What has President Obama Done Right in Seven Years? LOTS To Be Proud Of! UE Record Low of 4.6% (rev 12-2-2016)

To Paraphrase PBO (with enhancements) - The Right keeps referring to the "Good Old Days" prior to America electing Barack Obama as President; these are the days to which his (and Hillary/Sanders/O'Malley) opponents want to take America back to. When Conservatives turned over the reins to PBO, 1) America was in the process of diving into the worst economic disaster since 1929; 2) bin Laden was still threatening America; 3) 300,000 people were losing their jobs each month; 4) unemployment was soaring; 5) 40 million people have no insurance; 6) people with insurance would have it cancelled at the drop of a hat; 7) people with preexisting conditions couldn't get insurance; gays were banned from the military and from getting married; 8) Bush signed a status of forces agreement with Iraq that required our troops to leave shortly after PBO took office leaving room for ISIS to grow; 9) skyrocketing gas prices, and 10) many more pieces of good news.

This is the world that the Right says President Obama screwed up and so desperately want to return to.

Most Effectual Accomplish in Each of President Obama's Eight Years As the First Black President of the United States

WITHIN THE BODY OF THIS HUB ARE SEVERAL VENUES FOR ENUMERATING what this President has done for America. This version I put at the top of this Hub because the list below represents, in my opinion, his most important contribution in each year of his Presidency.

2009 -

The Stimulus and associated use of TARP funds. There is now, after much study and soul-searching, virtually every economist in the world agrees that without President Obama's quick and decisive action (with much of the Western world following his lead), the world, not just the United States would have sunk in an historically devastating depression.

2010 -

Obamacare, or the Affordable Care Act or the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Since FDR, presidents, everyone, save for George W. Bush, attempted to pass some sort of universal insurance. All but President Clinton and President Obama didn't try. It was FDR's hope that a comprehensive social safety-net for the American people so that never again will they experience the horrors of the Great Depression of 1929. He knew the political will was not there to begin a Health Security Program and had to settle for Social Security Insurance, Unemployment.Insurance, Workman's Comp Insurance, Minimum Wage, and the 40-Hour Workweek. About 40 years later, President Johnson added Medicaid and Medicare Insurance. Then, after almost 40 more years President Obama signed Obamacare into law. Conservatives violently opposed each of these advancement in the human condition.

2011 -

Repeal of sexual orientation-based discrimination in the military or "the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell" from the Clinton era in his attempt to reduce discrimination. Discrimination in America seems to be its national past-time; from the day we became a Nation to ... today. It has been a slow, painful, deadly path, opposed by Conservatives every step of the way, to reach the degree of universal liberty we have today.

2012 -

Forced the GOP to compromise on the Bush Tax Cuts making the cuts for the middle class permanent and raising the rates on the wealthy plus a host of other benefits for the poor and middle class.

2013 -

With no help from fellow Congressional Democrats and the opposition from Conservatives who vowed, regardless of the pain it causes America, to stop every initiative, managed to maneuver Vladimir Putin into supporting a successful plan to take chemicals away from Syrian President Assad.

2014 -

Finally began the process of normalizing relations with Cuba, ending a pointless 40 years of American isolation from Cuba (the rest of the world had already normalized relations like mature countries); of course he had to use Executive Order to accomplish this breakthrough. Conservatives continue to oppose this move.

2015 -

Negotiated the Iranian Nuclear Agreement that reversed Iran's attempts to acquire nuclear weapons; opposed by ... Conservatives, of course. In January 2016, the Iranians met the terms of the agreement in dismantling their nuclear weapons capability.

2016 -

Convinced China to join with the United States (and hundreds of other nations) in agreeing to accept the Paris Accord to limit greenhouse gases enough to stop climate change from going over a threshold, which if surpassed, would lead to irreversible temperature increases and world-wide disaster.



President Obama Fulfills Republican Economic Promises from 2012!

THIS IS IRONY IN ITS FULL GLORY! DURING THE 2012 PRESIDENTIAL campaign, Gov. Mitt Romney, other presidential hopefuls, and the GOP platform made several promises about how they would grow the economy if they were elected. (Keep in mind the backdrop of the following is that the GOP promised before Obama took office in 2008 not to let him even one of his economic, foreign policy, and domestic goals, regardless of the damage that causes America in the process; they have tried VERY HARD to try to keep their word.)

  • Mitt Romney pledged to bring unemployment down to 6% by the end of 2016. - President Obama brought unemployment DOWN to 5% and less by the end of 2015, a FULL YEAR earlier.

  • Michele Bachmann and Newt Gingrich promised gas prices below $2.50 a gallon and the GOP platform called for more domestic oil production. - Under President Obama's watch in the next four years, oil production SURGED and gas prices fell BELOW $1.99 for a brief period between Jan and Mar 2016, and gas prices are now only at $2.20 per gallon and falling again.

  • Paul Ryan said the he and Mitt Romney will "protect and strengthen Medicare so that the promises that were made that people organize their retirements around, like my mom, will be promises that are kept.” - In Fact, largely due to President Obama's Affordable Care Act Medicare has significantly improved the program’s financial outlook; for example Medicare’s Hospital Insurance trust fund’s solvency has been extended by 13 years.

  • In 2011, Tim Pawlenty said about economic growth "“Well, if China can have 5 percent growth, and India can have 5 percent growth, and Brazil can have 5 percent growth, the United States of America can have 5 percent growth” - While long-term growth at 3.5% or more almost always leads to economic turmoil and often recessions (which is what China is now facing), short-term growth of 5% is generally a very good thing. With that in mind, note that in the 3rd Quarter, 2014, the economy under President Obama did reach 5%. Obama's long-term growth is a much more sustainable 2.5%.

  • From a 2010 pledge, the GOP said "“We will curb Washington’s spending habits and promote job creation, bring down the deficit, and build long-term fiscal stability.” - In spite of several deficit busting, job killing proposals from the Republican controlled House, President Obama managed to 1) steadily decrease the deficit after pulling America out of a near depression and 2) add over 12 million jobs to the economy, more that what was lost under the GOP-inspired Great Recession of 2008.

Impact of Conservative PBO Propaganda

THIS CNN/ORC INSTANT POLL CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES the effect of a sustained propaganda program by the GOP. President Obama's job approval ratings have been in the tank for much of his presidency. YET, like with the Obamacare, which has had a similar fate, when you look at the details it is clear his only detractors are the 30% or so on far-Right.

With the two exceptions of gun policy and immigration, for each of the major categories the poll surveyed as to whether PBO achieved (not if you like or dislike) his goals, it is a resounding YES. The same is true for ALL of the policy areas measured as to whether you APPROVE of the direction President Obama is taking the country!!

SUMMARY OF PRESIDENT OBAMA'S MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS

  • How much more wrong can Conservatives get? Obamacare cost plummeting (CBO), not skyrocketing; uninsured rate plummeting, not remaining steady as predicted by Cs; premium cost growth below historic levels, not skyrocketing; more competition between providers, not less; the list goes on, no wonder Republican candidates stopped talking about it.
  • Launched a budding, profitable clean-energy revolution
  • Cut taxes on poor and middle income taxpayers while raising them on the rich
  • Cut healthcare costs
  • Instituted a program that will allow almost all Americans access to health insurance
  • Cut the deficit in half
  • Allowed gays to serve openly in the military
  • Worked toward marriage equality in most States
  • Began implementation, by Executive Order, those portions of the Senate bi-partisan immigration plan (successfully blocked by House Conservatives) which the law allows
  • Historic NEGOTIATED deal to stop Iran's Nuclear Program signed
  • As a result, opened up fruitful dialog with an ages old enemy and got our IRANINAN hostages returned in exchange for a few minor criminals

UPDATES

  • Negotiated return of 4 American hostages held by Iran - 1/16/16
  • Vetoed the Conservative repeal of ACA - 1/8/16
  • This just in from CNN - Of the 13 modern presidents scored, PBO ranks in middle 68% while Presidents Carter (worst) and W. Bush rank in bottom 16% and Presidents Johnson (best), Roosevelt, and Eisenhower rank in top 16% - 12/21/15
  • PBO has scored another great success for his administration - an agreed upon climate change protocol that is enforceable among almost 200 nations. - 12/12/15
  • Draft climate change framework between the world's nations who know a climate change disaster is going to happen unless they do something was posted today. This has been one of PBO's biggest policy goals; one the lonely Right thinks is vapor and fixing it will do even greater harm. - 12/5/15
  • Added another 212,000 jobs and unemployment stayed at 5%. For the president who can't add jobs, where did the 12 million since the recession come from? - 12/4/15
  • Completed the Trans-Pacific Free-Trade agreement - 10/5/15
  • Establish paid sick leave requirement for federal contractors - 9/7/15
  • Unemployment fell to 5.1% after adding a 173,000 more jobs in August. This brings the total jobs gained since the Great Recession of 2008 at the end of President Bush's term to about 9 million with 18 months to go or ~1.4 million/yr. Compare that to Carter (~2.3 million/yr); Reagan (~0.9 million/yr); H. W. Bush (~0.3 million/yr); Clinton (~2.6 million/yr); W. Bush (~ -0.03 million/yr) - 9/4/15
  • President Obama now has enough Democratic support in the Senate to prevent an override of his veto, should the Republicans make good on their promise to scuttle the Iran nuclear deal. He needs four more to prevent the Rs from even passing such a measure. - 9/3/15
  • According to the IAEA, Iran is still living up to nuclear deal made with PBO in November 2013 (see way down below) - 6/20/15
  • JUST IN - Contrary to popular propaganda, President Obama's helped the economy recover from the Great 2008 Recession 1.5 years sooner (based on GDP per capita) than similar historic recessions.- 4/30/15
  • President Obama finally ended 4 decades of stupid diplomacy by, through executive action of course, opening diplomatic relations again with Cuba - Dec 2014
  • Obama quickly retaliates to North Korean cyber attack and condemns Sony and theater chains cowardly response to it - 12/19 - 12/31/14
  • Factory output exceeds pre-recession peak - 12/15/14
  • Obama pulls off the unthinkable, getting a coalition of Arab states to fight against follow Sunnis. - 9/23/14
  • Corporations earn record profits under President Obama - 9/20/14
  • Obama Does It Right with ISIS - 9/14/14
  • Obama's Secret Foreign Policy Successes - 8/7/14
  • Obama's Job Approval Rating Is Going Up, in spite of all of the news - 6/6/14 (OK, they're going down again 7/15/14)
  • Energy Program Achievements - 5/5/2014
  • Report on Obamacare - 4/28/2014
  • Report on Deficit
  • Report on the 2013 Jobs numbers
  • Analysis of the survey results
  • Updated annual statistics
  • Obama, and other world leaders, secured an agreement with Iran to end their non-peaceful nuclear program - 23 Nov 13
  • Obama stands his ground against inappropriate legislative tactics - 18 Oct 13
  • Obama talks to Iranian President after being snubbed - 28 Sep 13
  • Obama forces action on Syrian Chemical Warfare - 27 Sep 13
  • Snapshots in Time - 2 Aug 13
  • Obamameter - 25 Jul 13
  • Obamacare - 20 Jul 13

POLITIFACT'S OBAMAMETER http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

Obamameter
Scorecard
%
Promises Kept if Full
245
46
Promises Kept in Part (Compromise)
138
26
Promises Broken
122
23
Stalled
5
1
In The Works
36
3
Not Yet Rated
0
0
Total Promises Under Consideration
532
100
 
 
 
TABLE 1 - As Of 12/2/16 (may not total due to rounding)

SNAPSHOTS IN TIME

JULY 27, 2012: CNN MONEY POSTED a series of snapshot charts comparing how things were when President Obama took office and today. While I can't present the charts themselves, I can present the begining and ending positions and speak to each a little.

 
ECONOMIC INDICATOR
BEGINNING 2009
BEGINNING AND MIDTERM
CURRENT
1
Economic Growth Rate
1st Qrt 2009: - negative 5.9%
Growth: ~ 1.7%/yr through Dec 2011
Growth: ~ 2%/yr through Sep 2016
2
Jobs
Jobs Lost 1st Qtr 2009: 2.3 million (total lost during Bush - 4.4 million)
Jobs lost the rest of 2009: 2.6 million
Jobs gained since 2010: 13.1 million through Nov 2016
3
Unemployment Rate
End of Jan 2009: 7.9
End of Mar 2009: 8.7%
End of Nov 2016: 4.6%
4
National Median Home Price
Jan 2006: $244,900
1st Qtr 2009: $205,100
Oct 2016: $304,500
5
Home Foreclosures
Jan 2009: 66,777
Peak Sep 2010: 100,000
Nov 2015: ~ 33,000
6
Inflation
Jan 2009: 0%
Deflation from Mar - Oct 2009
Apr 2014: 2% (high-3.9% Sep 2011)
7
Gas Prices
Jun 2008: $4.09/gal
Jan 2009: $3.50/gal
Dec 21, 2013: 3.67/gal
8
Dow Jones Stock Average
Mar 9, 2009: 6547
Jul 27, 2012: 13,075
Mar 26, 2014: 16,269
9
Interest Rates - 10 Year Treasury Yield
Jan 2009: 4.46%
Jul 2012: 1.49%
May 2014: 2.56%
10
Industrial Production Index
Jan 2009: 87.4
Mar 2009: 83
Feb 2014: 101.6
11
Consumer Spending
Declined about 0.75% per Qtr in 1st Qtr and 2nd Qtr 2009
Increased about 0.5% per Qtr from 1st Qtr 2010 thru 4th Qtr 2010.
From 2011 - Sep 2013: Increased about 0.5% per Qtr
12
Public Debt as a % of GDP
2009: 63% of GDP
2014: 77% of GDP
2014: 62.5% of GDP
13
Government Spending as a % of GDP
2009: 42.8% of GDP
2011: 40.5% of GDP
2013: 36% of GDP
14
Deficit as a % if GDP
2009: 10.1% of GDP
2011: 8.7% of GDP
2013: 4.1% of GDP!
TABLE 2 - As of 12/2/16

Job Approval Rating Improving

6/6/2014: I have been watching Obama's various approval ratings for quite awhile now and was surprised, given the massive propaganda campaign against him, to see his Overall Job Approval rating improving. The polls I just looked at go back to the beginning of March 2014; while there have been a couple of ties, Obama didn't didn't get a positive approval rating until April 3 and 9, when he got a +1; the next positive was May 6, a +2. After that he has had four more, the last on on June 6 at +4. Overall, the ratings ranges from a +4 to a -18. Now what is interesting is which polls he has gotten positive ratings in.

When polls are taken, different demographics are used. The most general is "All" or "A", which is just a random sampling from the total population. The next restrictive is "Registered Voters" or "RV" followed by "Likely Voters" or "LV". It is the LV which are most important because those are the people most likely to change the politics of America. Of the 102 polls I just looked at, 33 are from the demographic of Likely Voters. Every one of the positive Obama approval ratings and all but one of the ties were from this demographic. Using a weighted average of the last 13 polls, Obama's Job Approval rating is -4, with a confidence level of +-1. Back up just 10 days, and it drops to -6 with the same confidence level.

If this trend improves, it is very good news for the Democrats.

IS THAT A PICTURE OF A FAILING PRESIDENCY?

PERSONALLY, I DON'T THINK SO! But, before I get into that, let me state four things:

  1. Because President Obama's recovery program could not begin until March 2009, its results would not be felt until at least Apr 2009, if not much later.
  2. As a consequence, all data for the first three months (1st Qtr) of 2009 and prior belong to President Bush and the conservative economic program
  3. Even though the Democrats held a majority in Congress the last two years of President Bush's term, they could not control what bills were placed in front of him to be signed into law; they only had control over what would not. Conservatives, because of their abuse of the filibuster in the Senate, held an equal power of denial as the Democrats, just as they do today.
  4. As a consequence, in 2007 and 2008, the only legislation which became law was legislation to which both Parties and the President agreed.

DIRECT MILITARY LEADERS TO END THE WAR IN IRAQ

JANUARY 21, 2009: PRESIDENT OBAMA kept his promise to end the war in Iraq. After a meeting on his first day in office with his cabinet and military commanders, President Obama reported, "The meeting was productive and I very much appreciated receiving assessments from these experienced and dedicated individuals. During the discussion, I asked the military leadership to engage in additional planning necessary to execute a responsible military draw-down from Iraq."

END TORTURE AND EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AS A MEANS OF INTERROGATION

JANUARY 22, 2009: PRESIDENT OBAMA issued Executive Order #13491 that ended these practices, fulling a longstanding campaign promise.

The executive order said that prisoners "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely and shall not be subjected to violence to life and person (including murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture), nor to outrages upon personal dignity (including humiliating and degrading treatment)." It also specifically nullifies interpretations of federal law on interrogations "issued by the Department of Justice between September 11, 2001, and January 20, 2009" under President George W. Bush.

The executive order brings the CIA into line with U.S. Army Field Manual on Interrogation. This limits interrogators to humane techniques, a standard that already applies as a matter of law to the U.S. military.

In addition, Obama created a High Value Interrogation Group to manage the debriefing of the most important suspected terrorist captives using humane, non-coercive techniques. While there is no official policy of abuse anymore, it will still take strong leadership from the president on down to prevent it from happening.

Source

THE MUCH MALIGNED STIMULUS

February 17, 2009: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) - The goal of this initiative was, in conjunction with TARP, to prevent America from entering a depression of the size equal to or greater than that of the Great 1929 Depression; a course most economist of any merit said we were on. Here are facts Conservatives want you quickly to forget and that Democrats have not found an effective way to present:

  • In Nov 2008, President Bush and the Conservative economic policy lost 533,000 jobs!
  • In Dec 2008, President Bush and the Conservative economic policy lost another 524,000 jobs!
  • In all of 2008, President Bush and the Conservative economic policy lost a total of 2,600,000 jobs!
  • In Jan 2009, when President Bush left the White House, he lost yet another 598,000 job!
  • In Jan 2009, when President Bush left the White House, he had increased unemployment from in the low 5% to 7.6% and climbing ... FAST!
  • When President Obama took office, basically in February 2009, the job loss caused by President Bush and the Conservative economic policy in what is now the Great 2009 Bush Recession was accelerating; it hadn't hit its peak yet and wasn't going to for another two month; numbers that somehow the Democrats have let the Conservatives lay at the feet of President Obama.
  • The ARRA was based on 3rd Quarter, 2008 economic data, the only solid data available at the time; it predicted a moderate recession. The ARRA reflected that.

If the 3rd Quarter data had been accurate, the ARRA would have been adequate. As it was, it was sufficient to put the brakes on a run-away train let loose by the previous administration in less than 10 months; an unheard of feat for financial-type depression/recessions.

EXTEND UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS TEMPORARILY SUSPEND TAXING THESE BENEFITS

February 17, 2009: This promise was part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

EXPAND THE EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT

February 17, 2009: As part of ARRA, President Obama fulfilled 2/3rds of this promise with an expansion of the earned income tax credit for workers without children and taxpayers with three or more children.

REVERSE RESTRICTIONS ON STEM-CELL RESEARCH

MARCH 9, 2009: President Obama promised to "... lift the current administration’s ban on federal funding of research on embryonic stem cell lines created after August 9, 2001 through executive order ... ". On March 9, 2009, he signed such an Executive Order.

INCENTIVES FOR LOANS TO SMALL BUSINESSES THROUGH THE SBA WERE EXPANDED

MARCH 16, 2009: President Obama has said "Our recovery in the present and our prosperity in the future depend upon the success of America's small businesses and entrepreneurs," To help provide for this success, Obama said he would increase the amount the SBA would guarantee to private lenders making loans under Small Business Administration (SBA) programs. Previously, the federal government would guarantee 85 percent for loans at or below $150,000 and up to 75 percent for larger loans. Under the new program, the government will guarantee up to 90 percent of all loans for a limited time. The money for the programs will come from the economic stimulus package, aka, "The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act", and from money already approved for use by the Treasury Department.

EXPAND "SERVE AMERICA" ACT TO INCLUDED SENIOR CITIZENS

April 21, 2009: President Obama, when campaigning for that office, promised to expand a volunteer program aimed at keeping seniors active in their communities. On April 21, President Obama signed the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, a large expansion of the national service program, which included provisions that kept Obama's promise to seniors.

INCREASE MINORITY ACCESS TO CAPITAL

August 18, 2009: President Obama announced his plan in increase access to contracting opportunites by minority-owned, small businesses that keeps his pledge to "Strengthen Small Business Administration programs that provide capital to minority-owned businesses, support outreach programs that help minority business owners apply for loans, and work to encourage the growth and capacity of minority firms."

Historically and still today, minority and women-owned, small businesses have a harder time attracting contracts than their no better qualified white, male owned businesses of the same size therefore promting President Obama's action, to the disgruntlement of Conservatives. As of November 13, 2009, $14.7 billion had been distributed in the form of stimulus contracts with the help of the Small Business Administration.

CREATE A $3,000 TAX CREDIT FOR COMPANIES THAT ADD JOBS

March 18, 2010: This was a very tough promise to fulfill, and it ended up being a compromise. Congress was not willing to go along with this job creating idea for whatever reason and voted down its many variations including the one that was supposed to be part of the stimulus bill. In the in end, on March 18, President Obama signed into law the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act which included provisions up to a $1,000 rebate for each new employee hired under certain conditions and an exemption from paying social security taxes, up to $6,600, on previously unemployed workers that were hired in 2010.

OBAMACARE

March 23, 2010: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009, and the March 30, 2010, Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, comprise what Conservatives would like to derisively call "Obama Care." I would encourage President Obama and Democrats to embrace the term and use it for their own, it has been done before, because this program, even watered-down, is something they can be proud of!

As to popularity, well that is a different story. Since it's passage, Obama Care's approval rating has held fairly steady at about 43%, with a slight rally from Jun to Sep 2010, the high was 50%, while it's disapproval rating has fluctuated between 35% in July 2010 and 50% in Jan 2011, but has averaged around 43% as well; the slack is taken up with Undecided. As of Aug 2011, Approval is 39% and Disapproval is 44%; the month before, it was 42%/43%, respectively. I suspect the reason is, in addition to the Conservatives long, drawn-out propaganda campaign against health care reform, is the lack of understanding by the American people of what the reform brought to the table, a recent Kaiser Health survey clearly points this out. By implication, this means that President Obama and the Democrats need to get on the ball and start making sure the American people understand all of the good Obama Care does for them. So, what is that good:

  1. The plan is not a government takeover of health care like in Canada or Britain. This is the biggest myth the Conservatives were able to convince Americans was true and many Americans still believe this is true today! It isn't!. At one point in time, early in the debate, the far left wanted true "one-payer" government health care vis-a-vis Medicare. That idea died very quickly. Conservatives, however, were successful in making Americans believe, falsely, that this is what the Democrats were attempting to pass. Simply not true. What was passed is not much different than how people buy insurance today; it is not even as good as how the Conservative federal politicians purchase their insurance.

  2. Insurance companies will be regulated more heavily. They will be told the minimum services they must cover, including preventive care. They will have to pay out a certain percentage of premiums for patient care. By 2014, when the exchanges open, insurers won't be able to deny customers for pre-existing conditions. This two points are HUGE benefits to Americans which even Conservatives like, but hate to admit and will repeal if given the chance. They do not want to tie insurers hands by making sure Americans get a minimum set of services for their money.

  3. Everyone will have to have health insurance or pay a fine, a requirement known as the individual mandate.The fine for not having insurance would be a minimum of $695 per person per year, with exemptions for financial hardship and other special cases. Without this mandate to prevent freeloading by healthy Americans, the cost of health care will skyrocket.

  4. Lower income Americans will get help with their premiums. The government intends to cap premiums for people who make below a certain income. For people who buy insurance on the exchanges, a family of four making $88,000 would have a cap of 9.5 percent of their income. Lower incomes would have lower caps. This is a provision very few Americans are aware of.

  5. Employers will not be required to buy insurance for their employees, but large employers may be subject to fines if they don't provide insurance. But Congress wanted to encourage employers, especially large employers, to offer insurance. So they created a fine for employers with more than 50 workers: If those employees are forced to buy insurance on the exchanges and qualify for a low-income credit from the government, then the employer would have to pay a fine. Fines are calculated based on number of employees; for large firms, the fines could be significant.

  6. The vast majority of people will not see significant declines in premiums nor will they see significant increases in premiums. When President Obama talks about premiums going down, he usually means they won't go up as much as they would otherwise. For the four out of five people who get their insurance through their employer, the savings would land in the 0 to 3 percent range by 2016, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, or CBO. People who buy insurance on their own, but who don't qualify for government subsidies, could actually see their premiums rise by as much as 10 to 13 percent, but that's largely because they'll be getting beefed-up policies that would pay for more basic services, especially preventive care. Low-income people who qualify for new credits to buy insurance would see the biggest drops.

  7. The government-run Medicare program will keep paying medical bills for seniors, but it will begin implementing cost controls on health care providers, mostly through penalties and incentives.(These cost controls are probably the Medicare dollars Michelle Bachmann says the Democrats are stealing.) 1) The legislation would reduce payments for hospital-acquired infections or preventable hospital admissions; 2) for Medicare Advantage, the federal government intends to reduce extra payments; 3) taking away subsidies to private insurance companies.

  8. Medicaid, a joint federal-state program for the poor, will cover all of the poor, instead of just a few groups the way it currently does. Right now, to qualify for Medicaid, a person has to be poor and also disabled, elderly, pregnant or a child. Under the new plan, all poor adults would qualify; something else most Americans don't know about.

  9. You will not be taxed for the company provided portion of medical benefits. This is another great myth propagated by the Conservatives, I just heard it from a well educated business person just last week. It simply isn't true but sure is a good indication of how effective the Conservative propaganda machine is. The reason this myth abounds is that the IRS will require the amount of the premiums be reported on the employee's W-2, but this is to help with compliance; they will not be added to taxable income, however. Nice try, Conservatives.

  10. Illegal immigrants are not eligible for benefits under Obama Care. Another Conservative Obama Care myth busted!

Some of the major improvements in the delivery of health care that Obama Care does deliver are:

  • Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions. This becomes effective in 2014, but, in its place, a high-risk pool has been established for uninsured people with pre-existing conditions. [Will not go into effect if Supreme Court rules against Obamacare]
  • Provide tax credits to help middly and low-income tax payers afford health insurance.The subsidies will take effect in 2014 and are available to Americans who buy insurance on the exchange, which will be virtual marketplaces for health plans. The exchanges are designed to serve people who do not already have insurance through their employer and who are not covered by a government program such as Medicare or Medicaid. [Will not go into effect if Supreme Court rules against Obamacare]
  • Require large employers to contribute to a national health plan. This provision also starts in 2014 and provides the companies of 50 or more employees who do not provide health insurance must pay a fine of $2000 per employee, excluding the first 30, if there is at least one full-time employee receives a public subsidy to purchase health insurance.

  • Requires that all children have health insurance coverage. This part of Obama Care is currently in force. The law allows dependents up to age 26 to remain on parents health care plans. [Will probably be repealed if Supreme Court rules against Obamacare]

  • Expand eligibility for Medicaid. Will become effective in 2014. Historically, Medicaid coverage has been focused primarily on pregnant women, children and the disabled. Under the new law, eligibility will be expanded to all individuals under age 65 with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level. New beneficiaries will be assured a package that includes essential health benefits. [Will not go into effect if Supreme Court rules against Obamacare]

  • Health insurers must disclose how much of their premium goes toward patient care. This provision is now in force. Obama Care requires health insurance providers to report how much they spend on payments for clinical coverage, activities that improve health care quality, and "all other non-claims costs." Further, starting in 2011, companies that provide insurance for the small group and individual market must issue rebates if they do not spend at least 80 percent of the premium revenue on medical care. For the large group market, the threshold is 85 percent. The rebate amount is based on the premium revenue and by how much the provider falls short of the prescribed thresholds.

  • Establish an independent health institute to provide accurate and objective information. This rule is currently in effect and it creates a new entity which will set priorities and conduct research. It will be independent, governed by a board of experts and stakeholders; the research will be peer-reviewed and made public.

    It is intended that this research will lower costs by advising against expensive procedures that don't improve people's health. But critics have suggested that the effort could lead the United States down a slippery slope in which experts insert themselves between doctors and patients and micromanage what treatments should be used -- especially with regard to end-of-life decisions; similar to what private insurance companies do today.

    Faced with such concerns, the bill's authors took special care to require any findings to be advisory only, rather than being binding on doctors or insurance companies.Responding to the critics' allegations of "death panels," the law prevents the use of any findings "in a manner that treats extending the life of an elderly, disabled, or terminally ill individual as of lower value than extending the life of an individual who is younger, non-disabled, or not terminally ill."

  • Increase profits for hospitals and doctors. This is a natural outcome of Obama Care and the reasons are simple to understand; they rest on the fact that more people will be insured, especially the poor. Between the subsidies leading to large increases in the number of people under private insurance and increasing the scope of Medicaid for the indigent, hospitals and doctors will see a significant rise in their income. For the hospitals and doctors, a lot of the emergency room care that was provided to uninsured Americans went unpaid; that will be virtually eliminated because, as has been demonstrated in Massachusetts, the poor will be paid by Medicare and the others will be paid by private insurance. 2) there will simply many more insured Americans, 30 million of them, which will drive down emergency room visits, lowering costs, and transferring payments from lower Medicaid to higher private insurance.

MARCH 27, 2012: THE CASE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT WILL DECIDE 1) if the Supreme Court has jurisdiction at this time, 2) whether the insurance mandate is Constitutional, 3) whether the rest of Obamacare can be kept in force if the Court does not uphold the individual mandate, and 4) whether the expansion of Medicaid is Constitutional.

JUNE 2012: THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT 1) the Court did have jurisdiction, 2) the insurance mandate IS Constitutional, 3) no longer applicable, and 4) the expansion of Medicaid relative to the State's requirement to participate was Unconstitutional.

MAY 2013 UPDATE: CALIFORNIA AND A COUPLE OF OTHER STATES have released their proposed rates for people signing up to the Obamacare Insurance Exchange programs which begin Jan 1, 2014 but can be joined starting Oct 1, 2013. In each case, the overall premiums are coming in lower than expected.

JUNE 2013: THE CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MADICAID SERVICES (CMS) published data based on actual experience in their 2nd Annual Report. They found, among other things:

  • Part B (certain medical costs) premiums had been increasing at a 2% annual rate will decrease in 2013.
  • So far, seniors have saved $5.7 billion in prescription drug costs.
  • 34 million Medicare recipients have benefitted from the now free preventative care exams
  • Has and will achieve $200 billion in short-term savings through 2016 from the various efficiencies detailed in the Act.
  • Has and will save Medicare recipients $208 billion by 2020 in lower premiums and out-of-pocket costs.

I have more detailed information in my hub titled Obamacare May Start A Winning Streak! The Insurance Premiums Are Starting to Come Out ... And They Are Down.

JULY 2013: You can add New York State to the list of California, Washington, and Oregon which are the states referred to in the May 2013 update.

CLOSE THE MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG PLAN "DOUGHNUT HOLE"

March 30, 2010: AS PART of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009 and Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, which President Obama signed into law on March 23 and 30, 2010, respectively, the 'doughnut hole' in the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Program was officially closed; just as President Obama promised it would be. This "doughnut hole" is an artifact of President Bush's unpaid for Part D Prescription Drug Program that left seniors holding the bad for the whole cost of their drugs while still paying the Part D premiums to insurance companies.

Initially, seniors pay the first $310. Then, for the next $2,520, seniors are responsible for 25% of the cost. After that, the seniors are on their own until they have spent a total of $4,550 of their own money; this is the "doughnut hole". From this point on, seniors pay only 5% of the cost.

When President Obama's fix is fully implemented, about 2020, seniors will pay the 25% co-pay at all times until the out-of-pocket limit of $4,550 is reached.

REQUIRE ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION FOR TAX

March 30, 2010: This strange sounding action was a little known part of Obama Care and had nothing to do with health care but was expected to bring in about $4.5 billion over 10 years to help pay for the health care program. This fulfills an Obama promise to "Adopt the economic substance doctrine, a policy that states that tax changes must have significant economic justification, as a federal law."

Basically what this law does is prevent companies, primarily large corporations, from structuring a transaction in such a way that the only benefit to that unorthodox structure, while legal, is the tax benefit itself. Do Conservatives support this initiative? I haven't heard.

INCREASE FUNDING FOR PROGRAMS THAT CONSERVE LANDS AND HABITATS FOR SELECTED SPECIES

APRIL 16, 2010: During his 2008 presidential campaign, President Barack Obama promised to make major changes to habitat conservation programs. He promised to:

  • "Fight to increase funding for the Conservation Security Program and the major set-aside programs such as the Conservation Reserve Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, and Grasslands Reserve Program, so that rental rates can compete with rising commodity prices.”
  • "Direct the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior to place a special emphasis on restoration of habitat for important game species associated with specific regions of the United States, such as bobwhite quail and Eastern and Osceola turkey habitat in the South, ruffed grouse habitat in the Northeast, and sage grouse and pronghorn antelope habitat in the West."
  • "Support the use of tax incentives and other financial mechanisms to encourage private landowners to restore and protect habitat." (source: Politifact)

During the first two years of his administration, President Obama worked to fulfill this promise. Most of the work was accomplished in appropriations for 2009 and 2010 where he substantially increased funding for three out of four major conservation programs. On April 16, 2010, Obama signed signed a memorandum establishing the America"s Great Outdoors Initiative, a strategy to work with public and private entities to promote wilderness conservation and preservation and raise awareness of the outdoors. This action more or less capped his efforts to keep this promise.

ESTABLISH A CREDIT CARD BILL OF RIGHTS

MAY 20, 2010: President Obaman fulfills another campaign promise, probably one of those "regulations that get in the way of hiring", the Conservatives include in their long list of regulations to repeal, to protect Americans from the predatory credit card industry. He said it is time to make reforms to the credit card industry that would "ban unilateral changes ... apply interest rate increases only to future debt ... prohibit interest on fees ... prohibit 'universal defaults' (whereby a credit card raises its rates because the consumer was late paying a different creditor) ... require prompt and fair crediting of cardholder payments."

THE DODD-FRANK WALL STREET REFORM AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT of 2010

July 21, 2010: President Obama signed the first major piece of legislation aimed at protecting middle America from the abuses of Wall Street and those with special access to wealth. In his campaign, candidate Obama said:

" I'll put in place the common-sense regulations and rules of the road I've been calling for since March -- rules that will keep our market free, fair, and honest; rules that will restore accountability and responsibility in our corporate boardrooms."

With the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, a watered-down version of the President Obama's original vision, he kept his promise. The Dodd-Frank Act, among other things, provides for:

  • The creation of a Consumer Protection Financial Bureau, a cabinet level organization that, for the first time, provides a high level institution in the federal government whose sole job it is is to look out for the interests for the average American; a concept opposed, understanably so, by big business and, less understandably so, since they are supposed to for the individual American, the Conservatives. Making big business responsible to act ethicallyhurts profits, don't you see.
  • New mortgages rules were put into place to make, given many refused to do it on their own, to the great detriment of the country, lenders actually verify income, check credit history, and make sure homebuyers can actually afford the homes they are being sold. Can you imagine having to make a lender do this, but, abuse often leads to these kinds of regulations that Conservatives cry crocadile tears over. It also limits how much of a banks portfolio can be sold off to others, thereby reducing their own risk to the loans they just made; rules that used to be their until the Conservatives dismantled them in the name of "deregulation"
  • Create a Financial Stability Oversight Council to make recommendations to the Federal Reserve for how to keep the economy from crashing by keeping tabs on firms that are deeply interconnected within the financial system.
  • Give the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation a mechanism to unwind "failing systemically significant financial companies."
  • Direct the Federal Reserve to issue rules that ensure that the "fees charged to merchants by credit card companies for credit or debit card transactions are reasonable and proportional to the cost of processing those transactions."
  • Institutes the "Volcker Rule".Named after the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, this new rule prohibits banks from engaging in proprietary trading, i.e. trading the bank's money to turn a profit. This rule, which brings back some of the theory of the defucnt Glass-Stegall Act dismantled by the Conservatives and so integral to the 2008 financial collapse, tries to limit the conflict of interest banks have with their customers. The rules also would also limit banks' relationships with hedge funds and private equity funds; another major reason for the Great 2008 Bush Recession.
  • Gives the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, along with the Securities and Exchange Commission, authority to regulate over-the-counter derivatives. Banks would also be prohibited from trading certain forms of derivatives, and most of the trading must occur on transparent exchanges. Further, Hedge Funds would have to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission and report their activities. Abuse of deriviatives and the lack of regulation over hedge funds were a third major cause of the the recession.

Conservatives hate each and every one of these common sense regulations and actions; I don't understand why, but, they do.

FULLY FUND THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION and OTHER VA PROMISES

Dec 9, 2010: President Obama fulfilled this promise when he signed legislation providing the VA $109.6 billion in funding for 2010. He also provided $48.2 billion in advance appropriations for 2011 and put $50.3 billion of advanced appropriation in his 2011 budget for 2012.

On October 22, 2009, President Obama signed another law and kept another promise; the Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act of 2009. This act guarantees the VA with much more stable funding by putting them on a two-year budget cycle. He began funding this with the $48.2 billion mentioned above.

FULLY FUND THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT

Dec 16, 2010: Like with the VA funding, President Obama promised to fund the Violence Against Women Act; he did this when he signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010.

EXTEND CHILD TAX CREDIT AND FIX MARRIAGE-PENALTY TAX

Dec 17, 2010: As part of the compromise with Conservatives, President Obama kept the following promise that he "will extend aspects of the Bush tax cuts such as child credit expansions and changes to marriage bonuses and penalties." While he preferred to have make these permanent, along with the rest of the middle-class tax cuts, they were extended two-years.

EXTEND BUSH TAX CUTS FOR LOWER AND MIDDLE-CLASS TAX PAYERS

Dec 17, 2010: During his 2008 campaign, then-Senator Obama promised to extend the Bush tax cuts for lower and middle-class tax payers while allowing those for single people making more than $200,000 or couples making more than $250,000 to expire. In his December compromise with Conservatives was able to extend the tax cuts he wanted, but not elimate those he did not want. The battle will resume December 2012.

REPEAL OF THE DISCRIMINATORY "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL" LAW

December 22, 2010: On September 20, 2011, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was officially banned in the military. This is a result from Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 (H.R. 2965, S. 4023), one of President Obama's four signature achievements, the other three being the Stimulus, Obama Care and Consumer Protection Act, is the repeal of the 1993 language in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 that banned homosexuals from being part of the military. In a compromise with social Conservatives, the religious, and the combat commanders in the military, President Clinton signed the final Act which contained this discrimatory text, by issuing Defense Directive 1304.26, aka the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue" policy.

This is another of Obama's great initiatives, from this "do nothing" president that Conservatives are fuming about; social Conservatives, this time; fiscal Conservatives may actually support the repeal but are keeping their mouths shut. This stance by social conservatives to prevent homosexuals from being full members of society is understandable however for other civil right laws they, and evangelical as well as fundelmentalist Christians, fought tooth and nail against over the years are 1) making slavery illegal, 2) allowing blacks and whites marry, 3) social security, 4) medicare, 5) the Civil Rights Act, 6) allowing homosexuals who love each other to marry each other (stll being fought out), etc.

IMPLEMENT "WOMEN-OWNED BUSINESS" CONTRACTING PROGRAM

February 14, 2011: Another promise kept by President Obama when a rule first proposed by President Clinton will finally go into effect. President Obama had promised to " ...implement the Women Owned Business contracting program that was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, but has yet to be implemented by the Bush Administration. The program seeks to get more women-owned businesses to compete for federal contracts." The Bush Administration and Conservative Congress tabled this initiative for eight years.

CAPTURE OR KILL OSAMA BIN LADEN

MAY 2, 2011: At the 2nd Presidential debate in Oct. 2008, candidate Obama told the nation that

"...And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act, and we will take them out....".

Upon assuming office, he reinvigorated the covert programs against terrorists and terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan that had waned during the prosecution of the Iraq war. On May 1, 2011, Navy Seal Team 6 carried out the orders issued by the President and raided the bin Laden compound and killed him. During that period and since, the new covert program has been responsible for 90% of the top al-Qaida leadership.

PRESIDENT OBAMA STRENGTHENS ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT

JULY 2011: During his campaign, then Senator Obama said he "Will reinvigorate antitrust enforcement, which is how we ensure that capitalism works for consumers." In July 2010, Christine A. Varney, whom Obama had appointed as head of the Justice Department's Antitrust Division to renew antitrust enforcement, announced, as she left her post to return to private practice, she had completed her mission.

Since then, the proof has been in the pudding with reporting that shows Varney came in swinging. She immediately reversed the Bush administrations policy to not pursue antitrust actions and to remove the hurdles his administration put in place for others to bring suit. There have been more mergers stopped in the last three years than in the whole of the Bush administration, actions taken against verticle mergers which were avoided previously, and for the year ending Sep 30, 2011, more than 90 criminal cases filed for price rigging and other such illegal activity, more than any other year in the last 20 years.

REQUIRE RENEWABLE ENERGY TO PROVIDE 10% OF AMERICA'S ENERGY BY 2012

July 15, 2011: Barack Obama promised that he will "require 10 percent of electricity to come from renewable sources by 2012. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will establish a 10 percent federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to require that 10 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, wind and geothermal by 2012." On July 15, 2011, Christina Kielich of the U.S. Department of Energy press office reported that the United States receives approximately 11 percent of its electricity from renewable sources. While this was a "low-hanging fruit" promise, given America was already well on its way to this goal, because of the 2008 recession, it might not have been made without the stimulus projects.

By the way, 99% of the renewable energy projects funded by the stimulus program succeeded, a fact buried beneath the Solyndra failure where the government lost a half a billion dollars but the omniscient private industry lost billions more.

  • Another “oh btw”, only 1% of the renewable energy projects Obama funded actually failed; nobody mentions that 99% succeeded.

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S LIBYA POLICY PAY'S OFF!

SEPTEMBER 22, 2011: The United States re-opened its embassy in Tripoli, Libya after having closed it in February 2011 in response to raising tensions between pro- and anti-Qaddafi forces.

Libya was a no-win proposition for President Obama. No matter what he did, he was going to take great political heat from one side or another; the course Obama chose ended up leaving him vulnerable to critisism from both sides; lots of it. even from me (I wrote a letter). I was wrong, the Democrats were wrong, the Conservatives were wrong, everybody seemed to be wrong except President Obama and his foreign policy team. I am about ready to render what is turning into a lengthy explanation as to why I think so, but, I should really reserve it for a new hub, which I will. Let it be sufficient at this point to say I think President did himself and America proud.

RENOVATE PATENT AND COPYRIGHT LAWS

SEPTEMBER 2011: Candidate Obama promised "update and reform our copyright and patent systems to promote civic discourse, innovation and investment while ensuring that intellectual property owners are fairly treated." Has he done this? Sort of.

In September 2011, the America Invents Act was passed which addressed the patent side of the promise. It indeed made significant reforms in the patent system which experts feel largely meet Obama's promises. On the other hand, he is still trying to get something useful through Congress regarding Copyright. Happily, their attempt to pass the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA), which President Obama opposed, failed miserably do to fierce public pressure brought through, you guessed it, the Internet.

INCREASE SPECIAL OPERATION FORCES AND CIVIL AFFAIR UNITS

JANUARY 2012: Unlike all of the presidents before him until you get to President Kennedy and most of the senior military leadership, Barack Obama understood how undeclared wars founeed to be fought. During his campaign he said we need to "Build up our special operations forces, civil affairs, information operations, engineers, foreign area officers, and other units and capabilities that remain in chronic short supply."

It took almost losing the Iraq war for President Bush and the military leadership to recognize the old, cold-war tactics and operational plans simply don't work in conflicts like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. It was special operations forces that brought down the Taliban, but that wasn't because the military was brilliant, it was because those were the only forces they could there in time to do anything, the cold-war forces were simply unprepared for war. As soon as they could, the Army moved the special ops forces out and brought the regular forces in and watched things go downhill from there.

Obama knew better and said so and then did something about it. He made sure senior military and defense leadership where staffed with special ops oriented leaders and he restructured his budgets to emphasize special operation and civil affairs units. Just today, with the Secretary of Defense Penetta announcing the $475 billion cut to the defense budget, it didn't touch special ops and related forces.

REVERSE THE DECLINE IN FAMILY INCOME

JUNE 13, 2012: In each each year of the Obama Presidency, median family income has grown, rather than decline as it did from 2000 to 2003 and again from 2007 to 2009.

FIRST-TIME UNEMPLOYMENT IS NOW NO DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER PRESIDENT AT THIS STAGE OF THEIR PRESIDENCY!

JUN 17, 2012: Once President Obama stabilized the economy by the end of March 2010, his first-unemployment filings, which measure the level of lay-offs nationwide, are no different than any President from President Ford forward. President Obama's average first-time UI claims is 2,422,000 while the average for the next presidents is 2,295,000. If you only count the four Republican presidents, their average is, 2,446,000 claims a quarter over the same eight quarters of their administrations, interesting, isn't it? And. President Obama is still facing a Republican political machine determined to make him a one-term president and as a result, keeping unemployment high.

NOVEMBER 6, 2012: WON RE-ELECTION TO THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES! In the process clarified what the People want government to do, besides govern that is. They want 1) a balanced approached to the debt and deficit problem including raising rates on the rich, 2) maintaining Obamacare, and 3) a continuation of his approach to foreign affairs. Further, the People sent an additional message to conservatives to change their ways by increasing the number of Democrats in the Senate rather giving the Republicans a majority as had been expected.

MADE BUSH TAX CUTS FOR MIDDLE CLASS PERMANENT AND RAISED TAXES ON WEALTHY

DECEMBER 31, 2012: Finally getting the compromise he sought, President Obama signed into law a bill that raised taxes to the Clinton level on couples making more than $400,000 while at the same time making permanent the Bush tax cuts on those earning less than that.

TAKES INITIATIVE ON GUN CONTROL

JANUARY 16, 2013: President Obama announced his initiatives for gun control following the Newtown children masscre that he would like to see Congress pass plus a series of executive actions he is able to take to raise the control of guns in America higher on the federal law enforcement radar screen. They include increased emphasis on federal and state contributions of information to the background check system, an order to federal agencies to trace all guns which come into their possession, maximize efforts to prosecute gun crimes, and 18 others. He also asked Congress to ban assault weapons, make background checks universal, and ban large capacity ammo magazines, among other things.

EMPLOYMENT UPDATE

FEBRUARY 1, 2013: This isn't really an Obama accomplishment per se, but a follow-on to his stimulus program. The information present in the following few paragraphs come from the February 1, 2013, Bureau of Labor Statistics Economic News Release. In it, the Jan 2013 unemployment rate was stated to have remained steady at 7.9% and that the non-farm employment had increased by 157,000.

The report then went a little deeper and noted that many of the major sub-statistics such as unemployment rates for blacks, whites, etc were relatively unchanged, as were the "employment-population ratio", the "civilian labor force participation rate", and persons employed part-time.

Importantly, however, is what did change. There are two other categories of unemployed persons that are also measured, 1) marginally attached and a subset of those 2) discouraged workers. Marginally attached workers 1) want to work, 2) will work if offered a job, and 3) had looked for work at least once within the previous five and fifty-two weeks. Discouraged workers are marginally attached workers but with the additional qualification that they aren't looking for work because they don't believe they can find work. The rest of the marginally attached hadn't searched for work because they were going to school or for other reasons.

In January 2013, there were 2.3 million marginally unattached unemployed, this down 15% from the year previous. Of the 2.3 million, 804,000 were discouraged workers, and that was down 32%! Both of those figures are impressive, especially the latter, and is indicative of an improving labor market, belying the stagnant unemployment rates.

Further good news data is as follows: Total non-farm employment increased 157,000 in Jan 2013 and average 181,000 for all of 2012. In January, the increases were in retail, construction, health care, and wholesale. It decreased slightly in retail and warehousing. Since reaching a low in January 2011, construction has gained 296,000 jobs. Of those, 99,000 were in the last four months, supporting other data that the housing market is finally coming back (including the increase in price of my two rental units up in Virginia, yeah, they are now worth more than I owe.)

Finally, the November 2012 report was revised upward from 161,000 to 247,000 and in December 2012, from 155,000 to 196,000. This is due to more data from businesses trickling in.

THE NATIOANAL DEBT DEFAULT IS AVOIDED

FEBRUARY 7, 2013: Last week the Republicans chose not to bring the country to its knees one more time by allowing a short-term extension to the debt ceiling crises, primarily due to President Obama's strategy of not giving an inch to their brinkmanship this time around. In the meantime, the Debt-to-GDP ratio will continue to decrease as it has done in each year of his Presidency.

FUNDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY

TODAY, 5/29/2013, I SAW an article about Tesla Motors (TLSA); it caught my attention because I used to own stock in it, but sold it at around $30/share. This morning, it was selling at $110/share.

The reason I am including this in a hub on Obama's accomplishments is that Tesla was one of the innovative clean technology boondoggles that the opposition pointed to as a huge waste of taxpayer's money ... think Solendra. Weill, Tesla, the maker of high-end all electric cars, just paid back the $850 million government loan to develop this important technology. Tesla also posted their first quarterly profit since its formation in 2006.

I suspect, if one takes a close look, you will find more Teslas than Solendras coming from this stimulus program.

OBAMA FORCES SYRIAN'S TO TURN OVER CHEMICAL WEAPONS (we hope)

SEPTEMBER 27, 2013: The U.N. Security Council finally passed its first sanction against the Syrian government regarding its civil war with its own people. Specifically, the sanction was prohibiting Syria's use of chemical warfare in its fight to retain power. The vote was a result of an agreement reached between the United States and Syria's ally, Russia after President Obama threatened to take military action to hinder Bashar Assad's ability to use chemical weapons of mass destruction.

That Obama's saber rattling was the genesis of this outcome stands to reason for without,it, there is no incentive for Russia to come to the bargaining table ... none at all. It is sad to know that the Democratic doves and the Conservative Obama-haters, both blind to the reality of the world, almost scuttled the deal.

DIALOGUE OPENED WITH IRAN FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE THE 1970s

SEPTEMBER 28, 2013 - After being snubbed at the U.N. by the new Iranian President who wouldn't shake hands with him (after being pressured from hardliners from back home), President Obama still accepted a request from the Iranian President for a telephone call to open a dialogue that has been on hold for 40 years. Whether the Iranian President is serious, or if he can get the backing of his ruling religious masters in Iran, remains to be seen.

OBAMA WINS ONE FOR AMERICA

OCTOBER 18, 2013: Three times now, once in 1995, then in 2011, and finally again in 2013, Conservatives in Congress tried to bypass the intent of the creators of our Constitution and get their way through non-legislative means not contained in our fine document. In 1995 Clinton compromised a little but Conservatives got almost nothing except shutting down the government for almost 30 days total and adding billions to the national debt. So, given Clinton gave a little last time, Conservatives tried again in 2011 with the debt ceiling. This time Obama compromised a little and Conservatives got a lot that Obama didn't think would happen, the sequester; and America got its credit rating downgraded.

In 2013, however, Obama took a different tack, he refused to compromise. Conservatives shut down the government one more time, this time for 17 days at a cost of more than $8 billion dollars ... and got nothing for it except the lowest approval rating the Party has ever had and a lot of blame.

What did America get from Obama's refusal to negotiate? A precedence that the Constitution cannot be circumvented by an extreme group of politicians; that is a substantial outcome.

OBAMA'S IRAN DIPLOMACY PRODUCES RESULTS

NOVEMBER 23, 2013 EST: IRAN AGREED TO FREEZE ITS NUCLEAR PROGRAM in exchange for the lifting of certain sanctions. This historic deal was struck early Sunday between Iran and six world powers, led by the United States, and negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry. The more sanctions will be lifted after a more formal agreement is worked out and Iran lives up to its promises.

(Courtesy of Time Magazine's March 30, 2015 article, Diplomacy of Distrust.) This was after President Bush and his administration may have had the same opportunity in 2003, right after the "shock and awe" of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Shortly after that event two things happened, 1) Iran stopped its pursuit of a nuclear weapon, according to a 2007 intelligence assessment and 2) the Iranian regime sent President Bush a request to engage in talks; this was rebuffed by the Bush Administration and the rest is history. By the time President Obama in effect responded to the offer in 2009, the moment had been lost.

6/20/15: According to the IAEA, Iran is still living up to the agreement reached with President Obama in November 2013.


2013 JOBS REPORT IS IN

JANUARY !9, 2014: THE 2013 JOBS REPORT just came in; it has something for everybody ... again. Democrats will gleefully point to the fact that the unemployment rate plummeted from the politically incorrect number of 7% to a politically safe number of 6.7%. Conservatives, on the other hand will be joyful that job growth was only 74,000 and not the predicted 163,000.

The recovery calculus after a recession is Strength of Recovery = (# of successful majority Party policy proposals - # of majority Party policy mistakes) + (# of minority Party attempts to support the majority Party - # of attempts by the minority Party to obstruct the majority Party's policies); where policy means recovery policy and majority Party includes the President (I am not sure that has ever not been the case.) In the normal political climate that has existed after every recession prior to the Great 2008 Recession, both the majority and minority factors have been a positive number. But with the election of President Obama, strangely the minority Party factor went negative, so much so that the # of attempts to support is close to zero. It seems the minority Party had only two political goals they wanted to pursue, stop any and all of Obama's initiatives and obliterate Obamacare ... it is clear the minority Party is not your normal Republicans.

All-in-all, another 2.2 million jobs were added in 2013, the same as in 2012. For the four years of the recovery (normal for this kind of recession) roughly 7.5 million jobs have been added. Not enough to cover the 8.7 million lost in the two years of the recession (plus net new entrants). Next year, however, should see employment finally go into a net positive position using 2008 as a starting point; this despite the Obama successes minus the Obama failures minus the monumental Conservative obstructionism.

OBAMA PROMISED TO BRING DOWN THE DEFICIT, AND HE DID ... WELL, SORT OF.

1/27/2014: THE 40-YEAR AVERAGE FOR DISCRETIONARY SPENDING, as a percentage of GDP, is 8.4%. President Obama is currently at 6.8%, according to the non-partisan CBO, after topping out at 9.1% in his effort to keep America out of a depression. For comparison, President Bush began his Presidency at 6.1% and it only increased from there. The record was set by President Reagan, in 1983 at 10.0% of GDP!

Obama has more good news ahead of him, if the economy doesn't go south on him; the CBO predicts discretionary spending will fall to a 50-year low of 5.3% by 2023 before it starts creeping back up.

Now, all of this good news could turn-around and bite Obama AND America on the butt! Why? Because one of the primary causes of the steep drop in the deficit is the unmanaged, catastrophic reductions caused by the "sequester that wasn't supposed to happen". Without question, the misery of the average American will grow as support programs go unfunded and investments in education, R&D, and infrastructure go by the wayside. Already those out of work for a long time, and therefore the economy, have lost $1.6 billion as of this writing; just what Obama's opponents want to have happen, starving Americans and small business losing business.

OBAMACARE MADE IT!!!

APRIL 21, 2014: A FEW DAYS HAVE PASSED SINCE the end of the processing of applications that were filed on or before March 31, 2014, While the number will still grow a little as they finish up counting, more than 8,000,000 signed up for Obamacare through the federal exchanges, blowing away all expectations. Even at the low end of industry estimates, that means at least 6.4 million of those will have paid into the system; more than enough to encourage more insurance companies to join the competition next year.

In addition to the 8 million through federal exchanges, another 3 million+ have signed up for Medicaid, several million more through the state exchanges and off-exchange insurance plans. Further, there are still 3.1 million young adults who are covered under their parents plans that otherwise probably would not be. In addition, the number of insured in company health plans is up as well, but the cause is less certain.

Naysayers have questioned how many of these are people who didn't have insurance before. Current estimates range from 5.4 million from the Urban Institute's Health Reform Monitoring Survey to 12 million from the CBO and Gallup.

CHALLENGING CHINA IN ASIA

APRIL 27, 2014: AFTER DECADES AFTER HAVING BEEN KICKED OUT OF THE PHILIPPINES, President Obama re-established America's military presence in that extremely strategic country by signing a ten-year agreement. While it doesn't establish a base in the Philippines, it does increase the number and frequency of American ships and planes visiting the islands as well as increasing the number of joint training exercises.

OBAMA ENERGY PROGRAM SETS RECORDS

MAY 4, 2014: ON THIS DATE, JOHN PODESTA REVEALED CHARTS to the White House press corp at the daily briefing that must make one scratch their head when they listing to Republican rhetoric about how President Obama is so anti-oil and gas. The numbers simply prove their hyperbole as just that, hyperbole.

According to Podesta:

  • For the first time since 1995, America produced more oil than it imported. That is because, by November 2013, oil production is at a 24-year high, and produces more oil than any other country, and imports are at a 17-year low
  • For the first time every, America was first in natural gas production
  • Under President Obama, the use of renewable energy sources has grown considerably, reducing the need for oil imports, among other things. See table below.

OBAMA SETS CLIMATE CHANGE AGENDA FOR THE WORLD

JUNE 2. 2014: PRESIDENT OBAMA ANNOUNCED TODAY new EPA rules to limit carbon pollutants into our, and the world's. environment. The rules require carbon emissions to be reduced by 30% of 2005 levels or about 18% of today's levels. This move does two things, 1) reduce greenhouse gases which should help global warming and 2) reduce particulate matter which improves the health of Americans.

Sources of Energy in the United States

 
2013
2008
2000
1993
Coal
39%
48%
52%
53%
Petroleum
.8%
1.1%
2.9%
3.5%
Natural & Other Gases
28%
21%
16%
13%
Nuclear
19%
20%
20%
19%
Renewable - Hydro
7%
6%
7%
9%
Renewable - Bio Mass
1.5%
1.3%
1.6%
1.8%
Renewable - Geothermal
.4%
.4%
.4%
.5%
Renewable - Solar
.2%
<.1%
<.1%
<.1%
Renewable - Wind
4%
1.3%
.1%
.1%
Total Fossil and Nuclear
87%
90%
91%
89%
Total Renewable
13%
10%
9%
11%

MORE NOTABLE ACHIEVMENTS

8/7/2014 - ONE OF PRESIDENT OBAMA'S GREATEST FAILINGS is not successfully promoting himself; for letting his opponents set and keep the narrative and foreign policy is just one good example. President Obama simply sucks in the current polls in his job overall foreign policy job performance, along with all the other major categories; this has been the case for several years now. The VERY strange thing is, when these same people who criticize Obama on his total performance are asked about individual foreign policy decisions that he has made, well guess what, they overwhelmingly agree with him and them!! Try to figure that one out.

So, what has President Obama done that American's wanted?

  • Pulled out of Iraq (where we should never have been)
  • Pulling out of Afghanistan (which I think is a mistake)
  • Outfoxed Putin in getting him to persuade Syria, during a hot war, get rid of 100% of its chemical munitions
  • Get Iran to continue the nuclear freeze to dilute its highly enriched uranium, agree to in-person inspections and video surveillance, and cease work on its heavy water plutonium reactor.
  • Corralling the herd of cats called the European Union into imposing tough economic sanctions on Russia and isolating Putin by getting Europeans to put the screws to Russia’s banking, oil and gas, and military sectors, Obama has played his brand of strong-arm diplomatic ball, forcing Putin to choose between his country’s economic well being and his fantasies of restoring the Russian Empire.Putin looks politically injured, snarling not like a mighty czar but like a wounded bear caught in a trap.

9/14/2014: For the first time in American history, a President approaches involvement in the Middle East in the proper manner. Unlike all of his processors, President Obama understands that you can't bully your way to victory in asymmetrical combat as American Presidents and Pentagon Chiefs of Staff have been trying to do, and losing, since Vietnam. The battle against ISIS will be his first war from start to hopefully finish, but he has his doubts. After replacing the General Staff in the Pentagon with strategic thinkers who can get beyond the Cold War mentality. The plan Obama has accepted is similar to one President Bush belatedly, but much to his credit in ignoring the advise from most of his advisers, settled on at the end of his term, the Surge where America switched tactics and brought all parties, Shi'ites, Kurds, AND Sunnis into the fight against al Qaeda and Sunni extremists. In this case, President Obama is attempting the same thing, BUT without committing American regular combat forces, only air and special operations assets. while making the Iraqi Shi'ite, Kurd, and Sunnis do the heavy ground fighting.

9/20/14: Corporations are reporting record profits as a percent of GDP now. The previous high was in Eisenhower through Johnson administrations with fairly consist reports of between 11% and a little above 12% (save for three quick downturns during small recessions). Starting with President Nixon, corporate profits went into a steep decline, averaging around 9 - 10%. They bottom out with President Reagan with profits ranging from a little less than 7% of GDP to about 8.5%. It took Clinton to get things going again for profits increased from 7% to 10% by about 2007 before falling right back down again to 7% around 2001/2. There is no telling if it would have gone that low if 9/11 hadn't happened, but it did. With the Housing bubble of 2003 - 2006, corporate profits skyrocketed from 7% to the highs obtained by Kennedy-Johnson, about 12.2%. The difference is, only the top 10% of American society participated in this growth while back in the 1960s, probably 70% felt the benefit. Of course President Bush suffered the worse recession (and if it hadn't been for a couple of heroic and hated actions on his part followed up by equally reviled actions on Obama's part, I would write Depression instead) since WW II. If you haven't guessed by now, corporate profits plunged as fast as they rose to ... 7% of GDP.

Now, a lot has been said, including from me a little bit, about how President Obama has fumbled the recovery (most of my rhetoric is blaming the Conservatives for getting in the way of recovery.) Well, while everyone has been grousing about how bad the economy is, corporations have been raking in the loot; growing their profits as a percentage of GDP from 7% in 2009 to almost 13% today (the graph looks like 12.5 or 12.6, actually); in any case, it is now the tallest peak since 1952. Unfortunately, like with the growth in President Bush's time at the helm, it doesn't FEEL like the recovery has been that good, even with unemployment down to what is actually normal levels when you look at it over the long-term. The reason for that is the same reason most people felt poor under Bush, only the top tier of society is participating in the largess of the recovery. What is sadder, the dynamics that were in place in the 1960s that allowed the middle and lower tier of the economic classes to participate in American growth no longer exist; they went out with the Conservative Revolution.

9/22/2014: WITH THE BEGINNING OF THE AIR WAR against ISIS, President Obama has achieved the a larger miracle than even President H.W. Bush did in putting together a grand coalition of mainly European nations to participate in the First Iraq War. Obama did him one better by getting multiple Arab states to not only support the war on ISIS but actually participate in combat against fellow Sunnis.

11/20/2014: President Barack Obama finally did what he said he would do, begin the fix of immigration. After 6 years of stalling by the Conservative House, the President implemented by Executive Order, those parts of the solution, devised by both Republicans and Democrats and passed by the Senate, the law allows him to do. What he was able to do was to prioritize the activities of the Department of Justice. The prioritization is based on maximizing the benefits from the efforts of addressing dangerous undocumented aliens given the limited resources of the DoJ. By doing so, and protecting those long-term undocumented aliens who actually add to GDP growth, his actions benefit all of America, not just the 5 million who have lived under fear of discovery for decades.

9/10/2015: After a last ditch effort by Conservatives to let Iran keep their nuclear program intact (in exchange for being able to maintain the sanctions), President Obama did something he should have started doing 6 years ago - actively working with Congress to get legislation passed. In this case, it was to stop a bill of disapproval for the Iran Nuclear deal Secretary of State John Kerry, and 6 other nations, hammered out to get Iran to end and partially dismantle their nuclear program.

9/3/2016: Joined with China to deposit an “instrument of acceptance” with the U.N. Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon to join the Paris Climate Accord to limit greenhouse gas. This is the first major international environmental agreement since the Kyoto Protocol which was the first step to limit greenhouse gases. Because the Protocol did not include developing countries, the Senate passed a resolution not to ratify any environmental treaty that didn't include these nations. Consequently, even though President Clinton signed the treaty it was never submitted to the Senate for ratification. The Paris Accord is not a treaty and therefore doesn't need the Senate's ratification (they wouldn't have ratified it any case because enough GOP Senators think climate change is a hoax.)

Summary Of Foreign Policy Achievements

FEB 2009 - : Began the successful task of repairing destroyed relations with Europe and Asia allies.

FEB 2009: Ordered the ending of the Iraq War by end of year and refocused the fight against terrorism back to Afghanistan

JUN 2010: Led the effort to isolate and punish Iran and bring the to the negotiating table to put a halt to their offensive nuclear program.

MAY 2, 2011: Ordered the operation that led to the death of Osama bin Laden.

DEC 17, 2014: Normalizes relations with Cuba after 56 years of wasted isolation.

APR 2015: Along with European allies and talking Russia and China into joining the effort, got preliminary agreement from Iran to halt weaponizing their nuclear program and accepting onerous inspection regimen by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

SEP 2015: Shepard a final Iran nuclear agreement through Congress guaranteeing a nuclear-free Iran for at least the next 10 years.


PROMISES NOT YET RATED

APRIL 1, 2013: The following are Obama promises not yet rated by PolitiFact -

  • Create a Secretary of Business and Consolidate Nine Government Agencies on Business into One
  • Create 1 Million New Manufacturing Jobs by the End of 2016
  • Overhaul the Corporate Tax Code and Reduce the Rate for Manufacturing Companies
  • End Tax Deductions for Companies that Offshore
  • Create a New Tax Credit for Companies that Bring Jobs to the United States from Overseas
  • Create a Veterans Job Corps

PROMISES STALLED OR KILLED BY CONSERVATIVES

  • 9/12/12: Veterans Job Corp Act was successfully filibustered
  • 7/23/12: Bring Jobs Home Act was successfully filibustered
  • 7/17/12: A bill to provide for additional disclosure requirements for corporations, labor organizations, Super PACs and other entities was successfully filibustered
  • 7/12/12: Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act was successfully filibustered
  • 6/5/12: Paycheck Fairness Act was successfully filibustered
  • 5/21/12: FDA User Fee Bill was successfully filibustered
  • 4/16/12: FDA User Fee Bill was successfully filibustered
  • 3/29/12: Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act was successfully filibustered
  • Eliminate Oil and Gas Subsidies - May 17, 2011, cloture failed 52 for - 48 against; 60 needed to pass. (2 Republicans voted for and 3 Democrats voted against cloture)
  • Require publicly traded financial partnerships to pay the corporate income tax
  • Tax carried interest as ordinary income, allows hedge fund managers' income to taxed at capital gains rates even though it isn't investment income
  • Support tax deduction for artists
  • "Disclose Act" to provide transparency to ALL campaign donations over $10,000
  • "Bring Jobs Home Act" to give businesses tax breaks for moving operations back to the U.S. and not allow tax deductions for moving operations overseas.
  • President's Jobs Bill
  • 2014: Blocked extended unemployment insurance benefits multiple times; cost small business $11 B as of August 1
  • 2009: Blocked Fair Pay Act
  • 2014: Blocked benefits for homeless veterans
  • Blocked Oil Spill Liability
  • Blocked Anti-Rape Amendment
  • Blocked Healthcare for 9/11 First Responders
  • Blocked repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell many times

You Opinion Is Important, Please Vote

Do you think, whether you agree or disagree with his policies, President Obama was able accomplish most of the most of the the things he promised to do?

See results without voting

Do you think most of what President Obama has been able to accomplish to-date has been good for America, even though it migh not be exactly what he wanted?

See results without voting

DEMOGRAPHIC Q# 1

Do you identify most closly with the -

See results without voting

DEMOGRAPHIC Q# 2

Are you -

See results without voting

A LITTLE ANALYSIS

BECAUSE OF THE LIMITATIONS OF HUB polling, I can't easily ask the question "If you are a Liberal, do you think President ....; Yes, Not, Not Sure". I can do this but don't for two reasons, 1) it would add two more poles per question and 2) I feel readers would be less likely to answer them because a) there are too many polls and b) it lessens the perceived anonymity of the vote. Consequently, if I still want to know and share the distribution, then assumptions need to made and a lot of math accomplished.

So, here are the assumptions that were made:

  • 1% of Conservatives vote "Not Sure"
  • 9% of Liberals vote "Not Sure"
  • 5% of Conservatives vote "Yes" (this may be low)
  • 5% of Liberals vote "No" (this is probably low)

The calculations and table are based on the first question, but because the response to the second question is relatively the same, so would be the results of calculations based on those numbers (not quite true, but close enough for government work at this point in time).

Based on these assumptions, with 698 votes the estimate is:

 
YES
NO
NOT SURE
LIBERALS
242
13
3
MODERATES
226
57
31
CONSERVATIVES
6
119
0
TABLE 3

THOUGHTS ON THE POLL RESULTS

BELIEVE IT OR NOT: With only 43 or 44 votes, as large as the difference appears to be, the yeas and nays are in a statistical tie because the margin of error is 27%. If we had 80 votes cast, however, it wouldn't be a tie; but now it is.

The voting has now jumped from 61 to 81 votes, consequently the Margin of Error (MOE) is down to 19%, and now signifies a statistical difference between those who think that Obama either 1) was able to accomplish most of what he set out to do and/or 2) what he has been able to do so far has been good for the country.

7/13/2012: Voting has really picked up, thank you VERY much! I have 151 in the main poll at the moment giving me an MOE of around 14%, telling us there is a definite bias of the voters toward both thinking that President Obama has generally accomplished most of the major goals he set out to do in his first four years AND that you think they have, for the most part, been good for America.

I recently added some demographic questions to see if I could discern who was thinking what. In these, I only have around 31 votes so far, not bad considering how new these polls are. Already I can tell something ... at the moment: 1) there are barely a statistically significant more readers who identify themselves as Progressives rather than Conservatives answering these demographic questions and 2) the rest of the comparisons are still within the margin of error.

If I make the assumption this trend is the same from day one of the polling, I can also say that it is highly likely that all of the conservatives who voted, voted 'No' in the first two questions.

9/6/2012: With votes in the mid-300s for the two polls, I can do a little arithmetic and come up with an interesting observation. First, using the result from Demographic Survey #1, political persuasion, to distribute vote totals, I can offer this given these three assumptions. 1) All Progressives believe that a) President Obama was able to accomplish most of the important things he set out to do and b) that they were the right things for the country, 2) All of the Conservatives believe just the opposite (not surprisingly), and 3) the 3 or 4% who don't know in each poll are all moderates:

About 69% of Moderates, those who will decide the upcoming election, think that President Obama achieved his goals and that his goals were good for America.

12/21/2013

FIRST, I WANT TO THANK ALL OF YOU WHO have taken the time to read this now lengthy Hub and taking part in the surveys. At the moment, there are 708 responses to the first question, "Was Obama Effective?" and 680 responses to "Did Obama Help America?". With 45,535 views at the moment, that means about 1.5% of you took the survey, about average as surveys go, but still impressive to me.

With so many responses, I thought it was time to make use of the information doing one of my favorite things, estimation; in this case figuring out roughly what percent from each political category voted Yea or Nay regarding the first two survey questions.

A WORD ABOUT ESTIMATION AND PEOPLE

I am a big believer in MBTI (Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator) psychological profiles. There are four possible sets of personality traits; Extravert-Introvert (E-I), Sensor-iNtuitive (S-N); Feeler-Thinker (F-T); and Judger-Perceiver (J-P). I describe these traits in several hubs, the latest one is http://myesoteric.hubpages.com/hub/Meyers-Briggs-Personality-Inventory-An-Experiment-Please-Join. Of interest to me in this exercise are the S-N and J-P personality types.

Why are these Types important to my estimates? Because, depending on which combination a person is, S-J, S-P, N-J, and N-P, each Type responds in significantly different ways on whether they accept what I present. These differences were dramatized in 2009 when economists from President Obama's team estimated, in Jan 2009, that unemployment shouldn't exceed 8%. and then piled on a bunch of caveats.

  • Few if any in the mainstream or non-mainstream media paid any attention to what the economists said beyond the 8% number
  • The non-mainstream media and Right-wing pundits went so far as to attribute the announcement of this estimate to President Obama personally. This, of course, was not true, and they knew it.
  • Further, those that opposed President Obama purposefully ignored the caveats surrounding the estimate and all of the well known cautions that go with the use of any statistical estimate.
  • Also, nobody ever talked about the fact the estimate was revised to 11% in early 2011 when the 2008, 4th Quarter economic data became available. Unfortunately, the power of well prepared propaganda had so muddied the waters, nobody cared.

It is the independents who did exactly the same thing which I find interesting from a personality trait perspective. The nature of those who are Sensors and Judgers is to tend to be invariant in their thinking and not particularly interested in looking into the "whys" and "wherefores" behind a statement; they simply want to take the statement at face value and assume it is close to the absolute truth and either not hear, remember, or care about the caveats that came with it.

It is here where America has a problem, you see, for S-Js make up 43% of American society. Another 27% are S-Ps. That leaves only 30% of us who are either N-J or N-P, My hypothesis is, which I am trying to validate in that other Hub, is that the S-Type personality is concentrated in those on the Right side of the political spectrum, and the N-Type are on the Left side. The importance being, of course, is S-Types tend, depending on the strength of their 'Sness', not to understand nor believe in statistics and will misuse them on a regular basis. N-Types, on the other hand, come pre-wired to at least understand conclusions drawn from statistics and their limitations (so the fact that the 8% did not hold came as no surprise); but, whether they misure statistics depends on other variables. Not understanding this dynamic has led many a politician astray, leading to ill-conceived statements of possibility rather than sticking to only those things of which they are almost certain. The take-away from all of this is that in America at least, don't offer estimates when asked for one.

What is also fascinating is that in the same hub on Meyers-Briggs, I am finding that a major portion of my audience are iNtuitors - N, which allows me to offer the following "estimates" without too much fear of misunderstanding.

Now the first thing we, as professional estimators (I was a Cost Analyst for the Air Force), must do is develop a set of Assumptions and Constraints about the problem we are trying to estimate. Because of the limitations of Hub polling, I can't ask directly, at least not easily, if you are Conservative, do you think this or that. So what I do is ask about your opinion on this or that and then ask, in a separate poll, if you are Progressive, Moderate, or Conservative. This construction forces me to make an estimate on what percentage of Moderate's opinion was one thing or another.

In this particular case, the question, using the second poll, is what percentage of Progressives, Moderates, and Conservatives felt that President Obama has helped this country with his policies. Of course, I had an idea of what the answer was, which is presented in Table 4.

POLITICS
AGREE THAT OBAMA DID GOOD
DISAGREE THAT OBAMA DID GOOD
NOT SURE WHAT HE DID
PROGRESSIVE
97%
1%
2%
MODERATE
78%
20%
2%
CONSERVATIVE
0%
98%
2%
TABLE 4

WHAT DROVE SUCH A RESULT? First, the Constraints forced part of what you see, So, what are constraints? They are the parameters that are invariant; in other words, they can't change for this particular scenario. Constraints are facts like the total number of survey responders is 680 or that 18% of those who answered the political leaning poll self-identified themselves as Conservative. Other constraints are the fact that the totals of each row and column must equal 100%.

The other driver are the Assumptions I used to create Table 4. Assumptions are the opposite of constraints, they can vary, they aren't set in stone. The primary assumption (1) I made which drove the final results of my initial try was that no Conservatives would say Obama's program was good for America. Another minor assumption (2) is that the percent of Not Sure's are the same for each political stripe; since Not Sure only accounts for 2% (13 or 14 responses) of the total, it has very little impact.

Next, I needed to make an assumption (3) about how many Progressives would respond with a No vote; I chose 2% for the same reason I thought there would be very no Conservative votes who Agreed with Obama. With these three assumptions and all of the constraints, the remaining four cells an arithmetical certainty; they can't be any other percentages than what you see.

So, what do you see? To me it looks wrong. It looks wrong because the percentage of Moderates who liked what Obama did is too high at 78%. It simply doesn't seem reasonable to me, given the polarization in this country, Obama's declining poll numbers, a struggling economy and unspectacular employment picture. With a world made up of those factors, I have to reject the idea that more than 7 out of 10 Moderates believe Obama's policies were good for America. Therefore, the assumption that no Conservatives would vote for Obama most be relaxes to "few, if any"; clearly some had to in order to reduce the number of Moderate Agree votes.

I also changed my assumption regarding the Not Sure result by assuming the Moderates result could float and the Progressives and Conservatives split the remainder, subject to the total having to equal the total 'Not Sure' votes cast. Next I controlled the Moderate Yes vote and the Progressive No vote. I finally settled on 65% of Moderates would vote with Obama and 5% of Progressives voted against Obama. Table 5 is the surprising result..

THE SECOND TRY

POLITICS
AGREE THAT OBAMA DID GOOD
DISAGREE THAT OBAMA DID GOOD
NOT SURE
PROGRESSIVE
94%
5%
1%
MODERATE
65%
32%
3%
CONSERVATIVE
38%
61%
1%
TABLE 5

I WASN'T EXPECTING THAT; 38% OF CONSERVATIVES Agreeing with Obama! Now, you all know, especially the Intuitors, those aren't the exact numbers, but the true numbers can't be too far from this result. They can't be too far off because (this is called sensitivity analysis):

  • If the Conservative Agree vote was smaller, that means, because of the constraints, the Moderate vote for Obama must be larger.
  • Further, any reduction in Progressive or Moderate Agree votes must increase the Conservative result, so pick your poison.

Now, the Sensors, especially those on the Right, out there are probably scream foul; you're just cooking the books and making the statistics say what you want! The Intuitors reading this should agree with my response: "In a sense, the Sensors are right, in that I am playing with the numbers (but not cooking the books)." But, as any statistician knows, it isn't the "numbers" I am "playing" with but the "assumptions and constraints"; the results simply follow the dictates of these.

As I described earlier, to the best of my knowledge, I made certain assumptions. Then I looked at the results and asked, "did they make sense in the real world?" and not "do they support my preconceived notion?". In this case, anybody on the Right, Left, or in the Middle would tell you a result that says 87% of Moderates think President Obama means you have been living in Colorado too long enjoying the smoke. As a consequence, I had to go back and look at my assumptions.

The assumption that NO Conservative would think Obama did a good job is one of those "biased", knee-jerk thoughts; that was why this assumption was relaxed. Also, thinking that the Not Sure votes are split evenly, doesn't really pass the laugh-test either does it; so that was changed to something more realistic.

I added assumptions about the Moderate Agree and Progressive Disagree responses while, at the same time, relaxing the assumptions on the 'Not Sures', in order to NOT put a constraint on the Conservative results. The test, of course, is can you live with the Conservative results. In Table 5s case, we are saying that it seems more reasonable that a 1/3 of Conservatives secretly agree that President Obama has done a good job as opposed to 78% of Moderates thinking that; which is why I said, pick your poison.

1/11/2015: Now consider Table 6 with 869 responses; the same assumptions and constraints for Table 5 are used.

Did PBO Do A Good Job with 869 responses

POLITICS
AGREE THAT PBO DID A GOOD JOB
DISAGREE THAT PBO DID A GOOD JOB
NOT SURE
PROGRESSIVE
94%
5%
1%
MODERATE
65%
32%
3%
CONSERVATIVE
30%
69%
1%
TABLE 6 - N = 869 LET ME KNOW, via COMMENT, WHAT YOU THINK THE 65% AND 5% OUGHT TO BE, AND I WILL RESPOND WITH THE CONSERVATIVE NUMBERS

© 2011 My Esoteric

More by this Author


Comments 546 comments

Nick Lucas 5 years ago

zero jobs, great division, and a steady 9.1% unemployment rate ....go Obama!


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

No, Nick, try 4 million jobs, check out CBO's analysis, not Rick Perry's unreliable math. You are so lucky it is only 9.1%. In 1893, in the last major financial depression where there was no government intervention because of Conservative economic philosophy, such as you are implying should have been used this time around as well; unemployment hit 14.5% in 1896. This is after climbing past 11.7% in 1893 from 3% in 1892. It didn't get back below 6% until 1899; six years later. So, you may prefer the Conservative way of doing things, because President Grover Cleveland followed the same game plan the Conservatives were telling Obama to follow, me, I prefer Obama's, thank you.


HSchneider 5 years ago from Parsippany, New Jersey

Great Hub My Esoteric. You listed the President's accomplishment's well. I would include helping to shepherd the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill through. A lot more could have been accomplished this year but the House Republicans will block all just for the fun of defeating President Obama. Very un-American.


Ruben Rivera profile image

Ruben Rivera 5 years ago from Colorado, US

The war is over in Iraq? Someone didn't tell insurgents who bombed the camp where my sister is based at. About 20 rockets within a couple of hours, this is a very unconventional war and troops are still in Iraq and Afghanistan.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks HS, this is an ever-growing list, I will try to add one or two each day.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I am glad your sister wasn't hurt, I know a little about incoming fire from Vietnam. What Candidate Obama promised and President Obama delivered was to end our involvement in Iraq; he has done that. If the Iraqis don't get their act together, American troops are supposed to be gone entirely by the end of this year. If they ask, we will keep some support troops in country like we do with other allies.

As to the hostilities in Iraq, that will never end; so long as religious sects follow leaders who are willing to kill for their beliefs, and this isn't limited to just Islam but extends to all monotheistic religions, the bombing and mayhem will keep on happening. Is it a "war" though now? If you consider most of the hostilities that occurred in Northern Ireland a war, then yes; if not, then probably not.


Donnaisabella 5 years ago

Great hub. I love the facts and I know them to be true. I am a Christian and I believe we have to be truthful and call good, good when it is so.We do not need to hide behind the veil of conservatism as if it is a religion on its own.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I appreciate your comment DonnaIsabella. I hope you come back as I add more accomplishments.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 5 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

JUST A REMINDER

On Thurs., Sept 22, 2011,at 9:00pm ET Fox News and Google are sponsoring the Republican Presidential debate from Florida. AN OPEN FORUM DISCUSSION

There definitely will be comments on President Barack Obama’s ‘’Deficit Reduction Plan ‘’announced on Mon. Sept.19, 2011 in the Whitehouse rose garden.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks Jon, it should be interesting.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

My Esoteric, thanks for supporting and recognizing achievements of Mr. Obama against unprecedented headwinds. I, within my lifetime, have never seen so much of a toxic political environment. As far as I was concerned the health care issue represented a crumbling foundation for the American economy, a time bomb that would wreck it all if not addressed. The right paints all this as socialism. You will see in many of my articles this point being made repeatedly. The rightwinger is the master of distorting the truth and the Dems have been far too timid in addressing the lies and misrepresentations. In one of my hubs I bring this complaint of mine to the forefront in

http://hubpages.com/politics/Earth-to-Progressives...

This a very scholarly and well research article and I look forward to reading more. I am on board. Cred2


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 5 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

MORE OF OBAMA'S accomplish?

THE WASTE IS IN THE GOVERNMENT, the money to pay needs to come out of the government not the taxpayers. Today it was reported that for the past 5 years, the Social Security Trust fund has paid $400 billion to dead federal employees. Forging one’s name is a crime, the taxpayers need to demand repayment and prosecution. see

The Senator Coburn Report July 21, 2011

Back in the black, the SOLUTION

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tVJ2gqqKWs

The Congress, the Republican controlled House ( one half of Congress ) has approved the 2012 BUDGET and 9 job funding bills to put workers back to work. As of today the Senate has only approved 1. When the President says that Congress is the problem, note that he really should be telling the truth, that the Democrat controlled Senate is the problem.

The shovel ready jobs are in the mid west and the east coast. Mr. President, Barack Obama ,the Senate needs to pass the bill HR 2698 and get to work on the other bills approved by the House.

A past President once said ‘’ government is not the solution, government is the problem’’.

This past week, President Obama on the campaign trail said that Speaker Boehner and Senator Mc Connell needs to past the jobs bill. The president said that he is fighting for the middle class and that teachers and construction workers need to have jobs.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thank you for visiting, Credence. Yes, what was happening with health care in America had become a national embarrasment, given our wealth and technology as a nation; our supposed desire to care about our neighbor which Conservatives believe should be expressed only between individuals but should not be a function of government (the General Welfare clause in the Constitution means something entirely different to Conservatives than to all others); and our nations ability to deliver health care.

While I agree that Conservatives are masters at distorting the truth, I have to disagree that, by implication, liberals aren't; it is just the Conservatives are the current masters of effectively propagandizing those distortions. All extemists, whether right or left, distort the truth; that is how they get people to listen to them. The people who are meek are those of us in the center who refuse to tell these nuts to go take a hike with their lies.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Jon, thank you as well for your comments and reasoning. Sorry to say, I have more Obama accomplishments coming, lol (btw, my source is Politico.com.)

Your politician that said "the government is not the solution, the government is the problem" clearly hasn't read his American history. The last I heard, the government is "Of the People, By the People, and For the People". So by simple substitution, what your politician just said was "the People is not the solution, the People is the problem". When you make that substitution, it all becomes clear and you can point the finger in the right direction, the People, who elected the government; they have the power to change it; if they don't like what they voted for, change their minds and vote again until they get a set of representatives who do what the People want and not what a political ideology says the People want.

I started watching your You Tube reference until I saw the subject. I am putting together a hub as to why a cut, cap, and balance approach is a receipe for long-term economic disaster. There is a theory in mathematics and social science called "Complexity Theory". To do what the Conservatives put forward as a very simple solution to a very complex process where there are many independently acting free-agents is, studies and history have repeated shown, is guaranteed to fail.

Need to look at HR 2698, but I must say, only 9 job producing bills in two years is a rather anemic record. Is this net such bills as the "temporary spending bill" they just passed that will kill the creation of thousands of jobs as part of the price to pay for helping disaster victims? The program they are killing is a pie-in-the-sky one, it is one that has been successful already and that Conservative members are trying to take advantage of (for their constituents) themselves.


jon ewall 5 years ago

My Esoteric

You said ''Need to look at HR 2698, but I must say, only 9 job producing bills in TWO YEARS is a rather anemic record. '' NOTE that the republicans have had control of the house since jan. 2011, approximately 9 months not 2 years. A LITTLE HISTORY FROM ANOTHER REPLY.

’the President can do nothing outside the will of congress, yet some how he is to blame for the entire worlds problems’’

HOW TRUE

From Jan. 2007 to 2010, the Democrats had majority control of our government ( CONGRESS ) and still to today they control the Senate and the Presidency.

The recession started in Dec 2007 and ended in April 2009. In 2010 the Democrats had a SUPER MAJORITY CONTROL including the Presidency.

Somehow it is hard to understand why President Bush is always being BLAMED for today’s problems by President Barack Obama and the Democrats who have had 2/3‘s control of the US Government since 2007.

The Democrats passed the Stimulus Bill in Feb.2009, the Stimulus Bill ends Sept.30,2011.The funds that were approved was to ignite the job market and the economy. 2009 unemployment was 7.8%, as of today it is 9.8%+ in many areas of the country. Any monies lying around not being used should be returned to the US Treasury and used to pay down the debt( the unused $$$$$ are paying interest to our debtors).

have a great day!


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Ooops, @Jon, you are right, 9 months, it just seems like two years, which makes it one jobs bill a month. That would be an ok record, even in my book, so now I have to and look to see what they actually were or if, as Old Poolman and I are discussing in another CMerritt hub, it is just what they are calling it.

You and I both know there are many things a President can do outside the Will of Congress via Executive Directive, for a time anyway because they can always be overridden by Congress. Being blamed for all that goes wrong, as, again, we both know, goes along with the job and sometimes unfairly so but nevertheless with Dire consequenses as Bush I found out in his re-election bid. The economy was picking back up a little and it was never that bad because of him, he was still fixing the problems caused by his predecessor, but theory has it, the public didn't vote for Bush because of the economy. I didn't vote for Bush either, but for other reasons; I had to vote Democrat for the first time in my life because the Republican party had moved so far to the right, I didn't recognize them anymore; the social Conservatives had cosumned my party by then and that appalled and frieghtened me; the Republican party that I had grown up with and belonged to had all but disappeared.

I would argue that it is the Conservatives who have effective control over Congress; here is my reasoning.

Without doubt, the Conservatives have control of the House, even the Tea Party may have now, based on the last funding bill that was initially voted down.

In the Senate, yes, the Democrats have majority, but not a super-majority (which apparently didn't make much difference anyway since, true to form, they couldn't bring the three parts of the party together to vote as a block ... more on that later.), however, the Conservative Senate leadership, for the first time in American history, are able to control 100% of their members vote so, in effect, only Mitch McConnell is voting for the Conservatives in the Senate and not 47 individual Republican, Conservative, and Tea Party Senators. What does this mean? Effective control of the Senate for the Conservatives. How? Abuse of the power of the fillibuster. While Senator Reid may be able to set the agenda because of his party's majority, Senator McConnell, through the active abuse of the fillibuster, controls what gets passed. Ergo, the Conservatives actually control Congress.

Back to the Democrats Super-Majority, what a wasted oppurtunity! But, as to be expected of Democrats, the conservative-side wouldn't agree with the liberal-side (by the way, I put most of the fault with the liberal's unwillingness to compromise and see the long-term) and the moderates were unable to mediate; the liberals wanted their cake and to eat it and to eat it NOW; as a result, they got next to nothing.

To me, it is very easy to see why President Bush keeps getting blamed; President Obama has spent his whole president trying to repair the desvestation Bush's presidency caused to America AND Obama has been trying to do this in the face of a firestorm of critism from the Conservatives saying we need to go back to Bush's economic policies that produced these terribel results in the first place ... oh yeah, then add in a Democratic party who are having the most fun fighting amongst themselves rather than for America.

As I pointed out in the body of this hub, while you are right, unemployment was 7.8% when the stimulus started (it had been 5% at the beginning of the Bush presidency) it was rising fast, the avalanche, with all of its massive momentum, of job loss was just starting. Given the way financieal depressions or even recessions of this magnitude historically go, 9.8+% unemployment in some parts of the country two years after the beginning of the stimulus is actually a pretty amazingly low number. Also, as I mentioned earlier in the hub, the stimulus was based on 3rd quarter, 2008 data. Based on that data, the stimulus was enough. It wasn't until after the 4th quarter, 2008 was in (after the stimulus bill was basically finalized) did the administration and the world become aware of the extent of the damage this (at this point in time) coming depression was going to cause. For Obama and America, unfortunately, it was too late; the stimulus was set and there was no way the Conservatives would let Obama increase it enough to address the 4th quarter data.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

@Jon, I looked up HR 2698 from the 112th Congress. Assuming I have the correct bill, this is what it said:

SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF APPLICATION OF SPECIAL RULES FOR CERTAIN GOVERNMENTAL PLANS TO INCLUDE PLANS ESTABLISHED BY POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS.

(a) In General- Section 105(j)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--

(1) by inserting `or established by or on behalf of a State or political subdivision thereof' after `public retirement system', and

(2) by inserting `or 501(c)(9)' after `section 115' in subparagraph (B) thereof.

(b) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to payments after the date of the enactment of this Act.

I am not sure what this bill has to do with jobs. Did I get your citation correct?


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 5 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

‘’@Jon, I looked up HR 2698’’ my error should be 2608

‘’Ooops, @Jon, you are right, 9 months’’ NOTE that the bills are in the Senate WAITING FOR ACTION. These are jobs bills, why would the Senate not get them passed or rejected. The president has 2 jobs bills that he has not signed as yet! Senator Reid tabling the bills IS NOT the way to get the people back to work and help the economy.

‘’Executive Directive, for a time anyway because they can always be overridden by Congress’’ hard because of the House (Republicans ) only control 1/3 of government. Remember in order to make law, a bill requires a President’s signature.

‘’Republican party had moved so far to the right’’ that’s why they lost in 2006.Jan 2007 the Democrats took over 2/3’s of the government. The start of the nations problems lingering on to today.

‘’While Senator Reid may be able to set the agenda because of his party's majority,’’

Not allowing bills passed by the House to get to the floor for debate, amend and vote on is irresponsible and denies our elected officials, who represent us, to do the work of the people.

In our constitution ,the right TO VOTE is how our government functions. The majority vote is essential to govern.

‘’Democrats Super-Majority, what a wasted oppurtunity!’’ Wrong. The Democrats without a bipartisan agreement pushed thru many of the credits you gave the President in your hub. If you research the credits you will be surprised that many are temporary relief and do not cover the majority of the citizens. Cherry picking ,who gets and don’t gets is not how government acts fairly for their citizens and taxpayers.

‘’Sorry to say, I have more Obama accomplishments coming, ‘’

Will jobs and the economy be one of them before America is destroyed. How about adding some of his failures, give us hubbers a fair and balanced report.

My Esoteric

I enjoyed the discussion and respect you for attempting to report the truth about the present condition of our country .In order to correct the corruption of Washington and irresponsible government officials, we the people must choose those who represent us more wisely.

Past President Reagan once said ‘’ the government is not the solution, the government is the problem‘’.

President Lincoln once said ‘’ to be silent is to be a coward’’.

My friend ( if allowed ), keep hubbing and searching for the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Listen to what President Obama says closely, many times it is not what he actually is doing.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

@Jon, I added HR 2608 to a new hub I wrote just on this topic titled http://myesoteric.hubpages.com/hub/A-Look-at-what-...

As a note, the Senate did pass it, but amended and therefore needs to be reconciled, I believe. I am not sure what, but a slightly bipartisan vote in the Senate tabled the measure.

Keep in mind, a President can't hold up a piece of passed legislation except in two instances, 1) if he vetos it and returns it to Congress or, 2) doesn't return it and doesn't sign it but Congress adjorns before the 10 day, I think, period the President has to sign it before the legislation automatically becomes law.

The Constitution was created by very smart men and very learned in the ways of assymblies. IF they had intended all legislation presented to either house to be voted on, then they would have writen that into the Constitution; they didn't. Instead, they wrote the procedures as they are which gave the House leader to be near total dictator over what happens or doesn't happen, what passes or doesn't pass in the House, so long as his party agrees to it, and for the Senate Majority leader to set the agenda and to bring things up to a vote or not; THAT in fact is what the Constitution intends. It also intends that the minority party in the Senate have the ability to bring things to a standstill via the fillabuster and thereby also control the agenda, to a degree, and determine what does or does not come to a vote in the Senate. I don't think the writers of the Constitution ever imagined a situation where the Minority leader could dictate the vote of his or her memebers, as we see today, under fear from losing there seat because of withdrawal of money support and the reaction of an extreme party base.


vrajavala profile image

vrajavala 5 years ago from Port St. Lucie

Your facts are distorted. the SBA only received several mlluon I'n stimulus, compared to the green industries.

The first points you made about the job losses at the very end of Bush's term. DUH. We know that the whole economic collapse of fall 2008 was the "October surprise" engineered by Barry's banking cartel.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks for stopping by and your comment,vrajavala. You will have to take up the authenticity of my SBA facts with the SBA since that is the source which Politico.com sites, although, I am not sure what difference it makes.

As to the '"October surprise" engineered by Barry's banking cartel', you got me there, please explain; I have never heard of this in my two years of studying this issue.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 5 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

How come no one mentioned their contribution to the American Dream, whatever that means .

The American Dream in 2009 to the present.

The Pew Hispanic Center reported that 6.1 million Hispanic children are poor compared with 5 million non-Hispanic white children and 4.4 million black children. The number of poor Hispanic children is at a record high, black children have a higher rate of poverty, 39%, compared with 35% for Hispanic children. The overall rate for white children is about 12%. The recession put more children of all races and ethnicities into poverty. The poverty rate for black children increased twice as fast. The 50,000 on food stamps, the 14+ million on unemployment and all time poverty rates are records of the Obama- Democrat majority control of the government.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

@Jon, thank you for commenting on one of my hubs again, I do appreciate it. The answer to your question is in your own comment, "Hispanic children. The overall rate for white children is about 12%. The RECECCESSION put more children of all races and ethnicities into poverty" (the caps are mine to highlight the important word.) Who caused the recession? Regardless of your beliefs in its causes, nobody, except a few Concservatives, pin thin on Obama. I won't go into who I think caused it, I have several other hubs that do.

So, by your own comment, all of those statistics you presented were the fault of whoever caused the recession; not Obama.

Now, what your comment, I think, was trying to imply; why hasn't President Obama done anything to prevent those statistics? My answer is, for the TWO years of his administration where he was able to, before the Conservatives chose to shutdown its effective operation, he did a lot. Here is why.

My research is showing that in EVERY major recession and depression up to and including the one in 1929, the government followed Conservative economic theory and did nothing; they let things happen without intervention in any meaningful way. (The moderate Congress in 1893 tried for farmers in Texas, but very conservative Bourbon Democrat Grover Cleveland vetoed it saying it is no business of the government to help Americans in distress, music to Conservative ears) The results of this lack of intervention was very high unemployment (it makes Obama's 9.1% look like heaven) massive failure of America's financial sector and bankruptcies by the thousands of major companies throughout America; human misery of such proportion to make 2009-2011 appear to be a walk-in-the-park.

Since 1929, and following the flurry of REGLATIONS and the change of economic theory away from that of the Conservatives, that resulted from it, two things happenened; 1)government started intervening to reduce the impact of economic downturns and 2)the great financially-based recessions stopped happening on the regular 10-20 year cycle they had been the previous 110 years following Conservative economic theory; in fact, we haven't had another recession the size of the ones that occurred in 1815, 1822, 1825, 1837/39, 1857, 1885, 1893, 1896, 1907, and 1929, until 2008.

Every economist of any merit agreed on one thing in October 2008, if something wasn't done in a big way, America was headed for a 1929-style depression. To his credit, President Bush violated everything he believed in and approved the TARP, over stenuous Conservative objections. President Obama then passed the stimulus, only because of the Democrats supermajority in the Senate, which, as it turns out was too small; the 4th quarter, 2008, economic data was not in at the time the stimulus plan was formulated. By the time the full extent of the recession was known, the Conservative propaganda machine as in full-swing and there was no way Obama could get any more stimulus passed, supermajority of not; there are Conservative Democrats you know.

Bottom line - if Bush and Obama had not done what they did, there would have been a depression and those numbers you presented may be double what they are.


jon ewall 5 years ago

My Esoteric

Just a not of interest.

Costly Regulations Cost Us American Jobs

According to a September 2010 report from the Small Business Administration, total regulatory costs amount to $1.75 trillion annually—enough money for businesses to provide 17.5 million private sector jobs with an average salary of $100,000. As of 2008, small businesses—which have created 64 percent of all new jobs in the past 15 years—face an annual regulatory cost of $10,585 per employee, which is 36 percent higher than the regulatory cost facing large firms. Some of these regulations include requiring microwave manufacturers to measure the amounts of energy their products use in the “off” position, stricter regulations on the amount of dust on American farms or imposing a fee on tree sales to promote tree sales. Unfortunately, President Obama continues to make the burden worse. According to Republican staff estimates, the government’s health care takeover has already added 6,578 pages of regulations and Federal Register notices and the laws major provision don’t take effect until 2014. A recent study by the Heritage Foundation found that an unprecedented 43 major regulations were imposed in fiscal year 2010 with a total economic cost of $26.5 billion, the highest total since at least 1981


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I appreciate your further comment Jon and the presentation of those statistics. They do make a compelling case until you start analyzing them and looking behind the numbers. I looked up the report but ended up with another conservative view on it but it was enough to let me know what I needed to comment back.

First, let me say that analysing numbers such as these was part of what I did as a cost analyst for the Air Force for 20 years; I am also a small business owner with about 35 employees and 200 independent contractors I keep busy full or part-time.

From the latter experience, I can tell you flat out that if I had to pay out in cash $300,000 per year (I am in the $7,000 range because of my size, the $10,000 only applies to companies with 20 or fewer employees) to comply with federal regulations, then I, and probably every other small business would be bankrupt because we couldn't jack our prices high enough to compete with the large corporations who only pay around $2,000 per employee. Well, we aren't backrupt, nor do I even have a line item in my books labeled "Federal Regulation Expense" so how does this contradiction in the SBA's reported it costs American businesses $1.7 Trillion per year devoted to compling with federal regulations; a Staggering number indeed.

From here is where it gets interesting and pundits, right and left-wing commentators start putting their spin on it, and the public starts getting bombarded with non-sensical results. I will only name a few but you should get the idea.

- The first misleading number is the average itself. When it is developed from a heterogeneous, highly stratified population, it loses ALL meaning; ANY interpretation you make from that particular number WILL be WRONG. Average only have real meaning when they come from homogeneous, unstratified populations - 20 year old males, for example. Move away from that to "all 20-year olds", then the average, while still usefull, is now less precise, and so on.

- The next misdirection is there is no differentiation in averages between stratifications, say how much is derived from complying with federal tax law (most of it, I bet) and regulations for mandatory drug testing vs laws to prevent smoking on airplanes

- A further partial deception is the apparent larger hit on smaller businesses than larger businesses. First, you have to make the assumption that all businesses split the costs proportionally equally; this simply isn't true and I am surprised at the SBA if they didn't take this into account. Where they are correct, however, is that IN THOSE CASES where the distribution is equal, then small businesses do take a bigger "per employee" hit to their profit because their fixed costs are generally a much larger portion of their total expenses than in larger companies; but only in those cases.

- In addition, no value to society is calculated to off-set the cost of the regualations such as the EPA regulations

- Finally, no break-out of "cash" cost to "non-cash, productivity" costs is given. I do my own taxes for my company in order to comply with those regulations; I don't pay myself anymore or less for that service yet my estimated time for doing that work is part of the $1.7 Trillion, and rightly so. The "cost" to my company, however, is not in dollars and cents, as most people, and Conservatives, read the SBA report, but in the lost opportunity of what I "might" have done otherwise with that time from "playing golf" to getting more business.

I think I will make this answer a hub so I can expand on it a bit more.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 5 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

THANK YOU FOR your response to my reply.

Have a great day

The President's jobs bill is scheduled to be debated in the Senate this coming week. Check c-spans program listings, they should have some hearings to show.

The 5.4 surtax on millionaires reminded me of the luxury taxes Congress placed on high expensive products some years ago.

The millionaires just stopped buying airplanes, boats, cars and stopped investing. Many of the effected industries went down the tubes and many workers were laid off.

Senator Coburn found $ 9trillion of waste in the government. President Obama and Congress needs to start cleaning up Washington, $4 trillion shouldn’t be hard to find for starters.

Keep hubbing.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

You have a good one as well, Jon. While you are quite correct in noting the Democrats didn't do their homework in coming up with the luxury tax, this surtax doesn't work the same. The luxury tax hit industries with elastic products and ones where there were alternative sources of supplies.

This surcharge is 5.6 cents on each dollar earned, that is not offset by a tax loophole only the wealthy have available to them or a tax deduction, which EXCEEDS one million dollars. The surcharge doesn't affect any industry in particular, if fact, the intent, which history has shown to be work in these economic conditions, is that the overall economic benefit which accrue from such a surcharge clearly outweigh the negative impact the reduction in buying power might have on the American economy.

The argument the Conservatives use assumes a combination of the following two things are true: EVERY penny of the 5.6 cents would have been SPENT on either 1) American goods and services or 2) investment in American companies.

For every penny of the 5.6 cents that would have been spent of foreign investments or goods and services, their argument grows weaker until it becomse none existant.

BTW, I see that although the Jobs Bill would have passed a simple majority but failed because, I believe, all Republicans (Conservative or not) and two Conservative Democrats voted against creating jobs.)


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 5 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

Is a surcharge a tax ??? If it is another tax on whoever, I seemed to recall President Obama saying’’ that it is not the right thing to raise taxes in a recession‘’, yes or no. On Mon. Obama spoke to union members in Pittsburg telling them that he will get approval to spend more money in the public sector. One must listen to what he says closely. Stimulus two is the same as stimulus one, which spent $1 trillion to end the recession and bring down unemployment. IT DIDN’T WORK

Billions were given to states to keep union public sector jobs and in some cases the funds were used to beef up union pension funds. Maybe someone will investigate where did the money go and to whom.

Not once has Obama referred to private sector jobs and businesses in the past. The jobs bill as phony as it was had short term help and conditions that businesses found to be unacceptable. Obama is in campaign mode, same old song on how he will make things better.

‘’ The Man’’ don’t have a record to stand on except knocking 1/3 of the government, the Republicans. Just a reminder that Congress is the House and the Senate. Obama don’t complain or mention the Democrats when he refers to Congress, wonder why.

Thanks for the friendly debate.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Good conversation Jon, thanks. As a GENERAL rule-of-thumb, Obama and the Conservatives are right, it is not a good idea to raises ALL taxes in a recession. But, as the Democrats and economists patiently explain, over and over again. that it is sometimes BENEFICIAL to raise SOME taxes in recession. Unfortunately, "You can't raise taxes in a recession" while patently wrong on its fact and in history, it makes a fantanstic sound bite the Conservatives love to use.

When is it good to raise SOME taxes in a recession? When those taxes bring revenue into the government WHEN THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS REVENUE, and when those taxes which are raised, DO NOT IMPACT CONSUMPTION (I wish comments allowed more than capitalization for emphasis, I am not yelling, btw) or investment. Most economists believe that collecting and extra 5.6 cents of the millionth and fist dollar and more will benefit society more than hurt it.

The example you use about funding to States going to Unions is a favorite tactic of those on the far left and right, when more cogent, fact-based argument don't work because it hides the truth of the matter. By saying "some" State money went to the union pensions, I will take your word for it that this is a great sin, implies that the entire part of the stimulus that was used to keep State workers employed was a huge waste of money. (This is the same argument the Conservatives are using with Solyndra, btw) Isn't this just like saying that because the government provided a bunch of starving people a huge barrel of apples was a waste of government money because that barrel contained one bad apple? Is it the Conservatives position that the government should simply let those people starve because the barrel might contain one bad apple? Even if you don't believe the government should get involved, doesn't the same login apply to a private agency, should one happen along in time before all of the people are dead? Why should the private charity waste money on buying a barrel of apples to give to the starving if that barrel MIGHT contain, or even WILL contain a bad apple or two? Curious minds woulde like to know.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 5 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

Check out a C- Span program shown on Sat. Oct. 14, 2011. The program was a replay of President Obama’s weekly you-tube report to the world. Obama had the same old story about jobs, hiring teachers, firemen, policeman ( all public sector workers supported by local taxpayers ) and construction workers ( union only ) as required to get stimulus money. The Republicans are holding up legislation to put people back to work , a regular part of his speeches .

Note that he only speaks of Congress in terms that Congress is the Republicans. How disingenuous can the President be, he is fully aware that the Democrat Senate is the main hold up of job legislation.

For you information, the Republican House has passed 12 job bills that have been sent to the Senate. Senator Reid is not allowing them to get to the floor for debate, amend or given a vote. The House has a 2012 budget passed as far back as Feb. The Senate has not even presented one as yet, Obama’s was rejected by a 97-0 vote in the Senate.

Congressman Mc Carthy gave a response to the President’s talk .

If possible take the time to get up to date on ‘’The Mans ‘’ activities.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

@Jon, could you provide the link to the C-Span video you reference, I couldn't find it for either Friday, the 14th or Saturday, the 15th. I had to check out that Obama would actually limit stimulus money to ONLY union construction workers as opposed to ALL construction workers; that one I have to see to believe. Also, please explain your "as required to get stimulus money." Does this mean that only "hiring teachers, firemen, policeman ( all public sector workers supported by local taxpayers ) and construction workers ( union only )" are eligible to receive stimulus money and that is where 100% of the jobs bill funding is going?

As to who controls Congress, I have commented and written many times now showing how the Conservatives have 'effective' control of Congress with outright ownership of the House and determining what passes the Senate via their lock on the filabuster; the most recent example of that is if the 'Conservatives hadn't filabustered' the Jobs Bill, it would have PASSED the Senate last week. Please reconcile that with your assertion.

As to the House passing 12 jobs bills, that is pure Conservative hyperbole; which I just finished a hub about - Politics by Sound Bite and Hyperbole; not Facts nor Logic: Why are Conservatives So Successful With this Strategy? [85] The House has passed only 4 bills that would save or create jobs, as of 9/25/2011 when I wrote my hub "A Look at What the 112th Congress U.S. House of Representative's Conservative-Tea Party Has Accomplished"; three of those are law now. This hub was an outgrowth of our conversations on this hub and lists each piece of legislation actually passed by the House that deals with Jobs. If I have missed any of the 12 you mention, please give me the HR numbers and I will include them.

[EVERYBODY, PLEASE VOTE IN MY POLL :-), let's see if we can break my record, lol]


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

BTW, of the 11 job related bills 'passed' by the House by the end of September 2011, 5 were job "killing" or "preventing and all but one was killed by the Senate. The one that was passed and became law would have been a bonanza for the accounting industry if it hadn't been passed.

Of the remaining two, one, the Defense Appropriations Act, can be considered Job Saving, but wasn't part of the 4 I mentioned below; the other was absorbed into another bill.


!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?%%%%%%########## 4 years ago

Obama has done some accomplishments. though their is still more to be done, thats why im voting for President Obama this year. He need 4 more year to accomplish and do whats correct. To fix this country Economically.


cnatraininginfo profile image

cnatraininginfo 4 years ago from California

I don't think we can really blame the president for most of what has happened. Remember the president has very limited abilities in office. He can make a bill for what ever he wants but then congress has to pass it they can turn his bill down they can make there own bills and pass them and he doesn't have a choice in it. I think if we want to fix everything we would have to start by getting rid of all the lobbyists and then get rid of all of congress and the house of representatives who have been poisoned by money from lobbyists and start fresh. But that won't happen so things will not improve.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks for reading and commenting, @CNAtraininginfo. It really is frustrating, isn't it.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 4 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

Howe times change.

1.27 House Jobs bills in the Senate waiting for approval by the Senate.

What’s the hold-up, Obama or Reid?

http://www.majorityleader.gov/JobsTracker/

2.4/13/12

House Republicans to Tackle Ambitious Budget

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/14/us/politics/hous...

3.Obama feeling the heat from oil producers

The TRUTH

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-world-cavuto/in.../v/1523106926001/obama-feeling-the-heat-from-oil-producers/?playlist_id=86929

4. Obama feeling the heat from oil producers

The TRUTH

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-world-cavuto/in.../v/1523106926001/obama-feeling-the-heat-from-oil-producers/?playlist_id=86929

5.Barak Obama Campaign Promises During the 2008 presidential election campaign http://hubpages.com/politics/barakobamacampaignpro...

6.4/09/12

Study claims Obama's health care law would raise deficit

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/09/study-c...

7. Obama’s Supreme Court Remarks

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012...

8.4/15/12

Obama chief strategist David Axelrod

Live and uncut, scare tactics?

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/inde.../v/1563643318001/is-president-obama-vulnerable/?playlist_id=86913

April 19, 2012

Democrats Joining G.O.P. on Keystone Pipeline approval

Obama has said he would veto. The bill passed 293 to 127,

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/20/us/politics/demo...

looks like finally some members are working together?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks for the links and comments, Jon. I popped over to your hub you referenced to review.

Obviously, there is nothing to reply to since this hub is simply a list of what promises Politifact or myself have considered he has fulfilled.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 4 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

Your hub

''What has President Obama Done Right in Three Years? LOTS!'' ALL THAT SOUNDS PRETTY good.

check my hub about candidate obama's promises if elected. Can you rate him on his promisses?

Barak Obama Campaign Promises During the 2008 presidential election campaign http://hubpages.com/politics/barakobamacampaignpro...


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 4 years ago from Wisconsin

Great Hub pointing out the good that Obama has done.

Point of fact though... the stimulus was a BAD idea. If we had just divided up that money among the employees who's jobs were at risk, we would have done more. If we had divided up that money among EVERYONE in the country, it would have been $50,000 a piece. That was twice my yearly salary at the time. Instead we watched that money go to CEO bonuses, executive salaries and to the banks bottom lines. The banks STILL fired a whole lot of people, and by extension caused the firing of a whole lot of other people, and all they got was unemployment. AND after 99 weeks, when those people on unemployment were STILL trying to get new jobs, the Feds cut off unemployment extensions and left those people out in the cold.

Yeah.. great job.

and stopping the Iraq war? An illegal war where we basically accused them of crimes we now know they didn't commit? We should have left AND apologized for basically destroying their country for no good reason. Oh.. and you were a few months early. We didn't leave until December 2011.

The problem is... even for Obama (who I admit is better than average) his rights don't outnumber his wrongs. He was and is a BAD president. So was Bush, even worse. We should not be judging our president based on their record of keeping their promises, and we shouldn't judge them in comparison to other presidents. Keeping promises is such a basic virtue that we should accept it as normal when they DO keep them and be shocked and outraged when they fail to keep even a few. We consider a president great when he keeps more than half his promises and when the country is a little better off after his administration, no matter if he had much to do with it or not. That is DUMB. WE NEED HIGHER STANDARDS.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 4 years ago from usa

Nick Lucas

Heard that the Obama administration is still some 700,000 jobs short of what he inherited on Jan. 2009. When he entered office, jobs and the economy were priority. Somewhere along the journey , the President got lost.Deficits of $5+ trillion is a record for almost 4 years in office.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Good to see you again Jon. To me, having regained all but 700,000 jobs, I will assume your number is correct, when that was the number of jobs Bush was losing PER MONTH, when Obama took office only three years ago is an amazingly low number. I don't know if any President in history has gotten anywhere close to break-even in that short a period of time when faced with the catostrophic job losses, what was it 8 million, resulting from a near depression. Can you name one?

It won't be Reagan who, who facing a much milder recession,

- took two years to get back to the same number of employed. avg 1981 was 100.4 million vs 100.8 million in 1983.

-- Compare that to Obama who had averages of 139.9M in 2009 and 139.9M in 2011. It has gotten even better in the last few months.

- It probabaly won't be the unemployment rate for in 1981, it was 7.1% (up from 3.6& when Nixon took office; unemployment went down under Carter, btw); it didn't get back to 7.1% until 1986.

-- Compare that to Obama who started at 7.9% in Jan 2009 and is now at 8.1%, and falling in Apr 2012.

- How about the number considered unemployed? In 1980, the year before Reagan took office and before the beginning of the recession that started after Reagan took office, the average was 7.6M. It took Reagan to 1987 for that number to fall to 7.2M. (if you use the year of the major effects of the recession as the start point, then it would be 8.3M in 1981, not to return to that number until 1985.

-- for Obama, those averages would be 7.1M in 2007 and 13.7M in 2011 (a little less today), when you consider when the recession started. If you look at when the recession saw its major effect, it would be 14.3M in 2009 and 13.7M in 2011, much better than Reagan!

- or how about those not in the workforce at all. Well, you can't use it because it has never decreased more than 1M except during WW II.

I don't remember Conservatives (or Dems, for that matter) screaming at Reagan for his poorer performance than they are at Obama. Can you tell me why that is?

Further, you do understand don't you that much of that deficit comes from the loss of tax revenue due to the Conservative sponsered recession.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks for reading and commenting @Swords. Question, if a stimuls was such a bad idea, why is it then that when faced with the kind of devestation Obama was looking at, most conservative economists (Greenspan, Bernanke, Paulson) agree that a stimulus is really the ONLY option government has to mitigate the harm caused by the near depression?

BTW, if you consider the total population (every man, woman, and child - 313 million) you would need $15.7 TRILLION to each $50,000; slightly more than the $787 billion stimulus, wouldn't you say? If you limit to employable people - 235 million - you would need $11.5 Trillion. You sure you have your numbers right?

Exactly when did the Feds cut-off unemloyment? All I remember is the Dems wanting to extending it and the Conservatives saying no, don't do it unless you cut some other support program for those needing help; Conservatives caved each time, however.

It was Jan 2009 when Obama announced a date certain to withdraw, in a logical and safe manner, from Iraq, and that was Dec 2011. I am presuming you are not saying Obama got us into that war, which I agree, shouldn't have been started in the first place.

While I agree with your basic premis of your last paragraph, I don't see where you made any case at all that Obama is a BAD president, although better than Bush. You listed only two examples which most American's think were actually good ideas.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 4 years ago from usa

HSchneider

'' I would include helping to shepherd the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill through.''

May 17, 2012

Regulators are putting the finishing touches on the rule, a crucial piece of the Dodd-Frank regulatory overhaul law.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/senate-comm...

It appears that the Congress passed a bill that was not finished written, that truly is an accomplishment, Obama style.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Jon, I hope HS is still following this hub and will respond, but I am wondering if you understand how laws passed by Congress are implemented by the Executive branch. The first thing agency(s) who are charged with enforcing the law do is write rules, which go out for public comment, that implement the law they are charged with enforcing. That is what the article you are referring to is talking about.


JT 4 years ago

Thanks I haven't laughed so hard in years. #GTFO2012

One and done.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 4 years ago from usa

hubbers

Recent events on the budget.

On CBS

the Ryan budget by Congressman Van Hollen

http://republicanredefined.com/2012/04/01/contrast

March 25, 2012

Rep. Paul Ryan defends GOP budget plan

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1529380822001/rep-paul-...

Meet the Press 5/20/12

The Ryan/ Durbin 2013 budget discussion

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/meet-the-press/47494280...

5/20/12

Ryan / Goolsbee debate on Ryan budget.

Who has the best plan to put Americans back to work?

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1647909607001/ryan-gool...

BE THE JUDGE,there are 2 opinions


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 4 years ago from Wisconsin

ME: So your criteria for the Stimulus being a good idea or a bad idea is opinion? If two parties that can't find their head with a GPS say something is good, that doesn't make it good, and if a public who still thinks Republicans and Democrats need just one more chance and they won't lie to us THIS time think the stimulus is a good idea, it is because the Dems and Reps sold them on it.

Most conservative economists think the stimulus was a good idea because they are CONSERVATIVE economists, and many of them had a stake in the survival of the banks that we loaned money to. They are the people we usually see when someone wants to talk about the economy, but they aren't the one's we should be listening to. The people who these people listen to when figuring out where to put their money say otherwise. They think the stimulus was just throwing money away. They warned what would happen long before it did, and they think it's going to happen again unless we fundamentally change what we're doing. These people don't get the press.

And what's this talk about a NEAR depression? This is a FULL depression. More than 40% of the economy.... GONE, and we still haven't recovered. The recessions of the 70's and 90's are nothing compared to this. We haven't averted anything. We're still at the bottom of the well, and we don't even know if we're going to continue to slide further down or recover. The government says we're in a recovery because they have to to keep their jobs. Meanwhile the jobs we have supposedly added to the workforce aren't even enough to keep up with population growth. How is this a "recovery"?

The stimulus didn't do anything besides keep the banks from going under, and that's not what we needed done. We needed the banks to go under and we needed to save the employees. The banks that caused or helped along the crash have no business continuing to cash paychecks. They need to go away and the banks that come along after them have to know why.

btw: The number of "employable" people isn't 213 million. It's more like 190 million, which comes out to around $13,000 each, but that's every employable man and woman in the country. The $800billion stimulus is just the money we spend in the beginning. It's gone MUCH higher since then and isn't projected to stop for a LONG time. If you're going to consider every man, woman and child (which I wasn't. Children don't pay taxes and aren't expected to have a job), then you need to go by families which is still around $38,000. $800 billion (which is only where the stimulus STARTED at) can be comfortably divided among all the families in the U.S. and still be more effective than the current stimulus. I think $38,000 would have gone a long way. And I'm not suggesting that. I would prefer to divide the money only among those employees who lost their jobs during the crash. That would be a tidy sum of money (around $150,000) that would have cost less than what we have spent on the problem so far, and it would have been more effective than just paying off the CEO's and the executives and the banks bottom lines. This is helping the people who deserve the help. Not the people who had a hand in creating this mess.

Point of fact, the money congress has thrown at the economy to pay for this "recovery" now stands at $2.8 trillion and will reach $10 trillion before they expect the economy to have "recovered" The stimulus is going to cost us much more than $800 billion, and so far it hasn't done anything.

And no.. I guess technically, the government didn't CUT OFF unemployment, but it sure was an odd moment to stop the payments, considering unemployment benefits account for such a small portion of the dollars that have been hemorrhaging from the budget in the last few years. It was less than Defense, less than education, less than a fourth of the money we spend on just the interest on the debt (and less than 2% of the money spent on the economy was spent on unemployment). So yeah... they ALLOWED unemployment benefits to be stopped under the guise of halting wasteful spending. In the meantime, wasteful spending continued, but we weren't funding the one part of the budget where it would have done the most good. Good job, guys. And I lay the blame for that squarely with the Republicans, but then again, I don't see the Dems trying to fix that little oversight now, so they don't escape blame either.

No, I can't condone the "stimulus" package. It was too much money to the wrong people and it hasn't even done what it was supposed to do (stimulate a recovery)

And my comment on the Iraq war was that we shouldn't give Obama props for doing something right, any more than we should give him props for not committing a crime. There was no reason to go to war with Iraq except for fabricated evidence that has since been discredited. We should be outraged that Bush isn't in jail, not happy that Obama stopped the war. Like I said. Higher standards.

And the bad still outnumbers the good. Not closing Gitmo, not stopping rendition, not stopping the mass wiretaps. These are all issues that are fundamental to our ideals as a country and the freedom of United States citizens, and he can't see his way clear to putting things back the way they're supposed to be? Seriously?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thank you for stopping by again and leaving your thoughts, Swordsbane, although I must disagree with much of what you opined.

1. First, I am a numbers kind of guy, so I stay away from subjective opinions as much as I can when I have good data to back me up, which I do in the case of the stimulus. (BTW, it was Bush's TARP that saved the banks which were largely responsible for the depth of our recession. Obama's stimulus was directed at the economy in general.)

2. Actually, conservative economists "disagree" (not agree, as you state) with the idea of stimuluses, that is why they are conservative economomist. Stimulus work at the macroeconomic level which is a liberal, Keynesian theory, and not at the microeconomic level which conservative economists believe, except in dire circumstances, is all you need; they reject the idea of macroeconomics out of hand.

3. I am not sure who "these people" are that you are refering to because there isn't hardly one liberal or conservative economist worth their salt who thinks the stimulus was a bad idea in this situation. I emphasize the conservative economists only because they are so opposed to the idea to start with.

4. I suggest you go back and study what life was like during the 1929 depression and 1937 recession before we discuss further whether or not 2008 can be classified as a depression. What we went just went through was a walk-in-the-park when compared to those downturns!

5. My 235 million comes from the Department of Labor, so I will stick with that. Even if we go with your number, you are still looking at $9.5 trillion, about nine times what has been spent so far.

6. If the stimulus wasn't supposed to go to the unemployed, non-rich taxpayers, school teachers, and construction workers, exactly who was it supposed to go to? You confuse me on this one. (If you are thinking of TARP and the banks, remember, we got ALL of that money back.)

7. OK, I will buy your comment about Obama and Iraq, makes sense to me.


American Romance profile image

American Romance 4 years ago from America

I glanced through the comments and it seems heated, My contribution to all this would be a book I read that showed how the economy would have revived 4 years earlier had Roosevelt left it alone! Americans can fix things for themselves if government stays out of it. How can it be a free market if government intervenes for some and not others? Where is the fairness when millions of dollars were taken from investors and given to unions? (GM) GM is now giving bonuses and still owe the government billions in stock buy back????


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

AR, thanks for your comment. By July, I hope, you will have a chance to read my book on that subject, if you so choose. I do a review of most recessions in America's history and do a comparative analysis of the two economic systems used over that time.

The facts are, in all of the recessions, and there were a LOT of them, prior to the one in 1929, you got your wish ... that is why there were so many and why almost all of them were the size of 2008 or worse, at least three approached 1929 levels. In none of them did government take any action to mitigate the impact of the downturn, it just let it happen and the country, as a result, suffered horribly; 2008 was a walk-in-the-park in comparison.

You are right, one of Roosevelts actions did lengthen the 1929 depression, but it wasn't his initial policies, 1) removing the gold standard and 2) instituting the massive government work programs. It was when he implement those programs in 1933 is when the economy finally stopped its slide and began improving. In fact, the economy, not unemployment, had gotten back up to 1929 levels by 1937 when he listened to the conservative drumbeat to balance the budget and reduce spending. Since Roosevelt was, at heart, a fiscal moderate anyway, he did, big time. He would have made any Tea Party member proud today. He virtually eliminated all of his work programs and other such stimulative efforts in one fell swoop. Unfortunatly, like today, the economy wasn't strong enough for such a shock and it immediately fell back into the Recession of 1937, which last until WW II.

THAT is why Roosevelt caused the 1929 depression to last four more years, he followed the conservatives plan.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 4 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

''I have more Obama accomplishments coming, lol (btw, my source is Politico.com.)''

Here is a good one for your list.

Administration Oil Strategy Contributes to Price Increases 2009-2012

http://www.scribd.com/doc/87353590/Administration-...


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I looked at your linked and noticed a couple of things on his graph. Despite all of his negative examples above it, prices are actually declining at the end of 2012. and as he says about the increased production under Obama being due to projects started before his administration, so can the increase in prices (although neither are the real cause). In fact, he needs to revise his chart and show the sharply lower prices for all oil derivitives we are experiencing today. I am wondering if you didn't just help Obama rather than diminish him?


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 4 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

Don't hide the TRUTH!


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I want to thank all of you who took the time to vote in my polls. This is my first hub where more than 100 of you have in any given poll. I do appreciate it.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 4 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

NOTE THE DATE 6/27/12

Supreme court rules on obamacare.

THE HOUSE votes for or against A G Holder.

to be contiued ?


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

"Previously, the federal government would guarantee 85 percent for loans at or below $150,000 and up to 75 percent for larger loans. Under the new program, the government will guarantee up to 90 percent of all loans for a limited time."

... I'm still looking for Constitutional authority to arbitrarily fund arbitrary businesses ... let me know when you find that...


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

"Increase profits for hospitals and doctors. "

And this is supposed to make health care 'affordable' ... how?


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

"IMPLEMENT "WOMEN-OWNED BUSINESS" CONTRACTING PROGRAM"

'Cause women need to be just a little more equal than men.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 4 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

''What has President Obama Done Right in Three Years? ''

Not too much, IF OBAMA told the truth!


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

"The plan is not a government takeover of health care like in Canada or Britain."

Yes, it is. The federal government, actually, the executive branch, has already obligated private companies to provide birth control and abortifacients in their health care insurance.

The ObamaCare bill is 2000+ pages. That's rather controlling.


mslizzee profile image

mslizzee 4 years ago from Buncombe County, NC

hahahahahahahahaha

You liberals kill me.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

... I'm still looking for Constitutional authority to arbitrarily fund arbitrary businesses ... let me know when you find that...


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Not sure what you mean by "arbitrarily fund", Nicomp.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

What I mean by "arbitrarily fund" is that Obama gave our tax money to some businesses and not others. He subjectively identified companies that he decided were deserving of 'free' money to the exclusion of other businesses. Solyndra is an example, also Tesla and Nissan are others.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Ok, I see what you mean, and that would include GM as well as Chrysler and all the big banks who got TARP funds, I would suspect. You do know you have to say Bush-Obama when you speak of Solyndra and other such programs supported under that DOE program begun under Bush.

I suspect you know this isn't something new Obama created out of whole cloth but something Congresses and Presidents have done since President Washington's time; you just choose to try to saddle Obama with the blame. It is done in our tax code, it is done with grants and guarantees such as the programs that funded Solyndra, it is done with bailout loans to prevent nationwide economic chaos and meltdown, it is done in uncountable ways by all levels of governmnet since this country was founded.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

"No, Nick, try 4 million jobs, check out CBO's analysis, not Rick Perry's unreliable math. "

1. A president cannot create jobs unless he hires someone and pays them with his own money. Obama has lots of money -- he signed a 500K book deal one week before inauguration, but he probably hasn't hired too many folks in the past 3 years.

2. Any so-called increase in jobs totals is partially due to public-sector jobs that are a drain on the economy anyway. Read a little about about the theory of Opportunity Cost as it pertains to economics.

3. Factor in the jobs that have been lost due to the stifling of the domestic petroleum industry by Obama's policies. Drilling permits on public land have been cut off. The Keystone Pipeline has been thwarted. No new refineries have been started under his administration.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

1 The ad claims Obama lobbied to “kill” the Keystone XL pipeline. Not true. So far he has delayed a decision on some of it — while endorsing construction of a portion that will carry more low-cost oil to Gulf Coast refineries.

2. Since I absolutely know what I am talking about when I say the government is able to create jobs through a stimulus, and have proven it mathematically in other hubs, I will stick to that statement.

3. It is interesting you mention oil refineries, you must not like Republicans very much do you. Here is a little quote from Wikipedia: "In 2009 through 2010, as revenue streams in the oil business dried up and profitability of oil refineries fell due to lower demand for product and high reserves of supply preceding the economic recession, oil companies began to close or sell refineries." Can you spell the Great Conservative Recession of 2008 being responsible for no new refineries during Obama's term?

Or how about this little factoid regarding the Reagan-Bush years. "More than half the refineries that existed in 1981 are now closed due to low utilization rates and accelerating mergers.[21] As a result of these closures total US refinery capacity fell between 1981 to 1995" or "In 1982 (the earliest data provided), the United States operated 301 refineries ... In 2010, there were 149 operable U.S. refineries ..." Now, how many years were there Republicans in the White House? - 20 and how many with a Democrat? - 8

I do appreciate you bringing up this singlular failure of the Conservatives, Nick.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

"It is interesting you mention oil refineries, you must not like Republicans very much do you. Here is a little quote from Wikipedia: "In 2009 through 2010, as revenue streams in the oil business dried up... "

Obviously this exonerates Obama. nyah nyah politics. Sigh.

"Since I absolutely know what I am talking about when I say the government is able to create jobs through a stimulus, and have proven it mathematically in other hubs, I will stick to that statement."

OK. You may not be aware of basic economic principles such as Opportunity Cost but you can cling to whatever you like. Actually reading how the TARP money was doled out would also be enlightening. Some of it was used to pay people's rent, spiff up sidewalks, and other arbitrary micro-projects completely unconstitutional and hardly job-creating.

"The ad claims Obama lobbied to “kill” the Keystone XL pipeline. Not true. So far he has delayed a decision on some of it —"

I mentioned no ad. How long will you brook his delay before you call it a kill? If Bush delayed the project this long, would you phrase it differently?

"I do appreciate you bringing up this singlular failure of the Conservatives, Nick."

There you go again... Obama talking points... 'at least he's not as bad as his predecessors.' FYI, they've all failed us and BHO puts the icing on the cake by consolidating federal power, ignoring the Constitution, and running up more debt than all the previous conservatives and liberals combined. At least he's not Stalin, I guess. Hang on to that.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

As to economics and what "opportunity costs" etc mean, I will hold up my education and 20-year career in that field to yours any time you choose. (Not aware of basic economic principals, sheesh, you hit me where it hurts. I best turn in those awards and commendations I received from the Department of Defense from "not knowing basic economic principals" shouldn't I. In fact, they should probably demand all of their money back which they spent training me in basic and advanced economic principles since I clearly didn't learn anything in many years of study.)

The ad, is a recent one put out by one where you get many of your hyperbolic and misleading statements.

The information regarding oil refineres wasn't from any Obama talking points, just from a history I found on ... oil refineries; something you could find easily enough with a quick search on the Internet, it took me all of five minutes, maybe.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

"As to economics and what "opportunity costs" etc mean, I will hold up my education and 20-year career in that field to yours..."

Good grief, instead of being so defensive, explain the concept of Opportunity Cost in relation to your so-called 'job creation' scenario. Explain how confiscating money from one person's pocket to put into another person's pocket actually creates a job. I'd love to hear it from someone as learned as you claim to be.

Please! Don't tell me how smart you are, don't tell me how many awards you've earned... show me !


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thought you would never ask. Here, try this one for starters: http://hubpages.com/politics/The-Stimulus-Can-Give...

Now, provide one of your own.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

I searched your article for "opportunity" and found nothing. Based on the title I see you are still misinformed about how the government redistributes wealth, unless you were expressing sarcasm.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

All you have to do is click on it, unless that doesn't work on your browser. The full name is The Stimulus Can Giveth and the Budget Cut Can Taketh Away. Which, as I prove in that hub, is absolutely true under the appropriate circumstances.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 4 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

in 3.6 years,Obamacare is his major accomplishment according to Vce President Biden and the Democrats.Looks like a massive tax bill to the middle class.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/07/07/...


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Jon, thanks for the mental exercise to wake me up in the morning, it is fun to tear articles like the one you presented apart; I used to analyze analyses like this for breakfast, back in the day.

Stephen Ohlemacher says: "The Supreme Court's decision to uphold most of President Barack Obama's health-care law will come home to roost for most taxpayers in about 21/2 years, when they'll have to start providing proof on their tax returns that they have health insurance."

- he says that like it is the end-of-the-world. As I recall, anybody who itemizes already does that already, don't they? For those that don't, it will probably be a check box subject to the penalties of making a false statement.

Stephen Ohlemacher says: "That scenario puts the Internal Revenue Service at the center of the debate, renewing questions about whether the agency is capable of policing the health-care decisions ..."

- That question was laid to rest a long time ago in many Congressional hearings where the IRS testified and showed why the impact is very minimal, period.

Stephen Ohlemacher says: "The changes [Obamacare incentives, subsidies, and penalties] will require new regulations, forms and publications, computer programs and a big outreach program to explain it all to taxpayers and tax professionals. Businesses that don't claim an exemption will have to prove they offer health insurance to employees."

- What Mr. Ohlemacher just described in his first sentence is very true. It is very true of this act, and it is very true of EVERY act that has a tax effect passed by either a Democratic or Republican Congress. What he is decrying as a catastrophe of monumental proportions is actually run-of-the-mill work for the IRS once Congress gets done screwing around with the tax code, something they do on a regular basis. As to the poor businesses, first, 60 or 70% of businesses won't have to provide insurance in the first place, they are too small, mine is too small, although I do anyway. Of the remaining 30%, most do already; so where is the beef in his claim? BTW, of the many who are too small and can't afford it, many will be able to now (mainly self-employed) because of the new insurance pools being created and the subsidies provided.

Stephen Ohlemacher says: "Treasury spokeswoman Sabrina Siddiqui said, "The overwhelming majority of funds used by the agency to implement the Affordable Care Act go to administer the premium tax credits, which will be a tax cut averaging about $4,000 for more than 20 million middle-class people and families."

- How interesting, I did not know that; a tax cut for 20 million middle class Americans, how about them apples!


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

"he says that like it is the end-of-the-world. As I recall, anybody who itemizes already does that already, don't they? "

Absolutely not. American itemizing may elect to attempt to deduct health insurance premiums at their discretion. They are not required to report health insurance premium expenditures. They are not taxed/penalized for a lack of health insurance premium expenditures.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Nick, to be credible, you need to get your acronyms correct. You said in your hub, which I will finish this evening that

"The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is colloquially know as the "TARP" legislation. "

The acronym for the former legislation is ARRA and the name for TARP, a Bush era piece of legislation passed in Oct 2008, is the Troubled Asset Relief Program.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

"As to the poor businesses, first, 60 or 70% of businesses won't have to provide insurance in the first place, they are too small, mine is too small, although I do anyway. "

More social engineering. Whoopeee. Obama gets to decide what employees deserve insurance based on his arbitrary metric of # of employees.

And don't forget the 29 exemptions already awarded to 'small' businesses such as McDonalds and United Agricultural Benefit Trust, which is a company that provides coverage to farm workers in California. Can you taste the irony?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

You missed his point, Nick. Ohlemacher was making the point that the IRS must now make a lot of changes in order to have everybody show proof of insurance. My point is, they don't have to do that because the mechanism is already there.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Nick, given your inability to distinguish between ARRA and TARP, I suspect you don't understand what difference is between a "small" business and whatever catagory McDonalds was placed in, most likely resturatants, to receive special treatment. I don't know what this other thing you mentioned is. Have you bothered to look into the reasons behind the resturant worker exemption to see if it makes economic sense, like the exemption for businesses with less than 30 or 50 employees, I forget which at the moment, does? Or, is it your forte to just throw out impressive sounding numbers like ... 29 ... that have no context what so ever?


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

"Have you bothered to look into the reasons behind the resturant worker exemption to see if it makes economic sense, like the exemption for businesses with less than 30 or 50 employees, I forget which at the moment, does?"

Now it's about economics? You're a hoot. I can't possibly hang with you if you plan to swing between social engineering and economic prudence.

I thought it was about giving *everyone* health insurance.

If you wanna take a position, let me know.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Are you suggesting you are not a multi-tasker?


stanwshura profile image

stanwshura 4 years ago

Nicomp: "social engineering" as oppossed to what - some GOP accelerant poured onto the burning midde-class and those who strive even for *that*, in some dogmatic, Darwinian dumbassery that says, in essence, that those who are struggling deserve it, are lazy and CHOOSE to swim in poverty's swamp because it'th oh tho muchth fuuun, and to milk society and "da man", and so...fuck 'em??

That is plain vanilla crazy!

And about as cruel as it gets.

-stan


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

@stanwshura : argumentum ad hominem.

I love liberals. They are so tolerant of other viewpoints.


stanwshura profile image

stanwshura 4 years ago

You're a riot, Nicomp. I merely expressed my opinion. You think this unwise, comrad?

You stink up the joint with your inapt and implicitly derogatory "social engineering" and *I'm* intolerant?

Pot, kettle, black, buddy boy.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 4 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

After breakfast,have a nice day.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

"You're a riot, Nicomp. I merely expressed my opinion. You think this unwise, comrad?"

Comrad? You called me 'comrad'(e)? We have a new definition of irony. In the words of Inigo Montoya: '" You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."'

"You stink up the joint with your inapt and implicitly derogatory "social engineering" and *I'm* intolerant?"

Yes. Now you're catching on. Keep reading my comments and I will set you straight.

"Pot, kettle, black, buddy boy."

You really zinged me there.


stanwshura profile image

stanwshura 4 years ago

Tu quoque, hypocrita?


Just Me 4 years ago

To Stanwshura: The MAJORITY of those on the 'poverty rolls' take advantage of it by NOT caring to better themselves and why not? Everything is basically FREE to po' lil' o' them. No, they don't want to work if they don't have to. They know how to play the game and the people employed in that area help them learn it by teaching them the tricks/loopholes. The bleeding heart liberals just love to feed them more freebies and why not, the impoverished, hispanics, blacks, native americans make up a huge percentage of votes.....who wants to give up all the free stuff? Our society is sorely crippled and the true meaning of the welfare program has lost it's true meaning.

It's time to put Bush-bashing to rest.

Esoterica: you come across as being arrogant, egotistical as well as a narrow-minded know-it-all - and that your opinion ought to be mine.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thank you for your comments Just Me. I am curious though, what is you data source for your claim that the "majority" of those on the poverty rolls don't care to better themselves? Is that from a Gallup poll or something? I would like to study it.


Mitch 4 years ago

Even though I enjoyed the read, unfortunately the statistics above are very innacurate and just completely made-up. Not sure where you got your numbers, oh wait, you didn't site anything...


Mitch 4 years ago

Stupid autocorrect (cite anything)

Also, look at the dollar per dollar in the deficity.

Even though I don't like Bush: 4.8 trillion in 8 Years

Obama: 5 trillion in less than 4 years...

Can't say the economy is doing well when you are borrowing money and making a bigger deficit... This being said, I Loathe the fact that the government "borrows" with no intention of paying back our social security and they give permission to "borrow" this money even though they do not pay into it. Yes, The House and Senate do not pay into Social Security...

Nor do they have to abide by "Obama Scare"


Mitch 4 years ago

A wise friend of mine once said... Liberals are very opened minded and tolerant of others... So long as you agree with them...


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 4 years ago from usa

hubbers

The Democrat convention just ended. The campaign for the truth has just begun. Mark your calendar, the first presidential debate will be on Oct 3, 2012

Surely the Ryan budget will be discussed .

A preview, uncut or edited.

June3.2011 Ryan and Van Hollen Debate Medicare Proposals 6/3/11 '' THE TRUTH ''

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2011/06/03/ryan-and-van-...

The President's Speech Distorts

http://www.facebook.com/notes/paul-ryan/the-presid...

Paul Ryan http://video.foxnews.com/v/1797716109001/exclusive...

Obamacare – Anatomy of Government Fraud

http://hubpages.com/politics/Obamacare-Anatomy-of-...


stanwshura profile image

stanwshura 4 years ago

Just Me, there is nothing aptly analogous to the paralyzingly, shockingly sleazy racism you just spewed out. Ya...all dem ()s and nuchachos and, ohhhh righhhhht, this land's ONLY TRUE NATIVES are all lazy slob drunkard bums who find it a life fulfilling to dwell at the bottom and, what, laugh at those who have their own roofs, go vacationing across the pond every year, and take for granted that their children will be going to college and owning businesses and doctoring and arguing before judges and juries in their Armani suits and a fluidity with jurisprudential lingo that cost a piddly $200k at MINIMUM to learn.

Yeah, they're really pulling one over on "da man" and we suckers who have the privilege of whining "about those minority bums" over a kitchen table in their own homes, dining on food bought ata *store* and cooked in THEIR homes where they enjoy the privileges of privacy, security, and the pride (and apparantly PLENTLY OFF HATE-OOZING ARROGANCE) of ***lucky*** self-


stanwshura profile image

stanwshura 4 years ago

sufficiency, and the assumed right to wag their conceited finger at those who are barely surviving. Oh yeah, pal. They are really screwing da man and society living on the edge of dignity, worrying every day about mere survival. How fulfilling! How satisfying! Damn!!!! Why didn't everyone think of that! Boy, aren't you jealous of their riches and all the exposure to the great outdoors anyone could ever want!!!

My man, you need to spend some SERIOUS time on your knees counting your blessings, and maybe acquiring a granule of humility??


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Mitch, read a little closer. At the top of the hub I cite my sources, Politifact, who always cite their sources, and CNN. Yes, the numbers are very real. Your $5 trillion debt is a new one on me, the number generally tossed around is $4 trillion. But, in any case, in a recent hub I did a little research and calculations and discovered that a "minimum" of $2.5 trillion of debt was going to happen "regardless" of who was President, including Bush winning a third term.

The $2.5 trillion results from the loss of tax revenue from the Conservative's recession (I don't want to attribute it just to Bush for it was Conservative economic policy that was, and will be again just like it has been at least 25 times in the past, responsible.) and from the increase in "economic stabilization" payments from the hardships brought on by the near depression.

Another trillion was Obama's stimulus which all who actually understand how economics works, agree that it 1) prevented the recession from becoming a depression, 2) turned the stock market around, 3) started the country on positive growth again, and 4) added or saved, according to the CBO and other sources, 4 million of the 12+ million jobs conservative economics cost America.

Finally, don't forget that a good portion of the remaing increase in the debt is from paying the bills incured by the various unfunded mandates from the previous adminstration, such as No Child Left Behind, the cost of unpaid for tax cuts, and the cost of the war in Iraq, among others.

Thanks for the opportunity to bring that up, I had forgotten about that aspect of the debt increase.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

The implication of the title is not related to the Politifact Obamameter. Just because he kept a promise doesn't prove he did anything right.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I suppose that is true, Nicomp, what is "right" is in the eye-of-the-beholder. But, as my poll shows, a large portion (69% at this point) of the moderate readership believes what Obama has done is right; presuming all of the Progressives do and none of the Conservatives did, of course. That is rather telling in my book and doesn't sound good for Romney.


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 4 years ago from Wisconsin

My esoteric:

In Nov 2008, President Bush and the Conservative economic policy lost 533,000 jobs!

In Dec 2008, President Bush and the Conservative economic policy lost another 524,000 jobs!

In all of 2008, President Bush and the Conservative economic policy lost a total of 2,600,000 jobs!

In Jan 2009, when President Bush left the White House, he lost yet another 598,000 job!

Those lost jobs were because of the financial crash due to the housing market folding up. While Bush and the Republicans certainly helped things along with two wars and ruinous fiscal responsibility, the lion's share of those lost jobs were due to the collapse and that was a result of BOTH parties fiscal policies since the end of the Great Depression. We are a debt society, and it needs to stop. Neither Obama (or any Democrat) or the Republicans get anything but derision, contempt and disrespect from me until they at least change the direction we are heading financially. All this talk about what Obama has done right is misleading. His financial plan is the economic equivalent of hitting the reset button without fixing any of the underlying problems that caused the crash in the first place. Even if they are successful (and the jury is still out) then we're right back here in twenty years with another crash, and the president who happens to be in office at the time will get all the blame, just like today.

Outside the economy, we're still in a War in Afghanistan (even though it's been a LONG while since Bin Laden was killed), GITMO is still open, Rendition is still in full swing, the Patriot Act is still on the books, warrantless wire-taps are still being endorsed, the Military Commissions act hasn't been repealed, the Federal Reserve has yet to be brought to justice, Bush is still walking free with absolutely NO indictments pending, the DOMA has yet to be repealed.

Why on Earth would I give any props to Obama?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks for your comments Swordsbane. Obviously I don't have, nor do most of the readers, apparently, have such a pessimistic outlook, but the way things have gone for the last decade, who can blame you.

I do have to disagree with you regarding your economic comments, what happened beginning in 2007 can be laid directly at the feet of conservative economic policy. I say that with certainty because I can take you back in time, "before there was debt", to about 25 different economic downturns, starting from 1815, that were the size of 2008 or bigger and show you almost the exact same dynamics as occured from 2004 through 2008, meaning out of control economic growth, easy credit, greed run rampant in the financial markets, a huge bubble (normally real estate, but not always), the big burst, the crash, then human misery as the government stood by and let it all happen; it wasn't politically correct to help citizens who were hurting back then, it wasn't the conservative way.

As to Afghanistan, I support our effort there to finish what Bush screwed up through neglect. bin Laden is dead, that is good. al Qaida is not and they want to kill us as much as ever, and so do the Taliban. I just don't understand the mindset of people who want to hand Afghanistan back over to them so they can do it all over again, it simply makes no sense to me. Isn't that called a death wish or something?

As to GITMO, thank your Cowardly Congressmen for that, don't blame Obama. He and several local state municipalities had a good plan to close the place and bring all those assholes over here, but each and every Congressman, including all of the Conservative ones, said NOT IN MY BACK YARD YOU WON'T. Please place the blame where it belongs.

You will have to show some hard proof redition is still taking place, there is nothing in the wind that says it is.

What should the Federal Reserve be brought to justice for and just how do you put an institution in jail anyway? You might want to casitigate Greenspan for following his philosophy and letting things get out of hand with the housing crisis, but I haven't seen much else they have seriously done wrong.

I am with you on the Patriot Act, however. But, again, put the blame where it belongs. Obama can't do squat other than uphold the law; it is Congress that has to modify it and there is no way the Conservatives will let that happen.

I am guessing you go along with Nicomp and agree none of those things I have listed regarding Obama's accomplishments mount to a hill of beans or, in fact, have been hurtful to America.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 4 years ago from usa

swordsbane

‘’In all of 2008, President Bush and the Conservative economic policy lost a total of 2,600,000 jobs!’’

Can you explain the ‘’Conservative economic policy ‘’? In the final 2 years of the Bush administration, the Democrats had majority control of Congress in 2007 and 2008. The recession began in Dec, 2007, 12 months after Democrats took control of the budgets and spending. In Jan. 2007, unemployment was 4.6%, in Dec 2008 it was 7.8%, all under the leadership and control of Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi. The recession ended in June 2009. In 2009 and 2010,President Obama and the Democrats had 100% control of the government and had a filibuster control of all legislation.

When Obama says that he inherited a bad economy, due to what Bush left him with , is a huge distortion of the TRUTH. The rest of where the country has gone is history. In Nov, 2012, the people will vote for a President and a new Congress. The choices will be between 2 plans for the future of our country. We will vote for continued poverty for the poor and middle class deception or for a new beginning of jobs and prosperity

Mark your calendar, the first Presidential debate will be held on Oct.03, 2012


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Jon, thanks for the comments. The recession started in 2006 when the housing bubble began its collapse. The actual date when there were two successive negative quarters was Dec 2007, but the die was cast long before that. Yes you are right, the Democrats theoretically had control of Congress in 2007 and 2008, and, if fact, they had actual control of the House as the majority party always does.

If this had been say 1983, you would also be correct in saying the Democrats had actual control of the Senate as well, but it wasn't 1983, it was 2007 and the Conservatives, for the first time in the history of the United States, decided to use the filibuster to gain parity with the majority party and thereby negated the advantage of the majority status. Their unabashed use of the filibuster, more than many of the sessions prior to them combined, up to that point, made them equal partners in the Senate and effectively stopped any program the Democrats might have tried to get to the President. You also forget the President's veto power. You make it sound like whatever the Democrats wanted, Bush and the Conservatives would have given them; we both know that is not true and did not happen. All the Democrats were able to accomplish is stopping the Conservatives from causing any more harm.

I love your math. Unemployment soaring past 7.9% on Jan 31, 2000, who knows where it was going to stop, 700,000 jobs lost the month Bush leaves office to be followed by another 700,000 jobs the next month, again with no end in sight; everybody predicting a depression worse than 1929 if something wasn't done, GDP falling at 5% a year the day Obama took office and you say that is a good economy???? Do you understand the concept of momentum? If we throw you in front of a speeding locomotive, can you stop it immediately, even if you have full control of Congress behind you, assuming they listen to you?

Remember, Democrats aren't like Conervatives, they are an inclusive Party with people with all sorts of different ideas who don't necessary march in lock-step with their leader like the Conservatives do. They understand what a representative democracy is and actually try to practice it.


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 4 years ago from Wisconsin

Jon Ewall: I never said Obama was blameless. The Democrats weren't in power because they never took it. They had the majority in Congress and a Democratic president, and yet somehow they still couldn't get their policies into law without debate, argument and finally compromise.

My Esoteric: BOTH parties are to blame for the current state of affairs. Bush did a lot to help us move towards a total economic collapse, and Obama hasn't done anything to drag us back from the brink. This has been brewing for a long time. After the Great Depression, we started using debt as the real currency for the nation and things have gotten steadily worse since then. There have been Democratic Presidents and Republican presidents. There have been Democratic controlled congresses and Republican controlled congresses. Neither of them has been able to halt our increasingly rapid slide into the abyss. Corporate interests have increased the influence of their lobyists, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Showing Obama's score card is like arguing about the color of a house, when all the doors and windows are jammed shut and the place is on fire. I can't see four more years of Obama giving us a healthier society, and I can't see Romney doing anything but making the current situation worse. None of the speeches that either of them have made shows the slightest evidence that either of them gets it.

I was unemployed after the crash, and watched as us first unemployed neared the 99 week mark. Congress had been making extension after extension for these people and unemployment (as indicated by those who were on unemployment) went steadily up. When congress finally decided 99 weeks was enough, a great many of the unemployed were no longer able to collect money from the government. Fine... there has to be a limit somewhere. However, the resulting decline in unemployment numbers was hailed as the "turning point" when the only thing that had been done was to stop counting the people who were not only still unemployed, but now broke. Whoever you are; Democrat or Republican, that is seriously fucked up, but that's been the order of the day ever since. Throw out any statistic that can be used to show that the economy is improving. When you dig a little into that evidence, it is either shown to be completely untrue or vastly misleading. Obama has been saying since day one that we are in a recovery. We aren't. Nothing is significantly better since the crash except Wall Street. Gas prices are high and climbing higher. Unemployment... REAL unemployment (meaning those citizens of the United States without jobs) hasn't dropped very much and in some places has continued to rise. This is why you and Jon are fighting over Unemployment numbers. You haven't defined what unemployment means. Everyone always talks about trying to wipe out the deficit like that will fix everything, but the deficit is the money we spend each year that we don't have. It continues to rise. The Federal debt continues to rise, which is the money we owe to other people. THAT is the number we should be concerned about. There is a Federal law that says that the Federal budget MUST be balanced every single fiscal year. Why then does the government (Reps or Dems) ALWAYS grant themselves a special privilege to continue runaway spending, and when someone tries to force the issue, they are accused of trying to shut down the government? Why does the Federal Reserve continue to exist? They control virtually ALL the money in the United States, and they aren't even a government agency. Why is it ILLEGAL to audit them without their consent (which they hardly ever give)?

Obama might be the nicest guy you could ever meet, but he's a poor president. He couldn't even use the power of a Democratic controlled congress to get the things done that HE WANTED TO DO. How can we expect him to do the RIGHT thing, when no president since Roosevelt has ever even known what the right thing to do was?

You think I'm pessimistic? I observe reality and report the facts. Go ahead and vote for Obama again. Four years from now, things might seem marginally better, but the deficit will be higher, the debt will be higher. GITMO will still be there. Homeland security will still be there. TSA will still be probing people at the airport. The no-fly list will still be there. Your email will still be read by the government without warrant. We'll probably still be in Afghanistan too.

Incidentally, you use the analogy of a speeding train. I prefer a bus. We're in a bus, heading for a cliff. The Democrats and the Republicans like to travel at different speeds and fight constantly over the A/C settings and the radio, trying to make the passengers as comfortable as they think best, but neither one of them seems capable of simply turning the friggen wheel. Until that happens, the cliff will keep getting closer and the end result is that we go over. How comfortable we happen to be when it happens makes very little difference.

And by the way, the proper term for our government is Republic, not representative democracy.

In a democracy, the people can vote for whoever they want to. Last time I was at the polls, I saw Democrat, Republican and a few other parties I didn't like. There was no write-in candidate (who has to be registered... you can't actually WRITE IN someone you want). In three states, write-in candidates are ILLEGAL. The electorates decide the election, NOT the public. If the electorate votes one way and the people vote another way, the electorate has the right of way BY LAW. The most popular "third party" candidate was Ross Perot with something like 12-16% of the popular vote. That's almost 50 million people who voted for him. You know how many electoral votes he managed to get? ZERO. None. You know why? Because there is no law that says a state must have any rule linking the public vote to the electorate. Which means no electorate is required by Federal law to vote as the public votes. So no... we don't get a say in our government. It only looks like we do.

I will admit that the Democrats seem marginally better than the Republicans, and Obama is the best they've fielded in a long time, but that's like saying they want to drive towards the cliff at 86 miles per hour... not 90. Technically true, but really not encouraging.


jeigh 4 years ago

"Even though the Democrats held a majority in Congress the last two years of President Bush's term, they could not control what bills were placed in front of him to be signed into law; they only had control over what would not. "

How is that possible?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Swardsbane, I understand your frustration, I really do, but I fear it has colored your understanding of history. Also, I need to point out that my past career was doing what you say I don't do, get below the surface of the data; I was paid a nice wage for doing just that and I wasn't bad at it. I still do it today, not only in hub pages but as CFO for my company, so it is natural for me to do so. (BTW, I am sorry for your suffering from the latest recession. I am pleased to say my company didn't have to add to it in that we 1) didn't have to lay anybody off, although we came very close to it, and 2) we didn't cut their pay either, didn't raise, but didn't cut it. The company itself took a loss doing that, however.)

I have debated with myself regarding the electoral college for a long time and finally decided it was a good idea. What pushed me in that direction was the realization that by making it a popular vote election, then it would be decided by the vote of the 20 largest metropolitan areas in the country; meaning it wouldn't make a whit of difference how most of the people in the majority of the States voted. While that would mean the Conservatives would never get to the White House again, which to me is a pleasant thought, I didn't think that would be good for America.

Your concern about debt goes back to the debate between Alexander Hamilton and James Madison and is partly responsible for the two-party system (the other was the fight between Hamilton and Jefferson over foriegn policy). Hamilton was for debt as a way to finance the government and secure credit while Madison opposed it, probably on the same grounds as you do. History shows however, that relative to panics, recessions, and depressions, Debt is largely immaterial, i.e., it doesn't make much difference if the country is debt free, which it often was, or was sinking in debt as in the Bush I and Bush II recessions; it simply doesn't matter. What matters is 1) the amount of regulation on the financial institutions, 2) the effective involvement of the Federal Reserve, and 3) whether Austrian or Keynesian economics is in play at the time. None of these things will prevent economic downturns but they will definitely mitigate their severity.


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 4 years ago from Wisconsin

My Esoteric: I do read history, and I can't agree with you that debt doesn't matter. If nothing else, it is directly responsible for the deficit, which we spend a large chunk of our federal budget on. If it didn't matter, then what are we doing trying to repay it? Debt IS a problem. Adding to it indiscriminately doesn't make much sense. Adding to it when there are laws saying that we should not be adding to it makes even less sense.

Being a CFO doesn't impress me by the way... no offense. The business world in this country is totally out of whack. Companies can be successful when the people are face down in the mud. And looking to the long-term for your company: There are some people in the world who are very good at making money doing the financial equivalent of putting on a helmet, flak jacket and digging a foxhole....taking their money and moving it to places you only move it to when you're expecting another recession... a big one. You just don't do that when the nation is "recovering" What little signs of recovery there are are misleading. We're closer to the edge than we ever have been. Are we in danger of total collapse? I don't know.... I hope not, because there is no scenario that would allow us to turn around very quickly, but prudence suggests we at least start trying to turn the wheel.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "effective" involvement of the Federal Reserve. To hear them tell it, the Fed was intimately involved during the housing crash. Fat lot of good it did us. I've been a stock trader. I can play the numbers game with the best of them. During the crunch, the market turned around because people expected it to. It rose on happy thoughts and good wishes. Financial planners at the time had no excuses for it. Unemployment was still high, inflation was up, no one could get credit, and the stimulus hadn't happened yet. I realized something when I was watching Obama speak. I was noticing that whenever he stepped to the podium to talk about optimistic progress of the stimulus, the market had a good day. You could time it almost right down to the hour of the news reports. Once I decided that the market wasn't about financial well being, but about the perception of well being, I was able to do all right. The market turned around because everyone believed so much that the market would turn around. The alternative was too terrifying. They called that an economic "recovery" as if the economy and the market have so much to do with each other. There are no underlying fundamentals propping up the market. Every once in a while, reality seeps in and there is a big drop, but everyone is quick to cover that up. On the one hand, I can't blame them.. Who wants the alternative? On the other... come on people!! Lets try some reality.

I guess you don't see things as that bad, but even you can't deny that ever increasing debt is a bad thing. I can't do it in my personal life. I can't just keep increasing my line of credit without consequences. There has to be a breaking point somewhere along the line, even for nations.....and how are we going to know when too much is too much when we raise generation after generation to think that there will never be too much debt? And what a wonderful example our country sets for our children, children we try to make understand that debt is a bad thing and they shouldn't pay for things without actually having the money first whenever possible. Banks keep printing money, oblivious to the fact that the buying power of the dollar is taking a nose dive.

That brings up another analogy. While the crash was underway, the dollar was dropping, as was all the major currencies. When the dollar started falling slower than the rest of the big currencies, they hailed THAT as a turning point too. Question: If five people fall off a cliff without parachutes, does the one falling the slowest survive hitting the rocks below?

Make no mistake. That cliff is out there. Telling me that it's not in front of us because it was nowhere behind us doesn't make any sense. Nothing can go on forever. Nothing, and we're pioneers on this road. It will happen to us first, and we have no idea how much road we've got left.

In point of fact, there was a single year in which the country was "debt free" It was 1835. There has been at least some debt in every other point in our history. It was never higher than around $4 billion before the Great Depression. Since then it grew steadily until around 1940 when it hit $50 billion. Then it started to grow a lot faster until around 1946 when it seemed to level off around $250 billion. In 1974 the debt increased it's growth yet again until it started to level off in 2000 at around $6 trillion. That was the last time the budget was balanced. Clinton had even managed a surplus. Bush spent it and then some. I don't blame Bush for spending the money. Starting two wars will do that. I do blame him for the wars, 9/11 notwithstanding. I've taken heat for that before, but I maintain we didn't need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, and by that I mean we didn't need to invade EITHER country to get Bin Laden. We did it because Bush wanted to and he tricked Congress into agreeing to it. In any case, the there were TWO places where the national debt was actually being reduced (albeit very minimally) in 1946-48 and in '65. Every other year since 1920 the debt has grown. It took us 85 years to go from 0 to $5 billion. It took another 80 years to get to $6 trillion. That means we spent 1200 times as much after 1920 as we spent before. I don't care if you adjust that for inflation. There's something very BAD about those numbers.

Today they talk about possibly balancing the budget in 10 years like that is some sort of accomplishment. Tell me why. If Clinton did it twelve years ago, what's the problem with balancing it today? And don't tell me it's because of the recession. I've been broke and I've made over $100K in one year. Trust me, your mind finds more places to cut when times are lean than when you're rolling in money.

This is the kind of attitude I'm talking about. Obama and Romney may indeed be different, even though from my vantage point I just don't see it, but they are playing in different corners of the same sandbox. The solutions to our problems are (if you'll forgive the stealing of a metaphor) outside the box. These two assholes can't seem to figure that out. Until someone does, they don't get my vote, either of them, and since the rules of the election are telling me that Ron Paul is not eligible to be a "write-in" in my state, and anyone the press hasn't already done an anal probe on is completely off limits, and since I don't subscribe to the "lesser of two evils" philosophy, I guess I'm not voting again.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

"Tell me why. If Clinton did it twelve years ago, what's the problem with balancing it today?"

Clinton didn't do it.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Swordsbane, I didn't say debt doesn't matter, I said it doesn't matter as a cause for economic downturns in almost all instances; the one exception I know of is the Bush I recession caused by the attempt to reign in deficit spending (which causes the debt, not the other way around, btw) without raising taxes in order to reduce the Reagan debt. In ALL other economic collapses I have studied since 1797, the size of the debt did not play a role, period. If you want to see what actually did, the short answer is greed, read my hub on the Short History of Recessions, Depressions, and Panics.

The CFO comment was meant to impress, only to point out that it is my job to get to the bottom of any data I look at.

"Effective" means just that, the Fed utilizes its tools in such a manner as to minimize the swings in the economic cycle, that is why it is there. They didn't do it in 1929 and they didn't do it in 2006, they sat back and did nothing because the Fed had believers in Austrian economics in charge; economic disaster was the result. Other times, especially when it was young, it overdid it and caused or made worse an economic downturn such as the Feds response, when they finally got of their asses, in 1932.

Your comments about the stock market hit the nail on the head, but I take a bit different view of it. As you found out, the market, and the economy, is all about perception. Not only did the market turn around at the end of March 2009, so did the GDP, it stopped its decline and started growing again; and you are absolutely right, it was going to be another three months at least before the first material impact of the stimulus could take effect; probably longer. The reason both turned around so dramatically was exactly what you said, expectations.

I run my business on expectations, I have to look to the future and make estimates as to what the economy might look like a year or more out and make decisions accordingly to be ready. With the announcement and passage of the stimulus package, that is just what the market, a predictor of future economic conditions, and business did. They made decisions to start moving money into the market, to slow down laying off people, and people started spending more on the expectation things would get better; that is the name of the game. Of course the Conservatives came along and threw a monkey-wrench into the whole thing and created chaos and uncertainty with their negativism.

Actually, America was debt free for about a year in 1835 until a financial panic caused the debt to increase to a whopping $37,000 in 1836. During the devestating financial depression of 1839, the debt grew to $20,000,000. Notice, neither of those economic crises had anything to do with the debt. As a % of GDP, however, public debt was less than 10% from around 1810 to 1860 and again from 1890 to 1915, a period when 80% of our worst financial recessions, depressions, and panics occured.

You are right, I cannot deny that ever increasing debt is a good thing, but some debt is, just not anywhere near as large as it is now. And I also agree that deficit spending when times are good, is not a good thing either, it should be like it was in the Clinton era, and could have been in the Bush ear, minus an ill-times tax cut and war in Iraq and a few other things (can't go along with you on Afghanistan, sorry). He should have socked the Clinton surpluses away for a rainy day.

As to the budget, it comes down to what is it you want your tax dollars to pay for? One extreme, of course, is to have it the way the anti-federalists (later Democratic-Republicans, later Democrats, later Republicans, and now Conservatives) wanted it back in Washington's day and have no income coming into the federal government beyond from some low tariffs to pay some meager salaries; they saw no need for the federal government to provide any services to the People what so ever; many Conservatives feel that way today (until those services are cut-off, of course). The other extreme, is endless services, the "socialist" system Conservatives fear so badly. You need to decide what those services you think are needed and then total up the cost of those to see if current revenues are enough to purchase them.

That is one of the main differences, as I see it, between the two, the market basket of goods and services each believes the federal government ought to be providing to the America People. Another is how level a playing field should each American have in order to achieve the American Dream; they have decidedly different views on that topic. A third difference is are we going to be a loose confederation of states, or a tight Union of States. A fourth is whether we are a country of Americans, working together, or a country of individuals working in our own little worlds to get as much as we can for ourselves regardless of the means.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 4 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

History is your gig, the present and the future is the country's concerns right now. In Nov., the people will decide who will lead our country into the future. The choices are, do we want more poverty, government and debt or do we want a new beginning of prosperity and jobs for all our citizens.

Rep. Paul Ryan defends GOP budget plan Chris Wallace

http://wn.com/Paul_Ryan_on_Fox_News_Sunday_with_Ch.../videos

Ryan and Van Hollen Debate Medicare Proposals 6/3/11 '' THE TRUTH ''

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2011/06/03/ryan-and-van-...

Fact-checkers find exaggerations in Obama, Biden conventions speeches

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/08/bend-it...

Mark your calendar, on Oct. 3,2012 the first Presidential debate will take place.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

If you don't study history, you are doomed to repeat it. If the People don't take a good look at what Conservative economics wroght from 1815 to 1932 and again in 2008 in terms of frequent and severe economic disasters, then they will elect Conservatives again only to have it happen yet again; it always has. If they want historically lower growth, elect a conservative government. If they want a lower job creation rate, elect a conservative government. If they want a much less stable economy, elect a conservative government. If they want the middle class to continue to diaappear, elect a conservative government. If they want the income income inequality to get even worse than it already has since 1981, elect a conservative government. If the People want the American Dream tocontinue to be available only the wealthy, elect a conservative.

Each and every one of those can be shown to be true simply by looking at the historical record and, if you elect a conservative government, the past will be your future.


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 4 years ago from Wisconsin

Jon Ewall: What My Esoteric said, but replace "conservative" with "stupid peoples" I don't trust Liberal economics any more than I trust conservative economics. They are both based on the same broke system.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Swordsbane, obviously you can chose to trust or distrust economic systems how ever you want, but, in Capitalism, there are only two, one based only on microeconomic, the conservative system, and the other based on a mixture of micro and macroeconomics, which is favored by non-conservatives. The feature about macroeconomics which conservatives hate is it requires government involvement in the business cycle and government regulation to control what ultimately boils down to destructive human greed.

Beyond that you get into the controlled economy's of Socialism, Communism, Facism, and just plain dictatorships who don't have a particular "ism" other than "me-ism".

So, I ask you, what is your poison?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Swordsbane, I kept feeling my last response was somehow incomplete. It finally occurred to me what it was.

Of course, you are quite correct with you substitution idea, that would end up in roughly the same results as well. History backs you on that nicely for there have been many "stupid peoples", both on the Left and the Right, in the Executive and Legislative Branches over the last 200+ years. On the rare occasions the government swung too far to the Left, you also ended up with bad results, although never quite as bad as the alternative, at least so far. The only times America has done well is when it travelled a somewhat left-of-center course, with moderation as the by-word.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 4 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

All that history sounds good to many who are looking for a new government.

‘’If the People want the American Dream to continue to be available only the wealthy, elect a conservative.’’

1994 -1999 President Clinton with a Republican majority controlled Congress

High employment, a balanced budget and record employment and a stable economy.

2000-2006 President Bush with a Republican majority controlled Congress.

Battled a Clinton recession, 9-11 catastrophe and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The unemployment rate was 4.6% prior to the Democrats gaining a majority control of Congress.

2007-2008 Bush and a Democrat majority controlled Congress.

The recession began in Dec. 2007, unemployment went to 7.8%.

President Obama claims that he inherited a mess from the previous administration. One can be the judge..

The rest is present history.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks as always Jon, but I need to complete a few of your sentences.

----------

Jon - The unemployment rate was 4.6% [in 2007] prior to the Democrats gaining a majority control of Congress ...

ME - ... for which they were powerless to do anything with because of the Conservative abuse of the filiabuster.

---------

Jon - The recession began in Dec. 2007, unemployment went to 7.8% ...

ME - ... and was skyrockketing at a rate of 0.25% per month at the time Obama took office; it is 8.1% now however, after peaking at only 10%, mitigated by Obama's stimulus efforts.

---------

Jon - President Obama claims that he inherited a mess from the previous administration. One can be the judge....

ME - ... but subsequent analysis has shown, and all competent economists agree, the country was heading for a depression, probably worse than 1929.

--------

Jon - Battled a Clinton recession, 9-11 catastrophe and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan....

ME - ... which is the popular belief among Conservatives but known not to be true because 1) Iraq was a war of choice, 2) while under Conservative math, Clinton didn't leave Bush a recession, because it started in March 2001, I do attribute to Clinton/s term because it resulted from the bursting of the Dot.com bubble due to the inevitable economic slow down as the Fed battled inflation, 3) it barely qualified as a recession because economic activity only went negative by 0.3% and unemployment rose by only 2% (I didn't even include this one in my book on recessions), and 4) 9/11 definitly exaserbated the problem but wasn't a long term problem. What was were the war in Iraq and the unfunded tax cut.

--------

Jon - 1994 -1999 President Clinton with a Republican majority controlled Congress, and, High employment, a balanced budget and record employment and a stable economy ...

ME - ... which were the result of policies put in place in 1993 - 1994 when the Executive Branch and Congress were Democratic, as well as a tax hike from President G. W. Bush in 1991.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

"Clinton didn't leave Bush a recession"

Such a red herring. As if a single man, operating under the US Constitution, has the power to cause a recession.


max burger 4 years ago

Barack Obama has done absolutely nothing for our country. I hate Obama so much! I want him to die! I worship Mitt Romney! I want him to win the election for president of the United States of America more than anything! I'm voting for Mitt Romney, and convincing everyone else that I know to do the same.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 4 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

''Sorry to say, I have more Obama accomplishments ''

May I add

2009-2012 Administration Oil Strategy Contributes to Price Increases

http://www.scribd.com/doc/87353590/Administration-...

Firms Pass Up Tax Breaks, Citing Hassles, Complexity

tax deductions too cumbersome, confusing, can cost more to obtain than they save

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100008723963904440...

U.S. families lost 39% of net worth in three years (2007-2010)

http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/323577/3/US-famil...

The President's Speech Distorts the Truth

http://www.facebook.com/notes/paul-ryan/the-presid...

Fact-checkers find exaggerations in Obama, Biden conventions speeches

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/08/bend-it...

Obamacare, Taxing jobs out of existence

WHY are companies not hiring?

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=51364

Barak Obama Campaign Promises

http://hubpages.com/politics/barakobamacampaignpro...

http://hubpages.com/politics/BARAKOBAMAHEALTHCARES...

Obamacare – Anatomy of Government Fraud

http://hubpages.com/politics/Obamacare-Anatomy-of-...

Stimulus Spending Was Wasted Money $825BILLION

http://hubpages.com/politics/Stimulus-Spending-Was...

Where Did All The Money Go? STIMULUS

http://www.gop.com/images/research/where_did_all_t...

For now '' that's all folks''.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

I love that the chart, above, uses June '08 as a baseline for gasoline proves. And Jan '06 for Median Home Prices. And March '09 for the DJIA.

"A politician commissioned a survey of his constituents. He delivered the data to a statistician and asked 'What do these numbers mean?' The statistician answered 'What do you want them to mean?' "


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Which chart, Nicomp?


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

The chart directly above "IS THAT A PICTURE OF A FAILING PRESIDENCY?"


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 4 years ago from usa

To understand what a Democrat controlled government looks like you need to start the chart at 2007 and continue to the present 2012. The Democrats have had 2/3s control of our government.

The Republicans took over the House in 2011, have passed budgets and have passed 40 jobs bills. The Senate has passed 0 budgets and Senator Reid/ Obama refuses to allow elected Senators to vote, YEA OR NAY, on the House legislation. That's what Obama meant when the President promised a transparent administration? A good example is the recent Libya massacre of our ambassador and others.

The Obama's don't want this video to be seen in 2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_2s4tob5U8&feature...

Untold story


Pollyannalana profile image

Pollyannalana 4 years ago from US

You better check out Michelle and their friends most of us knew nothing about and help get that couple out of office like now! Really you should check it out, I voted for him but I am not blind or glued to a party that is trying to wipe out America. You are a service person, surely you can see this.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 4 years ago from usa

Pollyannalana

9/30/12 GOP VP nominee previews first presidential debate

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1869261696001/exclusive...

Something different from what the President is saying on the campaign trail.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 4 years ago from usa

hubbers

Paul Ryan VP nominee previews first presidential debate 10/3/12

recent poll numbers and talks foreign policy and the economy


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thank you for you comment Pollyannalana. Yes, I am retired Army as well as retired Federal Civil Service (Air Force). In between and after, I have been an entrepreneur (although not particularly good at grammer and spelling, it seems). My specialty has been combat, economics, and business start-up. With that as a background, I can tell you with absolute certainty that Obama has saved this country from depression and been one of the best Commander-in-chiefs, while conservative economics nearly drove us into a depression, as it historically always does, and Bush was one of the worst Commander-in-chiefs, rivaling Johnson and Nixon in idiocy. Making Bush even worse is he had the failures of Johnson and Nixon to draw on, but instead of learning from them, he simply repeated their mistakes.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 4 years ago from usa

My Esoteri

''Making Bush even worse ...he simply repeated their mistakes.'' Bush ???? or Obama????

''President Obama Done Right in Three and a Half Years?''

Obama promised if elected he would fix the economy and provide jobs besides other promises.

Four years and still no jobs and the economy in the dumps.

10/1/12

Mainstream media is threatening our country's future

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/29/mainstre...

Who are the progressives in the government?

http://commieblaster.com/progressives/index.html

2009,Stimulus Spending Was Wasted Money $825BILLION

http://hubpages.com/politics/Stimulus-Spending-Was...

Voted on and passed by a super majority controlled Democrat Congress

Where Did All The Money Go? STIMULUS

http://www.gop.com/images/research/where_did_all_t...

Voted on and passed by a super majority controlled Democrat Congress

With $ 5.4 trillion deficits in 4 years ,a pink slip is more than appropiate?

LET'S NOT FORGET OBAMACARE.

GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE REFORM

http://jon-ewall.hubpages.com/hub/GOVERNMENTHEALTR...


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Once again Jon, just think how rosy things might have been if the Conservatives had not plannd to destroy Obama's presidency even before he took office; I wonder how low unemployment would have been if Conservatives had helped Obama bring it down rather do their level best to stop Obama in his policy tracks; I wonder how high economic growth would have been if Conservatives had talked positive about the economy instead of so negatively and being obstructionist.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 4 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

Obama controls Senator Reid in the Senate without a doubt. We sent our elected representatives to Congress to VOTE.The final vote is always a compromise and ends up as a law. To deny a vote is in direct violation of our constitution. Obama and Company has no one to blame but themselves. the Democrats have had 2/3s control of our government since 2007 to the present.

On Wed. watch the debate! The debate is live and uncut.

House Republicans have now passed 38 jobs bills that are currently stuck in the Democrat controlled Senate. Read more

http://majorityleader.gov/JobsTracker/


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

"House Republicans have now passed 38 jobs bills that are currently stuck in the Democrat controlled Senate."

Sigh. 38 more heaps of federal regulation poised to bury us. Social Engineering, feel-good schemes, arbitrary funding, and picking winners/losers. Thank goodness for some gridlock.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Jon, your "final vote" comment is true ... as far as it goes; it must get to a vote however for your statement to have meaning. Since 2007, the Conservatives have abused the filibuster and prevented an unprecedented number of bills from reaching a vote ... therefore - no compromise. Further, Obama does not have Reid in his pocket and you know it, that is just hyperbole; there rarely has been a President that has ever had a Majority Leader "in his pocket". I doubt that Reid and Pelosi even like Obama all that much, if you ask me.

As Nicomp said, most of those 38 jobs bills, some of which I have exposed in a different hub, that you proudly proclaim Boehner has sent forward have 1) either nothing to do with jobs, 2) kill jobs, or 3) advance social programs that limit liberty.


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 4 years ago from Wisconsin

Demographic Q#1 is a useless question: Moderates, Conservatives and Progressives are not the only political associations out there. What about those of us who don't subscribe to any of those?


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

"Obama controls Senator Reid in the Senate without a doubt. We sent our elected representatives to Congress to VOTE."

Here's the root of the problem. Voting for the sake of voting has delivered us to the present debacle. Their voting decreases liberty and transfers wealth.


Ken Burgess profile image

Ken Burgess 4 years ago from Florida

I commend you on your efforts, that is a lot of information, and no matter what side a person leans to, its the type of article that is worth reading.

My own opinion, for all the lies, misrepresentations, distortions, and bias put out against Romney, I feel he embodies the best chance for America, as clearly as Reagan embodied the best chance for America when we were in similar economic (and international) circumstances back in 1979.

Massive government spending and control fails, every time, in every nation, throughout history... and that is what Obama is offering America... it's own inevitable demise, as surely as the U.S.S.R. collapsed in on itself back in the early 90s.

Romney is offering us the alternative, a restoration of economic prosperity and world leadership, a future America that will offer our children the same hopes and dreams we had before us.

I think our choices are becoming pretty clear, now that the candidates are forced to step in front of Americans (in the debates) and put forward their views. Rather than sling whatever 'facts' they want to against one another unchallenged.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thank you for your thoughts, Ken. Question for you. Is Romney offering any an approach that is any different, in a substantial way, from the one followed by President Bush and his conservative Congress?

There is no doubt in my mind, based on a couple of years of study now, that the conservative economic system (Austrian economics) simply does not work; there is the period from 1815 to 1930 plus 2008 to prove it doesn't work; unless you like frequent, major recessions and depressions.

If you like a federal government that dictates your social moral beliefs, then Romney is your man for he will guarantee no gay in America can proudly serve in the military, only secretly, or marry each other for love; marriage, after all is only for procreation and diplomacy between families isn't it, not love - that is traditional marriage after all. Further, he will try to make sure women lose control of their bodies and that the federal government will ensure Christianity will be first among non-equal religions. In addition, they will pass laws to reduce even further, back to the levels of 1900s it seems, the rights of labor relative to business. That is the Conservative social program.

How you draw a parallel between a communistic command economy to republican regulated capitalist economy is beyond me. The only thing at issue in this regard is the amount of regulation of financial institutions and the propencity of large corporations to harm consumers, their employees, competitors, and the environment each side is willing to impose. Obama and the Democrats believe more is needed and Romney and Conservatives believe what was in place before 2008 was sufficient for the financial world and that the few business regulations that were in place, say in the 1950s were good enough.

From where I sit, those are not qualities I want for my government.


Ken Burgess profile image

Ken Burgess 4 years ago from Florida

Esoteric,

Excellent question, and before I delve into answering what is different about Romney's ideas over Bush, let me make this point:

The Bush Administration had to contend with 3 catastrophes the likes of which no other President since FDR had to deal with. 9/11, Katrina, and the Housing Market and Banking collapse.

It is funny how that is ignored or glossed over by anyone who criticizes Bush, and let me point out I was no big fan of Bush, and I had outright disdain for Rumsfeld who served him, but that is irrelevant.

So those first two horrible events cost our nation hundreds of billions of dollars overall. And the Housing/banking disaster cost us more than a Trillion just in Bush's initial attempt to stop the total collapse, which he successfully did.

Bush's economic performance therefore, was impacted significantly by events largely out of his control.

Compare that to the last four years, Obama chose to focus on Obamacare rather than passing a new budget, or adjusting taxes, or stimulating job growth by cutting corporate taxes, we have had a stagnant economy... despite being well past the impact of 2007 because of his decisions and actions, or lack of them.

We have had no disasters to contend with near to the three that Bush had to deal with, yet our economy is as stagnant as the day Obama took office... at some point, you have to lay that at Obama's feet, and stop blaming others for his policies and decisions.

Now what is different about Romney? Well for one, he has a lifetime of experience with global businesses, building companies up, trade and regulation. He did create Romneycare for Mass... which IS different from Obamacare, so I'm sure he understands both very well... he also took over Mass with a 1.5 Billion dollar deficit and in 3 years turned it into a 700 million dollar surplus without raising taxes on the individual directly.

His experience will lead him to do the right things to make the economy work, rather than clinging to a particular economic theory.

As for your claims about gays in the military, gay marriage, and other social issues... to me they are irrelevant when placed beside the economic issues our Nation faces and the insurmountable debt that dooms us to economic collapse in the near future if it continues to grow at the pace Obama is growing it.

And Obama's absurd notion that you can tax businesses and the rich to do away with Trillion dollar deficits shows clearly why he is not the man for the job.

I don't mean to belittle social issues, like gay marriage, but if America falls into a Great Depression, trust me, those issues will be the least of our concerns.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I will add more in a bit, but one counter point, Ken. While I absolutely agree 9/11 and Katrina (although not the response to either) was totally out Bush's or his economic philosophy's control, the housing bubble was not. The latter occurred because conservative economic philosophy set-up the economic precursors for such a phenomenon and its consequences to happen; you had a perfect storm, a totally Republican Congress for 12 years, a Democratic president who forgot his history, a Conservative President, and a Conservative Federal Reserve Chairman. The Great 2008 recession was 100% preventable. A smallish recession in 2008 may not have been, but the catastrophe was entirely of political origins.

As was the budget conditions leading up to it. While 9/11 was out of Bush's control, the response was not. Afghanistan was a no-brainer of course, as was the aggressive reaction against terrorism on all fronts. But, what was artificial was the war in Iraq, that is entirely on Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld's shoulders and shame.

Katrina, same story, at least in terms of cost. It was political choices which gutted the federal response capability. How much suffering and cost could have been saved if FEMA had been left as it was during Clinton's time rather than the shell of its former self by the time Katrina occured.

Then, unmentioned, is the devestation to the debt and deficit caused by Bush's unpaid tax cut. It cut taxes below the lowest estimate of conservative guru's, Laffer, marginal tax rates for maximum revenue; why did they do that? It helped prove out the Laffer theory, revenue fell.


Ken Burgess profile image

Ken Burgess 4 years ago from Florida

Esoteric, I have to disagree with you on the whole Housing/banking crisis... when you look at the facts, the involvement of Barney Frank and others (who were Democrats) it is clear that the problem was not a Republican or economic philosophy problem.

It was one of corruption and greed.

The biggest factor to why it was such a HUGE collapse, was because the Democrats (with Frank leading the way) forced Fannie, Freddie and the Banks to accept practically ANY mortgage application sent to them in that final year or so before the collapse... with the justification being that poor people and minorities deserved to be able to own homes (even if the numbers clearly showed they could not afford them).

I remember on every street corner there was someone offering you a 'mortgage' back in 2006... it was incredible to see all the ads, all these 'companies' pop up that suddenly could give you a mortgage no matter what your income or credit rating.

Corruption... greed... politicians that were willing to do the wrong thing... Wall Street and Banks looking to fleece America... and now we have more Wall Street crooks in the White House than at any time, more than any other President. Several of whom were the ones who benifited from and helped cause the Housing/banking crisis we had.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

Ken Burgess : well said. Keep banging that drum because the mainstream media won't tell the story.


Leiden 4 years ago

My Esoteric - I believe you have presented several facts to represent your side, it has been an enjoyable read through the comments. However I believe several post bring up good counter arguments. First though, my reflection of the pipeline was that Obama only waved permission for a small portion of the pipeline from middle America to Texas because it was close to elections and it would reflect positively.

Ken Burgess - I believe you nailed it on the head. In four years in office, Obamas primary goal was Obamacare, good or bad, he did not put nearly as much effort towards the economy. We are over $16 trillion in debt, his plan seems to be stimulus packages, but we dont have the money! Whereas Romney has a background of balancing the budget. I just don't see how that is scoffed at or disregarded for another issue.

Romney talked sense when he said, when he looks at whether to cut a project he'd simply ask, should we be borrowing money from China to sponsor this? The counter of course is saying these cuts are negligible.... Well, then wouldn't slight increases in taxes be negligible, so we shouldn't do that either? And isn't everything important when balancing the budget?

Right now it seems like we're setting out to go to war to have the debt cleared, instead of working a plan to pay off the debt. On a less conspiracy driven though, if we don't put forth a plan to pay the debt off then our credit rating will go down, the interest owed will skyrocket.

The real questions are how does each president plan on paying off the debt and not increasing it? What's the alternative to paying off the debt? How will we grow our own economy?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Ken, I won't repeat hear what I have covered in quite a bit of detail in other hubs regarding the housing bubble, something I have studied and researched a lot. Here is where we agree: 1) "Corruption... greed... Wall Street and Banks looking to fleece America" and 2)"It was one of corruption and greed", the rest we don't.

Yes, Barney Franks pushed for more access to affordable housing by low income, why, because banks were freezing them out of the market, not because they couldn't afford it; those programs Required ability to pay before loans were made. On the other hand, it was Bush who introduced the "Zero-down home mortgage" not too far into his 8-years, go figure.

Yes, it was greed by those regular home buyers who knew they couldn't afford what they were buying but bought into the idea that the housing market would never come down, which was the mantra of all of the so-called financial experts of the day.

But Mainly, it was because of 1) greed and corruption of the shadow banking, regular banking, and other financial institutions, 2) allowed by the stripping away of virtually all financial regulations to prevent such corruption since 1937, and 3) overseen by a Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan who believed the economy was working as it should even though it was following the familiar boom-bust cycle of the 1800s brought on by Austrian economic theory.

Yes, even Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae had a role to play, but by 2005, it was a minor role. By then, they had been surpassed in the subprime market by shadow banks, non-GSE commercial banks, and financial institutions. In fact, in the end, the GSE sub-primes performed better than there non-GSE counter-parts, but that is like saying the Lucitania sank slower than the Titantic.

If a Kenyensian economic system had been in effect, its principles followed by the Fed, and the 1937-era financial regulations had remained in place, the 2008 recession would have been no worse than any of the other of the recessions since 1937, if it would have occured at all.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Oh how I love it when the comments get longer than the hub, so thank you for yours, Leiden. I have no doubt that part of Obama's motivation for his announcing the opening of the pipeline you mention was political. I suspect that if the Conservatives had not been making such political hay about the whole project, he would have never had mentioned it at all for, as I understand it, that piece was already going to be approved since it didn't present an environmental concern to the states impacted.

As to Obamacare, keep in mind that 1) Obama's first goal was to implement a plan to start digging out of the mini-grand canyon the economic philosophy got us into; he did that and 2) that every President since Truman (except Reagan and Bush II) has been trying to implement universal health care; this isn't unique to Obama. He just saw a golden opportunity to finally get it done. What I do agree is wasted way too much time doing it. When he saw the Democrats bickering amonst themselves, he should have stopped trying to do the right thing in letting Congress legislate, and lead them by the nose to conclusion like other Presidents try to do from the get-go.

Let me ask you this, what would be your alternative to preventing the on-coming depression other than the stimulus Obama put into effect? BTW, I did some arithmetic in another hub and discovered that something $2.5 trillion of the $4 trillion he is accused of adding to the debt (or is it $3 trillion of the $4.5 trillion?) would have happened regardless of who was president, and that is using the assumption the recession was no worse than what it actually was. Now, of the remaining $1.5 trillion, how much of that is left over bills from the Bush administration for which no funding was supplied ... like his tax cuts?

To answer your question about growing the economy, the answer is actually pretty simple ... have the two parties stop yelling at each other and start pulling in the same direction as they have after every other major economic downturn in American history; this is the first time the opposition party has actually made it there political policy to hinder the party in power in their recovery plan.

With that kind of political environment, business can never have a solid foundation on which to make long-term plans, so, as a consequence, they will and are sitting on their cash ... waiting for the politicians to pull their heads out of their collective asses.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

"As to Obamacare, keep in mind that 1) Obama's first goal was to implement a plan to start digging out of the mini-grand canyon the economic philosophy got us into; ..."

Actually, no. His first goal was to control health care. The only economic philosophy that got us into that mini-grand canyon was wage controls imposed by the federal government that caused employers to look for other ways to compensate their people. It's a classic case of the law of unintended consequences and a shining example of federal overreach.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Where is your proof on wage control, Nicomp? That is a new one on me. If you are talking about the 1800s and the 25 or so major downturns then, there was no such thing as federal wage control; in fact, there wasn't much in the way of any federal control over the activities of business, that period was a Conservatives hog heaven.

Further, why was the stimulus the first major piece of legislation Obama put on the table if that wasn't his first priority?


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

"In all of 2008, President Bush and the Conservative economic policy lost a total of 2,600,000 jobs!"

What, precisely, was this 'conservative policy' and how did it cause the loss of jobs?


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

"in fact, there wasn't much in the way of any federal control over the activities of business, that period was a Conservatives hog heaven."

You have got to be kidding. Nixon implemented wage and price controls in 1971. In 1942 Congress implemented limits in wage increases, causing employers to adapt by enticing employees with health insurance. Not everything happened in the 8 years before Obama.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I am talking about the 1800s, when there was a major downturn once every 5 to 6 years. It was only after the Great Depression did the feds start regulating business with a purpose.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

As to the "conservative" economic policies, that would be Austrian ecomonics, the policy followed until the 1940s when superceeded by Keynesian economics. Ever since, conservatives have been trying to reinstitute Austrian economics; they finally succeeded in 2000.

That was the fundemental reason for the severity of the 2008 recession, Austrian economics does not have the internal controls to prevent wild swings in the economy, that is why there were all of those depressions in the 1800s.


cameron 4 years ago

ok well all obama is doing is making our lives hell because he's giving asll of our jobs to china

agree or disagree??


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I guess I disagee since that is what I heard Romney did as a businessman. As for Obama, I haven't seen any evidence to support such an assertion, can you supply some verifiable statistics and their source?


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 4 years ago from Wisconsin

My Esoteric: The "fundamental" reason for the severity of the 2008 recession, and the cause of the recession was began in the 20's as a solution to the problems of the Great Depression. That's when the "Debt Society" started. We've been one giant credit card ever since and we are usually at the limit, and Congress raises the limit every once in a while so we can continue to spend money we don't have. Both parties are responsible for the state of affairs and none have tried to fix it. Even Obama spent $800 billion on the banks.... Not on the employees or their families, not to pay off loans that should never have been made in the first place, and not on removing any debt. It was spent by and for the bankers and their friends. The last president to spend less than the revenue available to the government was Clinton and even he didn't bother to pay down the debt or use the money in any useful sense, and when we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan it was spent on war. Not only was it gone, but trillions went with it. Obama is spending even more than Bush, and there is no end in sight.

When will we run out of money? Does anyone even care anymore? When it happens, and it will happen, this country will cease to exist, and it will take much of the civilized world with it.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I appreciate your comments Swordsbane but just can't agree with them, the emperical evidence simply doesn't support your conclusions. As you said, America has been running a debt for a long time, even before 1920, actually; but, the thing is, we have had very good times and very bad times each when the debt was large and when it was small. In statistics, we say this has a poor corrolation; a plot of the points make sort of a scatter diagram with no discernable pattern.

What has been found is that debt can get so high, as in the Reagan years, as to become unstainable and erode confidence in the business sector as well as trying to pay for the darn thing. The only reason today's debt isn't a complete crisis yet is because interest rates are so low, but the grace period as about over; it must come down.

You will need to pick on something other than the $800 billion TARP for that has actually been paid back with interest. The auto bailout is still a money loser for the moment.

As to Clinton, he didn't have a chance to pay down the debt, the actual surplus didn't occur until the last year in office, maybe part of the year before that. It would have been nice though, wouldn't it.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

swordsbane , we are already out money and they don't care anymore. Listen to the debates: the two major candidates still pander to people who want free stuff. It's not going to get better.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

"You will need to pick on something other than the $800 billion TARP for that has actually been paid back with interest."

Situational ethics. All's well that ends well!


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

True enough Nicomp, I do know some hoped for the economic meltdown that would have resulted without TARP - it would have been good for the sole, they say.


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 4 years ago from Wisconsin

Me Esoteric: It doesn't matter if the $800 billion has been paid back with interest or not. The money didn't do anything. They might as well shifted the money from one hand to the other, which in a sense is what they did anyway.

And as for "with interest" that only means that banks who didn't deserve it made a profit at the expense of the public and gave that money back to the government. In other circles, we call that a kickback. In the meantime, the money that the government got back from the banks didn't go to anything useful after that either, or have you forgotten the runaway spending spree we're currently on. How much has been added to the debt under Obama? How much more has our deficit increased?

And you're wrong on one other count. You're plotting the wrong points. The "growth" we have had since the 20's has been tracked largely by inflation. A certain amount of inflation is considered "good" Stupid, but be that as it may, the deficit spending increases growth to runaway proportions, but degrades the value of the dollar. the government prints more money (why not.... since it's not backed by anything) which further degrades the dollar, but it's okay since all the countries are doing the same thing and we don't have to worry about the value of the dollar, only it's value relative to other currencies. If the dollar doesn't degrade faster than other nations, we call that growth. seriously? Our "good times" and "bad times" are measured in public confidence, not on any economic yardstick except the buying power of the citizens, where we continually increase the minimum wage to keep pace with inflation, or the health of the stock market, which is currently being propped up by good wishes and hope. The "bad times" come when a little bit of reality seeps into the stock market and there is a "correction" That was the dot.com bust, the S&L disaster and the housing crash. The housing crash was different in one respect, it affected where real people lived and it affected the credit of the entire country. The domino effect was much wider. The actual "health" of the country has been deteriorating at an increasing rate since the GD. Our ability to bounce back from crisis is diminishing. The money is concentrating at the top. The buying power of the Federal government is reaching a critical point and no one has a clue what will happen when we actually reach it, but everyone who know's is saying it will be bad. All of this is happening when we're running out of oil and coal, the very thing that is keeping our standard of living as high as it is. And no one is doing anything about it.

This all started in the 20's. There has been a massive shift in economic thinking that came out of the Great Depression. When we get out of this thinking (if we ever do) then historians will call everything from the 20's to whenever it ends one single state of affairs.

We spend more than we take in. Yes, it happened before the 20's but only periodically. After, it became the rule rather than the exception and we had been debt free before the 20's, but NEVER after. Not once.

Now in the last twelve years we've spent a LOT more than we take in, and not only are we going to continue, we see no problem with it, but it can't last forever. Something has to give.

nicomp: It's not that we can actually run out of money. The government can simply create more. We will run out of credit, and the money the government takes in will be less than the interest on the Federal Debt. It won't matter who's policies are good and who's policies are bad if we can't pay for any of them, even on paper.

What do we do then?


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 4 years ago from Wisconsin

My Esoteric: There would have been no "economic meltdown" without TARP IF the government had managed the dissolution of the banks properly. In a free market, those that can't compete make way for those that can. A company is not a human being. It's not to terribly important that Bank of America remain solvent. Keeping unemployment down doesn't depend on any one company being "propped up" It depends on their being jobs being available for those that want employment. If the TARP money was spent on the employees of the banks that failed instead of the banks themselves, then the unemployment would have been a transitional thing and not so far permanent as it has been and the stress of this temporary unemployment would have been softened. Our focus should be off of the companies themselves and on the people in the companies... and I don't mean just the executives and the CEO's and shareholders.

And the reason this particular recession happened was because we removed some critical controls from the banks.... controls that have yet to be put back. Again.... both parties are responsible for that. Obama shares the blame there.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

At the time of TARP, the meltdown was in progress, that is why they were in such a rush; most of the major financial institutions in the world were in the process of going BK. When the first vote on the TARP failed, there was a severe stock market reaction which is why it passed the second try. There was no time for a "managed" dissolution, a years long process that requires a stable economy.

The kind of "free-market" economy you talk about no longer exists in situations like we faced in October 2008; that is why conservative economists like Greenspan, Bernanke, and Sumners begged Bush to propose and then push for TARP.

The mechanisms that make supply-and-demand, microeconomics work in stable economic times actual make things worse when an economy gets out of whack. They provide positive feedback to the negative forces at work in a downward spiraling economy making it spiral downward even faster; that is just the nature of microeconomics. It is the reason why the 1800s are replete with one major recession after another.

Plain and simple, when things are bad, conservative economic theory does not work, it never has and it never will, it is mathematically impossible for it to do so.

While you are right that "any one company" in and of itself may not bring a country down, if you read my hub on recessions you will find example after example of a single company failing being the catylyst for many companies failing enevitably leading to a major recession or depression. In 2008, that company was Lehmann Bros, on Sept 15.

Also, there is a difference from the financial backbone of an economy collapsing and a manufacturing sector failing. When the financial sector collapses, the whole economy comes to a standstill. $800 billion would not be nearly enough for the 30+% unemployment that would have resulted.


Ken Burgess profile image

Ken Burgess 4 years ago from Florida

esoteric "I guess I disagee since that is what I heard Romney did as a businessman. As for Obama, I haven't seen any evidence to support such an assertion, can you supply some verifiable statistics and their source?"

In regards to shipping jobs to China (or overseas in general).

I find you to be candid and intelligent, but more ideological than politically realistic, in what you present, and appear to believe.

So lets take the whole issue of Romney shipping jobs to China, but first I have to say that just because he has stocks in Bain, or whatever his status may be... does not mean he approved anything they did since 1999. Even when he was still CEO while running the Olympics.

This is one of the problems he has, and one where the Obama Campaign's lies and deception have successfully gone to work painting Romney as something he isn't...

Because 90% of Americans probably don't know how you can be a CEO, and not have anything to do with the Agency, Company, or Corporation... they don't know how you can have stock in a company and be totally unaware of certain things they might be doing.

But that is how it works... CEO's, ED's, Presidents... they can be absent for YEARS... with their Directors, Assistants, etc. running things without them... until they finally step down and leave, or return and take over. That's how it works everywhere... from small Non-Profit Organizations to the biggest Banks in America.

More importantly... he was in business to make money, in the business world, you have to deal with the eat or be eaten realities... and in some instances the economics of a situation makes it almost impossible not to move jobs overseas... or like when the laws and tariff situations changed, shut down a steel business and go bankrupt.

So he was a successful business man. He wasn't a charity, he wasn't a community organizer... he was in business to make businesses thrive if he could, and get out alive and make money doing so if he couldn't.

And when he ran the Olympics, he wasn't there to make money, he was there to make it a success, and he did that well too.

And when he was Governor, he was there to balance the budget, bring businesses into the state, get people to work, etc. etc.... and the state did well under his leadership, instead of a deficit they had a surplus, the state went from 47th in creating jobs to 33rd in the nation, he improved things while he was there, and things have deteriorated since he has left...

Romney is over qualified to do the job... and whatever task he took on, Bain, the Olympics, Governor, he did successfully... I'll take my chances on a guy like that... rather than hope Obama changes his failed policies and puts creating jobs ahead of regulating and taxing businesses to death.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

My comment on the Romney and the "jobs to China" was a bit tongue-in-cheek", which is why I used the word "heard"; it was in response to the equally absurd declaration that Obama is "giving all our jobs to China".

As to Romney's job as CEO and head of the Olympics, I have never been one to take him to task for either, I really don't know anything much about Bain, and I don't pay any attention to the Dems attack ads in that regard. I have heard a lot about his job with the Olympics and it has all been good, great even. I won't go that far with his record as Governor of MA, there is enough evidence to make me at least question some of the accolades he gives himself for that role, but, since I haven't really verified them, I remain mute in that regard as well. Further, I don't look askance at him for his wealth, more power to him, nor in how he obtained it. If he is using legal methods of avoiding taxes, that is cool with me so long as he isn't stretching the law to fit his situation. None of those things are negatives for me regarding his candidacy.

What is a negative is his pure orientation toward business, thinking that will work in a political world, it won't. But worse, it is his economic and newly found social philosophies that I find so objectionable. The conservative economic philosophy simply has a history on never working in the bad times, it makes bad times worse and the conservative social philosophy strangles individual liberty to such a degree that I long for social climates are more tolerant and egalitarian than what will result from a long-term conservative take over of the federal government. In short, it isn't the man, it is his philosophy and that of his Party that I find disagreeable.


Ken Burgess profile image

Ken Burgess 4 years ago from Florida

Esoteric,

That is a valid point and understandable concern then. But if you studied Romney a bit more, I think you would find his history shows he is much more flexible (than Obama at least) when it comes to working with the opposite side to get things done, be it balancing the budget or creating Romneycare.

He could not have done either in MA without the support and aid of the Democrats... so while they fought tooth and nail over social issues and issues that had lesser impact on the state as a whole... when it came to setting taxes for business, when it came to supporting education, when it came to balancing the budget, he found common ground and got the best possible deals done.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

One will never know how well Obama could work with the other side given they made it their stated political agenda not to work with him. Even before he took his oath of office, the conservative leadership met and agreed not to work with Obama and focus on his removal.

Whether you agree or not, I am a fairly balanced observer and will take the Left to task as easily as I do the Right. If I observed Obama not making an effort to engage the conservatives, I would say so; but he has, many times. Unfortunately, the answer he has always gotten back, except in the last second of a crisis, is "you do it our way or it won't happen." Please don't forget how much he has been criticized by the Left for giving in too much to the Right in the name of compromise.


Ken Burgess profile image

Ken Burgess 4 years ago from Florida

That came to pass after his comments like "The Republicans can come along for the ride, but they have to go to the back of the bus"... and other comments about how the Democrats would dominate Washington for the next 40 years...

Obama was a divisive figure from day one... his ramming through Obamacare (despite overwhelming unpopularity for it in the U.S. ... he ran on cutting down the deficit, creating jobs, ending the wars... and then when he got to the WH he focused on Obamacare and other social justice issues that the majority did NOT consider the priority) and giving the finger to the Republicans while doing so... well HE made his bed, and has lain in it the past two years (happily pointing his finger at the Republicans the whole time).

The man is divisive and things aren't exactly going to get better in Washington if he is returned there... and certainly the economy won't, there are about two million pink slips waiting until after the election to be sent out... come Jan 1st 2013 there will be plenty more Americans hitting the unemployment lines, all Obama really cares about is getting re-elected.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Your quote is allegedly from a statement on Oct 27, 2010, almost 18 months "after" conservatives made their plans never to compromise with Obama. It is also four days "after" Senator McConnell made his infamous declaraton: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.", which was the rallying cry for conservatives to circle the wagons and try to prevent the ecomony from getting better since that is the only way to achieve their goal.

Obamacare has never been overwhelming unpopular in the way you mean; a large chunk of those who voted no didn't thing Obamacare didn't go far enough. It has always been true that when you parse the poll, less than 50% of American's actually want Obamacare repealed; 20% want it made stronger and are unhappy that it isn't.

Businesses do not make business decisions such as hiring and firing based on who is elected President. They are probably more interested in what happens to Congress.


Ken Burgess profile image

Ken Burgess 4 years ago from Florida

“Republicans had driven the economy into a ditch and then stood by and criticized while Democrats pulled it out.” Barack finished the “driving into a ditch” comment, with a stunning remark, “Now that progress has been made we can't have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up in front. We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.”

That's one exact quote, it was a reference he made more than once... and you have the date for that one correct.

But I disagree, Obama is unpopular, in Washington. He tries to pass a budget that gets voted down 99-0 by his own majority Senate?

Listen, so what if someone in Congress said, they are out to make him a one term President... you think there hasn't been someone who has said that about EVERY President we have had in the last 50+ years?

The difference between today and the past, is everyone has tiny little recording devices known as cell phones, and we have the internet which brings us every insignificant event to occur...

These issues are things that great Presidents overcome, and find ways of working things out...Clinton did it, Reagan did it, the best Presidents find a way to work it out... the worst of them gum-up Washington and make things worse for everyone... Carter and Obama in particular seemed pretty good at it.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I guess if the Republicans had spent the last 18 months doing everything they could in their minority status to impede my program and then say they are going to spend the next two years with control of the House to do the same thing even more effectively, I would say the same thing; "if you don't want to help, which you clearly don't, then get out of the way and stop hurting things." It sounds good to me.

Read the story behind the 99-0 vote, it says an entirely different thing than you think the bumber sticker means. Bottom line, it was a technical, procedural vote to do something else.

But NO Party has EVER, in the history of the United States, made such a concerted effort to stall a sitting President's program in a time of extreme economic crisis as this one has. EVERY opposition Party has helped or stayed out of the way in each major recession prior to this one. I challenge you to find just one example that comes even close to the damage the conservatives have done to a sitting President's attempts to recover from a major recession.

Clinton and Reagan found ways to work things out because the other Party was willing to compromise. This Party has clearly stated and observation has proven that they do not want to compromise; their agenda is to make Obama fail and not compromising is one of the best ways to do it, especially if it means keeping the economy in poor shape.

The ONLY way conservatives leave Obama to "work things out" is to give into 99.9% of their demands.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 4 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

''But NO Party has EVER, in the history of the United States, made such a concerted effort to stall a sitting President's program in a time of extreme economic crisis as this one has.''

General Election 2010 -Republicans win House-Democrats control Senate

http://hubpages.com/politics/GeneralElection2010-R...

The President's Speech Distorts the Truth

http://www.facebook.com/notes/paul-ryan/the-presid...

House Republicans have now passed 38 jobs bills that are currently stuck in the Democrat controlled Senate. Read more

http://majorityleader.gov/JobsTracker/

One should consider the truth!


Shyron E Shenko profile image

Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago

Good hub!


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 4 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

Today, 10/26/12, it's all about the Nov. election and the Benghazi cover up of what the truth is and who will be held responsible for the deaths of 4 government officials.Is the President and the administration lieing to the American people? Why isn't the mainstream media covering the story?To be continued.


Ken Burgess profile image

Ken Burgess 4 years ago from Florida

Benghazi isn't what it seems at all, unlike economics this falls more into my arena of past expertise, the more information that comes out, the more it doesn't add up.

What is going on is a lie, to protect a lie, to protect a deception. The more digging that is done the more this is looking like a CIA CoveOp, and I'd guess it went bad because someone leaked that the meeting was taking place, or their was a betrayal, or both.

Reasons why I think this:

1) No standards adhered to - no Security detachment to protect the Ambassador, no standard Gov issue vehicles, inadequate compound security measures, etc.

2) Just before the attack, Ambassador Stevens had finished meeting with a Turkish Ambassador (at around 8 to 9 pm).

3) On Sep 14, the Times of London reported that a Libyan ship “carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria … had docked in Turkey.” and then "more than 80 per cent of the ship's cargo…has been moved into Syria." The shipment reportedly weighed 400 tons and included SA-7 surface-to-air anti-craft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades.

4) Those heavy weapons are most likely from Muammar Gaddafi’s stock of about 20,000 portable heat-seeking missiles—the bulk of them SA-7s—that the Libyan leader obtained from the former Eastern bloc. Reuters reports that Syrian rebels have been using those heavy weapons to shoot down Syrian helicopters and fighter jets.

5) The ship’s captain was ”a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organization called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support,” which was presumably established by the new government.

6)Egypt intelligence warns of attacks on Israel, US embassies By JPOST.COM STAFF09/11/2012 16:58

Egypt's General Intelligence Service warned that a jihadi group is planning to launch terrorist attacks against the US and Israeli embassies in Cairo, according to a report Tuesday by Egypt Independent, citing a secret letter obtained by Al-Masry Al-Youm.

According to the report, the attack is being planned by Global Jihad, the group suspected of killing 16 Egyptian border guards in Sinai on August 5.

Al-Masry Al-Youm reportedly obtained a copy of the September 4 letter, sent to all Egyptian security sectors, warning that Sinai- and Gaza-based Global Jihad cells were planning attacks on the two embassies.

** More detailed reportings warned that another U.S. Embassy was to be attacked outside of Egypt. This means our own Intelligence services had to know these attacks were imminent, and yet no extra security measures were made in Libya, and no alert warnings were sent out.

7) A Libyan militia known as the February 17 Brigade, had been charged with providing local security to the consulate in Libya. This was what the State Department was depending on to protect Ambassador Stevens.

The 'commander' of the February 17 Brigade, Fawzi Bukatef, is a member of Libya’s branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.

8) It is the Muslim Brotherhood movement in Syria that received the weapons shipment.

The Muslim Brotherhood controls Egypt where the Intelligence warning about the attacks originated, and where the riots/attacks first broke out... the Muslim Brotherhood was involved in Libya to 'protect' the Ambassador... and the Muslim Brotherhood received the shipment of weapons from Libya to Syria via Turkey.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thank you Shyron.

Jon, I really hope you don't believe what you write, that the election is about only two things, what happens in Nov and the real story about Benghazi; it seems to me there a whole host of other important issues around the world as well.

Ken, I am not one to buy into conspiracy theories, but yours, I will not discount out-of-hand; it has a ring of plausibility to it. Your point in the second paragraph had already occured to me; it was my understanding that the movements of an Ambassador are secret, so how did the terrorists know when to strike?

I presume you mean that the arms shipment was headed toward the people of Syria and not the government. I challenge you to provide more support for point 8 for it is the one that makes least sense to me. If the shipment was coming from Egypt, then it would be more likely, but the Muslim Brotherhood are not in control in either Libyia or Turkey and I highly doubt even the CIA would let arms fall in their hands given the events in Egypt today.

You also open up a new possiblility of who the target was, could it have been the Turkish ambassador or at least included him? You also open up a new source for the potential leak, the Turkish security or diplomatic forces.

Lastly, this was a visit from Tripoly to Benghazi, from an embassy to a consulate. The consulate would have naturally been more lightly protected. By bringing in a heavy security team for a short, supposedly secret visit, where would that have left Tripoly? Also, what sort of signal does sending in a massive secutity force ahead of the Ambassador signal? Does that compromise security as well? If we have to do this kind of movement of large security teams every time an ambassador goes from one place to another in places where terrorist might strike us, how much will we have to increase our State Dept security forces and are conservatives willing to foot the bill?

All of the above are just questions, I haven't a clue or opinion as to the answers.


Ken Burgess profile image

Ken Burgess 4 years ago from Florida

Esoteric: "I challenge you to provide more support for point 8 for it is the one that makes least sense to me. If the shipment was coming from Egypt, then it would be more likely, but the Muslim Brotherhood are not in control in either Libyia or Turkey and I highly doubt even the CIA would let arms fall in their hands given the events in Egypt today."

1) The warning of the riots/attacks came from Egypt, which is headed by the Muslim Brotherhood... they claimed in that Intelligence Report that the Global Jihad was planning on attacking the embassy in Egypt, and they stated one other embassy outside Egypt as well.

I think this is a diversion, the Global Jihad had killed 16 Egyptian soldiers and wounded 7 in the Sinai just a month prior, not something the Egyptian Military nor Morsi appreciated, so who better than to pre-blame for the upcoming events of 9/11/12?

2) The Muslim Brotherhood has key positions in Washington, ones that have Top Secret and Intelligence access, you can read about this in some hubs actually, so I won't go into much detail... search hubs

The-Muslim-Brotherhoods-White-House-Connection or just Muslim Brotherhood for some more info.

3) As I noted above, the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria DID receive those weapons, you just need to google it to verify that. Below is a link to a NY Times Article mentioning the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria getting support from the CIA back in June. But you can find the specific mention of the SA-7 shipment I noted in the post above from the Times of London.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/world/middleeast...

Here they are on youtube being used (Arabic) if you watch them, your IP may be flagged, just a precautionary warning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedd...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedd...

The untold story of the "Arab Spring" and how the Obama administration secretly helped bring Radical Islamic Terrorists to power - the Timeline:

2009: Obama travels to Cairo to deliver 'apologetic' speech to Muslims, inviting banned Muslim Brotherhood leaders to attend. Obama deliberately snubs Egypt's president Mubarak, who was neither present nor mentioned. He also snubs Israel during the Mideast trip.

2009: Obama appoints a Brotherhood tied Islamist, Rashad Hussain, as U.S. envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which supports the Brotherhood.

2010: Obama meets one-on-one with Egypt's foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, who later remarks on Nile TV: "The American president told me in confidence that he is a Muslim."

2010: The Brotherhood's supreme guide calls for jihad against the U.S.

2011: Riots erupt in Cairo's Tahrir Square. Crowds organized by the Brotherhood demand Mubarak's ouster, storm buildings.

2011: The White House fails to back longtime ally Mubarak, who flees Cairo.

2011: William Taylor, Hillary Clinton's special coordinator for Middle East transitions, and a longtime associate of Brotherhood sympathizers, gives the Brotherhood special training to prepare for post Mubarak elections.

2011: The Brotherhood wins control of Egyptian parliament, vows to tear up Egypt's 30-year peace treaty with Israel and reestablishes ties with Hamas, Hezbollah.

2011: Obama gives Mideast speech demanding Israel relinquish land to Palestinians, while still refusing to visit Israel.

2011: The Justice Department pulls plug on further prosecution of U.S. based Brotherhood front groups identified as collaborators in conspiracy to funnel millions to Hamas.

2011: The State Department formalizes ties with Egypt's Brotherhood, letting diplomats deal directly with Brotherhood party officials in Cairo.

April 2012: The administration quietly releases $1.5 billion in foreign aid to the new Egyptian regime.

June 2012: Morsi wins presidency amid widespread reports of electoral fraud and voter intimidation by gun-toting Brotherhood militia, including blockades of entire streets to prevent Christians from going to the polls. The Obama administration turns a blind eye, recognizes Morsi as victor.

June 2012: In a victory speech, Morsi vows to instate Shariah law, turning Egypt into an Islamic theocracy, and also promises to free jailed terrorists.

July 2012: Obama invites Morsi to visit the White House in September.

August 2012: Egypt's President Morsi, visits with China at the invitation of President Hu Jintao. Morsi sought Chinese investments that would enable Egypt to "dispense of loans and aid," from America and its allies in the West... From China, Morsi traveled to Tehran to attend the Non-Aligned Summit, and days after the summit ends, the attacks against America's embassies all across the Middle East begin.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 4 years ago from usa

Ken Burgess

Allow me to add to your post.

the President supports.’’ the truth ‘’ Friend or Foe?

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tCAffMSWSzY#t...

Who are the progressives in the government?

http://commieblaster.com/progressives/index.html

THE SHARED AGENDAS OF GEORGE SOROS and BARACK OBAMA

http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_31606

Five Times Obama Has Apologized for America

http://freebeacon.com/five-times-obama-has-apologi...

A $2 million George Soros donation to the Obama Presidential campaign?

The middle east is a serious problem. President Obama's witholding the truth about Benghazi is troubling. Glen Beck laid the whole arab spring troubles out a long time ago, it is happening as he reported.America needs to wake up!


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Sighhhh, just as I thought, Jon, your "Five Times Obama ..." source is a bunch of malarky; 100% false because those quotes are 100% taken out of context and, what is even worse, when you put Obama's quotes in context, they end up meaning just the opposite of what you want the to mean.

As to trying to draw some relevant meaning out of any sharing of agenda's between Soros and Obama, I bet I could find, without breathing hard, some shared agenda between Mitt Romney and Mao Tse Tung and Hitler. So bleeping what if they have a shared agenda? If you believe in the agenda, then vote for the guy, if you don't, then don't vote for him; whoever else he may "share" that agenda with is absolutely irrelavant and silly to even consider.

As to Progressives, more power to them. It is because of Progressives, American society has progressed so much. It is because of the them slavery is gone, women can vote, public schools evolved and whole host of other good social programs came into being; programs conservatives fought every inch of the way, btw? Aren't you just prouder than punch of being a conservative opposing each advance in American civil liberties?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Ken, I looked up a couple of your sources. Regarding the claim of SA-7s and other weapons being funneled to Siryia's Muslim Brotherhood, your statement seems to be misleading at best. The Brotherhood is only mentioned once in the article, and then only as one of many, although I will admit it is highlighted. The sentence in which it is mentioned reads:

"The weapons, including automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, ammunition and some antitank weapons, are being funneled mostly across the Turkish border by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries including Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood and paid for by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the officials said. " -- hardly as damning as you make out; I bet there are some pro-West groups in there as well.

As to your rediculous statement about the White House employing Muslim Brotherhood disciples, courtesy of witchhunters and fellow Joe McCarthyites, Bachmann (R-MN), Franks (R-AZ), Gohmart (R-TX), Rooney (R-FL), and Westmoreland (R-GA); here is what fellow Republicans had to say about that:

"Republicans John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Scott Brown (R-Mass.) and Ed Rollins defended Abedin [Hillary Clinton's Deputy and one of the "Muslim Brotherhood" under attack] against these allegations. John McCain stated, "These allegations about Huma and the report from which they are drawn are nothing less than an unwarranted and unfounded attack on an honorable woman, a dedicated American and a loyal public servant... The letter and the report offer not one instance of an action, a decision or a public position that Huma has taken while at the State Department that would lend credence to the charge that she is promoting anti-American activities within our government... These attacks on Huma have no logic, no basis and no merit. And they need to stop now.

Speaker of the House John Boehner told reporters: "I don't know Huma. But from everything that I do know of her, she has a sterling character, and I think accusations like this being thrown around are pretty dangerous." Abedin's family came under police protection when as a result of the controversy they were threatened by a New Jersey man (who was himself a Muslim)."

Enough said, and that just made all the rest you have to say extremely suspect as to its veracity.


Ken Burgess profile image

Ken Burgess 4 years ago from Florida

Esoteric,

Well there you go, reading into things, now you are coming across more like the left wing extremists that dismiss anything that doesn't fit into their nice tidy outlook of things.

I never once mentioned "Abedin [Hillary Clinton's Deputy and one of the "Muslim Brotherhood" under attack]" I think you have me confused with, well, lets just say the more extreme and less educated/experienced folks who like to repeat what they have heard from Rush Limbaugh, and those who cling to one Party or the other like they are some football team you root for.

I am taking the time to try and explain, trying to help you connect the dots. I may not be doing that great of a job of it, simply because I have a small amount of knowledge on these types of issues ... though I admit, I try to bury it away, until an issue like this that gets talked about for ever, and is such a fiasco, gets the better of me.

Its kind of like you and economics, your depth of knowledge there is greater than mine, so while I am not ignorant of how such things work, your grasp is greater, and your ability to communicate your points is actually made more difficult when you go overboard about Keynesian economics and supply-side this and Austrian that, as if I had the same depth of knowledge that you do.

I can look at the NY Times article I showed you, and the Times London article, and the Israeli International article, and scan a few youtube vidoes... all the dates fall in line, if you check the progression of what I either noted or linked, from the June NY Times article, to the Oct 15 (4 days after 9/11) Arabic Youtube video where they shot down an aircraft with the SA-7 ... it should start to paint a picture for you.

But maybe it doesn't... it does for me, but then, I have a serious bit more to go off of than what I presented to you, and I also have a few years in the military and then working for the government.

to be CONT...


Ken Burgess profile image

Ken Burgess 4 years ago from Florida

OK so, I will adress a bit more the " rediculous statement about the White House employing Muslim Brotherhood disciples,"

Syrian-born Kareem Shora, who was the national executive director of the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination (ADC), was sworn in to the to the Homeland Security Advisory Council.

Arif Alikhan, was appointed as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development in the Department of Homeland Security. I like this guy, during his term as deputy mayor of Los Angeles. He removed the plan that tracked Muslims in the city who were suspected of terrorist activities.

Special Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation Rashad Hussein

Presidential advisor Dalia Mogahed

Homeland Security Advisory Committee Member Mohamed Elibiary

Homeland Security Countering Violent Extremism Working Group Member Mohamed Magid.

And of course there is Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Huma Abedein; whom you've berated me for mentioning... when I didn't.

There are others, I'm not inclined at this moment to try and dig them all up now. So lets just say there are some people who may have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood who are working in some capacity for this Administration, and have access to top level Secret information, and move on.

Next is what occurred in Egypt that timeline I noted in a few posts above, and how the Administration seemed to favor the Muslim Brotherhood... from way back in 2009 when Obama traveled to Cairo to deliver his speech to Muslims, inviting banned Muslim Brotherhood leaders to attend... all the way to when Morsi to control of the country.

Then there is the NY Times article from June:

A small number of C.I.A. officers are operating secretly in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive arms by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries including Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood.

Now fast forward to Benghazi. The 'commander' of the February 17 Brigade, Fawzi Bukatef, is a member of Libya’s branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. The February 17 Brigade, had been charged with providing local security to the consulate in Libya. This was what the State Department was depending on to protect Ambassador Stevens.

What was going on then? Why did Stevens meet with the Amb from Turkey? Why did the attack happen right after he left?

Lastly where did those SA-7's go?

http://sana.sy/eng/22/2012/09/14/441552.htm

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-syria-heavy-weap...

See, I'm not even saying its a bad thing that the Muslime Brotherhood has ties to the Obama Administration, and the overthrow of Egypt, and Libya, and now Syria... I'm just saying... the connections are there.

The Muslim Brotherhood's motto: “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

But hey, why worry about that. Maybe they don't really believe in it all that much.

Another tidbit... back in April of 2007, then House Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer had an encounter with Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood representatives in Cairo, who controlled upwards of one fifth of the seats in Egypt’s Parliament. It was not sanctioned by Bush or Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice.

The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) was founded by fundamentalist Egyptian school teacher, Hasan al Banna in 1928. He advocated violent Jihad and the replacement of secular governments with a worldwide totalitarian Caliphate governed under strict Islamic Shariah law. BDespite Banna’s assassination by Egyptian authorities under King Farouk in 1949, the MB succeeded in establishing branches throughout the Middle East, such as Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank, Jordan and Syria. There are even branches in Europe and America. The Hamas Charter of 1988 seeks the obliteration of the Jewish State of Israel. Among MB fronts in the US are:

Council of American Islamic Relations;

Islamic Society of North America;

Islamic Circle of North America;

Muslim Students Association;

Muslim American Society;

International Institute for Islamic Thought; and,

Muslim Public Affairs Council.

These MB fronts were identified as unindicted co-conspirators in the Federal Holy Land Foundation trial with convictions in 2008, involving the funneling of upwards of $36 million to Palestinian MB affiliate Hamas in Gaza. Uncovered in the HLF trial was a 1991 strategy plan of the MB in the US to overthrow our Constitution and form of government via ‘stealth Jihad’ and replacing it with a Shariah–ruled Caliphate.

The Arab Spring and US Relations with the Muslim Brotherhood

With the election of President Obama in November 2008 and his Muslim Outreach initiative, exemplified by his Cairo “A New Beginnings Speech ” at al Azhar University, the Obama administration extended a welcome to the MB. Investor’s Business Daily noted the ensuing chronology of events, punctuated by the overthrow of the Mubarak regime in Egypt during the Arab Spring of 2011 that swept the heartland of the Muslim ummah.

2009: The White House invites ISNA’s president to President Obama’s inauguration ceremonies, even though the Justice Department just two years earlier had blacklisted the Brotherhood affiliate as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land trial — the largest terror-finance case in U.S. history.

2009: Obama delivers his Cairo speech to Muslims, infuriating the Mubarak regime by inviting Brotherhood leaders to attend.

2009: The White House dispatches top presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett to give the keynote speech at ISNA’s annual convention.

2009: Obama appoints a Brotherhood-tied Islamist — Rashad Hussain — as U.S. envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which strongly supports the Brotherhood.

2010: Hussain meets with the Brotherhood’s grand mufti in Egypt.

2011: White House sends intelligence czar James Clapper to Capitol Hill to whitewash the Brotherhood’s extremism. Clapper testifies the group is a moderate, “largely secular” organization.

2011: The Brotherhood’s spiritual leader — Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi — is given a hero’s welcome in Tahrir Square, where he raises the banner of jihad. Qaradawi, exiled from Egypt for 30 years, had been calling for “days of rage” before the rioting in Egypt. Before Obama’s Cairo speech, Qaradawi wrote an open letter to the President arguing [Islamic] terrorism is a direct response to U.S. foreign policy.

2011: The Brotherhood vows to tear up Egypt’s 30-year peace treaty with Israel. Since Mubarak’s fall, it has worked to formally reestablish Cairo’s ties with Hamas and Hezbollah.

2011: Obama gives Mideast speech demanding Israel relinquish land to Palestinians.

2011: White House security adviser gives friendly speech at Washington-area mosque headed by ISNA’s new president.

2011: Justice Department pulls plug on further prosecution of Muslim Brotherhood front groups identified as collaborators in conspiracy to funnel millions to Hamas.

So... what was this originally all about? Merely that I was pointing out that Stevens got killed in a CIA CovOp that went bad. One which was likely guided by the SoS. And that the Muslim Brotherhood was involved somehow, and that they were the recipients of the SA-7s in Syria.

I will add to that... why didn't the Obama Administration try to do more to save those men?

They suspected an Ambush, if the attackers had Sa-7s then any plane or helicopter that got sent in would be a target. They also had to worry about making the riots that were breaking out even worse by killing the wrong people during that attack, and lastly, the bigger that battle became the more problems it would cause them in the campaign.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

1. Close GitMo ... nope

2. Repeal the Patriot Act ... uh uh

3. Balance the budget ... sorry

4. Stop using a 'credit card' to prosecute a war ... well, um, it's Bush's fault.


Ken Burgess profile image

Ken Burgess 4 years ago from Florida

Esoteric,

Sorry, wandered in my argument to some degree, should have gone to bed rather than work on those responses until early in the morning.

Anyway... following the timeline of legitimate Newspaper reports... which I should have stuck to rather than jumping to youtube videos:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleea...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleea...

Note the Dates, look into events in Syria right after the 9/11/12 attack at Benghazi, a few days later, Syrian jets and helicopters are being shot down, and reports that 'rebels' have 'surface to air missiles' SA-7s starts to be reported.

Again, let me reiterate, I am not saying this (all the above information in previous posts) is anything more than proof that the Obama Administration since day one has been working with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Libya, and Syria, and that the death of Ambassador Stevens occurred because he was there as part of a secret operation that was getting SA-7s from Libya to Syria 'rebels' via Turkey.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Damn, Ken, lot's to absorb. Obviously you have a background in intelligence which gives you special insight into many areas. Mine is in the broader category of (hopefully) unbiased analysis of information; logistics, financial, and resources, at least that is what the Air Force and DoD paid me to do.

I will definetly look into the more extensive details you provided although let me say, I really don't doubt your overall timeline as it pertains to covert support to the Syrian insurgancy. The fact that we might (are) be involved in supplying them arms is of no surprise to me and would actually be a disappointment if we weren't.

On the other hand, I don't really want to know about it either; I understand very well what happens when covert operations get exposed by overzealeous reporters, good people die. You simply cannot operate a free society in a hateful world, openly; if your try, you no longer will exist. If what happened in Benghazi is somehow related to a blown operation in support of the Syrian people and not because of some criminal activity of the administration, then so be it; this isn't a 100% perfect world where everything works right all of the time. Hell, I have even defended Bush with the same argument.

The question is, did Obama order that security be withdrawn from the Ambassador so that he become more vulnerable? I really doubt it. Did Biden, did Clinton, did anybody do it on purpose? I really doubt it. Next, were the decisions made regarding the security of the Ambassador similar or dissimilar from the security decisions made about any ambassador on the move in reasonably similar circumstances. If they were similar, then was the decision-making process adaquate or flawed overall? If they were dissimilar, why is this so and does it make sense? Other questions - where was the security leak, if there was one? Who knew of the Ambassador's plans? Does the discussion with the Turkish ambassador have any links with the attack? Did Congress provide enough funding for adaquate security system-wide? Did the State Dept use the funding wisely? and so on and so on. These are the important questions and not where does the buck stop; we all know where it stops.

I will say one thing though, if I didn't know anything about Mitt Romney or President Obama, I wouldn't vote for Romney just because of the way he handled this Benghazi mess; Romney, in his niaivitee, violated one of the sancrocant rules of political electioneering - you , the opponent, don't criticize a sitting President on foreign policy decisions in the middle of a crisis. Romney was just plain stupid, in my opinion.


Ken Burgess profile image

Ken Burgess 4 years ago from Florida

Esoteric,

My sentiments on the matter are similar to your own then. With two minor exceptions, Romney didn't criticize the Ambassador's mission, or the efforts to save him, he criticized the statement for the video that was put on the website.

"The embassy in Cairo put out a statement after their grounds had been breached," Romney told reporters . "Protesters were inside the grounds. They reiterated that statement after the breach. I think it’s a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values. That instead, when our grounds are being attacked and being breached, that the first response of the United States must be outrage at the breach of the sovereignty of our nation. An apology for America’s values is never the right course."

Romney repeated variations of "apology" five more times. He called the Cairo embassy statement "akin to apology," called it an effort to "apologize for American values," said it was "effectively apologizing for the right of e speech," and described it as "what appeared to be an apology for American principles."

Overall, I agree with what he said, but did he need to say it? Not IMO. Did the media need to focus on it so much, rather than the real story of what was going on at that time in the Middle East and North Africa, absolutely not. They tried to make his statements a bigger story than the riots taking place, and that to me was ignorant.

I also don't agree with the blaming of what occurred on the video, especially Obama's speech to the UN... IMO that speech was a very poor one, that could easily be interpreted as lack of support for America's Free Speech by the President.

Clearly the riots had to do with a lot more than that video, it had to do with 9/11 and the overall anti-American, anti-Israeli sentiments that are becoming more pronounced in that region of the world... the crowds were chanting "Obama! Obama! We are all Osama!"

...but that fails to be reported, the video is the story the media ran with, along with the Romney statement.

Early on in my military career, when I was stationed somewhere overseas on a JTF, a Major came up to me when I was at the Camp Medical Station... he handed me a file that he said he found in someone's Medical Records, he said I would know what to do with it.

In that file was a report that detailed everything that had occurred during a particular problematic event, it reminded me of a long AAR so to speak and I was not used to seeing such TS documents at that time, detailing step by step how the events happened, what the total number of casualties were, the vehicles and weapons destroyed or commandeered, the amount of damage done, etc. some pretty high ranking individuals signed off on it...

Then came a revision of sorts from even higher, that revision was to be the official story... accordingly there were no casualties there were no destroyed or commandeered vehicles, etc. etc.

That was my introduction to how things worked in such matters, and as I gained more experience, I noticed more and more often how what was being reported by CNN (which at the time was the only 24 hour news channel that covered so much of our overseas efforts) was totally opposite of what was really going on... I can even remember once when I was there with the CNN crew and saw the report a day or so later and was just stunned at the misinformation...

I think the cover story was so improbable... and the effort to sell it so botched, that it got to me, and got me digging... see I know that two or three Navy Seals are more dangerous to deal with than 200 angry Islamic Extremists armed with rifles and RPGs. If I had my choice, I'd still take on those 200 over the 3 Seals, my odds for survival would be significantly higher.


Ken Burgess profile image

Ken Burgess 4 years ago from Florida

So my last argument for Romney as President goes like this:

Throughout his business, Olympics, and political career, Romney's efforts to succeed became a learned approach. Romney has said, "There were two key things I learned at Bain. One was a series of concepts for approaching tough problems and a problem-solving methodology; the other was an enormous respect for data, analysis, and debate." He has written, "There are answers in numbers. Pile the budgets on my desk and let me wallow." Romney believes his approach is not only effective in the business realm but also in running for office and, once there, in solving political conundrums such as proper Pentagon spending levels and the future of Social Security. Former Bain and Olympics colleague Fraser Bullock has said of Romney, "He's not an ideologue. He makes decisions based on researching data more deeply than anyone I know."

Political profiler Ryan Lizza said that "while giving customers exactly what they want may be normal in the corporate world, it can be costly in politics". Writer Robert Draper holds a somewhat similar perspective: "The Romney curse was this: His strength lay in his adaptability. In governance, this was a virtue; in a political race, it was an invitation to be called a phony."

We can see this now, he's called a flip-flopper, but he was able to do quite well as Governor for the state of MA. I think he is a poor political campaigner, but a good executive.

I think Obama is a person who will stick to what he believes in most strongly, and his strongest beliefs are Social Justice issues Nationally and Globally. Whether its in wanting to 'redistribute the wealth' by taxing the rich more, or passing Obamacare rather than focusing on a budget or tax reform at that time, or whether its pouring hundreds of billions into 'green-energy' efforts while slamming coal and oil efforts with newer and costly regulations. Even if the numbers don't add up, he is going to push through what he thinks is right, no matter the cost, the old 'end results justify the means' mentality.

I think Romney in a lot of ways is the exact opposite, the last thing he will take into consideration in many instances is the Social Justice part of any equation. He sees the new regulations on Oil and Coal as inhibiting maximum potential production and costing jobs. He doesn't think taxing the 'rich' will solve any problems, he believes making it more affordable for businesses to thrive in America, and more costly for them to operate overseas while making profits here is the better approach. He is a goal orientated, crunch the numbers, type of person who takes on the required role to be a success... much less driven by ideology.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I will agree with para 1, Ken to the extent Romney didn't criticize the mission or the Ambassador, but, I do fault Romney for greatly jumping the gun for political advantage in foreign affairs crisis. It doesn't matter if he was absolutely right or 100% wrong in his accusations; he was very wrong, as a candidate, for making them in the first place until the situation played out for many more days.

There would have been plenty of surrogates to take his place to take the administration to task, but it shouldn't be the opposition Party; not yet anyway. If it develops that the administration is playing a big cover-up because of embarrasing administrative screw-ups, then more power to them all, the administration would deserve it; but not from the get-go when the situation is 99% unknown, especially to a neophyte like Romney.

As to the "apology", it is as vacuous as the "apology" tour he accuses Obama of making. In both cases, when you listen to all of the words spoken, there is no apology contained in any of it.

I didn't hear Obama's UN speech, so I had to search for it. But, before that, I found this from CBS:

- 14 hours after the attack in an interview with 60-Minutes Obama told the interviewer, "You're right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt," Obama said, referring to protests sparked by an anti-Islam film. "And my suspicion is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start."

- Shortly after that in the Rose Garden, he said, "No act of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation,"

- Four days later, over the weekend, according to CBS, ...U.S. intelligence began to uncover evidence that there had not been a protest outside the consulate." however, "... That new intelligence did not get to Rice before she appeared on the Sunday talk shows,..." where she said October 19, 2012 7:28 PM PrintText

Piecing together White House response to Benghazi

comments

68inShare.0More+

EmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInDigg.PrintDeliciousRedditStumbleuponGoogle Bookmarks....

ByDavid Martin .Play CBS News Video

(CBS News) The attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, has become a contentious issue in the presidential race, with Mitt Romney accusing the president of misleading the public about whether the attack was an act of terrorism.

Shortly after President Barack Obama spoke to State Department employees about the attack on the consulate, he sat down with "60 Minutes" for a previously scheduled interview.

It had been about 14 hours since the attack, and the president said he did not believe it was due simply to mob violence.

"You're right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt," Obama said, referring to protests sparked by an anti-Islam film. "And my suspicion is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start."

Shortly after that, Obama stepped into the Rose Garden and spoke of the killing of four Americans as if it were a terrorist attack.

"No act of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation," Obama said in his Rose Garden remarks.

The president was reflecting the judgment of U.S. intelligence, which, according to one official, concluded in the hours immediately after the attack that it was an act of terror.

Ambassador warned Libya was "volatile and violent"

CIA saw possible terror ties day after Libya hit: AP

Obama to Jon Stewart: Benghazi response "not optimal"

But four days later, Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., appeared on "Face the Nation" and made the attack sound more like a violent demonstration than an act of terror.

"Soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are unfortunately readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that spun from there into something much, much more violent," --- oops.

- Three days after that, CBS reports that, "Matthew Olsen, the head of the National Counterterrorism Center, was asked point-blank whether the raid was a terrorist attack. 'I would say yes. They were killed in the course of a terrorist attack,' Olsen told Congress."

So, by my count, it was 8 or 9 days before the Obama administration was officially on record as saying this was a terrorist attack and not a result of some film.

Having said that, I finally found a video of Obama's speech and listened to for the parts where he said the Benghazi attack was the result of those stupid films ... never heard it, not once. I heard Obama talk long and hard about the film, and intolerance, and hate, but in broad terms as they impact overall East-West relations, as he should have. But, not once did he draw a nexus between the film and the attack itself. Did he refer to the events of the "last two weeks"? Absolutely! Because lots of things happened in those two weeks as a result of the hate spewed from the film which upset international relations, but he never blamed Benghazi on it, he never even refered to a Benghazi demostration, just the attack.

My war was Vietnam, and our tour de force for deception, of course, was the Mai Lai massacre. I can't remember ever being more ashamed of being an Army officer as having to had lived through that cover-up; things never change.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 4 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

The President sits down with the media, somehow he neglects the whitehouse press corps. Wonder why, the people are tired of his distortions and all out lies.

The President supports.’’ the truth ‘’ Friend or Foe?

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tCAffMSWSzY#t...

Benghazi cover up?

The people want the true facts from the administration this time around.

Barak Obama Campaign Promises

http://hubpages.com/politics/barakobamacampaignpro...


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Hehe, I like that, "give he customer what he wants", very good.

I guess it is all in the eye of the beholder, where one's priorities are, and where one see's the most danger. In my view, Obama nearly got it right. The biggest danger facing America was falling into a depression, which is where we were definitely heading, if 200 years of history is any guide. That needed to be stopped first. Many conservatives do not believe, especially today, that things were really that bad and there is no amount of data, historical or otherwise that I can produce that will ever convince them otherwise; I suspect most of them would blame FDR for the 1929 depression; I know they blame him for such a slow recovery. In any case, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind first Bush, at the behest of his conservative economic team, in passing TARP, and then Obama, passing and instituting what turned out to be 1/2 a stimulus bill was required; if they hadn't you still might find a few people still standing in food lines.

What people don't realize is the 75% of the current increase in debt would have occured "regardless" of who was in office ... McCain or Obama, it wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference, for that amount was built into the size of recession that ultimately occured. And, I know you won't believe me, but there is no way McCain could have instituted policies different from Obama's that would have lessened the recession, an economy in free-fall simply doesn't work the way conservatives thinks it does, entirely different dynamics are in play that their economic system can't handle quickly.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I just love an analogy I just thought of, so you will just have to suffer through it. The historic conservative solution to recessions and depressions, and I can find you contemporary suggestions to do the same in the 2008 one, is just to "let it run its course"; no stimulus is needed, in fact it will make things worse. To me, the anology is like letting a smallpox epidemic run its course without innoculating anybody because it is too expensive, besides, a few people might die from the vaccine.

So, to me, Obama addressed Job 1, saving the American economy.

In the process, he started work on Job 2, slowing down and then reversing the gushing job loss from the recession. This he did within two months and reversal coming 11 months.

Job 3 was finally solving the abysmal healthcare problem in the US, he did that with terrible execution and wasted time in getting Obamacare passed.

After that, he tackled the myriad of other things I talk about in this hub.

I don't know if Obama has been talked to about the Laffer curve or not, but several of your peers have thrown it at me. For those of you just picking up on this conversation, the Laffer curve is a conservative theory that says there is an ideal tax rate which will maximize tax revenue and moving the rate above or below this "theoretical" number, will bring in less revenue to the government; it is a good theory. Problem is, we have long since past the optimal point with the Kennedy tax cuts back in the 1960s and further cuts in rates keep bringing in less revenue; this has proved to be true with every tax cut since. Further, and directly to Ken's point about income distribution, there is another tool used to measure income inequality in a society called the Gini Index. Since the Reagan "tax cuts" the Gini Index has been growing, implying the distribution of income has been moving from the poor to the rich. Increasing taxes on the rich will flatten this back out to where it used to be.

So, I will be voting for Obama.

(are we up to five hubs an hour now?)


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 4 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

Just remember that SEQUESTRATION is all Obama's plan for another depression. According to the law, Obama was to send his plans to Congress on who, what and where the cuts will occur.The House has passed a bill already, the Senate and President Obama have done nothing, again delaying actions.

House Republicans have now passed 38 jobs bills that are currently stuck in the Democrat controlled Senate. Read more

http://majorityleader.gov/JobsTracker/

There is no doubt that you have a conscious and are capable of making good decisions. Good luck in Nov.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Jon, how can you say that ... "SEQUESTRATION is all Obama's plan for another depression ..." with a straight face? It makes you sound like you are a paranoid schizoidphrenic thinking the Martians are coming or something. All of us who read you know that is not true, although we do know you are a wee bit on the conservative side.

Keep in mind, the fight over raising the debt limit was the conservatives plan to further their agenda to, quote Senator McConnell, "Make Obama a one-term President." That means fight him every step of the way, which they have done very well. Never, in the history of America has such a fight been made over raising the debt limit until 2011; never. Sure, one side or the other, including Obama, has tried to score a few poilitical points over it, but NEVER, to the detriment of America's national character.

Well, the conservatives are so all consumed with getting Obama out of office, the national character be damned and THEY, your side, made a national crises out of it. The result was a compromise, which shouldn't have been necessary in the first place, which YOUR SIDE AGREED TO, was reached which included sequestration; an alternative which was not wupposed to have happened if YOUR SIDE had sone its job, it didn't. ALL because, and ONLY because your side doesn't want millionaires and billionairs to pay an extra 5% on wages over $250,000 and a paranoid fear of Obama winning a second term.

BUT FOR those to issues, there would be no fear of sequestration today.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

Still waiting for 'the most transparent administration in history.' lol.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

"...and ONLY because your side doesn't want millionaires and billionairs to pay an extra 5% on wages over $250,000 ..."

Which is the reddest herring in history. As long as either side is obsessed with class warfare, the federal government can continue to bleed us dry.


Ken Burgess profile image

Ken Burgess 4 years ago from Florida

Esoteric,

It's been a week since I visited here, I perused most of our conversation above, it was more informative the second time around as I am reading it from a more objective, less involved, stand-point.

You know, I am a moderate, the type that votes for what he believes is right for the country, the economy and most importantly my kid's futures.

Without going into my reasoning, the last time I voted Republican for President was Bush SR... Sr... not Jr. And if I had to do those votes over again, I would not change any of them... of course, I don't have the ability to know what the other candidates might have done, one can only speculate.

Despite your sound position, I still favor Romney... One primary reason is I don't like Obama's tone, and where I think he will take things with four more years... I sense in him an anger, a desire to stomp out those who want to oppose him, and it even slips our from time to time... he wants to get "revenge" on THEM... THEY are the problem.

That to me is a dangerous mindset for any President to be so filled with, that he cannot even hide it from slipping out from time to time in his speeches... as if they are a real enemy, that he wants to crusade... or jihad against. That's only going to lead to more GRIDLOCK in Washington... and more hardships for Americans.

In a recent interview, Obama likened the Republican opposition to him to a “blister” that will be “popped” by the election. He seems to believe that " the American people will have voted. They will have cast a decisive view on how we should move the country forward" and the Republicans will fall in line and do what he wants.

And that's delusional IMO, the exact opposite is true, they will move even further to the right, and might even try to impeach him if they have enough numbers in Congress that they think its feasible... or they might do it to him just to make it so he is so busy fighting them, he is incapable of getting anything passed through.

Right or wrong, its what is most likely what is to occur with an Obama re-election... his political capitol has been used up, and his mindset that he is going to 'get his way' with Republicans in a second term is simply foolishness.

The worst thing for America in the next four years, is Obama... not Romney. That's just the truth of it. Its not about who is a better person, or has better ideas even... its a matter of who will be able to get things done in Washington to move the country forward... Obama is carrying a lot of baggage with him, Romney isn't... he'll be able to go in there and get some things done... just like every new President does... before they get bogged down with baggage after a while.

See... even though Obama is dragging Clinton around trying to win re-election by using him... he is nothing like him... Clinton was willing to work with Republicans and adjust, move to the middle, to get things done ... I don't see that in Obama at all. He says he will do that now, so he can get re-elected... but in his one-on-one interviews, and occasional Freudian slips, there is no talk about compromise, only forcing his way on the other side.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Actually, Ken, I don't disagree with the essence of your analyse of Obama's anger; maybe with its impact on how he wll operate, but yes, I believe he is very angry. As I see it, he has every right to be, but he nevertheless needs not let it get in the way of how he leads. In that regard, I haven't seen much indication that it has, just the opposite really.

Consider all of the hot water he has gotten into with his own Party in trying to accomodate an opposition Party who has publically stated they will not be accomodated by trying to compromise with them. The tax deal he made with the Conservatives at the end of 2009 or 2010, whenever it was, is still haunting him with the Left wing of his Party.

The sequestration deal, something that should never have had to happen, but he is now getting beat up about is a result of the opposition Party refusing to compromise until damage to the country had already been accomplished and they had no choice.

Here is a President where 20% of the country hates him because he is Black, and he knows it. Here is a President where probably 10% of the this religiously toloerant country, haha, hates him because they continue to think he is Muslim, as if that should make in difference. Here is a President where it is publically known the leaders of the opposition Party gathered together in New York City before his inaguaration and conspired, yes conspired in a way no other previous opposition Party has ever done, to systematically frustrate his agenda with the sole purpose of defeating him in the next election; mind you this has nothing to do with the good of the country, just defeating Obama. Finally, this is the President who listened to the Minority Leader of the Senate publically state, again a historical first, that the political agenda of the Republican Party in Congress is "make Obama a one-term President" ... not to govern, but to make Obama a one-term President. Guess what, they kept their word, the opposition Party did not govern.

Now, off my soapbox. This is the Party that Romney represents. That, all by itself is reason enough for me not to vote for him for he associates with politicians who chose not to govern for four years during the worst time in America's history since the Korean War.

But, more importantly, I don't vote for the Man or Woman (within reason, of course), I vote for the economic and social philosophies for which they believe in and which they will try to promulgate. I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the economic philosophies held by today's conservatives, the same as almost all Presidents from Jefferson through Hoover, simply do not work when the economy becomes unstable, in fact there economic philosophies make things worse and that is the economic philosophy of Romney.

Further, today's conservatives also adhere to the social philosophies that conservatives have held since the beginning of time, opposition to the advancement of human rights. Now here, I think Romney is being two-faced. I really think he is a social moderate in conservative clothing, but the Party he represents is all about telling me how to believe and how to conduct my life on a moral and ethical level ... using their moral and ethical code.

Those are the fundamental reasons I could no more vote for someone passing themselves off as a conservative as I could walk to the moon. So long as the politician being elected appears to effective, honest, and not too much of an a-hole, then I look to their philosophy, not personal characteristics.


Ken Burgess profile image

Ken Burgess 4 years ago from Florida

Esoteric

" The tax deal he made with the Conservatives at the end of 2009 or 2010, whenever it was, is still haunting him with the Left wing of his Party.

The sequestration deal, something that should never have had to happen, but he is now getting beat up about is a result of the opposition Party refusing to compromise until damage to the country had already been accomplished and they had no choice."

OK, there are differing stories to how these things came about... Obama demanded the sequestration, no it was the Republicans... myself, I am willing to lay blame on BOTH sides. Lets say you are right and the Reps forced the majority of these 'bad for the country' situations like the sequestration that is now causing harm (and will cause a lot more in the way of job losses come 1 Jan 2013 if it comes to pass)... you know what, Obama owns that, for getting himself in that situation... be it because of political ignorance on how things work, or because he actually wanted to hold that over the Reps heads for political purposes, or because deep inside he really wants to drastically cut the Military... whichever is the truth, it's equally Obama's actions/leadership/ineptness that put America in this position... you can't just blame others, you have to work with them, or outsmart and outmaneuver them... to do better for the country.

"Here is a President where 20% of the country hates him because he is Black, and he knows it."

And here is a President that has the majority of the media bending over backwards for him in large part because he is black and who has 95% of all blacks voting for him irregardless of whatever he has done... it works both ways. We have a culture in America today that allows the Obama campaign to crap on the white guy because he is white, making crazy accusations like killing a woman with cancer and not paying taxes for ten years, despite Romney's track record of success and decency... but you have to praise the black guy, even if he's inept or done something incompetently in the last four years.

"Here is a President where probably 10% of the this religiously toloerant country, haha, hates him because they continue to think he is Muslim, as if that should make in difference."

I think his words... in his own Autobiography "I will stand with my Muslim brothers" .... and his actions and that of his Administration (IE - NASA's new mission is to reach out to Muslims, we will no longer use the words 'terrorists' and 'extremists', choosing to try and bury Benghazi and the riots that flamed throughout the Middle East and North Africa... and then using a Youtube Video to deflect the matter as much as possible, and to explain away those events) has caused it to be much more of an issue this time around, than 4 years ago.

His confrontation with the Catholic Church in regards to contraceptives was totally avoidable, and could have been handled differently... again, this points to his ineptness, he causes his own problems... the harm is self inflicted.

Obviously there were more than enough Americans that looked past any issues with Rev Wright, with his past in Indonesia, and with his race to give him a resounding win in 2008... it is his own actions that have caused people to have the concerns they have now. It's his rhetoric now even, that makes it seem as if this is a fight... that it's him VS those 'white people that cling to their guns and their bibles' ...

I don't buy into that garbage... I look at the record, I look at the anger, I read and hear his words and they tell me he is going to be divisive if returned to Washington, he will try even harder to force his way through... to him its the 'right way' the 'only way'. But compromise, and being accepting of the other side, even if you don't agree with their beliefs, is the ONLY way things move forward in Washington.


Ken Burgess profile image

Ken Burgess 4 years ago from Florida

Esoteric,

"I really think he is a social moderate in conservative clothing, but the Party he represents is all about telling me how to believe and how to conduct my life on a moral and ethical level ... using their moral and ethical code.

Those are the fundamental reasons I could no more vote for someone passing themselves off as a conservative as I could walk to the moon."

You have chosen a 'side' then, and choose to ignore the reality that Republicans do hold the House, that they will likely get more seats in the House and Senate... and that things will not get done with Obama...

Obama does not have the political savvy or political capitol, he is a blunt instrument at a time when a surgical tool is needed. Obama is an ideolog when we need a 'bottom line, get the job done' move to the center persona in the White House.

You dislike the other side and what they stand for (in your views, the majority in the party probably aren't that extreme, but I concur that SOME are and they label the rest) and Obama is as intractable in his stance on the matters as you are... compromise is what is needed to move things forward and get the country's economy chugging along... but that will not come from Obama.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Let me put it this way, if the control of the Republican Party returned to those who had it prior to Ronald Reagan, I would rejoin the Party. Granted, I was still on the socially liberal wing nevertheless, but I liked the fiscal ideas; they were Keynesian, but not too Keynesian; if you get my drift.

Somewhere up there you say Obama "may get divisive". My take is that the conservatives have been divisive since 1994.

You are correct, I have chosen a side. I choose those who support the idea of liberty for all, who support human rights for all, who think the government was designed to help its citizens as well as its businesses, who believe that compromise is the way to govern, and who believe that micro AND macroeconomics is required for an economcy to function properly. Find me candidates who believe in those principles in a pragmatic way, and those are is the candidates I will vote for.

Obama fits that bill and Romney does not, it is simple as that.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

And Ken, you do make a good point regarding a leader showing "the Right Stuff" when faced with an intractable problem. And, maybe you are right, that Obama was not up to the task, but frankly, I can't think of any other President in history that would have been. But then, no other President ever faced faced such a challenge from the opposition Party in a time of crisis either.

Why do I lay so much blame on the conservatives on this one? Because it is a fight of their choosing, not Obama's. The conservatives made the calculated decision to bring the country to its knees on a relatively unimportant issue. They chose the time and place of the fight rather than to have it where it belonged, during the budget debates coming later that year.

It was the conservatives who made it their plan to hold America hostage to get their way, not President Obama. They chose to play the game of brinksmanship with the nation's future with the President, trying to make him cow-tow to their will, not the other way around.

They ended up losing and hurting the nation in the process. Obama agreed to the things he was already agreeing in April of that year plus this idiodic super-committee - sequestration thing. Then they blew it again by refusing to compromise with the Congressional Democrats, forcing America into this seqestration predicatiment.


Ken Burgess profile image

Ken Burgess 4 years ago from Florida

Esoteric,

I disagree, but it has been a pleasure to have this discussion with you.

If Obama does win, I truly hope you are far more right than I am about where Obama will lead us. And no matter who wins, I suspect you will have worth while takes on what is going on, to read.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Yes, it has been good, and only time will tell. I am not sure if it was you or someone else in another hub but keep in mind, Truman became President, lol.


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 4 years ago from Wisconsin

Well.. Obama won. Make sure nothing happens to this hub, My Esoteric: It will be interesting to go over these comments in 4 years :) I hope you're right. I really do.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks swordsbane. I do to, but it is still going to take two to tango. The chanllenge of course is knocking on the door, the so called "fiscal cliff" which John Boehner has already picked up the gaunlet on. Problem is, he is now a man without leverage.

I have a lot of hard economic thinking to do on this one in the next few days. My gut says we are in some deep kimshe (Korean for doo-doo) if Congress doesn't come to some solution in by Dec 31. The same gut says they won't.

Having said that, and this is what I need to ponder, there is that little tickle in the back of my mind that suggests the pundits and vocal economists have it wrong; that the tax increase and intitial sequestration won't drive the economy back into recession, or at least into a very deep one.

Here are a few reasons why (and I understand all of these ignore the major impact the psychological effect will have which may make anything I have to say mute):

1. The tax increase coupled with the sequestration will have a near immediate benefiacial impact on the budget deficit, eliminating that as a negative force on the economy

2. Congress can mitigate everything by acting and making the fixes retroactive. Given the mood of conservatives, however, I don't see this actually happening and Congress will remain gridlocked in crisis as it has been for the last four years.

3. Business is sitting on tons of cash, has slowly been growing over time and isn't overextended.

4. The economy is certainly not overheated.

5. Employment has also been slowly improving, with unemployment only slightly higher than historic normal levels, and first time unemployment claims a little below historic normal levels.

6. The increase in tax rates resulting from the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and a few other provisions, will impact the wealthly more than the middle or low income because the original tax cuts were designed to help the wealthy more.

7. The increase in tax rates will have no impact on economic growth at all.

The BIG unknown, besides the psychological impact, is whether job losses resulting from the governmental spending cuts combined with the reduction in demand brought on by the increased withholding resulting from higher tax rates will be severe enough to lower demand to such a degree as to begin the self-feeding downward spiral of a recession.

Because of the fundamental strength of todays industry compared to say 2008, when it was fully invested, it is in a much better position to resist pressure to shrink its operations to protect its bottom line. It doesn't necessarily have to in 2013.

What is likely though, is once again, the politicians are going to play "chicken" with our lives; but we must love it since we voted almost all of them back into office again.


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 4 years ago from Wisconsin

Cheer up... maybe the world will end in 45 days and we won't have to deal with this kind of crap anymore ;)


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Well, that is a thought is a thought, then I will find out if there truly is a heaven or hell, lol.


JT 3 years ago

Any particular reason you show some of Bush's stat's at the lowest, or worst points of his administration, but DIDN'T do the same for Obama? Your blog is a joke.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 3 years ago from Ohio, USA

JT, it's not a joke, it's just biased. It's written by someone with an agenda. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.


Shyron E Shenko profile image

Shyron E Shenko 3 years ago

My Esoteric, how did I miss this hub? It is very interesting.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

JT, are you referring to this Hub? If so, I am not sure why; if I mention Bush at all, it is only for a quick comparison. Your comment would certainly be more applicable to other hubs I have published and for those, depending on which one, I have analytical reasons for the scope I choose, based on the topic at hand.

Nicomp, no question about my bias, the question is whether my analysis, logic, and facts are sound. Can one present alternative facts, analysis, and logic that makes more sense or comes to a different conclusion. In this particular Hub, I do nothing more than list things Obama has done.

Thank you Shyron, I am glad you found it.


Shyron E Shenko profile image

Shyron E Shenko 3 years ago

The Youtube video 'President Obama Has Accomplished More In Two Years' would really go with this hub.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I will look it up, thanks. I am not much of a Youtube surfer, so I miss a lot.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 3 years ago from Ohio, USA

My Esoteric , your analysis and logic are tragically flawed, but that's OK because a biased version of BHO has been shoved down our throat by the media. Most people have a completely skewed perspective of what the President is responsible for and what his office can control. You're simply a part of that majority. It's all good.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Those are assertions, Nicomp, easy to make, but hard to prove; please prove them nevertheless. And I do disagree, I am perfectly aware of what each branch is responsible for and capable of doing, I worked in one and dealt with another for 20 years.


crazyhorsesghost profile image

crazyhorsesghost 3 years ago from East Coast , United States

But with out the support of the Senate and the Congress a President is pretty much powerless to do much of anything. The Republicans are playing a game with the lives and future of every American citizen. Anyone who would sign a pledge to never raise taxes is not dealing with reality. The GOP is shooting its self in the foot over and over. But I don't give the Democrats a lot of credit either.

The Republicans and Democrats play the Spin Game over and over to keep the American peoples minds off real important issues we should be talking about. America is in a lot of trouble and no one cares. And if they can keep you playing the Spin Game they will stay happy.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

You certainly have it about right, Crazyhorse, although I think you will find the President has a lot more power than you think at his disposal if he chooses to use it and suffer the slings and arrows of criticism that is sure to follow.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

HUBBERS

2/11/13 State of the Union speech.

The President didn't talk a lot about the economy and jobs since not too much has changed during the first 4 years , nothing new. Sequestration,the House had a plan in 2011 which included deficit controls. The Senate didn't vote on the bills hence the President didn't have to act in signing a bill.

National Debt Crisis ‘’Cut, Cap and Balance ‘

http://hubpages.com/politics/PRESIDENTBARACKOBAMA-...

The President's jobs bills were taken up in the House, jobs bills were passed over to the Senate TO ACT ON. The President didn't give Reid the order to act on the legislation.Today,the President talked about the same jobs he always seems to talk about ( public sector jobs ) The House passed their 2012 budget in Feb as require by House rules.

Where are the jobs? Check this site. http://majorityleader.gov/JobsTracker/

The House has acted on immigration, check this link

House-Passed STEM Bill Blocked by Senate Democrats

http://www.speaker.gov/general/sotu-fact-house-pas...

It really looks like 1/2 of Congress is at work doing the peoples work. The other 2/3s do a lot of nice talk.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 3 years ago from Ohio, USA

"And I do disagree, I am perfectly aware of what each branch is responsible for and capable of doing..."

No, you don't. You listed numerous 'achievements' that are blatantly unconstitutional as well as detrimental to the economy. Again, that's OK. You are entitled to your opinion.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Unconstitutional or detrimental or not, you miss the point. The chant was Obama "did nothing"; that is hyperbole at its worst and this hub was designed to disprove it.

BTW, if those achievements were unconstitutional, why haven't the conservatives filed suit to have them overturned, the court is in their pocket, for the most part, and they are suit happy when it suits them. (is that called illiteration?) Also, why, if Obama's achievements were so detrimental to the econmomy, didn't America continue to fall into the depression where it was headed?


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

''The chant was Obama "did nothing"; Sounds a little like the '' do nothing'' Republican House.In 2011, the House passed bills to solve what is now called SEQUESTRATION.In addition the House has passed 2 budgets in 2 years, WOW! Since giving the state of the union speech ( same one the last 4 years ), the President has visited 5 cities in the union at a cost to the taxpayers of $ millions, waste .Since the work is in Washington and Congress.Sequestration and the national debt are or should be priority.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 3 years ago from Ohio, USA

"Unconstitutional or detrimental or not, you miss the point. The chant was Obama "did nothing"; that is hyperbole at its worst and this hub was designed to disprove it."

No one chanted that. Shucks, I'll admit that he's done a ton of stuff... almost all of it detrimental to the country.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Well, ask any conservative what has Obama done in four years, the knee-jerk answer is "nothing" which is what you hear from Boehner, Kyle, and their coherts.

I can see where if you are a homophobe, you would find the repeal of "No Tell, No Ask" law detrimental, or if you are against small business, but for big business, then you would be against his "expanding SBA loans, increased tax credits for businesses who hired, increased minority access to capital, etc)l unless you like to beat up women, he got the "Violence Against Women" Act fully funded ... finally, and so on.

Things I am sure conservatives found detrimental are "providing health care to millions of people who didn't have it, ending the Iraq war, wasting taxpayers money on fully funding the VA, protecting consumers from predatory credit card companys, lenders, and other corporations, and apparently every other thing he has accomplished.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 3 years ago from Ohio, USA

"Well, ask any conservative what has Obama done in four years, the knee-jerk answer is "nothing" which is what you hear from Boehner, Kyle, and their coherts."

Completely incorrect, but it fits your narrative. No one feels that way. Even if you get all your news from FOX, you get a pretty good idea that Obama has done stuff. Common sense should tell you that most of what he's done can't possibly be positive for the country as a whole.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 3 years ago from Ohio, USA

"...protecting consumers from predatory credit card companys, lenders, and other corporations, and apparently every other thing he has accomplished."

I LOVE this argument. predatory . LOL. These evil companies come into your house at night and make you sign contracts against your will. Sure.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Let's wait until your eighty and somewhat senile but still in your own house with when a roofer comes along selling you a new roof you don't need and high pressures you into signing a contract.

Or let's take your education away, say you grew up in a black ghetto in Montgomery, AL where the state refused to fund the schools or provide qualified teachers (yeah, that is real life today) and you meet up with a shyster loan officer who sweet talks you into a mortgage you can't afford by hiding crucial facts and tells you don't worry, here read this 7000 word contract in 5 pt font in legaleze even educated people can't understand; "trust me" he says, "it is all on the up and up, sign here". Since all of the regulations requiring ability to pay or checking employment, etc were repealed during the 2000s, there was nothing stopping the loan from going through.

Or how about signing up for a perfectly good, honest credit card and later, they change the terms to something onerous and don't bother telling you about it because, heaven forbid, someone in the gov't made them do it, and you get screwed royally before you have time to cancel the card? Nope, no predation there at all is there; even though they were all true less than 10 years ago.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

What has the above comments have to do with President Obama has accomplished in the last 4 years? In 2008 he made promises to the american people if he was elected, he did get elected. His first 2 years Obama and the super majority Congress had 100% control of the government ( a philbuster control ).Barak Obama Campaign Promises 2008

.http://hubpages.com/politics/barakobamacampaignpro...

1/21/13 Congratulations President Obama on your 2nd term

2009 unemployment 7.8%, 2013 unemployment 7.8%

8.3 million more unemployed since 2009 recovery ?


nicomp profile image

nicomp 3 years ago from Ohio, USA

"Let's wait until your eighty and somewhat senile but still in your own house with when a roofer comes along selling you a new roof you don't need and high pressures you into signing a contract."

Sure, that's stopped. Obama has made life safe for 80 year-olds with roofs.

"...and you meet up with a shyster loan officer who sweet talks you into a mortgage you can't afford by hiding crucial facts ..."

Obviously you've never opened a mortgage. Even before the great and powerful Obama there was plenty of federal paperwork required. Nothing of any consequence was hidden from the borrower. Does personal responsibility mean anything to you?

"...signing up for a perfectly good, honest credit card and later, they change the terms to something onerous..."

And thank goodness we have Obama to decide for us what is perfectly good and what is onerous. Does he also pop over and wipe your nose every morning?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Jon, name me one President that kept or one rational person, that isn't a comic. who truly expects 100%, or even 90% of those promises to be kept in two years, even with a filibuster-proof Congress; especially one as fractured as the Democratic Party is. Your charge, which you have made a thousand times here and elsewhere, simply isn't worthy of consideration or any more thought by those who understand how things work in a democratic, bureacratic, republican society.

Your use of statistics is wildly misleadling. You forgot to mention that in 2006, unemployment was about 4% under Bush; then you forgot to discuss momentum, meaning the free-fall of job loss Bush was experiencing does automatically stop when a new president takes office now does it? It keeps going on and on and getting worse, doesn't it, unless the new president does something to stop it for let it bottom out on its own (somewhere around 20 - 30% based on history for this kind of depression). It seems to me like we got off cheap with 10% in 2009 and 7.9%, remaining steady because finally, discouraged workers and marginally unemployed (those not counted in the official number of unemployed) started looking again and were counted as unemployed. Why don't you tell us these things to flesh out the picture?

Also, Jon, tell us more about your 8.3 more people unemployed mis-statistic. That doesn't quite square with this more relavant statistic does it. In 2009, the avg annual employment was 139,997,000 while in 2012 it was 142,469,000; an increase in employment of 2.5 million! By your statistic, 2012 employment should be 131,697,000, shouldn't it? I am confused, can you unconfuse me with better facts?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

You know as well as I, Nicomp, Obama supported and signed those bills passed by Congress and didn't create then by fiat; that we still have a republican form of government where bills are brought up in Congress filibustered by the Republicans and those few that get through, are signed into law by the President.

I am very happy for you that you are the one person on this planet who has never been bamboozeled by a seller of some product and been decieved into buying something you shouldn't have or have never been the victim of a switch-and-bait; I envy you very much. You must be related to William Graham Sumner who wrote in the late 1800s or early 1900s:

"Before the tribunal of nature a man has no more right to life than a rattlesnake; he has no more right to liberty than any wild beast; his right to pursuit of happiness is nothing but a license to maintain the struggle for existence..."

—William Graham Sumner, "Earth-hunger, and other essays," p. 234.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

For all the intelligence that you process, you still haven’t seen the truth and the light.

Jan.2007,unemployment was about 4.6% , the recession started in Dec. 2007.

Republicans controlled Congress from 1994 to 2006.Clinton left with unemployment at 4.2%, Republican control Congress only raised the % about 4%The facts, Pelosi/Reid 2007-2008,2009-2010 were the leadership in Congress. A recession and collapse of the financial markets happened, really.

Tarp $700 billion added to Bush deficit equaled $1.3trillion .9/11/12 The government has recouped $342 billion out of $411 billion .The $700 bil was added to the deficit, only $411 was used, ???where is the $289 bil . $342 bil, where did it go?, it was to pay down the deficit.

McCarthy Joins Colleagues Asking Administration to Clarify Contradictory TARP Repayment Plans

http://kevinmccarthy.house.gov/index.php?option=co...

Obama’s Deficit Dodge

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/09/obamas-deficit-do...

‘’I am confused, can you unconfuse me with better facts?’’ I don’t doubt it. The media don’t report it, what they do report is a distortion of the true facts, something that our President is very good in doing. The mainstream media and the press along with whitehouse.gov and other controlled news by the Obama camp can be confusing in finding the truth.

SEQUESTRATION IS THE OBAMA PLAN. The Republicans have a simple solution:

1.CUT WASTE in gov. FIRST

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tVJ2gqqKWs

2.FISCAL CLIFF, why? 2/13/10 Pay Go Law

The President lied? Follow the law

http://chicagoconsultant.com/page2.php?category=2&...

3.The House passed their 2012 budget in Feb as require by House rules.

Where are the jobs? Check this site. http://majorityleader.gov/JobsTracker/

Reid wouldn’t allow a vote. Meaning the President don’t need to do anything.

To be continued?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I am sorry Jon, but you don't seem to have a clue about how the 2008 recession occured. The recession was already a fact by the summer of 2006, there was no stopping it after that, it just became official in Dec 2007, which means the economy was already collapsing at least one quarter, if not more, and if you check the record, it was more.

As I have said many times previously, the fact that the Democrats had a majority in both Houses in the last two years is meaningless with you have a Republican minority in the Senate blocking any piece of legislation they didn't like and a Republican President ready to veto any bill he didn't like with no chance of Congress overriding his veto, so get real Jon and try some arguments with meat in them.

If sequestration is Obama's plan, why are the Republicans so gungho in letting it happen?

I added some more info about the latest jobs numbers today.


PaoloJpm profile image

PaoloJpm 3 years ago from Philippine

Great job, well for my personal opinion. Yes he did a great job handling your country and one of my admired accomplishments is the banned law in military about homosexuality. humanity should have an equal rights at all cost. Gaga advocates about it was truly amazing and Obama saw it right


dearmommy profile image

dearmommy 3 years ago

I think I love the commentary banter more than I love this article!! Ha ha. Great idea for an article and very well written. Thanks for sharing!!


celafoe profile image

celafoe 3 years ago from Planet earth. between the oceans

nice dream. I suppose you could believe all this if you are dumb enough to believe the news? and all the doctored and changed govt reports. But if you see reality he has failed on all counts other than those thati llegal and or immoral that he still tries to push thru.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I appreciate your comments PaoloJpm, Dearmommy, and Celafoe, although I have to ask Celafoe what kind of source of information can be believed, Rush Limbaugh?


bn9900 profile image

bn9900 3 years ago from Alger WA

Looking at your so called source, I tend to believe that site is skewed, sorry to say, unemployement is only down to 7.9% right where it was when he got in office, if you really want to believe those figures since they do not count for the underemployed folks, mainly in the retail and fast food industry. Now adding those into the mix, then your unemployment is up to about 15% or higher.

We need to fix the healthcare system not replace it. As far as Afganistan and Iraq are concerned, every president follows the ones before him. I ask this, if we did not step in, who would have? Europe? There is a wonderful documentry on Netflix called The World with out US. It was interesting to see what happened when we stepped in to situations with our military might, and others that we left alone. I must say I disagree with 95 percent of Obama's policies, he does not have any experience leading anything, he has never had a proper job in the public sector, only Government ones. He was a ILL State senator for 2 years before being elected president, and he CAMPAIGNED for half that time. Sure he is a great speech maker, when his teleprompter is working, but with all these executive orders and threats of going around congress to get his way, that is a Bully to me, and do you want a Bully running anything?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks for your comment bn9900, I do appreciate it. As to your 7.9% observation, I will copy my response to Jon above who made the same oberservation, but first I need to point out the the 7.9% does include retail and fast food; the 7.9% is the result of a survey of the entire labor market of non-farm citizens over the age of 16 who are capable of working. With that as a starting point, they start subtracting out students, those in the military, those institutionalized for one reason or another, and those who simply choose not to be in the labor force (about a 1/3 after you subtract the others). Then they divide it into a few categories, one of which is unemployed-actively looking for work. That is the number which is divided by the total employed. There is another 1 or 2% who have stopped looking because they don't think they can find work, and another 2 or 3% who stopped working and started doing other things, like going to school, but would work if offered a job.

"[Jon] Your use of statistics is wildly misleadling. You forgot to mention that in 2006, unemployment was about 4% under Bush; then you forgot to discuss momentum, meaning the free-fall of job loss Bush was experiencing doesn't automatically stop when a new president takes office now does it? It keeps going on and on and getting worse, doesn't it, unless the new president does something to stop it or let it bottom out on its own (somewhere around 20 - 30% based on history for this kind of depression). It seems to me like we got off cheap with 10% in 2009 and declining to 7.9%, in 2012; meaning the momentum is down, not up. Further, the latest numbers started showing improvements in areas we have been waiting for for a long time, real reductions in discouraged workers, down 27% from the previous years, and the marginally employed, down 13%. This portends the beginnning of real declines in the unemployment rate in the future because the number of people who previously weren't looking now are. Why don't you tell us these things to flesh out the picture?"

What you say about Obama's experience may have been true in 2008, and 2009, but it certainly isn't true after that. Obama's us of Executive Orders is, I believe, no more than any other President in recent memory.


bn9900 profile image

bn9900 3 years ago from Alger WA

The 7.9% is only the percentage that is recieving unemployment, it is not the people working very few hours and not receiving any unemployment...that is the key, if they are recieving unemployment, that is why the government figure is so incorrect. If you believe those figures you are only getting part of the story. I worked retail, while I was a student and after, and while working I never recieved one red cent unemployment. So even though I worked only 4 hours some weeks, I was employeed in the government eyes.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

Where are you getting your figures? Obama Administration numbers are revised 45% of the time. If a business used the Obama hokus pokus, the IRS would be in their office, checking the books.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/09/obamas-deficit-do

Many of you are missing the show of the century. FOX NEWS LIES,not when they show the past and present OBAMA.IT'S HARD FOR LIARS TO KEEP THEIR STORIES STRAIGHT.Liars may be a hard word ,let's try DISTORTIONS.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I would hope they are revised 100% of the time as newer data becomes available, makes sense to this cost analyst. Nevertheless, revised or not, there is not a better source than the ones I and every other serious analyst who knows what they are doing use.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

BTW, Jon, has the other side of the aisle been keeping sets of secret, more reliable data that isn't revised as newer information arrives which they are drawing their information from to accomplish analyses?


Kenja profile image

Kenja 3 years ago from Long Island, NY

We like people who support our president. He's a good man. An imperfect politician.. negotiator... across the aisle charmer... and no natural back slapper, but he is a man of character, integrity, self-discipline and great decency. And he's also got a lot done. Besides, you know how many people seriously despised and distrusted Lincoln and FDR? Right, half the country with Abe and then a full third or more with Franklin. Is Barry in their league? Perhaps not. But history will be kind to him, and not because of his flesh tone. I'm just glad we have him. Lord knows we need him until the sane Republicans return from vacation...


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks for your insights Kenja.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

Hubbers

2/22/13 President is in Washington state ,first stop on 100 cities tour pushing his agenda ''Sequestration''. Really, does he believe that cutting spending is a solution, I don't believe so.

The country isn't going to fall apart with the sequestration cuts, it's only a 1 to 2 % CUT.

THE GOVERNMENT CUTS $85 BILLION.

Asking Administration to Clarify Contradictory TARP Repayment Plans

http://kevinmccarthy.house.gov/index.php?option=co...

WHERE'S THE MONEY?

CUT WASTE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tVJ2gqqKWs

Coburn found $9 trillion,Congress can vote on a solution tommorrow!

Wake up, it's a fraud on the American people!


lone77star profile image

lone77star 3 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

Five years ago, I was an enthusiastic supporter of Obama. I was cluelessly following his rhetoric and not paying attention to the details. Then, I found out that he's just a hired gun -- a silver-tongued devil paid to keep us lulled while the robbery is completed. Goebbels is likely kicking himself in his grave at how slickly they're fooling the American public.

A year and a half ago, I learned a great deal about the tyranny overcoming America over the last century, starting with the Banker's private Federal Reserve System masquerading as a government agency, and creating debt-based currency which can never be paid back, because the debt continues to grow even if the currency in circulation doesn't -- slaves to the private bankers. The debt is unsustainable and they know it. The ticking time bomb is close to going off.

And now the debt is skyrocketing past $17 TRILLION! When that Debt Bubble bursts, all of planet Earth will be toast, and USA will be ground zero. And with the 2nd Amendment out of the way, the Corporate Party (the real boss), will be able to eliminate America as a threat to their plans -- New World Order, just as Bush Sr. gushed about exactly eleven years before 9/11. Oh, yes. They love to be symbolic about it.

And 9/11, I learned, was an inside job. Osama denied having anything to do with it. He had little motive. But Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and the rest had plenty of motive. Cheney was former CEO of Halliburton who got those juicy contracts overseas, and Cheney was still on the payroll. If you can't see the conflict of interest, then you're blind. Bush Sr. and the Bin Ladens were having a meeting on 9/11 at a hotel in Washington, DC. Just follow the money.

And guess who's family ran the security company at the World Trade Center in New York -- Bush! Cousin Wirt Walker III was CEO, and younger brother Marvin had been part of the Board of Directors until about 2000. You need that kind of inside connection to plant the thermitic cutter charges in all 3 buildings which collapsed on that day. With the new nano-thermate, you don't need lots of explosives or tons of thermite. Look at the work of http://www.AE911Truth.org and learn how the government has been lying to us.

Here are some simple highlights:

Mayor Giuliani committed a felony by destroying crime scene evidence, cleaning up the largest crime scene in American history before an investigation could be started. Busted!

All of the military officers responsible for the massive security failures on 9/11 were given promotions instead of courts martial. Oops! You don't do that unless you're covering something up.

Simple Physics:

Asymmetric (lopsided) damage never leads to symmetrical collapse (except in cartoons and government reports).

Free fall acceleration is impossible in a steel frame skyscraper collapse unless controlled demolition is involved (except in NIST's fraudulent report).

Tons of iron microspheres in the 9/11 concrete dust prove that something got hot enough to melt iron, but even the government's reports admit that jet fuel and office fires never get hot enough to reach those temperatures. Iron microspheres and white smoke (aluminum oxide, seen in great quantities on 9/11) are standard byproducts of thermitic reactions. And unreacted nano-thermate particles were found in the dust.

When Obama (and Bush) says that we should ignore all talk that questions the official "conspiracy theory," he's giving you a treasonous line. Questioning is what patriotic Americans do. The idea that we should shut up and believe whatever they tell us is tyranny talking.

And all this talk of being "safe" is a euphemism for tyranny. Founding father, Ben Franklin would agree.


Kenja profile image

Kenja 3 years ago from Long Island, NY

Jon E: You are right that there is much to be cut -- from transportation and the Pentagon, overlapping programs to oil subsidies. The waste --perpetrated by both sides of the aisle -- is shameful, inexcusable and crazy hurtful.

Paranoid conspiracy theorists, Idaho, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee "militia" groups, Birthers and End Time survivalist loonies aside, we have totally solvable problems before us.

Our debt crisis could be solved in weeks, and we could become solvent in under 5 years, while still maintaining the world's largest military and building more bridges and needed infrastructure too (which of course creates jobs).

The sky is not falling and this administration is not Socialist. Rhetoric is not reality.

But right now, both parties are not only playing games at our expense, they're unquestionably putting Party before Country. Change -- real change -- will have to come from the people themselves. We have to make it happen. Washington politicians, lobbyists and department heads be damned.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Jon, I have to say you have a awe inspiring ability to stay on track despite tons of contractradictory, varifiable evidence to the contrary and your lack of understanding of basic ecomonics.

To think you believe an $87 B cut demand, much of it concentrated in the defence industry, and with lay-offs in other critical sectors like the FAA is chicken feed is simply astounding!. As important as it is to avoid the sequester, I sure as hell hope Obama would streaking all across the country trying to drum up grass roots support to force the conservatives not let it happen like they appear intent on doing.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks for your input Lone77star. I must ask, with your statement, 'Banker's private Federal Reserve System masquerading as a government agency''; which federal reserve are you referring to, the one from 1798 under President Washington or the one under President Madison in 1812 or so; both qualify for your approbation. But, what you say bears no resemblance to today's Federal Reserve system, it is clearly an independent agency of the federal gov't that has private banks as members controlled and led by gov't civil servants working under the mandate of a Charter passed by the Congress and signed by the President. As a side note, the result of the meeting from Jeckell island actually proposed the system you mention, but that isn't what Congress signed off on.

You said "and creating debt-based currency which can never be paid back, because the debt continues to grow even if the currency in circulation doesn't -- slaves to the private bankers." Explain to me then what was occuring between 1998 and 2001 when the budget surpluses were reducing public debt? Until Bush screwed things up, the debt, in dollar terms, let alone inflation adjusted terms, was about to actually get smaller the following year.

Further, you do understand, don't you, that the 2008 Great Recession added over $2 trillion to the national debt all by itself with no help from anybody.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Lone77star, I took the time to read your Architech & Engineer article and frankly, it said nothing more than nobody believes their theory that it was the U.S. gov't that, for some inexplicable reason, brought on the WTC massacre. As Judge Judy is fond of saying, if it doesn't make sense, it isn't true; and their position, for which they presented no evidence in that article, has no shred of evidence in it.

Somehow, just as inexplicably, you and they managed to juxtapose a failure in military leadership with allowing 9/11 to happen (yet blaming the Bush Administration for cupability in its planning and execution); yet it is will known, this was will outside the military's spear of normal operational influence; regardless of which two scenarios you believe in, a Presidential hatchet job or a bin Laden led assualt. Now, if you would like to switch your focus to the intelligence community, writ large, and the Congress who funds their operations and writes the legislation which sturctures their interoperability, then you have a leg to stand on.

Jet fuel and office burning can't melt iron yet burning coal can in a blast furnace, fancy that; and this was in a time well before nano anthing was know nor thermite for that matter. In any case, the steel didn't need to melt, just soften, a major difference given the pressures involved in the structures it was holding up. Simple physics, as you said.

I don't know about the politics of it, but I can almost guarantee you Dr. Franklin wouldn't buy into your science.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Bravo, Kenja.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

'' lack of understanding of basic ecomonics.'' yep , spending more than you receive equals a very big problem except for the US government until the collapse.''Obama would streaking all across the country '' Congress put a stop to executives using their jets when their companies were going broke. The President to travel the country and the world is Spending tax payer money before it gets out to help the MIDDLE CLASS.Surely you can agree to that!


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

The purpose of the President meeting with the People of this country is to enlist their support in trying to prevent the conservatives destroying America in trying to reinstitute economic principals that died out in at the turn of the century (1900 - 2000) when the country stopped its expansion westward.

Yes, you do spend more than you receive at times when you need to, like now. and then, if you are smart which most American's who manage their own budgets around the dinner table are not, including yours truly twice in his life, you pay it back like Clinton did near the end of his term.

What you don't do, like the conservatives did in 2000, is drive us into the biggest recession since 1937 with outmoded economic philosophies and then keep us there by not letting the current President pass anything in his last two years of office after spending the first two years throwing a wet-blanket on what he could do when Democrats had the supermajority.

Unlike conservatives, normal Republicans and Democrats understand that is takes a couple of years for countermearsures to work; that they don't work overnight, escpecially when conservatives spent the previous twelve of the last fourteen years dismantling the economic safeguards (yes, with a little help from Clinton in signing the damnable bills near the end of his term) which had been built into the system since 1933 to prevent just such a disaster from ever happening again.

Out went the safeguards that worked for 70 straight years, in came the recession, it is no more difficult to understand than that!


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

'' The purpose of the President meeting with the People of this country is to enlist their support in trying to prevent the conservatives destroying America'' WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN not to understand who the ''Man '' is. The election is over and the people have chosen who will be their representatives in our GOVERNMENT. They now wait for government to solve the nations problems. The President, the House and the Senate now have THE AUTHORITY to solve the Obama Sequestration law. The Presidency of the UNITED STATES requires leadership, not an arrogant, irresponsible and incompetent head of our government.

FINALLY, Bob Woodward had the nerve to report the TRUTH about SEQUESTRATION.

2/22/13

Obama’s sequester deal-changer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bob-woodwar...

It is apparent that your sources for information lack the truth about Washington and the President. Let’s not forget that the Democrats have controlled 2/3s our government since 2007 up to the present. The 1/3 ( Republican House) of the government is working in spite of the Senate’s obstructionism and the President’s distortions of the truth. The Obama Administration credibility has been exposed. For many ‘’ the bubble ‘’ has been broken and what is being exposed is the TRUTH.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Where have I been? Sitting right here watching the conservatives trying to kick America back into the 1870s with their outdated economic philosophies; I have been watching them make a mockery of what the writers of the Constitution had in mind regarding how Congress should operate, meaning compromise, when they wrote it - that is where I have been.

Got to hand it to you Jon, you, or rather Woodward, caught Obama doing something really despicable ... playing politics, while the poor naive conservatives have been sitting politely by not doing exactly the same thing. Son-of-a-gun, what is the world coming to?? Pardon me, but I am much more interested in how we avoid a recession when the sequester happens as the conservatives hope it will.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

''Woodward, caught Obama doing something really despicable .'' That's RIGHT

‘’I have been watching them make a mockery of what the writers of the Constitution had in mind regarding how Congress should operate,’’ Like passing Obamacare.

GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE REFORM ?

http://hubpages.com/politics/GOVERNMENTHEALTREFORM...

2/19/13

President Barack Obama’s remarks on the sequester: WOODWARD EXPOSE!

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/02/19/transcrip...

‘’create good, middle-class jobs. That’s our top priority.’’ ‘’the goal of $4 trillion in deficit reduction ‘’’’sequestration, are a bad idea. They’re not good for our economy. They’re not how we should run our government.’’ ’’And that’s why I will not sign a plan that harms the middle class.’’ ’’So now Republicans in Congress face a simple choice:’’

Mr. President, A sad untrue story again.

‘’So my door is open. I’ve put tough cuts and reforms on the table. I am willing to work with anybody to get this job done’’

The House passed their 2012 budget in Feb as require by House rules.

Where are the jobs? Check this site. http://majorityleader.gov/JobsTracker/

THE MIDDLE CLASS

Americans lose 38% of their wealth under Obama

http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/323577/3/US-famil...

Medicare is WAISTING more than $8 billion on an experimental program that rewards providers G.A.O. Calls Test Project by Medicare Costly Waste

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/health/policy/ga

Pelosi had it right ‘’ we need to pass the law to find out what’s in it ‘’http://hubpages.com/politics/Obamacare-Anatomy-of-...


Pharmc563 3 years ago

Hello! kfaceba interesting kfaceba site! I'm really like it! Very, very kfaceba good!


Van 3 years ago

This administration is ANTI- business. They have done what amounts to NOTHING to help the small business owner. ALL they have done is help government worker, state workers, union workers..Obama hasn't done shit to help the small business owner that is going under and in debt. Cut the FRIGGEN Corporate and business tax! So, they can invest build stores, factory's and wherehouses and more jobs would enable the small business to hang on until we get a pro business Pres. elected. Everyone blames Bush, and all I'll say is this I made MORE money with Bush as pres. then any other time and people had JOBS! Currently, This business is dying! As, a small business I can't claim unemployment and don't have a government or union pension. I don't have health care, because I can't even pay the business expenses, where the hell can I get money to pay for Osama care? Can't even get a government job because, not a woman and not considered a minority to the gov. but I am. The government is no friend or help to the small business owners! WTFU!!!


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

Van

''where the hell can I get money to pay for Osama care?''

HHS released a press release 2/22/13, ''health care law protects consumers against worst insurance companies'' Five key provisions,1. guaranteed availability, 2. Fair health insurance premiums, 3. guaranteed renewability, 4. single risk pool, 5. catastrophic plans. In other words don't worry , the government will protect you from the worst ( all insurance companies ) companies. In the end you will pay a lot more for less.The Obama Healthcare Reform Bill For Better Or Worst

http://hubpages.com/politics/HealthcareReformBillF...


bn9900 profile image

bn9900 3 years ago from Alger WA

Jon- this governmnt we have is Anti business, always has been. When you force a business to pay for health insurance for it's employees that will just drain the bottom line. It should be the business's choice to provide benefits for its employees. If you believe everything MSNBC tells you you are brainwashed...As for me I don't like Obamacare, and fear it will degrade our healthcare we recieve, and will cost us thousands more.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks for your input, Van but I am not sure you read the whole hub. You might check out the headlines associated with the following dates:

- March 16, 2009

- August 18, 2009

- March 18, 2010

- February 14, 2011

- July 2011

He had many more initiatives, but the conservatives filibustered them to death.

Corporate taxes and business taxes. two very different taxes indeed. The former is 34%, but the effective tax rate is 17%. The latter, except for an extremely small percentage of business owners, the rate is 28%, where the effective rate is around 12%; for that small percentage who do earn lot's of money, their effective rate is around 17% - so, I ask you Van, your point about high taxes is what?

You may have earned more $$ under Bush for which I am very glad, but I am happy to report my business is booming after the conservative recession almost killed it.

As to Obamacare, I am rather pleased with it, relative to my business. Granted, with only 35 employees, I don't have to provide insurance for those who are responsible for my company earning its profits, but my partners and I like to reward them for a job well done; especially when my rates went down last year - go figure.


bn9900 profile image

bn9900 3 years ago from Alger WA

Funny, how you say the that the Conservatives filibustered threm to death, when the conservatives in the House sent bill after the bill, but Reid Proclaimed that unless the Republicans gave in on taxes and raised them, he wouldn't look at any bill from the House, there are over 200 bills waiting on Reids desk, so do explain how that is the Republicans fault?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Jon, based on the press release, I know we have left the old American way behind, sob, sob because 1) insurance companies won't be able to destroy people's lives by denying them health care whether they can afford it or not, 2) dropping coverage at the drop of a hat, 3) jacking up health premiums because the CEO needs a new car, 4) will be forced (through compitition) to reduce premiums because more free-loading healthy people are now in the risk pool, and 5) they can't watch with glee as people they just dropped from coverage, just because, die of newly discovered cancer because catastrophic plans are unaffordable. (they aren't gleeful because joe six-pack is dying of cancer, of course, they are gleeful they got all of his high premiums, before it was discovered and he is now insuranceless, thanks to them.)

Oh, by the way, because the health care industry is thinking Obama is serious about all of this, it was just reported that the ascent rate for Medicare costs was just lowered by the $300 - $400 billion/year in agreement with what Simpson-Bolwes suggested was needed for solvency. How did this happen? They stopped ripping of the gov't and began providing more quality care, vis-a-vis Obamacare and other laws passed to reign in those halo capped health care companies.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

bn9900, I am not talking about the poison-pill legislation sent by the House, most of which will cost jobs, but all the bills Reid introduced which the conservatives in the Senate, where filibusters happen, killed.


bn9900 profile image

bn9900 3 years ago from Alger WA

Poision Pill? When the democrats want to: allow illegals to become legal and suck up financial resources, defund military to fund their social pet projects all hear from Liberals are Me me me, they don't care about business, which funds all their pet projects. They just want everyone else to pay while they reap the benefits, I feel as if they don't understand the value of a hard days work at times. That is just what I feel after seeing how people act in my area.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

Just another side of the story, the truth!

3/3/13 Meet the Press David Gregory

http://www.yidio.com/show/nbc-meet-the-press/seaso...

One can be the judge, it's hard getting by the Obama propaganda.


Jim Weinzierl 3 years ago

Never saw so much bs since driving across Kansas last year.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

''OBAMA CARE '' 2013 Ryan and Van Hollen Debate Medicare Proposals 6/3/11

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2011/06/03/ryan-and-van-

Sessions replies to Patty Murray

http://budget.senate.gov/republican/public/

3/26/13

Obamacare Will Cause Medical Claims Costs To Jump 32 Percent: Study

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/26/obamacare...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/business/electro...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/health/billions-...

obamacare

Insurers warn of overhaul-induced sticker shock

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/insurers-warn-overh...

How Will the New Health Law Affect Your Premiums?

http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2013/0...

CBO estimates that 4 million people will pay the penalty

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/07/07/

just an update on the benefits of Obamacare


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I checked out some of Jon's stories. The last one, "azcentral", was a "Page Not Found" attempt.

The rest of the story for the Huffington Post piece on a 32% increase is this: 1) they are only talking about SOME people, 2) the study only looked at people buying private insurance, a small percentage of the insurance buying public, 3) included in the study were comparison of people with skimpy insurance coverage vs the minimum, much more robust coverage required by Obamacare, 4) the study ignored subsidies to insurance companies and insurance buyers as more sick people who were formerly uncovered or had skimpy coverage join certain pools, 5) there were more problems with the study that the Huffington Post mentioned.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I just reviewed the Corporate Intelligence reference. It turned out to be a Wall Street Journal article and I highly recommend reading it for it presents a very balanced and fair analysis. Its conclusions regarding changes in premiums were in line with what I thought would happen.


Kneern 3 years ago

Great blog you have here but I was curious about if you knew of any message boards that cover the same topics discussed in this article? I'd really like to be a part of community where I can get opinions from other experienced people that share the same interest. If you have any recommendations, please let me know. Cheers! make your computer run like brand new


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

Right or wrong?

GOP lawmakers: Obama administration blocking access http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/17/go...

5/8/13

Benghazi Whistle blower Hearing on C-Span3 live and un edited!

POTUS ‘’ to tell the TRUTH ‘’ Benghazi A MEDIA COVER UP

PART 1 http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SConsulat


bn9900 profile image

bn9900 3 years ago from Alger WA

Problem is the media has been in the liberals pockets for years. They never tell the whole story when politics are involved.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 3 years ago from Ohio, USA

The party in power always blocks access. No surprise to those paying attention.


bn9900 profile image

bn9900 3 years ago from Alger WA

Not really a surprise, just a statement.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 3 years ago from Ohio, USA

No, you're implying that this is a problem unique to Barack Hussein Obama.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

NICOMP

Reid: Obamacare could be "train wreck" without more money

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/297333-reid-say...

Senator questions $18B for job training WASTE

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/17/senator... is not a king

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/201...

President Obama then quickly ran up another $6 trillion of debt

uggest-rampant-waste/?test=latestnews

just a few to open up the debate.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Jon, as I previously mentioned and wrote about in another hub, $3 - 4 billion of your $6 billion was a forgone conclusion due to the mess Obama's predecessor, President Bush, since you like to pin it on a person, left America. If McCain, or your most favorite Tea Party candidate, had been president the number would not have been less.

The remaining $2 - 3 billion, the number you SHOULD be throwing around, is a direct result of Obama trying to stop things from getting even worse and the Conservative's partial success in thwarting his measures; the result of the latter reason was slower growth. So, until you start using rational numbers, it is hard to debate hyperbole.


Kenja profile image

Kenja 3 years ago from Long Island, NY

You know who is happy Barack Obama was elected in 2008 and 2012?

1) women, by a huge margin

2) college students and young people under 30

3) Blacks, Hispanics and Asians

4) gay and lesbian people, including & especially today

5) 73% of people with college educations

(that's waaay over 50% of the population)


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

Kenja

''2008 and 2012?'' A little short on his promises.

Barak Obama Campaign Promises

http://hubpages.com/politics/barakobamacampaignpro...

Obama promised hope and change will be coming to Washington

TRANSPARENCY and 5 SCANDALS pending

POTUS says ‘’ TRUST ME ‘’ CREDIBILITY?

5/8/13

Benghazi Whistle blower Hearing on C-Span3 live and un edited!

POTUS ‘’ to tell the TRUTH ‘’ Benghazi A MEDIA COVER UP

PART 1 http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SConsulat

GOP lawmakers: Obama administration blocking access http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/17/go...

5/16/13

Government Owes Small Businesses More than $3 Million

http://smallbusiness.foxbusiness.com/finance-accou...

6/26/13 Obama and family in Africa cost to taxpayers $100 million.The President once said regarding the recession '' I know your hurt ''.Sequestion apparently don't count for the Presidency?


nicomp profile image

nicomp 3 years ago from Ohio, USA

JON EWALL, sequestration only counts when it's politically expedient.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 3 years ago from Ohio, USA

"(that's waaay over 50% of the population)"

Kenja , that's over 100%.

math much?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Nicomp, each of Kenja's categories were not mutually exclusive and therefore you can't add the individual percentages together without subtracting out the commonality. Consequently, Kenja is correct.

It seems to me, Jon, 2012 implies most Americans think your hyperbole is just that, hyperbole and isn't a reflection of reality.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

nicomp

How true as shameful as it is as specially when POTUS was sounding off in march on how Sequestration will bring down the government, just another distortion to the real facts.2/25/13 Sequester - The Three Things you need to know

4/25/08

Obama you tube video.2008 NOW OBAMA IS THE CHIEF!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnLP12X3EgM

http://www.gop.gov/sequester/

President Obama Proposed the Sequester

FISCAL CLIFF, why? 2/13/10 The President lied?

http://chicagoconsultant.com/page2.php?category=2&...


nicomp profile image

nicomp 3 years ago from Ohio, USA

My Esoteric, Kenja's math is incorrect unless he deigns to speak for all women, all college students, all people under 30, etc. Only 130M people voted anyway.

Folks under 30 won't be happy when the IRS and Kathleen Sebelius come calling for compulsory ObamaCare premiums.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Obama has proposed a lot of things, the Conservatives have shot most of them down. Why didn't they shoot this one down as well?

Did you notice that the Conservatives have only allowed one exemption in the Sequester - fixing the FAA so they could get home to mama without having to wait in line.

Did you also notice that Bernanke lowered his growth estimate slightly; can you spell Sequester?

Have you talked to any of the tens of thousands gov't employees who have lost wages (but not Congress) because of the Sequester? My old office in the Air Force has lowered its work product because of the impact of the layoff.

Have you talked to any of the citizens laid-off because of the Sequester when gov't orders dried up for the company they work at?

All because Conservatives don't want to raise revenue but want to cut spending on those who can least afford it.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Point out to me, if you would @Nicomp, which of Kenja's assertions, none of which are not true. Where did he allege he was speaking for all women? It seems to me he said " women, by a huge margin", which rhetorically applied to the rest; everyone of which is true.

As to only 130 million voted, that makes a wonderful sample size to estimate the population demographics.

Those healthy, well-off scofflaws who chose to burden me with their health care costs may not like to have to pay for their own health care, but I certainly will.


bn9900 profile image

bn9900 3 years ago from Alger WA

Its to bad that the left is so brain washed they cant really see whats happening. But thats what happens when you watch MSNBC like it was your bible.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Actually, I have watched more Fox than I than I have MSNBC and together I doubt they account for 40 hours of my time, if that. Both of these networks are worthless in my opinion. I depend on CNN, POTUS on Sirius/XM, and research.

As to brainwashed, I suggest you read my hubs on the research regarding Right-wing Authoritarian followers (which includes Left-wing as well) and Social Dominators. Both the far Right and the far Left are brainwashed by their respective media and have given up their ability to think to others. It seems it is only those of us in the middle who actually think through issues.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 3 years ago from Ohio, USA

"Those healthy, well-off scofflaws who chose to burden me with their health care costs may not like to have to pay for their own health care, but I certainly will."

No, you won't. At least be honest.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

''Conservatives have only allowed one exemption in the Sequester '' the facts tell a different story.FISCAL CLIFF, why? 2/13/10 The President lied?

http://chicagoconsultant.com/page2.php?category=2&...

’Cut, Cap and Balance answer to SEQUESTRATION‘

http://hubpages.com/politics/PRESIDENTBARACKOBAMA-...

Senator Coburn exposes WASTE ‘’ Back In Black’’ finds $9 trillion waste inside WASHINGTON Agencies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tVJ2gqqKWs

The House passed their 2012 budget in Feb as require by House rules.

Where are the jobs? Check this site. http://majorityleader.gov/JobsTracker/

POTUS says ‘’ TRUST ME ‘’ CREDIBILITY?


Availiasvision profile image

Availiasvision 3 years ago from California

I am not politically agree with all of Obama's actions, but you did an excellent job of breaking down tough issues into bite sized pieces.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thank you @Availiasvision, I try hard to do that.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Not sure exactly what you mean, @Nicomp, with "No, I won't", but I will take a stab. If it refers to "I will like the scofflaws paying for their own medical bills", I can't see why I wouldn't like them paying their own way rather than paying them myself in higher taxes and premiums as I do now.

On the other hand, if you think it meant "I won't like being forced to pay for my own medical costs", I wouldn't put myself in that position; if I could afford it, I would make sure I had insurance. Fortunately, that was one of my requirements when looking for work, did the employer offer some sort of medical coverage I could buy into.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Cut, Cap, and Balance is like putting a straight-jacket on; as soon as an emergency happens that is beyond what was in the budget, America will not be able to respond to it. But then, there are some Conservatives who feel it is not the federal government's job to respond, especially if it is regarding the Welfare of its citizens.


Availiasvision profile image

Availiasvision 3 years ago from California

"If your government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have." Thomas Jefferson

Nothing in our government happens in a vacuum. Every dime spent comes from somewhere, so nothing is ever "free." Not all of the reforms are bad, but it makes me nervous in terms of who will be paying for it all. You did a great job of showing where some of the funding will be coming from, but I am still nervous. We'll have to see what happens after everything goes into effect. In the end, the cost of the healthcare itself is too high, not the insurance. I do like that people with pre-existing conditions can now be insured. That was a great achievement! Conservatives and liberals both agree that things need to change, we just disagree on how it should happen.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

That is a good quote from Jefferson, @Availiavision, as are all of your statements. That is why limits were put on the federal government in the Constitution. The problem, of course, is, while some of the limits are absolute, most are soft and left to interpretation by future generations; one of the goals of those who wrote the Constitution.

For the first time, Congress has actually accomplished one goal they set out to do, reign in unnecessary costs in Medicare, one important part of Obamacare needed to reduce or eliminate its costs. All other attempts have failed, they were more or less ignored by the healthcare industry because there was no teeth to the laws. With Obamacare, teeth were part of the plan and to-date, there as been an estimated $2 billion (CBO, I think) in savings from curbing fraudulent charges and unneeded tests.


bn9900 profile image

bn9900 3 years ago from Alger WA

I don't think I need to read any other of your hubs, this one is enough to tell me that you really don't do any real research as John has post numerous sources conterdicting your points. And I do not have TV so Fox/MSNBC and the like are all out for me which is fine as they all say the same thing Obama is Great....when in reality hes nothing of the sort.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

''reign in unnecessary costs in Medicare, one important part of Obamacare needed to reduce or eliminate its costs'' really , one can believe that?Ryan and Van Hollen Debate Medicare Proposals 6/3/11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_SHUELJci4

3/10/12

The Obama's don't want this video to be seen in 2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_2s4tob5U8

A media cover up


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

bn9900

It's hard for My Esoteric to get beyond the Obama and media propaganda information that in many cases is a distortion of the whole truth.The President's Speech Distorts the Truth

http://www.facebook.com/notes/paul-ryan/the-presid

Medicare is WAISTING more than $8 billion on an experimental program that rewards providers G.A.O. Calls Test Project by Medicare Costly Waste

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2012...

medicare advantage plans are distorting the true cost to the taxpayers.Medicare Waste

on an experimental program that rewards providers G.A.O. Calls Test Project by Medicare Costly Waste

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/health/policy/ga...


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Jon, you need to update your sources. You say -

"''reign in unnecessary costs in Medicare, one important part of Obamacare needed to reduce or eliminate its costs'' really , one can believe that?Ryan and Van Hollen Debate Medicare Proposals 6/3/11"

Try this instead - "Based on current savings" (2012, I think) achieved, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Studies reports that Obamacare will have saved the Medicare Trust Fund $200 billion by 2016 and Medicare patients some $208 billion by 2020. http://www.cms.gov/apps/files/ACA-savings-report-2...


nicomp profile image

nicomp 3 years ago from Ohio, USA

http://moneymorning.com/2013/02/11/the-real-cost-o... :

'...That's more than $4,000 higher than what families pay now. '

'The penalties for individuals who don't obtain health insurance are to be capped at either the average annual bronze premium, 2.5% of taxable income or $2,085 in 2016.'

'According to a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office, 7 million people will lose their job-based health insurance - up from the previous estimate of 4 million, thanks to the eliminated tax breaks. '


bn9900 profile image

bn9900 3 years ago from Alger WA

Nicomp-just another way Obama can control the masses, can anyone say Dictator?


nicomp profile image

nicomp 3 years ago from Ohio, USA

bn9900: you mean the 50% of folks who depend on the government for daily subsistence or the low information voters? Either way, we're outnumbered.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

@Nicomp, the rest of the story is - The CBO believes, because the middle tax class cuts were made permanent, that many lower income workers will forgo employer provided insurance to join the exchange programs.

Further, some unethical employers of large low-paid workers will cancel their insurance plans (presumably, executives will be able to keep theirs) in favor of paying the cheaper penalties. All of these workers will also be eligible for subsidized insurance exchanges.

THAT is the real story, not your hyperbolic headline.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Yes, you are correct, @bn9900, it is fortunate the millionaires, veterans, elderly, disabled, temporarily unemployed, and low-wage earners who make up the 50% who "don't pay taxes"if you are referring to Mitt Romney's derisive statement (not daily subsistence or the low information voters), do outnumber you; America would be a rather sad and unhappy place to live otherwise.


stanwshura profile image

stanwshura 3 years ago

Bn900, Obama was freely and fairly elected not once, but twice by the American voters. Hardly a dictator.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 3 years ago from Ohio, USA

stanwshura : ignore the voter suppression in Philly and the dead folks polling in Chicago. The Democrats mean well.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 3 years ago from Ohio, USA

"Further, some unethical employers of large low-paid workers will cancel their insurance plans (presumably, executives will be able to keep theirs) in favor of paying the cheaper penalties."

Now THAT'S a well-designed system. It's a good thing we passed the bill so we could see what was in the bill.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Yes @Stanwshura, and while you are at it, ignore the voter suppression in Florida, North Carolina, South Caroline, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, and, let's not forget, Texas. Or how about the hundreds of changes in local voting laws that were blocked by the now defunct Voting Rights Act of 1965 because their purpose was to suppress votes of those who might vote Democratic.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

@Nicomp, I have a feeling the more liberal element of the Democrats wanted much higher penalties on employers who drop their insurance, but, in the spirit of compromise, settled on what they could get.

Also, am I the only one who, by simply reading the news, knew what most of the major provisions were going to be in the final bill? Hell, I wrote about a lot of them before the bill was ever passed. Given that they forged this bill over an 8 month period, with the public watching it take shape, it was sure no surprise to me what finally got passed; I really don't know why it is a surprise to Republicans, don't you read the same news I do?


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

''a surprise to Republicans, don't you read the same news I do?''

11/30/12

House passes immigration bill,

http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/11/30/house-passes-immigr...

House Republicans said this was the first step in larger immigration reform

Taking obamacare to grade schools, what next?

11/30/12

6/29/13

Teens urged to promote ObamaCare under California grant, report says

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/29/teens-u...


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Seriously Jon, you believe either one of those two entertainment channels? I said news, not stand-up comedy. If you give me something from CNN, the Hill, Politico, POTUS, the Washington Post, or the Wall Street Journal (respected left and right newspapers, respectively), those are worth listening to or reading in order to contemplate what they offered.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

CHECK THIS LINK, your comments

6/29/13

Teens urged to promote ObamaCare under California grant, report says

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/29/teens-u...


Shyron E Shenko profile image

Shyron E Shenko 3 years ago

My Esoteric, I have read this hub more that once, and I agree with everything you have written here. Voted up, awesome, interesting and shared.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thank you Shyron, although with this hub, it is mostly a recitation of those things Obama did, or tried to do. that he said he would.

I do keep adding to it when I can; in fact, I did an Obamacare update yesterday.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 3 years ago from Ohio, USA

ObamaCare update:

http://moneymorning.com/2013/02/11/the-real-cost-o...

'...That's more than $4,000 higher than what families pay now. '

'The penalties for individuals who don't obtain health insurance are to be capped at either the average annual bronze premium, 2.5% of taxable income or $2,085 in 2016.'

'According to a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office, 7 million people will lose their job-based health insurance - up from the previous estimate of 4 million, thanks to the eliminated tax breaks. '


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

nicomp

The second part of the link. 2/8/13

The 7 Biggest Obamacare Lies

http://moneymorning.com/2013/02/08/the-7-biggest-o...

the biggest Obamacare promises were Obamacare lies.

6/23/12 Obamacare It’s a TAX

Supporters Slow to Grasp Health Law’s Legal Risks

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/us/past-denials-...

6/29/13

Republican bill to annul Obamacare exchanges

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57591646/sen-p...

March 23, 2010 President Barack Obama is applauded after signing the health care bill

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/09/study-c...

ObamaCare increases deficit, knocking down president's vow

3/6/10

Obama Health Reform Insurance

http://hubpages.com/politics/ObamaHealthReformInsu...

President Obama did not disclose major objections to the existing Healthcare legislation


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

nicomp

IT'S A TAX , not a penalty as Obama said.

How the Justices Ruled on the Health Care Law

Is the individual mandate constitutional?5-4 Individual mandate upheld as a tax

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/06/28/us/h...

With all the scandals in the Obama administration happening, Obama SAYS '' trust me '' REALLY


nicomp profile image

nicomp 3 years ago from Ohio, USA

Oh, OK. I am sorry. It's a tax on people who deign to purchase health insurance that's too good. The federal government gets to decide what insurance is permissible and what is excessive. That makes sense. My bad.

And it's a tax on people who do not engage in a voluntary transaction. If you decide you don't need health insurance, you get taxed. That makes sense. That's freedom. That's what our founders envisioned.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I recognize that Justice Roberts characterized the obligation not to burden others with your personal medical bills as a tax, but those were his words; and a minor gov't argument; one to use if the rational logical to non-conservatives didn't work. Obviously it didn't, so Roberts decided this "tax" was similar to the Social Security and Medicare "taxes" and found it Constitutional on those grounds.

And yes, I would rather have these scofflaws involuntarily "taxed" than have my taxes or insurance premiums involuntarily increased because these same unethical people decide to do the wrong thing. If there were no economic or other impact to their lack of character, then I wouldn't support forcing them having to pay for their insurance.

But, again, I refuse to pay their medical bills out of my tax dollars and higher premiums; in other words, my Right not to be hurt by them Trumps their Right to pass their medical bills on to others.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 3 years ago from Ohio, USA

"And yes, I would rather have these scofflaws involuntarily "taxed" than have my taxes or insurance premiums involuntarily increased because these same unethical people decide to do the wrong thing"

Sigh. Do you have any idea what is happening to insurance premiums already?

" If there were no economic or other impact to their lack of character, then I wouldn't support forcing them having to pay for their insurance."

OK, let's tax/penalize people that we don't like. That's the democratic way.

"...my Right not to be hurt by them Trumps their Right to pass their medical bills on to others."

Sure, the government can solve this problem for you. Have fun getting your health care from the DMV.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Yes, they are showing signs of going down. I know that since Obamacare, my companies premiums have either decreased, stayed the same, or increased modestly, depending on the insurance and the year.

Only you said "tax people we don't like". I said "tax people whose intentional choice not to buy health insurance, when they can, increases my tax or premium bill (or prevents them from coming down)". The discerning reader will notice the big gap in meaning in your misleading paraphrase and my statement.

Your last statement is a non sequitur. But, in any case, assuming you pay for your own health insurance, I am happy, @Nicomp, you love paying for theirs so much.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 3 years ago from Ohio, USA

"...Yes, they are showing signs of going down."

I give up. You win. I'm out.


celafoe profile image

celafoe 3 years ago from Planet earth. between the oceans

what are you and the rest of the kool aid drinkers on here getting paid for this hub? that is beside your obummer phones and snap cards?


Shyron E Shenko profile image

Shyron E Shenko 3 years ago

obummer phones??? Are you celafoe, afraid someone is getting something for free and you are left out? Is this what you are talking about: http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp

snap cards? Food Stamps, to help people who have no employment, no way to feed their family? Have you ever been without a job, and you were hungry and had no money to buy food? Or have you had someone hand you everything you needed and wanted? If so, you are one lucky cat.


bn9900 profile image

bn9900 3 years ago from Alger WA

Sharon, only the lazy don't have a job, fast food, or retail are always hiring, or will that income not allow for the free handouts?

Lazy=Democrats and they just want to leech off the people who are working and trying to survive. And yes I have been with out a job, I just know how to make money else where and don't ask for hand outs.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

"only the lazy " = Naïve. You apparently have no clue as to how the real world works, do you @booooo, Nor are your math skills up to par, for not too long ago there was 1 job opening for every 50 people looking; now that number is 6.2 people looking for each available job. Under Clinton, a Democrat, unemployment was at historically low rates of about 4%, third lowest behind Truman-early Eisenhower and Kennedy-Johnson, Democrats and a RINO. So, what changed between the end of Clinton and the beginning of Obama to make people "so lazy"? As best as I can tell, it wasn't a change in work ethic but the near depression Bush left Obama to deal with. You do realize people Can't find work, no matter how hard they look (even at McDonalds) during recessions, depressions, or periods, like now, when big business refuses to hire people, don't you?


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

JUST ANOTHER DISTORTION,

Under Clinton, a Democrat, unemployment was at historically low rates of about 4% YES with a Republican majority Congress

2000 to 2006 Bush with a Republican controlled Congress unemployment 4.6% with a Democrat controlled Congress 2007- 2008 up o 7.8%

''Bush left Obama to deal with'' Obama 2009-2013 unemployment, now 7.6 % almost a million less employed since taking office and $ 6 trillion more in debt.

Hail to the king!.Obama's 2014 Budget Proposal: Tax, Spend, Elect — and Borrow

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/15094-obama-...


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I find it interesting, Jon, that on the one hand you want to give the Conservative Congress credit under Clinton for keeping unemployment low, something I actually agree with, but not the Conservative Congressional roadblock since 2011 keeping unemployment high during the Obama administration. And to correct your figures somewhat, in 2007 and 2008, when Democrats held an ineffective majority in Congress (due to the filibustering of the Conservatives in the Senate), unemployment was 4.6 and 5.8%, respectively. While from 2001 to 2006 when Conservatives had 100% control of all three branches of government, unemployment was 4.7, 5.8, 6.0, 5.5, 5.1, and 4.6%, respectively; not quite the stellar record you make it out to be, is it.

I also am amazed at your ability to ignore the Laws of Physics and Economics when you attempt to pin the 2009 and 2010 unemployment rates on Obama; that is just like me trying to pin the disastrous 1981 unemployment rates on Reagan, rather than the Arabs, where they belong.


bn9900 profile image

bn9900 3 years ago from Alger WA

Wow you are distorted, When a man (or woman) cant be sexist can we.... assumes the presidency, he assumes all the good bad and indifferent Jan 21st 2009 Obama became our president and assumed all the problems. I had a job from 2000-2009, but lost it in 2009 due to the economy that Obama did nothing about, and still hasn't, but because he is president, he will take all the credit....but none of the blame. I think he threw out the "The Buck Stops Here" sign when he assumed the presidency.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Yes, @bn9900, a new President must assume responsibility for whatever was left over from the previous administration; they must either continue the good times, if they are fortunate to be left in that environment, or solve the problems which were left behind, which in Obama's case was the situation in spades.

That Doesn't mean that the new President is responsible for the fallout from the previous Presidents actions, to expect a new President to stop a large boulder rolling downhill in its tracks as a result of previous poor policies is simply preposterous and not realistic.

To say the 700,000 people who lost their jobs in February 2009 is due to Obama's failed policies is beyond comprehensible and outside of any concept of normal logic. To say the next 600,000 people who became unemployed in March 2009, less than two months after Obama took over, is also patently naïve.

To say Obama did nothing from 2009 on tells me you haven't read this hub since it is a long recitation of what he has done. You many not agree with what he has done, but to say he has done nothing makes me wonder where you have been.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

''While from 2001 to 2006 when Conservatives had 100% control of all three branches '' Bush inherits a Clinton recession ( didn't complain), 2001, 9-11 a major hit on the rising economy Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 bought unemployment down to 4.6%. 2008 left with a $650 billion deficit. During the Bush administration record breaking treasury revenues.

It's the present that we face today with a President that provides no leadership and a Senate and House that cannot understand that the name of the game is COMPROMISE.Obama is all politics and incompetent as his action show.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Actually Jon, Bush inherited an economic slow-down, the first since Clinton took office, and turned it into a recession through his policies. It didn't have to be that way, in spite of 9/11. Bush's tax cuts were part of the problem, not the solution, almost all economists agree with that statement now, as was his gratuitous war in Iraq.

And again no, Bush left us with a $4 trillion debt once you factor in the cost of the near depression which would have occurred regardless of who was President. If McCain had been elected, someone like you on the Left would be taking him to task for "his" $6 trillion or larger debt instead of fixing the blame where it belongs ... with the Bush administration.

Oh, BTW, if only Obama were more "incompetent". No President in our history has been able to grow the economy out of a recession as well as he has when faced with such determined opposition by the opposing Party to stop him from doing it.

But, you did say one truth, the game is "compromise", and once the Republican Party can become the inclusive Party it used to be under such Presidents as Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, and Reagan; then Congress will be able to get back to governing again the way you suggest. But, so long as the current Republican Party considers three of four of those Presidents RINOs (along with Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln) then we are stuck with what we have today.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Also, Jon, another thing Bush didn't complain about was the "budget surplus" Clinton left him in addition to an expected economic slowdown; a surplus Bush squandered away. The recession, such as it was, lasted all of 8 months with a decline in GDP of a whopping 0.3% and was mainly driven by the "rich man's" Dot.Com bubble.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

''a surplus Bush squandered ''A 10 year projected surplus is not the actual numbers, take away stealing from the SST fund to juggle the numbers is phony math.

Stimulus Spending Was Wasted Money $825 BILLION

http://hubpages.com/politics/Stimulus-Spending-Was...

Voted on and passed by a super majority controlled Democrat Congress

Where Did All The Money Go? STIMULUS

http://www.gop.com/images/research/where_did_all_t...

Voted on and passed by a super majority controlled Democrat Congress

Benghazi Whistle blower Hearing on C-Span3 live and un edited!

POTUS ‘’ to tell the TRUTH ‘’ Benghazi A MEDIA COVER UP

PART 1 http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SConsulat

POTUS once said '' the buck stops here''REALLY


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Sorry again Jon, it wasn't projected, it was real, the last two years of Clinton and the first year of Bush. In fact, in inflation adjusted dollars, the debt actually came down a scosh in the first year of Bush's term. As to how the deficit is measured, you can't go moving the goal post to suit your point; there has been one way to measure the deficit forever, including the way the Republicans measure it today; and that deficit was a surplus in 1999, 2000, and 2001 before swinging back to a severe deficit beginning in 2002; I think I have my years right.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Sorry again Jon, it wasn't projected, it was real, the last two years of Clinton and the first year of Bush. In fact, in inflation adjusted dollars, the debt actually came down a scosh in the first year of Bush's term. As to how the deficit is measured, you can't go moving the goal post to suit your point; there has been one way to measure the deficit forever, including the way the Republicans measure it today; and that deficit was a surplus in 1999, 2000, and 2001 before swinging back to a severe deficit beginning in 2002; I think I have my years right.


bn9900 profile image

bn9900 3 years ago from Alger WA

Interesting how the hub author discounts Jons facts when Jon even provides proof, and yet the Author provides no resources what so ever to back up his claims....typical left wing rhetoric.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

@bn9900, try reading the rest of my hubs, the proof is in those as I use these same statistics, including the accompanying graphs, in several different forums.

Further, I occasionally look at Jon's citations, if they aren't political hacks like Fox News or MSNBC, and have written about them as well when I find their content particularly credible or incredible, as the case may be. I even sometimes look when his logic is misleading, like in his opening remark "10 year projected surplus is not the actual numbers", which, in this case was a non sequitur because I was talking about realized surpluses and not projected ones.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Here is why I don't look at Jon's citations all that often, out of the list you are referring to 1) Dave's world as 18 months old whose information is no longer current nor correct, 2) the GOP citation is 15 months old and from a highly biased source, 3) the Bengazi source may be current, I didn't look, but has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Exactly what was there to "check out", @bn9900, did I miss something you saw?


bn9900 profile image

bn9900 3 years ago from Alger WA

It doesn't matter when the articles were written as they were true at the time. Would you not believe the news reports of what Hitler did in Europe? I mean they were written over 60 years ago but they were all true As then, as they are now. The truth will always say true.

As far as highly biased sources, Most mainstream media is highly biased to the left, so much so it is hard to get a reasonable report out of them on anything political, It is only very recently that some liberal media has seen the light.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

bn9900

A turn of events by the unions, wow!

FRIENDS OF OBAMA

Unions, the reliable Democratic supporters, split from president on ObamaCare

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/25/unions-...


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

"It doesn't matter when the articles were written as they were true at the time. " - interesting logic, especially in those cases when they aren't true now. Your logic, @bn9900, applies only when reporting on historical facts that won't change over time. If they can change from then until now, you would be expected to report the more current information, wouldn't you? For example, I would expect you to believe me if I reported that science "proves" slaves were inherently less intelligent than their masters; such notables as Thomas Jefferson believed this to be true. Now, I hope you don't take that report as still being true, I certainly don't.

It might interest you to know that "mainstream" media is called "mainstream" because it general reflects both sides of an issue and is used by those Americans who don't subscribe to the hard Right or the hard Left. "Mainstream" media makes no bones that many of those who work for them lean a little to Left on a personal level, mainly due to a strong believe in the 1st Amendment and a built-in distrust of both government and authority. They also make no bones that many of the "opinion" pieces don't take the Right side of the issue, although there are obvious exceptions to this such as most financial news media like the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, Forbes, etc.

As to Jon's comment, I responded to that with the Truth in my hub titled "Obamacare May Start A Winning Streak! The Insurance Premiums Are Starting to Come Out ... And They Are Down. "


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

where did you get that information?


bn9900 profile image

bn9900 3 years ago from Alger WA

But my friend they are still true, always have but the democrats don't want to see it that way since that would prove them wrong. You see the liberal base is and always has been worse than the conservatives, Why? Because they brainwash the public, bribe illegals but dangling amnesty in front of their nose, and what do they do when a conservative calls them on it, they blast them for being racist, no wanting to help the "poor" and the like.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

bn9900

Another Day, Another Slew Of Bad News For Obamacare

http://lonelyconservative.com/2013/05/another-day-...

Health insurance premiums could rise by as much as 40 percent as a result of President Obama’s healthcare law, according to a new study

'' we need to pass the bill to find out what's in it ''Any business with that kind of a plan=disaster and failure. the USgovernent is the largest employer in the country, it's time to clean it up starting in nov. 2014

7/21/11

Senator Coburn exposes WASTE ‘’ Back In Black’’ finds $9 TRILLION waste inside WASHINGTON Agencies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tVJ2gqqKWs


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

@Jon, 65 years of observation and common sense. Well, OK 55 years, I didn't start paying attention to such things until I was 10.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

@bn9900, which is still true? Facts such as "there for four faces on Mt. Rushmore", or facts like "Mt. Everest is 20,000 feet high (I have no idea how high it really is, btw) today, based on a report in 1920, which was known to be accurate then. In reality, Mt Everest today may be 20,000 feet and 2 inches". Wouldn't that make the 1920 report false for today and therefore useless in terms of describing Mt. Everest today?

You do understand, I hope, that the liberal base, as you refer to it is, in part, responsible for 1) the emancipation of slaves, which was opposed by Conservatives, 2) pushing the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments through as well as the Amendment to allow women to vote; all of which was opposed by Conservatives, 3) pushed for legislation to clean up our air and water; again opposed by Conservatives, among many other examples of push society forward while Conservatives consistently opposed such changes.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

Florida acts 6/6/13 MASS exodus from Florida ....

Florida, first state in the union to require drug testing to receive welfare!

http://www.daveweinbaum.com/Florida.html

GOVERNMENT WASTE,who should be held responsible and lose their job? It was reported that for the past 5 years, the Social Security Trust fund has paid $400 billion to dead federal employees

7/21/11

Senator Coburn exposes WASTE ‘’ Back In Black’’ finds $9 TRILLION waste inside WASHINGTON Agencies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tVJ2gqqKWs

Just trying to keep you in the know.


bn9900 profile image

bn9900 3 years ago from Alger WA

The liberal base had nothing to do with the emancipation of the slaves, if anything they wanted to keep the blacks enslaved. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2309727/pos... a

and Lincoln was a Republican.

As far as your sad comment about cleaning up the air and water, that wasn't so much opposed to that, but it was HOW they wanted to do it, shut down polluting making businesses, killing comerse in this country, and you wonder why manufacturing has dropped? Really look for facts before spouting off liberal talking points.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

And you, sir, need to read and understand your American history. The Republican Party of Lincoln in 1864 ARE the 2013 moderate and liberal Democrats (otherwise known as Progressives). It was his opposition, the Democratic Party that morphed into today's conservative wing of the Republican Party. In other the words, Abraham Lincoln would have been a moderate Democrat today. As a consequence, to understand this, you need to be nimble enough of mind to visualize the switch in Party philosophy.

You imply that not shutting down (name we one major business that shut down as a result of EPA action) businesses, who were killing our environment, is better than having dead lakes and rivers and cities where you couldn't see a mile because of the smog on some days (that one I experienced in LA). Is that what you are trying to say? If not, how would you have stopped businesses from destroying our world in order to improve the bottom line? Further, I would offer that if any business couldn't or refused to clean up their act and did close would be replaced by another to satisfy the demand for whatever they were producing but in a much more environmentally friendly manner.


bn9900 profile image

bn9900 3 years ago from Alger WA

I know that Sir, but I figured Id let you find out on your own, so quit your harping about us conservatives, I proved my point that the Dems are out to destroy this country. you have proven nothing because you don't show resources....For god sake do some research. This hub is a Farse!


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

Hubbers

Just to enlighten some of the un believers

2009-2012 Administration Oil Strategy Contributes to Price Increases

http://www.scribd.com/doc/87353590/Administration-...

4/13/12

Obama order coordinates federal oversight of 'fracking,' gas development

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/221395-ob...

4/27/12

Team Obama's scary crusade against affordable, reliable ENERGY

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/04/27/epa-vide...//www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/04/27/epa-video-reveals-team-obama-scary-crusade-against-affordable-reliable-energy/?cmpid=cmty_twitter_fn#ixzz1tIvHh9ZS

Solar Power, The Future Is Here ?

http://hubpages.com/politics/SolarPower_TheFutureI...

Obama said ‘’we are poised to generate countless new jobs, good-paying, middle-class

The plant will be closing due to the EPA

Sequestration?DOD

Solar, wind overtake geothermal at DOD. Renewable energy projects installation increased from 489 in 2009 to 679 in fiscal 2012

4/29/13

Sequestration?

GSA plans to add 10,000 hybrid cars to fleet effectively doubling size of the hybrid fleet


celafoe profile image

celafoe 3 years ago from Planet earth. between the oceans

do what i say not what I do, remember thats the mantra of the demoncrats


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

celafoe

''the mantra of the demoncrats ''

3/16/12

Democratic Senators Issue Strong Warning About Use of the Patriot Act

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/us/politics/demo...

POTUS says ‘’ TRUST ME ‘’ CREDIBILITY?

2/19/13

President Barack Obama’s remarks on the sequester:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/02/19/transcrip...

2/22/13

Obama’s sequester deal-changer

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-02-22/opin... sequester is not something that I’ve proposed,” Obama said

2/25/13 Sequester - The Three Things you need to know

http://www.gop.gov/sequester/

President Obama Proposed the Sequester

6/30/13

Tracking the predicted sequester impacts

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/polit...


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

To the readers of Jon's sources.

- The Oil Price reference, there are some problems with the chart: 1) the prices are not normalized to that you can compare 2009$ with 2013$ to account for inflation, 2) the chart does not go back to 2007 when WTI (West Texas Intermediate) crude prices were $3.45 per gallon vice the end of the chart's 2012 price of $2.75, 3) Nor does the chart go into 2013 when prices went down to $2.02/gal, 4) Nor does the words with the chart identifies either crises in the Middle East (the main driver of price changes ... not mentioned either) or processing plant shut downs, (another main driver), and 5) For the other prices who must compare the distance between the top line of the category and the bottom line in order to judge whether prices increased or decreased. For example, the price of Diesel appears higher at the beginning of 2009 than it is at the end of 2012, meaning, to use the articles implication, Obama actually LOWERED the price of deseil during his term.

While there is no problem with the data on the chart, the person preparing it "cooked" the presentation to 1) confuse the reader by using what is called a sand chart and 2) present the worst possible picture. The author also failed to include ALL significant causes in the commentary above the chart.

Consequently, the chart which Jon refers to is useless as a piece of reliable information. Just thought you would like to know.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Dear reader, regarding Jon's use of the Hill's fracking article as a "put-down"; isn't that what the country's execution should be doing, coordinating the activities of the Executive Branch? The way "fracking" is accomplished today, with horizontal drilling, has a lot of controversy regarding its negative impact on the environment.

Jon's next reference to the EPA refers to an opinion piece on Fox by a known right-wing oriented author who, with a couple well chosen, out-of-context quotes offers "expert opinion" on how the EPA is the new Gestapo (my words, not his).

Sorry, but I don't have time to review the rest of his non-sequitur arguments.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Jon's article on solar energy, while clearly biased and not a balanced view, is essentially correct on one fundamental point; right now it costs more to produce one watt of non-polluting solar energy than it does to produce the same energy from polluting sources such as oil and coal. What the article failed to show, and hence leads to its bias, is that over the years, as technology has improved, the "break-even" point between solar and oil/gas/coal has gotten a lot closer.

What the article also did was present a very slanted view of the Solyndra failure. It said it cost 1100 jobs, that is true in the short-term. What was unsaid, and therefore leads to bias, is that at a time when jobs were very much needed, Solydra ADDED 1100 jobs. It also failed to mention that another tech company bought the plant the gov't money helped build and reemployed some of those 1100 ... that is how you have an unbiased position. The article also failed to mention that the primary reason Solyndra went under was unfair price competition from China, for which there is a billion dollar plus lawsuit going on now to recover the gov't money.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

'' the "break-even" point between solar and oil/gas/coal has gotten a lot closer.'' Please do tell your readers what those numbers are.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

When you account for ALL of the costs associated with producing a mega-watt-hour of energy you have (in 2009 constant $):

Coal: From $ 94.80 - $136.20

Natural Gas: From $ 63.10 - $124.50

Nuclear: $113.90

Wind-on-shore: $ 97.00

Wind-off-shore: $ 243.20

Solar: From $ 210.70 - $ 311.80

Geothermal: $ 101.70

Biomass: $ 112.50

Hydro: $ 86.40

Source: US Energy Information Administration


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Electric Car: From $ 2.34/gal equivalent (if electricity costs $.07/kwh to $ 10.07 (at $.3o/kwh)

At today's prices, break-even for gasoline vs electric powered cars is $ .10/kwh


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

''break-even for gasoline vs electric'' where are we today?

''have (in 2009 '' bring us up to date.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Jon, that was today for the electric, it could have been ten years ago assuming the battery technology was the same as today. The driving factor is the price of electricity to charge the batteries, which varies across the country vs the price of gas which, besides being different across the country, varies day-by-day; but, in this case, used $3.54 per gal for gas to compare.

Also, just an FYI, 2009 constant $ doesn't have anything to do with the currency of the data used to produce the numbers, it could have been 1900 constant dollars if they had wanted it to be, all "constant $" does is adjust the data for the effects of inflation on price.


Defender or Freedom 3 years ago

Obama (as well as all of congress) is an embarrassment to America.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Disagree a little; Obama fits your description in 2011, but, this time around he showed future Presidents what to do when one part or another holds the country hostage because they couldn't get their way the good old American way the founders had in mind.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Disagree a little; Obama fits your description in 2011, but, this time around he showed future Presidents what to do when one part or another holds the country hostage because they couldn't get their way the good old American way the founders had in mind.


Kathleen Cochran profile image

Kathleen Cochran 3 years ago from Atlanta, Georgia

My Esoteric: Were you nominated for political hubber this year? You should have been!

Finally at the end of the week a commentator said it: The Affordable Health Care Act will be seen as Social Security and Medicare are today. Back in the day people screamed "Socialism" and "The End of the Republic" about them too. Now they are so essential to American life no one will even make common sense adjustments to them. Hopefully common sense adjustments will be made to Obamacare in the coming months and people will calm down.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks for your vote, Kathleen, I certainly appreciate it; although I have no idea how to tell, or even if you can.


MaryB 2 years ago

What a pile of crap, part time minimum wage jobs created, 20+% real unemployment because you need to add in the people who dropped from the workforce because they can't find a job, also add in the underemployed who are in a part time minimum wage job.

Rest of it is just as bad.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks for your comment @Mary, and for reminding me to go review this data again, it has been awhile. First of all, your 20+% is a myth, it always has been. The figure you are referring to are those people "not in the labor force who want to be" plus those who are "employed part-time for economic reasons" plus the normal unemployed. That figure is currently 12.3%; in Jan 2004 it was 9.9% and in Jun 2010 it was 16.4%.

The important figure, however, is the difference between those figures and the published unemployment numbers; this percentage represents of those non-institutional civilians over 16 who are willing to work but aren't looking or settled for part-time work for economic reasons. If this rate is growing, people are leaving the labor force, if it is decreasing then people are entering the labor force (either in an employed or unemployed status). From 2004 to 2010, this percentage has increased from 4.2% to 7%; but from 2010 to 2010 it has decreased to 6%.

Other numbers to dissuade you from your opinion are:

- After peaking in Dec 2010, Discouraged Workers are down to 2008-2009 levels

- After peaking in Jan 2011, Workers who haven't looked but still want to work are down to 2009 levels

- After peaking in Mar 2010, Part-time workers for economic reasons has dropped to 2008 levels.

As to minimum wage jobs, all I can say is average hourly wages have stagnated since July 2001 when they were $16.01 until now at $16.89 with a peak of $17.16 in Oct 2010.


Shyron E Shenko profile image

Shyron E Shenko 2 years ago

As I said before My Esoteric, this is such a well researched hub it should win in the political arena hands down.

It is hard for President Obama to get things done right when the KKK (Knaves, Kooks and Kinks) are trying to impeach him. They have a new one to lay at his door, the closing at Gitmo. They are not smart enough to know if President Obama is what they make his out to be, he would be one of them.

Great hub!


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Lol, thanks, @Shyron


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 2 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

Obama big deal Bowe for Taliban leaders


Conservative American 2 years ago

Thank you for the liberal propaganda. The whole world will sleep in peace knowing the US debt is three times what it was during the presidency of GW Bush, not to mention the reason unemployment has gone down so much is that people's unemployment benefits are drying up. As far as the war in Iraq, it will never be over, no matter what you and your liberal friends believe.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Propaganda is the spreading of false or misleading messages, vis-a-vis Conservative attacks on anything Obama. What is presented above is simple, verifiable history, mostly from PolitiFact. Consequently, there is nothing propaganda about it, unless you consider truth to be propaganda @ Conservative American.

The debt is three times larger "because" of President Bush, a legacy effect of "his" Great Recession. You can't have a Great Recession without huge unemployment, now can you. And you can't have a good recovery when the opposition Party is trying everything they can to prevent it, now can you.

I wonder why President Bush didn't understand your true statement about Iraq "before" he decided to invade? The turmoil that doomed England before us, and now America, was created in 1914 when Iraq's boundaries were drawn so stupidly by the Allies of WW I. What happened to America in Iraq was predictable to anybody who wasn't arrogant and was a student of history.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 2 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

'' "before" he decided to invade'' Congress voted to go to Iraq WHEREAS Obama has acted without Congress

12/17/13 A Plan For Jobs & Economic Growth http://www.speaker.gov/jobs

FACTS 2007-2014 D's control 2/3s gov 2009-2010 BO D's 100% control 2011-2014 R's 1/3 control can't make law Bo D's are in control and Bo RULES

1/30/14 House Leaders Send Letter To President Obama

http://majorityleader.gov/newsroom/2014/01/house-l...

5/13/14 The American people are tired of waiting for this body to act on the jobs bills Senate Democrats continue to blockade http://www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p...

4/21/14 Carney rejects trade offs for unemployment insurance http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/2... Pay Go law http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/paygo_description

As long as the Senate is controlled by Reid , cover for Obama, nothing will change in Washington.

So we as taxayers will have our chance in Nov to fix things or business as usual


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Jon, as you well know, Congress gave the Bush the authority to act, they didn't tell him to; he made that terrible decision without Congress egging him on; although most of the Rs wanted him to do it, but by the time he did, more info had come to light which changed many D's minds and they were against it.

You FACTS are wrong, Jon. 2007 and 2008, the Rs controlled the Presidency, the Supreme Court, and had veto power over the Senate. The Ds held base majorities in the House and the Senate and controlled the agenda in each. From 2009 to 2010, The Rs controlled the Supreme Court but Ds controlled all else ... and wasted the opportunity. From 2011 to now, the Rs control the Supreme Court, the House, and have veto power in the Senate while the Ds control the Executive branch and sets the agenda in the Senate.

So, the ONLY time your insinuation is actually correct is in 2009 and 2010. The fact that the Rs have effectively shut down government since 2011 should be proof enough of the lack of the power you incorrectly seem to think the Ds possess.

What the American People are tired of is an uncompromising Right-wing, but gerrymandered districts prevent voters from rectifying that wrong.

So far, besides cause unimaginable misery to those who were receiving unemployment benefits, Conservatives have cost business, small and large, $10.2 billion so far, and still counting. Add the $16 billion they cost America with the government shutdown, Conservatives have single-handedly sucked $26 billion out of the American economy ... all in the name of creating jobs, lol.

If Reid had Republicans that existed under Reagan, the government would be functioning as it should, for they knew how to govern. The current Republican cohort has no idea what governing is all about.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 2 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

The question ,is there a difference in true and truth?

The war, Congress authorized Bush to go to war! DO you RECALL some Dems saying '' I voted for it before I was against it'' Other issues are history.

Note,Supreme Court don't make law, the President don,t make law .

2007 2008 D's control House and Senate, recession starts Dec 2007.2008 financial meltdown , D's pass Tarp.

2009 Obama D's control 100%, recession ends June 2009.The rest of the story continues


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

BTW, is that the "exact" quote, or an abbreviated one that changes its meaning. But in any case, the ONLY thing that Conservative slogan is indicative of is that the issuer is the kind of person who will never change their mind no matter how much new evidence is presented that shows their original opinion was dead wrong.

You are right, neither "makes" law but both "interpret" law and in the Supreme Court's case, they can reverse law; you know, that unfortunate checks and balance thing.

Jon, you are smart enough to know recessions don't start on a dime, it takes years to build to the tipping point, so your implication that the beginning of the Great Recession in Dec 2007 and the Democrats winning slim majorities in the House and Senate is more than just a coincidence is simply being disingenuous. More than likely, it was an indication the People understood what the Rs had done to us.

Yes, TARP was passed in a D majority Congress, but the Rs could have stopped it had they wanted to kill Bush's bill... they didn't; they didn't want a depression.

Again, you are smart and you know very well that a recession does not "end" on the date it reaches its low point, July 2009 I think. Instead, it means the damage keeps accumulating, just at slower and slower rates until it finally stops, which some might argue was around Jan 2010 when net job losses finally became gains for the first time. Of course you left out the SECRETLY AND PUBLICLY STATED GOAL of the Republican leadership to focus SOLEY on stopping Obama's agenda, including any of his attempts at economic recovery. Again, I think you are being loose with your innuendo and disingenuous.

That is why the President must use one of those other "balances" to continue government operations in the face of the Rs bringing Congress to a halt.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 2 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

Apparently you didn't read my previous link posts or you didn't understand what the President says is not what he and Reid are doing about jobs and the economy

6/25/14 news report: economy shrunk 2.9% in first quarter.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Most of that extra was due to lower health care cost and spending, go figure; most of the decline, of course, was from the results of the winter snows.

What I understand and observed is that every initiative Obama has put forward to promote jobs and the economy has been shut down by the Republicans, as promised. But yet the economy keeps growing at an average rate of 2% a year anyway, go figure.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 2 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

'' What I understand and observed '' On whitehouse.gov or the mainstream media? INITIATTIVE

5/22/14 Regulations will send Electricity Costs Soaring https://www.uschamber.com/blog/regulations-will-se...

4/21/14 Congressional Budget Office projections on ObamaCare raise questions about future enrollment

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/21/congres...

5/25/14 IRS bars Employers From Dumping Workers Into Health Exchangers http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/26/us/irs-bars-empl...

4/8/14 Survey: Employers beat Obamacare in covering uninsured http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/08/survey-employers... Fully 7.2 million, or 59 percent of the newly insured, got new coverage through their employer.

5/12/14 Another blue-collar union asks Senate Dems to support Keystone XL http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2548315#.U3E...

The GOP senators want to offer amendments to an energy efficiency bill but Reid has all but sealed off the amendment process to the minority party.

5/24/14 New Federal regulations ….have halted drilling in Kansas http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/24/oil-com... protect/ prairie bird

1/17/14 Barack Obama Spending Money On Food Stamp Handouts To People In Mexico http://reagancoalition.com/articles/2014/barack-ob...

US tax dollars help fund UN 'hate camp' in Gaza: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/08/24/us-tax-dol... US donates $millions Israel friend or foe?

There is more, I really don't want to bore you. have a great day!


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Lol,

5/22/14 Regulations will send Electricity Costs Soaring - "Look at your source, don't you think they have a dog in this fight? Find an unbiased one, and I will read it."

4/21/14 Congressional Budget Office projections on ObamaCare raise questions about future enrollment - "Isn't that just a typical meaningless media (I won't even say Fox) headline to make you read what they have to say without saying what they mean?"

5/25/14 IRS bars Employers From Dumping Workers Into Health Exchangers and 4/8/14 Survey: Employers beat Obamacare in covering uninsured - You clearly don't understand what Obamacare is all about with those contradictory headlines. The second headline is good news because that is what Obama was hoping for.

The GOP senators want to offer amendments to an energy efficiency bill but Reid has all but sealed off the amendment process to the minority party. - "He has also sealed off amendments to the majority party as well."

5/24/14 New Federal regulations ….have halted drilling in Kansas - "It seems to me this is a case of an oil companies profits and jobs vs the extinction of a species of bird for the sake of profits" Generally, the Left comes down on saving the earth and the Right on saving big business. The Right clearly doesn't care about the jobs that are lost given the $26 billion (vice the $100 million mention in the article) and uncounted jobs the Right has cost America and Americans because of the government shutdown and denial of unemployment benefits. Until the Right gets serious about the $26 billion they have wasted, then I will get serious about the $100 million the government cost business to save a species."

1/17/14 Barack Obama Spending Money On Food Stamp Handouts To People In Mexico - "Again, consider the idiocy of your source."

US tax dollars help fund UN 'hate camp' in Gaza: - "This type of hyperbole is why I don't pay attention to Fox News or MSNBC. For that matter, a recent survey has found that people thing Fox News is the least trustworthy news source of the main media outlets, although none scored high."

You have a good one as well.


Shyron E Shenko profile image

Shyron E Shenko 2 years ago

My Esoteric, I just read that Boehner will try to "SUE" President Obama for signing an executive order. For doing the will of the American People.

I am so glad you are on the CORRECT side.

Blessings

Shyron


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 2 years ago from usa

Shyron E Shenko

Check this link maybe it will clear up the report 1/30/14 3/13/14 House-Passed Bill Holds President Accountable for Enforcing the Law - See more at: http://www.speaker.gov/press-release/house-passed-...

For your information '' the will of the people'' CONGRESS is the will of the people not the Presidents


Patsybell profile image

Patsybell 2 years ago from zone 6a, SEMO

Thank you. It is good to see facts and research. The material is a pleasure to read. I appreciate that you can express your opinion here. You knew there would be name calling and hateful comments and yet your shared your opinion. Bravo. Voted up,UAI.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Jon, it is actually the House, with their two-year terms and the only body. originally, elected by the People. But in any case, since Boehner didn't mention any names, I think he was talking about President Jefferson, who wasn't too keen of following the law when he was President.

Thank you, @Patsybel. I think Jon and I are a good case in point; clearly we see opposite sides of the same coin and say so, yet everything is kept civil and attempted to be kept fact based on both sides.


cmoneyspinner1tf profile image

cmoneyspinner1tf 2 years ago from Austin, Texas

This HUB is a gigantic historical marker. I hope you have it preserved on paper. In case the Internet ever crashes or our access is cut off. :)


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 2 years ago from usa

SES

Just another link to update my posts 6/4/12 Obama’s Acts Of Treason & Violations Of Federal Laws http://www.nationalwriterssyndicate.com/content/vi... Congress/ D’s are refusing to act?


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 2 years ago from usa

Hubbers

Obama 1 term plus 1 Reid majority leader of Senate 2007-2014 5/13/14 The American people are tired of waiting for this body to act on the jobs bills Senate Democrats continue to blockade http://www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p...

7/20/14 GOP: Democrats in HOUSE TREATED better than Republicans in Senate http://thehill.com/homenews/house/212728-gop-dems-...

4/21/14 Carney rejects trade offs for unemployment insurance http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/2... Pay Go law http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/paygo_description

6/28/14 Election-year fears slow Senate work to a halt http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/28/electio... 2007-2014 Reid leads Senate obstructing House job bills Obama needs to give Reid a call.

4/21/14 Carney rejects trade offs for unemployment insurance http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/2... Pay Go law http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/paygo_description

one must listen closely when BO speaks on the campaign trail, Reid and Senate never mentioned as to the job hold up. Here's the scoop

6/8/12 OBAMA BANNED THIS VIDEO

GEE, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5CsrTMZAhA

WHOIS WHO in Gov http://commieblaster.com/progressives/index.html?v... … SHARED AGENDAS BARACK OBAMA http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewsubcategory...

Have you ever seen the above in the mainstream? please check it out and reply

thank you ,enjoying the discussion


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 2 years ago from usa

Hubbers

Updates

8/18/14 Lawsuit:White House Accused Of Hiding Politically Embarrassing Information http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/18/lawsuit-white-ho... still has not provided the information

7/14/14 The White House Is Bribing Health Insurance Companies http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/07/...

8/26/14 Consumers deal with insurance deadline, site glitches http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/... federal Healthcare.gov site remains so glitchy that they are having a tough time complying.

5/8/14 Obamacares’s Health Insurance Tax Could Cost Up to 286,000 JOBS

https://www.uschamber.com/blog/obamacares-health-i...

6/6/14 CBO Gives Up Trying to Figure Out How Much Obamacare Costs https://www.uschamber.com/blog/cbo-gives-trying-fi...


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

A comment on your conservative US Chamber piece: I could find no path to hard data, but I did run across this from one of their main sources, it said "The primary input in this study is the increase in employer costs resulting from the HIT which, according to independent estimates, will raise employer-sponsored health insurance costs by 2% – 3%. " MY GOD, 2 to 3%.!! And that little change is driving 286,000 lost jobs, according to the Chamber's source's model to which those numbers were an input.

Well, I wonder what their model would have output when, back in the good old days, like 10 years ago, health insurance costs were going up 8 to 12% or more a year?

The Chamber and Roll Call again distort things the CBO said. Part of the reason the CBO is unable to figure things out not because of the Supreme Court decision against the Medicaid portion of ACA but because of a plethora of Conservative governors turning their backs on the poor and refusing to expand Medicaid - that was deliberate and unnecessary. Another part of the reason, of course, was ACA's web site horrible role out - that was not deliberate. Yet another part of the reason is employers (and the web-site) could not get their act together to allow those mandates to go into effect forcing Obama to save their and ACA's ass.

That is why the CBO has given up, FOR NOW, trying to figure it out.

FORBES, of course, is concocting a story where is none just to sell its so-called news. It said, "... But don’t worry, HHS hinted: we’ll bail you [insurance companies]. out on the taxpayer’s dime if you lose money..." This was the focus of their story about how the White House bury's things and "bribes" insurance companies. It could easily be they ran this story this time last year because that is when I read it the first time. Then I remember commenting on it several times near the end of last year. Bottom line, this has been a well known and necessary part of ACA and just another example of how far the Right stretches to find something, anything of substance wrong with ACA. They can't, so they rehash inconsequential stuff like this.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

It is obvious to me, if not to you, that Obama and Reid have tried many times to people jobs, but have been stopped in their tracks by Sen McConnell and his filibuster bomb.

There was no "Pay-Go" in the R blackmail to provide relief to the long-term unemployed. Reinstating the extended unemployment is "Pay-Go" in and of itself. Every dime sent to the unemployed goes right back into the economy which does what, increase GDP. Guess how much the Conservatives have cost the economy so far with just this single screw up? $16.4 Billion lost to mainly small business.


bradmaste from orange county ca 2 years ago

My Esoteric

It is very difficult to make comments with hubs that are so large and contain so much information.

This hub really needs a 2014 update.

Actually a new hub.

But, my comment is more general in nature to your political hubs..

The theme of continually blaming the other party, especially if true doesn't change the results, nor will it change the future.

The two parties are working against the country and the people, and they are like the monkey behind bars that has grasped a banana outside of the bars. But the banana won't fit through the bars with a hand on it. So, the monkey won't let go, and the banana will forever stay out of reach.

The worth of a politician, especially a president depends on their ability to cross the aisles for the benefit of the country and the people.

Unfortunately, in the US the party comes before the country and the people.

Thanks

bradmasterOC


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

My Esoteric

The problems with unemployment started way before the economic meltdown.

Here is an article from 2003

September 14, 2003

WASHINGTON - The vast majority of the 2.7 million job losses since the 2001 recession began were the result of permanent changes in the U.S. economy and are not coming back, which means the labor market will not regain strength until new positions are created in novel and dynamic economic sectors, a Federal Reserve Bank of New York study has concluded.

The findings by Erica Groshen, a VP at the NY Fed, and Simon Potter, a sr economist, will be sobering news to policymakers scrambling to reverse the longest hiring downturn since the Depression.

The conclusions of the study

were underscored by two Labor Dept reports showing a surge in corporate productivity even as work hours are plunging.

The Labor Dept said productivity -- the amt an employee produces for each hr of work -- rose at a stronger-than-expected annual rate of 6.8 % in the April-to-June quarter.

Most past recessions

have been followed by a rapid recovery of jobs,

as companies that laid off workers during the downturn brought them back when business picked up.

But a growing body of evidence suggests that this recession and recovery are different.

Large industrial companies with such cyclical employment policies acct for just 21% of the work force, down from 49% in the early 1980s, .

Now, even as the economy has slowly expanded over the past 20 months, businesses have stepped up automation, sent jobs overseas and produced more while employing fewer people.

"Instead of seeing a recession as something just to weather, managers this time seem to have seen it as an opportunity or even a mandate for permanently changing the way they operate.

Researchers say job growth will return as some industries gain importance or new ones emerge, just as telecommunications and computers drove the employment boom of the 1990s.

The problem for lawmakers is that there is no way to know when or where such developments will occur.

"The job market is vastly worse right now than it was a couple of years ago," said Gary Burtless, a labor economist at the Brookings Institution.

By historic standards, the current jobless recovery is remarkable, the N Y Fed study says. During the 1991-1992 recovery that crippled George H.W. Bush's bid for a second term as pres, overall economic output grew slowly but steadily, while job growth remained flat for more than a yr.

In 2002 and 2003, the economy has grown each quarter at annualized rates between 1.3 and 5 %, but the number of payroll jobs has fallen an average of 0.4 % every 3 months.

Moreover, nationally, the number of hrs worked per employee has remained steady, the Fed study said, pointing to "the emergence of a new kind of recovery, one driven by productivity increases rather than payroll gains."

The numbers are striking.

Industrial machinery and equipment companies lost 160,000 jobs during the 2001 recession and 106,000 during the recovery.

As consumers snapped up cars, trucks and sport-utility vehicles in record numbers, makers of transportation equipment shed 62,000 jobs during the recession and 71,000 since.

Securities and commodities brokers, which saw boom times in the 1990s, eliminated 44,000 positions during the recession and 25,000 during the recovery.

And, Groshen and Potter suggest, they are not coming back.

A new study by the McKinsey Global Institute, the think tank of the consulting firm McKinsey & Co., suggests why.

When a firm ships a $60-an-hr software job to a $6-an-hr code writer in India, the most obvious benefit goes to the Indian.

But, the McKinsey study reports, the U.S. economy receives at least two-thirds of the benefit from offshore outsourcing, compared with the third gained by the lower-wage countries receiving the jobs.

American firms and consumers enjoy reduced costs.

Larger profits can be reinvested in more innovative businesses at home. New and expanding subcontractors abroad create new markets for U.S. products. And, at least theoretically, displaced U.S. workers will find new jobs in more dynamic industries.

-----------

This is just in the first couple of years in the new century.

And we know what those dynamic industries will be.

Creative Financial Opportunities due to the sub prime bubble.

Also not a foundation for economic recovery, as it resulted in a complete economic meltdown.

The country is on a ride to economic hell because the government has failed to do its job. It is the government because the constitution of the US knows nothing about the democrat and republican parties.

Thanks

bradmasterOC

Forrester Research Inc., a trend-analysis firm, has predicted that 3.3 million U.S. jobs will be shipped overseas by 2015, adding that those jobs are not just assembly-line work but increasingly are white-collar positions. About 200,000 service-sector jobs will be lost each year over the next decade, Forrester predicts.

The promise of eventual economic gains are cold comfort to the roughly 9 million Americans now unemployed. The Census Bureau reported earlier this month that more than 1.3 million more Americans were living below the federal poverty line in 2002 than 2001.

Lawmakers have focused their policy proposals on tax credits, regulatory and health care changes and trade measures designed to lower the cost of domestic production, raise the relative costs of foreign competitors and get those jobs back. But both the McKinsey study and Groshen suggest that Washington's job preservation and recovery efforts may be fruitless.

Instead, McKinsey said, policymakers should be examining new job-loss-insurance programs funded from profits generated by moving jobs offshore.


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

My Esoteric

As to the foreclosure data

In the following report isn't the decline really just the number of foreclosures just dwindling down from the original impact of the economic meltdown.

It is not that anyone did anything to reduce the numbers.

Year Foreclosures Foreclosure Filings Home Repossessions

2013 1,369,405 921,064 463,108

2012 2,300,000 2,100,000 700,000

2011 3,920,418 3,580,000 1,147,000

2010 3,843,548 3,500,000 1,125,000

2009 3,457,643 2,920,000 945,000

2008 3,019,482 2,350,000 679,000

2007 2,203,295 1,260,000 489,000

2006 1,215,304 545,000 268,532

2005 801,563 530,000

2004 640,000

2003 660,000

2002 700,000

2001 540,000

2000 470,000


bradmaster frohem orange county ca 2 years ago

My Esoteric

The use of credit in the US can be masking the performance of the economy. My point is that credit and not Obama or the government is responsible for any gains in the economy.

---------

Here is information for 2014

Debt Statistics: 2014

by Tim Chen

The average US household credit card debt stands at $15,607, counting only those households carrying debt. Based on an analysis of Federal Reserve statistics and other government data, the average household owes $7,281 on their cards; looking only at indebted households, the average outstanding balance rises to $15,607. Here are statistics, trends, studies and methodology behind the average U.S. household debt.

Current as of September 2014

U.S. household consumer debt profile:

Average credit card debt: $15,607

Average mortgage debt: $153,500

Average student loan debt: $32,656

In total, American consumers owe:

$11.63 trillion in debt

An increase of 3.8% from last year

$880.5 billion in credit card debt

$8.07 trillion in mortgages

$1,120.3 billion in student loans

An increase of 11.5% from last year

Deep dive: credit card debt

Credit card debt is the third largest source of household indebtedness. Only the mortgage and student loan debt markets are larger. Here are the latest credit card debt statistics from the Federal Reserve:

Total Credit Card Debt Average Household Credit Card Debt Average Indebted Household Debt

July 2014 $880.5 billion $7,281 $15,607

Change from June 0.61% 0.54% 0.54%

Change from July 2013 3.24% 2.41% 2.41%

Change from June, annualized 7.35% 6.54% 6.54%

What lower credit card debt means for the economy

What does this mean? Credit card debt is holding fairly steady – but whether or not that’s a good thing is up for debate. On the one hand, higher consumer spending puts the economy on a positive track. Higher spending leads to more jobs and higher incomes, which in turn lead to higher spending. However, if wages and employment are improving at this sluggish pace, this might well be an indication that families are borrowing to make ends meet rather than a reflection of a well-founded increase in consumer confidence.

Read on for statistics, data, methodology and conclusions on the state of U.S. credit card debt.

March 31, 2010 December 30, 2012

Total revolving debt $906.7 billion $849.8 billion

Number of U.S. households 116,716,292 119,397,330*

Average credit card debt per household $7,768 $7,117*

% of households with a credit card balance 43.2% 46.7%

Average credit card debt per indebted household $17,630 $15,257

*NerdWallet estimates; see methodology section for details.

In March 2010, the last date at which the data can be reliably estimated, we found that:

The median American household owed $3,300 of consumer debt;

The average American household owed $7,768 and

The average indebted American household owed $17,630.

Note that the averageAmerican household owed far more than the median, and also that the average indebted household owed far more than the average household overall. Such large discrepancies indicate that a relatively small number of households were deeply underwater.

Two things stand out: overall credit card debt is down, and the average indebted household is less underwater relative to the average overall than before.

Falling indebtedness is largely due to defaults rather than repayment


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

@Bradmaster, before commenting on your comments, and of course I have many, I need a couple of definitions before I can ... plus a request.

Request - could you provide the link for "by Erica Groshen, a VP at the NY Fed, and Simon Potter, " and by "the McKinsey Global Institute" - I would be interested in reading them.

Definition - When the article you reference says "rapid recovery of jobs", what time period would you guess they thinking of? I don't mean in years, because that varies with recessions, but from point to some definable point. I ask, because I my research does not suggest any of them were rapid. If any were, it had to be before 1929.

I can't remember the second definition I needed, damn.


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

My Esoteric

link

http://www.jobbankusa.com/News/Jobs/jobs91403b.htm...

rapid recovery, I would suspect less than six years.

Here is a link

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive...

They reference 1945 not earlier.

Thanks

bradmasterOC


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks for the links. Well, if they only looked that far back, then they are quite correct. Problem is, none of the recessions, accept for the almost non-recession of 2001, were not the same kind of recession as that of 2008. If they had bothered to look at other large "bubble" type recessions they probably would have dropped the adjective "rapid".

I suspect six years is not too far off the mark except for the really large depressions in the 1800s. Unique to this recession is the tremendous obstructionism from the opposing Party. On the other hand, common to all other major recessions and depressions, but not the the 2008 Great Recession is that gov't did nothing prevent job loss or speed up job creation; that wasn't the conservative way. Consequently unemployment was much deeper and often longer than it needed to be.


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

My Esoteric

My point in showing you the article was to point out that the jobs were being lost way before the economic meltdown. The article suggests that these jobs were lost for good.

Another problem with statistics is that jobs don't equal jobs. It is the type and quality of the jobs that is important. Losing a job that is in middle management in a technical industry is not the same as a new job that is management at Walmart.

I also believe that it is only a technicality that 2008 is classified as a Recession versus a Depression. The difference is just a definition, but in real life the impact was as bad as any depression. The difference in 2008 is the artificial buoying of the economy by the FRB, TARP and the Stimulus. These three interventions didn't help the workers, but they did shore up the stats to preclude the label of depression.

In addition, the speedy recovering of the economy from the dot com bubble was the creation of the sub prime bubble. These two tandem events were unique, as there were no bubbles similar to them in history.

In my opinion, if president George W Bush and congress had focused on the economy along with the wars, the economy might have been saved from destruction years later.

It didn't help that most of congress, and a dozen US Senators spent almost two years campaigning, and ignoring the economy. This was a bipartisan failure to do their job. It is a fact, that congress didn't understand that the economy was going to fail before the election.

The economic meltdown is the failure of congress, and president George W Bush and the failure of the two party system to work effectively for the benefit of the people and the country.

The results are facts, while the search for the guilty may be differently viewed from different vantage points.

Like the reason for the illegal drug cartels, the reason for the decline of the country is the failure of the people to act intelligently.

Thanks

bradmasterOC


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

So, by saying "I also believe that it is only a technicality that 2008 is classified as a Recession versus a Depression. The difference is just a definition, but in real life the impact was as bad as any depression." you are asserting the 2008 was as bad as 1929?


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

My Esoteric

What I am saying is that for all intents and purposes 2008 had the total affect of a big depression.

There is really no point in trying to compare 1929 with 2008.

After 1929, WWII would bring the US into prosperity during the 1950s.

But we have been at war for decades, and we lost all the manufacturing power we gained in the 50s.

So we don't have the building blocks that we had after the 1929 depression. We don't have any new Hoover Dams, and we don't have another National Highway System. The equivalent would be a national high speed rail system. But, we can't even do that, while places like China and Europe have them now.

Additionally, back in 1929 and thereafter, we didn't have the international competition and the globalization that we have this century.

We were the super power, and super industrial country last century, but we don't have that today.

WWII lasted about four years for the US, but we have been at war for the last two decades. The difference between WWII and all the wars after that is the US people don't care about them, and neither does congress.

So the article I showed you is important to show we were in decline even while a new bubble would artificially take the emphasis off of the data. Then when the bubble burst, it didn't matter about the early decline because the economy melted down so far.

But, as we try to recover the economy we should know that the damage was being done before the sub prime bubble.

A solution to the economy needs a new paradigm to better gauge its performance. The stock market, and the commodity markets are no longer that gauge. The advent of the computer age has given the power to manipulate these markets to the general public and up to the large professional investors. This wasn't possible in 1929.

In addition, today we have super conglomerate global companies, and not all them are from our country.

We have been going downhill as a country since we let the Oil Cartels artificially create not one but two oil shortages. This took away the American Car superiority and their esteem.

The list goes on, but I will stop here.

Thanks

bradmasterOC


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

My Esoteric

You wrote

As a consequence, in 2007 and 2008, the only legislation which became law was legislation to which both Parties and the President agreed.

bm:

Isn't that the way the congress and the president should be doing all the time?

BiPartisan!


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 2 years ago from usa

bradmaster

Right on, your remarks are as close to the truth as possible. The Dems took control of both houses in 2007, not good for Bush and Republicans.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I am sorry @Bradmaster, you are absolutely wrong in 1) your assessment of 2008 being a depression, it is mission several factors used to classify it as such and 2) you bring intelligent conversation to a halt when you take away the tools of logical and analytical conversation such as comparative analysis. That is how human being operate almost every second of every day except when you are asleep.

Without comparison, there is no good or evil, hot or cold, night or day. Take the latter, if you try to compare the two, if I don't like your thoughts, I can simply say "you can't compare night to day". That makes no sense to me at all, IMO.

In 1929, unemployment topped 24%, in 2009 it peaked at 10%

In 1929, GDP declined over 29%, in 2009 it declined less than 4.5%

In 1929, the Depression lasted (Peak to Trough) 3 yrs 7 mo, in 2008, it lasted 1 yr 6 mo

The 2008 Great Recession was a walk in the park compared to the 1929 Depression and they were both caused for the same fundamental reasons.

As to the 2001 "recession" there are some economists who wouldn't classify it even as that. And, it might not have been if it weren't for Bush's tax cuts and 9/11-Afghan War. Unemployment peaked at whopping 6.3% and GDP fell of a cliff at minus 0.3%. In reality, the 2001 recession was a recession for the rich; it had little impact on Joe Sixpack.

The worst recession before that was 1973 where unemployment hit 9% (less than the 10.8% in 1982) and a decline in GDP of 3.2% (more than the 2.7% in 1982)


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

My Esoteric

You wrote

I am sorry @Bradmaster, you are absolutely wrong in 1) your assessment of 2008 being a depression, it is mission several factors used to classify it as such

bm:

Recession and Depression are labels contrived to define the undefinable, and make it seem that the government understands the economy, which it clearly has never truly understood.

It is the impact on the people that is the determining factor. I gave you details on my opinion, not a categorical negative opinion that is pure rhetoric.

------------------

You wrote

and 2) you bring intelligent conversation to a halt when you take away the tools of logical and analytical conversation such as comparative analysis.

bm:

I merely stated with examples that the comparison to 1929 is not valid due to the difference in the variables that existed then, and have been replaced by other new variable that didn't exist then.

=================

You wrote

That is how human being operate almost every second of every day except when you are asleep.

bm:

It was human beings that brought the economy to it knees in 2008, so humans make a lot of mistakes. Just look at how much scientific theory has changed over time. From the Earth being the center of the Universe, to Pluto being downgraded from a planet.

------------------

You wrote

Without comparison, there is no good or evil, hot or cold, night or day. Take the latter, if you try to compare the two, if I don't like your thoughts, I can simply say "you can't compare night to day". That makes no sense to me at all, IMO.

bm:

I didn't say that comparisons cannot be used at all, I just said that 1929 was no longer a valid comparison for today. And I supported it with more than rhetoric. Perhaps arguing my examples would have been more productive, than the use of broad sweeping conclusions made without references.

------------------------

You wrote

In 1929, unemployment topped 24%, in 2009 it peaked at 10%

In 1929, GDP declined over 29%, in 2009 it declined less than 4.5%

In 1929, the Depression lasted (Peak to Trough) 3 yrs 7 mo, in 2008, it lasted 1 yr 6 mo

bm:

The effects of that Depression lasted until WWII, and that is the reason that I ignore the labeling. Just because you didn't feel the effects of 2008 because you were protected as a public servant doesn't mean that in 2010 that the unemployment, the bankruptcies, the foreclosures, and other vital factors of the economy were any better.

The economy today is fragile and the outlook is bleak. So, the use of statistics and putting spins on the economy is only putting a veneer on waste material.

--------

You wrote

The 2008 Great Recession was a walk in the park compared to the 1929 Depression and they were both caused for the same fundamental reasons.

bm:

If so, then it was caused by the government and their lack of being able to protect the economy.

------------

You wrote

As to the 2001 "recession" there are some economists who wouldn't classify it even as that. And, it might not have been if it weren't for Bush's tax cuts and 9/11-Afghan War. Unemployment peaked at whopping 6.3% and GDP fell of a cliff at minus 0.3%. In reality, the 2001 recession was a recession for the rich; it had little impact on Joe Sixpack.

bm:

There you go again with the labeling, perhaps if you weren't sheltered by the protections from reality being in the public employment, you would appreciate what happens in the real world.

Joe six pack is a myth created by Senator Joe Biden and I refuse to give it any credibility. He was also insulated from reality by being a public servant.

-------------

You wrote

The worst recession before that was 1973 where unemployment hit 9% (less than the 10.8% in 1982) and a decline in GDP of 3.2% (more than the 2.7% in 1982)

bm:

It was the 1970s when the US started its decline, and I mentioned that in my comments.

GDP is no longer a valid measure of the health of the country, and neither is the stock market.

This is 2014, not 1929. Things have changed drastically through the use of the computer, that didn't exist back then.

---------------


Kenja profile image

Kenja 2 years ago from Long Island, NY

Please see my Hub piece: The Democrats Need a Republican Campaign Manager. Advice to the Fainthearted.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks for stopping buy, @Kenja; that might not be a bad idea.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

@Bradmaster, if GDP is not a valid measure, what do you propose to replace it?

Further, peoples basic behavior doesn't change, even though technology might. People behave today as they did in 1929 as they did 1829 as they did in 1729 and so on. And, it is peoples behavior which ultimately drive the economy. That is why you can compare 2008 with 1929. The invention of the computer doesn't mean a damn thing other than, in the end, it is a very fast calculator; it doesn't think ... yet.


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

My Esoteric

True, most people don't change, but with technology the bad things that they can do, eclipse what has been done.

People program the computers, and not for calculator functions.

Mostly everything that is electronic today has a computer driven by firmware. And thanks to DARPA with its 1970 technology of the Internet, we have modern technology wrapped around ancient programming. That was the day when memory was in kilobytes, and hard disk drives were in single digit megabytes, and computer processors were running on a megahertz clock.

Today's Internet is still running the original TCP/IP protocols. This gives it a weakness that is taken advantage of by hackers.

The whole election process is planned by computers programmed for the political party to determine how to address local issue across the country, and customize their message to local issues that will gain votes at the state and federal level.

Programs based on heuristics not only find computer viruses, they also can be used to predict up and down ticks on the stock market. With computers these ticks can be very short durations, but with enough money put on the expected results it could be a tidy sum.

Hacking into utilities can create an unexpected event that could be used to make a profit.

The numbers and ways that computers can be misused for greed is limited only by the ingenuity of the people programming the computer.

You can't do these things with a calculator of any kind.

-----

As for GDP

one of the two methods

economic production and growth, what GDP represents, has a large impact on nearly everyone within that economy.

For example, when the economy is healthy, you will typically see low unemployment and wage increases as businesses demand labor to meet the growing economy.

bm:

The importance of that article I sent you is that labor has been decreasing due to the improvements in having automatic machines replace many people. This wasn't important in 1929 as it is today.

--------------------

A significant change in GDP, whether up or down, usually has a significant effect on the stock market. It's not hard to understand why: a bad economy usually means lower profits for companies, which in turn means lower stock prices.

bm:

With the globalization of many companies, and the accompanied mergers and acquisitions of this century, the GDP is not geared to gauge the effects of these super conglomerates on the economy. The first effects are really felt on the US Revenue dropping as the tax base goes out of the country.

Also, much of the personal wealth of billionaires is being held in stock, and that makes them paper billionaires. Only if those stocks pay a dividend is there any tax revenues being seen by the Feds.

----------

Investors really worry about negative GDP growth, which is one of the factors economists use to determine whether an economy is in a recession.

bm:

The personal computer and the online no human broker of today allows even the not so smart people from investing in the stock market. The problem there is that they are fodder for things that are trends, like the dot com, and the sub prime bubbles.

------------

I could list a lot more things that are different from1929.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 2 years ago from usa

Hubbers

Take note of the facts and compare the truth

10/16/12 The Federal Budget, 1992-2012 http://www.heritage.org/multimedia/infographic/201...


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

My Esoteric

You wrote

In Nov 2008, President Bush and the Conservative economic policy lost 533,000 jobs!

In Dec 2008, President Bush and the Conservative economic policy lost another 524,000 jobs!

In all of 2008, President Bush and the Conservative economic policy lost a total of 2,600,000 jobs!

In Jan 2009, when President Bush left the White House, he lost yet another 598,000 job!

In Jan 2009, when President Bush left the White House, he had increased unemployment from in the low 5% to 7.6% and climbing ... FAST!

When President Obama took office, basically in February 2009, the job loss caused by President Bush and the Conservative economic policy in what is now the Great 2009 Bush Recession was accelerating; it hadn't hit its peak yet and wasn't going to for another two month; numbers that somehow the Democrats have let the Conservatives lay at the feet of President Obama.

bm:

While the numbers may be true, it is disingenuous to attribute those numbers to President Bush and the conservatives.

As I have said many times, the entire congress, and especially those senators running their presidential campaigns were negligent about monitoring the economy.

My point is that congress failed the country. What is worse than the events that took several years to culminate in the total meltdown of the economy is the ad hoc no plan concept of TARP, and followed by the next Hail Mary play of the Stimulus. Very little of this one and a half trillion dollars reached the real victims of the perpetrators of the sub prime scheme, while the latter was flush with government money.

In essence, the guilty were treated like saviors, while the innocent were totally ignored.

There is nothing to be gained by people blaming the other party for something they themselves failed to correct. When the congress and the president fail, then the country fails. And failed it did really hard.

But the real problem is that they continue to fail because they won't admit that congress cannot do its job. This is a fact that president Obama has taken advantage to become the new legislative body of the US.

Instead of focusing on the failed economy, president Obama and his party decide to embark on National Health Care, which wouldn't even take effect during his first term as president.

The ACA created 10,000 pages of bureaucracy that even the politicians in congress didn't read, nor could many of them comprehend it. It is like a storm has devastated your home, and you decide to work on rebuilding your car.

Like it takes two to tango, it also takes two political parties to dance together in congress.

There is a lot of info in this hub, so it takes several comments to cover it.

Thanks

bradmasterOC


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

My Esoteric

You wrote

END TORTURE AND EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AS A MEANS OF INTERROGATION

JANUARY 22, 2009: PRESIDENT OBAMA issued Executive Order #13491 that ended these practices, fulling a longstanding campaign promise.

bm:

Wouldn't it have been more useful to have had the Patriot Act repealed, as the country is not in a declared war. The Patriot Act adverse;u affects every America Citizen by treating them as an enemy. This act while labeled as anti terrorist is actually anti patriot.

As far as inhumane, compare waterboarding to cutting the heads off prisoners after a prolonged incarceration where anything goes.

The Patriot Act dilutes yet another page of the constitution on the pretense of defending the country. The real problem is when an innocent US citizen is wrongly tagged as a terrorist and their are no constitutional rights to protect that citizen.

Thanks

bradmasterOC


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Unfortunately. there sometimes isn't two there to tango. In 2000, when the straw that broke the camels back was passed, rescinding the Glass-Steagall Act, Congress was solidly in the hands of the conservatives and Clinton really screwed up with his compromise by signing it.

Fiscally, Clinton tended toward the conservative side, more or less like I am or Eisenhower was. The moves toward deregulating the financial industry basically began with Reagan and his fellow sort-of-conservatives (when compared to those beginning with Gingrich) who won many compromises with the Democrats. It began again in earnest two years after the Conservative revolution in 2005. That was when Gingrich finally figured out compromising with Clinton was a better way of getting some of his agenda passed that simply butting heads with him and losing.

The deregulation continued under the Conservative Congress and a compromising President who didn't foresee the damage he was doing, culmination in the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Bush, Greenspan, and the conservative Congress sealed the deal by completing the dismantling of the financial industry regulations and the castration of the federal regulators. Throw in the effects of 9/11 and the subsequent War in Afghanistan, along with the disaster called the Bush tax cuts and the Iraq War, that by 2006, the Great Recession of 2006 was a foregone conclusion; there wasn't anything anybody could have done about it, except maybe mitigate some of the damage around the edges by acting faster. Bush didn't act until late 2008 ... AGAINST the advice of most of his Party. (Notice the fact that the Ds gained ineffective control of Congress in 2007 doesn't even play into this scenario.)

I have my finger pointed in the right place, and if you notice, I do, even in the main hub, give Clinton credit for his part in it. But the fundamentally, it isn't Bush, Greenspan, or the Conservatives that are at fault, it is the economic philosophy they believe in that is.


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

My Esoteric

You just proved my point.


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

My Esoteric

If the Republicans are successful and turning back PPACA, what besides the pre-existing condition provision will the country really lose?


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 2 years ago from usa

My Esoteric

Just another side of the story.

1.11/7/14 World’s largest solar plant applying for federal grant to Pay Off Federal Loan http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/07/world-l...

2. 8/18/14 Lawsuit:White House Accused Of Hiding Politically Embarrassing Information http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/18/lawsuit-white-ho... still has not provided the information

3.10/29/14 Fed ends huge stimulus program http://thehill.com/policy/finance/222221-fed-reser... QE3

4. 11/10/14 Obamacare architect’s stunning candid remarks about the ‘ stupidity ‘ of voters http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/full-video-obama...

5.

7/14/14 The White House Is Bribing Health Insurance Companies http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/07/...

6. 5/8/14 Obamacares’s Health Insurance Tax Could Cost Up to 286,000 JOBS

https://www.uschamber.com/blog/obamacares-health-i...

7. 6/6/14 CBO Gives Up Trying to Figure Out How Much Obamacare Costs https://www.uschamber.com/blog/cbo-gives-trying-fi...

8. 8/5/14 The Obama Administration’s Transparency Website Fails to Report $619 B in Federal Spending http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/08/05/the-oba...

GAO reports $619B missing from 302 federal programs

9.

BO said’’ I hear you’’ referring to election.Obama immigration http://hubpages.com/politics/ImmigrationEnforcemen... 1986 law needs be enforced or amended Obama AG violate the law

To be continued


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

1. Look at the source, but in any case, so what?

2. Old non-news

3. Means the economy has improved enough to stop

4. Why isn't it scandalous when that has been the Right-wing mantra for decades?

5. If Forbes had read more competent reporting from the previous year, this wouldn't be new to them. Or, if they applied a little common sense, it wouldn't be surprising either. How come I knew about this 15 months ago?

6. I guess the US Chamber didn't read the CBO report which debunked this urban myth.

7. I would to given the Supreme Court, Conservative governors, and a botched roll-out totally destroyed the assumptions it can be based on. The proper phrase, by the way, is "...Gives Up, For The Time Being, ..."

8. You finally got one right, although The Blaze, like myself, needs to do a much better job of editing its copy.

9. Its more than the Conservatives do, isn't it?


bn9900 profile image

bn9900 2 years ago from Alger WA

And from Esoteric: The next Liberal talking point rhetoric........


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Moderate, not Liberal. Eisenhower and Nixon are probably Liberal in your eyes.


bradmaster 2 years ago

My Esoteric

If the Republicans are successful and turning back PPACA, what besides the pre-existing condition provision will the country really lose?


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 2 years ago from usa

bradmaster

Check these links for the TRUE story of how BO and the Pelosi and Reid got Obamacare passed. The Dems own the bill 100%.

Healthcare reform http://hubpages.com/politics/GOVERNMENTHEALTREFORM... … Healthcare Summit http://hubpages.com/politics/BARAKOBAMAHEALTHCARES... … Obama Health Reform http://hubpages.com/politics/ObamaHealthReformInsu... … a FRAUD

11/10/14 Obamacare architect’s stunning candid remarks about the ‘ stupidity ‘ of voters http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/full-video-obama...

1/4/14 25 senators who voted for Obamacare won’t be part of the new Senate http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2555721/ On Dec. 24, 2009, the Democratic-controlled Senate passed President Obama’s healthcare law with a filibuster-proof 60-vote majority

The bill was not yet written when they voted, shameful.


Kathleen Cochran profile image

Kathleen Cochran 2 years ago from Atlanta, Georgia

Recently published data: unemployment is below 6%, US gross national product growth is the best of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries, the dollar is at its strongest levels in years, the stock market is near record levels, gasoline prices are falling, there’s no inflation, interest rates are the lowest in 30 years, US oil imports are declining, US oil production is rapidly increasing, the deficit is rapidly declining, and the wealthy are still making astonishing amounts of money. How do you define "right"?

And as far as leadership goes, there is more than one style of leadership.


bradmasterOCcal profile image

bradmasterOCcal 2 years ago from Orange County California

And yet the economy has not recovered.

Great stats but people can't live on stats.

The only good thing that we have seen is the price of oil and gasoline drop hard.

That will help the economy and the country, but not the oil companies.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Congrats, I see you got back on Hubpages.

And yet the economy has recovered, for the wealthy, not for everybody else, which is a completely different problem and so long as everybody keeps focusing on the wrong issue, it will never get fixed.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

@ Bradmaster,

Well, pre-existing conditions is a big one, but since you asked:

- most young adults up to 25 or 26 will lose their insurance (at least those currently on their parents insurance)

- insurance companies can go back to cancelling your policy for any reason what so ever (normally because you are costing them too much)

- healthcare cost will be uncontrolled again like they were in the 1980s and 1990s

- Medicare costs will increase because those parts of ACA which have been reducing them will end

- Insurance companies can go back to using much more of the premiums for "administrative" costs

- and so on and so forth.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

@Jon, even though Obamacare was originally a Republican idea, the current form is 100% D, why is that a surprise?

Did you know that in Blue and Purple states, more voters like Obamacare than don't like it. Why is that? Also, somewhere around 70% of those who signed up for Obamacare like it as well. Why is that?

One Democrat criticizing citizens for each 100 Conservatives doing the same, unfortunately, there always is one bad apple.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

@Kathleen, in a forum I just addressed this, noting that normal economic growth, at least from 1980 on is in the 1.5% to 2.5% or 3% a year; which is where we are right now. The problem isn't the economy, it is doing nicely as you show;, instead it is the "fact that only one class" of the people is benefiting from it; the lower and middle classes are not and that is ripping the country apart.


bradmasterOCcal profile image

bradmasterOCcal 2 years ago from Orange County California

My Esoteric

You wrote

Well, pre-existing conditions is a big one, but since you asked:

bm:

Pre-existing conditions can be fixed with a single law.

-------------

You wrote

- most young adults up to 25 or 26 will lose their insurance (at least those currently on their parents insurance)

bm:

Isn't that a condition of the economy that these young adults don't have insurance. Is everyone going to graduate school and no one is working to get benefits. When I was in college, I wasn't on my parents insurance.

------------

You wrote

- insurance companies can go back to cancelling your policy for any reason what so ever (normally because you are costing them too much)

bm

Again, that can be solved by a single law, not a government take over of the healthcare industry.

----------

You wrote

- healthcare cost will be uncontrolled again like they were in the 1980s and 1990s

bm:

Many people are taking healthcare with catastrophic deductibles.

Many people are losing their doctors, and finding a good doctor is even more important than health insurance. ACA doesn't improve the quality of health care. How can adding thirty something million people to an already pathetic system improve health care quality?

---------------

You wrote

- Medicare costs will increase because those parts of ACA which have been reducing them will end

bm:

Losing seven hundred billion dollars didn't help Medicare.

Put the money back that Obama diverted from Medicare back into it.

-----------

You wrote

- Insurance companies can go back to using much more of the premiums for "administrative" costs

bm:

When did government red tape ever lower costs of any kind.

---------

You wrote

- and so on and so forth.

bm:

If those were the top issues, then problem solved by yada yada.

---------lol


bradmasterOCcal profile image

bradmasterOCcal 2 years ago from Orange County California

My Esoteric

2nd comment

You wrote

And yet the economy has recovered, for the wealthy, not for everybody else, which is a completely different problem and so long as everybody keeps focusing on the wrong issue, it will never get fixed.

bm:

What is the right issue?

How do we fix it?

Thanks


Kathleen Cochran profile image

Kathleen Cochran 2 years ago from Atlanta, Georgia

"The problem isn't the economy, it is doing nicely as you show;, instead it is the "fact that only one class" of the people is benefiting from it; the lower and middle classes are not and that is ripping the country apart." Exactly. It has been said that after the "Great Depression" of the 1930s steps were taken by the government that benefited everyone. For the past 30 years steps have been taken that have only benefited the top 1%. It is now wonder our debt is so great. We've dried up our own revenue stream.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Yes, Kathleen, WW I, the Great Depression, and WW II turned what was a huge wealth and income disparity (makes today look pleasant) into what people have assumed is the "normal" state of affairs. In fact, what we are moving to again, great wealth disparity, is the historic norm.

Wealth disparity was significantly reduced (top '1%' own 50% before to 25% after; its now 35%) and income disparity became reasonable ( top '10%' went from 45% of income to 25%; it is now 35%) What people remember are the low, more egalitarian numbers, but without ACTIVE involvement by government to reverse the trend, we WILL end back at the norm.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

The 'right' issue is the growing (I should say "the return of") income and wealth disparity (see my answer to Kathleen). According to Piketty anyway, the most effective way to rebalance things is the tax code, e.g. moving back to the 1960s and 70s structure.

In a forum, I asked this question: Given that one benefit of our Constitution is the protection of Private Property, the federal and state governments spend huge sums of money providing the infrastructure needed in protecting those rights. However, the expenditure of those sums only benefit a small percentage of Americans, yet they do not pay for it. Why shouldn't they pay a higher tax rate to pay for such specific benefits like this and many others which a normal American doesn't receive?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Why so many single laws to fix a very broken healthcare system? Keep in mind, that was only a partial list of specific things. The main problem is that 40 million Americans were effectively barred from getting insurance, that is a disgrace and unique for such an advanced country as ours.

BM -

"Losing seven hundred billion dollars didn't help Medicare. Put the money back that Obama diverted from Medicare back into it."

ME -

Medicare didn't "lose" a dime. Instead of taking less money from the Treasury to fund Medicare based on the new, "lower" cost curve resulting from savings due to ACA, they kept the deficit the same by spending it for ACA instead.

BM - "When did government red tape ever lower costs of any kind."

ME - That is a non-sequitur answer. My company has already received two checks from our insurance company returning excess admin costs which we turned around and gave our employees back their 20%.

BM- "How can adding thirty something million people to an already pathetic system improve health care quality?"

ME- You gotta be kidding me, your preference is to leave the 30 million uninsured? (That is the implication since you are arguing against the existence of ACA)

BM - "Many people are taking healthcare with catastrophic deductibles.

ME - How many of those people are healthy people who could afford insurance but refused to buy it and pass the cost on to you?

BM - "Many people are losing their doctors, and finding a good doctor is even more important than health insurance.

ME - Again, you gotta be kidding me! In any case, it is the "greater good" argument. Ten people lose doctors they like, 10,000 people get doctors they never had in the first place. I know which way I vote in that scenario and it isn't for the ten people.

BM - "Isn't that a condition of the economy ... and no one is working to get benefits. When I was in college, I wasn't on my parents insurance."

ME - More that half the companies young people start to work for don't provide insurance and can't afford to buy it. Assume you were in a serious car accident in college and almost got killed. Who paid for the resulting hospital bills and follow-on care?


bradmasterOCcal 2 years ago

My Esoteric

I can't seem to make a comment from my hub account.

The comment box is there, but no cursor.

So, I have resorted to the old method for now.

-------------------------------

You wrote

Yes, Kathleen, WW I, the Great Depression, and WW II turned what was a huge wealth and income disparity (makes today look pleasant) into what people have assumed is the "normal" state of affairs. In fact, what we are moving to again, great wealth disparity, is the historic norm

bmOC

The disparity is a function of the government commandeering the Interstate Commerce Clause to take away state rights, and put them under the Supremacy Clause. In increasing their size and scope of government they imposed Draconian tax laws, which change every year. This alone is a major departure against a solid economy. Like building a skyscraper, planning is the key to success for the economy.

You can't plan when the government keeps changing the rules.

The Internal Revenue Code and the IRS invade personal privacy on the guise of collecting revenue. Revenue can be obtained easier, and without invading privacy, and foregoing personal liberties.

The government over the years has provided tax loopholes that favor the rich, take care of the poor, while destroying the central core of the US, the middle class.

---------

You wrote

Wealth disparity was significantly reduced (top '1%' own 50% before to 25% after; its now 35%) and income disparity became reasonable ( top '10%' went from 45% of income to 25%; it is now 35%) What people remember are the low, more egalitarian numbers, but without ACTIVE involvement by government to reverse the trend, we WILL end back at the norm.

bmOC

Describe the Norm? Once again percentages are not going to show the details, the variables, the conditions of the country, etc.

========================

You wrote

The 'right' issue is the growing (I should say "the return of") income and wealth disparity (see my answer to Kathleen). According to Piketty anyway, the most effective way to rebalance things is the tax code, e.g. moving back to the 1960s and 70s structure.

bmOC

The tax code has always been crooked, and why is it OK to not distribute the taxes evenly. The way it was done with progressive taxes, and marginal tax rates is patently discrimination, yet the SC doesn't think that the government itself needs to be held accountable to the constitution.

Replace the TAX CODE with a National Sales TAX in the same mechanism as the State Sales Tax and it will be applied equally. Any argument against this would have to apply to the State Sales Tax as well.

----------------------

You wrote

In a forum, I asked this question: Given that one benefit of our Constitution is the protection of Private Property,

bmOC

Where exactly is this stated in the constitution and how is it funded in the governments?

--------------------

You wrote

the federal and state governments spend huge sums of money providing the infrastructure needed in protecting those rights.

bmOC

Is that why are bridges, roadways, electrical grid, water resources, and others are in such disrepair, and under capacity from the 200 million US population till today's over 300 million population?

The US Government can't even adequately provide for the common defense. Again, not a single military defense was available during 911. It was the Army Corp of Engineers that failed to protect New Orleans from Katrina just to mention a few.

------------

You wrote

However, the expenditure of those sums only benefit a small percentage of Americans, yet they do not pay for it.

bmOC

Who are these people and I have no idea what you are talking about here.

----------------

You wrote

Why shouldn't they pay a higher tax rate to pay for such specific benefits like this and many others which a normal American doesn't receive?

bmOC

I am sorry, but nothing specific was mentioned here to reference.

--------------------

You wrote

Why so many single laws to fix a very broken healthcare system? Keep in mind, that was only a partial list of specific things. The main problem is that 40 million Americans were effectively barred from getting insurance, that is a disgrace and unique for such an advanced country as ours.

bmOC

That is a single issue that can be fixed with a single law that is not 900 confusing, and complex pages. These 900 pages also refer to thousands of existing laws and regulations. This makes is an enforcement nightmare with many loopholes.

KISS is the better approach.

--------

You referenced

BM -

"Losing seven hundred billion dollars didn't help Medicare. Put the money back that Obama diverted from Medicare back into it."

ME -

Medicare didn't "lose" a dime. Instead of taking less money from the Treasury to fund Medicare based on the new, "lower" cost curve resulting from savings due to ACA, they kept the deficit the same by spending it for ACA instead.

bm:

What has Medicare gained from the ACA. And you explanation is meaningless. If there is a lower cost from any source then why not keep it in the same system, and not punk it out to the new tax.

The ACA is just another blunder of the government in putting so called benefits behind a TAX. The SS, Medicare and ACA are all TAXES, and they all start out as a promised benefit, but it is a fact that SS and Medicare were mismanaged as does everything that the government wrestles away from the private sector.

The government cannot be your own definition run like a private business. Everything that the government does run, costs more, takes more time, and failures out weigh successes.

So a benefit that can be gained by Medicare should stay with Medicare. Why are we linking these three programs together?

There is no real nexus to do so, other than bureaucracy.

Once again, adding 40 million people to an already pathetic healthcare system is not going to improve healthcare quality.

-------------------------

You wrote

BM - "When did government red tape ever lower costs of any kind."

ME - That is a non-sequitur answer. My company has already received two checks from our insurance company returning excess admin costs which we turned around and gave our employees back their 20%.

bmOC

I would like to see the details of that transaction.

-----------------------

You wrote

BM- "How can adding thirty something million people to an already pathetic system improve health care quality?"

ME- You gotta be kidding me, your preference is to leave the 30 million uninsured? (That is the implication since you are arguing against the existence of ACA)

bmOC

I am not kidding, a program run by the government never ends well. I am saying that a single law could fix the necessary problem that need to be fixed.

Here is an example, my wife's cousin got laid off 6 months ago, and here Cobra insurance somehow didn't get picked up, maybe it was her oversight.

Bottom line she is without insurance, and has been sick for the past month. The insurance she signed up for won't kick in till the beginning of 2015, but right now she has no insurance.

She paid out of pocket for ER, but they didn't find the source of her problem. Now she is out of work, no insurance, and not flush with money, and she is still sick.

How is Obamacare helping her, as she is the poster child of whom Obamacare was created to help?

-----------


bradmasterOCcal 2 years ago

My Esoteric

You wrote

BM - "Many people are taking healthcare with catastrophic deductibles.

ME - How many of those people are healthy people who could afford insurance but refused to buy it and pass the cost on to you?

bmOC

I was talking about taking a huge deductible, I don't know if it is choice or that is all they can afford. When I was contracting, I had a five thousand dollar deductible. And it was one sixth of the cost of my gallbladder operation. Then there was the Usual Reasonable and Customary payments by the insurance company. So it was five thousand plus for my operation.

------------------------

You wrote

BM - "Many people are losing their doctors, and finding a good doctor is even more important than health insurance.

ME - Again, you gotta be kidding me! In any case, it is the "greater good" argument. Ten people lose doctors they like, 10,000 people get doctors they never had in the first place. I know which way I vote in that scenario and it isn't for the ten people.

bmOC

I am not kidding, and you won't realize what I am talking about until you have a serious illness and realize that not every doctor is going to save your life. Doctors are not interchangeable, and they all don't have the same knowledge base, or experience even in their own specialties.

In California, illegal aliens use the ER as their primary doctors, and they don't pay anything. So how is Obamacare going to help that problem.

Many trauma centers have closed because of that problem.

So a person that is on a cancer treatment with a specific doctor that is helping them should be forced to look for another doctor because their insurance policy was not acceptable to Obamacare.

Picking your own doctor can mean life or death, is that funny?

--------------

You wrote

BM - "Isn't that a condition of the economy ... and no one is working to get benefits. When I was in college, I wasn't on my parents insurance."

ME - More that half the companies young people start to work for don't provide insurance and can't afford to buy it. Assume you were in a serious car accident in college and almost got killed. Who paid for the resulting hospital bills and follow-on care?

bmOC

Now we are supposed to provide car insurance as well?

You shouldn't drive without insurance, and if the other person didn't have insurance, then your uninsured motorist coverage would pay for it. In addition, if the accident wasn't your fault, you could sue for damages civilly.

------------------

BMOC:

How is Obamacare going to improve the quality of healthcare?

Adding 30 or 40 million is going to improve the quality.

BTW

That person mentioned in my previous comment went to the ER at a reputable local hospital. Half of the ER was unavailable because it was setup for Ebola cases. So after triage, she spent the next six hours in the waiting room. After all that time, and money ER couldn't even guess why she was sick. So a month later she is still sick with little to no options for the time being.

Once again, Obamacare did what to help her? She may have messed up with the Cobra, but it wasn't to not have Cobra coverage, she thought that it was in force when she was laid off.

Regardless, that is where a solution from Obamacare would have been a benefit. But, it didn't help at all. And earlier in the year she had an operation for a tumor, and it turned out not to be cancerous. But when she signed up for the insurance under Obamacare that won't take effect until 2015, there was still an issue of pre-existing condition, even though there was no cancer. Apparently, the operation itself created a pre-existing condition that is flagged on the insurance application.

Not that the insurance is helping at all now.

----------------------------------

I don't know why I can't make comments on my hub account.

I guess I will have to try another computer, and maybe try to create a hub.

=====


bradmasterOCcal profile image

bradmasterOCcal 2 years ago from Orange County California

I am still having problems, but I keep trying and sometimes succeed.


bradmasterOCcal profile image

bradmasterOCcal 2 years ago from Orange County California

I am finally online and no problems.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Congrats.

Do me a favor, if you would. Break your comments up into smaller units unless it is one long thought. It is easier for me to address that way.

Thanks.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Congrats.

Do me a favor, if you would. Break your comments up into smaller units unless it is one long thought. It is easier for me to address that way.

Thanks.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

BM - "The disparity is a function of the government commandeering the Interstate Commerce Clause to take away state rights, and put them under the Supremacy Clause. ..."

ME - 1) How does that play out prior to WW I when gov't did no such thing? The gov't was essentially laissez-faire prior to then. Consequently, your reasoning fails. 2) It is up to the Supreme Court to decide when and if the fed overstepped its authority; and it has done so many times ... the latest with Obamacare when they (wrongly, imo) said the Commerce Clause didn't apply to it, but the tax law did as far as the mandate penalty went.

BM - "... The government over the years has provided tax loopholes that favor the rich, take care of the poor, while destroying the central core of the US, the middle class. ..."

ME - Unfortunately, history does not bear (sp?) you out, although I do agree tax loopholes are horribly abused. The tax code was "draconian" as you say from WW II through Carter. As it turned out, save for Clinton's eight years, that was best, most stable economic period America has ever known; even with the perturbations caused by the Middle East and the two oil crises. It has only been when the tax code was made much "fairer and flater" in 1980s and 2000s have the problems begun. Why?

I think, for several different reasons, we should go back to the code just prior to Reagan. (It certainly wouldn't help me, but it definitely would help the Nation, which is a higher priority for me.)


bradmasterOCcal profile image

bradmasterOCcal 2 years ago from Orange County California

My Esoteric

You wrote

BM - "The disparity is a function of the government commandeering the Interstate Commerce Clause to take away state rights, and put them under the Supremacy Clause. ..."

ME - 1) How does that play out prior to WW I when gov't did no such thing? The gov't was essentially laissez-faire prior to then. Consequently, your reasoning fails. 2) It is up to the Supreme Court to decide when and if the fed overstepped its authority; and it has done so many times ... the latest with Obamacare when they (wrongly, imo) said the Commerce Clause didn't apply to it, but the tax law did as far as the mandate penalty went.

bmOC:

Prior to WWI there was no income tax, and hence no revenue for the government to expand.

How does my reasoning fail, the ICC was never meant to take away state rights through the Supremacy Clause, it was to resolve conflicts between the states. With every usurping of state rights, it lessens the need for states to exist.

The SC has made more bad decisions than good decisions, and mostly because of the simple majority rule of their decisions. The Obamacare decision was wrong, as ACA was never intended to be a tax. The SC was political in its decision.

The SC was not thought out or described properly by the Constitution.

or the founders. They left the creation of the SC to the branch of government that was supposed to be keeping congress in check.

----------------

You wrote

BM - "... The government over the years has provided tax loopholes that favor the rich, take care of the poor, while destroying the central core of the US, the middle class. ..."

ME - Unfortunately, history does not bear (sp?) you out, although I do agree tax loopholes are horribly abused. The tax code was "draconian" as you say from WW II through Carter. As it turned out, save for Clinton's eight years, that was best, most stable economic period America has ever known; even with the perturbations caused by the Middle East and the two oil crises. It has only been when the tax code was made much "fairer and flater" in 1980s and 2000s have the problems begun. Why?

bmOC:

The dot com bubble and a lack of wars contributed to the eye of the hurricane calm of the economy. On the other hand the formulation that would become the sub prime bubble was done during the Clinton administration. And Obama never really did much to close up that riptide.

---------

You wrote

I think, for several different reasons, we should go back to the code just prior to Reagan. (It certainly wouldn't help me, but it definitely would help the Nation, which is a higher priority for me.)

bmOC:

The 1986 Tax Reform Act did away with the majority of the usable deductions for the middle class. The bulk of the IRC can only be used by the wealthy, and business.

A National Sales Tax replacing the bulk of the IRS and the entire IRC.

This is a fair tax by definition using the state sales tax as comparison.

It is Draconian because it invades personal privacy for the quest of revenue. It creates a crime for not complying with the tax code, and yet it requires that you give up your 5th amendment rights of self incrimination, and forcing you to sign under the penalty of perjury.

It is not beneficial for the IRC and the 1040 to have to change every year, it creates a dynamic condition that doesn't let people and businesses plan for their best results.

In essence, this continued change in the code makes people and businesses make money decisions based more on tax implications tan sound financial and business decisions.

In addition, the IRC doesn't give equal protection to all taxpayers.

It doesn't matter that the SC doesn't agree, they make more bad decisions than good ones. The SC and the Federal Appellate System have been contaminated by the congress over the years.

All this for the sake of Revenue.

The NST has none of these abuses.

The purpose of raising revenue for the federal government has nothing to do with trying to equally distribute wealth, but that is what it has been trying to do since the end of WWII.


Kathleen Cochran profile image

Kathleen Cochran 2 years ago from Atlanta, Georgia

"I think, for several different reasons, we should go back to the code just prior to Reagan." And go back to the regulations we had prior to Reagan. The changes in the tax code gave the unscrupulous the funds. The changes in regulations gave them the ability. Now we are living with the results.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I agree to a point on the regulations. Now that we have seen what worked and what didn't, it is time to rein in or at least take a serious and realistic look at those experiments that failed to see what should be done.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

PBO can't repeal the Patriot Act by Executive Order (of which torture was not a part of anyway). Repeal would have had to come from Congress who was busy trying to stop a depression.


bradmasterOCcal profile image

bradmasterOCcal 2 years ago from Orange County California

My Esoteric

A depression from a great recession might have been like a computer reboot, it throws away tho elements that corrupted it in the first place.

Congress was too busy working on the third part of the democrat social tax trilogy, and not the economy or fixing the financial industry.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I think you have it backwards, @Brad. It was headed toward the Great Depression of 2008, it was Bush, PBO, and Congress's collective action which limited it to the Great Recession of 2008.


bradmasterOCcal profile image

bradmasterOCcal 2 years ago from Orange County California

My Esoteric

My point is that I think we should have had the great depression, not recession.

These corporations and these greedy practices they created needed to be shunted into the ground, and then a better, less greedy, economy would rise like the Phoenix.

All we have today is a more emboldened financial industry that knows it can't be killed because it is too big.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving

It is sunny, warm and dry here in Orange County, not like the Thanksgivings in Manhattan, or Long Island where I grew up.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

There were a few on the far Right who said the same thing, that a depression is good for the soul, but that is like saying having a the Black Plague sweep over the world ever century or so is good for the soul as well, the toll in human suffering is about the same, just the number of deaths are lower in a depression.

People simply have to understand the "free-market" does not work when left to itself. It does not have sufficient defense mechanisms to overcome the corrosive power of greed. Government involvement is needed to keep the "free-market" truly free. As we have seen since the days of Adam Smith (who said a similar thing, by the way) people will distort the free-market until it is no longer free, and it doesn't take very long to do that either.

You can use this article to support your hypothesis along with all the others, it is short and sweet:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/20...

I hope you had a good Thanksgiving has well, the weather played nice in Florida as well.


bradmasterOCcal profile image

bradmasterOCcal 2 years ago from Orange County California

My Esoteric

Thanks for the article, it has a lot of interesting information.

What, I got out of it was the Leona Helmsley, and Martha Stewart went to jail for something less heinous than these banks.

So, the $4.2 billion fines don't come out of their pocket, and no one is going to jail. How is government helping even after the fact?

My interpretation of the Adam Smith theory of economics was that supply and demand work in a free market that doesn't contain monopolies, or government taxation.

Government regulations for anti monopoly adjusts the free market playing field by keeping competition. While a monopoly is the best form of a business for the company, it is the worst form for the consumer because of the reduction of competition.

My opinion is that the government did more damage than good to the US economic. The increase in the size and scope of the income tax system over the years, has produced business to make decisions based on tax consequences, and not good business decisions.

So these tax decisions help those products that are used most often for business tax decisions, while tax on consumer items that don't have tax deduction use hurts the consumers and the companies selling these products. It reduces the demand of these products based on increasing the cost of these products. This is basic Adam Smith Supply and Demand theory.

BTW as you are a retired Air Force consultant, what do you think of the new Russian plane

-----------------------------

A new Russian jet fighter, using stealth technology designed to conceal the plane from radar, is being called a “super weapon” by military experts who say that the fifth-generation Russian fighter jet actually surpasses United States fighters and could give Russia an advantage in the skies.

Have a great Thanksgiving weekend


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

The "and no one is going to jail." remains to be seen. Each money settlement includes terms which explicitly allow for future criminal prosecutions. I certainly hope they try, regardless of how hard it is to get convictions; all that I read says that is their intent.

In the lectures I listened to regarding Smith and economics, they didn't equate taxes with free-market, probably because taxes as we know them didn't exist at the time. What did exist were high, protective tariffs and we all know what Smith thought of those.

I'll have to think about your analysis of current taxes and free-market, however ... lot's of moving parts.

Since leaving the AF (I was actually an employee, vice a contracted consultant) I haven't kept up as well as what is going on, especially what may be under development in the black world ourselves. (Chances are I wouldn't know that anyway, but I was in a position where I could have been brought in on such a program had they needed my talents.) But, having said that, I just looked up the Russian/Indian TA-50 PAK FA program.

I gather it is a cross between our F-22 and F-35, leaning toward the F-22. The article said it is more maneuverable than either, but less stealthy than the F-22 and worse in data integration and fusion as well.

When I was doing an cost estimate for the Slovenian AF in their effort to join NATO, I had a chance to get to know the Soviet logistics system and the engines which ran their MIG-25 Foxbat (ironically, we used it for an umbrella for a little bit one rainy day.) What I found was that, as good as that system was, it was a logistics hog; the engines broke often and were hard to maintain; this is, or at least was, common in the Soviet military.

The other major weakness that I would presume still exists is the Soviet, now Russian command and control structure ... it is potentially fatally inflexible. Unlike Western military which depends on independent thinking down to the squad level, military based on the Soviet model are just the opposite which makes it very hard for them to adapt to fluid situations.

Those kinds of flaws, if they still exist, mitigate against a lot of the advantages their new fighter may give them.


bradmasterOCcal profile image

bradmasterOCcal 2 years ago from Orange County California

My Esoteric

You wrote

The "and no one is going to jail." remains to be seen. Each money settlement includes terms which explicitly allow for future criminal prosecutions. I certainly hope they try, regardless of how hard it is to get convictions; all that I read says that is their intent.

bmOC

So those that have committed the fraud get a free pass, while the government gets a 4 plus billion dollar revenue.

The government is not the one that had fraud committed on them, it is the people.

----------

You wrote

In the lectures I listened to regarding Smith and economics, they didn't equate taxes with free-market, probably because taxes as we know them didn't exist at the time. What did exist were high, protective tariffs and we all know what Smith thought of those.

I'll have to think about your analysis of current taxes and free-market, however ... lot's of moving parts.

bmOC

Thanks

You wrote

Since leaving the AF (I was actually an employee, vice a contracted consultant) I haven't kept up as well as what is going on, especially what may be under development in the black world ourselves. (Chances are I wouldn't know that anyway, but I was in a position where I could have been brought in on such a program had they needed my talents.) But, having said that, I just looked up the Russian/Indian TA-50 PAK FA program.

I gather it is a cross between our F-22 and F-35, leaning toward the F-22. The article said it is more maneuverable than either, but less stealthy than the F-22 and worse in data integration and fusion as well.

When I was doing an cost estimate for the Slovenian AF in their effort to join NATO, I had a chance to get to know the Soviet logistics system and the engines which ran their MIG-25 Foxbat (ironically, we used it for an umbrella for a little bit one rainy day.) What I found was that, as good as that system was, it was a logistics hog; the engines broke often and were hard to maintain; this is, or at least was, common in the Soviet military.

The other major weakness that I would presume still exists is the Soviet, now Russian command and control structure ... it is potentially fatally inflexible. Unlike Western military which depends on independent thinking down to the squad level, military based on the Soviet model are just the opposite which makes it very hard for them to adapt to fluid situations.

Those kinds of flaws, if they still exist, mitigate against a lot of the advantages their new fighter may give them.

bmOC

I agree, but it like the original Mig will give us a credible threat.

-----------

BTW

You might be interested to know that hp thought that two of my five hubs were not up to hp quality. I had to add more text, and images and republish. I don't know if that will be enough?

Anyway, I will keep publishing until they pull the plug again.

Post Comment

No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your Hubs or other sites.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

BM - "So those that have committed the fraud get a free pass, ..."

ME - And you came to that conclusion how?

BM - "while the government gets a 4 plus billion dollar revenue. The government is not the one that had fraud committed on them, it is the people."

ME - the money goes into the People's Treasury

Yeah, generally I don't have that problem with HP. Mine is "plagiarism". I use lot's of quotes from historic documents in order to discuss them. I have to twist my hubs into pretzels sometimes to get around that.


lizzee 2 years ago

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah


bradmasterOCcal profile image

bradmasterOCcal 2 years ago from Orange County California

My Esoteric

My point was that the people that lost money should be the ones that get the money. It doesn't help them when it goes into the general fund.

I was watching an old episode of the West Wing on Netflix, and one of the issues was the fraud case against the tobacco industry.

The White House was trying to get the tobacco industry to pay for their fraud to the public. The problem was that the tobacco industry had spent more money on the court case.

One hundred and seventy million dollars compared to the government which had a $12 billion dollar budget, They eventually got to $30 billion.

The tobacco industry had over 1100 lawyers, and double that in paralegals.

So this episode seemed to be pretty accurate at least for that part of it.

Again, no one in the tobacco industry was going to go to jail for criminal fraud. At worst case they would pay the fine.

The congress was the real culprit because of politics they never made tobacco illegal. In 1964 they put warning labels on tobacco.

Yet, they are rigid on Marijuana, and I see no difference between Alcohol, Tobacco and MJ.

They should all be treated the same, one way or another. We already have rules, warnings, and regulations on the scope of using these items.

----------

As for the hp, they just don't give me any specifics that I can look at and change.

Thanks


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

"My point was that the people that lost money should be the ones that get the money. It doesn't help them when it goes into the general fund." - But didn't we all lose money one way or another? How do you determine it? Methinks you are asking for the impossible.

BM - "Again, no one in the tobacco industry was going to go to jail for criminal fraud. At worst case they would pay the fine."

ME - It is my considered opinion there ought to be voluntary manslaughter charges brought against several dozen tobacco executives, let alone fining the company. But the power of money will never let that happen.

BM - "The congress was the real culprit because of politics they never made tobacco illegal. In 1964 they put warning labels on tobacco."

ME - Disagree, the culprits are the criminals themselves, Congress is an enabler.

Each drug should be treated according its specific merits and demerits. Both alcohol and THC have a beneficial side, tobacco does not.


bradmasterOCcal profile image

bradmasterOCcal 2 years ago from Orange County California

My Esoteric

You wrote

"My point was that the people that lost money should be the ones that get the money. It doesn't help them when it goes into the general fund." - But didn't we all lose money one way or another? How do you determine it? Methinks you are asking for the impossible.

bmOC

There are records of the people that lost money, lost their homes, so why can't the government allow them to submit remuneration for their loss.

-------------

You wrote

BM - "Again, no one in the tobacco industry was going to go to jail for criminal fraud. At worst case they would pay the fine."

ME - It is my considered opinion there ought to be voluntary manslaughter charges brought against several dozen tobacco executives, let alone fining the company. But the power of money will never let that happen.

bmOC

I agree

----------

You wrote

BM - "The congress was the real culprit because of politics they never made tobacco illegal. In 1964 they put warning labels on tobacco."

ME - Disagree, the culprits are the criminals themselves, Congress is an enabler.

bmOC

I would say co conspirator, as many of them took tobacco money.

---------

You wrote

Each drug should be treated according its specific merits and demerits. Both alcohol and THC have a beneficial side, tobacco does not.

bmOC

Why should MJ be a schedule 1 drug, when it has less detrimental effects than alcohol or tobacco.?

I have never smoked tobacco or MJ, and I am only looking at it as fairness. We know the dangers of all three of these, and as long as alcohol and tobacco are treated different than MJ there needs to be a valid reason why.

-----------

Thanks


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 23 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

BMOC - "Why should MJ be a schedule 1 drug, "

ME - Here is a link, http://www.drugpolicy.org/blog/how-did-marijuana-b... , but briefly, MJ became a Schedule 1 drug because of a campaign against immigrants from Mexico in the early 1900s.

While MJ was a common drug used by everybody in the US under a different name, the Mexicans brought it across the border under the name of marijuana. "Marijuana" was vilified by the anti-immigrant crowd, the Nativists. Ultimately, MJ was made illegal to "The idea was to have an excuse to search, detain and deport Mexican immigrants."

Such stories like MJ made black men become violent and solicit sex from white women were passed around, which back then was a heinous crime (and in some parts of the South, still is). In 1937 the MJ Tax Act was passed but was found unconstitutional so in 1970 the Controlled Substance Act was passed with MJ temporarily list as a schedule 1 until further study. The further study was the Schafer Commission which doubted that Cannabis shouldn't be illegal at all and certainly shouldn't be Schedule 1. President Nixon ignored the findings.


LettaMego 14 months ago

A lot of his accomplishment are nothing but twisted truths, i.e. lies. For example, the profitable green something or other....that's a JOKE... The only one benefitting is Made-in-China General Electric... 0bama is the first president in history to force a 2b carcinogen emitting device on all our homes (smart meters)... and use billions of our tax dollars to do it. Meanwhile we all already have cancer from all the cell phone tower next to our homes... and the unlabeled, poisonous Monsanto food being forced on us... But instead of protecting the 300 million people he's supposed to represent he protects his big money corporations ... and kills us with industry caused chronic disease.. and then forces us to pay insurance corporation to say they're paying for health care when in reality we're just footing the bill for more millions in CEO bonuses. Obama has 45 political czars that represent the banker frauds, the Wall Street thugs, Monsanto, the Cell Phone Industry ... General Electric...etc.. there is NOBODY representing We the People. Obama has caused even more destruction than Bush.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 14 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Give me some actual facts to back up your broad assertions. Simply claiming something is true, e.g., "...2b carcinogen emitting device...", doesn't make it so; where is your scientifically backed proof?

Most of what is presented in this hub is policy intended to do one thing or another; that policy exists (the truth) or it doesn't (a lie). Others are known outcomes, e.g., the positive return on investment from the totality of green projects supported by the PBO administration.

Hyperbole has no place in an intelligent conversation, don't you think?


Sgt Prepper profile image

Sgt Prepper 13 months ago from Elkhorn, WI

The best thing this usurper could do is resign immediately and turn himself over to the Military Police for confinement at Portsmouth until a Court-martial can be assembled. Even if BHO should avoid a firing squad of U.S. Marines at least a few years of making big rocks into little rocks will humble him a little.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 13 months ago from usa

Hubbers

6/2/14 Bowe Bergdahl was traded for 5 Taliban commanders http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/...

6/16/14 Obama’s Senior DHS Advisor Mohamed Elibiary:‘ Inevitable That ‘ CALIPHATE ‘ Returns ‘http://pamelageller.com/2014/06/obamas-dhs-senior-...

6/12/14 ISIS Terror Leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi Was Released By Obama from Camp Bucca in 2009 http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/06/isis-terro...

10/11/15 CONVOY including ISIS leader hit by airstrike, Iraq’s military says http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/11/world/iraq-al-baghda... the senior leader of the terrorist organization

D's will not impeach a national disgrace


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 13 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

6/2/14 Bowe Bergdahl was traded for 5 Taliban commanders - A very good thing indeed given we got an American soldier back (one you would rather leave in enemy hands) and the terrorists are still, several years later, are still under house arrest in Qatar.

6/16/14 Obama’s Senior DHS Advisor Mohamed Elibiary:‘ Inevitable That ‘ CALIPHATE ‘ Returns - was DEBUNKED in 2012

6/12/14 ISIS Terror Leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi Was Released By Obama from Camp Bucca in 2009 - was DEBUNKED, Bagdadi was released by Bush in 2004

You need to get your facts straight Jon.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 13 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Sgt Prepper - which country do you live in? It can't be America, otherwise you would know he was solidly elected by the thinking part of the American People - TWICE.


Kathleen Cochran profile image

Kathleen Cochran 13 months ago from Atlanta, Georgia

After watching 2 republican and 1 democratic debates, I'm more convinced than ever that the two groups just see two different countries. For myself, I think I'd rather look at the possibilities still out there for us, instead of offering nothing but doom and gloom. Can you guess which party I support?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 13 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

The two biggest winners from the D debate was the thinking part of the American public and the Democratic Party by showing they care more about the issues rather than the ad hominem and hyperbole offered by the two R prime time debates. The undercard R debates was much closer the way the Ds conducted themselves.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 13 months ago from usa

M E

Very interesting can you give me a link to back up your rebuke of

6/16/14 Obama’s Senior DHS Advisor Mohamed Elibiary:‘ Inevitable That ‘ CALIPHATE ‘ Returns - was DEBUNKED in 2012

6/12/14 ISIS Terror Leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi Was Released By Obama from Camp Bucca in 2009 - was DEBUNKED, Bagdadi was released by Bush in 2004

You need to get your facts straight Jon.

looking forward to ??

J E


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 13 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thought you would never ask:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/25/bachmann-...

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/20...

Both are much more reliable sources of information than the two unknowns you used.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 13 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thought you would never ask:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/25/bachmann-...

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/20...

Both are much more reliable sources of information than the two unknowns you used.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 13 months ago from usa

ME

Abu Bakr very interesting story add his link Wikipedia Abu Bakr al- Bagndadi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Bakr_al-Baghdadi

looks like bush released in 2004 but Bakr was reintourned but later released in 2009

need other link related to Eliiary ?

ck this link 9/9/14 http://unitedwithisrael.org/homeland-security-advi... resigned

let's find the truth

JE


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 13 months ago from usa

ME

a different view ? 5/7/15 Hillary’s Islamic connection http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/7/edi...

6/12/10 "I am a Muslim," Obama tells Egyptian Foreign Minister Ghett

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/20...

OBAMA BANNED THIS VIDEO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-HqHSkYG-Y&feature

interesting comments?


Sgt Prepper profile image

Sgt Prepper 13 months ago from Elkhorn, WI

I live in the kind of Amerika where well-meaning, patriotic whistle-blower Edward Snowden gets crucified but a commie, lesbian, witch(HRC) gets away with murder. And just imagine if Trump had been born in Kenya to an under-aged porn-star! I hate Big Brother.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 13 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Snowdon is a traitor, plain and simple. The fact that some good came out of his illegal acts doesn't lessen the treason, nor the net harm he has brought on our national security.

Since you think Clinton is a commie, you must be a nazi who believes in magic.


Sgt Prepper profile image

Sgt Prepper 13 months ago from Elkhorn, WI

My Esoteric - until you realize the Republican'ts are just a bunch of nazis and the Demoncrats are all commies you are lost and believing their lies.

Both major parties are reading from the exact same script for a socialist New World Order. Fox News & NPR are both controlled by The Illuminati. Jesuit Pope Francis is The False Prophet and I hate Big Brother Obama.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 13 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Ahhhh, your pulling my leg, aren't you.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 13 months ago from usa

Hubbers

Commies- socialists?

Hillary Rodman Clinton http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfi... Where is she today? Someone who one should know before voting Character?

GEE, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5CsrTMZAhA

SHARED AGENDAS BARACK OBAMA

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewsubcategory... George Soros supports both

7/17/15 Barack and Valerie’s Great Communist Party Marriage http://spectator.org/articles/63484/barack-and-val...

the media has no interest in reporting since they support them with disregard for the truth


Sgt Prepper profile image

Sgt Prepper 13 months ago from Elkhorn, WI

JON, thanks for all the very interesting info & truth. In September the UN launched Project 2030 for "global sustainability" which has been referred to as Agenda-21 on steroids. These are clearly the last-days. I hate Big Brother.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 13 months ago from usa

hubbers

some interesting links on Benghazi

4 /20/11 President Barak Obama - Advocate of Democracy and Revolution http://hubpages.com/politics/PresidentBarakObama-A... Clinton meeting with rebels why?

9/11/15 Exclusive: New Emails on Secret Benghazi Weapons http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy-policy/2015/09/...

10/15/15 As Libya descends into terrorist chaos, Clinton stands by her war http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/as-libya-descend...

MEDIA COVER UP http://www.c-span.org/video/?312586-1/house-hearing-us-consulate-attack-benghazi-libya Benghazi Whistle blower Hearing on C-Span3 live and un edited! POTUS ‘’ to tell the TRUTH

3/3015 ( 9/20/12 ) Hilary Clinton withheld information from Congress. Now what does Congress do ? http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-...

Richard Benedetto: Who will be Benghazi http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/05/08/o...

have a great day


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 13 months ago from usa

hubbers

some interesting links on Benghazi

4 /20/11 President Barak Obama - Advocate of Democracy and Revolution http://hubpages.com/politics/PresidentBarakObama-A... Clinton meeting with rebels why?

9/11/15 Exclusive: New Emails on Secret Benghazi Weapons http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy-policy/2015/09/...

10/15/15 As Libya descends into terrorist chaos, Clinton stands by her war http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/as-libya-descend...

MEDIA COVER UP http://www.c-span.org/video/?312586-1/house-hearing-us-consulate-attack-benghazi-libya Benghazi Whistle blower Hearing on C-Span3 live and un edited! POTUS ‘’ to tell the TRUTH

3/3015 ( 9/20/12 ) Hilary Clinton withheld information from Congress. Now what does Congress do ? http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-...

Richard Benedetto: Who will be Benghazi http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/05/08/o...

have a great day


nicomp profile image

nicomp 13 months ago from Ohio, USA

"Cut healthcare costs"

This article should be filed under Humor.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 13 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

If you find the truth humorous, then yes, spread the truth through humor.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 13 months ago from Ohio, USA

The truth is sad but true in this case. It's also sad that lies are perpetuated.


Sgt Prepper profile image

Sgt Prepper 13 months ago from Elkhorn, WI

In 1981 CIA Director William Casey told a then new President Reagan "The disinformation program will continue until everything the American public believes is a lie." That day is here now.

Some of the lies include: global-warming, evolution, a supposed worldwide water shortage, worship of creation and creatures instead of worship of the creator God, unfounded overpopulation claims, etc.

Truth is abortion IS the taking of innocent human life, homosexuality is just plain wrong, Kenyan-born Obama isn't even an American, and birther Trump should run as an Independent taking Dr. Ben Carson as his running-mate. They are the last best hope we have otherwise our nation is as done as burnt toast. The United States of America has been comatose since January 20th 2009 when Bathhouse Barry was illegally inaugurated. He will destroy America as he has vowed. What a piece of garbage that monster is.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 13 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I actually feel sorry for you from the depression your delusions must cause you, Sgt Prepper. I would say you would also feel lonely in your views, but it is clear from this and other forums, you do have a small set of like-minded people.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 13 months ago from Ohio, USA

Sgt Prepper is a sweet nom de plume.


john welsh 10 months ago

i cannot waste a day to read all of your nonsense the one fact that i can dispute is your gas price in 2008 when obama took office it was 1.83 in new york it quickly went up to close to 4.00


nicomp profile image

nicomp 10 months ago from Ohio, USA

Does sentient human actually believe the US President controls gas prices?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 10 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

John - the avg price for oil in 2001 was $23/bbl

- the avg price for oil in 2008 was $94/bbl

- the avg price for oil in 2009 was $61/bbl

As the world began to recover from Bush's Great Recession of 2008 and demand rapidly grew

- the avg price for oil in topped out in 2012 at $109/bbl

As American oil production came in line and an oil glut developed

- the avg price for oil in 2015 was $50/bbl

- the avg price for oil in 2016 was $30/bbl

BTW, PBO took office in 2009, not 2008


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 10 months ago from usa

Mt E

You have a short memory? Pelosi Reid ( 2007-2008 )take majority control of Congress. Great recession begins Dec 2008,ends 2009. 2010-2011 Obama and Dems have Super majority of Congress ( 100% of Government)

Hence, Obama's legacy ( Obamacare )

lest you forget, check it out.

11/21/13 How Obamacare Became LAW http://www.briansussman.com/politics/how-obamacare... Senate Leader Harry Reid cut a deal with Pelosi:’’ reconciliation

3/19/11 Documented: $105 Billion Hidden Appropiations In Health Care Law 105-Billion-Hidden-Appropriations-in-Health-Care-Legislation

1/1/16 Putting an Obamacare Repeal Bill on the President’s Desk http://www.speaker.gov/video/weekly-republican-add... 1/6/16 now on the president’s desk


nicomp profile image

nicomp 10 months ago from Ohio, USA

"You have a short memory? Pelosi Reid ( 2007-2008 )take majority control of Congress. Great recession begins Dec 2008,ends 2009. 2010-2011 Obama and Dems have Super majority of Congress ( 100% of Government)"

Your inference is fallacious because a recession is not instantaneous.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 10 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I agree, Nicomp. Jon does not have a realist understanding of the dynamics of either economics or how Congress works.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 10 months ago from Ohio, USA

My Esoteric , nor does Jon understand how the office of President is supposed to work.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 10 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

True


Sgt Prepper profile image

Sgt Prepper 10 months ago from Elkhorn, WI

Kenyan-born Obama is the embodiment of exactly why we have our Right to Keep & Bear(own and carry) arms.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 10 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

What has PBO's father have to do with anything? He's dead.


Sgt Prepper profile image

Sgt Prepper 10 months ago from Elkhorn, WI

BHO's named & legal father Barack H. Obama Senior was biracial because he had a 100% Arab-Bedouin grandmother making her Caucasoid hence usurper Obama is not even half- black.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 10 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

So what? Do you believe a person's genetic make-up determine where they should stand in society?


nicomp profile image

nicomp 10 months ago from Ohio, USA

"So what? Do you believe a person's genetic make-up determine where they should stand in society?"

BHO does. Bernie does. Hillary does. That's pretty much the Democratic platform.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 10 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

How do you figure since one of the fundamental principles of liberalism and being a liberal is egalitarianism ... just the opposite of conservatism.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 10 months ago from usa

Hubbers

this I know, the Dems have had 2/3s control of our government since 2007 -2015.this I know that it takes #1 congress (the house and the senate)need to agree ( pass bills)for any bill is to proceed to the president for signature (final approval)to become law.

An old story http://hubpages.com/politics/PRESIDENTBARACKOBAMA-... … Will it happen Senate? WASTE in agencies $9 TRILL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tVJ2gqqKWs

12/17/13 A Plan For Jobs & Economic Growth http://www.speaker.gov/jobs

9/8/14 Our Economic Recovery Is Stuck in the Senate http://www.speaker.gov/op-ed/boehner-timecom-our-e...

4/30/15 ‘’Bucket ‘’: President Obama’s Veto Threats Hurts American Families & Workers http://www.speaker.gov/general/bucket-president-ob...

Democrats are silent cowards to allow the president to break the law and obstruct legislation that has passed in the House . the story will end in 2016 ?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 10 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

And I have to repeat my self Jon "I agree, Nicomp. Jon does not have a realist understanding of the dynamics of either economics or how Congress works."


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 10 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

And I must repeat myself Jon "I agree, Nicomp. Jon does not have a realist understanding of the dynamics of either economics or how Congress works."


    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article