"Make-or-break time for the middle class" Obama to take charge. . .next year.

[Conan71]

Obviously a late night Powerpoint brain-storming session.  Thanks anyway, but you could put his first term on a merry-go-round and there still wouldn't be enough spin to convince thinking people he's accomplished anything which matters to the average U.S. citizen three years into his term.  I find it mildly amusing the first items in that powerpoint are all things small business points to as "uncertainty" which is keeping them from staffing up.

And you are more than welcome to hold my feet to the fire next November:

If unemployment is at or below 7% (not counting those "discouraged" workers who slipped off the rolls) and we are clearly experiencing growth in the economy as a result of President Obama's initiatives, I'll vote for him.  Aside from how he's handled Israel, he's made good on original withdrawal timelines Bush put into place with Iraq and Afghanistan seems to be stabilizing.  He managed to help get rid of Ghadaffi with minimal U.S. forces involvement and cost.  As a matter of foreign policy I give him better marks than his predecessor, though I heard some things coming out of the State Dept. yesterday which might make us a laughingstock on the world stage yet.

[nathanm]

You said he did nothing, I count 48 on that site alone, at least 10 of which are significant to a large swath of our society.

[Conan71]

You said he did nothing, I count 48 on that site alone, at least 10 of which are significant to a large swath of our society.

Sorry if billions and billions more spent on government programs doesn't puff my skirt.

A few million more jobs as a result of commerce-friendly policies would be a far more significant development to a large swath of our society.

[nathanm]

Yes, he'll wave his magic wand and make that happen.

You complained that he didn't do anything regarding the banks, but it happened. You complain he's not doing this or that or the other, but in almost every case, something has actually been done. Maybe not something that you agree with ideologically, but still something done. Disagree with him all you want, god knows I do on enough things, but knocking him for not getting things done is completely contrary to the man's record.

Also, I believe the several million people who have returned to employment (not nearly enough, obviously) in the last two years would be happy to dance a little jig for you. I don't know that I have the power to arrange that, however.

And you should reread the list. Many things on it have nothing to do with new bureaucracy. Also, I find it interesting how earlier you were complaining that the banks were being left alone and now you're complaining that better regulating the banks is somehow a bad thing.

Speaking of discretionary spending, this is the problem that must be solved. Not solving it means continuing at a permanently reduced state of employment:

[heironymouspasparagus]

If unemployment is at or below 7% (not counting those "discouraged" workers who slipped off the rolls) and we are clearly experiencing growth in the economy as a result of President Obama's initiatives, I'll vote for him. 


Aside from how he's handled Israel, he's made good on original withdrawal timelines Bush put into place with Iraq and Afghanistan seems to be stabilizing.  He managed to help get rid of Ghadaffi with minimal U.S. forces involvement and cost.  As a matter of foreign policy I give him better marks than his predecessor, though I heard some things coming out of the State Dept. yesterday which might make us a laughingstock on the world stage yet.

It's not exactly that they were "discouraged", though I'm sure most were...it's the fact that the dropped off the back end of the unemployment program and since they are no longer eligible, they no longer add to the unemployed count.

Israel?  He has supported them at least as much as any, and more than a lot in the past.  He hasn't TALKED about it as much as some, but the support has been at least as strong, regardless of what "The Script" would have us believe.

Geez, Conan, you are making a lot of good arguments supporting this guy.  I may have to re-evaluate my opinion....

[nathanm]

It's not exactly that they were "discouraged", though I'm sure most were...it's the fact that the dropped off the back end of the unemployment program and since they are no longer eligible, they no longer add to the unemployed count.

Once again, "unemployed" does not equal "drawing unemployment." You're counted as unemployed if you're eligible to work, capable of working, do not currently have a job, and are looking for work. Discouraged workers are those not presently looking, but still want a job. If you count people not looking for work, you drastically overstate unemployment because many people not looking for work are not looking because they don't want a job. (they may be retired, or have decided to be a stay-at-home-parent, or whatever)

A little over 4 million people are presently drawing unemployment benefits (continued claims plus initial claims). There are over 13 million unemployed.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Once again, "unemployed" does not equal "drawing unemployment." You're counted as unemployed if you're eligible to work, capable of working, do not currently have a job, and are looking for work. Discouraged workers are those not presently looking, but still want a job. If you count people not looking for work, you drastically overstate unemployment because many people not looking for work are not looking because they don't want a job. (they may be retired, or have decided to be a stay-at-home-parent, or whatever)

A little over 4 million people are presently drawing unemployment benefits (continued claims plus initial claims). There are over 13 million unemployed.

Yep.  I bet there are actually more than 13 million....

Two recent examples of friends who both looked for over two years each.  Found nothing.  Literally gave up on actually finding something - one started Social Security - but by chance looked at job site and both were able to find their "almost" dream jobs.  How bizarre is that?

[Red Arrow]

Yep.  I bet there are actually more than 13 million....

Two recent examples of friends who both looked for over two years each.  Found nothing.  Literally gave up on actually finding something - one started Social Security - but by chance looked at job site and both were able to find their "almost" dream jobs.  How bizarre is that?

I don't find it bizarre at all.  They (and I) were not able/ready to retire and found something.   Hopefully, I won't be in that position for a few more years at which time I will be able to retire.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I don't find it bizarre at all.  They (and I) were not able/ready to retire and found something.   Hopefully, I won't be in that position for a few more years at which time I will be able to retire.

I hope so, too.  It is a terrible place to be after all the work and effort and contribution made NOT to be in that position.