Own it

[SHOCKvalue]

Funny how the majority of these college protests originate at high brow, high dollar, blue blood institutions of education. Is it a case of cutting off one's nose to spite the face, or evidence the ruling class isn't just populated by white guys at country clubs (as liberals would typically suppose)?

I'll go with the latter.

[CBB_Fan]

You started a thread titled "Own It", then whined about not having checks and balances due to not having a Democrat majority anywhere, then admitted that Obamacare is terrible. And you know full well that a Democrat supermajority slammed it down our throats even though it didn't have the support of a majority of Americans, and never let the Congress even read it, much less debate it. Then you blame it on the Republicans even though not a SINGLE Republican voted for it.

Own it.

I was explicit. Own the results. We will always find disagreements in minutuea. I was very clear on my criteria, and I'll own each number I listed no matter what I though about individual policies.

Now for the lesser nitpicks.

We had a check and balance in a conservative Supreme Court, so you cannot claim this is the same scenario. Conservatives have a pipeline with no stops, which did not exist in 2008.

Second, you act as if Obamacare was hyper liberal and that is why Republicans didn't vote for it. They didn't vote for it out of partisanship. Democrats based the plan on Romneycare, which was itself based on a Heritage Foundation plan in 1989. If you don't believe me I'll link the plan.

They did this because they wanted to compromise. The plan was to get a public option in exchange for Republican based reforms. However, the key vote for the bill was Lieberman. After Republicans uniformally said they oppose any plan, Lieberman, an independent, was the 60th vote. He would not vote for any plan with a public option. Thus we got Romneycare with a ton of crappy add-ons lacking the public option Democrats wanted. They absolutely felt a pressure to pass a hc plan ASAP but the actual plan was not their goal.

I still think it is bad policy, but those are the actual facts about its passing.

On not even reading it: this is wrong. First off, parts of the bill were debated from February to October 2009. Everyone was familiar with the big picture of the bill. The full bill included a 72 hours public viewing that was loaded by open government activists. Pelosi out her foot in her mouth and one congressmen expressed that he didn't read the whole law, but they all had the opportunity. There were 13 hours of negotiation before the final bill was passed in the Senate in November 2009. In February 2009,to avoid having to repass the bill through a Senate that had a Republican replace Ted Kennedy's seat and break the filibuster the house passed the bill. It took a year, there were debates, and those in the House had nearly four months to read the bill after it passed the Senate.

But again, that is minutuea. I own the numbers.

[ShockingButTrue]

BTW - that 56% approval rating - was that poll taken by the same pollsters who predicted HRC was going to win the election ? Just curious

They damn sure forgot to ask me.

Well, we know we can disregard any ABC media group stats. They had Hillary consistently up anywhere from 8.5 points to 437 points, depending on the day of the week.

[im4wsu]

I was explicit. Own the results. We will always find disagreements in minutuea. I was very clear on my criteria, and I'll own each number I listed no matter what I though about individual policies.

Now for the lesser nitpicks.

We had a check and balance in a conservative Supreme Court, so you cannot claim this is the same scenario. Conservatives have a pipeline with no stops, which did not exist in 2008.

Second, you act as if Obamacare was hyper liberal and that is why Republicans didn't vote for it. They didn't vote for it out of partisanship. Democrats based the plan on Romneycare, which was itself based on a Heritage Foundation plan in 1989. If you don't believe me I'll link the plan.

They did this because they wanted to compromise. The plan was to get a public option in exchange for Republican based reforms. However, the key vote for the bill was Lieberman. After Republicans uniformally said they oppose any plan, Lieberman, an independent, was the 60th vote. He would not vote for any plan with a public option. Thus we got Romneycare with a ton of crappy add-ons lacking the public option Democrats wanted. They absolutely felt a pressure to pass a hc plan ASAP but the actual plan was not their goal.

I still think it is bad policy, but those are the actual facts about its passing.

On not even reading it: this is wrong. First off, parts of the bill were debated from February to October 2009. Everyone was familiar with the big picture of the bill. The full bill included a 72 hours public viewing that was loaded by open government activists. Pelosi out her foot in her mouth and one congressmen expressed that he didn't read the whole law, but they all had the opportunity. There were 13 hours of negotiation before the final bill was passed in the Senate in November 2009. In February 2009,to avoid having to repass the bill through a Senate that had a Republican replace Ted Kennedy's seat and break the filibuster the house passed the bill. It took a year, there were debates, and those in the House had nearly four months to read the bill after it passed the Senate.

