obAMATEUR’s Pathetic Economic Recovery

The unemployment report on Friday was absolute proof of obAMATEUR’s failure as pResident to help our nation recover.  Millions of people remain unemployed or under employed and millions more have simply given up.  Specifics?  This list breaks down how bad things truly are under the obAMATEUR’s “Recovery” (in name only).

  • 5.1% – The current unemployment rate for government workers, which is the lowest unemployment rate for any of 17 different categories and subcategories of industries for which employment is tracked and published on a month-to-month basis by the Department of Labor.
  • 8.1% – The current national unemployment rate, which dropped .2% because 368,000 Americans dropped out of the labor force in August.  Do you understand what you just heard?  These people –368,000 of your neighbors and friends – just said the hell with it and gave up.
  • 8.4% – What the unemployment rate would be if the labor force participation rate had stayed the same as just last month – if those people had stayed in the job market and kept looking for work.
  • 11.2% – What the unemployment rate would be if we had the same number of people either working or looking for work now as we did when Obama took office.
  • 14.7% – The U-6 unemployment rate, which includes all of those who are unemployed and under-employed (part-time workers who want full-time work).
  • 39 – The average number of weeks that workers find themselves out of the jobs market (the long-term unemployed).
  • 43 – The number of consecutive months with joblessness above 8%.
  • 63.5% – The current labor participation rate, which is the lowest share of Americans over age 16 in the workforce since September 1981.
  • 2025 – If we continue to create jobs at a rate of just 96,000 per month, it will take until 2025 just to return to pre-recession unemployment levels.
  • 41,000 – The number of jobs created for the prior two months were revised lower by 41,000 jobs.
  • 96,000 – The total number of nonfarm jobs created in August.
  • 119,000 – There were 119,000 fewer Americans employed in August than there were in July.
  • 173,000 – The increase in the number of food stamp recipients for the last month for which we have data (June).  Compare that to the number of jobs being created …
  • 250,000 – The number of jobs per month needed to have significant job creation impact and bring down the unemployment rate.
  • 368,000 – The number of Americans who dropped out of the labor force in August.
  • 5 million – The number of jobs still needed to get back to the point where we were in the end of 2007.
  • 20 million – The number of unemployed, underemployed and discouraged workers who’ve left the labor force altogether.
  • 31 million – That’s the population growth since 2000, yet fewer Americans are working today than in April 2000.

UPDATE (since whiny proggy drones refuse to refute facts but nitpick at sources): Hat tip: Neal Boortz,  VERIFIED WITH: BLS, LA Times, ABC News, TIAA Cref, Census Bureau, Forbes – to name a few.  These pathetic facts along with raising taxes on all incomes for obAMACARE, increased food prices due to the drought and increased fuel costs (another obAMATEUR failure), faster rising (rising faster than it would have without obAMACARE) healthcare and premium costs due to obAMACARE and more people on Welfare and receiving food stamps than ever before.   obAMATEUR maintains that Americans are better off than they were four years ago (with little explanation).

It is no wonder obAMATEUR deflects the campaign to Romney’s tax records and other such attacks.  The man has no positive record on which to run.

These drones believe that I would put up FACTS that have not been verified?  They are in for extreme disappointment.  This is a DISCUSSION BLOG now refute the FACTS or STFU. – Rico you have used this cowardly dodge before.

 
Advertisements

96 thoughts on “obAMATEUR’s Pathetic Economic Recovery

  1. Cluster September 10, 2012 / 9:03 pm

    Great thread tired. But you didn’t mention anything positive like Obama increasing fuel efficiency standards. That’s what has Jack from Chicago all excited about on the previous thread. That’s why he’s voting for Obama.

    Jobs don’t matter, debt doesn’t matter, and tax increases don’t matter. What’s really important is free contraceptions, free abortions and fuel efficiency standards! Good to see liberals have their priorities straight.

    • tiredoflibbs September 10, 2012 / 9:45 pm

      Cluster, don’t forget what else matters…. someone really cool (oh, is that racist?!?) for pResident!!!

      • Cluster September 10, 2012 / 9:56 pm

        But evidently he doesn’t know how to work an iPhone. Oops there I go being racist again – damn.

  2. Amazona September 11, 2012 / 5:33 am

    You realize, of course, that when a Lib troll reads this all he will get out of it is that you hate Obama.

    The only thing these figures mean is that you just can’t stand to have a black man in the White House.

    This is what you can expect from an RRL troll:

    “Yawn. “Obama sucks. This is what his policies really will do. They aren’t now, but they will. Talking point, talking point, talking point.” Double yawn.”

    Oh, and “Bush did it”.

  3. Cluster September 11, 2012 / 5:55 am

    Let’s not forget, Chicago is the political culture in which Obama grew up in, was mentored in, and learned from. Chicago is where he community organized, and won his first office. The place where he first brought his brand of hope and change. And a place of which is trusted aid and chief of staff is now running the show. Well, by any measure, considering the out of control violence, the rampant poverty, and the out of control, selfish unions, I think we can all safely say that his time there was an abysmal failure.

    http://www.suntimes.com/15064134-761/teachers-strike-leaves-parents-scrambling-as-long-as-theyre-on-strike-i-cant-work-either.html

    So what do the Democrats do? Why they elect him to a more prominent national office of course. That is liberalism personified. Failing all the way to the top, and Obama and Valerie Jarrett, who has also never achieved success in anything other than getting promoted, are two very prominent liberal failures.

    Speaking of failures, I have noticed that our resident liberals are quite silent on this thread and the previous one, two threads of which actually discuss substance. I guess the vacuous vessels are more comfortable talking about abortion, contraception, and global warming than they are of matters that actually have an impact on their empty lives.

  4. Raging Bull September 11, 2012 / 6:42 am

    but, but, but….bin laden is dead and GM is alive!!!!!

  5. GMB September 11, 2012 / 8:17 am

    New Washington Post poll has barky up by only one point. Looks like the klintoon bounce is already history.

    Did I forget to mention that the poll was donkyrat plus ten, in it’s sample. I beg your pardon.

    😛

  6. Kolob Bob September 11, 2012 / 8:44 am

    Posted under a false email address. Deleted. //Moderator

    • GMB September 11, 2012 / 8:58 am

      Dow Jones 14,093 Oct 12 2007, as of close yesterday 13,254.29.

      Still has a way to go before it equals the the high under that evil BOOOSSSHHH!!!

      Next talking point please.

      • Kolob Bob September 11, 2012 / 9:04 am

        Posted under a false email address. Deleted. //Moderator

      • Retired Spook September 11, 2012 / 9:09 am

        You can’t pick and choose your stats like that, because it discredits you entirely.

        Bob, what specifically did Bush do that caused the Dow Jones to plummet from over 14,000 in the fall of 2007 to 6,500 in March of 2009?

      • Retired Spook September 11, 2012 / 9:21 am

        Umm. . . When Obama took office, the Dow Jones was 7949

        And along came the Stimulus and TARP 2 (the DOW fell 400 points the day after that was announced), and the market continued to plummet another 20% on BHOzo’s watch to a 12-year low of 6,547.

        Now BOB, your point again was what?

      • GMB September 11, 2012 / 9:26 am

        “Bob, what specifically did Bush do that caused the Dow Jones to plummet from over 14,000 in the fall of 2007 to 6,500 in March of 2009?”

        You don’t think he had any help from a donkyrat controlled congress do you?

        Nah, couldn’t be.

      • Mark Edward Noonan September 11, 2012 / 12:18 pm

        In real dollar terms the stock market is no higher than it was in 2009. All that has happened is asset inflation as the Federal Reserve has printed money to keep this fraudulent, built-by-liberals economy afloat.

    • Retired Spook September 11, 2012 / 9:05 am

      Well, the stock market has doubled under Pres. Obama, so Mitt Rmoney and the “job creators” are doing MUCH MUCH BETTER than they were four years ago.

      Bob, do you understand why the stock market has gone up since March, 2009? BTW, I bailed out of equities in the spring of 2007 when the DOW was around 13,200. Guess what it closed at yesterday? 13,254. No gain; that’s NO GAIN in 5-1/2 years. In fact, I still track my old portfolio using a feature at MarketWatch. Nine out of twelve mutual funds I had retirement funds in have a negative return over the last 5 years.

      • Cluster September 11, 2012 / 9:09 am

        And I remember when the evil Bush was President, and the Dow was high, the liberal meme was that it only helped the rich. Funny how that tune has changed.

      • Amazona September 11, 2012 / 10:48 am

        I think it is pretty clear that Bob is not in the market, does not invest, and knows nothing about it other than the numbers posted.

        Again, I think of the guy who goes to Vegas with $5000, loses $4500, wins back $1000, and goes home bragging that he “won $1000”—overlooking the fact that he is $3500 in the hole.

        This is the math used by the Left when talking about jobs and the stock market.

    • neocon1 September 11, 2012 / 4:07 pm

      BuB Buy BOB !

  7. Cluster September 11, 2012 / 9:06 am

    Hewlett Packard and Kodak have announced more “middle class” layoffs this morning. About 5,000 total between the two. Any comments Bob?

    And Bob, do you consider inflation to be a hidden tax? Higher fuel prices, higher energy prices, higher gorcery prices, higher insurance premiums, etc? Of have you even thought that one through?

    And you might want to think about the fact that cutting payroll taxes, only accelerates the insolvency of Social Security and Medicare. But knowing you, you probably don’t want to think about that, so I will give you one more. When all the Obamacare taxes hit us next year, which will be burdened by the upper incomes who already pay 71% of all income taxes, there will definitely be more job losses, so you will in all likelihood not have any money left to pay any your own taxes. Again, probably haven’t thought that one all the way through, have you sport?

    • Retired Spook September 11, 2012 / 9:11 am

      Cluster,

      Folks like Bob don’t “think” — they emote.

    • Amazona September 11, 2012 / 10:43 am

      Cluster, I have to laugh. You presented this excellent post, with relevant questions to KB, and how did he respond?

      With whines about Bush.

      They are sooooo predictable.

  8. Kolob Bob September 11, 2012 / 9:18 am

    Posted under a false email address. Deleted. //Moderator

    • J. R. Babcock September 11, 2012 / 9:25 am

      When asked, they don’t deny this. . . They just deflect the question!

      Kind of like when you bought into hope and change in 2008 without even questioning what it involved.

    • Retired Spook September 11, 2012 / 9:47 am

      Bob, I’m curious; what are the really important issues for you? I’m not talking about day to day stuff, but things that you would actually risk your life for.

    • Amazona September 11, 2012 / 10:34 am

      KB an interesting poster, in that he is so absolute in his denunciation of All That Is Romney, but when you take another look at what he says you see that he is so absolute about vague impressions of Romney, based upon what the Obama campaign has told him to believe about Romney.

      And his objections are pretty much summed up as I Don’t Like Romney. His posts are just one talking point after another, and really heavy on BDS.

      He says the economic condition today can’t be resolved by an Executive Order, which I think is really funny since Obama has tried to address so many things by Executive Order, going so far as to announce that if Congress won’t pass laws he wants then he will just go ahead and make them himself.

      (This does not appear to bother Bob or his fellow travelers, who seem to think that there is no problem in having a president take on powers not delegated to him by the Constitution if the president is a Democrat.)

      But, as to taxes. KB, please tell us where Romney has talked about raising taxes. Yes, I know there is a big ad campaign out there, approved by Barry, claiming that he will—but where is the proof?

      What I have heard him say is that tax revenue will go up when the tax BASE is enlarged.

      Now this is a pretty spooky idea for such as you, who see no source of revenue but THE RICH but the idea is that when more people are earning more money, more will be paid in taxes.

      What is really funny is that this is true across the board, including THE RICH

      In an anemic economy, fewer people are earning fewer dollars, so the only way to increase tax revenue is to increase the tax RATE on those dollars. This is the only thing the Left understands, and they love it because it feeds their innate distrust of and resentment of an economic system that allows people to become wealthy.

      But when this despised economic model is allowed to function, more people are earning more dollars, which means that while the tax RATE remains the same, the tax REVENUE increases.

      Because this idea is so alien to the Left’s perception of economics, as well as so offensive to their loathing for a system that makes this work, they invent scenarios that fit into the their limited scope of comprehension.

      And so they come up with the scenarios suggested by KB.

      But these are mere Leftist fantasies, either purposeful lies invented in a desire to harm Romney’s prospects or truly held beliefs stemming from economic ignorance.

      We know there is a lot of purposeful lying going on, as seen in the disgraceful ad claiming Romney’s plan will add a couple thousand dollars to the tax bill of the middle class, so we know this is SOP for the Left, but when it comes to post from people like KB it could just as easily be the latter.

    • Amazona September 11, 2012 / 10:41 am

      One of the first and most effective national campaigns to explain this to the American people was run by Democrat President John F. Kennedy, who spoke to the people in a series of TV ads promoting his suggested tax rate cut.

      He explained how this would stimulate the economy, put more dollars into more pockets, and as he said about an improving economy, “a rising tide lifts all boats”.

      It worked with Kennedy, it worked with Reagan, and it started to work with Bush 43, though it was eventually hamstrung by the social engineering experiments by the Left finally crashing in on us with the housing/banking busts.

      But the theory has been proven, it does work, and furthermore it is the ONLY economic model that works.

      It just offends the Left, including the PL like Kolob Bob, who either can’t stand anything that does not come from the government or can’t understand how anything COULD come from anything BUT the government.

    • neocon1 September 11, 2012 / 7:12 pm

      BuB Bye kolobob

  9. GMB September 11, 2012 / 9:36 am

    n January 2009, the month Obama took office, the average price of a gallon of regular gasoline in the US was $1.85.

    Yesterday, gassed up the old jeep at $3.84 a gallon. Damn that BOOOSSHHH and his evil oil cronys!!!

  10. GMB September 11, 2012 / 9:52 am

    Price of a gallon of milk in 2009 you ask. Why on average under $2.00. Today on average $2.80.

    I blame BOOOSSSSHHHHH!!!!!!!

    Yup folks, we are so much better off today than we were four years ago. The one who is not named Bush is no longer in office. Doesn’t mean we can’t blame him for everything but at least he is not in office anymore.

    • bozo September 11, 2012 / 10:50 am

      I blame Obama. How dare my socialist dear leader privatize such a valuable asset after Booooooosh so brilliantly socialized the losses of Wall Street gods?

      • Cluster September 11, 2012 / 11:00 am

        Bozo,

        You really want to go there? ok.

        The conservatively opposed bail out of AIG notwithstanding, this may be the only, I repeat, only successful government liquidation. Two other things, the Obama justice department looked the other way and did not investigate any possible collusion or corruption in the financial sector, and the $12 billion profit realized would help run the government for approximately one day, and pales in comparison to Obama’s trillion dollar deficits. So, I am glad that you are happy about a $12 billion dollar return on a risky tax payer investment, in the face of trillion dollar deficits, but as for me? Not so much,

      • Amazona September 11, 2012 / 11:11 am

        “AIG, once the world’s largest insurer, was bailed out in 2008….”

        2008, eh?

        And you are giving credit to OBAMA for this?

        What you are really gloating about is the successful sale of AIG stock which was given as collateral for a government loan made back when companies were expected to put up something when they came to the feds asking for help, a sale which has repaid the loan (unlike the government HANDOUTS since 2009, which carefully remove the government from a priority position in case of bankruptcy) and which is probably required by the terms of the loan (if this was part of TARP) to be immediately applied to the deficit.

        So Bush did it right, it ended up being an asset, and if the law is followed the money will be applied to the deficit, reducing the Bush deficit even more. Now the questions are, will the money just be spent by Obama instead of being applied to the deficit, and will the Loony Left admit that this money reduces the amount of deficit they love to hang on Bush. So far you have managed to avoid crediting him for the money repaid so there is no reason to think this will be any different.

        And BTW, when the government does not take over a company, run it or even just decree who it has to hire to run it, and distribute its stock, it has not socialized it. I think you may be thinking of GM.

      • Amazona September 11, 2012 / 3:48 pm

        So we know where the AIG money went—it came back to us.

        Where did the “stimulus” money go? Where are the billions handed to Solyndra, for example? Do we have an accounting of how that money was spent? How much went into the pockets of Solyndra execs?

  11. Retired Spook September 11, 2012 / 10:43 am

    GMB,

    The price of gasoline and milk and the level of the stock market pale in comparison to this. In fact, even though it’s off the average person’s radar, just about everything pales in comparison to the damage this administration has done to national security. This is another video that needs to go viral.

    • GMB September 11, 2012 / 3:25 pm

      Spook. Agreed it should go viral.

      Have to disagree just a bit with those in the video who say that this administration does not understand the consequences of revealing national security secrets.

      They know the consequences. They are leaking on purpose. They do not care one bit that our nation will be harder to defend. That is their purpose to begin with. To “fundamentally change America” To weaken the United States, to knock this country down until we look just like any old shitholeistan in Asia.

      If you don’t understand that now after nearly four years of this crap, I am Mitt’s biggest fan.

  12. Cluster September 11, 2012 / 10:52 am

    I am sure Spook noticed this announcement this morning:

    Moody’s expects to cut US rating without deal to lower debt/GDP ratio

    Which was met with this from Germany:

    “Ahead of the election in the United States there is great uncertainty about the course American politics will take in dealing the U.S. government’s debts, which are much too high,” Schaeuble said. “We need to remind ourselves of that sometimes and the global economy knows that and is burdened by it.”

    Now here is a sober reminder for our leftists. Obama’s budgets for as far out as the eye can see, never balaces, and calls for trillion dollar deficits.

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/48982485

    • Amazona September 11, 2012 / 3:45 pm

      We simply cannot have debt that exceeds our tax capacity.

      While the Left seems to believe that the tax capacity on the upper ten per cent or so is unlimited, the fact is that at some point the disincentives of too-high taxation outpace any transient gains of raising tax rates.

  13. Cluster September 11, 2012 / 12:01 pm

    OK hold on everyone, I think we have overlooked something of huge importance in regards to Obama. And that is how he handles himself on the basketball court. The following is an exchange between the Obama loving Matt Lauer and a fellow basketball opponent of Obama’s:

    Matt Lauer – “What did you see about the way he [Obama] handles himself on the court that sheds some light on his personality and how he might handle himself in the job?”

    Michael Lewis – “…he’s effective on the court, he’s a good basketball player – but he plays a game that seems very risk averse….But then all of a sudden, when there’s a risk to take, it’s boom. He’s got the personality of a sniper.”

    All of these years we have been looking for the wrong qualifications for our Presidents. Who knew? This is just incredible insight. /sarc

    • Mark Edward Noonan September 11, 2012 / 12:20 pm

      All part of the DNC/MSM plan to try and sucker people in to re-electing him…

    • Amazona September 11, 2012 / 3:43 pm

      According to Obama, he did not play much college ball because, as he says, he “played black” and the team “played white”.

      • neocon1 September 11, 2012 / 4:12 pm

        he cheated?

  14. watsonredux September 11, 2012 / 3:51 pm

    Amazona said, “It worked with Kennedy, it worked with Reagan, and it started to work with Bush 43, though it was eventually hamstrung by the social engineering experiments by the Left finally crashing in on us with the housing/banking busts.”

    Amazona, you continue to make this assertion without backing it up with facts. The fact is that during the Bush administration, federal revenues in real dollars decreased in each year of 2001, 2002 and 2003. It did start to grow again in 2004, finally topping the 2000 revenues in 2005. But that is in real dollars. If the federal revenues had simply kept pace with inflation, they should have reached $2.81T in 2008. Instead, they were only $2.54 trillion. In fact, federal revenues failed to keep up with inflation each and every year of the Bush administration. So federal revenues actually decreased each and every year of the Bush administration.

    If you take the actual growth in GDP between 2000-2008, then federal revenues still failed to keep up with GDP. If you consider federal revenue as a percentage of GDP, then it was lower in every single year of the Bush administration than it was when he took office.

    If you look at GDP for each presidential administration since World War II, the Bush administration had the worst record. That suggests that if anything, his policies had a detrimental effect on the economy.

    GDP under recent presidents:

    1948-1952 (Harry S. Truman, Democrat), +4.82%
    1953-1960 (Dwight D. Eisenhower, Republican), +3%
    1961-1964 (John F. Kennedy / Lyndon B. Johnson, Democrat), +4.65%
    1965-1968 (Lyndon B. Johnson, Democrat), +5.05%
    1969-1972 (Richard Nixon, Republican), +3%
    1973-1976 (Richard Nixon / Gerald Ford, Republican), +2.6%
    1977-1980 (Jimmy Carter, Democrat), +3.25%
    1981-1988 (Ronald Reagan, Republican), +3.4%
    1989-1992 (George H. W. Bush, Republican), +2.17%
    1993-2000 (Bill Clinton, Democrat), +3.88%
    2001-2008 (George W. Bush, Republican), +2.09%

    Federal revenues under President Bush:

    2000, $2.025T, 20.6% of GDP
    2001, $1.991T, 19.5% of GDP
    2002, $1.853T, 17.6% of GDP
    2003, $1.782T, 16.2% of GDP
    2004, $1.880T, 16.1% of GDP
    2005, $2.153T, 17.3% of GDP
    2006, $2.406T, 18.2% of GDP
    2007, $2.568T, 18.5% of GDP
    2008, $2.524T, 17.5% of GDP

    • neocon1 September 11, 2012 / 4:11 pm

      obAMATEUR’s Pathetic ………….

      that is all that is needed.
      Psalm 109:8

    • Retired Spook September 11, 2012 / 5:44 pm

      Watson,

      There something drastically wrong with your numbers. Inflation averaged 2.58%per year from 2001 through 2008. Based on that, federal revenues of $1.991 trillion in 2001 would have been $2.44 trillion in 2008 if they just kept up with inflation. I don’t know where you got your figures, but they can’t be right.

      • Cluster September 11, 2012 / 6:04 pm

        What Watson just proved is that Bush’s economy generated much more revenue for the federal treasury than has Obama’s economy under the same tax rate structure.

        What Watson is also ignoring in his zeal to denigrate anything Bush (no surprise), is that Bush had to deal with the negative economic impacts of 9/11 and Katrina, and yet he didn’t blame anyone. Imagine that. A President who actually takes responsibility. Wouldn’t that be refreshing?

      • neocon1 September 11, 2012 / 6:08 pm

        any President but the kenyan commie would be refreshing.

      • Retired Spook September 11, 2012 / 6:16 pm

        Bush had to deal with the negative economic impacts of 9/11 and Katrina, and yet he didn’t blame anyone

        Cluster, I’m reminded of a great quote from a great man who commanded respect from pretty much everyone — legendary UCLA basketball coach, John Wooden:

        A man may make mistakes, but he isn’t a failure until he starts blaming someone else.

      • watsonredux September 11, 2012 / 6:35 pm

        Using the annual rate of inflation from your chart, I get this (inflation rate of the previous year, same revenue in trillions adjusted for inflation, actual revenue in trillions):

        2000: $2.025 (the starting point)
        2001: 2.8%, $2.082, $1.991
        2002: 1.6%, $2.115, $1.853
        2003: 2.3%, $2.164, $1.782
        2004: 2.7%, $2.222, $1,880
        2005: 3.4%, $2.298, $2.153
        2006: 3.2%, $2.371, $2.406
        2007: 2.8%, $2.438, $2.568
        2008: 3.8%, $2.530, $2,524

        So you are correct that in two of the eight years federal revenues exceeded what would have been expected merely by adjusting for inflation. But “drastically wrong”? I don’t think so. In the meantime, the federal government lost a net $1.061T as compared to keeping up with inflation.

        President Bush’s tax cuts were supposed to stimulate the economy such that it would have done far better than merely keeping up with inflation. It didn’t. Can you come up with a measure in which it did?

      • watsonredux September 11, 2012 / 6:43 pm

        Cluster, mine wasn’t a blame Bush but not Obama comment. Amazona said “He [JKF] explained how this [tax rate cuts] would stimulate the economy, put more dollars into more pockets, and as he said about an improving economy, “a rising tide lifts all boats”. She then went on to say that it was working for GWB. Give me some measures that show it was working.

