100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Obama's Record | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
From an editorial in the Orlando Sentinel:
Two days after his lackluster first debate performance, President Barack Obama's re-election hopes got a timely boost. The government's monthly jobless report for September showed the nation's unemployment rate fell below 8 percent for the first time since he took office.
If that were the only metric that mattered, the president might credibly argue that the U.S. economy was finally on the right track. Unfortunately for him, and for the American people, he can't. Economic growth, three years into the recovery, is anemic. Family incomes are down, poverty is up. Obama's Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, highlighted these and other hard truths in this week's second debate. Even the September jobless numbers deserve an asterisk, because more than 4 million Americans have given up looking for work since January 2009. And while the nation's economy is still sputtering nearly four years after Obama took office, the federal government is more than $5 trillion deeper in debt. It just racked up its fourth straight 13-figure shortfall. We have little confidence that Obama would be more successful managing the economy and the budget in the next four years. For that reason, though we endorsed him in 2008, we are recommending Romney in this race. Obama's defenders would argue that he inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression, and would have made more progress if not for obstruction from Republicans in Congress. But Democrats held strong majorities in the House and Senate during his first two years. Other presidents have succeeded even with the other party controlling Capitol Hill. Democrat Bill Clinton presided over an economic boom and balanced the budget working with Republicans. Leaders find a way. With Obama in charge, the federal government came perilously close to a default last year. Now it's lurching toward another crisis with the impending arrival of massive tax hikes and spending cuts on Jan. 1. The next president is likely to be dealing with a Congress where at least one, if not both, chambers are controlled by Republicans. It verges on magical thinking to expect Obama to get different results in the next four years. Two years ago, a bipartisan panel the president appointed recommended a 10-year, $4 trillion deficit-reduction plan. Rather than embrace it and sell it to the American people, Obama took his own, less ambitious plan to Congress, where it was largely ignored by both parties. Now the president and his supporters are attacking Romney because his long-term budget blueprint calls for money-saving reforms to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, three of the biggest drivers of deficit spending. Obama would be more credible in critiquing the proposal if he had a serious alternative for bringing entitlement spending under control. He doesn't. . . . . . We reject the innuendo that some critics have heaped on the president. We don't think he's a business-hating socialist. We don't think he's intent on weakening the American military. We don't think he's unpatriotic. And, no, we don't think he was born outside the United States. But after reflecting on his four years in the White House, we also don't think that he's the best qualified candidate in this race. So, according to a newspaper that endorsed Obama in 2008, Obama's record as President isn't as good as Obama's current supporters say that it is. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Must've got paid off by Romnesia this time...lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
willowdraga
on
Sat 10/20/12 07:23 PM
|
|
Lawyers, CEOs Boosted Obama's Sept. Donations
ABC OTUS News – 4 hrs ago Attorneys, business owners and retirees were among those who helped President Barack Obama maintain slim fundraising supremacy over Republican challenger Mitt Romney last month, with the president raising $181 million as he entered the last full month in the fight to keep his job. An Associated Press review of newly released financial reports found at least $11 million from lawyers and at least $3 million from investors and bankers, some of whom cooled to the president earlier this election when critics say he cracked down on Wall Street and pushed for consumer-protection reforms. About $22 million more came from retired Americans, an important bloc of voters likely more tuned in to health care reform and changes in retirement benefits. Their contributions, among hundreds of thousands, went hand-in-hand with record donations to an outside political group helping Obama win a second term. Still, the president began October with less available money to spend than Romney, as Obama's campaign, the Democratic Party and related groups reported $149.8 million cash on hand. That's compared with $183.1 million in the bank among Romney's campaign, the GOP and his joint-fundraising apparatus. All told, a swath of small-dollar contributions helped Obama and the Democratic Party best Romney and the GOP by more than $10 million last month after being repeatedly walloped in the money race earlier this year. The president's fundraising haul topped the more than $114 million he and the Democrats raised during the month of August, and the cash Obama pulled in last month was slightly less than his record-breaking $190 million from September 2008. Financial support to Obama and Romney are putting the presidential election on track to cost nearly $2 billion, thanks to mountains of cash earmarked to both campaigns and independent "super" political committees working on their behalf. Wealthy Americans are increasingly picking up the tab this year, at times giving millions of dollars apiece to super PACs that have buoyed costly advertising. September's reports show major financial support going to both Republican and Democratic super PACs, with the pro-Romney Restore Our Future PAC reporting it collected $14.8 million in September, the group's second-most lucrative month. Meanwhile, Priorities USA Action, the pre-eminent Obama-supportive super PAC, said it raised a record $15.3 million. "People who support the president know that we've come too far to go back now," Priorities senior strategist Bill Burton said. "We're ahead a little bit now, but it is time to close the deal." Both campaigns and super PACs have made an all-out push for contributions as Election Day quickly approaches. The contributions are funding a record-breaking campaign operation for both candidates, which translates to paying a legion of campaign staff and hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of television ads. So when it came to contributions directly to Obama's campaign, business owners and some Wall Street types helped pick up the tab, even if they didn't make up a majority of total contributions. Obama's donors in September included more than 4,000 CEOs, records show, and his campaign continued to tally millions pouring in from key battleground states. Yet Obama hardly has a lock on winning the financial fight. Republican super PACs have helped to match or exceed Obama's TV ad spending in dozens of media markets in battleground states. Ad spending data obtained by the AP from April through early October found pro-Romney spending has exceeded pro-Obama ad spending by at least $65 million across the nine states expected to decide the election: Colorado, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, Iowa and Wisconsin. Obama broke presidential fundraising records four years ago, but has found himself financially outgunned for much of the summer, thanks in part to super PACs supporting Romney. Meanwhile, an AP review of campaign data this fall found Obama out-raising Romney in most of the 11 states that at one point were pivotal to win the election. Reports detailing revenues and expenses for the first half of October are due to the Federal Election Commission by Oct. 25. Those will provide the public with the last financial snapshot before the Nov. 6 election. ——— Follow Jack Gillum on Twitter at http://twitter.com/jackgillum Somebody still believes in him though |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Strategies
Wall St. May Not Cheer, but Obama’s Been Good for Stocks By JEFF SOMMER Published: October 20, 2012 Google+ Share Reprints “ARE you better off than you were four years ago?” Multimedia Graphic Presidents and the Dow Ronald Reagan asked that memorable question at the end of the presidential debate of October 1980, one week before Election Day. Millions of voters answered no — sweeping President Jimmy Carter from office and installing the Republican Party in the White House for the next 12 years. In the presidential debate last Tuesday on Long Island, and through much of this campaign season, Mitt Romney has been raising a similar question. He said last week that middle-class incomes have declined since President Obama took office, while gasoline prices have risen. And much as Mr. Reagan did several decades ago, Mr. Romney suggested that Americans are worse off today than they were four years earlier. By some objective measures, we are worse off — although that is at least partly because a severe recession was well under way and the economy was shrinking when Mr. Obama first walked into the White House as president. Based primarily on the grim fundamental economic data, several forecasting models have been showing for months that Mr. Obama faced a very difficult road to re-election. Yet for the most part, he has been holding his own in the polls and the prediction markets. At the moment, he is widely considered to have an advantage in the all-important Electoral College. But why? Elections, of course, are not decided on economics alone. “Campaigns matter, at least a little,” said Thomas M. Holbrook, professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. “The issues and the candidates matter, at least a little.” Yet to the extent that the economy determines the election’s outcome, it’s possible that the stock market holds part of the explanation for Mr. Obama’s outsize electoral strength. Through Friday, since Mr. Obama’s inauguration — his first 1,368 days in office — the Dow Jones industrial average has gained 67.9 percent. That’s an extremely strong performance — the fifth best for an equivalent period among all American presidents since 1900. The Bespoke Investment Group calculated those returns for The New York Times. The best showing occurred in Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first term, when the market rose by a whopping 238.1 percent. Of course, that followed a calamitous decline. When his term started, the Dow had fallen to one-fourth of its former peak. In 2008, the year before Mr. Obama took office, the Dow declined by roughly one-third. After Franklin Roosevelt, the next-best market performances occurred under Calvin Coolidge, Bill Clinton and Dwight Eisenhower. These exceptionally strong markets helped all of them win the next election — and the stock market is undoubtedly helping Mr. Obama, too, even if he isn’t saying much about it. “What I find most ironic about these numbers is that one of Obama’s weaknesses is said to be his economic record,” said Paul T. Hickey, Bespoke’s co-founder. “While the stock market isn’t a complete reflection of the economy, it is an important indicator, and the stock market is one of the great things the president has working in his favor. But it’s a sensitive subject. With Wall Street so despised by the average American right now, it’s probably something he doesn’t want to be too quick to trumpet. But facts are facts.” The market’s relationship to the economy and to the political system is complex and varying from era to era. But a simple truth is that the market’s rise and fall has an enormous effect on the wealth of ordinary Americans — and on whether they feel themselves to be wealthy. Some market effects on wealth are straightforward enough. With the relative decline of traditional pensions, and the rise of defined-contribution plans like 401(k)’s, the well-being of middle-class households is intimately connected to the stock market’s fortunes. That was shockingly evident in 2008, when the Dow declined by more than 33 percent. That market fall, on top of a sharp drop in housing prices, contributed to a 19 percent decline in the total net worth of American households that year, according to figures compiled by the Federal Reserve. Relatively low housing prices continue to depress aggregate wealth levels, the Fed’s Flow of Funds report shows. But when stock market values are factored in, the rising value of financial assets — including stocks — has restored the total wealth of American households. Using this measure, it is now higher than when Mr. Obama’s presidency began, Fed figures indicate. Unfortunately for millions of Americans, that can’t be said for median household income, which was only $51,023 last year, down from $53,206 in 2009, according to Census Bureau figures adjusted for inflation. While it appears to have risen in 2012, median household income almost certainly has not returned to its former level. And rising income inequality means that the hardship has been felt disproportionately by poor people, who face a double-whammy: they don’t have financial assets that have grown in value. Presidential election forecasting models using “objective data” like personal income, gross domestic product and unemployment have captured the gloomy realities of the economy, painting a relatively bleak picture of Mr. Obama’s electoral chances. But Robert S. Erikson, a professor of political science at Columbia University, said, “If you include subjective data — emphasizing expectations about the economy — you get a very different forecast.” In a paper, Professor Erikson and Christopher Wlezien of Temple University described a forecasting model using consumer sentiment measures and leading economic indicators. That model predicts an Obama victory “quite strongly,” Professor Erikson said in an interview. The performance of the stock market, at least to some extent, is a subjective rendering of market participants’ expectations for the corporate economy. It’s a complicated subject, partly because market prices tend to rise when interest rates are low, as they are now, thanks largely to efforts of the Fed and other central banks. Do these relatively high prices really reflect the future outlook for the economy? It’s not certain. But the stock market is an important component of many measures of leading economic indicators, and it is clearly painting a rosier picture than the retrospective headline numbers about the economy — like the 1.3 percent annual growth rate of G.D.P. in the second quarter or the 7.8 percent unemployment rate in September. IT’S often said that Wall Street prefers Mitt Romney to Mr. Obama, Mr. Hickey observed, yet the stock market has flourished under the president — and under Democratic presidents generally. Since 1900, it has returned 7.1 percent annually when Democrats have occupied the White House, and only 3 percent under Republicans. Mr. Carter was an exception. The market declined 0.3 percent in his first 1,368 days in office — a performance more than 68 percentage points worse than that for Mr. Obama. Are you better off than you were four years ago? For stock portfolios, at least, the last four years have been bumpy but they haven’t been bad at all. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/your-money/wall-st-may-not-cheer-but-obamas-been-good-for-stocks.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Must've got paid off by Romnesia this time...lol  Attacking the messenger, eh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOL, well no attack. Just makes sense that Romney-sia got to them somehow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOL, well no attack. Just makes sense that Romney-sia got to them somehow. What makes more sense is that they are just telling it like they see it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The best way to tell if a politician is lying is to see if his lips are moving! The 2 party system is like pro wrestling. What you see in the ring is simply entertainment, outside the ring they discuss strategies over beers, flipping coins to see who takes the fall next time.... in the case of politicians it's probably some expensive wine or aged bourbon. It's a single snake with 2 heads! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
His Record??????????????????????????
BUSH DOOD IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The best way to tell if a politician is lying is to see if his lips are moving! The 2 party system is like pro wrestling. What you see in the ring is simply entertainment, outside the ring they discuss strategies over beers, flipping coins to see who takes the fall next time.... in the case of politicians it's probably some expensive wine or aged bourbon. It's a single snake with 2 heads! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 10/21/12 07:38 AM
|
|
From an editorial in the Orlando Sentinel: Two days after his lackluster first debate performance, President Barack Obama's re-election hopes got a timely boost. The government's monthly jobless report for September showed the nation's unemployment rate fell below 8 percent for the first time since he took office.
If that were the only metric that mattered, the president might credibly argue that the U.S. economy was finally on the right track. Unfortunately for him, and for the American people, he can't. Economic growth, three years into the recovery, is anemic. Family incomes are down, poverty is up. Obama's Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, highlighted these and other hard truths in this week's second debate. Even the September jobless numbers deserve an asterisk, because more than 4 million Americans have given up looking for work since January 2009. And while the nation's economy is still sputtering nearly four years after Obama took office, the federal government is more than $5 trillion deeper in debt. It just racked up its fourth straight 13-figure shortfall. We have little confidence that Obama would be more successful managing the economy and the budget in the next four years. For that reason, though we endorsed him in 2008, we are recommending Romney in this race. Obama's defenders would argue that he inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression, and would have made more progress if not for obstruction from Republicans in Congress. But Democrats held strong majorities in the House and Senate during his first two years. Other presidents have succeeded even with the other party controlling Capitol Hill. Democrat Bill Clinton presided over an economic boom and balanced the budget working with Republicans. Leaders find a way. With Obama in charge, the federal government came perilously close to a default last year. Now it's lurching toward another crisis with the impending arrival of massive tax hikes and spending cuts on Jan. 1. The next president is likely to be dealing with a Congress where at least one, if not both, chambers are controlled by Republicans. It verges on magical thinking to expect Obama to get different results in the next four years. Two years ago, a bipartisan panel the president appointed recommended a 10-year, $4 trillion deficit-reduction plan. Rather than embrace it and sell it to the American people, Obama took his own, less ambitious plan to Congress, where it was largely ignored by both parties. Now the president and his supporters are attacking Romney because his long-term budget blueprint calls for money-saving reforms to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, three of the biggest drivers of deficit spending. Obama would be more credible in critiquing the proposal if he had a serious alternative for bringing entitlement spending under control. He doesn't. . . . . . We reject the innuendo that some critics have heaped on the president. We don't think he's a business-hating socialist. We don't think he's intent on weakening the American military. We don't think he's unpatriotic. And, no, we don't think he was born outside the United States. But after reflecting on his four years in the White House, we also don't think that he's the best qualified candidate in this race. So, according to a newspaper that endorsed Obama in 2008, Obama's record as President isn't as good as Obama's current supporters say that it is. umm,, orlando,, isnt that in florida? anyway,, beside the point,, its interesting for certain and probably not rare (people changing their minds ON BOTH SIDES about their party/candidate of choice in this election) although the largest majority are sticking with their 'side' people pick out those things that support their side, whether its negative things to oppose the incumbent or positive things to support them after observing it over and over, I really start to wonder if any of it has any relevance besides to shine a light on that persons preferences and priorities,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I dont quite get that one, and I try to be logical just now looking at the census data, seems like from 2007-2008 (bush final year) median income took a blow of nearly 2000 dollars IN ONE YEAR now it has declined again , but it has taken two years for that same drop,,meaning, it has slowed from where it was we were losing hundreds of millions of jobs per month in Bushs final year,, no longer true the free fall is being slowed down to something that can eventually be managed,,,its nothing as bad the second term as it was before his first,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I dont quite get that one, and I try to be logical just now looking at the census data, seems like from 2007-2008 (bush final year) median income took a blow of nearly 2000 dollars IN ONE YEAR now it has declined again , but it has taken two years for that same drop,,meaning, it has slowed from where it was we were losing hundreds of millions of jobs per month in Bushs final year,, no longer true the free fall is being slowed down to something that can eventually be managed,,,its nothing as bad the second term as it was before his first,,, MS HARMONY... There is no longer a recession.. You can point to Bush all day long, but its 2012 not 2007.. In 2012, the Middle Class is worse off than 2009 when the recession ended. That isn't BUSH and 2007.. that is Obama 2012.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I dont quite get that one, and I try to be logical just now looking at the census data, seems like from 2007-2008 (bush final year) median income took a blow of nearly 2000 dollars IN ONE YEAR now it has declined again , but it has taken two years for that same drop,,meaning, it has slowed from where it was we were losing hundreds of millions of jobs per month in Bushs final year,, no longer true the free fall is being slowed down to something that can eventually be managed,,,its nothing as bad the second term as it was before his first,,, MS HARMONY... There is no longer a recession.. You can point to Bush all day long, but its 2012 not 2007.. In 2012, the Middle Class is worse off than 2009 when the recession ended. That isn't BUSH and 2007.. that is Obama 2012.. the recession 'ended' under obams administration when OBAMA took office in 2009 the rate of job loss and income loss was much faster than it is now,, that is improvement but, I am aware, people can nitpick at statistics and numbers all day long,,, so we should just agree to disagree as to what improvement is as I do tire of the 'numbers' back and forth,,,, too much data to pick and choose from,,,,really |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I dont quite get that one, and I try to be logical Then try re-reading the OP. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I dont quite get that one, and I try to be logical Then try re-reading the OP. wont help most relevant sentence in the whole thing is this 'Economic growth, three years into the recovery, is anemic' ECONOMIC GROWTH, vs RECESSION = less of a mess |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yes. what he will inherit is an improvement over the Bush legacy. That, tacked on to a repub senate that allowed no job initiatives to pass. If they had offered up any of their own, it would paint another picture entirely, but as it stands, the senate appears to be more interested in making Obama look bad than helping the country. u see that too? to quote Zoolanders designer 'I thought I was taking crazy pills..' :P |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That, tacked on to a repub senate that allowed no job initiatives to pass. If they had offered up any of their own, it would paint another picture entirely, but as it stands, the senate appears to be more interested in making Obama look bad than helping the country. The U.S. Senate has been in the control of the Democratic Party during the entire Obama presidency, and the Democratic Party controlled both houses of Congress for the first two years of the Obama presidency. The Affordable Care Act was passed by Congress without it having any Republican support.
|
|
|
|
|