But again, that is minutuea. I own the numbers.

How do the current numbers you cited stack up against the numbers when Obama took office for his first and second terms?

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

The economy was terrible at Obama’s inauguration. IMO, literally any President would have seen improvement over the next couple years because the numbers were deceptively low to start.The housing bubble caused a swing like a spring, going from too far in one direction to too far in the other.Everything was aligned to come back somewhere in the middle regardless of the policies pursued by Obama.

Was the economic collapse under Bush even his fault, or was it liberal housing policies, or a combination of the two (or more)?
Did Obama help the country recover, or did he hinder a recovery that was already baked in, and actually slow the economy from recovering faster?

Simple comparisons of the stock market, unemployment rate, or median income, between two dates in time, are just missing too much nuance to be very useful.

[CBB_Fan]

How do the current numbers you cited stack up against the numbers when Obama took office for his first and second terms?

2009

GDP growth was -2.8% (across year)
Unemployment was 7.8% (Jan)
Underemployment was 16.5% (July)
14.3% live below the poverty line (across year)
Median household income is $50,221 (across year)
Inflation - 0.1% (across year)
A dollar was worth .753 Euros, .691 pounds, 90.2 Yen, 6.83 Yuan, 13.8 pesos, 31.7 Rubles. (Jan)
Trade deficit of $804B
Deficit of $1.4T, and a debt of $10.6T (Bush's last day).
Gold is going for $1087, silver for $14. (across year)
DOW is at 7949, NASDAQ at 1268, S&P at 2163. (lows)
The President (Bush) had an approval rating of 34%. (start of term)

2013

GDP growth was 2.2% (across year)
Unemployment was 6.7% (Jan)
Underemployment was 14.5% (July)
14.5% live below the poverty line (across year)
Median household income is $51,939 (across year)
Inflation 1.6% (January)
A dollar was worth .751 Euros, .626 pounds, 90.2 Yen, 89.1 Yuan, 12.7 pesos, 30.2 Rubles. (Jan)
Trade deficit of $232B
Deficit of $680B, and a debt of $17T (October).
Gold is going for $1204, silver for $23.8. (across year)
DOW is at 16576, NASDAQ at 1268, S&P at 1848 (end of year)
The President (Obama) had an approval rating of 41%. (end of year)

[im4wsu]

2009

GDP growth was -2.8% (across year)
Unemployment was 7.8% (Jan)
Underemployment was 16.5% (July)
14.3% live below the poverty line (across year)
Median household income is $50,221 (across year)
Inflation - 0.1% (across year)
A dollar was worth .753 Euros, .691 pounds, 90.2 Yen, 6.83 Yuan, 13.8 pesos, 31.7 Rubles. (Jan)
Trade deficit of $804B
Deficit of $1.4T, and a debt of $10.6T (Bush's last day).
Gold is going for $1087, silver for $14. (across year)
DOW is at 7949, NASDAQ at 1268, S&P at 2163. (lows)
The President (Bush) had an approval rating of 34%. (start of term)

2013

GDP growth was 2.2% (across year)
Unemployment was 6.7% (Jan)
Underemployment was 14.5% (July)
14.5% live below the poverty line (across year)
Median household income is $51,939 (across year)
Inflation 1.6% (January)
A dollar was worth .751 Euros, .626 pounds, 90.2 Yen, 89.1 Yuan, 12.7 pesos, 30.2 Rubles. (Jan)
Trade deficit of $232B
Deficit of $680B, and a debt of $17T (October).
Gold is going for $1204, silver for $23.8. (across year)
DOW is at 16576, NASDAQ at 1268, S&P at 1848 (end of year)
The President (Obama) had an approval rating of 41%. (end of year)

Thanks. It looks like improvement, but I sure don't feel like anything has been accomplished and a lot destroyed. Seems like we should have gotten a lot more for out 10.2T additional debt (roughly $35,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States). Realistically, this will be mostly borne by those under age 19, which is more like $150,000 each. What a heavy burden this current administration has laid on our youngest generation! Hard to believe their parents want more of the same.

[ShockingButTrue]

2009

GDP growth was -2.8% (across year)
Unemployment was 7.8% (Jan)
Underemployment was 16.5% (July)
14.3% live below the poverty line (across year)
Median household income is $50,221 (across year)
Inflation - 0.1% (across year)
A dollar was worth .753 Euros, .691 pounds, 90.2 Yen, 6.83 Yuan, 13.8 pesos, 31.7 Rubles. (Jan)
Trade deficit of $804B
Deficit of $1.4T, and a debt of $10.6T (Bush's last day).
Gold is going for $1087, silver for $14. (across year)
DOW is at 7949, NASDAQ at 1268, S&P at 2163. (lows)
The President (Bush) had an approval rating of 34%. (start of term)

2013

GDP growth was 2.2% (across year)
Unemployment was 6.7% (Jan)
Underemployment was 14.5% (July)
14.5% live below the poverty line (across year)
Median household income is $51,939 (across year)
Inflation 1.6% (January)
A dollar was worth .751 Euros, .626 pounds, 90.2 Yen, 89.1 Yuan, 12.7 pesos, 30.2 Rubles. (Jan)
Trade deficit of $232B
Deficit of $680B, and a debt of $17T (October).
Gold is going for $1204, silver for $23.8. (across year)
DOW is at 16576, NASDAQ at 1268, S&P at 1848 (end of year)
The President (Obama) had an approval rating of 41%. (end of year)

Thanks. Now can you please contrast something a little more practical to all of us: 2009 cost of a pound of bacon vs. 2013 cost of a pound of bacon. And I'm talking Oscar Meyer, not Kroger, because hey, the privileged vote counts too.

[im4wsu]

According to Bloomberg Business, the last time the unemployment rate was under five percent, which was in 2008, 28 million Americans were on food stamps. That means roughly 19 million more people are using food stamps since 2008.

There were 45.8 million on food stamps in February 2016.

Plus 26 million -- that really shows the progress made since 2008. Ouch!

With 94,044,000 not in the workforce in April 2016, the labor force participation dropped to 62.8%, a 38-year low, as compared with 65.7% in January 2009 when Obama took office. If the total potential workforce remained level from 2009 to 2016, this would reflect approximately 7,350,000 additional workers have been removed from the workforce during Obama's presidency.

[CBB_Fan]

There were 45.8 million on food stamps in February 2016.

Plus 26 million -- that really shows the progress made since 2008. Ouch!

With 94,044,000 not in the workforce in April 2016, the labor force participation dropped to 62.8%, a 38-year low, as compared with 65.7% in January 2009 when Obama took office. If the total potential workforce remained level from 2009 to 2016, this would reflect approximately 7,350,000 additional workers have been removed from the workforce during Obama's presidency.

Labor force participation would have dropped under any President, as that largely reflects the Baby Boomer generation leaving the labor force. If you look at other factors, the line is essentially flat. The slight rise in disability claims has been thought to be attributable to those that want to leave the labor force but can't afford early retirement, which is concerning, but a growth in full-time students is encouraging.

And while food stamps may have gone up, that is NOT an economic indicator. Food stamps can go up simply because the government expanded access, as they did in the 2009 stimulus or when they allowed jobless adults to stay on the program if they lived in a high unemployment area in 2008. An estimated 20% of the growth can attributed directly to policy changes. And even then, the number means something different to Democrats. They would argue that high numbers on Food Stamps is a good thing, not in the sense of being good for the economy but in the sense that the high number means that the program is working to keep people out of poverty. They would argue that cutting benefits and lowering the number would increase poverty.

I picked each statistic because they are generally considered by economists to be indicators of the health of the economy, not because they fit my views or were tailored to print a rosy picture. The high underemployment and poverty rates are concerned trends that are worth discussing, but it is no exaggeration to say the broader economy recovered well while failing to significantly impact the lives of the median American (the average American, on the other hand, has boomed). I could also look at manufacturing activity, retail sales, housing prices, average duration of unemployment, new car and home purchases, corporate profits, etc. Most of these can be found on sites like this one.

[im4wsu]

Labor force participation would have dropped under any President, as that largely reflects the Baby Boomer generation leaving the labor force. If you look at other factors, the line is essentially flat.

Those add up to 17%-18%,about half of the out of the workforce.

Food stamps is good, but if they increase because of more unemployment and more welfare recipients, then that is not a signal of anything I really wish to see.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Labor force participation would have dropped under any President

Glad you recognize nuance, at least in this one case. The truth is, all your stats in this thread need the same analysis. Simple comparison of national numbers is too simplistic to be helpful.