The 2016 US General Election

[astralis]

TH,

The unemployment rate? That's a lot of smoke and mirrors bullshit that hides a multitude of problems.
"Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed."

unemployment measuring method has been around for quite a while, so again, even if we say there's Americans "severely underemployed", that would have applied earlier as well. either way, unemployment is -still- lower now than when it was when Obama first came into office.

How much of the deficit is due to sequestration?

more due to the recovering economy, actually. sequestration was, and remains, stupid-- it was meant to be a poison pill for both parties to encourage smarter deficit savings. well that didn't happen so everyone ate the poison pill. finally, ACA cost savings as well as the dramatic slowdown in healthcare costs.

either way...the deficit went down.

"It’s amazing what you can achieve when you make something mandatory and fine people if they don’t do it and then keep extending the deadline for months".

recall what Republicans were saying, though-- that people would just ignore the fine, that the uninsured rate would spike, that costs to both people/government would spike...none of that happened.

And I'm waiting to see what the long-term effects of the ACA on the economy are.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/50252 -- ie, deficit increases dramatically without ACA, and worsens over time.

It's interesting that criticism of Obama is invariably met by a finger pointing at Bush. Seriously could you move the goalposts a little closer?

that's not central to my argument. note i'm not absolving Obama's various failures on Bush. nor am i here to persuade you that Obama's the greatest President ever, only to point out that there HAVE been positive changes. you're right, many of his achievements have asterisks next to them, and that's understandable...he's not the Messiah, yes? :-)

but if you want to measure a Presidency, simply ask yourself if the country is better today than it was when the President took office. Bush Jr failed there. Clinton succeeded. Bush Sr kinda-sorta succeeded (although that had more to do with the fall of the USSR). Reagan succeeded.

[DOR]

Unemployment vs. U6

We've had folks making fun of the unemployment figures throughout the Obama Administration, but not before that.
I wonder why . . .

Here's the hard data: the standard measure and U6, which is the one people like TopHatter erroneously say is running at 11% (it's 10.5%).

Note that the U6 measure, by definition, is always higher than the standard measure. The reason is that they measure different things, and therefore cannot be compared. Compare unemployment to U6 and you are either (a) ignorant; or (b) deliberately trying to fool people into thinking unemployment [sic] is 11% .

Note also that U6 is falling farther, and faster than at any time in its short, 21 year history.

[DOR]

The difference in the Federal budget numbers, 9 periods (all figures are averages):

% of GDP _ _ _ _ Revenue _ _ Spending _ _ Balance
RWR I (81-84) _ __ _17.7 _ _ _ _ _21.8 _ _ _ _ -4.1
RWR II (85-88) _ _ _17.4 _ _ _ _ _21.3 _ _ _ __-3.9
GHWB (89-92) _ __ _17.3_ _ _ _ _ 21.3_ _ _ _ _-4.0
WJC I (93-96) _ _ _ _17.7 _ _ _ _ 19.9 _ _ _ _ _ -2.2
WJC II (97-00) _ _ _ 19.3 _ _ _ _ 18.1 _ _ _ _ _+1.2
GWB I (01-04) __ _ _16.6 _ _ _ _ 18.6 _ _ _ _ _ -2.0
GWB II (05-08) __ _ 17.3_ _ _ _ _19.8 _ _ _ _ _-2.5
BHO I (09-12) _ _ _ 14.9_ _ _ _ _23.3 _ _ _ _ _-8.4
BHO II (13- ) _ _ _ _17.9 _ _ _ _ 20.6_ _ _ _ _ -2.6

BHO II through mid-2015.

[TopHatter]

TH,
unemployment measuring method has been around for quite a while, so again, even if we say there's Americans "severely underemployed", that would have applied earlier as well. either way, unemployment is -still- lower now than when it was when Obama first came into office.

But pointing to that unemployment rate blithely ignores the tens of millions of Americans that have abandoned the workforce. Sweeping them under the rug, polishing up that 5.3% and putting it on the mantelpiece is ridiculous. They're a ticking time bomb and god only knows when that sucker is going go off.

more due to the recovering economy, actually. sequestration was, and remains, stupid-- it was meant to be a poison pill for both parties to encourage smarter deficit savings. well that didn't happen so everyone ate the poison pill. finally, ACA cost savings as well as the dramatic slowdown in healthcare costs. either way...the deficit went down.

OK and that's great...but to bring it up as credit for Obama is rather disingenuous.

recall what Republicans were saying, though-- that people would just ignore the fine, that the uninsured rate would spike, that costs to both people/government would spike...none of that happened. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/50252 -- ie, deficit increases dramatically without ACA, and worsens over time.

Once again, not terribly enamored with the GOP. And time is the ultimate judge of the ACA and so far we're still in the first or second inning. Projections are all well and good but get back to me when we're in the bottom on the ninth. (Say, 10 years from now). For the record I sincerely hope that the ACA reins in the outrageously stupid healthcare situation in this country.

that's not central to my argument. note i'm not absolving Obama's various failures on Bush. nor am i here to persuade you that Obama's the greatest President ever, only to point out that there HAVE been positive changes. you're right, many of his achievements have asterisks next to them, and that's understandable...he's not the Messiah, yes? :-)

Sure there have been positive changes, I'll admit that (and have). Certainly I've benefited from the crash: After being out of work for 6 months, I was able to rebound and buy a house at rock bottom price and rate (which was something of a last minute fluke of random chance operating my favor but I'm not complaining). And he's not the Messiah, but don't tell him that.

but if you want to measure a Presidency, simply ask yourself if the country is better today than it was when the President took office. Bush Jr failed there. Clinton succeeded. Bush Sr kinda-sorta succeeded (although that had more to do with the fall of the USSR). Reagan succeeded.

Quite frankly I take each President on their own traits, merits and accomplishments, regardless of their predecessors.

In this case, I'll be absolutely ecstatic to see this fucking administration gone.

[TopHatter]

We've had folks making fun of the unemployment figures throughout the Obama Administration, but not before that.
I wonder why . . .

Probably because, at least in my living memory, we never had the kind of slobbering hero worship heaped upon a neophyte that promised the sun, the moon and the stars and then fell flat on his face. Even his supporters will grudgingly admit that (occasionally)

Here's the hard data: the standard measure and U6, which is the one people like TopHatter erroneously say is running at 11% (it's 10.5%).

I was quoting Bernie Sanders. And holy shit was he off by a MILE! 0.5% The horror!

[DOR]

Tophatter,

People are trying to make us believe that U6 at 10.5% is a high number, and the only reason anyone would think so is because it is pitched it as if it were measuring unemployment. That way, when people think about unemployment at 5.3%, a double-digit figure looks scary.

It just doesn’t work that way. Go back and look at my graph. Read the comment I wrote, the one that says “U6 is falling farther, and faster than at any time in its short, 21 year history.”

Then, look at the record. We are currently in the longest continual increase in US employment since WWII . . . beating out the 1960s record that had economists in awe for decades.

. . .

The GOPers put Obama on a pedestal as soon as he was elected, because that was the easiest way to bring him down. The GOPers named it “Obamacare,” to try and pin responsibility on him, and he embraced the term and gets the credit.

[Doktor]

Waiting for someone to explain to me why Hillary is not a SecState if she was any good at it.

As an outsider, I can't think of a place in the world where US has better reputation today than 6 years ago, but maybe Japan and that would be China's "fault".

After such a stellar show, it would be only natural to grant her a sit in the WH for 4 years, right?

[Officer of Engineers]

The rest of the world don't get a vote.

[Parihaka]

The rest of the world don't get a vote.

Course we do, we vote with our feet. Like I said way back, we just have to transition them to a slow soft landing. We don't have a vote in who takes over is the problem.

[TopHatter]

Tophatter,

People are trying to make us believe that U6 at 10.5% is a high number, and the only reason anyone would think so is because it is pitched it as if it were measuring unemployment. That way, when people think about unemployment at 5.3%, a double-digit figure looks scary.

It just doesn’t work that way. Go back and look at my graph. Read the comment I wrote, the one that says “U6 is falling farther, and faster than at any time in its short, 21 year history.”

Then, look at the record. We are currently in the longest continual increase in US employment since WWII . . . beating out the 1960s record that had economists in awe for decades.

I'm not sure how (or why) you're spinning the U6 number as some benign bit of trivia that can be safely ignored. Seriously, a massive number of people leaving the workforce is a problem.

It's wonderful that it's falling...although as high as it's been, I would certainly hope that it is...but adding "jobs" is like saying it's raining during a drought: Is it merely drizzling or do we have good hard steady downpour?
In this case, the jobs are nothing like the kind that seriously sustain and economy and wages are flat. Like I've been saying, asterisks all around.

The GOPers put Obama on a pedestal as soon as he was elected, because that was the easiest way to bring him down. The GOPers named it “Obamacare,” to try and pin responsibility on him, and he embraced the term and gets the credit.

Ummm...I'm not sure if you were here in the United States back in 2008, prior to him being elected, but...

It was not the GOP that put Obama on a pedestal. When I said "slobbering hero worship" earlier, I wasn't talking about GOPers.
Obama was floating on that pedestal long before he was elected and it was blindingly obvious who put him there.

As for "Obamacare", that was hardly a surprise that his "signature" piece of legislation would have his own name hung on it.

And "pinning the responsibility on him"? WTF? Who exactly should they have pinned the responsibility on? The janitor down the hallway from the Oval Office?

[Zad Fnark]

; )

[gunnut]

I'll be so happy when this fucking administration is gone. I don't even care if it's another Democrat in office. All the good intentions and good feelings and hope and change and whatever else duped people into voting this clown..what have they accomplished? Every "achievement" has a gigantic asterisk attached to it.

Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

Republicans were all high on defeating Hilary in 2008. The chant was "anyone but Hill." They got their wish.

People were complaining about how expensive housing was in 2006. They wished prices would come down. The price did come down, along with everything else.

History has a strange way of showing us just how bad things can get.

[TopHatter]

Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

Republicans were all high on defeating Hilary in 2008. The chant was "anyone but Hill." They got their wish.

People were complaining about how expensive housing was in 2006. They wished prices would come down. The price did come down, along with everything else.

History has a strange way of showing us just how bad things can get.

Oh to be sure! "The Department of Unintended Consequences" is one of my most favorite expressions.

Although instead of Hillary, I'm wondering how the GOP would deal with a President Joseph R. Biden Jr...

[SteveDaPirate]

Oh to be sure! "The Department of Unintended Consequences" is one of my most favorite expressions.

Although instead of Hillary, I'm wondering how the GOP would deal with a President Joseph R. Biden Jr...

The folks over at Fivethirtyeight are saying that Biden is well behind Clinton in almost every metric, but he could serve as an insurance policy for the Dems as someone that is more electable than Sanders if the Clinton campaign were to be derailed due to an unforeseen scandal or health issues.

[TopHatter]

The folks over at Fivethirtyeight are saying that Biden is well behind Clinton in almost every metric, but he could serve as an insurance policy for the Dems as someone that is more electable than Sanders if the Clinton campaign were to be derailed due to an unforeseen scandal or health issues.

It's odd, in the past 30 minutes or so since I posted that, I found myself wondering more and more how Biden would do as the front man on the ticket...and found myself more and more comfortable imagining him in the Big Chair. Certainly far more comfortable than Clinton, Sanders or the usual pack of GOP idiots that are jockeying for the job.

Bizarre!