        As for blaming people, the Bush administration did blame President Clinton for the so-called “Clinton recession” that occurred after GWB took office, not to mention blaming a host of other factors for the anemic performance of the economy that ended with the worst contraction since the Great Depression. (Which of course you all blame on the “donkyrats.” You love to blame.)

      • watsonredux September 11, 2012 / 6:53 pm

        Here’s another measure. President Bush inherited an economy with an unemployment rate of 4.0%. And yet, in each and every year of the Bush administration, the unemployment rate failed to get lower than 4.6%. In other words, the fabulous economy that Bush created failed to even achieve the standards that he inherited at any point in his eight years.

        Again I ask, if tax cuts always work and always stimulate the economy, then what happened? Why should we expect tax cuts to work any better in the future?

      • Cluster September 11, 2012 / 6:55 pm

        Amazona said “He [JKF] explained how this [tax rate cuts] would stimulate the economy, put more dollars into more pockets, and as he said about an improving economy, “a rising tide lifts all boats”.

        Watson,

        According to the numbers you posted, from 2001 to 2008, there is an approximate 22% increase in real dollars, accounting for inflation. Increase = growth in most dictionaries. And those tax revenues were realized under the same tax rate structure that Obama extended in December 2010.

      • Cluster September 11, 2012 / 7:01 pm

        Watson,

        Do you ever tire of repeating the same old garbage day in and day out? We have had this conversation so many times before that I am surprised you continue to bring it up. Your retention skills suck. Do you remember the tech bubble? The dot com bust? It happened in 2000, and a lot of people lost their jobs. That happened under Clinton’s watch and of which Bush inherited and didn’t blame Clinton one bit. Eight months later, 9/11 happened – remember that moron? Another round of HUGE losses and massive negative impact in the economy. Bush still averaged approx. 6% unemployment in his first term, something of which Obama can onl dream of.

      • Cluster September 11, 2012 / 7:21 pm

        Spook,

        We could use more John Wooden’s. Hell of a man.

      • watsonredux September 11, 2012 / 7:45 pm

        Cluster said, “According to the numbers you posted, from 2001 to 2008, there is an approximate 22% increase in real dollars, accounting for inflation.”

        I ran the numbers, Cluster, and a dollar in 2000 would have been worth $1.25 in 2008. So you would expect federal revenues to have increased by that amount–just to keep up with inflation. That would be federal revenues of $2.53 in 2008, whereas the actual revenues were $2.524. So in that particular year, revenues fell just short of keeping up with inflation.

        Are you claiming that merely keeping up with inflation was the idea of the Bush tax cuts? That losing over $1T in revenue was a good thing? The record shows anemic growth during the Bush years and revenue that fell short of inflation. There was no real growth in revenues when adjusted for inflation. None at all. In fact, the opposite in most years.

        I’m sorry if you don’t like me repeating it, but every time you guys repeat the canard that tax cuts stimulate the economy, I will remind you that they don’t.

      • Retired Spook September 11, 2012 / 11:27 pm

        But “drastically wrong”? I don’t think so

        A couple things: first you’re using 2000 as a starting point. How did Bush affect federal revenues in a year when he wasn’t even President yet? At the very least you have to use 2001, Bush’s first year in office as your starting point. Second, you say: “If the federal revenues had simply kept pace with inflation, they should have reached $2.81T in 2008.” In order for $1.991 trillion to become $2.81 trillion in 8 years, inflation would have had to average 4.4% % vs. the actual 2.58 %. I’d say a difference of 70% (4.4 minus 2.58 equals 1.82 divided by 2.58 equals 70.54%) is drastically wrong.

    • Cluster September 11, 2012 / 7:05 pm

      Let it be known that watson is a COMPLETE MORON – posting information, and arriving at the wrong conclusions.

      Increase in federal revenues above the rate of inflation equals growth by any measure. The dot com bust and 9/11 were huge negative impacts on the economy and yet Bush had it turned around within his first term, in large part due to tax rate cuts.

      Can anyone convey that to Watson in terms that he might understand?

      • watsonredux September 11, 2012 / 7:50 pm

        And I acknowledged that in two of the eight years, President Bush did achieve revenues that were higher than would be expected by simply tracking inflation. Two of eight years. Congratulations. The rest of the years we lost ground. I don’t know how you can interpret the numbers a different way. But you just resort to name calling. You’re nothing but classy, Cluster.

      • Cluster September 11, 2012 / 7:57 pm

        Watson,

        No matter how you slice it, federal revenues on the whole from 2001 – 2008 of approx. 25%, out paced the 2.58% average annual inflation during the same time period and that is with the adverse impacts of the dot com bust, 9/11 and Katrina. That equals growth by any measure and Obama hasn’t been able to accomplish anything near that under more favorable conditions.

        I called you a moron because you know it as well as I, that we have had this same conversation on many occasion.

      • watsonredux September 11, 2012 / 8:10 pm

        And this page shows inflation rate for each year. Maybe you can work out the math for us. (Hint: You must multiple the starting federal revenue by the inflation rate, which you must convert from the percent given in the table. Then you must multiply that amount by the next year’s inflation rate, and so on.) I anxiously await your results.

        http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/

      • Amazona September 11, 2012 / 8:12 pm

        Well, Cluster, the wattle is so deeply invested in his BDS he plays little games like including the revenues of 2000 in “the Bush years” and he steadfastly ignores the economic impact of 9/11, Katrina, the dot com bust, and the beginnings of the social engineering experiment collapse of both the housing and banking industries–that is to say, not only the housing industry regarding home sales, but the construction industry regarding home building, the suppliers of housing materials, etc.

        According to the wattles, Bush had a free ride and he blew it.

        And they do not address the economic impact of the Kennedy and Reagan tax RATE cuts—-they get so caught up in the misleading terminology of TAX CUTS they can’t seem to get past the fact that taxes were not cut, but rates were—-and they avoid like the plague the chilling effect of tax rate HIKES on a faltering economy.

