American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Dccpa;441788]Ah another liberal tactic of attacking facts by trying to divert attention to meaningless statistics. You keep pointing to the falsified unemployment statistics that millions of not working and no longer counted as unemployed Americans will tell you is a lie.[/QUOTE]I hope you're comfortable in your little cocoon of self-delusion.

The unemployment rate has been calculated essentially the same way for decades. You have to be working or looking for work to be counted. That figure is now at 5.9%. The pool of "discouraged workers" shrank to 698,000 in September and is in a multi-year downtrend. So only a fraction of these "millions" of people you keep mentioning gave up. The rest have not re-entered the workforce for other reasons -- and if they don't want a job, why should they be counted in the unemployment rate ? I know you're upset the private sector has come back strong under Obama, but you were lied to by right wing politicians and media.

[QUOTE=Esten;441797]Who walked away from the table ?

BTW, the $800 billion was not a tax increase in terms of tax rates. It was $800 billion mainly from an improving economy, done in a way so that Republicans wouldn't violate their Tax Pledge to Grover Norquist. So really, there wasn't any compromise from the Republican side, and Obama was correct to ask for more revenue. Most Americans supported a balanced approach to deficit reduction, but the headstrong Republicans would not accept any tax increase.[/QUOTE]Go ahead and re-write history. Obama agreed to $800 billion in increased tax revenues, which indeed would not have come from higher rates, but rather elimination of loopholes. In addition, the Republicans were counting on some contribution to tax revenues from a more rational, simplified tax system, and Democrats were not. But they would have come together, except that Obama got push back from his party, especially after it looked like the majority of the Senate (but not the House) would support even higher taxes. So instead of sticking with the framework, he demanded 1.2 trillion in revenues, and the deal fell apart.

This is typical of Democrats. They have no concept of the distortions caused by the tax system, and the time and expense eaten up complying with it.

[QUOTE=Esten;441798]The unemployment rate has been calculated essentially the same way for decades.[/QUOTE]OK, but the problem is that there is no precedent for the current situation.

Look at labor stats going back 70 years - the size of the labor force grows at the rate of population growth, or higher.

Until 2009, when the labor force stopped growing.

[QUOTE=Esten;441798]I hope you're comfortable in your little cocoon of self-delusion.

The unemployment rate has been calculated essentially the same way for decades. You have to be working or looking for work to be counted. That figure is now at 5.9%. The pool of "discouraged workers" shrank to 698,000 in September and is in a multi-year downtrend. So only a fraction of these "millions" of people you keep mentioning gave up. The rest have not re-entered the workforce for other reasons -- and if they don't want a job, why should they be counted in the unemployment rate ? I know you're upset the private sector has come back strong under Obama, but you were lied to by right wing politicians and media.[/QUOTE]You poor delusional liberal. BO has really done a number on your psyche. You can't argue the facts, so spin the trend. Unlike you Esten, I don't pollute my mind with sources from the either fringe. All deficits under BO have been larger than the largest deficits of any of his predecessors. Spin away. Must be hard being a liberal under the worst liberal President since Richard Nixon. BO will probably set up a government funded support group for you.

"The unemployment rate has been calculated essentially the same way for decades. You have to be working or looking for work to be counted." Not true Esten and you know better. There are several versions of unemployment. That is why they are called U3, U6, etc. Of course, they now use the rate that counts the least unemployed. But that was not the rate that was used in the days of less dishonest government.

And as far as the calculations themselves not being changed, wrong as usual Esten. Do you research any of these things or just defend BO with liberal spin? The funny thing about this article is that it proves my point against a liberal and it was written by liberals attacking Republicans.

http://chipshirley.blogspot.com/2012/05/obama-did-not-change-unemployed.html

You are making this way too easy Esten.

The arguments, the debates, the trash talk point to one Barack Obama. You dislike him in 1998, and you dislike him even more in 2014. But unfortunately, you still have 2 more years of the man. You have stated that you prefer gridlock over any progress. You have never been fair enough to give the man a chance. All you have done is ridicule, taunt, name-call and more bitching. You have said that the Fuller Brush salesman would beat Obama in 2010. So yes, you have been found guilty of being prejudiced from Day One. Especially when you are still defending Bush, Jr.

So how can you have any credibility? Especially when you are in favor of one Sarah Palin, that drowned McClain. Romney was a good pick, but you saddled him with a Paul Ryan. And so your claims of being Independents have me laughing all the way to the outhouse.

[QUOTE=RevBS;441822]The arguments, the debates, the trash talk point to one Barack Obama. You dislike him in 1998, and you dislike him even more in 2014. But unfortunately, you still have 2 more years of the man. You have stated that you prefer gridlock over any progress. You have never been fair enough to give the man a chance. All you have done is ridicule, taunt, name-call and more bitching. You have said that the Fuller Brush salesman would beat Obama in 2010. So yes, you have been found guilty of being prejudiced from Day One. Especially when you are still defending Bush, Jr.

So how can you have any credibility? Especially when you are in favor of one Sarah Palin, that drowned McClain. Romney was a good pick, but you saddled him with a Paul Ryan. And so your claims of being Independents have me laughing all the way to the outhouse.[/QUOTE]

Another blind liberal. 1998? Find anything I posted about him BO in 1998. Heck let's move forward to this millennia look at 2008 or 2009. Don't see any posts there either.

Here is my first political post on this board (8-12-10).

"Toymann,

I am curious as to how you think the Republicans will take the Senate? I don't believe there are enough Democratic Senators up for reelection to realistically expect the Senate to turn over. I agree about the House turning Republican.".

Yep that's me, guilty of having eyes to see and common sense to think. Credibility. Seems like being 100% correct about that election gives me credibility. How was your call on that election?

And then there's you. Blinded by the need to defend a bad President. Everything you wrote was false, but then to apologize you would have to admit you were wrong. Btw, that stuff you wrote shows how far detached you are from reality. To give you a little guidance back the real world, BO wasn't up for election in 2010, that was a mid term election. Esten is way off on most of the stuff he writes, but you aren't even on planet Earth. But please come back for more verbal abuse, I think you enjoy it.

Oh Esten,

Bragging about the deficit improving as a percentage of GDP? Did you actually look at the chart or stick with the large print? I will use your own source to make a fool of your statements. Look at the first few years under Obama. Notice the extreme increase in deficits as a percentage of the GDP. I believe you wrote the decade average was 3.1%. Looking at the CBO's own chart in 2012, it shows Obama's first deficits were in the 8-10% range. Looking at the historical data, the average for the last decade would be closer to 5%. That 5% average is due to Obama's terrible percentages. He raised the average so high that he could walk under it and you are bragging about that. Wow. That is some shameless spinning. And did you notice the deficit percentage starts increasing in a couple of years. Obama has to get credit for that too.

[URL]http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/08-22-2012-Update_to_Outlook.pdf[/URL]

[URL]http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/images/pubs-images/45xxx/45653-land-table.png[/URL]

When the government doesn't like the statistics they change the inputs. And voila instant improvement in the numbers. I give you the instant 3% increase in GDP.

[URL]http://blog.bea.gov/2013/07/23/gdp_changes/[/URL]

Keep spinning Esten, that way you can keep your eyes closed to what is really happening.

[QUOTE=Esten;441779]The 2014 federal deficit is estimated to be 2.9% of GDP, versus the average of 3.1% over the past 40 years [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Dccpa;441828]I will use your own source to make a fool of your statements. Look at the first few years under Obama. Notice the extreme increase in deficits as a percentage of the GDP. I believe you wrote the decade average was 3.1%. [/QUOTE]Look who's the fool, reading too fast in his excitement to prove me wrong ! I said 40 years not 10 years. LOL You keep embarrassing yourself, give it up.

BTW, the deficits in Obama's first few years were triggered by the financial crisis -- a result of Wall Street greed and conservative free market ideology. Funny how conservatives always fail to mention that.

The deficit is now at a manageable level, but we need to get back to surpluses. I am a strong supporter of balanced budgets and hope we can get there soon. But we need politicians who can compromise. Americans should not (and won't) accept cuts to social programs and entitlements without corresponding tax increases on the top 1%, who have realized 95% of income gains in recent years, while incomes for the middle class have been largely flat. This is a result of capitalism, which is increasingly dominated by large corporations and Wall Street interests.

Esten is of the belief that a good lie will travel half way around the world before the truth gets its boots on.

Tres3.

[QUOTE=Dccpa;441825]Another blind liberal. 1998? Find anything I posted about him BO in 1998. Heck let's move forward to this millennia look at 2008 or 2009. Don't see any posts there either.

Here is my first political post on this board (8-12-10).

"Toymann,

I am curious as to how you think the Republicans will take the Senate? I don't believe there are enough Democratic Senators up for reelection to realistically expect the Senate to turn over. I agree about the House turning Republican.".

Yep that's me, guilty of having eyes to see and common sense to think. Credibility. Seems like being 100% correct about that election gives me credibility. How was your call on that election?

And then there's you. Blinded by the need to defend a bad President. Everything you wrote was false, but then to apologize you would have to admit you were wrong. Btw, that stuff you wrote shows how far detached you are from reality. To give you a little guidance back the real world, BO wasn't up for election in 2010, that was a mid term election. Esten is way off on most of the stuff he writes, but you aren't even on planet Earth. But please come back for more verbal abuse, I think you enjoy it.[/QUOTE]My post was not a reply to your post and not directed specifically at you, but you have chosen to shoulder the cross. Good for you, and I appreciate your reply. I woke up early and was inspired to write it. I wrote 2010 instead of 2012, and most independent thinking person would have pick up on that typo. But everything I said can be validated by going to the thread archives. My thoughts on the Presdential candidates are my own, of course.

And yes, I live in Bangkok and it flies on it's own orbit. And as far as verbal abuse, I have been getting it on AP regularly, so nothing new.

A Suspended Lawyer.

An Illegal Alien.

A Pathological Liar.

A Muslim,

A Communist,

A Terrible golfer.

And a Black Guy walk into a BAR.

Bartender says.

"What'll it be Mr. President?".

Remember when they said that if you didn't make somewhere around half a million, you were not rich in America?

[URL]http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/10/23/no_one_is_rich_or_happy_because_we_always_want_more.html[/URL]

Come to my summer camp in Bangkok.

[QUOTE=RevBS;441906]Obama bashers are just unhappy people![/QUOTE]You've got a real problem here, because by my observation Obama [U]supporters[/U] are pretty unhappy people also.

Jajajajajaja.

Thanks,

Jax.

I've spent the majority of my life working for the government in one form or another. Eight years with the federal government, fifteen years at three different states' universities, and I've worked for county governments, several city governments, a water and sewer district, and on and one. So I have seen lots of waste and inefficiency.

Now, I am working for a private sector company. I did not know when I was hired that it is largely government funded through the No Child Left Behind Act. The company gets $40 for each hour I am available to work with these underprivileged or low-income students, and they pay me $12. So that is a healthy profit margin and they have little overhead beyond the computer platform, and even that is largely a one-time sunk cost.

But the thing is, there are no students. Now I have "worked" about 70 hours and I have had two students, for a total of about 45 minutes. So 70 x $40 / 3/4 = $3,733 per hour, is what the government / taxpayers are paying. I'm only making $1,120 an hour which hardly seems fair. If you collapse the steps of the whole thing, the government is paying me $12 an hour to watch sports, read, and post on Argentina Private (I'm on the clock as we speak).

If the government simply hired me as an employee, they could just pay me $12 an hour to sit on my ass and eliminate the $28 an hour profit for the private company. That would remind me of the government job I had in college. I got paid for 8 hours to make dinner for 25-30 lowlifes at the county halfway house and then make them sack lunches. It took me about an hour, at the most, and paid about 50% more than a similar job in the private sector would have.

As an auditor, I saw just as much waste and fucking off in private sector as I did in the public sector. I really think it's a toss-up. And from an economic standpoint, if you have a large public sector presence, you have a greater ability to apply fiscal policy and decrease your reliance on monetary policy.

So really, the internet has definitely changed my working career. Before, I had to fuck off in more or less a specific location, which left me vulnerable. Now, I can fuck off anywhere in the world there is broadband. Progress is a wonderful thing.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;441930] I saw just as much waste and fucking off in private sector as I did in the public sector. I really think it's a toss-up. .[/QUOTE]Now you know why private sector companies want all those government service contracts. They do not have to make anything, useful or not, just charge the government and get paid. The government only loses "attrition" employees because someone has to look over the shoulder of the contractors to keep them "honest". That is why 20% of the people make 80% of what we consume, and many federal, state, or local jobs are nothing more than giveaways that keep the people in those jobs "gainfully" employed and off the streets. My dos centavos worth.

Tres3.