patrick.net

Obama was unable to improve the economy? Let's see:

GDP - fell at end of Bush's term; went back up throughout Obama's tenure.

Unemployment - Skyrocketed at beginning and end of Bush's term; went down throughout Obama's tenure.

Stock market - Worst crash since Great Depression at end of Bush's term, up to record highs during Obama's tenure.

Obama actually did quite a lot. You just forgot what an utter shit storm Bush left him.

10

Homeboy 2014 Jun 5, 4:29pm

you can't be that stupid and/or partisan.

Call it Quits? Yeah, he definitely can be that stupid AND that partisan.

11

Homeboy 2014 Jun 5, 4:44pm

Bush's approval rating was 31% in 2007, 2 years before the end of his term. Obama's approval rating right now is 44%, 2 years before the end of his term. Any other comparison is stupid, and shows that the person making the comparison doesn't understand that approval ratings change after a president leaves office.

Bush = loser.

12 lakermania 2014 Jun 5, 5:02pm

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx

Bush's approval rating was 31% in 2007, 2 years before the end of his term. Obama's approval rating right now is 44%, 2 years before the end of his term. Any other comparison is stupid, and shows that the person making the comparison doesn't understand that approval ratings change after a president leaves office.

Bush = loser.

Actually Bush was at 37% during the same point during his presidency but you are right, Bush was in the gutter right about now, so with that comparison you can polish up the turd known as the Obama presidency a little, but then you have Clinton who was at 60% and Reagan who was at 63% during the same point, making him look all dull and stinky once again.

13 bob2356 2014 Jun 5, 8:10pm

I've told you MANY times.... NEITHER is "my" team... Get it through your fucking head...

You posted the Bush vs Obama bullshit graphic. I never realized when someone spent all their time cheer leading for one team and against the other that it meant reasoned objective neutrality. My mistake.

14

Homeboy 2014 Jun 5, 8:21pm

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/03/us/poll-shows-reagan-approval-rating-at-4-year-low.html

Actually Bush was at 37% during the same point during his presidency but you are right, Bush was in the gutter right about now, so with that comparison you can polish up the turd known as the Obama presidency a little, but then you have Clinton who was at 60% and Reagan who was at 63% during the same point, making him look all dull and stinky once again.

Nope. Bush was at 31%. Dropped down to 22% by the end of his term, too.

As for Reagan - WRONG. His approval rating was 42% in 1987.

[EDIT: Sorry, I suck. That's the wrong year. It should be 1986 to be a proper comparison]

But yes, I agree that Clinton was a better president than Obama. What you don't realize in your mindless cheerleading for Reagan/Bush is that they completely fucked our country over.

15 lakermania 2014 Jun 5, 9:35pm

Nope. Bush was at 31%. Dropped down to 22% by the end of his term, too.

As for Reagan - WRONG. His approval rating was 42% in 1987.

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/03/us/poll-shows-reagan-approval-rating-at-4-year-low.html

But yes, I agree that Clinton was a better president than Obama. What you don't realize in your mindless cheerleading for Reagan/Bush is that they completely fucked our country over.

Sigh. Completely ignore the Gallup link I provided in my post, which gives historical approval ratings for all the recent presidents at this exact point in Obama's presidency(Bush 37%,Clinton 60%,Reagan 63%), in favor of a cherry picked date in some little, biased NY Times poll used in article written by some left wing nut job who is now a commentator for NPR and MSNBC. You didn't even provide the source for your Bush rating, even though you have stated it twice.

We are all a little biased one way or the other, but some folks like you are so hell bent on pushing for their agenda, they lose all objectivity and are completely clueless as to why most people don't accept their views and statements as gospel.

16 bob2356 2014 Jun 5, 10:16pm

As for Reagan - WRONG. His approval rating was 42% in 1987.

What part of at the same point didn't you get?

You both are full of crap anyway. A single data point is useless.

17

zzyzzx 2014 Jun 5, 11:14pm

marcus says

Fox news "survey."

I'm not impressed.

18

zzyzzx 2014 Jun 5, 11:16pm

Obligatory:

19

lostand confused 2014 Jun 5, 11:30pm

Obozo the clown -Champion of the NSA, champion of free trade, champion of big banks, champion of drone strikes on US citizens, champion of arresting people without charges and holding them indefinitely, champion of FATCA that forces the entire world's banks to spy on Americans abroad and report back on their assets under threat of sanctions/punishment-err also Nobel Peace prize winner.

20 edvard2 2014 Jun 5, 11:39pm

This survey is nonsense and basically fantasy for conservatives. You don't need a slide rule or basic calculator to determine who was worse for the country. I've noticed there has been a recent campaign coming almost exclusively from right-leaning sources, making generic claims that Obama is either incompetent of "weak" when there's actually no facts to remotely back that claim while there's plenty to show that Bush was in fact not only highly incompetent, but was perhaps one of the worst Presidents in US history when it came to international relations, the economy, and national politics.

The bottom line is that GW was probably the last hurrah of the "Old" GOP and as such many on the right are sad about it and the best they can do is come up with some wet-noodle, weak-ass claim.

Lastly... GW's approval rating towards the end was seriously in the single digits. Its laughable that anyone would make any claim that Obama is less competent when his approval ratings have never been even remotely close to the lowest of GW's. So if people want to make up a bunch of crap it should at least have an inkling of logic tied to it in the first place.

21 bob2356 2014 Jun 6, 2:02am

We know you're a little "slow", so I'll explain that graphic for you..

It blames BOTH of them for trashing the economy but the difference was Bush had a democrat controlled Congress his last two years, while YOUR boy had full control over Congress and STILL didn't correct the issues but made them WORSE

I'm only slow because I'm waiting for you to catch up. Your graphic says Bush managed to trash the economy with a democratic house (you did read it didn't you?). Bush trashed the economy before there was a democratic house, he quite nicely trashed it with 6 years of republican house. Did you get that concept or do I need to type really, really slowly.

Obama sucks, Bush sucked worse.

Where in there do I say Obama is my boy? If that isn't clear enough then I'm not really sure I can type slowly enough for you to comprehend.

You put up the liberal logic bs, but not because you are far right winger who believes sunspots are obamas fault. No of course not. Just because I reject pure bullshit like you post doesn't mean I support obama in any way shape or form. Unlike you I can dislike him for what he has actually done or not done, without having to make up shit.

22

zzyzzx 2014 Jun 6, 2:20am

It's all Obama's fault!!!

23

zzyzzx 2014 Jun 6, 3:56am

marcus says

Fox news "survey."

I'm not impressed.

CNN says essentially the same thing:
http://patrick.net/?p=1243679

24

Homeboy 2014 Jun 6, 6:41am

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx

Sigh. Completely ignore the Gallup link I provided in my post, which gives historical approval ratings for all the recent presidents at this exact point in Obama's presidency

Um, no it doesn't. This is your link:

It's OBAMA's approval rating, not Bush.

Dumb shit.

25

Homeboy 2014 Jun 6, 6:49am

You didn't even provide the source for your Bush rating, even though you have stated it twice.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-07-09-bush-poll_N.htm - 29% in 2007

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/06/28/fox-news-poll-bush-approval-rating-hits-new-low/ - 31% in 2007

Any more questions?

26

Homeboy 2014 Jun 6, 6:51am

in favor of a cherry picked date in some little, biased NY Times poll used in article written by some left wing nut job who is now a commentator for NPR and MSNBC.

Nope, it was your beloved Fox News.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

27

Homeboy 2014 Jun 6, 6:52am

We are all a little biased one way or the other, but some folks like you are so hell bent on pushing for their agenda, they lose all objectivity and are completely clueless as to why most people don't accept their views and statements as gospel.

You just described yourself perfectly.

28

Homeboy 2014 Jun 6, 6:53am

Yep, when climb in bed with the banksters and you don't arrest and jail the crooks and thieves, the sky is the limit!!

The bailouts were done by Bush, or did you conveniently forget that?

29

Homeboy 2014 Jun 6, 6:55am

Sure... That NEGATIVE GDP print last quarter was wonderful!!! Yep, Over 5 years later, Obama is doing a GREAT job!!!

I guess he needs just a little more time....

Are you going to look at the charts I posted, or are you going to cherry pick some shit you heard on Fox News? Charts don't lie, my friend.

30

Homeboy 2014 Jun 6, 6:56am

Now, go run the graph of the Labor Force Participation Rate and get back to us..

More cherry picking, I see. So you can look at graphs of GDP, unemployment, and stock market, completely ignore them, and then blather about some OTHER thing.

Nope, no bias there, LOL.

31

Homeboy 2014 Jun 6, 6:58am

Where in there do I say Obama is my boy? If that isn't clear enough then I'm not really sure I can type slowly enough for you to comprehend.

That's how the mouth-foaming right attacks.

"Bush was a better president than Obama."

"No he wasn't."

"AH HA! You're just a cheerleader for Obama."

Logic fail.

32

Homeboy 2014 Jun 6, 7:01am

Homeboy says

As for Reagan - WRONG. His approval rating was 42% in 1987.

What part of at the same point didn't you get?

Don't understand the question. Perhaps you could actually STATE it instead of posting blithe sarcasm.

2 years before the end of his term. Wasn't 1987 2 years before the end of Reagan's term? If I made a math error, please tell me.

33 Blurtman 2014 Jun 6, 12:38pm

W did prosecute financial criminals, however. WorldCom, Enron (campaign contributors, no less.)

34 bob2356 2014 Jun 6, 12:53pm

2 years before the end of his term. Wasn't 1987 2 years before the end of Reagan's term? If I made a math error, please tell me.

Reagan left office Jan 1989 so Jan 1987 would be 2 years. Obama will leave office Jan 2017 so Jan 2014 would be 3 years. My apologies if you made a simple math error rather than trying to slide something in, I'm so used to the right wingnuts throwing random cherry picked numbers around I am beginning to automatically assume people do it on purpose.

35 bob2356 2014 Jun 6, 1:13pm

Which is going parabolic under Obama...

Bullshit, you can't read a chart. Bush took office Jan 2001. His first budget would be Nov 2001 debt 6 billion. His last budget would have ended Oct 2009 at 12 billion or a rise of 6 billion. O went from 12 billion to projected 19 billion in 2017 or a rise of 7 billion. So 7 billion is parabolic compared to 6 billion? How does that work? Especially considering the train wreck Bush left behind. Where was you outrage about parabolic debt in 2009? Give it up. Bush and O are just as bad no matter how much you try to polish turd number 1.

36 bob2356 2014 Jun 6, 1:19pm

bob2356 says

Where in there do I say Obama is my boy?

That's funny... You spend a hell of a lot of time defending his actions if he ain't "your" boy??

No I don't defend his actions, Find where that happened, go ahead. I just point out bullshit being thrown around (mostly by you) trying to say O was worse than "your boy" Bush.

37 thomaswong.1986 2014 Jun 6, 1:55pm

Obama was unable to improve the economy? Let's see:

building roads is hardly the way to increase good jobs... at least with Bush we saw venture capital pick up fueling new companies and jobs...
What did Obama do to improve the economy ?

Unemployment - Skyrocketed at beginning and end of Bush's term; went down throughout ObamgUnemployment - Skyrocketed at beginning and end of Bush's term; went down throughout Obama's tenure.ha's tenure.

Long Term unemployment is at record highs... many simply dropped out of the workforce... Bushs policy in the beginning of 2001 did improve hiring. There are still no Obama policies to increase hiring..

Stock market - Worst crash since Great Depression at end of Bush's term, up to record highs during Obama's tenure.

Again, not something Obama can cheer about... that goes to Bush for putting in policies to recover the economy and stock market... and that he did twice... 2001 and end of term. Again what Obama policy increased GDP and the stock market.... Its the same story with his father as Bush Sr. put in policies that rebounded the economy.... but for no reason Clinton takes created for not doing anything...

38 bob2356 2014 Jun 6, 2:59pm

Funny... There you go defending again...

How do the words just as bad constitute a defense in your weird world?

39 bob2356 2014 Jun 6, 3:02pm

BTW, I was comparing chart to chart to get a comparison, just like HomeFried was... Not budget years...

Why did you edit the comment? What happened to parabolic? Are you that desperate? You still either can't read the chart or don't know what the fiscal year is.

40

Homeboy 2014 Jun 6, 5:29pm

building roads is hardly the way to increase good jobs... at least with Bush we saw venture capital pick up fueling new companies and jobs...

Sorry, but I posted DATA. You are merely making blind assertions. Next...

Long Term unemployment is at record highs...

Apparently you are unable to read a simple chart. Next...

Bushs policy in the beginning of 2001 did improve hiring.

Hmmm... Bush improved hiring, yet unemployment rose. Um, that doesn't make sense. Next....

Again, not something Obama can cheer about... that goes to Bush for putting in policies to recover the economy and stock market...

HA HA HA HA!!!! You are as partisan as they come, my friend. Thanks for the laugh.

41

Homeboy 2014 Jun 6, 5:34pm

. My apologies if you made a simple math error rather than trying to slide something in, I'm so used to the right wingnuts throwing random cherry picked numbers around I am beginning to automatically assume people do it on purpose.

No, definitely not on purpose. I screwed up. Sorry.

42

Homeboy 2014 Jun 6, 6:21pm

So did the debt under Obama:

According to that chart, the debt to GDP ratio was 55.5% in Q4 2001, which would be the first time Bush would have had any influence over the budget, right? Then in Q4 2009, it was 84.5%. So it increased 29% under Bush. It's currently 102.9%. So it increased 18.4% under Obama.

Bush = loser.

Having a tough time reading a chart again I see... UE went up in the beginning of Bush's term because of a recession and then dropped during his second term..

Um, no. Unlike you, I can read a chart. I said it went up at the beginning and end of Bush's presidency, which it did. What part of that didn't you understand?

So let me see if I understand your argument here. It seems to go something like this: Bush did a better job with the economy than Obama, because there was a recession while Bush was president, so any problems don't count. Is that your argument? LOL.

Hmmm... How many of those 92 Million not in the work force (almost 1/3 of the US population) benefited from that rise in the Stock Market??

Raw numbers with no context and no comparison mean nothing. Try again.

Climbed around 4 Trillion during Bush's 8 years versus climbing 7 Trillion during Obama's 5 years...

Um, nice try, buddy. Bush left office in 2009, not 2008.

2001: 5769 billion
2009: 11,875 billion

Increase: 6106 billion

2009: 11,875 billion
2013: 16,719 billion

Increase: 4844 billion

So Bush's record is worse.

You lose.

Bush sucked. Quit trying to polish that turd. It's not getting any shinier.

43

Bellingham Bill 2014 Jun 7, 1:09am

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FDEFX

Bush and O are just as bad

wat.

Obama has not thrown away trillions on new military misadventures:

Debt-wise, what happened since 1999 is clear enough:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=CNw

YOY consumer debt increase (blue) artificially juiced the economy, giving us the Bush Boom that brought down deficits 2005-2008.

But it all crashed once home debtors could not longer pay the piper and the $100 BILLION PER MONTH flow directly into the middle quintiles collapsed.

Obama's recovery plan was to replace this with $1T+ of stimulus spending, and that has got us where we are, since after 2010 Congress hasn't done shit about improving the economy.

At this point I'd give Obama a C-, and I don't know what grade I can give Bush; what letter grade can represent a man that destroyed my country through demonstrated incompetent commitment to ideological stupidity?

Being the frontman for neocon adventurism, "Deficits don't matter", defending our existing hydrocarbon energy sector, deregulation and de-policing of the nation's financial system, going after gay people in 2004 (after the MA gay marriage decision made that a hot-button issue for the religious nutjobs that are the dominant faction of the GOP).

Obama's sins are largely that of omission rather than commission.

He's been a spectator since the Dems lost the Senate supermajority in late 2009 and the House altogether in 2010.

A strong president can be more than that, but given the general rightward tilt of the corporatocratic media environment, a President in the minority can push rightwards but not leftwards effectively.

On a caucus basis, conservatives have been much stronger in Congress 2000-now than the GOP/Dem party split appears to show.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/02/03/how-congress-became-the-most-polarized-and-unproductive-its-ever-been/

Conservatives destroyed this place and now they're stopping the effort to rebuild.

Well played, well played.

44 bob2356 2014 Jun 7, 1:47am

Bellingham Bill says

bob2356 says

Bush and O are just as bad

wat.

Obama has not thrown away trillions on new military misadventures:

He has continued to erode civil rights at an ever accelerating pace. This is much worse. Wars will end eventually. Debt will be repaid or defaulted on. Lost rights will never be recovered. No government in history has ever voluntarily reduced its intrusion into citizens lives.

45

indigenous 2014 Jun 7, 1:48am

President Obama walked into the Bank of America to cash a check. As he approached the cashier he said, "Good morning Ma'am, could you please cash this check for me?"
Cashier:
"It would be my pleasure sir. Would you please show me your ID?"

Obama:
"Truthfully, I did not bring my ID with me as I didn't think there was any need to. I am Barack Obama, the President of the United States of AMERICA !!!!"

Cashier:
"Yes sir, I know who you are, but with all the regulations and monitoring of the banks because of impostors and forgers and requirements of the Dodd /Frank legislation, etc., I must insist on seeing your ID.

Obama:
"Just ask anyone here at the bank who I am and they will tell you. Everybody knows who I am."
Cashier:
"I am sorry Mr. President but these are the bank rules and I must follow them."

Obama:
"I order you to cash this check!"

Cashier:
"Look Mr. President, here is an example of what we can do. One day, Tiger Woods came into the bank without ID. To prove he was Tiger Woods he pulled out his putter and made a beautiful shot across the bank into a cup. With that shot we knew him to be Tiger Woods and cashed his check.

Another time, Andre Agassi came in without ID. He pulled out his tennis racquet and made a fabulous shot whereas the tennis ball landed in my cup. With that shot we cashed his check.
So, Mr. President, what can you do to prove that it is you, and only you, as the President of the United States ?"

Obama stands there thinking, and thinking, and finally says, "Honestly, I can't think of a single thing. I don't have a clue what to do.

Cashier:
"Will that be large or small bills, Mr. President?

46

Bellingham Bill 2014 Jun 7, 1:57am

He has continued to erode civil rights at an ever accelerating pace. This is much worse.

Depends on his successors more than he; I am not any less free in 2014 than I was in 2008, though I will concede the powers Obama has not rolled back are easily abusable by future fascists.

But this is a failure of our democracy as a whole and not one man. Should Obama fail to let the Deep State do its thing, they can easily slime him as weak and a danger to the national security, of having caused Americans to get killed.

Again, a failure of omission and not commission. We need a leader to get the people moving in the right direction, and Obama has not been this person.

No government in history has ever voluntarily reduced its intrusion into citizens lives.

There is a serious issue between our elected representatives, the powers that run the parties, the [corporate] press that sets and enforces the Agenda of what we're allowed to talk about nationally.

Like all of us, Obama's just been along for the ride, especially since the GOP took over the House in 2011.

Like when I hear people talk about a given corporation as a single entity (e.g. "Apple should XYZ . . .", it is not particularly intelligent to talk about 'government' as a single entity as in your above.

Of course the snoops are going to snoop and the sp00ks are going to sp00k.
J Edgar didn't run the FBI for decades being a nice guy.

The President is constitutionally directed to run the government as Congress directs. If Congress doesn't like what the Executive is doing, they have the power to change that through changing the law and impeachment if the President (or people below him) flouts the law.

And if we the people don't like Congress, we can work to send better representatives to that body. This is a long, long war though that cannot be won in an afternoon or bullshitting on the internet for that matter.

47 lakermania 2014 Jun 7, 2:21am