      • watsonredux September 11, 2012 / 8:19 pm

        Amazona said, “Well, Cluster, the wattle is so deeply invested in his BDS he plays little games like including the revenues of 2000 in “the Bush years”…

        No, I used that as the baseline because it was the federal revenue of the year before Bush took office. Give his stellar fiscal policies, you would have expected federal revenues to dramatically increase each year after he took office. They did not.

        I do not claim Bush had a “free ride,” just as I don’t ignore the circumstances when President Obama took office. You tell us Bush’s policy tax cuts ALWAYS stimulate the economy. When that is shown to be demonstrably untrue, you then fall back on excuses. And yet you are unable to acknowledge the circumstances that President Obama inherited. You are a hypocrite.

      • Cluster September 11, 2012 / 8:38 pm

        Watson,

        Look at the revenue as a percentage of GDP in 2004 vs 2008. Revenue in 2004 was 16% of GDP vs just 17.8% in 2008 despite a nearly 40% increase in revenue. Can you connect the dots on that? GDP grew exponentially larger than revenue hence the small percentage increase despite dramatic real dollar growth in said revenue.

        Did you read the word GROWTH. You can’t spin that one. And spare me the sentiments on calling you a moron. If the shoe fits.

      • Cluster September 11, 2012 / 8:39 pm

        Watson,

        You have been proven wrong. And Obama’s policies are polar opposite that of Bush and having polar opposite results. Bush’s economy grew, Obama’s economy is contracting.

      • watsonredux September 11, 2012 / 8:50 pm

        Still didn’t do the math, did you, Cluster. Do you even know how to do the math? We might as well drop it because you have demonstrated in post after post that you won’t (or can’t). You focus on the years in which revenues increase, ignore the ones in which they didn’t, and ignore the fact that adjusted for inflation, President Bush managed to barely get revenues back to even after years of net losses. Oh well, nice chatting with you.

      • Cluster September 11, 2012 / 8:58 pm

        Watson,

        You are in complete denial, hence the moron moniker. GDP grew exponentially from 2001 to 2008 despite the aforementioned adverse impacts, and that is the result of tax rate cuts. You are myopically focused on federal revenue which is meaningless if GDP is stagnant.

        I wish I could say that it was nice chatting with you, but this is a wasted 30 minutes that I can never get back. Ciao.

      • watsonredux September 11, 2012 / 9:32 pm

        GDP grew “exponentially” from 2001 to 2008? Really? We were talking about anemic growth in federal revenues, but let’s talk about GDP. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis tables, the economy grew at a slower rate under President Bush than his predecessor. It even grew more slowly under GWB than under President Carter. A stellar result to be sure, and clearly one that shows the effectiveness of his policies.

      • Amazona September 11, 2012 / 9:33 pm

        wattle, you are so deeply and passionately invested in “proving” that tax rate cuts do not stimulate economic growth, there is no way you could ever accept anything to the contrary.

        So…can you provide proof that Keynesian economics WILL result in a more vibrant economy?

      • Cluster September 11, 2012 / 9:40 pm

        Here’s some simple math Watson,

        2004 revenue of 1.8 trillion was 16% of GDP, meaning GDP was 11.25 trillion

        2008 revenue of 2.8 trillion was 17.8% of GDP, meaning GDP was 16 trillion

        That equals a 45% growth in GDP. Spin that. You’re the math expert.

      • Cluster September 11, 2012 / 9:45 pm

        I got 2008 wrong

        It was 2.5 trillion revenue, which was 17.5% of GDP, meaning GDP was 14.3 trillion, or a 30% increase in GDP from 2004 despite dot com bust, 9/11 and Katrina. That’s 30% growth in 4 years. Spin that.

        What has Obama done that can equal that?

      • watsonredux September 11, 2012 / 9:56 pm

        I’m glad you noticed. Saved me the time of having to try to explain it to you. It’s humorous that you start the comparison in 2004. What happen to the early Bush years? I’m not claiming that GDP did not grow from 2001 to 2008. It did. It just grew at a slower rate than during any other presidential administration since World War II. So touting his policies as being more expansionary than others just doesn’t hold up.

        Supply siders like Amazona claim that tax cuts always produce higher revenues. The facts show that this did not occur during the Bush presidency.

        And we haven’t even gotten to the fact that Bush ran up record deficits.

      • Cluster September 11, 2012 / 10:30 pm

        Watson,

        Again, it is you that is WRONG!!!! It did GROW and quite a bit considering the obstacles along the way as mentioned, or did you forget those already? If Bush had not cut tax rates, the dot com bust, 9/11 and Katrina would have most likely sent it into decline.

        And again, Bush has out performed Obama, period, and is not far behind Carter despite Carter presiding over peace time with no obstacles.

        So again my dear Watson, you are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

        Thanks for playing

      • tiredoflibbs September 11, 2012 / 10:50 pm

        CLuster, I find it amazing that watty can “do the math” and say one thing hoping to refute known FACTS. But the simple fact of the matter is (or the simple math), is that in 2000, the GDP was roughly $9.8 trillion and in 2008 it was $14.2 trillion. That is a 45% increase in the GDP – obAMATEUR can only dream of these numbers. Watty “can do the math” (if he did it in the first place – my guess he is just regurgitating dumbed down talking points designed for the ignorant – namely him), but he can’t see the obvious FACTS in front of him.

        http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=gdp

      • Cluster September 11, 2012 / 10:31 pm

        Record deficits????

        You are delusionally stupid.

      • Cluster September 11, 2012 / 10:34 pm

        Watson,

        Can you actually wrap your mind around the fact that you are trying to deny that growth is growth?

        Do you not find that delusional?

      • tiredoflibbs September 11, 2012 / 10:57 pm

        watty: “Bush’s record deficits”

        Uh, watty, that was before obAMATEUR came along. Bush’s deficits were criticized here many a time. But if you were truly worried about deficits, then you should be worried about obAMATEUR spending more in less than half the time. If not, then you are truly STUPID. I am sure you were one of those worried about the deficit when Bush was President then became predictably silent when obAMATEUR outspent him. It is amazing that obAMATEUR promised to cut the deficit in half or he would be a one term pResident. I don’t see him resigning, do you? Of course not, the man has no honor.

