The official Obama collapsing thread

[horses4courses]

[hcap]

Three years ago plus on 9-13-2013, JustRalph started this ridiculous thread and predicted Obama's approval rate would crash and burn

He is rivaling Bush in approval numbers and I stand by my prediction that he will be below Bush by the time he leaves office......Blah, Blah,Blah.

....So, I decided to inaugurate a thread where over the next three years, the downfall of this phoney can be reported, recorded, discussed.......Blah, Blah,Blah.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...year_high.html

Obama Approval Reaches Three-Year High.........

[hcap]

Oops a bit EARLIER than three years


.

[Tom]

hcap, with Hillary and Bernie out there, the dems HAVE to find an alternative.

But did you listen to his mocking of Trump last night?
It is obvious that the man has no class and is nothing more than a street talker at heart. An embarrassment ot educated people everywhere.

[hcap]

Common sense tells us impossible to use the word "class" in the same paragraph as "Trump".
Oh well, I suppose we are in store for either the....

... The official Clinton collapsing thread
or
.... The official Sanders collapsing thread.

And in either case all the crap PA OT cons can dig up will be dumped into that
garbage dumpster of a thread as well as this shit hole

[zico20]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

Your chart looks at job growth through the presidency. How about we look at job growth through congress, shall we. From 2003-2006 when Republicans controlled congress, the Republicans created 8.1 million jobs and were growing every year. The Democrats took control in 2007 and job growth flattened out and then plummeted under the Democrats, resulting in a net loss of 8 million jobs.

So which party creates more jobs? I would say it is the Republicans by a very large margin. I wonder if the overall job growth is actually negative under a Democratic congress. I don't have the time right now to look it up. I would not be the least bit surprised if it were.

http://politicalmathblog.com/?p=383

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgov...division_2.htm

[Tom]

And in either case all the crap PA OT cons can dig up will be dumped into that garbage dumpster of a thread as well as this shit hole

Way to stay classy, hcap.

[mostpost]

[QUOTE=zico20]Your chart looks at job growth through the presidency. How about we look at job growth through congress, shall we. From 2003-2006 when Republicans controlled congress, the Republicans created 8.1 million jobs and were growing every year. The Democrats took control in 2007 and job growth flattened out and then plummeted under the Democrats, resulting in a net loss of 8 million jobs.

So which party creates more jobs? I would say it is the Republicans by a very large margin. I wonder if the overall job growth is actually negative under a Democratic congress. I don't have the time right now to look it up. I would not be the least bit surprised if it were.[quote]
I did the work for you. And you are wrong. Very wrong. I looked at all years between 1949 and 2014 in which both Houses of Congress were controlled by the same party. I ignored the years in which control of Congress was split between the two parties

Here is what I discovered:
When Democrats controlled the Presidency and both Houses of Congress, jobs grew at an average annual rate of 2,099,000 jobs.

When Republicans controlled the Presidency and both houses of Congress, jobs increased at a rate of 425,875 jobs per year.

That is a difference of 1,673,125 jobs a year.

When there was a Democratic President and a Republican Congress the numbers were 2,786,833. That Democratic president was Bill Clinton by the way.
When there was a Republican President with a Democratic Congress, jobs increased at a rate of 1,227,560 per year.

In years in which there was a Democratic Congress regardless of which party held the Presidency, the annual average job gain was 1,585,428.
In years in which there was a Republican Congress regardless of which party held the Presidency, average annual job gain was 1,437,714.

There is not much difference between those two numbers.

In years in which there was a Democratic President-regardless of which party controlled Congress-job gain was 2,258,269.
In years in which there was a Republican President-regardless of which party controlled Congress-the annual job gain was 1,075,346.
There is a big difference between those two numbers with the former being more than twice the latter.

All of which leads us to two rather obvious conclusions. One is that Democrats are much better at adding jobs than Republicans. The second is that who is President matters much more than who controls Congress.

[davew]

Is it really a new job if it is working for the government in some wasteful duplicated agency, or training to take the census?

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by mostpost

All of which leads us to two rather obvious conclusions. One is that Democrats are much better at adding jobs than Republicans. The second is that who is President matters much more than who controls Congress.

All of which is superficial nonsense of the highest order. You are saying that if a party is in control in year x, and something happens in year x, that party must have caused it.

It can take years for political policy changes to show any significant impact on the economy. There are ways of measuring this, but saying that "x" happened in a given year because a party was in control that year is incredibly simplistic. It's no more logical or realistic than a witch doctor claiming his chants cause a rain storm. He performed his act and then it rained. Must be true.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Originally Posted by Clocker

All of which is superficial nonsense of the highest order. You are saying that if a party is in control in year x, and something happens in year x, that party must have caused it.

It can take years for political policy changes to show any significant impact on the economy. There are ways of measuring this, but saying that "x" happened in a given year because a party was in control that year is incredibly simplistic. It's no more logical or realistic than a witch doctor claiming his chants cause a rain storm. He performed his act and then it rained. Must be true.

Well, certainly we can't expect more of Mostie. Since his mind is made up before reviewing the data, his "critical thinking" skills simply rest on twisting the facts to achieve the desired result. And by "twisting" I mean repeating or pointing out the portions that support his view, and ignoring the rest. Like thinking raw job numbers are somehow relevant to the discussion, when not considering the quality of the jobs - part time versus full time, or McJob/waiter versus manufacturing.

This is why he and HCAP hang their hat on the success of Obamacare coming down to a single metric (fewer people uninsured) without taking into account the whole picture (increased costs, drop in quality of care, increase in deductibles, fewer full time workers, etc). Another example is using the raw numbers of income to support his view about what a success Obama has been reviving the economy - and ignoring the fact that the inflation adjusted numbers have median income back up to about 2000 levels.....

[zico20]

[QUOTE=mostpost][QUOTE=zico20]Your chart looks at job growth through the presidency. How about we look at job growth through congress, shall we. From 2003-2006 when Republicans controlled congress, the Republicans created 8.1 million jobs and were growing every year. The Democrats took control in 2007 and job growth flattened out and then plummeted under the Democrats, resulting in a net loss of 8 million jobs.

So which party creates more jobs? I would say it is the Republicans by a very large margin. I wonder if the overall job growth is actually negative under a Democratic congress. I don't have the time right now to look it up. I would not be the least bit surprised if it were.

I did the work for you. And you are wrong. Very wrong. I looked at all years between 1949 and 2014 in which both Houses of Congress were controlled by the same party. I ignored the years in which control of Congress was split between the two parties

Here is what I discovered:
When Democrats controlled the Presidency and both Houses of Congress, jobs grew at an average annual rate of 2,099,000 jobs.

When Republicans controlled the Presidency and both houses of Congress, jobs increased at a rate of 425,875 jobs per year.

That is a difference of 1,673,125 jobs a year.

When there was a Democratic President and a Republican Congress the numbers were 2,786,833. That Democratic president was Bill Clinton by the way.
When there was a Republican President with a Democratic Congress, jobs increased at a rate of 1,227,560 per year.

In years in which there was a Democratic Congress regardless of which party held the Presidency, the annual average job gain was 1,585,428.
In years in which there was a Republican Congress regardless of which party held the Presidency, average annual job gain was 1,437,714.

There is not much difference between those two numbers.

In years in which there was a Democratic President-regardless of which party controlled Congress-job gain was 2,258,269.
In years in which there was a Republican President-regardless of which party controlled Congress-the annual job gain was 1,075,346.
There is a big difference between those two numbers with the former being more than twice the latter.

All of which leads us to two rather obvious conclusions. One is that Democrats are much better at adding jobs than Republicans. The second is that who is President matters much more than who controls Congress.

Why did you only go back to 1949. Give me the numbers dating back to 1900 why don't you. I bet they don't paint a pretty picture for the Democrats. H4C only went back to the first Bush. Is there a particular reason you chose 1949? My numbers are more recent and they are not pretty for Democrats.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by Clocker

All of which is superficial nonsense of the highest order. You are saying that if a party is in control in year x, and something happens in year x, that party must have caused it.

It can take years for political policy changes to show any significant impact on the economy. There are ways of measuring this, but saying that "x" happened in a given year because a party was in control that year is incredibly simplistic. It's no more logical or realistic than a witch doctor claiming his chants cause a rain storm. He performed his act and then it rained. Must be true.

Zico 20 speculated with absolutely no proof that job growth under Democratic Congresses was probably negative. I did not see you shooting off your mouth about that.

You say you have a magic formula for measuring when and how a particular action takes effect. Why don't you share that with us? What I do know is that if the Republicans are in power and the economy improves, they are very quick to take credit. And if the Democrats are in power and the economy gets worse, the Republicans are very quick to place blame. And there is no nonsense about lets wait to see what the effects are.

All this crap about correlation is not causation is just that. Job growth under Democratic presidents is twice as good as under Republican presidents. That is proof enough for me. Nothing would be proof enough for you.

[mostpost]

[QUOTE=zico20][QUOTE=mostpost]

Originally Posted by zico20

Your chart looks at job growth through the presidency. How about we look at job growth through congress, shall we. From 2003-2006 when Republicans controlled congress, the Republicans created 8.1 million jobs and were growing every year. The Democrats took control in 2007 and job growth flattened out and then plummeted under the Democrats, resulting in a net loss of 8 million jobs.

So which party creates more jobs? I would say it is the Republicans by a very large margin. I wonder if the overall job growth is actually negative under a Democratic congress. I don't have the time right now to look it up. I would not be the least bit surprised if it were.

Why did you only go back to 1949. Give me the numbers dating back to 1900 why don't you. I bet they don't paint a pretty picture for the Democrats. H4C only went back to the first Bush. Is there a particular reason you chose 1949? My numbers are more recent and they are not pretty for Democrats.

I went back to 1949 because that is as far back as the Bureau of Labor statistics numbers go. You only went back to 2003 because you felt that would prove your point. You cherry picked and expect us to follow your lead.

Your theory that Congress is responsible for job growth is nonsense and I have proven that it is nonsense.
Job growth under George W. Bush, 375,000.
Job growth under Barach Obama 2,400,000. No matter how you try to spin it, Obama did a better job and all the foolishness in the world about who was in charge of Congress does not change that fact.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Tom

Way to stay classy, hcap.

I only called out cons here who post any crap thrown up against the wall hoping it will stick (rarely does).

At least I do not fill my posts with "trainer", "bitch" and wishes for mass murder of innocents.

As some here do.