[TheRealVille]

^ You are correct in my mistakingly naming Saddam as an Obama accomplishment. For once, we appear to agree, if I'm reading you right. We should have left Saddam in power, at least he had control over his country. I wish you had memo'd Bush on this concept. Alas, you spotted the Saddam part of my post, and forgot to comment on the other President Obama accomplishments in my post. The op wanted just "one reason", but there are many, many reasons Obama is doing a good job as President. The proof is in the numbers. We can only wonder how good this country would be doing right now if only the republicans in Congress wouldn't have banned together and signed an agreement to try to stop anything President Obama did.

[TheRealThing]

His presidency was doomed from the outset. Leading with his chin, he enjoyed a super majority in both houses and consequently, Republicans were summarily shut out of his signature legislative effort to initiate universal health care. That continued up until the mid terms of 2010, when Republicans took back the lower house and began trying to restore normal function to the Congress.

His (Obama's) ideological vision and thus his agenda, had the effect of ripping control of governance across the board, out of the grasp of the majority as guaranteed in our founding documents, and investing that control instead in the hands of the minority and special interests. That's the change part of the "Hope and Change" slogan. Ironically, the funding for all this change is being extorted from the majority in the form of increased taxes under the guise of 'paying your fair share,' the newly coined 'economic patriotism,' and 'income inequality.' All dodges for redistribution of wealth. So, not only is all this social upheaval being foisted upon the good folks of this country, they're paying for it. Of course, to maintain this liberal juggernaut of "change," it is necessary for Dems to at least hold onto the Senate so that Harry Reid can continue to ignore legislation coming up from the house which may be in any way construed to be a threat to that agenda.

Otherwise, if Republicans retake the Senate, they will redouble their efforts to restore the Congress to the more familiar operating standards of pre-2008. I believe Mr Obama could have conceivably been one of the more charismatic Presidents of recent times. Had he embraced the interests of America and not just the ones he wanted to endorse, I believe America would have embraced him. As I have said, Republicans were sent to the Hill to govern on behalf of their constituents. Not working with Republicans and not dealing with them has disenfranchised 100 million voters.

You'll have to agree RV, our President has summarily dismissed the combined wisdom of those gone on with nary so much as a wince of discomfort. The fortunes of this country ain't some lab experiment we can just toss into the dumpster if it should go awry. Caution therefore has been cast to the wind because one election can change everything and the pent up frustrations of the liberal are like the waters of discontent backed up behind Hoover Dam. I'm very concerned about all of it.

[TheRealVille]

^ With all the "numbers" accomplishments the country has enjoyed under his leadership, could you imagine how well we could have been if the republicans weren't trying to block every effort, at every turn. The numbers don't lie, this nation's economy is moving forward under this President. He had a lot to save from the last President, and he is doing a fairly good job, even though the other party is using a pretty strong defensive line against him. He saved us from the next depression, upon taking office.

[nky]

Never knew Reid was a GOPer

[nky]

I'll bite.

9.9 million jobs
Over 200k jobs a month for the last 6 months. A feat not accomplished since 1997
Housing prices back up
6.1 unemployment
Around 53 some odd months of job gains in the private sector
Ending 2 wars, one of which was started on lies
Saddam and Bin Laden are dead
The auto industry is alive.
In Kentucky, through the ACA, hundreds of thousands now have insurance, that didn't before. http://wvxu.org/post/kentucky-sees-drop-...-under-aca
Brought us back from the brink of a deppression, to a growing economy (The Bush-led Great Recession was costing the economy nearly 800,000 jobs per month by the time President Obama took office. But by the end of his first year, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act created and sustained 2.1 million jobs and stimulated the economy by 3.5%. http://reut.rs/i46CEE)
Cut the deficit in half

Left off raised the debt by $ 7 trillion.

[TheRealVille]

Left off raised the debt by $ 7 trillion.

You mean the debt raising because of 3 wars? You can't be a nation at war for 13 years, and save money. War ain't cheap.

[TheRealVille]

^Not to mention an economy tanked by Bush. When 800,000 workers a month are laid off, they aren't paying taxes. When taxes aren't paid, the debt goes up. Man, you people still aren't too bright. The Fox News mantra, "the more you watch, the less you know", might really be true.

[TheRealThing]

^ With all the "numbers" accomplishments the country has enjoyed under his leadership, could you imagine how well we could have been if the republicans weren't trying to block every effort, at every turn. The numbers don't lie, this nation's economy is moving forward under this President. He had a lot to save from the last President, and he is doing a fairly good job, even though the other party is using a pretty strong defensive line against him. He saved us from the next depression, upon taking office.

We don't agree about the numbers. Case in point. The new formula for calculating unemployment rates is what has the rate down to 6.1. Under the old system, the one Dems like to hold Republicans to while they use the new calculator to draw a dramatic improvement, the rate would be much higher.

Going into the heat of the 2012 election season, the Obama administration changed the way we calculate unemployment numbers. It was at that point that we changed from the Establishment Survey and adopted the U-3 Survey. The following article from Forbes addressed the problem as it was going down back in 2012. Of course, that is considered ancient history now as the wildly optimistic U-3 model is the new standard.


EXCERPT---
"All in all, the U-3 unemployment number is deeply flawed and should not be relied on as the business media and even the capital markets do. A better (though still flawed) indicator of labor market conditions is the U-6 measure. For both August and September, U-6 showed an unemployment rate of 14.7%. Unlike U-3, U-6 adds back to both the labor force and to the unemployed “discouraged’ and “marginally attached” workers, i.e., those who have stopped looking for work but still want a job, and accounts for part-time workers who want full time employment. The flaw is that U-6 removes the long-term discouraged worker after 52 weeks of unemployment. Nevertheless, it is still a much better indicator than U-3. John Williams estimates that if U-6 counted the long-term discouraged workers, the unemployment rate would be 22.8%." http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspecula...t-numbers/

The point is, one can make numbers say anything they want them to. Hence Darrell Huff's book "How to Lie With Statistics"

Like I said, the urgency with which we have seen this administration assault traditional values to effect the changes favored by the liberal, has out of necessity, usurped the orderly processes of the Congress. Like trying to cram a Giant Redwood into your woodchipper, so the normal workings of the US Congress are clogged with the machinations of a Super Power in the throes of redefinition. Those on the left insist that Republicans, who are already backing up like a turbo charged crawdad, need to just step aside and let them bang afterburner. My question has always been and to my mind has yet to be answered, would be as follows. If as the left insists, all this advocated change really is the will of the people, why risk everything on a suicidal roll of a die? Could not we absorb said change with a certain measure of dignity? In other words, what's the rush, is America not the world's best?

Of course, I would never accept the liberal rationale, as it seeks to adjudicate morality according to faddish notions of the day. From the Declaration of Independence--- "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." Thomas Jefferson

[TheRealVille]

We don't agree about the numbers. The new formula for calculating unemployment rates is what has the rate down to 6.1. Under the old system, the one Dems like to hold Republicans to while they use the new calculator to draw a dramatic improvement, the rate would be much higher.

Going into the heat of the 2012 election season, the Obama administration changed the way we calculate unemployment numbers. It was at that point that we changed from the Establishment Survey and adopted the U-3 Survey. The following article from Forbes addressed the problem as it was going down back in 2012. Of course, that is considered ancient history now as the wildly optimistic U-3 model is the new standard.


EXCERPT---
"All in all, the U-3 unemployment number is deeply flawed and should not be relied on as the business media and even the capital markets do. A better (though still flawed) indicator of labor market conditions is the U-6 measure. For both August and September, U-6 showed an unemployment rate of 14.7%. Unlike U-3, U-6 adds back to both the labor force and to the unemployed “discouraged’ and “marginally attached” workers, i.e., those who have stopped looking for work but still want a job, and accounts for part-time workers who want full time employment. The flaw is that U-6 removes the long-term discouraged worker after 52 weeks of unemployment. Nevertheless, it is still a much better indicator than U-3. John Williams estimates that if U-6 counted the long-term discouraged workers, the unemployment rate would be 22.8%." http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspecula...t-numbers/

The point is, one can make numbers say anything they want them to. Hence Darrell Huff's book "How to Lie With Statistics"

Like I said, the urgency with which we have seen this administration assault traditional values to effect the changes favored by the liberal, has out of necessity, usurped the orderly processes of the Congress. Like trying to cram a Giant Redwood into your woodchipper, so the normal workings of the US Congress are clogged with the machinations of a Super Power in the throes of redefinition. Those on the left insist that Republicans, who are already backing up like a turbo charged crawdad, need to just step aside and let them bang afterburner. My question has always been and to my mind has yet to be answered, would be as follows. If as the left insists, all this advocated change really is the will of the people, why risk everything on a suicidal roll of a die? Could not we absorb said change with a certain measure of dignity? In other words, what's the rush, is America not the world's best?

Of course, I would never accept the liberal rationale, as it seeks to adjudicate morality according to faddish notions of the day. From the Declaration of Independence--- "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." Thomas Jefferson

Nuff said.... Forbes is nothing more than a republican friend.

[nky]

You mean the debt raising because of 3 wars? You can't be a nation at war for 13 years, and save money. War ain't cheap.

.:pondering:who has been the President since January 2009?

[TheRealVille]

.:pondering:who has been the President since January 2009?

Who has been paying off 3 wars, and an economy that was close to depression when he took office?

[nky]

Who controlled congress from 2007-2011, plus the Whitehouse in two of those years? 2/3 of the government controlled by democrats yet they blamed President Bush for all the ills. It became President Obama's economy by the summer of 2009. It became President Obama's wars on January 20, 2009. It became President Obama's job to work with both parties not vilify the minority party. He still needed them.

[RunItUpTheGut]

Who controlled congress from 2007-2011, plus the Whitehouse in two of those years? 2/3 of the government controlled by democrats yet they blamed President Bush for all the ills. It became President Obama's economy by the summer of 2009. It became President Obama's wars on January 20, 2009. It became President Obama's job to work with both parties not vilify the minority party. He still needed them.

Bingo. This is why any democratic argument is irrelevant. It's been to long to still be bush's fault and it can be the repubs when the Dems had complete control.
Some have a hard time admitting Obama is a complete failure in every single way.

[TheRealVille]

Who controlled congress from 2007-2011, plus the Whitehouse in two of those years? 2/3 of the government controlled by democrats yet they blamed President Bush for all the ills. It became President Obama's economy by the summer of 2009. It became President Obama's wars on January 20, 2009. It became President Obama's job to work with both parties not vilify the minority party. He still needed them.

When did the economy tank? When were those wars started? Again, war ain't cheap. The debt was rising because of Bush's economy, and wars. It takes awhile to recover from that.

[nky]

We must pass this billto see what's in it:worthy:

At the point of swearing in President Obama could have reversed all of that but he continued on the same policies. He had control of the economy and his bailouts did nothing-shovel ready was not.

[nky]

While the economy worsens the president golfed.

[TheRealVille]

While the economy worsens the president golfed.

But now, the economy is thriving, and growing, and has been for quite awhile. And, with the ACA, check with your fellow Kentuckians. Hundreds of thousands now have insurance that didn't before.

[TheRealVille]

We must pass this billto see what's in it:worthy:

At the point of swearing in President Obama could have reversed all of that but he continued on the same policies. He had control of the economy and his bailouts did nothing-shovel ready was not.

LOL. You might want to check with the experts, his bailouts helped save us from depression.

[nky]

Lol even he admitted it didn't work

[nky]

[RunItUpTheGut]

But now, the economy is thriving, and growing, and has been for quite awhile. And, with the ACA, check with your fellow Kentuckians. Hundreds of thousands now have insurance that didn't before.

Who is the economy helping? If I didn't know anybody I'd swear the Dems are for the 1%. It sure isn't helping middle class families. And I know you aren't keeping a straight face while typing good things about the ACA

[TheRealThing]

Who is the economy helping? If I didn't know anybody I'd swear the Dems are for the 1%. It sure isn't helping middle class families. And I know you aren't keeping a straight face while typing good things about the ACA

Welcome to circular logic 101. Like taking a 6 year hiatus from watching a soap opera, it only takes 6 minutes to realize they're still talking about the same things and plying the same tired and shallow plot. Oh, and let us not forget they have the advantage of making up stuff as they go along because, it is La-La Land after all. :biggrin: