NeverEndingMe
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2011
- Posts
- 15,925
Do black people hate Obama as well?...
- Thread starter duranman
- Start date
The Rude Pundit writes:
10/09/2014
The Quiet Competence of Barack Obama
If you listen to the media mostly on the right, but some on the left, by this point in the administration of President Barack Obama, we should be in a Road Warrior-like hellscape of crushing debt, death panels sending us off to concentration camp ovens and calling it "medicine," riots in the streets over the confiscation of guns, surveillance nano-drones entering our rectums in order to hear what our brains are thinking, undocumented Mexicans with Ebola or terrorist ties or huge calf muscles torturing cops all along the border before suicide bombing our malls and infecting our babies, and Christians being whipped in their homes by ululating Muslims who force them to kiss the Koran or face being beheaded, all while our Negro dictator and his transgender wife laugh with their Negro cabal and Wall Street cronies about the misery of everyone who fraudulently voted for them. And that's without getting deep into Crazyville with conspiracy theories of a rogue regime engaged in constant false flag operations in order to impose greater control over the population (how ya doin', Naomi Wolf?) or whatever the hell Alex Jones or Dinesh D'Souza are spewing about today.
Any of those things could be happening. Except they're not. There are bad things going on in the United States - poverty, violence against African Americans (not exclusively, but especially pronounced right now), stagnant wages, limits on abortion rights, an environment in imminent collapse - really awful stuff, stuff that needs to be addressed. And the Rude Pundit has been critical of the Obama administration's failures and excesses, like not prosecuting Wall Street criminals and torture enablers or expanding the reach of government spying and the unchecked use of drone murder missiles. Those problems and criticisms still stand.
There's this sense out there that everything is falling to pieces, between the overhyped rise of ISIS (al-Qaeda with a better marketing department), the constant calls for the Affordable Care Act to be repealed, the unending stream of people telling us that the president is out of touch or has given up or is aloof or doesn't love them like they always wanted a father to love them, on and on and on and on.
But so much of this is media world, or, perhaps internet world, not real world. 'Cause, see, in the real world there are real numbers. And, as Paul Krugman and others point out, when it comes to those, well, sorry, but things seem to be progressing in a positive way. Whether we like it or not, Barack Obama has competently led the nation, and we're so ready for battle that we fail to recognize it.
Where do you wanna go? Millions of people have health insurance who didn't have it before (and, by the way, if you really gave a rat's ass about the spread of diseases like Ebola, you'd have national health care in a second so people in every state would want to go to their doctors and not wait until they're bad enough to go to emergency rooms). The unemployment rate is below 6%, down from 10% in 2009. The deficit has shrunk to just 3% of GDP, down from 9.8% in 2009. If you're a rich puke, you've become way, way richer (and it's gut-churningly hilarious when conservatives complain about this). Corporate profits are up. Oil imports are down. Alternative energy sources are finally growing exponentially. The crime rate is at a 20-year low, so low that Obama wants to try to roll back some of the ludicrous sentencing laws from the Clinton era. And how many states are we up to on same-sex marriage? And how many terrorist attacks in the United States since Obama's inauguration?
Now, certainly, lots of people reading this are thinking about caveat statistics and reminders of some of the things mentioned further up here. You're right (well, unless you're wrong). But numbers are numbers, good people. And good numbers are good numbers. And those good numbers stem, in large measure, from things done by the president.
What everyone seems to forget is where we started. For that, ya gotta go back to 2001, when George W. Bush came into office. For the first time in decades, the United States was in a position financially to do great things for its citizens, to rebuild infrastructure, invest in schools, promote scientific achievement, help other nations out of the poverty that leads them to embrace radical religious belief. Instead, it was squandered on tax cuts for everyone (remember your $300?) and two utterly useless wars. It was like we won a small lottery and, rather than pay the bills and fix up the house, we just went to Disney World. In 2009, then, we really were on the precipice of that dystopian nightmare.
The Rude Pundit is still reserving judgment on Barack Obama. There's a hundred ways that he's been bitterly disappointed by the president. But let's at least pause to say that things are a hell of a lot better than they could have been. And if it doesn't bear saying that all this was done in the wake of the disastrous Bush presidency, it is worth noting that it was done in the face of unprecedented opposition from Republicans in Congress, who demand that the country must be run by GOP dictatorship or not at all.
It's hard to believe, yes, but we may have to accept that, in the face of noise about whatever it is this week - Colombian prostitutes from Benghazi or something, the Obama administration has operated with subdued competence. And it continues to do so despite the braying asses of the right, especially, saying it's all falling apart. That nation doesn't exist except in the fevered mind of people trying to attract hits or ratings. The one in the real world that chugs along is filled with citizens hoping one day to drive home on good roads from a full-time job to their decently-educated kids in their safe neighborhoods.
(Yes, this has left out a lot of discussion about foreign policy because, frankly, the things that really matter, like trade policy, get lost in the noise over who we're bombing today.)
10/09/2014
The Quiet Competence of Barack Obama
If you listen to the media mostly on the right, but some on the left, by this point in the administration of President Barack Obama, we should be in a Road Warrior-like hellscape of crushing debt, death panels sending us off to concentration camp ovens and calling it "medicine," riots in the streets over the confiscation of guns, surveillance nano-drones entering our rectums in order to hear what our brains are thinking, undocumented Mexicans with Ebola or terrorist ties or huge calf muscles torturing cops all along the border before suicide bombing our malls and infecting our babies, and Christians being whipped in their homes by ululating Muslims who force them to kiss the Koran or face being beheaded, all while our Negro dictator and his transgender wife laugh with their Negro cabal and Wall Street cronies about the misery of everyone who fraudulently voted for them. And that's without getting deep into Crazyville with conspiracy theories of a rogue regime engaged in constant false flag operations in order to impose greater control over the population (how ya doin', Naomi Wolf?) or whatever the hell Alex Jones or Dinesh D'Souza are spewing about today.
Any of those things could be happening. Except they're not. There are bad things going on in the United States - poverty, violence against African Americans (not exclusively, but especially pronounced right now), stagnant wages, limits on abortion rights, an environment in imminent collapse - really awful stuff, stuff that needs to be addressed. And the Rude Pundit has been critical of the Obama administration's failures and excesses, like not prosecuting Wall Street criminals and torture enablers or expanding the reach of government spying and the unchecked use of drone murder missiles. Those problems and criticisms still stand.
There's this sense out there that everything is falling to pieces, between the overhyped rise of ISIS (al-Qaeda with a better marketing department), the constant calls for the Affordable Care Act to be repealed, the unending stream of people telling us that the president is out of touch or has given up or is aloof or doesn't love them like they always wanted a father to love them, on and on and on and on.
But so much of this is media world, or, perhaps internet world, not real world. 'Cause, see, in the real world there are real numbers. And, as Paul Krugman and others point out, when it comes to those, well, sorry, but things seem to be progressing in a positive way. Whether we like it or not, Barack Obama has competently led the nation, and we're so ready for battle that we fail to recognize it.
Where do you wanna go? Millions of people have health insurance who didn't have it before (and, by the way, if you really gave a rat's ass about the spread of diseases like Ebola, you'd have national health care in a second so people in every state would want to go to their doctors and not wait until they're bad enough to go to emergency rooms). The unemployment rate is below 6%, down from 10% in 2009. The deficit has shrunk to just 3% of GDP, down from 9.8% in 2009. If you're a rich puke, you've become way, way richer (and it's gut-churningly hilarious when conservatives complain about this). Corporate profits are up. Oil imports are down. Alternative energy sources are finally growing exponentially. The crime rate is at a 20-year low, so low that Obama wants to try to roll back some of the ludicrous sentencing laws from the Clinton era. And how many states are we up to on same-sex marriage? And how many terrorist attacks in the United States since Obama's inauguration?
Now, certainly, lots of people reading this are thinking about caveat statistics and reminders of some of the things mentioned further up here. You're right (well, unless you're wrong). But numbers are numbers, good people. And good numbers are good numbers. And those good numbers stem, in large measure, from things done by the president.
What everyone seems to forget is where we started. For that, ya gotta go back to 2001, when George W. Bush came into office. For the first time in decades, the United States was in a position financially to do great things for its citizens, to rebuild infrastructure, invest in schools, promote scientific achievement, help other nations out of the poverty that leads them to embrace radical religious belief. Instead, it was squandered on tax cuts for everyone (remember your $300?) and two utterly useless wars. It was like we won a small lottery and, rather than pay the bills and fix up the house, we just went to Disney World. In 2009, then, we really were on the precipice of that dystopian nightmare.
The Rude Pundit is still reserving judgment on Barack Obama. There's a hundred ways that he's been bitterly disappointed by the president. But let's at least pause to say that things are a hell of a lot better than they could have been. And if it doesn't bear saying that all this was done in the wake of the disastrous Bush presidency, it is worth noting that it was done in the face of unprecedented opposition from Republicans in Congress, who demand that the country must be run by GOP dictatorship or not at all.
It's hard to believe, yes, but we may have to accept that, in the face of noise about whatever it is this week - Colombian prostitutes from Benghazi or something, the Obama administration has operated with subdued competence. And it continues to do so despite the braying asses of the right, especially, saying it's all falling apart. That nation doesn't exist except in the fevered mind of people trying to attract hits or ratings. The one in the real world that chugs along is filled with citizens hoping one day to drive home on good roads from a full-time job to their decently-educated kids in their safe neighborhoods.
(Yes, this has left out a lot of discussion about foreign policy because, frankly, the things that really matter, like trade policy, get lost in the noise over who we're bombing today.)
Sean Renaud
The West Coast Pop
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Posts
- 59,605
I dont' suppose you have numbers for this going further back cus what I'm seeing here is a very clear trend that black and hispanic unemployment is always higher than white unemployment but maybe that started in 2007?
If it didn't why should we be upset with him instead of the country as a whole?
Adre
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2012
- Posts
- 23,914
What you posted was pretty meaningless, irrelevant, and misleading. In other words, par for the course.
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
Black and Hispanic unemployment is always higher. It is now at it's highest level in decades and I believe the differential is greater as well.
Black and Hispanics disproportionately occupy the lowest economic rungs and are hit hardest by bad policy. Minimum wage hikes cost them more proportionately more jobs than whites for example.
They are harder hit by advances in automation as well.
U
unregistered
Guest
Your comment is cheap, lame, and sad.
U
unregistered
Guest
RobDownSouth
BoycotDivestSanctio
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 78,859
What else would you expect from such a weak man.
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
Oh, that is GREAT news! Lets raise it to $100/hr then! How many jobs can we expect to be created when we make the cost of labor higher?
I'm guessing you have a favorite "economist" to tell us that making labor more expensive will also not have any impact on the costs of goods and services?
Must be dreamy living in the fantasy bubble that is your world.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44995
So, assuming that the 900,000 people that would be helped by the increase didn't lose any of that ground when the dollars in their increased wage doesn't go as far as dollars in their previous wage go...
500,000 people lose their jobs.
What a brilliant idea. Any guesses as to the demographics of the first to be laid off out of those 500,000?
Not o mention businesses that are not started and jobs not created or future jobs that have automation designed in as a result.
I am convinced that to be a liberal you have to have no aptitude for basic arithmetic.
Your idiotic link proves the opposite of what you think it proves. The rationale that because some areas have higher labor costs (and corresponding -and related- higher costs of living) that means we should also do damage to the economies of places with more rational approaches to labor.
$100 an hour is meaningless is a loaf of bread costs $33.
Liberals love to hurt the poor and those on fixed income with stupid ideas like having any minimum wage. They don;t worry about the inflation that they cause because they plan to "make it right" with yet another government program to solve the problem they just created.
Take California and "green energy." As "green energy" is not economically viable (or else it wouldn't need to be mandated) it raised the cost of energy which hurts the poor disproportionately..No problem...just include a "green energy" rebate to help the poor, at the expense of the tax-payers (i.e. "the rich")
You have proven time and time again to not have even a handle on the very basics of economic principles so I don't know why I bother to respond to you. You cut and paste some clap-trap from people almost as economically illiterate as you justifying their preferred policy positions with bad math and non-existent statistical analysis. You don't even understand the fallacies contained in the crap you post.
Wishing that policies have a positive impact on the poor is not the same as having mathematics and common sense on your side.
If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.
Exactly how much Uber-Alpha Macho-Muscle is required, in your estimation, to understand basic economic principles?
Last edited:
RobDownSouth
BoycotDivestSanctio
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 78,859
Silly argument, even from a weak man such as yourself.
Jon Stewart responds to the Retard Talking Point "Hurrr Durrr Let's raise teh minimum wage to $100 an hour"
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
Ah...the great Economist Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz.
Kinda surprised he is you go-to guy for economics, what with him being both Jewish and a "weak man." I'm pretty sure he doesn't pump iron with you Twue Alphas in the gym.
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
The fly in the soup of the minimum wage is SUBSTITUTION.
If my WALLY WHOPPER costs me $20 I can buy a decent steak to grill at home for the same money. Almost two pounds of meat vs 4 ounces.
Substitution also affects who gets hired. If a shit for brains nigger drop out costs me $20 an hour I can replace him with a college grad for the same money.
If my WALLY WHOPPER costs me $20 I can buy a decent steak to grill at home for the same money. Almost two pounds of meat vs 4 ounces.
Substitution also affects who gets hired. If a shit for brains nigger drop out costs me $20 an hour I can replace him with a college grad for the same money.
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
contrifan32
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Posts
- 3,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queerbait™ View Post
Well, he is being judged for the color of his skin, rather than the content of his character.
Because everybody knows that racism only applies to old, white, male republicans.
Originally Posted by Queerbait™ View Post
Well, he is being judged for the color of his skin, rather than the content of his character.
Because everybody knows that racism only applies to old, white, male republicans.
You have thought experiments, I have economic studies.
RobDownSouth
BoycotDivestSanctio
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 78,859
Nobody said it only applies to them, that's just you and one of your patented strawman arguments.
BTW, here's a kewl graph for you to deny:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bzl5_baCIAENa2v.png
dan_c00000
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Posts
- 5,907
Unless it's a coalition government.
A book came out a few years ago called It's Even Worse than it Looks that addresses this point and the massive resistance Obama faced. It's still worth reading. "Their principal conclusion is unequivocal: Today’s Republicans in Congress behave like a parliamentary party in a British-style parliament, a winner-take-all system. But a parliamentary party — “ideologically polarized, internally unified, vehemently oppositional” — doesn’t work in a “separation-of-powers system that makes it extremely difficult for majorities to work their will.”
Oh, yes, I read that book -- it is by Thomas Mann of the nonpartisan Brookings Institution and Norman Ornstein of the conservative Heritage Foundation -- no one can say they have a liberal agenda -- and both blame the present gridlock, and in particular the debt-ceiling crisis and government shutdown, almost entirely on stubborn ideological Pubs.
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
Yes I posted the actual "economic study" from the non-partisan CBO.
It says that your "spread the wealth around" fabricators are full of shit that raising the minimum wage does not cost jobs.
Googling "find me a 'study' to support my inaccurate point of view" does not teach you anything about economics.
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
Amen.
Even Sophists have enablers.
Watch it with the pre-Google reference. They will assume you are complimenting them on their level of sophistication. Anything that happened before webcrawlers were invented is not valid in a modern argument.
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
That's two laughs between you and vette now.
That's the sort of thing you need on a rainy day.
