.
  
• U6: This augments U5 by including part-time workers to the unemployment rate calculation. The addition of part-time workers adds a full 2-3 percentage points to the official unemployment rate. This measure of unemployment is perhaps the most comprehensive measure of labor resource unemployment available.

The unemployment rate commonly used by the government is the "U-3" number... but the most complete measure of unemployment is the U-6 number..

The tables below are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics website.


This is what the government reports (and most believe) is real unemployment...




THESE is the real numbers...

[Seven Wishes2]

Well, since Dubbya's budget was in effect for all of 2009, one would not, by your own logic, count and attribute Obama's numbers until January of 2010.

Anyway, I think BO is a douche, so I'm not really carrying the flag for him anymore.

[RedWingFan]

Dude, I could find so many examples of posts of yours that were either blatant outright lies, false prophecies, or logical fallacies, that it would take me three months to find them and disseminate them.

Do it. And don't forget to include all the racist posts I've made. I've asked you for them several times in the past Rev. Sharpton!

[RedWingFan]

Anyway, I think BO is a douche, so I'm not really carrying the flag for him anymore.

But he's done such a great job in saving the economy, hasn't he? He won the war in Iraq, passed that great Health Care bill you were all gung ho for. What's the problem?

Does someone else want to dig through this thread for all his "pro-Obama" posts to show 7 braincells how he's wrong ALL THE TIME???? Thanks in advance.

It's not hard. It's like walking through a chicken coop looking for chicken shit.

[RedWingFan]

These ads, which claim the health care bill will "increase health care costs for all Americans" yet is paid for by Blue Cross (hmmmmm....), when in fact it will do the opposite...people continue to be brainwashed.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/he ... ould-go-up

“as a consequence of us getting 30 million additional people health care—at the margins that’s going to increase our costs, we knew that. We didn’t think that we were going to cover 30 million people for free.” -President Barack Obama

If anyone knows about being brainwashed...It'd be you 7braincells. I think you got "hypmotized" by Bamsters balls swinging in your face. 100% indisputably, irrefutably wrong again!!! It's fools like you that have voting rights that endangers this country and what little liberty it has left. You're such a fool it's pathetic, and it's shown to you over and over, and you deny it or call the prez a douche. There's 316 pages that demonstrates how wrong you are, it's a gold mine with your idiocy!

[Seven Wishes2]

Really, doucheking? YOU saying so does not make it truthful. No matter how many times you're proven wrong, you continue to blabber on and on.

I'm done with you for the night. You're an idiot, wrong ALL the time, and just not worth it.

[RedWingFan]

Really, doucheking? YOU saying so does not make it truthful. No matter how many times you're proven wrong, you continue to blabber on and on.

I'm done with you for the night. You're an idiot, wrong ALL the time, and just not worth it.

No, you're right. Me saying so doesn't make it truthful. Just like you typing (FACT) in capital letters like this doesn't make you right.

So your party's propaganda campaign will not work in the long run; once people realize the plan will HELP THEM and SAVE THEM MONEY (FACT), they will support it in droves - and yours, the party of "no," will be remembered as the one that attempted to squelch it.

“as a consequence of us getting 30 million additional people health care—at the margins that’s going to increase our costs, we knew that. We didn’t think that we were going to cover 30 million people for free.” -President Barack Obama

But me pulling up your past reciting the talking points of the White House, and the facts that are happening as we speak, makes me right and you wrong (FACT).

You willingly swallowed Obama's load and tried to tell us how good it tasted. Now all you have is, "I'm done with you for the night. You're an idiot, wrong ALL the time, and just not worth it."

Runaway like the little bitch you are...kinda like your boy Obama leaving Clinton at the podium during that presser.

[Monker]

I just re-read my posts and how you could even deduce that I was advising to buy high and sell low shows me how out there you are. I never even hinted at any such stupid advice.

You go on blabbing about how there is this big 'sell off' with Obama being president. You even jumped into the discussion about inflation negating the FACT that there has been a %30 rise in the stock market since Obama took office. So, of course your advice to people is to buy at the peak when w. is president, and sell at the low when Obama took office.

You can quote any article you like. The facts are VERY simple. As I have said, repeatedly, the market crashed under W. The market had it's lowest low under W. The market has had a 30% RISE since Obama took office. Get over it. You are nothing but a bold face liar repeating biased propaganda. Your nick is a farce...even your "Lie Finder" alter nick isn't accurate. You do nothing but seek propaganda to support your opinion. Even when the facts ARE posted, you go on and on as if you can turn crap into gold. You are a complete idiot if you actually believe that an election, or a speech, or some other minor factor like this, is going to trigger a selling OR buying spree that would affect the market in any significant way. That is not how things work, and you are a complete ass for believing it and posting the propaganda in support of that asinine opinion.

To go ahead and answer your next question, the reason the market has come back to somewhat better levels, is primarily due to the party of "NO".

That is so lame. It has come back because the economic cycle brought it back....neither party did it.

[Monker]

Really, doucheking? YOU saying so does not make it truthful. No matter how many times you're proven wrong, you continue to blabber on and on.

I'm done with you for the night. You're an idiot, wrong ALL the time, and just not worth it.

No, you're right. Me saying so doesn't make it truthful. Just like you typing (FACT) in capital letters like this doesn't make you right.

So your party's propaganda campaign will not work in the long run; once people realize the plan will HELP THEM and SAVE THEM MONEY (FACT), they will support it in droves - and yours, the party of "no," will be remembered as the one that attempted to squelch it.

So, prove it wrong. Show me some unbiased poll, or whatever, that shows that most people understand the benefits they will receive under the Health Care bill. I doubt hardly anybody does. And, THAT is Obama's and the Democratic party's fault. They did a HORRIBLE job confronting the asshole Republicans who misrepresented what was actually in the bill...with 'death panels' and such.

[RedWingFan]

Really, doucheking? YOU saying so does not make it truthful. No matter how many times you're proven wrong, you continue to blabber on and on.

I'm done with you for the night. You're an idiot, wrong ALL the time, and just not worth it.

No, you're right. Me saying so doesn't make it truthful. Just like you typing (FACT) in capital letters like this doesn't make you right.

So your party's propaganda campaign will not work in the long run; once people realize the plan will HELP THEM and SAVE THEM MONEY (FACT), they will support it in droves - and yours, the party of "no," will be remembered as the one that attempted to squelch it.

So, prove it wrong.
Uh, how about the President's own words after it was proved that costs are going up?

“as a consequence of us getting 30 million additional people health care—at the margins that’s going to increase our costs, we knew that. We didn’t think that we were going to cover 30 million people for free.” -President Barack Obama

They did a HORRIBLE job confronting the asshole Republicans who misrepresented what was actually in the bill...with 'death panels' and such.

They did a horrible job because Palin was right. There are "death panels". Does it say those words? No, just read this and substitute "Death Panels" where it says "Secretary". Same difference.

1. WILL THE PLAN RATION MEDICAL CARE?

This is what the bill says, pages 284-288, SEC. 1151. REDUCING POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE HOSPITAL READMISSIONS:


‘(ii) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN READMISSIONS.—For purposes of clause (i), with respect to a hospital, excess readmissions shall not include readmissions for an applicable condition for which there are fewer than a minimum number (as determined by the Secretary) of discharges for such applicable condition for the applicable period and such hospital.

and, under “Definitions”:


‘‘(A) APPLICABLE CONDITION.—The term ‘applicable condition’ means, subject to subparagraph (B), a condition or procedure selected by the Secretary . . .

and:

‘‘(E) READMISSION.—The term ‘readmission’ means, in the case of an individual who is discharged from an applicable hospital, the admission of the individual to the same or another applicable hospital within a time period specified by the Secretary from the date of such discharge.

and:

‘‘(6) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, section 1878, or otherwise of— . . .

‘‘(C) the measures of readmissions . . .

[slucero]

Well, since Dubbya's budget was in effect for all of 2009, one would not, by your own logic, count and attribute Obama's numbers until January of 2010.

Anyway, I think BO is a douche, so I'm not really carrying the flag for him anymore.

Not real sure how you think the BLS statistics are "my logic"... but whatever...


Bush is responsible for the budget he gave BO for his 1st year...

BO owns the rest..

[donnaplease]

They did a horrible job because Palin was right. There are "death panels". Does it say those words? No, just read this and substitute "Death Panels" where it says "Secretary". Same difference.

1. WILL THE PLAN RATION MEDICAL CARE?

This is what the bill says, pages 284-288, SEC. 1151. REDUCING POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE HOSPITAL READMISSIONS:


‘(ii) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN READMISSIONS.—For purposes of clause (i), with respect to a hospital, excess readmissions shall not include readmissions for an applicable condition for which there are fewer than a minimum number (as determined by the Secretary) of discharges for such applicable condition for the applicable period and such hospital.

and, under “Definitions”:


‘‘(A) APPLICABLE CONDITION.—The term ‘applicable condition’ means, subject to subparagraph (B), a condition or procedure selected by the Secretary . . .

and:

‘‘(E) READMISSION.—The term ‘readmission’ means, in the case of an individual who is discharged from an applicable hospital, the admission of the individual to the same or another applicable hospital within a time period specified by the Secretary from the date of such discharge.

and:

‘‘(6) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, section 1878, or otherwise of— . . .

‘‘(C) the measures of readmissions . . .

I have a hard time understanding all that non-speak, but reducing the number of hospital readmissions is a necessity. Working in skilled nursing, I have found that hospitals often discharge patients before they are ready, leading to a pretty high number of readmissions to 'continue' to treat the condition for which they were originally admitted, or dealing with complications from not fully addressing the condition sufficiently to start with. I don't know a whole lot about it, but I believe some HMO's actually penalize physicians for having to readmit patients.

As to the comment about the public not knowing what's in the HC bill and the republicans misrepresentation of it, although I do believe that the republican/conservative talk about it may influence some, the most damning evidence about "not knowing what's in it" comes from the democrats/liberals. Nancy Pelosi is the one who said "we have to pass the bill to know what's in it" or some such bullshit. Many of those that voted for it admitted that they didn't know what was in it. It's disingenuous to blame one side for demonizing it if you don't actually know what's in it yourself, IMO.

[Seven Wishes2]

Palin, as ALWAYS, was completely wrong.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/aug/10/palin-death-panel-remark-sets-truth-o-meter-fire/

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=8298267&page=1

Wrong, wrong, wrong. As always.

[Monker]

As to the comment about the public not knowing what's in the HC bill and the republicans misrepresentation of it, although I do believe that the republican/conservative talk about it may influence some, the most damning evidence about "not knowing what's in it" comes from the democrats/liberals. Nancy Pelosi is the one who said "we have to pass the bill to know what's in it" or some such bullshit. Many of those that voted for it admitted that they didn't know what was in it. It's disingenuous to blame one side for demonizing it if you don't actually know what's in it yourself, IMO.

That is exactly what I am saying. It is the Democrats fault for not explaining and fighting for what is in the bill. They allowed the Republicans to define it for them by the 'death panel' talk, etc. The Republicans demonized it...but the Democrats allowed them to do it.

[Monker]

Palin, as ALWAYS, was completely wrong.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/aug/10/palin-death-panel-remark-sets-truth-o-meter-fire/

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=8298267&page=1

Wrong, wrong, wrong. As always.

She is wrong with the facts...but she is 'right' when it came to winning the political 'game'.

[slucero]

wow - even the San Francisco Federal Reserve agrees that the $800 Billion stimulus netted zero jobs...

http://www.frbsf.org/publications/econo ... 0-17bk.pdf

"The results suggest that though the program did result in 2 million jobs "created or saved" by March 2010, net job creation was statistically indistinguishable from zero by August of this year. Taken at face value, this would suggest that the stimulus program (with an overall cost of $814 billion) worked only to generate temporary jobs at a cost of over $400,000 per worker. Even if the stimulus had in fact generated this level of employment as a durable outcome, it would still have been an extremely expensive way to generate employment.

[RedWingFan]

wow - even the San Francisco Federal Reserve agrees that the $800 Billion stimulus netted zero jobs...

http://www.frbsf.org/publications/econo ... 0-17bk.pdf

"The results suggest that though the program did result in 2 million jobs "created or saved" by March 2010, net job creation was statistically indistinguishable from zero by August of this year. Taken at face value, this would suggest that the stimulus program (with an overall cost of $814 billion) worked only to generate temporary jobs at a cost of over $400,000 per worker. Even if the stimulus had in fact generated this level of employment as a durable outcome, it would still have been an extremely expensive way to generate employment.

Wait that can't be right. Not according to 7braincells!!! Either that or 7cells is wrong for the 279th time in a row! I think your streak has Favre's outdone!

Bush's idiocy is a piss-poor reason to support Democrats.

Realizing, however, that their fiscal policy is more sound, and their stimulus package will actually generate secondary capital and jobs, is.

[Seven Wishes2]

Dipshit. You haven't been right about ANYTHING. Ever.

[donnaplease]

As to the comment about the public not knowing what's in the HC bill and the republicans misrepresentation of it, although I do believe that the republican/conservative talk about it may influence some, the most damning evidence about "not knowing what's in it" comes from the democrats/liberals. Nancy Pelosi is the one who said "we have to pass the bill to know what's in it" or some such bullshit. Many of those that voted for it admitted that they didn't know what was in it. It's disingenuous to blame one side for demonizing it if you don't actually know what's in it yourself, IMO.

That is exactly what I am saying. It is the Democrats fault for not explaining and fighting for what is in the bill. They allowed the Republicans to define it for them by the 'death panel' talk, etc. The Republicans demonized it...but the Democrats allowed them to do it.

But what I'm saying is that according to them, they don't know exactly what it entails, either. The "death panel" business came about as a result of Obama's own words, when he was talking about "taking the pill" instead of getting potentially life saving procedures. IMO they should never have undertaken such a huge venture if not one of them could decipher it. They couldn't explain it because they simply don't have enough facts to do so. IMO the public is getting fed up with being told "we didn't explain it so you could understand it". We've heard that about every recent topic which the public objects to that the dems fail at, including the election. I don't think the people want to be talked down to, and that's how it's coming across. I believe that is where the democrats fault lies.

[fredinator]

WTF is with John Boehner crying all the time? A man crying is totally acceptable but this dude cries a LOT:

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2010/11/a-video-history-of-john-boehner-hammily-weeping.html

This is disturbing--he shouldn't be 3rd in line for the presidency..

[Ehwmatt]

How about we start drug testing for welfare or unemployment benefits? You test positive for an illegal substance once, you're done.

[Saint John]

How about we start drug testing for welfare or unemployment benefits? You test positive for an illegal substance once, you're done.

Great idea. I've seen it a million times; welfare recipient trades $50 in food stamps for $30-$40 in cash, and goes and buys drugs, alcohol, cigarettes and/or lottery tickets.

[Rockindeano]

How about we start drug testing for welfare or unemployment benefits? You test positive for an illegal substance once, you're done.

Great idea. I've seen it a million times; welfare recipient trades $50 in food stamps for $30-$40 in cash, and goes and buys drugs, alcohol, cigarettes and/or lottery tickets.

Who cares what they do with their money? Fuck em if they get hungry.

A better idea would be to TAX drugs. That way, every dollar of Gov't assistance at least has a guaranteed rate of return on it.

[RossValoryRocks]

How about we start drug testing for welfare or unemployment benefits? You test positive for an illegal substance once, you're done.

Great idea. I've seen it a million times; welfare recipient trades $50 in food stamps for $30-$40 in cash, and goes and buys drugs, alcohol, cigarettes and/or lottery tickets.

Who cares what they do with OUR money? Fuck em if they get hungry.

A better idea would be to TAX drugs. That way, every dollar of Gov't assistance at least has a guaranteed rate of return on it.

Fixed it for you.

I care because a) Its a waste that I am paying for, and more importantly, b) these addicts will sell the food stamp that are given to them to help feed their children.

[Saint John]

Who cares what they do with their money?

I agree 100%. But as long as they're spending my money, I wanna have a say.

[Saint John]

Food stamps and these debit cards for food should be sacked altogether. Food banks should give eligible qualifiers groceries on a week to week basis. Food banks should be run by independent agencies, mandate each qualifying participant bring a valid photo ID, and there should be bi-monthly drug testing. Lastly, employers should be encouraged to hire recipients at minimum wage and post job listings at said food banks.

[Rockindeano]

A federal judge in Virginia has found part of the Obama care law to be unconstitutional - NBC
about 4 hours ago via breakingnews.com

Not a concern. The Law is legit. You and all these federal conservative cockmouths can try all they want, but the white House will win out on this.

Do you NOT think the WH has the very best lawyers in the land? Do you NOT think they already thought of this happening?

It is law, deal with it.

[Saint John]

A federal judge in Virginia has found part of the Obama care law to be unconstitutional - NBC
about 4 hours ago via breakingnews.com

Not a concern. The Law is legit. You and all these federal conservative cockmouths can try all they want, but the white House will win out on this.

Do you NOT think the WH has the very best lawyers in the land? Do you NOT think they already thought of this happening?

It is law, deal with it.

I think you're both right and wrong here. That part of the health care bill will probably be altered in some way, but the entire thing isn't going to get thrown out.

[slucero]

The SCOTUS will eventually rule on this... then it will be decided...

[G.I.Jim]

Who cares what they do with their money?

I agree 100%. But as long as they're spending my money, I wanna have a say.

Funny how he didn't respond to this one Dan.