Obama's numbers. What say you?

[NeverEndingMe]

more stupidity from captain dumbass

get some rims for the home. winter is coming

Wrong, as usual miles.

factcheck.org is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania and get funding from the Annenberg Foundation, created by Walter Annenberg in 1989.

Ayers was one of three Chicago educators who applied for a grant from the Annenberg Foundation in 1995, which was one of 5,200 grants the foundation made during its first 15 years. That $49 million grant, plus additional funds raised locally, funded the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which sought to improve Chicago public schools.

Obama was selected by Chicago officials (not Ayers) to chair the board set up to administer Annenberg Challenge funds, and he headed it until 1999. FactCheck.org came into being in late 2003.

 

[phrodeau]

The economy sucks. Labor force participation is at an all time low. The Fraud dumps on our allies and coddles our enemies. Russia is out of control. The Middle East is on fire. The federal deficit is at an all time high. The country is more divided than ever.

Should I continue?

Two can play the game:

http://balladeer.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/obama-five-years.jpg

No, labor force participation is not at an all-time low. Here is a graph that proves it.

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/536635b5ecad04b8221312b1/image.jpg

And I don't need to tell anyone with a brain that the number is unrelated to economic growth, and also that it will suddenly become meaningless if a Republican becomes President.

http://qz.com/286213/the-chart-obama-haters-love-most-and-the-truth-behind-it/

Critics of Obama think it shows that his supposedly liberal policies are damaging the economy and prompting Americans to drop out of the job market en masse. They think it shows the Democratic neo-welfare state this president constructed is rewarding laziness by doling out government handouts. They think it somehow shows that the sharp decline in the US unemployment rate is a fraud.

But it doesn’t show these things. All it shows is that the labor force—the number of people either employed or “actively looking for work”—is a shrinking share of the US population.

Now, even if the US economy continues improving—as most expect—it doesn’t mean that labor-force participation will rebound. Rather, it’s likely to keep declining for at least the next 10 years, as the baby-boomers continue to age out of the workforce. (CBO estimates that labor force participation will be at 60.8% in 2024.)

Without another giant baby boom, it will most likely never to return to the peaks seen during the late 1990s, no matter what political party is in charge. As a measure of whether Americans who should be working are working, the employment-to-population ratio for people of prime working age is much more useful.

In other words, you should stop talking about labor-force participation. After all, Obama’s conservative critics will do just that if one of their own takes over the White House in 2016.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

poor little retard, totally disconnected from reality due to live on the welfare

 

[miles]

more stupidity from captain dumbass

get some rims for the home. winter is coming

That right there is funny....I don't care who you are.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

That right there is funny....I don't care who you are.

NeverEndingMoron lies only slightly more often than you do miles.

What does the Talmud say about how God regards liars?

 

[NeverEndingMe]

UD a retard in tights ... sad

NeverEndingMoron lies only slightly more often than you do miles.

What does the Talmud say about how God regards liars?

 

[Paendragon]

HA!

You posted a graph loaded with bullshit from a deceptively biased source, then say the one thing you really like are the solar power and wind numbers, and I'm a douche?

I'm guessing you lap up the global warming lie to boot.

You think FactCheck.org is biased? Seriously? Do you even look at that website?

Here's a page devoted to Hillary: http://www.factcheck.org/person/hillary-clinton/

Obama: http://www.factcheck.org/person/president-obama/

This is a site dedicated to "I call bullshit".

You're being a douche not because of what you're views are, but because before I even respond to you, you're flinging insults at me. I expect that from Busy, which is why I ignore him. Don't fall into that category.

 

[Paendragon]

Two can play the game:

http://balladeer.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/obama-five-years.jpg

The Balladeer's Blog?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Translation: Blah, blah, Bob Law, Bob Law's Law Blog, sure, I overstated some things and got others plain wrong because I'm a partisan hack who doesn't think for myself but let's make this about you.

The reality is if the measure of success for the ACA is successfully using the law to help an unsustainable industry feeding off of the misery of Americans extract rent from the American taxpayer, then, sure, it's a wild success.

If the measure of success is whether or not it actually made receiving health care more affordable, which is the goal stated in the name of the fucking act, then it's not a success, no.

Only a single-payer system or a system that actually regulates private providers strictly and creates a single pool of patients to bargain with--like the Northern European countries do--is going to solve the affordability issue.

Put in another way, as long as the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies are protected by law from competition and regulation by bribes and hospitals are not required to adhere to a standard index of prices for services, and the system in general rewards intensity of care rather than outcomes--i.e. as long as the system is a for-profit model based on billing patients for hours and services priced at the sole discretion of each individual provider--nothing about health care in the US is ever going to be affordable.

Obama went in neither direction and never intended to go in either direction because that would have alienated the lobbyists of the providers. Instead, behind closed doors, he invited those lobbyists to give him a bill and then spent two years trying to figure out how to polish the turd before throwing it on the doorstep of his House and Senate caucuses and telling them to deal with it while he hoarded their money.

