• Judahlevi

    Charles Krauthammer is one of the most insightful commentators in politics. He is right on about Obama’s speech, a man who cannot point to any positive accomplishments in four years so he creates a meaningless vision statement.
    The Democrat’s convention benefited Romney, not Obama.

    • DavidAppell

      3.7 million jobs created in the private sector since July 2009, when the Bush debacle finally started to stop. 0.6 million gone from the government sector (probably a drain on the economy).

  • Bob Clark

    How can people even consider voting Democrat. Total employment grew by less than 100k this last month, and the economy grows only at about two thirds its historical rate through the Obama presidency. The unemployment rate this past month edged downward but this only because people gave up looking for work; taking instead food stamps and early social security retirement from the government dependency president. And What does the Democrat party convention focus on: whether God has anyplace in their platform, and whether college age women should get free condoms and abortions.
    And you know what? Maybe it is Bush 2’s fault. The misadventure in Iraq led to the accentuated 2006 and 2008 Democrat party victories, I do believe.

    • DavidAppell

      Shall we compare?

      Obama, since 6 months after his inauguration: 3.7 M private sector jobs added, federal government employment down by 12,000.

      Bush 1st term, since 6 months after his inauguration: 1.4 M private sector jobs gained, 55,000 federal govt jobs lost.

      Bush 2nd term, since 6 months after his 2nd inauguration: 4.5 M private sector jobs *lost*, 97,000 federal govt jobs *added.”

  • Rupert in Springfield

    One wonders why team Obama wasn’t better prepared. They had four years lead up to this speech. They knew it was coming, so why in the world didn’t they have a better message than the dopey math and science teachers out of a hat routine?

    The reason is they only care about the economy insofar as getting reelected.They don’t actually care about it past that. The American people sense this. Nobody out there is insisting that if we reelect Obama we are going to have a roaring economy in the second term. All I hear from the frothing mouthed is that if Obama isn’t reelected, the war on women will continue. The devastating prospect of a $10 copay will essentially chain women to their vacuum cleaners. While we are on the subject of chains – slavery will be re-instituted if the Obama administrations policy of sucking up to big banks and financial institutions is ended, at least according to VP Biden.

    These are idiotic arguments for reelecting someone. Both sides know it. The most strident Democrats I know make no argument the economy is going anywhere under Obama – however they maintain that they are paralyzed by fear of the prospect of a Romney election. When I ask why they will ramble on into gay marriage, the war on women, and Christian hegemony.

    Obviously this is idiotic – to maintain that you are kept awake at night by the prospect of having to pay for a condom, that no action will be taken on gay marriage, and everyone will suddenly be Presbyterian is ludicrous.

    So what will it say about us as a country if Obama is re elected? That’s a scary prospect. I think it will probably say we just really don’t care. That we are willing to let debt destroy our country’s future in exchange for a lackluster but easy present. That a present where everyone just gets by on government handouts and our kids will have nothing is preferable to actually doing something with our lives.

    I think that’s what keeps the other side up at night. The horrendous debt, how much is my children’s future being destroyed with each passing day, It’s a stark contrast to those quaking in fear about free condoms. Wonder who will win?

    • DavidAppell

      “We left him a total mess. He hasn’t cleaned it up fast enough. So fire him and put us back in.”
      — Bill Clinton’s summary of the Republican position

      • Rupert in Springfield

        “Obama is an amateur”
        – Bill Clintons summary of Obamas competence level.

        “Lets start counting Obama as if he were elected in July because we need to cherry pick our data to prop up this guy”

        Rupert’s summary of Appells nonsensical position

        • David from Mill City

          Let me get this straight,
          should Romney be elected, if the first set of unemployment figures
          following the Inauguration do not show a significant decline, say 2%, and the
          national debt has been significantly reduced, say by a ½ a trillion dollars,
          and the budget in effect at that time is balanced then you will be calling for Romney’s resignation
          because he is not fixing the economy. I
          ask because your comments regarding
          David Appell’s use of economic data that starts in July, giving the President
          slightly less than 6 months to propose a solution to an economic situation, get
          it passed by Congress, get it implemented and for the results to be seen, seem
          to indicate that you believe the President is responsible from Day One, even if he has not had the time or opportunity
          to do anything about the economic situation.

        • valley person

          It takes a few months to get policies passed and into place. It seems reasonable to give any president a few months of grace period before your start measuring results. Or did you blame GWB for the dot com bust?

        • DavidAppell

          No one sensible thinks a president is responsible for the first few months of an economy he inherited, especially one in as drastic a freefall as George W Hoover’s.

    • David from Mill City

      A Republican victory is even scarier. They seem dead set on
      making the United States a third world nation. A nation of only two classes the
      top 1% and the serfs. A nation were only
      the top 1 % have access to good medical care, food and a warm dry place to
      sleep and whose children have access to a good education. The rest of the would get to fight for a few low paying jobs,
      jobs that do not cover the costs of good food, health care or a dry place to
      sleep. But those people do not matter, for if they were important they would be
      part of the 1 %.

      But that is not the truly scary part, for while that may be their
      goal, I do not think we will get there; rather we will have a French 1789 style
      revolution. And that is truly scary.

      Oh, as to the Budget Deficit/National Debt problem you are concerned
      about, Republicans are only concerned about the Budget Deficit/National Debt when the
      Democratic s are in power. For when the Republicans are in power, to paraphrase
      former Vice President Cheney, deficits
      don’t matter.

      • David from Mill City

        A Republican victory is even scarier. They seem dead set on
        making the United States a third world nation. A nation of only two classes the
        top 1% and the serfs. A nation were only
        the top 1 % have access to good medical care, food and a warm dry place to
        sleep and whose children have access to a good education. The rest of the would get to fight for a few low paying jobs,
        jobs that do not cover the costs of good food, health care or a dry place to
        sleep. But those people do not matter, for if they were important they would be
        part of the 1 %.

        But that is not the truly scary part, for while that may be their
        goal, I do not think we will get there; rather we will have a French 1789 style
        revolution. And that is truly scary.

        Oh, as to the Budget Deficit/National Debt problem you are concerned
        about, Republicans are only concerned about the Budget Deficit/National Debt when the
        Democratic s are in power. For when the Republicans are in power, to paraphrase
        former Vice President Cheney, deficits
        don’t matter.

        • David from Mill City

          I am sorry about the double posting and the formatting. I
          draft my comments using Microsoft Word 2007 and then paste the final version
          into the comment or reply box. I have yet figure out how to either bring over
          the formatting (i.e. simple paragraphs nothing fancy) or fix the format after
          importing. Helpful hints/suggestions are more than welcome.

          • 3H

            Use notepad rather than Word. Or… you can save your Word document as a plain text file. If you’re going to add any html coding — such as bold or italics, use notepad.

  • DavidAppell

    Oh yeah: And $6.6 trillion added to the value of US stock markets since Obama’s inauguration.

  • Judahlevi

    Anyone who takes short selective time periods (like six months) to make comparisons is intellectually dishonest, but these people are not honest to begin with.
    The Obama supporters with stars in their eyes will see nothing but financial success even if we were in the great Depression. There is no reasoning with such fanatics. It is like arguing with a child.
    Even Obama, fortunately for us, cannot impact all US companies in one term. Stocks are up in spite of his policies, not because of them. Companies are making profits in spite of over-regulation and the anti-capitalist opinion of Obama and his minions. They would be doing better without him.
    Besides, when do the anti-capitalist supporters of Obama ever cheer for a rising stock market? Don’t they realize it is ‘evil’ profits that cause rising stock prices? Probably not.

    • DavidAppell

      You misunderstood: my numbers were from uly 2009 to present. I figured no President should be held responsible for an economy he inherited from his predecessor, so I gave him six months.

      Understand now?

      And this is hilarious: “Stocks are up in spite of his policies, not because of them. Companies are making profits in spite of over-regulation and the anti-capitalist opinion of Obama and his minions.”

      You have cocooned yourself, made yourself impervious to actual data. If the data shows something, it can’t be what it seems — things must somehow be what *you* expect, irregardless. It’s a completely irrational response that protects your precious ideology — no facts allowed. Obama must be labeled “anti-capitalist” despite the fact that capitalists are doing quite well during his administration — not just the stock markets, but corporate profits, too.

      No facts allowed.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        “irregardless” – lol

    • DavidAppell

      Here are other facts for you to distort:

      Value change in US stock markets:

      GW Bush 1: -$1.6 T
      GW Bush 2: -$3.1 T
      Obama (so far): $6.7 T
      (it went up another $100 billion since I posted this morning)

    • Rupert in Springfield

      You are totally correct with regard to the frothing mouthed. When you have massive unemployment, an economy adding jobs at a rate that barely covers legal immigration, record levels of debt and a liberal tells you these economic policies are great because if you set all that aside the Dow Jones is doing good it is laughable.

      I mean come on – Imagine if some boob was on a TV news panel and someone ticked off all those items and he said “yeah, but look at the Dow Jones” he would be laughed off the stage.

      • David from Mill City

        And if an individual proposed destroying more jobs as the
        best way of dealing with unemployment, shouldn’t they also be laughed of the
        stage? Wait I forgot that is the Romney/Ryan Plan.

      • DavidAppell

        Aren’t conservatives about building it yourself and all that? Now suddenly you’re looking to government to solve all your problems?

        If you don’t like your economy, go out and change it. If you can’t find a job, create one of your own. Stop whining that government isn’t solving every one of your economic problems, while at the same time complaining there is too much government.

        Opportunity dances with those already on the dance floor.

  • Judahlevi

    Like I said, “arguing with a child.”
    Yes, 8.3% unemployment for over three years is fine with ‘compassionate’ liberals. 23 million unemployed (and millions more who have given up) are fine with ‘compassionate’ liberals. These are the statistics they don’t want to talk about.
    Not even Clinton or Obama had the audacity to state that we had anything close to a booming economy going but ideologically blinded Obamaniacs will still declare that everything is wonderful under the “One.”
    The political commissars of the Soviet Union also used to make sure that no matter how bad things were, the party faithful would always say things are wonderful. Party trumped reality. Some Democrats are no different.

    • DavidAppell

      Of course everyone admits the economy isn’t what it should be – Obama said so in his speech.

      Part of the problem, of course, is that Republicans oppose him despite their impact on the economy. Mitch McConnell: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” That means, for Republicans, the economy can at best be their second priority, and to most people it looks like it’s only the economy of the top 1% they’re truly interested in.
      I realize it must be confusing to see data that shows your ideological assumptions are upside down. But there it is. We can add Clinton’s observation that since JFK took office, non-government payrolls in the U.S. swelled by almost 42 million jobs under Democrats, compared with 24 million for Republican presidents.(Bloomberg News, 5/7/12https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-08/private-jobs-increase-more-with-democrats-in-white-house.html)

      • David from Mill City

        The real situation may even be worse. Rather than improving the
        Economy being the Republican’s second priority, they seem to regard tanking the
        economy as the best way to defeat President Obama.

  • valley person

    Th economy still sucks, its a lot better than it was a Bush was leaving town,Romney has not a single policy that will make it any better than it is, and Obama can’t do anything more with Republicans controlling Congress.

    So complain all you like, but this is a bed Republicans made for the nation.

    • Judahlevi

      Republicans don’t “control” Congress. The Democrats “control” the Senate and Presidency. Stick to facts please.

      • DavidAppell

        Pop quiz:
        1) How many camerals does the US legislative body have?
        2) How many of them are required to pass legislation?

        • Judahlevi

          The Democrats have just as much power to block legislation by the Senate as the Republicans do in the House. The Republicans don’t control Congress.
          Get real, David, and don’t try so hard to be ‘clever.’ You aren’t.

          • 3H

            We’re not talking about blocking legislation.. we’re talking about passing legislation. Focus please.

          • Judahlevi

            No, I am afraid it is valley person, david, and 3h that are not focused. None of you mentioned that Obama had two years of complete Democratic control of Congress at the beginning of his term. I am sure you just forgot…or something.
            Second, control is defined as the ability to manage something. Republicans do not “control” Congress. The Republicans have had many bills passed and forwarded on to the Senate, including a balanced budget amendment, which was not acted on by Democrat Harry Reid in the Senate. The Democrats have been just as obstructive as you say Republicans are. Their bills are not being “passed” either.
            Try again.

          • valley person

            No, he did not have 2 years of complete control. He had 17 months. And during that period he passed the health care bill, the stimulus, and wall street re-regulation.

            And the economy much improved up to the point where Republicans re-gained the house and additional senate seats. Since that time Republicans have blocked Obama bills, forced reduction in spending, and for a while threatened to not pay our nation’s debts, which tanked the stock market and had serious negative effects on GDP growth due to the uncertainty it created in markets.

            Republicans control enough of Congress to block progress. So blaming Obama for lack of progress is a bit disingenuous.

          • DavidAppell

            This contradicts your later comment that Democrats controlled the Senate in the first two years of Obama’s presidency. The US Senate is now so dysfunctional that it effectively takes a supermajority to do anything.

      • valley person

        They control it enough to have blocked Obama’s jobs program.

      • 3H

        Except, the Democrats need a 2/3s majority to move legislation through the Senate that Republicans don’t like. A simple majority doesn’t do it anymore. Then, try and pass the legislation through the House – which is controlled by the Republicans. The Republican leadership couldn’t even negotiate with the Democrats because a vocal group within the Republicans won’t stand for it.