Since Obama's Inauguration

[teflor the ranger]

+14.2% increase in the unemployeed seeking work
+8.5% national debt
-6.3% USD value against the EUR
+14.5% increase in proposed budget for first Obama budget
+91.5% increase in proposed deficit (borrowed money) for first Obama budget
-14% Approve of President Obama
+18% Disapprove of President Obama
+0.0% increase in NATO combat troop deployments in Afghanistan as requested by the Obama administration

1 Trillion new debt in 6 Months

53% Believe Obama is a Partisan Democrat
53% Oppose Congressional Health Care Reform
31% Believe America is headed in the right direction

Change, do you have any to spare? We'll need it.

[teflor the ranger]

June 2009: 9.7% Unemployment

[teflor the ranger]

Additional NATO combat troops deployed to Afghanistan as requested by the Obama administration: 0

[teflor the ranger]

-14% Approve of President Obama
+18% Disapprove of President Obama

(Rasmussen Reports Daily Presidential Tracking Poll)

[Disoputlip]

I don't think the numbers alone explain much. Unless you could have some valid numbers if McCain had been president.

I don't recall if you are a republican, or those numbers to you are good and you are a democrat, but either way then the numbers are not valid for a whole lot because you can't get the McCain numbers.

[teflor the ranger]

I don't recall if you are a republican, or those numbers to you are good and you are a democrat, but either way then the numbers are not valid for a whole lot because you can't get the McCain numbers.

This assume that you are to make an argument as to which president would be better. This thread simply discusses things that have happened under the Obama administration.

[Sarvis]

Oh, then how about: Sarvis has gotten closer to getting laid than at any time during the Bush administration? :P

[kiryan]

Diso, all those #s are bad and worse than what Obama promised...

I try to avoid thinking poorly of Obama's policies based on what is happening in the economy, but... the republican criticism of the stimulus was spot on. They rushed it through with basically a slew of Democrat pet projects, virtually none of the spending was going to be spent or stimulate the economy this year, and they were able to rush it through because of crisis politics (do it now or else the unimaginable will happen just like Bush did with the patriot act, declaring war ect). If government spending is the solution to jump starting the economy, then why didn't the bill passed spend at least the majority in 2009?

Also, by the same argument you are making (we don't know what things would've been like with McCain so we can't complain about Obama) you could argue that you can't blame Bush for what happened under his watch because we don't know what Gore or Kerry would've done... The economy could've been worse, we could've had more terrorist attacks ect ect ect...

I'm still trying to be on the fence about whether Obama is making it worse or better or just slowing it down. I worry about taxing the rich and taxing the companies. CEO of Microsoft said it best, there is no reason for us to hire workers in America... what he said between the lines is that there is no reason why we have to be an American company. Imagine if Microsoft moves its headquarters to Canada... or Mexico... or some other low tax, favorable business environment... We have the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world and the Democrats are talking about raising it directly and indirectly through healthcare.

[Sarvis]

Diso, all those #s are bad and worse than what Obama promised...

I try to avoid thinking poorly of Obama's policies based on what is happening in the economy, but... the republican criticism of the stimulus was spot on. They rushed it through with basically a slew of Democrat pet projects, virtually none of the spending was going to be spent or stimulate the economy this year, and they were able to rush it through because of crisis politics (do it now or else the unimaginable will happen just like Bush did with the patriot act, declaring war ect). If government spending is the solution to jump starting the economy, then why didn't the bill passed spend at least the majority in 2009?

Also, by the same argument you are making (we don't know what things would've been like with McCain so we can't complain about Obama) you could argue that you can't blame Bush for what happened under his watch because we don't know what Gore or Kerry would've done... The economy could've been worse, we could've had more terrorist attacks ect ect ect...

I'm still trying to be on the fence about whether Obama is making it worse or better or just slowing it down. I worry about taxing the rich and taxing the companies. CEO of Microsoft said it best, there is no reason for us to hire workers in America... what he said between the lines is that there is no reason why we have to be an American company. Imagine if Microsoft moves its headquarters to Canada... or Mexico... or some other low tax, favorable business environment... We have the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world and the Democrats are talking about raising it directly and indirectly through healthcare.

Let Microsoft move. Look at the outsourcing discussion, it really doesn't matter. The only difference is that Balmer would live in Canada instead of the US. It doesn't mean jack shit to us, because MS is going to hire workers in the same places for the same reasons regardless of where they are based.

As for taxes vs. healthcare... how much do you think MS spends on health insurance for it's employees now? Every number I've ever seen for healthcare systems shows that we spend more for healthcare as a country than countries with "socialized medicine" do. It's not at all inconceivable that MS could save money if we implemented such a system. They are paying either way, and the new system should be cheaper.

[teflor the ranger]

Oh, then how about: Sarvis has gotten closer to getting laid than at any time during the Bush administration? :P

Congratulations Sarvis, although, I'm trying to keep this thread oriented on the state of the nation and the Obama administration. It's also critical of the current administration (generally). From time to time, I might throw in a positive fact if I manage to find any worthwhile to mention.

[teflor the ranger]

Let Microsoft move. Look at the outsourcing discussion, it really doesn't matter. The only difference is that Balmer would live in Canada instead of the US. It doesn't mean jack shit to us, because MS is going to hire workers in the same places for the same reasons regardless of where they are based.

The truth is that it matters enough that several major economic players have already spoken up about it. Organizations have financial incentive to avoid negative press that adversely affects their sales or market position. It is only if you defeat this incentive by the initial and ongoing projected costs of moving that organizations start to move their processes elsewhere. The issue is about making it too expensive to do business. Businesses are willing to pay more, to surrender more income to be based in the United States, but at some point, they will have to consider finding more fertile grounds. Balmer has stated that he thinks that America is reaching that point with the Obama administration.

As for taxes vs. healthcare... how much do you think MS spends on health insurance for it's employees now? Every number I've ever seen for healthcare systems shows that we spend more for healthcare as a country than countries with "socialized medicine" do. It's not at all inconceivable that MS could save money if we implemented such a system. They are paying either way, and the new system should be cheaper.

Microsoft relies on attracting educated employees and talent that will continue to demand premium healthcare services, so the cost savings will probably not materialize. In fact, as healthcare costs skyrocket with the implementation of public healthcare, they will probably end up paying even more than they were before.

It turns out, the more you feed the beast (healthcare industry), the bigger it grows, and the more food (money) it demands.

[Todrael]

Write down all of the metrics and measures you would use to feel that the following sentence is true: "The Obama presidency was successful." At the end of Obama's term(s) in office, compare the actual reality to the metrics you wrote down. Then decide.

Then remember that reality is not defined by the present moment, but how events unfold as they go forward, and that oftentimes pain leads to positive growth. I've never figured out exactly where to put the 'end point', where a measure of success would actually matter. I keep thinking that it would have to be 'at the end of time', to see whether it was all worth it, this whole 'life' thing everyone's raving about. But that's such a long time in the future, and we're so bad at predicting how events will turn out even a year from now... oh well. Just keep plodding along.

[kiryan]

if he achieves unemployment of 6% and everyone in america is covered by healthcare that is sustainable (ie not balloning like social security), he'll get my vote as one of the greatest men of all time.

[Sarvis]

Does it have to be within the first 7 months after taking office?

[kiryan]

I'll give him until 2012 for unemployment and until 2020 for healthcare.

[Sarvis]

I'll give him until 2012 for unemployment and until 2020 for healthcare.

Well, the world will be ending by then so that's fine. :P

Can we at least agree that this thread's attempt to rate Obama after a few months in office is a little silly, then?

[kiryan]

Its certainly not silly to look at the numbers and consider how it reflects on his presidency... Teflor is probably hoping you come to that conclusion, and truthfully I'd say Obama is more likely to fail than to succeed based on the direction the numbers are going and what most people believe taxes do to an economy... but policies take time to see to fruition...

but to declare that he has already failed in general after 7 months in office would be bordering on foolish. He has certainly failed to keep unemployment under 8% as he promised, failed to send the detainee's home in his first year, failed to bring the troops home by the end of his first year... but any rational person knew most of these promises were unbelievable in the first place. At least I hope you did.

[Sarvis]

Its certainly not silly to look at the numbers and consider how it reflects on his presidency...

You know, I remember conservatives CONSTANTLY stating that Bush's presidency could only be judged in the light of history. Suddenly a president can be judged 7 months after taking office.

Funny, that.

We're still trying to turn the ship from the course Bush set us on. I'm not at all surprised it's taking more than a few months.

failed to send the detainee's home in his first year, failed to bring the troops home by the end of his first year... but any rational person knew most of these promises were unbelievable in the first place. At least I hope you did.

You do realize it hasn't been a year yet, right? Saying he failed when it's only been half as long as he said it would take is disingenuous at best.

[Corth]

Obama inherited a lousy economy and there isn't a thing he could have done to turn things around in 7 months. On the other hand, he has made some big mistakes which are likely to make things worse. In time he will likely take some (but not all or even most) of the blame for the economy. I also think if the republicans can find a half decent candidate for 2012, it will be a single term presidency.

[Todrael]

I also think if the republicans can find a half decent candidate for 2012,

You mean a truly conservative non-politician?

[kiryan]

Sarvis, there are some things that are just impossible. Barring an honest to God miracle, Obama has 0 chance of shutting Gitmo down by the end of the year, 0 chance of bringing the troops home by end of the year ect ect ect... He can rejigger some stuff and hold a ceremony because he signed an order to do something, but gitmo will still be running next year and we will still have "combat" troops on the ground in Iraq in January.

But hey, I don't give one shit if he fails in these areas, like I said, we knew these promises were truly impossible to keep. If Obama can get the economy back down to 6% unemployment and get a lot more people covered by healthcare... hell even with the fake employment #s the governemnt uses... I'll be impressed. If he pulls it off by 2012, I'll help vote him another term.

[teflor the ranger]

I do actually believe that America is big enough and great enough for the success of those seeking greater social equality and of those seeking greater freedom. This is the optimistic view of a market liberalist, and so rightly applied.

The problem I have with the Obama administration, beyond the typical issues I have with lying, cheating politicians that do one thing while telling you another, is that I think the administration's aggressive expansion into wealth redistribution and social equality is reckless, aimless, and lacking reason as it steamrolls forward. I believe the Obama administration understands that it has a very, very narrow window in which to achieve its policy gains because the American public will wake up and realize that they are an extra trillion dollars in debt, paying billions more in taxes, with nothing much to show for it and will be pissed off. So, the administration is trying to transform the Federal government into the larger, more politicized machine that it wants in these two short years and it doesn't care how much money it has to borrow to do it.

The problem there, is that you and I will have to pay for this even if every project is a flop. Chances are, with the way your money and my money are being thrown around aimlessly and without vision in Washington DC, your children and their children will end up paying for it as well.

[Corth]

I also think if the republicans can find a half decent candidate for 2012,

You mean a truly conservative non-politician?

Not sure what the means. Isn't someone running for president by definition a politician?

I meant someone along the lines of Mitt Romney. He isn't particularly interesting, but he isn't a joke either. Difficult to say he is unqualified to run the country. As of right now he is even with Obama head to head in 2012 according to a recent Rasmussen poll. By the time we have 3 more years of really crappy economy, there will be a lot of perceived blame attributed against Obama, even though I think in large part it will be unwarranted.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... 8_palin_42

Then again I was pretty shocked GWB was re-elected.

[kiryan]

against john kerry you were shocked bush got elected? It was so obvious to me that I seriously wondered for a while if the Democrats threw john kerry out there as a throw away candidate (note clinton did not even run so obviously she thought it was a bad time to try for the presidency).

I would've voted for Mitt Romney. He was the best candidate by far, fucking huckabee and giuliani screwed him. huckabee stayed in the race, splitting the conservative vote, giuliani dropped out giving mccain all the moderate / independent.

Of course, Ron Paul was the best, but he just wasn't viable.

[Corth]

I'm not a big John Kerry fan but I didn't see him as a throw away candidate. It was a very close race - and if you recall, I think most polls had Kerry winning the day before the election. Certainly I think Hillary Clinton would have won if she had ran in 2004 and got the nomination.

[teflor the ranger]

8.5% of the National Debt came from 0.19% of the life of the United States of America

[teflor the ranger]

53% believe Obama is a partisan democrat
53% oppose congressional health care reform

[teflor the ranger]

31% say America is headed in the right direction

[Sarvis]

53% believe Obama is a partisan democrat
53% oppose congressional health care reform

What was the percentage of people who voted for Bush in the previous election? Lots of idiots out there...

Honestly though I'm a little surprised. For a while I thought Teffie would tow the party line of whoever is in charge. Turns out only Republicans are "right." You know, despite the huge economic decline caused by their policies...

[teflor the ranger]

Sarvis, I believe even idiots will eventually find out when they've been cheated and lied to by an administration that has no vision, no plan, and a mountain of debt so great they must figure your grandchildren will pay for it.

Opinion will turn on this administration if it continues down the same, wrong track it is on. Currently, blind arrogance and misguided liberalism are asleep at the controls.

[Sarvis]

Sarvis, I believe even idiots will eventually find out when they've been cheated and lied to by an administration that has no vision, no plan, and a mountain of debt so great they must figure your grandchildren will pay for it.

You do mean Bush, right? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... nder-bush/

[teflor the ranger]

Sarvis, I believe even idiots will eventually find out when they've been cheated and lied to by an administration that has no vision, no plan, and a mountain of debt so great they must figure your grandchildren will pay for it.

You do mean Bush, right? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... nder-bush/

Obama is on track to generate 4 times the national debt Bush did. nice try though.

[Sarvis]

Sarvis, I believe even idiots will eventually find out when they've been cheated and lied to by an administration that has no vision, no plan, and a mountain of debt so great they must figure your grandchildren will pay for it.

You do mean Bush, right? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... nder-bush/

Obama is on track to generate 4 times the national debt Bush did. nice try though.

By who's numbers? I'm betting some conservative blog or think-tank? Rush?

[Kifle]

I find it amusing that republicans are crying about debt at this point. You should have made a stink over it during the '04 elections. I guess you only care when a democrat is spending like there's no tomorrow.

[teflor the ranger]

Sarvis, I believe even idiots will eventually find out when they've been cheated and lied to by an administration that has no vision, no plan, and a mountain of debt so great they must figure your grandchildren will pay for it.

You do mean Bush, right? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... nder-bush/

Obama is on track to generate 4 times the national debt Bush did. nice try though.

By who's numbers? I'm betting some conservative blog or think-tank? Rush?

US Treasury, genius. Why don't you ever look anything up before running your mouth?

[Sarvis]

Sarvis, I believe even idiots will eventually find out when they've been cheated and lied to by an administration that has no vision, no plan, and a mountain of debt so great they must figure your grandchildren will pay for it.

You do mean Bush, right? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... nder-bush/

Obama is on track to generate 4 times the national debt Bush did. nice try though.

By who's numbers? I'm betting some conservative blog or think-tank? Rush?

US Treasury, genius. Why don't you ever look anything up before running your mouth?

Let me explain this to you one more time. I am your opponent in the debate. I will look up things that support MY argument. You should look up things that support YOUR argument. Expecting your opponent to provide evidence for your argument is, well... I'd say retarded but we need something beyond that. How about "teffish?"

I poked around the treasury site a bit, and found nothing where they predicted debt. Maybe my google-fu is weak, but it's equally likely you're spewing some BS you made up or heard on Fox News rather than something you actually saw the Treasury say/write/publish. If not, you should be able to find it again and actually prove you are not full of shit.

Instead, I'm sure we'll get another teffish reply.

[teflor the ranger]

If you can find evidence to the contrary, by all means, post it. Otherwise, you're the one that's full of hot air.

1 trillion in 6 months. do the math.

[Sarvis]

Yep, another teffish reply.

[teflor the ranger]

Yep, another teffish reply.

I stick with what works. Move along evidenceless troll.

Edit: Sarvis ended up acting courageously and posted evidence that more or less supported my argument.

[teflor the ranger]

For all the people who aren't trolls (Sarvis): http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLog ... ication=np

Edit: Sarvis ended up acting courageously and posted evidence that more or less supported my argument.

[Sarvis]

Oh fine, here. I've done your research for you. http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bus ... -pictures/

Look how big that first Obama line is! Of course, it gets back down to near-Bush levels by the end of Obama's first term. Only... well there's something to be said for us having a larger economy by then:

ROBERT GREENSTEIN: Well, we need to be very clear that, by four years from now, we're going to have an economy that is approaching a $20 trillion economy. We have to keep this in perspective. The deficit that he's talking about, President Obama, in 2013 equals only 3 percent of the size of the economy.

Most budget experts think that, if you're over 3 percent, you're on a path towards exploding debt, that we have to get back down on a permanent basis to the 2 percent to 3 percent range. - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business ... 02-23.html

So basically while the numbers will still be large, they are actually going to be smaller in terms of our actual economy.

Of course, none of this will matter to you because of that one big red line. OMG it's coming right for us!

[teflor the ranger]

Hahaha. I didn't expect you to post anything, Sarvis. I take back the part about you being a troll (not the evidenceless part, but fair is fair).

By the way, if you didn't realize it, we are in a recession and the economy is NOT really growing.

[Sarvis]

It's really, really funny being called an evidence-less troll by the guy who pops in once a month, makes a bunch of inflammatory posts and never posts any evidence.

But I digress.

You do realize that the whole point of the record government spending this year is to help get the economy back on track, right? If it works, the economy will start growing.

Whether or not it works is another debate altogether, but claiming Obama's deficit will be 4 times Bush's (beyond this particular economic stimulus attempt) is simply disingenuous. In fact, it's not even really worth debating because it all depends on the economic recovery.

[teflor the ranger]

It's really, really funny being called an evidence-less troll by the guy who pops in once a month, makes a bunch of inflammatory posts and never posts any evidence.

Perhaps it takes one to know one, Sarvis. I do, however try to post only things for which I know I have evidence for (when speaking factually? hard to prove an opinion). It does escape me to occasionally claim something I know I can't prove, but I don't think I've really done that on here (I'm certain there is other life in the universe, for instance).

You do realize that the whole point of the record government spending this year is to help get the economy back on track, right? If it works, the economy will start growing.

I think the point of being a bipartisan Republican is that I believe the current spending is politically motivated, politically guided, misdirected, inefficient, ineffective, and designed to reward Democrat voters. America will recover no matter who is president, and the economy will eventually start to grow. The problem I have with the current administration is that I believe it lacks vision and clarity. So far, they've missed all their own performance marks/promises, skipped out on all their goals, and have been generally worse than anyone has expected. This is reflected in opinion polls and the numbers coming from the economy. This administration, I think, is spending needlessly and with wanton disregard to the future of America, the future of freedom in our country, and the rights of minority to live without suffering the tyranny of the majority. I could develop this opinion more and lay out some arguments, but I'm simply trying to state why I think, like most Americans do, that America is not on the right course.

Whether or not it works is another debate altogether, but claiming Obama's deficit will be 4 times Bush's (beyond this particular economic stimulus attempt) is simply disingenuous. In fact, it's not even really worth debating because it all depends on the economic recovery.

The only thing I claimed is that Obama is on course to generate 4x more debt than the Bush administration, because the Bush administration only increased the national debt by 4 trillion in 8 years. So far, Obama's administration has run up a total of 1 trillion in new debt in only six months.

[Todrael]

The only thing I claimed is that Obama is on course to generate 4x more debt than the Bush administration, because the Bush administration only increased the national debt by 4 trillion in 8 years. So far, Obama's administration has run up a total of 1 trillion in new debt in only six months.

http://xkcd.com/605/
(mouse over the image for the rest of the punch-line)

[Sarvis]

I think the point of being a bipartisan Republican is that I believe the current spending is politically motivated, politically guided, misdirected, inefficient, ineffective, and designed to reward Democrat voters.

Bipartisan republican? Do you know what bipartisan means? Oh, and of course it's politically motivated. It's politics.

The problem I have with the current administration is that I believe it lacks vision and clarity.

Lacks vision? Clarity? You may disagree with it, but as I understand things Obama's plan is entirely laid out. Whether it works or not can be debated, but it's there. The vision is written down and being carried out.

why I think, like most Americans do, that America is not on the right course.

Most Americans? A quick skimming of this Fox News article (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,534606,00.html) shows that the ONLY category in which better than 50% of Americans disagree with is whether or not Obama has a plan. That shows a lack of understanding more than anything else. And this is from Fox News.

Whether or not it works is another debate altogether, but claiming Obama's deficit will be 4 times Bush's (beyond this particular economic stimulus attempt) is simply disingenuous. In fact, it's not even really worth debating because it all depends on the economic recovery.

The only thing I claimed is that Obama is on course to generate 4x more debt than the Bush administration, because the Bush administration only increased the national debt by 4 trillion in 8 years. So far, Obama's administration has run up a total of 1 trillion in new debt in only six months.[/quote]

[kiryan]

One truth that gets overlooked is that legislation has effects over time. So a lot of this legislation's "costs" are based off predictions of revenue which is based off predictions of how the economy does.

I believe the Obama's deficits are way bigger than we can even imagine because I see a long term shift in our economy towards saving which is going to take 10-20% off the top of the economy. Every president's projections are overly rosy... so he can spend more money. Obama's economist projections are completely whacky, they were "before we knew how bad the recession was going to be" in December and they are absolutely fiction today knowing what we do. Barring some sort of miracle recovery.

Also, specific to the healthcare stuff. Some of the stuff coming out is that Obama's 10 year healthcare program is supposed to be paid for (meaning early savings are going to cover later increases). However after 10 years, you know the program is going to be extended which is where the costs start exploding. So this is not a sustainable program... It'll be 1000x worse than medicare/medicaid in 1/10th of the time. At least it will be if you believe what the government accounting office is putting out.

[teflor the ranger]

The only thing I claimed is that Obama is on course to generate 4x more debt than the Bush administration, because the Bush administration only increased the national debt by 4 trillion in 8 years. So far, Obama's administration has run up a total of 1 trillion in new debt in only six months.

http://xkcd.com/605/
(mouse over the image for the rest of the punch-line)

Six months is a pretty good amount of data, when it's 1/8th of a presidential term. Furthermore, with the aggressive planned spending projects, and the 2010 budget plans out, It's fair (as Sarvis' article indicated) to assume that we're looking at more debt.

[teflor the ranger]

Bipartisan republican? Do you know what bipartisan means? Oh, and of course it's politically motivated. It's politics.

Yes. My intent was to indicate that I am a Republican that is for bipartisan government, the same as Ramussen's Poll that indicated that 53% of Americans believe that Obama is a Partisan Democrat attempted to indicate that Obama was not for bipartisan government.

Lacks vision? Clarity? You may disagree with it, but as I understand things Obama's plan is entirely laid out. Whether it works or not can be debated, but it's there. The vision is written down and being carried out.

Part of that vision was to keep unemployment under 8%. It is now 9.7%. I have already made this argument, and there are quite a few other numbers that the current administration has not been able to keep its promises on.

Yes, it is written down - no it is not being carried out. According to Joe Biden, "everyone got it wrong." Wrong Joe, your administration got it wrong and you're the ones responsible.

Most Americans? A quick skimming of this Fox News article (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,534606,00.html) shows that the ONLY category in which better than 50% of Americans disagree with is whether or not Obama has a plan. That shows a lack of understanding more than anything else. And this is from Fox News.

Sarvis, if you're going to stay on-topic in this thread, you should READ information already posted in the thread. As previously presented (Ramussen): 31% of Americans believe America is on the right course (and 63% believe it is on the wrong course)