The GOP needs to critique this Chart: Obama's ownage of Bush

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
No, they dropped in the beginning of his first term and didn't grow appreciably until 1985 or so; in fact his first act in office was a federal hiring freeze. You really should do some research before making claims and not accept party talking points so blindly. Otherwise you'd realize the large federal workforce cuts during the Clinton boom very much undermines your case.

http://www.opm.gov/feddata/HistoricalTables/TotalGovernmentSince1962.asp

Huh? Speaking of doing research, most of the hiring and cuts have been at the state and local level. You should really do some research next time before trying to call someone out.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,512
29,099
146
Have you looked at Obama's record lately? Not exactly stellar. 8.2% unemployment still. They said by now we would be at 4. something. Romney is nowhere near who I would want for President, but come Nov, I'd have to pick him over Obama without a doubt. Managing the country is like managing a business, something Obama and his staff have absolutely no experience doing.

They?

They who?

and lol at anyone who said that.

ROFL.

o_O
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,413
616
126
You are kidding me right? Economic stimulus? Obama in 09, Bush in 08. Tax cuts? Bush passes a tax cut with a drop dead date, Obama extends them and piles it on. Deficits dont matter, check. Bailout big business? Both are on board. Would Bush be for universal healthcare? I think he did enough expansion to warrant a question mark on that subject with Medicare D. Romney? Do you even have to ask that question? Bush was for loosening of regulation? Never heard of Sarbanes Oxley? War? Obama, McCain, Bush, and Romney all beat the war drums. Expand the war in Afghanistan, bomb Libya, bomb a 16 year old American kid in Yemen. Set us on a path with Syria and Iran. And It isnt like if Bush had a 3rd term or McCain won in 08 anything would be different. Romney is even pushing it further by pretending it is 1983 and going after Russia. Civil liberties have gone out the door as well. Bush goes after wiretapping, Obama expands it to outright killing of American citizens without trial under the guise of the WoT. Romney is fine with Obama's actions.

But while both parties are doing this they will create a divide among themselves with a topic far down on the list of priorities. Abortion and gay marriage.

One of the most dangerous problems we have in this country are party cheerleaders and people who pretend the other party is their enemy when it is their parties turn to expand the other parties policies and say it isnt happening. Enabling both parties to get away with this charade each election cycle.

Damn fine post!
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Huh? Speaking of doing research, most of the hiring and cuts have been at the state and local level. You should really do some research next time before trying to call someone out.

It would help you to actually do some research before accusing someone of the same. State and local government employment was cut even more under Reagan than Obama at this point in their administrations. Increased hiring at either federal or state/local governments didn't really increase until Reagan's second term, which is exactly what I said in the post you quoted to dispute. It's one thing to not know the facts, but another thing to continue disputing them even when presented with the actual data. You'd be better served to simply admit your mistake instead of continuing to double down on your error. You can still make the case that increased public sector hiring would help in the current recovery even despite the fact that lack of it didn't inordinately harm the Reagan recovery.

figure4rev.gif

figure3rev.gif
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
Have you looked at Obama's record lately? Not exactly stellar. 8.2% unemployment still. They said by now we would be at 4. something. Romney is nowhere near who I would want for President, but come Nov, I'd have to pick him over Obama without a doubt. Managing the country is like managing a business, something Obama and his staff have absolutely no experience doing.

Managing a country is nothing like managing a business. Holy fail!
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
So can't run on own record, let compare it to the previous guy and shift the blame on him somehow. Gotcha. Let me see if I can do that next week at work. I am sure my boss would be fine with that. :D

Did Obama say something about if the unemployment rate would not go down, he would be 1 term President or something like that in 08/09 or was that all Bush/Republicans lies?

Do you remember when Bush talked about "surpluses as far as the eye can see.." while pushing his tax cuts?
Do you remember when righties said the Iraq war would pay for itself? Do you remember anything that Bush did?
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
Managing a country is nothing like managing a business. Holy fail!

You're right. The stakes are higher and the consequences for making economic decisions based on political outlooks rather then sound economic understanding of how free markets work are much more severe in their repercussions for everyone including business owners.
 

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,999
1,396
126
Do you remember when Bush talked about "surpluses as far as the eye can see.." while pushing his tax cuts?
Do you remember when righties said the Iraq war would pay for itself? Do you remember anything that Bush did?

News flash. Bush is NOT running for office. Shocking eh?

Again, why no mention of over 8% unemployment rate, as of 7/6/2012 data? (and we are not even start with the underemployment rate, especially among the young/college graduate, I am sure they love their "Hope and Change")

Why no mention of promise of lower unemployment rate or one term in the office from Obama? As I said, can't run on own record, let spin and spin and diverse the attention elsewhere.

"It's the economy, stupid" - campain slogan from certain Democrat candidate a few years back.

Edit: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...-same-line-jobs-numbers-nearly-171329360.html

When the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced the nation's latest national employment figures Friday, the Obama administration stressed that people should not "read too much" into the data.

Hummm, wonder why the administration asked us that we should not read too much into the data SINCE November of 2009? :)
 
Last edited:

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,587
318
126
News flash. Bush is NOT running for office. Shocking eh?

Again, why no mention of over 8% unemployment rate, as of 7/6/2012 data? (and we are not even start with the underemployment rate, especially among the young/college graduate, I am sure they love their "Hope and Change")

Why no mention of promise of lower unemployment rate or one term in the office from Obama? As I said, can't run on own record, let spin and spin and diverse the attention elsewhere.

"It's the economy, stupid" - campain slogan from certain Democrat candidate a few years back.

Edit: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...-same-line-jobs-numbers-nearly-171329360.html



Hummm, wonder why the administration asked us that we should not read too much into the data SINCE November of 2009? :)

No but Republicans, who gave us Bush, are.

I too would not focus on each individual month, even if I have to repeat it 60 times.
 

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,999
1,396
126
Last edited:

rockyct

Diamond Member
Jun 23, 2001
6,656
32
91
Edit: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...-same-line-jobs-numbers-nearly-171329360.html



Hummm, wonder why the administration asked us that we should not read too much into the data SINCE November of 2009? :)
You do know that there were quite a few excellent months of job growth during that time. It shows that even during the very positive months, they still told people it was just one month. Keep in mind that if the job numbers were excellent today, Romney would have been "unavailable for comment" like he was in the past during those good months.
 

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,999
1,396
126
You do know that there were quite a few excellent months of job growth during that time. It shows that even during the very positive months, they still told people it was just one month. Keep in mind that if the job numbers were excellent today, Romney would have been "unavailable for comment" like he was in the past during those good months.

What was the unemployment rate when Obama took office? What is it now? Same, better, worse overall - NOT month to month? (and as I said previously, we haven't start to discuss the "underemployed/part time only" rate)

"The private sector is doing fine" - Obama 2012 :D

What so funny is in 2008, candidate Obama was so laser-like focus on the economy stats. Why the "hope and change" now?
 
Last edited:

rockyct

Diamond Member
Jun 23, 2001
6,656
32
91
What was the unemployment rate when Obama took office? What is it now? Same, better, worse overall - NOT month to month?

"The private sector is doing fine" - Obama 2012 :D

What so funny is in 2008, candidate Obama was so focus on the economy. Why the "hope and change" now?
Well, during the time period you mentioned the rate has gone down about 2% and there were some excellent months of job growth during that period.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
News flash. Bush is NOT running for office.

Yeah, he is.

I'd love for a reporter to ask Romney where specifically his policies would deviate from those of George W. Bush. I guarantee he would change the subject in record time.

It doesn't matter that Obama hasn't done as well as he could have if the alternative is someone who will duplicate the policies that created the very messes we are now trying to recover from.

I can remember all the talk radio drones going on and on last year about how much Obama was trailing in polls against a "generic Republican". The polls reversed when the GOP had to pick a "specific Republican".

None of this really matters anyway. Romney is only close to Obama because most people haven't really seen him in action. He's an immensely dislikable person, and his viability will persist right up until the debates, when Americans on the whole discover what a dishonest, smarmy asshole he truly is.

This whole election is a repeat of 2004 in reverse... except it won't even be that close.
 

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,999
1,396
126
Well, during the time period you mentioned the rate has gone down about 2% and there were some excellent months of job growth during that period.

2008, when Obama won in November = 6.8%.
2012, present time (July) = 8.2%.

I did not see anything below 8.xx% (since Jan 09) for all the months in between. Source = http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

Yeah, he is.

<snip>

This whole election is a repeat of 2004 in reverse... except it won't even be that close.

Quote for later. We will see in November of what you said (in bolded and underlined) will be true...or not.

Edit: Who said this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmRgaKfWMPA

"...I will be held accountable...I have four years...If I don't have this done in 3 years...ONE TERM..."

Be ready to be spin, spin, and more spin then blame/diverse toward Bush/Congress/EU/gold/drought/Syria/Iran/racists/whiteys/fill-in-the-blank... in 3...2..1... :D
 
Last edited:
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
Yeah, he is.

I'd love for a reporter to ask Romney where specifically his policies would deviate from those of George W. Bush. I guarantee he would change the subject in record time.

It doesn't matter that Obama hasn't done as well as he could have if the alternative is someone who will duplicate the policies that created the very messes we are now trying to recover from.

I can remember all the talk radio drones going on and on last year about how much Obama was trailing in polls against a "generic Republican". The polls reversed when the GOP had to pick a "specific Republican".

None of this really matters anyway. Romney is only close to Obama because most people haven't really seen him in action. He's an immensely dislikable person, and his viability will persist right up until the debates, when Americans on the whole discover what a dishonest, smarmy asshole he truly is.

This whole election is a repeat of 2004 in reverse... except it won't even be that close.