You continue to whine and move the goalposts. How unmanly.

The ACA gives families who were previously denied health care at any price access to the same health care that you take for granted.

I agree with you that single payer would have been preferable, but that wasn't an option back in 2008 because Ben Nelson, Max Baucus and Judas Lieberman were opposed to public option. The ACA was the best deal they could get, and while it is not perfect, it's much better than the system it replaced.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The economy sucks. Labor force participation is at an all time low. The Fraud dumps on our allies and coddles our enemies. Russia is out of control. The Middle East is on fire. The federal deficit is at an all time high. The country is more divided than ever.

Should I continue?

Still in denial about the economy, I see.

The labor force participation is shrinking because the baby boomers are retiring.

Israel is no longer our ally. The Likkud (Israel Nazi) party needs perpetual war to survive.

and your children should die in a fire.

 

[Busybody]

The Balladeer's Blog?

tell us PANTY FRANNY....is it NOT true?

 

[Setanta84]

You continue to whine and move the goalposts. How unmanly.

The ACA gives families who were previously denied health care at any price access to the same health care that you take for granted.

I agree with you that single payer would have been preferable, but that wasn't an option back in 2008 because Ben Nelson, Max Baucus and Judas Lieberman were opposed to public option. The ACA was the best deal they could get, and while it is not perfect, it's much better than the system it replaced.

I'm not moving any goalposts, you're either claiming that to make it seem like that to people with reading "difficulties" similar to yours or you're dumb enough to believe that based on your reading comprehension skills. Stawman architect, typical Southern fucking moron, I don't really care which it is.

The ACA did not replace any system--Christ. You're talking about it like it's actual HCR. It merely provided a backdoor bailout to the current system by locking in revenue for the providers and making a few token improvements to actually good programs that happen to benefit providers.

Also, Obama told Granholm he wouldn't grant Michigan a HCR waiver so they could do RomneyCare in MI--he told her that was the template for the national plan. He told her this in 2008, after securing the nom. Gov. Granholm, a professor at my alma mater, is on the record saying this.

Anything better than the ACA was never on the table. He paid lip service to something better on the campaign trail. He didn't mean any of it. He willfully traded away those things to the Pharma reps behind closed doors.

The reps you mention were simply the rotating villains he used to shift blame away from himself and the caucus at large.

And your continued blathering about how much better access is now really points out you've probably rarely, if ever, have seen the inside of a hospital.

People who actually know what the fuck they are talking about have a dim view of the ACA. There are a ton of cancer patients on the board, including me, ask any of them. Or, fuck, ask your doctor. I have yet to discuss this bill with a single doctor who thinks it meaningfully makes life easier for himself/herself, their staff, or patients.

 

[miles]

You think FactCheck.org is biased? Seriously? Do you even look at that website?

Here's a page devoted to Hillary: http://www.factcheck.org/person/hillary-clinton/

Obama: http://www.factcheck.org/person/president-obama/

This is a site dedicated to "I call bullshit".

You're being a douche not because of what you're views are, but because before I even respond to you, you're flinging insults at me. I expect that from Busy, which is why I ignore him. Don't fall into that category.

Please ignore me. Sorry I can't do the same for you.

 

[Paendragon]

Just like I'm about to do to you.

Fucking idiot.

Thanks!

 

[Setanta84]

You think FactCheck.org is biased? Seriously? Do you even look at that website?

Here's a page devoted to Hillary: http://www.factcheck.org/person/hillary-clinton/

Obama: http://www.factcheck.org/person/president-obama/

This is a site dedicated to "I call bullshit".

You're being a douche not because of what you're views are, but because before I even respond to you, you're flinging insults at me. I expect that from Busy, which is why I ignore him. Don't fall into that category.

I hate to do this--but to be fair to anyone making the general claim he is making--most "fact checking" sources, notably PolitiFact, ARE biased.

It's just that, unlike what miles probably believes based on his posting history in general, they are biased in favor of evidence and conclusions supporting the status quo/those in power/corporate interests, like any other facet of the American MSM.

The "conflicts" between all parties at the top of the game basically have as much substance as those between WWE performers. It's all theater designed to make you believe the system offers you legitimate choices and is legitimate in general.

At the end of the day, they all take money from the same people and they all run in the same circles.

 

[phrodeau]

I hate to do this--but to be fair to anyone making the general claim he is making--most "fact checking" sources, notably PolitiFact, ARE biased.

It's just that, unlike what miles probably believes based on his posting history in general, they are biased in favor of evidence and conclusions supporting the status quo/those in power/corporate interests, like any other facet of the American MSM.

The "conflicts" between all parties at the top of the game basically have as much substance as those between WWE performers. It's all theater designed to make you believe the system offers you legitimate choices and is legitimate in general.

At the end of the day, they all take money from the same people and they all run in the same circles.

Yeah, it's all rigged, and there's a small elite group who decides the winner of the Presidency, the World Series, the Superbowl and the Kentucky Derby.

Sometimes, it's completely obvious that a fix was in.