Opposition to Obama grows - strongly

whysoserious said:

It just means they aren't adjusted for inflation... it's not a huge deal but most people prefer to work in inflation adjusted dollars because they tell a better picture. And, again, it does not have to be 2005, it could be any year. You could use 1869 dollars if you wanted.

--------------------

You seemed to dismiss the idea that the previous president's budget does not end until Sept/Oct of the following year. Is that a fact you wish to dispute?

Also, if Bush allowed the misery rating to reach above 11% (which he did) does that make him a terrible president as well?

Click to expand...

GDP Percentage Change 2009-2011

Notice 2010 numbers of 3.9, 3.8, 2.5, 2.3 and then 2011 .4 and 1.3

These show why Obama is a failure

I II III IV I II III IV I II
-6.7 -0.7 1.7 3.8 3.9 3.8 2.5 2.3 0.4 1.3

whysoserious said:

Are you dense? You use inflation adjusted dollars so that you can compare other years. For instance, GDP in 2010 and 2011 could technically be the same, but due to inflation, 2011 would appear larger. If you don't adjust for inflation, you are missing a key element in comparing dollars per year. Inflation rates change per year, so if you compare 2011 dollars to 2010, and 2010 dollars to 2009 dollars, but you do not account for inflation, you will get an incorrect change in GDP.

It's simple really. Do you want me to do a little math tutorial for you? I'll do it if you want, I really don't mind.

Click to expand...

What you don't seem to understand or are willing to admit, obama economic policy has been a failure and the numbers show it. He took over an economy that came out of recession in June 2009, had decent economic growth that started declining again in 2010 and is below 2% today. He took over employment at 142.2 million employed and it is now 139.6 million employed. So you can spin the numbers, can point to all the failures of Bush but Bush isn't in office and the Obama record is there for all to see. It will be that record on the ballot in 2012

For Conservative, here is a tutorial in inflation adjusted dollars:

It's year one, and guess what buddy? You have one whole dollar in your pocket! Year one has a nice inflation rate of 2%. Year 2 has an inflation rate of 3%, and year 3 has an inflation rate of 5%. In year 1, you earned 5 cents, nice job! In year two, you earned 10 cents! Wow, way to go! In year 3, you earned nothing. You're a sad panda.

Money You Earned With Inflation
Jan 1 Year 1: 1
Jan 1 Year 2: 1.02 + .05 = 1.07
Jan 1 Year 3: (1.07)(1.03) + .1 = 1.20
Jan 1 Year 4: (1.2)(1.05) + 0 = 1.26

Percent Change Without Adjusting For Inflation
Year 1: 7%
Year 2: 10.83%
Year 3: 4.76%

But in reality, you didn't earn **** in year 3. It should be a zero, but because of inflation, you netted positive. So, adjusting for inflation:

Year 1: (1.07)/(1.02) = 1.05
Year 2: (1.20)/[(1.03)(1.02)] = 1.14
Year 3: (1.26)/[(1.05)(1.03)(1.02)] = 1.14

Percent Change In Dollars Adjusted For Inflation
Year 1: 5%
Year 2: 7.89%
Year 3: 0%

--------------------------------------------

Do you get the picture now?

Conservative said:

What you don't seem to understand or are willing to admit, obama economic policy has been a failure and the numbers show it. He took over an economy that came out of recession in June 2009, had decent economic growth that started declining again in 2010 and is below 2% today. He took over employment at 142.2 million employed and it is now 139.6 million employed. So you can spin the numbers, can point to all the failures of Bush but Bush isn't in office and the Obama record is there for all to see. It will be that record on the ballot in 2012

Click to expand...

You do not seem to understand or are not willing to admit how actual math is done. Don't talk numbers if you don't understand them. It's easy to understand, if you want to compare numbers that involve dollars from year to year, you need to adjust for inflation.

whysoserious said:

For Conservative, here is a tutorial in inflation adjusted dollars:

It's year one, and guess what buddy? You have one whole dollar in your pocket! Year one has a nice inflation rate of 2%. Year 2 has an inflation rate of 3%, and year 3 has an inflation rate of 5%. In year 1, earned 5 cents, nice job! In year two, you earned 10 cents! Wow, way to go! In year 3, you earned nothing. You're a sad panda.

Money You Earned With Inflation
Jan 1 Year 1: 1
Jan 1 Year 2: 1.02 + .05 = 1.07
Jan 1 Year 3: (1.07)(1.03) + .1 = 1.20
Jan 1 Year 4: (1.2)(1.05) + 0 = 1.26

Percent Change Without Adjusting For Inflation
Year 1: 7%
Year 2: 10.83%
Year 3: 4.76%

But in reality, you didn't earn **** in year 3. It should be a negative number, but because of inflation, you netted positive. So, adjusting for inflation:

Year 1: (1.07)/(1.02) = 1.05
Year 2: (1.20)/[(1.03)(1.02)] = 1.14
Year 3: (1.26)/[(1.05)(1.03)(1.02)] = 1.14

Percent Change In Dollars Adjusted For Inflation
Year 1: 5%
Year 2: 7.89%
Year 3: 0%

--------------------------------------------

Do you get the picture now?



You do not seem to understand or are not willing to admit how actual math is done. Don't talk numbers if you don't understand them. It's easy to understand, if you want to compare numbers that involve dollars from year to year, you need to adjust for inflation.

Click to expand...

Guess what, Buddy, it is three years into the Obama Administration and there are more unemployed, fewer jobs, higher debt, and a higher misery index. that is reality as is his Job Approval rating. Still supporting this President?

Conservative said:

GDP Percentage Change 2009-2011

Notice 2010 numbers of 3.9, 3.8, 2.5, 2.3 and then 2011 .4 and 1.3

These show why Obama is a failure

I II III IV I II III IV I II
-6.7 -0.7 1.7 3.8 3.9 3.8 2.5 2.3 0.4 1.3

Click to expand...

Are you ****ing kidding me? Those are the 2005 adjusted values that you are bitching about me using. You're using them and you don't even know it. You're mad about that? Here's some values for Bush:

2001 Q3 - -1.1%
2006 Q3 - .1%
2008 Q1 - -1.8%

If you are mad at Obama, who has only produced positive growth in GDP, you must have been ****ing furious at GWB. Oh wait, you're a hack who doesn't even understand the numbers he's reading.

Conservative said:

Guess what, Buddy, it is three years into the Obama Administration and there are more unemployed, fewer jobs, higher debt, and a higher misery index. that is reality as is his Job Approval rating. Still supporting this President?

Click to expand...

I see you have given up on logical discussion. That's good, it doesn't suit you. You're more of an empty rhetoric, say a bunch of things with no substance kind of guy.

Conservative said:

Unbelievable and totally brainwashed. The 2009 budget was passed in 2008 under a Democrat Congress and was passed solely with Democrat Votes, FACT. Fact then that Obama took office in January and put Dept. heads in place that spent the budget yet you want to blame Bush? That is totally and complete bs and someone trying to save the Obama Presidency. Why do you still support this empty suit and why are you distorting his record?

Click to expand...

It was Bush's budget, but answer me this, was the budget that was passed by Congress the budget that became "fact"? I don't think so, but you conveniently ignore that fact. Brainwashed, you say?

When Obama was sworn into office, Bush had already submitted his 3.1 trillion dollar 2009 budget almost a year earlier. He then signed the stack of resulting appropriations bills submitted to him by Congress throughout 2008 which authorized the federal spending that would take place once the 2009 FY actually began in October. Then, in the fall of 2008, Bush supported and signed additional spending bills providing for various bailouts and stimulus programs that marked the end of his presidency, and which would show up as spending in 2009. Needless to say, the already-enormous 2009 budget that Bush had submitted in early 2008 was not totally reflective of the full impact of the huge spending increases that would eventually be authorized by Bush. Bush’s original budget was $3.1 trillion, but once one adds in all the bailouts and stimulus spending also supported by Bush, the number is actually much larger, and this is the number that shows up in the spending figures now being attributed to Obama for FY2009.

The 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, for example, was signed by Obama six months before the end of the fiscal year, and coming in at less than half a trillion dollars, this spending was only a fraction of the 3.5 trillion or so in spending already signed into law by Bush earlier that fiscal year.

Bush’s Huge Budget Numbers Blamed on Obama

mertex said:

It was Bush's budget, but answer me this, was the budget that was passed by Congress the budget that became "fact"? I don't think so, but you conveniently ignore that fact. Brainwashed, you say?

When Obama was sworn into office, Bush had already submitted his 3.1 trillion dollar 2009 budget almost a year earlier. He then signed the stack of resulting appropriations bills submitted to him by Congress throughout 2008 which authorized the federal spending that would take place once the 2009 FY actually began in October. Then, in the fall of 2008, Bush supported and signed additional spending bills providing for various bailouts and stimulus programs that marked the end of his presidency, and which would show up as spending in 2009. Needless to say, the already-enormous 2009 budget that Bush had submitted in early 2008 was not totally reflective of the full impact of the huge spending increases that would eventually be authorized by Bush. Bush’s original budget was $3.1 trillion, but once one adds in all the bailouts and stimulus spending also supported by Bush, the number is actually much larger, and this is the number that shows up in the spending figures now being attributed to Obama for FY2009.

The 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, for example, was signed by Obama six months before the end of the fiscal year, and coming in at less than half a trillion dollars, this spending was only a fraction of the 3.5 trillion or so in spending already signed into law by Bush earlier that fiscal year.

Bush’s Huge Budget Numbers Blamed on Obama

Click to expand...

Bush also had a 678 billion dollar jobs plan back in 2003

I can feel it coming.

I know it's coming... it is near.

poweRob said:

I know it's coming... it is near.

Click to expand...

A trollish response from Conservative where he posts more rhetoric but nothing with actual substance, meanwhile displaying a complete lack of knowledge on the subject? Is that what's coming?

whysoserious said:

A trollish response from Conservative where he posts more rhetoric but nothing with actual substance, meanwhile displaying a complete lack of knowledge on the subject? Is that what's coming?

Click to expand...

His paste board is just itchin'. It's coming.

whysoserious said:

Are you ****ing kidding me? Those are the 2005 adjusted values that you are bitching about me using. You're using them and you don't even know it. You're mad about that? Here's some values for Bush:

2001 Q3 - -1.1%
2006 Q3 - .1%
2008 Q1 - -1.8%

If you are mad at Obama, who has only produced positive growth in GDP, you must have been ****ing furious at GWB. Oh wait, you're a hack who doesn't even understand the numbers he's reading.



I see you have given up on logical discussion. That's good, it doesn't suit you. You're more of an empty rhetoric, say a bunch of things with no substance kind of guy.

Click to expand...

It serves no purpose to be furious with Bush, he isn't on the ballot and there is nothing you can do about the past but you can correct the present and the future. I will do my part in voting for someone other than Obama. You on the other hand haven't made a logical, factual reason that goes against the thread topic and why anyone should support Obama. You classify yourself as a liberal and I guess being a liberal means you ignore the results of a liberal President. Whether or not you believe my rhetoric is empty or not is irrelevant but what is quite telling is that the results generated are ignored and people here still blame Bush but that is nothing more than an attempt to divert from the Obama record. You can divert from it, personally ignore it, but it will be on the ballot in 2012

Conservative said:

It serves no purpose to be furious with Bush, he isn't on the ballot and there is nothing you can do about the past but you can correct the present and the future. I will do my part in voting for someone other than Obama. You on the other hand haven't made a logical, factual reason that goes against the thread topic and why anyone should support Obama. You classify yourself as a liberal and I guess being a liberal means you ignore the results of a liberal President. Whether or not you believe my rhetoric is empty or not is irrelevant but what is quite telling is that the results generated are ignored and people here still blame Bush but that is nothing more than an attempt to divert from the Obama record. You can divert from it, personally ignore it, but it will be on the ballot in 2012

Click to expand...

I said you "must have been", as in past tense. As in, since you are very aware of what is going on with the GDP while Obama was in office, if you aren't a hack, you must have been just as aware while Bush was. And since you are mad that he's only made marginal growth in GDP, you must have been furious that GWP had multiple losses of GDP.

So, at the time, you must have been angry, and in hindsight, you must think he was a terrible president. Thanks for letting us know your opinion of GWB, I don't think many of us would have guess that you disliked him so much.

mertex said:

It was Bush's budget, but answer me this, was the budget that was passed by Congress the budget that became "fact"? I don't think so, but you conveniently ignore that fact. Brainwashed, you say?

When Obama was sworn into office, Bush had already submitted his 3.1 trillion dollar 2009 budget almost a year earlier. He then signed the stack of resulting appropriations bills submitted to him by Congress throughout 2008 which authorized the federal spending that would take place once the 2009 FY actually began in October. Then, in the fall of 2008, Bush supported and signed additional spending bills providing for various bailouts and stimulus programs that marked the end of his presidency, and which would show up as spending in 2009. Needless to say, the already-enormous 2009 budget that Bush had submitted in early 2008 was not totally reflective of the full impact of the huge spending increases that would eventually be authorized by Bush. Bush’s original budget was $3.1 trillion, but once one adds in all the bailouts and stimulus spending also supported by Bush, the number is actually much larger, and this is the number that shows up in the spending figures now being attributed to Obama for FY2009.

The 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, for example, was signed by Obama six months before the end of the fiscal year, and coming in at less than half a trillion dollars, this spending was only a fraction of the 3.5 trillion or so in spending already signed into law by Bush earlier that fiscal year.

Bush’s Huge Budget Numbers Blamed on Obama

Click to expand...

Right but as you continue to ignore it takes Congress to pass the budget and Congress was under total control of the Democrats and it passed with total Democrat support which of course you ignore as well. Bush also signed TARP in fiscal year 2009 but spent 350 billion of the 700 billion dollar LOAN program. You do understand the word loan, right? 350 billion was then left for Obama from that LOAN program, again do you understand what LOAN means? I will discuss that further later. Bush was in office from October 1, 2008 to January 20, 2009 so in 4 months you are claiming that all the 2009 deficit was Bush's. Obama took office, put Dept. Heads in place that took over the budget items from that budget. Guess those budgets weren't spent by Obama Dept. heads but instead Bush snuck back into the WH and spent the money. Bush also apparently passed the Obama stimulus program which was also spent in 2009 and of course he also snuck back in and authorized the Afghanistan surge and thus signed the 100 billion supplemental in June 2009.

Guess partisans ignore that which they want to ignore including the fact that the LOAN was paid back in 2009. Why wasn't that pay back used to reduce the deficit you blame on Bush? That of course wouldn't suit your agenda. Then there is the 2009 budget of 3.1 trillion dollars which of course you claim is excessive. Last time I checked the Obama budget for 2010 was over 3.5 trillion and this year he will spend close to 3.7 trillion but those aren't excessive are they? So bottomline, the Bush TARP program voted for by Obama was part of the 2009 deficit yet most of it has been paid back but somehow never got to the deficit. Guess that was Bush's fault, right? Then of course the February Stimulus program spent in 2009 had nothing to do with the deficit, right? The AFghanistan supplemental of 100 billion had nothing to do with the 2009 deficit, right?

You can continue to blame Bush for all the ills of the world but the facts continue to show as posted the Obama approval rating is under 40%, 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans exist in SEPT 2011, the labor force is declining and the misery index rising. So when asked are you better off today than in January 2009 wonder what the average American is going to say. My bet is no.

whysoserious said:

I said you "must have been", as in past tense. As in, since you are very aware of what is going on with the GDP while Obama was in office, if you aren't a hack, you must have been just as aware while Bush was. And since you are mad that he's only made marginal growth in GDP, you must have been furious that GWP had multiple losses of GDP.

So, at the time, you must have been angry, and in hindsight, you must think he was a terrible president. Thanks for letting us know your opinion of GWB, I don't think many of us would have guess that you disliked him so much.

Click to expand...

What I posted showed a rising GDP after the recession ended but then from the first qtr 2010 which is Oct-Dec to the end of Sept that GDP continued to drop. The first two qtrs of 2011 are terrible and totallly Obama's.

I didn't vote for Obama because I checked out the Obama resume and saw zero leadership skills. My analysis has proven right as he has done nothing to change the tone in DC other than to make it more caustic. His experience as a Community Agitator is on full display and he won't get my vote in 2011. Those that don't care about leadership or penalizing individual wealth creation will continue to show their ignorance and vote for him again.

poweRob said:

No, every embassy around the world doesn't require 50,000 troops and isn't the size of Vatican City.

Click to expand...

Do you think there are 50,000 troops protecting the US Embassy in Iraq? From the picture can you point out where they are?

Misterveritis said:

Do you think there are 50,000 troops protecting the US Embassy in Iraq? From the picture can you point out where they are?

Click to expand...

Some 50,000 of 65,000 US troops currently in Iraq are set to remain until the end of 2011 to advise Iraqi forces and protect US interests.

Click to expand...

The war was declared ended and troops withdrawal finished years ago. They left behind 50,000 troops and declared them noncombatant troops (total bull****) and built that massive embassy. They will still leave some behind for embassy duty but that massive troop amount is done. They are coming home.

whysoserious said:

Come on, man. Did you ever take a statistic class or get any schooling on how to read numbers? They don't mean anything if you don't reference them with other numbers. Jesus, I have to do all the work here:

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
View attachment 67117094

As you can see, unemployment was already at 9.4% and rising fast within months of him taking office.

Click to expand...

Really? The one term Marxist president Obama was elected which month? November 2008? What was the unemployment rate just before his election? I read 6.6%. What happened right after the one term Marxist president Obama was elected? All the charts, graphs and numbers show the same thing. Unemployment rose. In the first month it rose to 6.8%. Then on to 7.3%. And on and on and on until he had to begin to lie about the numbers to keep it down to 9.1%.

I think that having a Marxist heading for the White House while the socialists Reid and Pelosi ran the Congress shook the faith of the business world. Why invest when people who are more comfortable with Castro than with Republicans and Conservatives are controlling your destiny?

poweRob said:

The war was declared ended and troops withdrawal finished years ago. They left behind 50,000 troops and declared them noncombatant troops (total bull****) and built that massive embassy. They will still leave some behind for embassy duty but that massive troop amount is done. They are coming home.

Click to expand...

Uh huh. Show me the 50,000 troops? Where are they?

whysoserious said:

So, at the time, you must have been angry, and in hindsight, you must think he was a terrible president.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately he was no Conservative. He was not a terrible President. He was an adequate President.

Misterveritis said:

Really? The one term Marxist president Obama was elected which month? November 2008? What was the unemployment rate just before his election? I read 6.6%. What happened right after the one term Marxist president Obama was elected? All the charts, graphs and numbers show the same thing. Unemployment rose. In the first month it rose to 6.8%. Then on to 7.3%. And on and on and on until he had to begin to lie about the numbers to keep it down to 9.1%.

I think that having a Marxist heading for the White House while the socialists Reid and Pelosi ran the Congress shook the faith of the business world. Why invest when people who are more comfortable with Castro than with Republicans and Conservatives are controlling your destiny?

Click to expand...

Redundant disdain is redundant... and ridiculous. There is no debating your irrational hate.

Misterveritis said:

Uh huh. Show me the 50,000 troops? Where are they?

Click to expand...

In Iraq obviously or else we wouldn't be bringing anyone home.

poweRob said:

In Iraq obviously or else we wouldn't be bringing anyone home.

Click to expand...

Where in Iraq? They have to be somewhere in Iraq. Are they hiding around the Embassy?

Do you think we could move 50,000 troops with their equipment from Iraq to the US in 6 or 7 weeks?

Misterveritis said:

Where in Iraq? They have to be somewhere in Iraq. Are they hiding around the Embassy?

Do you think we could move 50,000 troops with their equipment from Iraq to the US in 6 or 7 weeks?

Click to expand...

wtf are you trying to argue? I have no idea what you are refuting other than just dropping in and being coy and obtuse. If you watched the news today Obama announced the withdrawal of the remaining troops. So I have no idea what you are trying to say.

*edit

Here you go. When we did a withdrawal last year at the end of the war we drew down to 50,000. Apparently from then to now we drew down around 10,000 more. Now there are 39,000 troops that are coming home. So if you doubt that, I don't know what to tell you.

Obama: Iraq war will be over by year's end; troops coming home

(CNN) -- President Barack Obama on Friday announced that virtually all U.S. troops will come home from Iraq by the end of the year -- at which point he can declare an end to America's long and costly war in that Middle Eastern nation.
"After nearly nine years, America's war in Iraq will be over," Obama said. "The coming months will be a season of homecomings. Our troops in Iraq will definitely be home for the holidays."

Of the 39,000 troops in Iraq, about 150, a negligible force, will remain to assist in arms sales, a U.S. official told CNN. The rest will be out of Iraq by December 31.

Click to expand...

poweRob said:

wtf are you trying to argue? I have no idea what you are refuting other than just dropping in and being coy and obtuse. If you watched the news today Obama announced the withdrawal of the remaining troops. So I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Click to expand...

Did you not say there were 50,000 troops guarding the Embassy in Iraq? I want to know where they are.

I think they are just about all gone already. The embassy will end up with a couple of hundred troops to protect it.

I wish the Iraqi's luck.