        As a result of obAMATEUR’s out of control spending, our credit rating was downgraded and MOODY is warning that it will happen again.

        http://www.forexlive.com/blog/2012/09/11/moodys-expects-to-cut-us-rating-without-deal-to-lower-debtgdp-ratio/

        obAMATEUR did not listen the first time. He won’t listen again. No amount of tax increases will make a dent in the deficits and budgetary promises he has wrought.

      • Cluster September 11, 2012 / 10:36 pm

        And Amazona never contended that Bush’s economy was more expansionary than other presidents. She simply stated the fact that tax rate cuts spur economic growth and she is right. You are wrong.

        Capiche?

      • watsonredux September 11, 2012 / 10:56 pm

        So why did you compare 2008 to 2004? What happened to 2001-2003?

      • tiredoflibbs September 12, 2012 / 6:42 am

        wattty: “what happened to 2001-2003?”

        Uh, watty, your poor reading comprehension has been your demise again. This has been answered. Are you too dense, to realize this?

        That question has been answered too.

      • watsonredux September 11, 2012 / 11:35 pm

        Cluster said, “Record deficits????”

        Yes, Cluster. At the time time, the budget deficit as a percentage of GDP was highest under Bush (along with Reagan) of any post-war president. That made it a record deficit. All Republican presidents in my lifetime have created large deficits even though they claim to be against them. Why do you suppose that is?

        Cluster said, “Can you actually wrap your mind around the fact that you are trying to deny that growth is growth?”

        I’m not claiming that no growth occurred. I am claiming that the growth that did occur was less than any previous post-WWII president, and the facts back that up. I am claiming that there is no evidence to indicate that Bush’s policies stimulated the economy any more than it would have been without his policies. It’s a subtlety that obviously eludes you.

        Cluster said, “And Amazona never contended that Bush’s economy was more expansionary than other presidents. She simply stated the fact that tax rate cuts spur economic growth and she is right. You are wrong.” It did not spur greater economic growth that occurred in the previous administration without Bush’s policies. If we had elected a mannequin it would have done as well based on the data.

        And then of course, we have the collapse of the economy just as Bush was finishing up his work. I know, I know. Bush had nothing to do with that, either.

        Finally, if I can ask again, Cluster, why is that you use 2004 as the starting point bench mark to measure GWB’s economic success? He took office in 2001.

      • Amazona September 12, 2012 / 10:22 am

        wattle, economics is not a hard science. It is not absolute. The number of moving parts in any economic equation, when theory is applied to reality, is staggering. The Bush years provide an excellent example of this.

        Even a tested and successful economic theory was stifled, to some extent, by external circumstances beyond anyone’s control, or at least beyond Bush’s, so an accurate measurement of its success is impossible. Using Obama theory, we could call it an outstanding success based on the number of jobs SAVED in the face of the inherited Clinton recession, the man-made catastrophe of 9/11, the costs of rebuilding the Clinton-depleted military, the natural catastrophe of Katrina, the drought of 2002, and the beginning of the implosion of the housing, building and banking industries as the accumulated weight of three decades of federal social engineering experiments began to overwhelm the system.

        Even under the combined weight of all these factors, the economy grew. As far as I can tell, you are arguing that it would have grown even more——IF ????? If what? If what alternative economic theory had been applied?

        I, and millions of others, contend that our nation will experience greater economic growth and prosperity in a political system which includes minimal regulation and a low tax rate.

        We base this on understanding of human nature and on historical precedent.

        You, and your fellow travelers, object to the free market/low taxation concept, and you object with great passion, even great hostility to the concept and those who support it.

        Yet you do not offer an alternative.

        We look at a period of time in this nation when we set new standards for economic prosperity and personal liberty under the same kind of Constitutional system we are trying to re-establish. We can point to times in our history when we have strayed from this model, and the economic ruin that has resulted, and we can point to recovery after returning to it.

        You are quite passionate about objecting to it, but what is your alternative. More to the point, WHY do you prefer whatever your alternative may be?

        Can you make an argument for the bigger-government, more-tightly-regulated, higher-taxed system resulting in greater economic growth and prosperity, and greater personal liberty?

        Or do you simply not share these goals, and believe that a less prosperous nation in which there are no seriously poor but also no seriously rich is a better choice?

        It is so hard to tell, from your posts, what your true motives are, as all we can see is seething hatred for George W. Bush and determination to prove HIS economic policy wrong. Is your position one of Bush hatred, of overall disagreement with free market economics (which includes lower taxation) or do you really have a larger, more expansive, political overview and this is just a small part of it?

        You have milked the Bush statistics for all they are worth, so it is time to move on. What do you think would have provided a better outcome, why, and what do you think our future economic model should be, and why?

  15. Ricorun September 11, 2012 / 6:36 pm

    Perhaps this is just a technicality, but if you repeat, in whole or in part, a literary work which is not yours without proper attribution, you have committed plagiarism. If you do so in school (and get caught) you’d get an automatic zero at the very least, and would most likely suffer other consequences as well. If you do so in a public forum — like, you know, a blog — you have committed a crime. And I’m all but certain that tiredoflibbs didn’t write his piece (certainly not most of it) simply because I know him well enough to know he doesn’t have the chops, especially on economic matters.

    It might not be a biggie, because I’m pretty sure tiredoflibbs isn’t making any money on it, and B4V itself isn’t likely to be much of a cash cow either. But it’s still a crime in principle, not to mention morally reprehensible under any conditions. So fess up, tiredoflibbs — you didn’t build it. Clear your conscience and tell us who did.

    • Cluster September 11, 2012 / 6:49 pm

      Perhaps this is just a technicality, but if you repeat, in whole or in part, a literary work which is not yours without proper attribution, you have committed plagiarism

      Joe Biden comes to mind

      • neocon1 September 11, 2012 / 7:11 pm

        cluster

        and ded kennedydrunk

    • neocon1 September 11, 2012 / 7:09 pm

      REEK-0

      not to mention morally reprehensible under any conditions. So fess up, tiredoflibbs — you didn’t build it. Clear your conscience and tell us who did.

      you are so Fn smart YOU tell us……

      • Ricorun September 11, 2012 / 11:10 pm

        Amazona: I see you drag out the big words for the big “crimes” and don’t waste them on things like lying…

        tiredoflibbs is not just a commenter on this blog. He wrote the topic — or at least presented it as his. If it was not, then he is guilty of plagiarism regardless of whether he realized he was doing it, and/or whether or not he realized that doing it was plagiarism. But if he knew he was copying someone else, and did it anyway without attribution, then that would be a very blatant lie.

        That example is very cut-and-dried. But here’s an example where it’s a lot more difficult to conclude lying has happened: say a president (in league with congress, of course) cut tax rates and tax revenue decreased for the following four years. Would it be a lie to say the president (et. al.) just cut tax RATES and not tax REVENUE? Some would say, “yes, definitely!”. Others would say, “of course not!” So who is right? Personally, I’d say it very much depends on the strength of what other evidence one brings to bear. However, if one were to make a blanket statement to the effect of “every time tax RATES are cut the impact on tax REVENUES will ALWAYS be positive”, then I’d suspect they’re either lying or they’re a complete idiot so drunk on ideology that they can’t read anything even so simple as a Laffer curve.

      • tiredoflibbs September 12, 2012 / 6:40 am

        Rico, this is a DISCUSSION BLOG on various topics. Much like a debate, an individual states a position then the opposition tries to refute it. I posted a topic of discussion (it would please you to note that I added the proper attribution – a small oversight on my part. I normally source all my material AND responses when necessary). You took it upon yourself (again) to attack the messenger rather than the message. If the topic is so easily refuted then do so. Otherwise, STFU. Obviously you can do neither.

      • Ricorun September 13, 2012 / 6:29 pm

        tiredoflibbs says I have used “this cowardly dodge before”. But the “cowardly dodge” is not mine, it’s his. I just called him on it. And unfortunately it’s not the first time. When “you” (I mean that editorially, not personally) plagiarize you are not the messenger, you just dressed in a messenger’s clothing. Worse, tiredoflibbs offered no original thought at all — he just regurgitated what someone else said. Think about that for a minute… if someone “from the other side” just regurgitates what they’ve heard/read they’re referred to as “sheeple”. For some reason, the term is rarely ever applied to someone who thinks like “you” (again I mean that editorially, not personally). But it seems to me that if “you” really want to consider yourself an independent thinker and not just a member of the crowd you actually have to think independently! If you don’t, well… you’re a sheeple. I think that’s pretty cut-and-dried, too.

      • tiredoflibbs September 13, 2012 / 9:36 pm

        I did not plagiarize. I gave credit. Apparently, you did not see the update. A small oversight on my part. But again, you attack the messenger but not the message – a cowardly dodge – not editorial, not opinion but FACT!

        I reported FACTS, verifiable by the sources given (progressive sources among them). It is not regurgitation. Unfortunately, you and the rest of you mindless drones regurgitate dumbed down talking points VERBATIM! Facts are facts rico and unfortunately for you, you are projecting.

        What is next? Are you going to attack the message and refute the FACTS that I have presented? Or, are you going to attack the messenger again, like a coward?

    • Amazona September 11, 2012 / 8:08 pm

      REP RE HEN SI BLE

      Ooooooh.

      I see you drag out the big words for the big “crimes” and don’t waste them on things like lying, which you seem to accept quite blithely when the resident Libs engage in it time after time after time.

  16. Cluster September 11, 2012 / 7:14 pm

    Here is another great saying from JFK that the current far left and extreme Democratic Party has abandoned:

    “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”

    This is not your Fathers Democratic party. They are extreme. They are stupid. And they are selfish.

    • neocon1 September 11, 2012 / 7:30 pm

      and athiestic communists

      • neocon1 September 11, 2012 / 7:35 pm

        REEK-o

        RUT RO REEK-0


        5.1% – The current unemployment rate for government workers, which is the lowest unemployment rate

        for any of 17 different categories and subcategories of industries for which employment is tracked and published on a month-to-month basis by the ************Department of Labor.*************

        read much Moron?

  17. Retired Spook September 12, 2012 / 9:15 am

    All Republican presidents in my lifetime have created large deficits even though they claim to be against them. Why do you suppose that is?

    I’m moving this down to the bottom of the thread because the string that this was in has gotten unwieldy long. Watson, I think the answer to your question is pretty obvious. Democrat presidents have typically handed off either a crashing economy (Carter, Clinton) at the end of their terms, or massive new social spending programs (LBJ). Reagan took the lemons that Carter handed him and made lemonade, So did Bush with what Clinton left him, though arguably not as successfully as Reagan, but when you factor in the tech bubble burst and 9/11, not all that terrible. The middle years of Bush’s two terms were pretty decent. Bush’s last budget deficit (FY 2007) for which Republicans were totally responsible was only $163 billion. So far Obama has averaged about 7 times that. Obama hasn’t had a “decent year”, and there’s no evidence that he’ll have one in a second term. We fired Carter for performance that was not nearly as bad.

    Bush is the first Republican president in my lifetime that handed off a tanking economy to a Democrat, and we see the results: trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. Democrats have the science of creating bags of crap down pretty good, but they don’t seem to have a clue as to what to do when THEY’RE handed a bag of crap. Just curious, and I’m just asking for your honest opinion since you don’t have a crystal ball, and the question is a hypothetical. What do you think would have happened differently if it had been President Al Gore from 2001 to 2009?

    • tiredoflibbs September 12, 2012 / 9:29 am

      ObAMATEUR was “handed a bag of crap”.

      I guess he should not have increased baseline budgeting almost 25% in two years. Nor should have he pushed through the stimulus where a fraction of the bill actually went to “shovel ready” jobs and the omnibus spending bill, which was a Democrats’ wish list of spending initiatives.

      Reagan was handed a “sack of crap” by Carter and was able to turn around the economy. But now the excuse is that no pResident could do it in four years. ObAMATEUR has $5 trillion in new debt with nothing to show for it. Why should we have a repeat of failure? It failed with FDR and obAMATEUR, why repeat it?

    • Ricorun September 13, 2012 / 6:33 pm

      Spook: Bush is the first Republican president in my lifetime that handed off a tanking economy to a Democrat…

      Which Bush do you mean?

Comments are closed.