jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (21 posts)

ten indications Obama is in trouble...

  1. SparklingJewel profile image69
    SparklingJewelposted 4 years ago

    life really is all about perspective...yours, mine, theirs, anyone's...you got one they got one...isn't truth always somewhere between the lines of either side's perspective?

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/ … cared.html

  2. 0
    Peelander Gallyposted 4 years ago

    Well that's a really ignorant article.

    1. Losing his "street cred" among blacks, really? I'm surprised he didn't say anything about fried chicken. Good grief.

    2. Obama is "pandering" to Latino voters because they're the largest minority group in the country. JFK did the same thing, because they're almost entirely Catholic. The U.S. is actually one of the largest Spanish-speaking countries in the world, and if you've noticed the headlines lately, they're pointing out that Republicans completely missed the boat (no immigrant pun intended) on garnering support from conservative Latinos, of which there are quite a few. Suggesting that Obama make a website that caters to African immigrants is ignorant and slightly racist, like the "street cred" comment.

    3. Idk if you've noticed, but Obama's actually issued mandates requiring vehicles and buildings to start becoming more energy efficient, and wants to end oil company subsidies. Maybe if those companies and their lobbyists didn't literally run our lives some of Obama's domestic green energy initiatives could get off the ground - the whole point of those is that we avoid being slaves to gas prices.

    4. Eh, I'm not sure what to say about this one; Romney has a boatload of money (much of it squirreled away into illegal and offshore accounts so he can avoid paying taxes on it), though, and one does have to put on a good show.

    5. Ok, I officially hate whoever wrote this article. Cutting taxes for small businesses and those that hire veterans *creates jobs*. "Bona fide socialist"? Ugh. This guy doesn't even cite a SINGLE thing in this article, he's just talking out his ass.

    6. Obama's only serious problem is that he and his cabinet have terrible PR skills. His achievements go unreported by the news and unnoticed by people who don't go in search of them. His initiatives have long, convoluted names that don't stick in memories as well as things like "Obamacare". Saying "Yeah, Obamacare takes away my right to choose!", completely ignoring the fact that this country is in desperate need of healthcare reform and that it would help everyone, is a lot easier than actually reading the lengthy bills themselves, which people are too lazy and ignorant to do.
    Seeing as most Republicans have straight up publicly admitted that they've been concentrating the efforts of their lives and careers on doing whatever it takes to prevent Obama from getting reelected (because that sounds like a group of people who really give a damn about their country), I'm not surprised that he's reinstating his anti-slander PR team.

    7. This applies directly to the terrible PR and lack-of-catchy-slogans problem. Of course you can't use the same slogan you campaigned with 4 years ago, anyone would change it. Unless it's (facepalm) "Stay the course" or something.

    8. Ok, this one is just riddled with ignorant misinformation. I guess wanting to bolster education, research, infrastructure and public transit and create jobs is a "weak domestic policy". Alrighty then. And what the fuck, how has "Obama created havoc all over North Africa and the Middle East"? Really? Is this guy actually trying to blame Obama for the Arab Spring protests? China, Russia and Cuba are the usual suspects who ALWAYS refuse to support U.S. military action.

    And having scrolled to the bottom of this article and seen that its author is a full-blown Tea Bagger, I'd like to remind that the reason the U.S. dollar is weaker is that the Tea Party's own representatives held the entire country hostage when they refused to vote to raise the debt ceiling to avoid default. No one thought it would actually happen, but like a bunch of kindergartners, they sat there with their arms crossed and said "No!" to everything. Now let's blame it on Obama, whoever's buying my asinine books on Amazon will listen and believe it in spite of the fact that they watched the truth happen! Haha!

    Plus the reign of the dollar is over anyway; these hillbilly conservatives are just speeding its demise along. A stronger global economy with points in the U.S., Asia and the EU is the only thing that makes sense anymore. Americans hear that they're not the best people in the world like the used to be in the 50's, though, cross their arms and say "No!" to that, too, out of egocentric pride.

    9. Once again, the source of this information is not cited, but if we all count on our fingers, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 makes five years. Did we all count five? Good job.

    Oh, and the bowing thing again. Americans are so culturally ignorant, they don't get that Obama was being respectful, not kissing the boots of some evil foreign leader and handing the free world over on a platter. Diplomacy fails even when it succeeds, apparently, if no one understands it back home.