Very convenient how you forget to mention that barack hussein obama has continued the policies of Bush and is essentially a corporate puppet, Bush, romney and obama are all the same
 

rockyct

Diamond Member
Jun 23, 2001
6,656
32
91
2008, when Obama won in November = 6.8%.
2012, present time (July) = 8.2%.

I did not see anything below 8.xx% (since Jan 09) for all the months in between. Source = http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
You point was that between Nov 2009 and now, they have kept saying the same thing every month. Unemployment was at 9.9% for Nov. 2009, now it's at 8.2%. So, even though unemployment has dropped during that time, they have continued to say the same thing.

Don't move the goal posts when you are mixing your points.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
2008, when Obama won in November = 6.8%.
2012, present time (July) = 8.2%.

So Obama could've done something between Nov 2008 and Inauguration Day in 2009?

I wasn't aware that the President-Elect had the ability to sign congressional legislation and appropriation bills.
 
Last edited:

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
So Obama could've done something between Nov 2008 and Inauguration Day?

Yep. And the cliff the economy was plunging off of from 2008 to 2009 was supposed to suddenly stop and reverse itself as well the second he was elected.

On the flip side, these are mostly the same people who say George W. Bush wasn't to blame for 9/11 because it happened "only" 8 months after he took office.
 

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,999
1,396
126
You point was that between Nov 2009 and now, they have kept saying the same thing every month. Unemployment was at 9.9% for Nov. 2009, now it's at 8.2%. So, even though unemployment has dropped during that time, they have continued to say the same thing.

Don't move the goal posts when you are mixing your points.

The bottom line is the unemployment rate is still high. See the unemployment rate for 09, 10, 11, and half of 12. Per ABC News (a liberal outlet), out of 80K jobs create recently, 25K of them are temp jobs = no benefits and can be cut at anytime. No matter how you spin and blame and shift, it is what it is.

Any comments on the YouTube video of Obama? He will be held accoutable and one term ...from his own words.

So Obama could've done something between Nov 2008 and Inauguration Day in 2009?

I wasn't aware that the President-Elect had the ability to sign congressional legislation and appropriation bills.

See my reply above to rockyct. Care to comment to the YouTube video about one term or was that because Bush/Republicans made him said it? :D
 
Last edited:

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
The bottom line is the unemployment rate is still high.

See my reply above to rockyct. Care to comment to the YouTube video about one term?

You mistake me for an Obama defender/apologist or someone who thinks the unemployment rate isn't unacceptably high.

I'm simply pointing out the error in using the employment figure from November 2008 when Obama won the election. The winner of the election (unless they're the incumbent) has no power until they're sworn in.

If I had a disagreement with you on anything else in this thread I would've included the part I disagreed with in the quote of your remarks.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
The bottom line is the unemployment rate is still high.

That's not the bottom line. The bottom line is whether there's a better alternative with a credible argument to be made that he can do a superior job of improving employment. There isn't.

Any comments on the YouTube video of Obama? He will be held accoutable and one term ...from his own words.

Well, I'm sure that when he said that he thought he'd be facing a viable opponent.

Obama has been far from perfect. But Romney is a pathologically dishonest, incredibly unlikable stooge. If the GOP wasn't bat-shit insane they could have beaten Obama pretty easily this year. But they are, and they won't.
 

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,999
1,396
126
You mistake me for an Obama defender/apologist or someone who thinks the unemployment rate isn't unacceptably high.

I'm simply pointing out the error in using the employment figure from November 2008 when Obama won the election. The winner of the election (unless they're the incumbent) has no power until they're sworn in.

If I had a disagreement with you on anything else in this thread I would've included the part I disagreed with in the quote of your remarks.

I provided the link (from well know source) with full unemployment data back to 2002, not just bits and pieces to spin. Let the voters read it and decide for themselves. Per NBC News, no incumbent ever won the election with 7.4% unemployment rate or higher since WWII.

That's not the bottom line. The bottom line is whether there's a better alternative with a credible argument to be made that he can do a superior job of improving employment. There isn't.



Well, I'm sure that when he said that he thought he'd be facing a viable opponent.

Obama has been far from perfect. But Romney is a pathologically dishonest, incredibly unlikable stooge. If the GOP wasn't bat-shit insane they could have beaten Obama pretty easily this year. But they are, and they won't.

See my reply above to zsdersw. Let the voters decide for themselves. As I said in my previous post to you, we will see in November of what you said (the bolded and underlined parts) will be true...or not.
 
Last edited:

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
I provided the link (from well know source) with unemployment data back to 2002, not just bits and pieces. Let the voters decide for themselves. Per NBC News, no incumbent ever won the election with 7.4% rate or higher since WWII.

Did you or did you not quote the unemployment figure from November 2008 when Obama won the election?

Why is that specific figure relevant in your series of posts that are a critique of Obama?
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
News flash. Bush is NOT running for office. Shocking eh?

Obama is clearly still running against Bush this election cycle, hoping we will not actually notice his own record but instead be worried that Bush will win the election he is not running in (and prevented from running in by the Constitution).

It almost appears Obama does not know much about Constitutional Law...