Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Spittin_Chicklets

Obama, His Presidency, and His Detractors

37 posts in this topic

I think it's about time to examine the Obama presidency as his first term is beginning to wind down. When he was first elected, our old friend Sam_Adelphia, posted a list of 9 predictions that would result from the implementations of Obama policies over the course of his first term in office.

I saved these predictions in a file on my computer on March 17, 2009. Here they are (this would be a lot more fun if he was still around):

If Obama continues on this disastrous path he seem intent on following, here's what you can expect.

1. Inflation will climb quickly. By the end of 2010, inflation will be approaching doubles digits, if not well into double digits.

2. Interest rates will rise. By the middle of 2011, rates will be in the 8-9% range, at least. Higher is a possibility.

3. Unemployment will rise. Expect national unemployment to approach double digits by the end of 2011.

4. Welfare spending will nearly double

5. New housing will slow to a crawl.

6. The deficit will soar to unprecedented levels.

7. Consumer savings will fall.

8. Consumer spending will fall.

9. Foreign investors will begin buying up American assets at an alarming rate.

Let's have a look, shall we?

#1 Inflation declined in 2009 and in the three years of Obama's first term, averaged 1.49%, a significant decline from the 3.33% average during Bush's second term.

#2 Interest rates are at historic lows.

#3 Unemployment is on the decline. Considering the rate at which we were losing jobs at the end of the Bush administration, this really wasn't much of a "prediction", however I predict that by the time November rolls around, the unemployment rate will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 7.5%

#4 Welfare spending peaked at $502 billion in 2010 and has been declining ever since.

#5 New housing starts peaked in Aug. '05 and suffered a STEEP decline into Feb '09. They have been steadily increasing since then.

#6 The Bush deficit was $1.413T (FY 2009), the current deficit is $1.101T (FY2012)

#7 Personal savings rates rose sharply during the Obama administration, however have dipped as of late. Still, overall, the personal savings rate is higher today than it was three years ago.

#8 Consumer spending has been flat, however it is still higher today than it was when Obama took office.

#9 Not to sure how to quantify this. Foreign investment in the U.S.peaked at $328b in 2008. In 2010 it was $194b. To be honest, I'm not really sure what Sam had in mind with this prediction.

So there you have it. Nine doom and gloom predictions made 3 years ago, none of which materialized.

19 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's about time to examine the Obama presidency as his first term is beginning to wind down. When he was first elected, our old friend Sam_Adelphia, posted a list of 9 predictions that would result from the implementations of Obama policies over the course of his first term in office.

I saved these predictions in a file on my computer on March 17, 2009. Here they are (this would be a lot more fun if he was still around):

Let's have a look, shall we?

#1 Inflation declined in 2009 and in the three years of Obama's first term, averaged 1.49%, a significant decline from the 3.33% average during Bush's second term.

#2 Interest rates are at historic lows.

#3 Unemployment is on the decline. Considering the rate at which we were losing jobs at the end of the Bush administration, this really wasn't much of a "prediction", however I predict that by the time November rolls around, the unemployment rate will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 7.5%

#4 Welfare spending peaked at $502 billion in 2010 and has been declining ever since.

#5 New housing starts peaked in Aug. '05 and suffered a STEEP decline into Feb '09. They have been steadily increasing since then.

#6 The Bush deficit was $1.413T (FY 2009), the current deficit is $1.101T (FY2012)

#7 Personal savings rates rose sharply during the Obama administration, however have dipped as of late. Still, overall, the personal savings rate is higher today than it was three years ago.

#8 Consumer spending has been flat, however it is still higher today than it was when Obama took office.

#9 Not to sure how to quantify this. Foreign investment in the U.S.peaked at $328b in 2008. In 2010 it was $194b. To be honest, I'm not really sure what Sam had in mind with this prediction.

So there you have it. Nine doom and gloom predictions made 3 years ago, none of which materialized.