    10. Oh! Oh! If I wasn't completely vexed and driven insane by the ignorance and audacity of this idiot before, I am now. "Unemployment rates north of 15%"? Ok, it averaged 8.9% for all of 2011 and went down to 8.3% in January. February's numbers won't be out for another week, but the DOW finally cresting 13K again is a good sign no matter how you look at it. It hit 10% in late '09 and then.. Oh, look! It's kept going down since then!

    http://www.google.com/publicdata/explor … yment+rate

    And if you click on the Bureau of Labor Statistics link at the bottom of that info, you'll see on their front page that jobless rates *were down in 48 states in 2011*. Not to mention that the unemployment rate is the total rate of unemployment for everyone; I don't think the unemployment rate for people with a college degree ever hit 5%. Which is a sign of a healthy economy, and which also explains why all of these uneducated God-and-progress-fearing yokels who think college is for snobs are the ones who are so pissed off.

    And that's all I've got to say about that.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Well said. +++

    2. American View profile image59
      American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I am not going to sit and take apart all of the rebuttal points, but let me just say this. If you bank on the Department of Labor stats on their face without reading the actual reports, you too fall for the constant false numbers that come from the Obama administration. Several months ago,they were not counting people and it started around 500,00 people per month. Last month they did not count 3,000,000 people who are unemployed and are collecting benefits. Add them back in and we would be up over 10%.

      And while I am not going to look at the numbers, if the college crowd unemployment is under 5% as you claim, then why is there such outrage from college grads saying they cannot get jobs, cannot find work and owe thousands in loans?

      1. 0
        Peelander Gallyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Well recent college grads always have trouble finding work unless they're in a particularly high demand industry or have experience in their field through actual work or internships; entry level positions are never easy to find. Plus my generation is what I like to call "the generation of instant gratification"; they're mostly lazy, self serving and don't feel like they have to and shouldn't have to work for anything. Unemployment rates for people with degrees haven't fluctuated much, though. Sure most of us owe tens of thousands in loans, and that totally sucks, but getting an education in America is stupidly expensive. That's just how it is. People are going to bitch and complain no matter what their situation is, that doesn't create its own statistic.

        And of course you're not going to take apart the rebuttal points, because you can't. What are these "real" numbers you speak of, and what is their source? I've noticed that a lot of far flung right wingers always talk about "real" statistics that they can't back up with any facts, because they have such irrational hatred for the Obama administration that they can't allow themselves to believe any of the facts it puts out or any of the positive things it does.

        1. American View profile image59
          American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You said:
          “I don't think the unemployment rate for people with a college degree ever hit 5%”
          Then you did an about face:
          “Well recent college grads always have trouble finding work unless they're in a particularly high demand industry or have experience in their field through actual work or internships; entry level positions are never easy to find”.
          So which is it, college grads have not problem being employed or are they having a hard time finding employment. See this is the typical double talk coming from Washington these days.
          Unemployment as a whole is always less than those that do not have degrees, especially in hard economic times. Basically during hard times, one who is desperate for work and cannot find it in the field they have either been working in for years or trying to break into as a recent grad, will job down. Or in another words take a job that is lower on the job ladder. From an unemployment study that examined all education levels from dropouts, high school grads to the different levels of college grads by level of degree(associate, bachelor, masters, doctorate):
          “Among all recent education graduates, 71.1 percent were in jobs that required a college degree; of all area studies majors, the share was 44.7 percent.
          An analysis by The New York Times of Labor Department data about college graduates aged 25 to 34 found that the number of these workers employed in food service, restaurants and bars had risen 17 percent in 2009 from 2008, though the sample size was small. There were similar or bigger employment increases at gas stations and fuel dealers, food and alcohol stores, and taxi and limousine services.
          This may be a waste of a college degree, but it also displaces the less-educated workers who would normally take these jobs”.
          So as you can see, it is very easy to manipulate numbers to achieve the outcome one wants. One can say a college grad can find a job faster than one with a high school degree and that would be true. But they are taking any job so they can work, even jobs they did not need a degree to get and normally would go to a non college grad. Naturally, that drives up the unemployment number of the less than college grad demographic.

          Since you are new to Hub pages( Welcome to HP and enjoy writing here) I would like to make a suggestion. Before making wild claims about a person, go to their Bio page, read it, and read some of the articles that person has written. See if you had, you would seen I am not a “far flung right wingers”. I am independent and my writings are all based on facts that can be backed by government statistics, reports or studies, not the ratings of bloggers or talking points. If you truly want me to respond to each of your 10 responses I will do so but will have to over several posts since there is a word limit here. I will respond to your unemployment accusation.

          1. 0
            Peelander Gallyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I said "the numbers haven't fluctuated much", that's not an about face. People talk about it being difficult to find jobs *in entry level positions in their fields*, but that doesn't mean they aren't finding jobs at all. There are plenty of jobs available, many more than just a couple of years ago, despite the fact that we're still in the midst of a recession. I'm well aware of the fact that many people have had to settle for lesser jobs they're overqualified for over the last few years and take on second and third jobs to keep their heads above water. I've had a tough time of it myself, but I won't go into that. I've also noticed that people in their 20's are simply used to doing things like serving tables and often just float around for a while after college because they're not sure how to get the type of job they're after, lack the connections or the ambition. When all is said and done those with more education are obviously more employable, and the percentage of unemployed college grads never reached 5% as far as I know. And I'm not speaking from Washington and don't even consider myself a Democrat, so don't try to pin double-talking politicians' nonsense on me.

            While I didn't directly accuse you of being a far-flung right winger, I did in fact assume that you probably were without reading your bio, which is not fair and tends to happen periodically when one responds too quickly at 3 in the morning. I was pointing out that people of that persuasion tend to deny the validity of government and other statistics and substitute different ones of their own invention with no facts to back them up out of blind hatred for the current administration. I've seen a lot of it. If you do in fact have valid information that contradicts something accepted as an official fact, as it seems you do and have discussed below, then I will be happy to read it.

        2. American View profile image59
          American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The source of course is the Department of Labor. Every week they release the new jobs report, every month they release the unemployment reports.
          Each report is broken down into sections by different statistic qualifiers. Reading into them often are good indicators of the trends and happenings not just in the job market but in the overall economy.  Long term studies of these reports also show you common trend that happen every year. So one who does read them and follows them, will not fall for false indicators as something other than what is a normal trend. For example, the December unemployment rate showed a drop in unemployment. The administration held a media party that the economy was “robust”  and jobs were returning. It was also the time they began with the statements of adding new jobs for 22 straight months. 
          Now for the facts; December historically is always a month when unemployment goes down, November is a mix. The reason for the drop is obvious, stores putting on temporary help for the holiday season.  To back that assessment up one only needs to read the report to see that in the retail section of the report is where jobs were added.
          As to the claim of not counting unemployed let’s look at the most recent  January report. The point to these reports is to show the number of people who are collecting unemployment benefits and break it down by employment sector to see where the issues are and how to address them. 
          Here is the quote right out of the report:
          “In January, 2.8 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, essentially unchanged
          from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force,
          wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They
          were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the
          Notice how the report specifically says “they were not counted”. No one on the right made it up, no one is mud slinging, IT IS A FACT!! Now as I said earlier, add that nearly 3 million to the unemployed numbers that were counted and sudenlt unemployment is over 10%. But the chances of a President getting re-elected with a 10% unemployment rate is zero. Should you decide to go and read any of my articles, you will see in a prediction made back in March or April I said if unemployment did not improve, then somehow they would figure out a way to bring the unemployment number down and fool the public. Ask yourself this, if unemployment is really going down and things are getting better, then why would it be necessary to extend the unemployment benefits?
          Here is the link to the report so you can read it for yourself.


          1. 0
            Peelander Gallyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Right then. The first thing to prove would be that marginal workers who had not searched for work in at least the 4 weeks prior to the survey (which would mean that they had not been claiming unemployment for that time, because doing so requires you to prove that you're seeking gainful employment) had been counted as unemployed previously. It seems unlikely to me that they could get away with excluding over a million people from the official numbers from one month to the next.

            1. American View profile image59
              American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I have nothing to prove, I already have done so. If you chose to not believe it or block it our that would be up to you. I gave you the link. On that page you can research on your own past months and see how that number has grown over the last year.

              Also, take a close look at those jobs added and you will find some more interesting numbers. Notice in month when manufacturers reports  state that inventories are not moving or high, the jobs reports show manufacturing adding jobs. Sorry, a sector that is not moving does not add jobs. Look at the July report( I may be off a month one way or another, my memory not as good as it once was) They counted as NEW HIRE jobs, 24,000 of them, jobs form the auto workers because they did not lay them off because of the tsunami. You cannot add new hire jobs when those people already are working. The same was in August( again month may be off) When Verizon strike ended and the union went back to work  they counted those 100,000 plus employees as New Hires. I think it is obvious they were not new hires.

              So, you have the site and the information, what you do with it is up to you. Do you ever wonder why so many economists always say the unemployment number is not accurate? They always say the number is much Higher? Ask yourself this, ever notice how they say oh the price of goods went up only  1/2 of a percent, without gas and food added in? they try to pass of on you the appearance that prices are not going up,, but when you add what they want you to not add in it jumps way up. What, does the price going up not apply to certain things or is it that when the price of something goes up, it goes up period.

              Look Peel, you can listen to others and believe them, or you can research things on your own and see things for how they really are. I was amazed how misleading both sides are as I research issues.

              1. 0
                Peelander Gallyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Well you would actually have something to prove if you believe the numbers were altered to suddenly exclude 2.8 million people for the sake of a PR campaign. I do keep myself informed; I never take anything like this at face value, and I can't say I've noticed how so many economists apparently talk about how actual unemployment rates are much higher than government statistics would have people believe.

                The manufacturing sector would add jobs in anticipation of greater demand for whatever goods are in question beforehand. I can't say I noticed the new hire jobs that weren't new hires, on what pages does it talk about that? And I'm not sure what you're saying about downplaying the rising cost of goods; all I've ever noticed the media do is sensationalise it.

                1. American View profile image59
                  American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this


                  First I want to say that I appreciate your views and that you are responding with total civility and intellect. I cannot say that about many people here on HP.

                  I guess what you are looking for or what you think I am saying is the 3 million were just suddenly altered to effect the outcome. The reason I suggested to look at the past reports is because you will see that the number of those not counted has increased over time, they did not just suddenly show up. At one point they were only not counting  500,000 people. But they added to that list and each time they did so, it coincided with a month when the unemployment dropped despite the fact the report plainly says that there were not many jobs added. Economists say there needs to be 350,000 new jobs added every month for at least 3 months before you get a true reading that unemployment is going down. There has never been a single month that  has had that many new jobs added.

                  Another phony stat you here is that the economy added jobs for 22 straight months. Again, follow the reports back every month and you will find that statement is false as well. August 2011, net jobs lost.October 2001 no new jobs added, and there are more in that 22 month span(again I qualify I may be off a month one way or another since I did that from memory).

                  Dan Mitchell
                  "The charade expands because there is no other way, apparently, to re-elect Obama. And Obama is seemingly important to the power elite’s plans to create world government. They seem to want to keep him in power for another four years".

                  "Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul noted in an interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan on Friday night that there is an “under-reported element” in the latest jobs numbers and that “if you admit the truth, we [the Bureau of Labor Statistics] quit counting people.”

                  "If we create 250,000 jobs a month, it will take almost five years to get back to where we were in 2007.

                  It’s one thing to present false data appearing true. It’s another to accept it at face value and then draw improper conclusions from it. “Figures can lie…” goes the saying. (Maulin, Head of the St Louis Fed Reserve)

                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=en … 4pkGi6TdM0


      2. PrettyPanther profile image86
        PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I still haven't received an answer about the numbers you "looked at" in this thread.

        http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/93824?p … ost2006951

        1. American View profile image59
          American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this


          I apologize, I have not been back to that thread since I unfollowed it. I honestly do not know both of their names, I know one is Joe Lieberman. He was a Democrat that was turned on by his party. They would not back him in his re-election bid, they put up someone else. He ran as an independent and won the election. But despite that, he votes as a Democrat.But statistically he is counted as an independent.

          1. lovemychris profile image78
            lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            He votes as a Republican and he turned on the Dems. He takes the Indie label, so he can get high positions in the Gvt, from which he can run his R/neo-con agenda.

            1. American View profile image59
              American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Someday you will research before using the Dems talking points. Here are the facts on Joe Liebermans voting record:
              111TH CONGRESS-90%of 689 votes he voted along with the Democrats.

              You know, Joe could have just voted along Repub lines to get even with the Dems for stabbing him in the back. But he is a man of principals, honor and continued to vote as he believed. I may not agree with his ideals but my respect level for this man has risen dramatically and I had already respected him prior to what the Dems did to him. Perhaps the Dems are not happy with him because he is such a strong supporter of Israel, something Dems are not.

              You can check out his record here:

              http://projects.washingtonpost.com/cong … s/l000304/

    3. lovemychris profile image78
      lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I have a girl crush on you smile

      1. 0
        Peelander Gallyposted 4 years ago in reply to this


  3. lovemychris profile image78
    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

    "ABC News’ Bret Hovell Reports: Sen. Joseph Lieberman called on Michigan’s Independents and Democrats on Tuesday to come out and vote for Sen. John McCain in the Republican primary, saying he is convinced that McCain will "become our next great American president."

    could it be because....bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran?

    Oh, and 330 members of congress have signed a letter to support Israel no matter what....I'm SURE there are lots of Dems on there...they also disavowed the Goldstone report. All of Congress save 7 or so.

    When are they going to be a supporters of the USA?

    1. American View profile image59
      American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      " This Congress saw several major efforts by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) to pressure members of Congress to sign on to letters and other measures of interest to Israel, especially after President Barack Obama had the temerity to publicly
      criticize Israel on a couple of occasions"

      Cite the source of the letter, google does not show it. There is a mention of a letter to Clinton for Egypt to honor the treaty between Egypt and Israel back in May 2011. That may be the one you are talking about. That is not a letter of support for the nation of Israel, it is a letter in support of one issue, big difference. BTW, it is dominated by Repub signatures.

  4. lovemychris profile image78
    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago