So, what has Obama done in a year?

[First]

Health care, stimulus, rebounding economy with job growth, credit card legislation, Guantanamo, etc. Not that hard.

 

[Budmantom]

I think Obama means well, but the forces of the dark side are strong. Hope you republirats are proud of yourself, stop and maybe think, in your partisan zeal, you are cutting your own throats and hurting the country also.

I thought Obama was the dark side?

 

[Patranus]

Health care, stimulus, rebounding economy with job growth, credit card legislation, Guantanamo, etc. Not that hard.

Health Care - Dead - Accomplished NOTHING
Stimulus - By his own definition unemployment wouldn't go above 8% - Failure
Economey/Job Growth - See Stimulus
Credit Card Legislation - OK
GITMO - Still open


So after an entire year, the only thing we have is credit card legislation.

 

[First]

Health Care - Dead - Accomplished NOTHING
Stimulus - By his own definition unemployment wouldn't go above 8% - Failure
Economey/Job Growth - See Stimulus
Credit Card Legislation - OK
GITMO - Still open


So after an entire year, the only thing we have is credit card legislation.

Health care has already been passed, it's just being reconciled and worst case they pass Senate version. That's done.

Stimulus and bailouts took economy back from the brink, even Bush got that right. The best decisions were made among a whole lot of only bad ones, the worst decision being no bailout/stimulus.

Economy gained jobs and GDP last quarter for at least a month versus ~700,000 jobs lost in Bush's last month in office and coming off -6% GDP growth during the last quarter of 08.

Gitmo's been closing for a year and quite obviously will be finished soon so this is another accomplishment in his first year.

Again, there's more, but troll thread is trolling.

 

[Patranus]

Stimulus and bailouts took economy back from the brink, even Bush got that right. The best decisions were made among a whole lot of only bad ones, the worst being no bailout/stimulus.

What are you talking about?

Sure looked like it worked like Obama promised.....

 

[First]

What are you talking about?

Sure looked like it worked like Obama promised.....

I see a chart with soft estimates, you see something else as a laymen. Economists have overwhelmingly concluded the stimulus was necessary and the bailout (to varying degrees) absolutely necessary.

Obama doing well with the economy is old news. The lag in realization for slowpokes doesn't really concern the non-halfwits.

 

[Robor]

Instead of insulting me, why not post a major policy that Obama successfully pushed in his first year in office?

Obama Reverses Bush Policy on Stem Cell Research

I'd also add that *NOT* appearing to be an uneducated dimwit cowboy in front of the camera when addressing the nation/world is bonus.

 

[werepossum]

I see a chart with soft estimates, you see something else as a laymen. Economists have overwhelmingly concluded the stimulus was necessary and the bailout (to varying degrees) absolutely necessary.

Obama doing well with the economy is old news. The lag in realization for slowpokes doesn't really concern the non-halfwits.

Wow. Just out of curiosity, what color is the sky there and how does it compare to reality? I mean the part you can see from that little padded window. I bet there are unicorns.

Lessee, he campaigned for a lot of folks who went down in flames. Is that an accomplishment?

He refused to lose Afghanistan, the war he called "necessary". That's an accomplishment.

He did the same thing in Iraq as Bush was doing but without whining about it. That's - kind of an accomplishment.

He gave a $400 to $800 one-time rebate and sent people across the airways proclaiming it a tax cut. That's - well, it took some moxie anyway, especially when he's leading the charge to let Bush's actual tax cuts expire.

He secured a few hundred billion in Democrat walking around money for the 2010 elections. That's an accomplishment if you consider helping the Democrat Party to be worth raping the country.

He secured and protected funding for ACORN even though a dozen branches were caught on tape trying to help people import child prostitutes and avoid the law and the IRS. (Evidently pimps and prostitutes shouldn't pay their fair share. Who knew?) That's an accomplishment if you are a pimp or prostitute in need of free business advice.

He won the Nobel Peace Prize. That's - well, once upon a time it was sort of an accomplishment. (And he gave a pretty darned good speech there too.)

He tried to get the Olympic Games for Chicago. (He failed, but he did try. Going to lobby for something without knowing it's in the bag at least shows guts.)

He failed to completely give away the country at Copenhagen. I can't call that an accomplishment since he did try to sell us out, but failed.

He gave a speech thanking himself for inviting himself to come meet himself. Even Bush couldn't do that.

He changed TARP from the government buying up and liquidating the "toxic assets" its own actions largely caused to the government seizing control of the banks and forcing them to make even more bad loans. That's - something.

He stood US law on its ear by taking GM and Chrysler from their preferred bond holders and giving them to the unions, keeping just enough government ownership to justify continuing to pump in money. That's - well, Jessie James did it and he's a folk hero, right?

Hey, all in all the brother had a pretty busy year. Why you gotta be hatin' like dat?

 

[First]

psycho rant

Very entertaining. Continue. rofl.

 

[CitizenKain]

He's shown that most of the rightwing really are old racist white people who love teabagging each other.

 

[hal2kilo]

Very entertaining. Continue. rofl.

Yes ODS is strong in this one. Entertaining.

 

[werepossum]

Wow, three nuts in a row. Score!

 

[cubeless]

I think Obama means well, but the forces of the dark side are strong. Hope you republirats are proud of yourself, stop and maybe think, in your partisan zeal, you are cutting your own throats and hurting the country also.

is that dark dark or light dark?

 

[nick1985]

He's shown that most of the rightwing really are old racist white people who love teabagging each other.

The majority does not agree with you. Keep putting them down, it only makes them stronger.

 

[soccerballtux]

Very entertaining. Continue. rofl.

Weak response, he brings up valid points that I have heard several times, and have not heard a legitimate response to.

People are learning. Massachusetts is proof. Happened with Clinton; here's to hoping happens with Obama.

 

[PJABBER]

Wow. Just out of curiosity, what color is the sky there and how does it compare to reality? I mean the part you can see from that little padded window. I bet there are unicorns.

Lessee, he campaigned for a lot of folks who went down in flames. Is that an accomplishment?

He refused to lose Afghanistan, the war he called "necessary". That's an accomplishment.

He did the same thing in Iraq as Bush was doing but without whining about it. That's - kind of an accomplishment.

He gave a $400 to $800 one-time rebate and sent people across the airways proclaiming it a tax cut. That's - well, it took some moxie anyway, especially when he's leading the charge to let Bush's actual tax cuts expire.

He secured a few hundred billion in Democrat walking around money for the 2010 elections. That's an accomplishment if you consider helping the Democrat Party to be worth raping the country.

He secured and protected funding for ACORN even though a dozen branches were caught on tape trying to help people import child prostitutes and avoid the law and the IRS. (Evidently pimps and prostitutes shouldn't pay their fair share. Who knew?) That's an accomplishment if you are a pimp or prostitute in need of free business advice.

He won the Nobel Peace Prize. That's - well, once upon a time it was sort of an accomplishment. (And he gave a pretty darned good speech there too.)

He tried to get the Olympic Games for Chicago. (He failed, but he did try. Going to lobby for something without knowing it's in the bag at least shows guts.)

He failed to completely give away the country at Copenhagen. I can't call that an accomplishment since he did try to sell us out, but failed.

He gave a speech thanking himself for inviting himself to come meet himself. Even Bush couldn't do that.

He changed TARP from the government buying up and liquidating the "toxic assets" its own actions largely caused to the government seizing control of the banks and forcing them to make even more bad loans. That's - something.

He stood US law on its ear by taking GM and Chrysler from their preferred bond holders and giving them to the unions, keeping just enough government ownership to justify continuing to pump in money. That's - well, Jessie James did it and he's a folk hero, right?

Hey, all in all the brother had a pretty busy year. Why you gotta be hatin' like dat?

Classic. Thanks for this Post O' The Day! :awe:

 

[CitizenKain]

The majority does not agree with you. Keep putting them down, it only makes them stronger.

Oh yes, a bunch of old people in Rascal scooters carrying misspelled protest signs, not exactly a majority.

 

[dmcowen674]

Obama has accomplished one thing.

He has brought out the true hate Republicans have for America.

 

[DesiPower]

SNL says and i quote - Jack and Squat

 

[PJABBER]

snl says and i quote - jack and squat

lol!

 

[woolfe9999]

Health Care - Dead - Accomplished NOTHING
Stimulus - By his own definition unemployment wouldn't go above 8% - Failure
Economey/Job Growth - See Stimulus
Credit Card Legislation - OK
GITMO - Still open


So after an entire year, the only thing we have is credit card legislation.

The stimulus is not a failure. The stimulus has done exactly what it was projected to do in terms of job and economic growth. The fact that the administration, the CBO, and scads of economists, mis-projected baseline unemployment is irrelevant to the actual effect of the stimulus bill. Also, though TARP does not have populist appeal, it did save the financial system. Those who think a do nothing approach would have achieved a better result than we have now are flatly wrong.

Measuring the stimulus bill as of September, 2009:

"CBO estimates that in the third quarter of calendar year 2009, an additional 600,000 to 1.6 million people were employed in the United States, and real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) was 1.2 percent to 3.2 percent higher, than would have been the case in the absence of ARRA (see Table 1)."

"Economic output and employment in the spring and summer of 2009 were lower than CBO had projected at the beginning of the year. But in CBO’s judgment, that outcome reflects greater-than-projected weakness in the underlying economy rather than lower-than-expected effects of ARRA."

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10682/Frontmatter.2.2.shtml

- wolf

 

[werepossum]

The stimulus is not a failure. The stimulus has done exactly what it was projected to do in terms of job and economic growth. The fact that the administration, the CBO, and scads of economists, mis-projected baseline unemployment is irrelevant to the actual effect of the stimulus bill. Also, though TARP does not have populist appeal, it did save the financial system. Those who think a do nothing approach would have achieved a better result than we have now are flatly wrong.

Measuring the stimulus bill as of September, 2009:

"CBO estimates that in the third quarter of calendar year 2009, an additional 600,000 to 1.6 million people were employed in the United States, and real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) was 1.2 percent to 3.2 percent higher, than would have been the case in the absence of ARRA (see Table 1)."

"Economic output and employment in the spring and summer of 2009 were lower than CBO had projected at the beginning of the year. But in CBO’s judgment, that outcome reflects greater-than-projected weakness in the underlying economy rather than lower-than-expected effects of ARRA."

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10682/Frontmatter.2.2.shtml

- wolf

I have to disagree with that analysis completely. Spending three quarters of a trillion dollars is not a success if it generates any measurable job activity at all; you need some sort of cost-benefit analysis to determine that. Assuming 20% of the money has been spent and using the higher job number (which I think is smoke and mirrors, but whatever) you get about a hundred thousand dollars per job saved or created. Using the lower number gives about a quarter million dollars per job saved or created. And considering that no one believes the bulk of these jobs were funded in full by the stimulus - the idea was to provide a marginal stimulus that would have an effect greater than the actual dollars, that puts our return even worse. Unless we're out to prove the inherent inefficiency of government, the stimulus has been an abject failure.

 

[Red Dawn]

I have to disagree with that analysis completely. Spending three quarters of a trillion dollars is not a success if it generates any measurable job activity at all; you need some sort of cost-benefit analysis to determine that. Assuming 20% of the money has been spent and using the higher job number (which I think is smoke and mirrors, but whatever) you get about a hundred thousand dollars per job saved or created. Using the lower number gives about a quarter million dollars per job saved or created. And considering that no one believes the bulk of these jobs were funded in full by the stimulus - the idea was to provide a marginal stimulus that would have an effect greater than the actual dollars, that puts our return even worse. Unless we're out to prove the inherent inefficiency of government, the stimulus has been an abject failure.

You think? I believe that it kept us from nose diving into another Great Depression.

 

[nick1985]

You think? I believe that it kept us from nose diving into another Great Depression.

We could still be headed that way. I dont think the plane has pulled out of the free-fall just yet.

 

[woolfe9999]

I have to disagree with that analysis completely. Spending three quarters of a trillion dollars is not a success if it generates any measurable job activity at all; you need some sort of cost-benefit analysis to determine that. Assuming 20% of the money has been spent and using the higher job number (which I think is smoke and mirrors, but whatever) you get about a hundred thousand dollars per job saved or created. Using the lower number gives about a quarter million dollars per job saved or created. And considering that no one believes the bulk of these jobs were funded in full by the stimulus - the idea was to provide a marginal stimulus that would have an effect greater than the actual dollars, that puts our return even worse. Unless we're out to prove the inherent inefficiency of government, the stimulus has been an abject failure.

The real question is not jobs per dollar, but actually whether the stimulus has warded off a systemic downturn. The stimulus is supposed to have a cascading effect that will put the economy in a position to recover faster on its own. Whether or not it has that effect has yet to be seen, but honestly after seven months it is too soon to tell. If the economy sags way down after the stimulus runs its course at the end of Q3 2010, then it was a failure no matter how many jobs it created per dollar. The argument then wouldn't be about jobs per dollar. It would, instead, be about whether we should have had a bigger stimulus because this one was too small to produce the cascading effect given how bad the economy was, or whether we should have had no stimulus at all instead of one that was too small.

However, to date, it *is* worth noting that it is creating/saving as many jobs as it was projected to, based on the middle of the range. Remember the "save or create 4 million jobs'? Sounds about right.

Dollars/job is a limiting view - all the money in the stimulus bill, whether it is the tax cuts or the spending, circulates in the economy. Only in a case where the money exits the economy to foreign beneficiaries is the benefit not felt in one way or another. The *real* cost benefit has to do with the total dollar costs of the stimulus versus the negative impact of what it adds to our national debt. Stimulus spending, by definition, has to be deficit spending or it has no benefit. And if you approach a recession like this with no debt, then it isn't a problem. You use deficit spending to stimulate the economy, the economy recovers, then you pay off the stimulus debt. It's when you went into a recession with $10 trillion of pre-existing debt that it is problem. So I will say this: even IF the stimulus has the desired cascading effect, we will be paying the price of years of fiscally irresponsible policy for quite a long while. We shouldn't even *have* to argue whether we can afford to stimulate the economy with tax cuts and/or spending in a recession like this, should we? The fact that there is even an argument means something has gone very wrong with government for quite a long while now.

- wolf