Not quite accurate SC, but I'll give Sam the honors first....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#9 Not to sure how to quantify this. Foreign investment in the U.S.peaked at $328b in 2008. In 2010 it was $194b. To be honest, I'm not really sure what Sam had in mind with this prediction.

That America and Americans will be broke and that becuase of that, will be selling off our assets at an alarming rate...

Oh, and do you really exepct Sam to venture in here and respond. He said he was leaving... forver! Certianly he's a man of his word!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That America and Americans will be broke and that becuase of that, will be selling off our assets at an alarming rate...

Oh, and do you really exepct Sam to venture in here and respond. He said he was leaving... forver! Certianly he's a man of his word!!

On the positive side it also means relative to the rest of the world, our FU economy is better than their FU economy.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

crickets.jpg

If you insist...let's begin with Sam prediction #5:

5. New housing will slow to a crawl.

Since you choose to use average inflation rates under the Bush VS Obama terms to compare inflation under both Presidents, I assume you will allow me the same courtesy with regard to housing starts.

Annualized housing starts averaged roughly 1.6 million per month during the Bush Administration vs. about 572,000 during the Obama Administration.

In other words, housing starts under Bush averaged nearly THREE times that under Obama.

bush-vs-obama-housing-starts-july-20111.jpg

Sam 1 SC 0.

Need more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL.

GT posts a chart that shows EXACTLY what I said and claims I am wrong.

New housing starts peaked in Aug. '05 and suffered a STEEP decline into Feb '09. They have been steadily increasing since then.

Housing and unemployment are issues for Obama heading into this election, there is no doubt. But new housing starts were already in the toilet when Obama took the reins. Not really a "prediction".

It's kinda like predicting rain after drops start falling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL.

GT posts a chart that shows EXACTLY what I said and claims I am wrong.

Housing and unemployment are issues for Obama heading into this election, there is no doubt. But new housing starts were already in the toilet when Obama took the reins. Not really a "prediction".

It's kinda like predicting rain after drops start falling.

If those blue lines under the Obama Administration aren't the definition of "crawling along"....nothing is.

I notice you didn't like me using the running average like you choose to do with prediction #1 over the inflation rate.

You like to make up the rules as you go...LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, its fine.

I conceded that housing is an issue. What do you want? A medal?

New housing starts were in the toilet and still are. I think that has little to do with Obama's policies, however, and more to do with the fact that foreclosure inventories are still at record highs as a result of the mortgage crisis.

Of all of the "predictions" Sam made, that one has a bit of truth to it, but I still disagree that it had anything to do with specific Obama policies and still maintain that all signs were pointing to these results WELL BEFORE Obama took office.

Hell, from 'the peak in '06, new housing starts were at 25% of that level in 2008.

Kinda hard to blame Obama for a decline that took place BEFORE he took office. You can of course argue that he did little to improve it during his first term, but to blame him for the decline is pure partisan hackery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, its fine.

I conceded that housing is an issue. What do you want? A medal?

New housing starts were in the toilet and still are. I think that has little to do with Obama's policies, however, and more to do with the fact that foreclosure inventories are still at record highs as a result of the mortgage crisis.

Of all of the "predictions" Sam made, that one has a bit of truth to it, but I still disagree that it had anything to do with specific Obama policies and still maintain that all signs were pointing to these results WELL BEFORE Obama took office.

Hell, from 'the peak in '06, new housing starts were at 25% of that level in 2008.

Kinda hard to blame Obama for a decline that took place BEFORE he took office. You can of course argue that he did little to improve it during his first term, but to blame him for the decline is pure partisan hackery.

Let's go on to Sam prediction #8:

8. Consumer spending will fall.

Over the past three and half years, growth in U.S. consumer spending has averaged a paltry 0.2 percent adjusted for inflation, the weakest in the post-World War II period, Morgan Stanley says.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/01/us-consumer-spending_n_1178650.html

Would you like more SC...I got lots?

LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's go on to Sam prediction #8:

8. Consumer spending will fall.

Over the past three and half years, growth in U.S. consumer spending has averaged a paltry 0.2 percent adjusted for inflation, the weakest in the post-World War II period, Morgan Stanley says.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/01/us-consumer-spending_n_1178650.html

Would you like more SC...I got lots?

LOL

The prediction was that it would FALL. It hasn't. It has risen. Not much, but it has gone up.

FAIL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The prediction was that it would FALL. It hasn't. It has risen. Not much, but it has gone up.

FAIL

How about this prediction:

6. The deficit will soar to unprecedented levels.

This one is simple...

When President Obama took office two years ago, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. It now stands at $14.071 trillion — a staggering increase of $3.445 trillion in just 735 days (about $5 billion a day).

To put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion. So Bush’s record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year. How does that compare to Obama? During Obama’s presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year — or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush.

How much in deficit spending did Bush spend on average per day during his presidency? It’s pretty easy to figure out: $607 billion/365 days = $1.66 billion per day. That’s a lot of spending, Georgie. Shame on you!

But compared to Obama’s $5 BILLION of deficit spending per day? Obama spent well over three times more per day every single day than did Bush.

http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2011/07/28/who-spent-more-average-bush-vs-average-obama-spending-per-day-proves-obama-most-reckless-and-irresponsible-ever/

It's even worse, this article was based on a $14.071 trillion deficit...it currently stands at $15.3 trillion and climbing...and the latest Obama budget for next year is even worse than predicted.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this prediction:

6. The deficit will soar to unprecedented levels.

This one is simple...

When President Obama took office two years ago, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. It now stands at $14.071 trillion — a staggering increase of $3.445 trillion in just 735 days (about $5 billion a day).

To put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion. So Bush’s record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year. How does that compare to Obama? During Obama’s presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year — or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush.

How much in deficit spending did Bush spend on average per day during his presidency? It’s pretty easy to figure out: $607 billion/365 days = $1.66 billion per day. That’s a lot of spending, Georgie. Shame on you!

But compared to Obama’s $5 BILLION of deficit spending per day? Obama spent well over three times more per day every single day than did Bush.

http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2011/07/28/who-spent-more-average-bush-vs-average-obama-spending-per-day-proves-obama-most-reckless-and-irresponsible-ever/

It's even worse, this article was based on a $14.071 trillion deficit...it currently stands at $15.3 trillion and climbing...and the latest Obama budget for next year is even worse than predicted.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Do you know the difference between deficit and debt? Apparently not...

The DEFICIT when Obama took office was $1.4T, in his proposed 2013 budget it is at $900B. The deficit has declined annually since Obama has taken office.

FAIL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know the difference between deficit and debt? Apparently not...

The DEFICIT when Obama took office was $1.4T, in his proposed 2013 budget it is at $900B. The deficit has declined annually since Obama has taken office.

FAIL

The national debt is basically the cumulative effect of the annual deficits...SHEESH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The national debt is basically the cumulative effect of the annual deficits...SHEESH.

Regardless of your inability to understand basic financial concepts, the fact remains that Sam's prediction was that the deficit would soar. It hasn't. It is shrinking.

In Bush's last year of office the year over year increase to the national debt was 16%. After Obama's first year in office it dropped to 15%. His second year it fell to 14% and in his third it fell to 8%.

Here is where Obama falls within his contemporaries in terms of adding to the national debt:

President - Percentage added to national debt:

Carter +42%

Reagan +189%

Bush I +57%

Clinton +36%

Bush II +89%

Obama +41%

Democrat average - +39.7%

Republican average - +111.7%

Those "fiscally conservative" republicans have added nearly three times as much debt as their "free spending" democrat counterparts...

FAIL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jan. 20, 2009 — in the Treasury Department’s handy “debt to the penny” website. That shows the nation’s total debt stood at $10.6 trillion on the day Obama took office (not $6.3 trillion), and it had increased to nearly $15.4 trillion by the end of January 2012 — a rise of more than $4.7 trillion in just over three years (not $6.5 trillion).That’s a huge increase to be sure — 44.5 percent. And the Congressional Budget Office now projects that it will grow to more than $16 trillion by the end of the current fiscal year on Sept. 30. At that point, the debt will have increased by more dollars in Obama’s first four years than it did in George W. Bush’s entire eight-year tenure, when it rose by $4.9 trillion. The rise under Obama would then be the biggest dollar increase for any president in U.S. history.

Here is how the nation’s total debt has fared under the past several presidents, as of Jan. 31, 2012, in trillions of dollars. The percentage increases are given in parentheses.

DebtReaganObama.png

Our chart looks much different from Pelosi’s, because ours shows the actual dollar increase, not just the percentage change. As can be seen here, Obama’s 45 percent rise is nearly equal in dollar terms to his predecessor’s 85 percent increase — because Obama started from a much higher base.

Similarly, had we based our chart on the rate of rise, it would show the debt rising much faster under Obama than it did under Bush, whose increase was spread over eight years. Other adjustments could be made to account for inflation. Indeed, one of the most meaningful ways to look at the debt is to measure it not just in raw dollars but in comparison with the economy — as a percentage of the gross domestic product.

Debt2GDP.png

In this chart, which we generated from the most recent historical data and projections (Table 7.1) from the Office of Management and Budget, it can be seen that the total federal debt in relation to the economy is reaching historically high levels — approaching levels not seen since World War II. But it can also be seen that the rise started long before Obama took office.

In fact, the upward trend began with Ronald Reagan’s fiscal 1982 budget, declined somewhat from fiscal 1997 through 2001, and resumed the upward climb with George W. Bush’s first budget in fiscal 2002 (which started Oct. 1, 2001).

And the rise accelerated as the economy slid into the worst recession since the Great Depression, starting in December 2007. As the economy shrank, the debt-to-GDP ratio jumped 5 percentage points in the fiscal year that started Oct. 1, 2007, and another 14.8 percentage points during the following year. Obama took office nearly one-third of the way into that 12-month period. At the time, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office was projecting the deficit for that fiscal year would be $1.2 trillion. It later rose to $1.4 trillion after enactment of Obama’s economic stimulus package, to be followed by back-to-back deficits of nearly $1.3 trillion in fiscal 2010 and $1.3 trillion again in fiscal 2011. CBO just projected the deficit for the current fiscal year, ending Sept. 30, will be $1.1 trillion.

A caution: The chart we’ve shown here is for total debt, including money the government owes to itself, chiefly through the Social Security trust funds. But a chart tracking only the debt owed to the public would show a similar shape. CBO projects that the debt owed to the public was nearly 68 percent of GDP in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, and will reach 73 percent this year and exceed 75 percent at the end of fiscal 2013.

http://www.rgj.com/section/blogs12?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&U=8a686c58-d08c-47e8-8216-d67b1e581e99&plckPostId=Blog:8a686c58-d08c-47e8-8216-d67b1e581e99Post:dc1199e6-2dae-48ba-bc4d-83b7891f9e14&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of your inability to understand basic financial concepts, the fact remains that Sam's prediction was that the deficit would soar. It hasn't. It is shrinking.

In Bush's last year of office the year over year increase to the national debt was 16%. After Obama's first year in office it dropped to 15%. His second year it fell to 14% and in his third it fell to 8%.

Here is where Obama falls within his contemporaries in terms of adding to the national debt:

President - Percentage added to national debt:

Carter +42%

Reagan +189%

Bush I +57%

Clinton +36%

Bush II +89%

Obama +41%

Democrat average - +39.7%

Republican average - +111.7%

Those "fiscally conservative" republicans have added nearly three times as much debt as their "free spending" democrat counterparts...

FAIL

Your mistake is to call Bush a "fiscal conservative"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your mistake is to call Bush a "fiscal conservative"...

You did notice the "quotes" I used, did you not?

The mistake is to call ANY of the last three republican presidents "fiscally conservative".

Hell, Jimmy Carter was more "fiscally conservative" than any of 'em.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I give you your Democrat party in all it's glory:

LAKE COUNTY, Fla. —

Tempers are flaring over a version of the American flag flying in Lake County. A veterans group says the flag is an outrage.

The flag, which features a picture of President Obama, was taken down Tuesday afternoon.

Korean war veteran Don Van Beck said his blood was boiling.

"I can't describe how upset was because you just don't do that to the American flag," Van Beck said.

Van Beck found it flying outside Lake County Democratic headquarters under the stars and stripes. Marine Corps vet John Masterjohn was seeing red.

"Joseph Stalin, pictures of Mao, pictures of Adolph Hitler. The pomp, the ceremony -- the flags like that," Masterjohn said.

Nearly a dozen veterans went to the door and aimed to take it down.

"No. This is private property. This is private property. You're not allowed to touch anything. I'll call the police," Democratic Party chairwoman Nancy Hulbert said. "Just went online. Just went online and looked up the flag code. There is no higher-up in Lake County. I'm responsible. I take responsibility."

"If you've been a veteran and fought -- and some died for this flag -- you don't want to see it desecrated. That's how simple it is," Van Beck said.

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/vets-angry-over-american-flag-featuring-obama/nLR5Q/#comments

Is anybody surprised?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least they did the right thing and took it down. Incredibly poor judgement on the part of Ms. Hulbert. I doubt very much that it was endorsed, in any way, by the President or the DNC.

Shame on the Lake County Headquarters. Somebody should lose their job over this. My guess is somebody will. There is no excuse for such a breach of etiquette.

The veterans were right to be angry. It angers me. Flag etiquette has been lost in this country.

Remember after 9/11 when everybody was putting flags on their cars (mostly Bush supporters)?

I wonder how many people took those flags off their cars at night? How many continued to drive with those flags in tatters months later?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course the real outrage should be directed at the company that has been marketing the flag since 2008...

Along with their Obama flag, famousflags.com has:

A Geronimo flag:

http://famousflags.com/geronimousaflag-z.aspx

A Hank Williams Jr. Flag:

http://famousflags.com/hankwilliamsusaflag-z.aspx

A John Wayne Flag:

http://famousflags.com/johnwayneusaflag.aspx

and the ever popular Pot Leaf Flag:

http://famousflags.com/usaleafpotflag3x5.aspx

Where is the outrage for these depictions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course the real outrage should be directed at the company that has been marketing the flag since 2008...

Along with their Obama flag, famousflags.com has:

A Geronimo flag:

http://famousflags.com/geronimousaflag-z.aspx

A Hank Williams Jr. Flag:

http://famousflags.com/hankwilliamsusaflag-z.aspx

A John Wayne Flag:

http://famousflags.com/johnwayneusaflag.aspx

and the ever popular Pot Leaf Flag:

http://famousflags.com/usaleafpotflag3x5.aspx

Where is the outrage for these depictions?

A free society must countenance poor taste in the market.

1989: Revision of Federal Flag Desecration Statute — Pursuant to the Flag Protection Act of 1989, Congress amended the 1968 federal flag desecration statute in an effort to make it "content neutral" and conform to the Constitutional requirements of Johnson. As a result, the 1989 Act sought to prohibit flag desecration under all circumstances by deleting the statutory requirement that the conduct cast contempt upon the flag and narrowing the definition of the term "flag" so that its meaning was not based on the observation of third parties.

1990: United States v. Eichman (496 U.S. 310) — Passage of the Flag Protection Act resulted in a number of flag burning incidents protesting the new law. The Supreme Court overturned several flag burning convictions brought under the Flag Protection Act of 1989. The Court held that notwithstanding Congress' effort to adopt a more content neutral law, the federal law continued to be principally aimed at limiting symbolic speech.

1990: Rejection of Constitutional Amendment — Following the Eichman decision, Congress considered and rejected a Constitutional Amendment specifying that "the Congress and the States have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." The amendment failed to muster the necessary two-thirds Congressional majorities, as it was supported by only a 254–177 margin in the House (290 votes were necessary) and a 58–42 margin in the Senate (67 votes were necessary).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites