The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph

1:54 pm EST January 24th, 2012 | Economy | 59 Comments

If you can’t decipher this complex graph, allow me to help: Blue good.

No Related Post

« Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression »

59 Responses to “The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph”

Marco21 says:

January 24, 2012 at 2:20 pm

God, save us now Newt Romney.
C.S.Strowbridge says:

January 24, 2012 at 5:27 pm

Don’t count out Santorum. If he can get enough out of his C.U.M., he might be back in the race. He’s trying to raise $1 million in 72 hours and called it Conservatives United Moneybomb. God, I hope this is a joke.
Jaim says:

January 24, 2012 at 8:40 pm

The Bush Recession is winding down right on time.
rat_bastard says:

January 25, 2012 at 7:01 am

Blue better than the alternative, blue needs work.
Buzz Killington says:

January 25, 2012 at 7:56 am

If you’re really going to present this basic graph as making Obama’s case as a jobs creator, one could retort that it seems he has plateaued, and we apparently need a new President now. I don’t personally feel that such a complex issue can be summed up in a single graph children can interpret, myself.
Dave in SoCal says:

January 25, 2012 at 1:01 pm

Buzz,

You have to keep things extremely simple if you want progressives to follow along. Which is no doubt why Obama keeps his SOTU speeches at an 8th grade reading level. How else are his devoted followers going to keep up with his angry, partisan, class-warfare rhetoric?

“Keeping it simple” may explain why Obama keeps repeating the exact statements and phrases in his SOTU speeches. Or he could just be trying to follow Lenin’s example that “A lie told often enough becomes the truth”.
Dave in SoCal says:

January 25, 2012 at 1:08 pm

The Bush Recession is winding down right on time.

Voters to Obama: Stop blaming Bush for your economic mess

After three years of having the luxury of previous President George W. Bush to blame for the nation’s economic ills, President Barack Obama is finding that passing the buck to his predecessor isn’t selling with American voters.

A new poll by Gallup, 53 percent of those surveyed now say he bears blame for the sagging economy — the first time that a majority nailed the current President for responsibility.

Since his election, Obama has tried to shift the blame for the nation’s economic mess to Bush. Gallup found that message no longer works.

“It doesn’t look good,” a Democratic insider tells Capitol Hill Blue.

Voters agree.

“Harry Truman said ‘the buck stops here’ and it is past time that President Obama accepted responsibility for his action,” Democratic voter Bill McKinnon of Denver said in an interview. “As much as I dislike Bush, I can no longer accept the argument that he is the one to blame for the nation’s economic ills.”
Marco21 says:

January 25, 2012 at 3:47 pm

Aw, poor Dave. Here is his with the already boring “Obama ain’t smart” right wing meme proving Dave and co. can’t actually grasp an 8th grade of reading comprehension.

This and the butthurt form the CBS poll showing 91% agree with the President? Full metal wingnut meltdown.
Burn says:

January 25, 2012 at 4:25 pm

Full metal wingnut meltdown.

Call it pre-emptive grieving. They know that Obama will win another term this November, but they cannot bring their little minds to accept it just yet.

I’d love for the wingnuts to try and champion Romney as their savior, but they can’t because they hate him more than anyone does.

Romney inspires no one. His words aren’t moving. He is the worst kind of political pandering jerkoff, and given that he’s some rich guy, he won’t have the discipline or savvy to tone it down to play the part. He exudes no empathy to the average American. Rich dickheads like him have massive egos and he won’t listen to advisers and consultants to help shape his message.
Oliver Willis says:

January 25, 2012 at 4:49 pm

Capitol Hill Blue is sort of infamous for making up stories. I remember one about Bush being drunk at the White House.
Christopher Foxx says:

January 25, 2012 at 5:50 pm

To be fair, the article Dave in SoCal links to scores in at at an 8.9 on the Flesch Kincaid Grade level. So perhaps it’s not surprising that he failed to understand such sentences as{blockquote}
Dragging down Obama’s Flesch-Kincaid score are the series of short sentences written – perhaps for dramatic effect – on a number of policy issues.{/blockquote}{blockquote}
Of course, depending on one’s view of the intended audience of these addresses, a simply written speech such as the one delivered by Obama Tuesday evening might be viewed positively…{blockquote}
Christopher Foxx says:

January 25, 2012 at 5:51 pm

To be fair, the article Dave in SoCal links to scores in at at an 8.9 on the Flesch Kincaid Grade level. So perhaps it’s not surprising that he failed to understand such sentences as:

“Dragging down Obama’s Flesch-Kincaid score are the series of short sentences written – perhaps for dramatic effect – on a number of policy issues.”

or

“Of course, depending on one’s view of the intended audience of these addresses, a simply written speech such as the one delivered by Obama Tuesday evening might be viewed positively…“
Ol Froth says:

January 25, 2012 at 7:18 pm

Dave in SoCal, I used to write advertising copy, and I can tell you that nearly everything for mass media consumption is written at an 8th grade level, because on average, US citizens comprehend on the 8th grade level. Its not too complicated for those who comprehend at less than that level either, and doesn’t really talk down down to people who comprehend at above that level. The people who wrote the talking point you regergitated know that mass consumption material is written to that grade level, but they’re counting on you not knowing that fact. And you fell for it, hook line and sinker.
Christopher Foxx says:

January 25, 2012 at 8:08 pm

Ol Froth, I disagree. I don’t think they counted on Dave SoCal not knowing that fact. I suspect rather that they just counted on Dave eagerly believing anything he’s told that reinforces what he wants to believe is true.

That is, they weren’t counting on his ignorance, but on his eagerness to be a lemming.
AwkwardSilence says:

January 25, 2012 at 8:16 pm

That is, they weren’t counting on his ignorance, but on his eagerness to be a lemming.

Or making the false, and simplistic, assumption that more syllables and words-per-sentence indicates stronger content.

Remember those annoying kids in school who would write a mediocre paper, then give it the gratuitous once-over with their thesaurus? They’d light it up on the F-K scale.
Zython says:

January 25, 2012 at 9:52 pm

How else are his devoted followers going to keep up with his angry, partisan, class-warfare rhetoric?

A Republican whining about class warfare is like Bull Conner whining about race warfare.

Or he could just be trying to follow Lenin’s example that “A lie told often enough becomes the truth”.

Aw, it’s adorable how you think that conservatives have any claim to truthfulness whatsoever.

Which is no doubt why Obama keeps his SOTU speeches at an 8th grade reading level.

So the opposition response was written by a drunk kindergartener, then?

Also, if you want to criticize a simplistic view of the economy, then I suggest you adopt a more nuanced position than “give rich people more free money” or “we can save money by not paying our bills”.
Jaim says:

January 26, 2012 at 12:18 am

So now I’m confused — isn’t Obama a Grey Poupon-eating elitist? But now he’s teh stoopidz when he gives a speech?

Love it when Teabaggers can’t keep their own made-up memes straight.
Willie Stark says:

January 26, 2012 at 9:30 am

Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation – conceived in liberty and dedicated to the propositon that all men are created equal.

Flesch-Kincaid Grade level: 17.
Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score: 31.

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

Flesch-Kincaid Grade level: 4.
Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score: 87.

Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.

Flesch-Kincaid Grade level: 1.
Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score: 104.

Boy, Kennedy was a doofus.
Christopher Foxx says:

January 26, 2012 at 12:58 pm

Just about anything can be shown if you pick and choose bits to use.

Entire Gettysburg Address.
Flesch-Kincaid Grade level: 11.3.

Entire First Inaugural Address by FDR
Flesch-Kincaid Grade level: 12.0.

Entire Inaugural Speech by Kennedy
Flesch-Kincaid Grade level: 11.7.
SaveFarris says:

January 27, 2012 at 4:15 pm

According to Barack Obama’s own economic team, if we had done absolutely nothing, unemployment would have plateaued at the end of 2010. Instead, we passed the stimulus and unemployment plateaued … in November 2010.

Wow, I’m sure glad we spent that $862 Billion!!!
Ol Froth says:

January 27, 2012 at 5:37 pm

Anyone can draw lines on a piece of graphpaper SF, whithout info on what those lines mean and how those estimates were reached, your graphic is meaningless.
Ol Froth says:

January 27, 2012 at 5:37 pm

Anyone can draw lines on a piece of graphpaper SF, whithout info on what those lines mean and how those estimates were reached, your graphic is meaningless.
Christopher Foxx says:

January 27, 2012 at 7:10 pm

And anyone can just dismiss a graph out of hand, Ol Froth, so let’s put in more effort than SF did.

If the data on Farris’ graph is accurate (let’s just suppose), then one thing it shows is that the actual unemployment rate with the recovery plan (red dots) is notably higher than what was predicted (darker blue line). It would be a reasonable assumption then that the actual unemployment rate without the recovery plan (not plotted) would similarly be higher than was predicted (lighter blue line).

Either way, lower unemployment with the recovery plan than without.

And even if we’d get to the same unemployment rate by Q1 2014 with or without the recovery plan, there’s 5 years there (Q1 2009 – Q1 2004) where unemployment is higher without the plan. Five years of lower productivity, higher foreclosures, greater drain on social programs, etc etc etc.

From Farris’ view, it doesn’t matter if you jump off the cliff or walk down the path. Either way you’re at the bottom, right?
Zython says:

January 27, 2012 at 10:06 pm

Farris, simple question. Would the economy be better or worse than it is now if we had listened to the Teabaggers and decided not to pay our bills? If not better, then why should we ever listen to conservatives in regards to the economy again?
Phil says:

January 28, 2012 at 2:44 pm

Aww look, all the leftists getting warm and fuzzy over Oliver’s graph.

The President may set the agenda, but Congress passes whatever they want.

So, if you’d like to envision a more accurate graph, just start from when the 110th Congress took office and switch the colors around and watch the jobs report numbers fall in Blue shortly after they swear Pelosi in as Speaker, and then rise again in Red after the Tea Party takes over.

If you refuse to do that, then you’re all just a bunch of partisan hacks who refuse to look at that which does not make your hearts palpitate.

This graph is put out by Dems in the House, so you’re never going to get that bit of truth from them. You’ll have to think about it for yourselves. I know, that can be difficult for you all at times, but do give it a try.
Zython says:

January 28, 2012 at 5:33 pm

So, if you’d like to envision a more accurate graph, just start from when the 110th Congress took office and switch the colors around and watch the jobs report numbers fall in Blue shortly after they swear Pelosi in as Speaker, and then rise again in Red after the Tea Party takes over.

Would this be the same Tea Party that wanted to bankrupt the country?

so you’re never going to get that bit of truth from them

Because, of course, Republicans are a bastion of honesty.
db says:

January 28, 2012 at 6:23 pm

Phil,

There’s a great little book entitled, “How to Lie with Statistics”. I suggest you read it.

Equally you can have it either of the two ways. Either President Obama is responsible for the economy or he’s not. You are trying to have both sides of the argument. It’s laughable.
Frank DiSalle says:

January 29, 2012 at 3:02 pm

Here’s an interesting graph.
It shows Unemployment for the period 2001 – 2008 (when Bush [Boo! Hiss!] was President) , and Unemployment from 2009 – 2011 (when Obama [Yippee! Hooray!] was President).
Even an Occupier can see it’s Bush – uptwinkles, and Obama downtwinkles …
Frank DiSalle says:

January 29, 2012 at 3:06 pm

And, oh yes, Zython : Your evidence that tax cuts contribute to unemployment is well-hidden. Perhaps you could locate it for us … I’d be fascinated to read it – provided it’s true…
You know how you liberals lie.
Frank DiSalle says:

January 29, 2012 at 3:17 pm

One more thing, Zython : That example you have linked is a) One purported example of a lie, not evidence that Republicans routinely lie; and 2) Not an example of a lie, because Sen Kyl is neither deliberately deceiving anyone, nor is he being inaccurate.
The author of the article is, when he “quotes” Sen Kyl as saying that Planned Parenthood spends 90% of their budget on abortions.
Sen Kyl said 90% of their activities are related to abortions, and
they are
Zython says:

January 29, 2012 at 5:17 pm

One purported example of a lie, not evidence that Republicans routinely lie

1. Percentage-wise, it’s infinitely more examples than you’ve given of liberal lies.
2. I can, and have, given dozens of examples of conservative lies. How many does it take before you admit that conservatives are natural-born liars. Give me a number.

Sen Kyl said 90% of their activities are related to abortions, and
they are

Hmm…

“91% of pregnant women…”

Think I found the problem. Planned Parenthood has other clients, for things like family planning, contraception, and other reproductive health services*. You would, of course, know this if you ever bothered to set food in a Planned Parenthood or asked someone who knew what they were talking about.

I’d say this was a nice attempt at weaseling out of it, but it really wasn’t.

Your evidence that tax cuts contribute to unemployment is well-hidden.

What? I never mentioned tax cuts once. Put down the PBR and use your head for once in your miserable life. I was talking about the debt ceiling shenanigans, when the Tea Party said we should default on our obligations.

You know how you liberals lie.

That example you have linked is zero purported examples of a lie, not evidence that liberals routinely lie.

Here’s an interesting graph.

Here’s another one.

Wait, that wasn’t a graph. That was the Senate minority leader stating in plain English that partisanship is more important than actually solving problems.

*Despite what you’ve been told, no, you cannot get a pap smear at Walgreens.
Frank DiSalle says:

January 29, 2012 at 5:52 pm

Zython: I have never set “food” or anything else in a Planned Parenthood office, nor do I know anyone who ever went there for anything but an abortion or an abortion referral.
Contrary to what you think I think, you can get a Pap smear at a clinic , without being advised to get an abortion or a tubal ligation at the same time …
Let me save you steps: If you ever plan on being a parent, you don’t want or need to go to Planned Parenthood. That’s not what it’s for, Sparky.

If you had ever set foot in a Civics class you would know that the best way to make a President a one-term President is to beat him in an election, not by voting against every idea he gets. You might also have noticed that Sen McConnell is the Minority Leader, because he does not lead the Majority. But since the majority leader hasn’t been able to propose a budget in THREE YEARS you can’t blame the Republicans …

So , Zython, assuming I have put down the “PBR”, whatever that is, please connect the dots between raising the debt ceiling, which was FYI, raised and unemployment, which FYI, continues to rise.

See, Zython, you are unskilled , uneducated and unwise – I predict a life long practice of voting Democratic, in the hope that they will provide you with a reason to live…
Zython says:

January 29, 2012 at 6:26 pm

I have never set “food” or anything else in a Planned Parenthood office, nor do I know anyone who ever went there for anything but an abortion or an abortion referral.

It’s really refreshing to see you admit you have no idea what you’re talking about.

That’s not what it’s for, Sparky.

Much of a conspiracy theorist? Next are you going to tell me that they’re selling aborted fetuses to be used as cheap meat? Because someone beat you to the punch.

not by voting against every idea he gets

You might want to tell them that.

assuming I have put down the “PBR”, whatever that is,

Pabst Blue Ribbon

But since the majority leader hasn’t been able to propose a budget in THREE YEARS you can’t blame the Republicans …

I don’t have a problem with them setting the budget. I have a problem with them doing that, then turning around and saying they don’t want to pay for it.

please connect the dots between raising the debt ceiling, which was FYI, raised and unemployment, which FYI, continues to rise.

Uh, just because you decide not to make a situation worse doesn’t make it better. Deciding not to torch the economy to the ground doesn’t make it better. Although considering it did.

See, Zython, you are unskilled , uneducated and unwise – I predict a life long practice of voting Democratic, in the hope that they will provide you with a reason to live…

Projection, much? This coming from a guy who has failed at everything he has ever done in his life. From his education, to his military service, to his employment, to his marriage, to this very blog. Maybe if you actually decided not to be stupid, you could make something out of your miserable existence and not be so bitter.

Also, no word on that number, yet?
SaveFarris says:

January 30, 2012 at 9:53 am

If the data on Farris’ graph is accurate (let’s just suppose)

You guys are a trip! I made the graph up?!?

The blue sections of the graph came directly from Obama’s economic team (page 5 of the PDF)

The red line comes from the BLS.

It would be a reasonable assumption then that the actual unemployment rate without the recovery plan (not plotted) would similarly be higher than was predicted (lighter blue line).

That is by no means a reasonable assumption. When faced with recessions in 1980 and 2000, the Presidents at the time cut taxes instead of embarking on a massive overspending spree. The results speak for themselves.
Zython says:

January 30, 2012 at 3:02 pm

I made the graph up?!?

Well, you ARE a conservative…

That is by no means a reasonable assumption. When faced with recessions in 1980 and 2000, the Presidents at the time cut taxes instead of embarking on a massive overspending spree.

Reagan raised taxes, dumbass.

The results speak for themselves.

The only thing here that speaks for itself is the fact that you still don’t have an answer to my question.
Christopher Foxx says:

January 30, 2012 at 4:06 pm

Frank DiSalle: It shows Unemployment for the period 2001 – 2008 (when Bush [Boo! Hiss!] was President) , and Unemployment from 2009 – 2011 (when Obama [Yippee! Hooray!] was President).
Even an Occupier can see it’s Bush – uptwinkles, and Obama downtwinkles …

First, I think you have your up and down reversed. You’re arguing that unemployment went up under Obama, not “downtinkles.” It better serves your argument when you can actually make it accurately (and without resorting to baby talk).

Second, that clear distinction only works if you ignore entirely that one President has to deal with what the previous President left them. Your graph does clearly show that unemployment was increasing throughout 2008 when Bush was President. To believe that unemployment under Obama is not related to the conditions that were growing under Bush, that it can be treated as something separate and distinct, as if >boom< things changed when the office holder changed is just more, well, infantile reasoning.

"I mean, the house was standing perfectly fine from 2001-2008. But then in January 2009 it completely collapsed. Clearly it's solely Obama's fault the whole structure was riddled with termites."
Christopher Foxx says:

January 30, 2012 at 4:15 pm

Frank DiSalle: Zython: I have never set “food” or anything else in a Planned Parenthood office, nor do I know anyone who ever went there for anything but an abortion or an abortion referral.

In other words, Frank has no interest in actually talking with anyone who would actually be able to give accurate information about what Planned Parenthood may or may not do. What he’s heard supports the opinion he wants to have, and that’s all he’s interested in.

“I believe all Irish are alcoholics. Now I’ve never met an Irishman but I do know one guy who went to a St Patrick’s Day parade this one time and he got roaring drunk so clearly it’s all just like I expected.”
SaveFarris says:

January 31, 2012 at 2:06 pm

Reagan raised taxes, dumbass.

Highest Marginal rate, 1981: 69.13%
Highest Marginal rate, 1989: 28%

Dumba**…

The only thing here that speaks for itself is the fact that you still don’t have an answer to my question: Would the economy be better or worse than it is now if we had listened to the Teabaggers and decided not to pay our bills?

False Premise. The Tea Party wasn’t saying don’t pay the bills. They said, quite clearly, STOP SPENDING. Turns out, they were right.

Second, that clear distinction only works if you ignore entirely that one President has to deal with what the previous President left them.

Well, you guys would be the experts at completely ignoring what another president left behind. Or do the words “dot com bubble” not mean anything to you?
The Dark Avenger says:

January 31, 2012 at 3:22 pm

Still don’t know your recent American history, patriot SF?:

But in the face of large and growing deficits, Reagan eventually did come around on the need for additional revenue. Even before the 1981 tax cut was on the books, many White House advisers had begun to worry about projected deficits, which were on a steady upward march from 2.6 percent of gross domestic product in 1981 to 4 percent in 1982. They would reach 6 percent in 1983.

So, just weeks after his Santa Barbara signing ceremony, Reagan floated the possibility of — wait for it — closing loopholes. He was careful to avoid any suggestion that he wanted a tax increase. Instead, he and his advisers asked Congress for “revenue enhancements.”

Euphemisms can obscure a variety of sins. And Reagan’s euphemist, Larry Kudlow — then an official in the Office of Management and Budget — was unrepentant. “There’s no better way to sell economic theory than by the euphemistic route,” he told the New York Times.

This allowed for a major tax increase, the largest in four decades, in 1982. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act raised an average of $47 billion in each of the four years after it was enacted.

Over the remainder of his presidency, Reagan would go on to sign a series of such increases, ultimately taking back about half of his 1981 tax cut, according to economist and historian Bruce Bartlett. The 1981 legislation marked a watershed in federal taxation, capping an era of tax cuts and starting a new one of increases. As economist Jerry Tempalski has noted, of the nine major tax laws enacted from 1968 to 1981, six reduced federal revenue. By contrast, nine of the 11 major tax laws introduced from 1982 to 1993 increased revenue.

The dramatic reduction in federal revenue resulting from the 1981 act made future cuts increasingly difficult. And one of its provisions would prove especially expensive in the years to come. The law had indexed tax brackets, adjusting them for inflation. This change almost eliminated “bracket creep,” in which taxpayers were pushed into higher brackets by inflation, rather than changes in real income. For decades, bracket creep had produced steady — but hidden — tax increases on Americans. No longer would these automatic tax hikes give lawmakers money to burn. Or to return through tax cuts. Indexing was key to ending what C. Eugene Steuerle, an economist and senior fellow at the Urban Institute in Washington, has called the “era of easy finance.”

But if the Economic Recovery Tax Act put the nation in a fiscal straitjacket, it also prompted newfound interest in tax reform. Reagan’s late conversion to loophole-closing in 1982 would prove a model for future tax increases.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-16/why-reagan-raised-taxes-and-we-should-too-echoes.html
SaveFarris says:

January 31, 2012 at 3:45 pm

Still dont know that 69 > 28, occupier DA?

I mean, if the first year of an 8 year term doesn’t count, then I guess the New Orleans Saints actually beat the 49ers 2 weeks ago! (32-19 over the final 40 minutes)
Christopher Foxx says:

January 31, 2012 at 4:28 pm

SaveFarris: Well, you guys would be the experts at completely ignoring what another president left behind. Or do the words “dot com bubble” not mean anything to you?

So you’re arguing one can’t ignore what a previous President has left for his predecessor? That’s exactly opposite of what Frank was saying.

So to be clear, you distinctly disagree with Frank on this? You disagree that poor state of the economy is solely Obama’s fault and recognize it actually has its origins in what was done while Bush was President.

- Clearly acknowledge that.
- Try to twist yourself around denying what you just said.
- Run away from this thread.

I wonder which course you’ll take.
Burn says:

January 31, 2012 at 4:30 pm

Attention wingnuts of all stripes.

I have some bad news for you.

Obama will be re-elected this fall, and there’s not a single goddamn thing you can do about it.

No amount of links or graphs or right wing talking points will change this simple fact. Get used to it now and spare yourselves the misery in November.

That is all.

Carry on.

And remember to vote Romney in 2012!
Christopher Foxx says:

January 31, 2012 at 4:42 pm

SaveFarris: Still dont know that 69 > 28, occupier DA?

So, on the one hand Farris has found two numbers that’s hes put together in a simple equation that (he thinks) he understands. On the other hand, there’s a lengthy (7 paragraphs!) explanation of what was actually going on with taxes during Reagan’s terms.

Or, as Farris hears it: “69 > 28 !!” vs. “blah blah 1981 tax cut blah blah 1981 tax cut blah”

I mean, if the first year of an 8 year term doesn’t count,

Says Farris, arguing that the last seven years of an 8 year term don’t count.
Christopher Foxx says:

January 31, 2012 at 4:46 pm

Obama will be re-elected this fall, and there’s not a single goddamn thing you can do about it.

Actually, there probably is. But they’re never going to do it. Because it requires nominating someone who isn’t completely uninterested in actually running the country well. That is, someone who isn’t any of the candidates they have.
The Dark Avenger says:

January 31, 2012 at 5:20 pm

SF, the only thing I ever hope to occupy is the conservative vacuum in your head with some facts.
Burn says:

January 31, 2012 at 6:14 pm

Because it requires nominating someone who isn’t completely uninterested in actually running the country well. That is, someone who isn’t any of the candidates they have.

I know, it’s a beautiful thing, isn’t it? But they are too far gone into la-la land to even realize this.

The only sane guy, Huntsman, dropped out with not even 1% support.

That totally shows you where the GOP is in 2012.

How many times will they get stomped into the ground before they realize they need a re-write?
Christopher Foxx says:

February 1, 2012 at 1:19 pm

That totally shows you where the GOP is in 2012.

Dems, alas, trend the same way. Just not as far as the GOP.
Frank DiSalle says:

February 1, 2012 at 2:25 pm

Attention you lefties of all stripes : Obama can’t possibly win, and there’s not a goddam thing you can do about it
Read ‘em and weep ::

White House Panic: Gruesome 2012 Economic Forecast Could Doom Obama
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/207603-cbo-budget-economy-worse-than-estimated
quoted here ::http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/01/31/white_house_panic_gruesome_2012_economic_forecast_could_doom_obama

Gallup state numbers predict huge Obama loss
http://www.gallup.com/poll/152372/Obama-Approval-Above-States-2011.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Politics%20-%20Presidential%20Job%20Approval

quoted here :: http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/gallup-state-numbers-predict-huge-obama-loss/352881

ANOTHER OBAMA RECORD!… 4 Straight Years of TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICITS
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/02/another-obama-record-4-straight-years-of-trillion-dollar-deficits/

It’s 1980 all over again !!
Frank DiSalle says:

February 1, 2012 at 2:46 pm

Zython and Foxx :: I am sorry that I never met anyone who told me they went to Planned Parenthood for a Pap smear. Perhaps you have? Funny, neither of you have mentioned your several visits to P P, yet you criticize me for not going there. How left wing of you!

please connect the dots between raising the debt ceiling, which was FYI, raised and unemployment, which FYI, continues to rise.
I’m waiting …

And , one more thing …

Think I found the problem. Indeed you have. Sen Kyl was mistaken – not lying … There is a difference … If you’re not a snotty kid hiding behind a keyboard who thinks the “Enter” key gives him testicles.
Frank DiSalle says:

February 1, 2012 at 2:47 pm

Oh, and Foxx , “uptwinkles” and “downtwinkles” aren’t baby talk – they are OWS code . Where the hell have you been ?
Christopher Foxx says:

February 1, 2012 at 3:12 pm

Frank: Obama can’t possibly win, and there’s not a goddam thing you can do about it

And as proof of this absolute:
“Gruesome 2012 Economic Forecast Could Doom Obama”
“Gallup state numbers predict huge Obama loss”
“If President Obama carries only those states where he had a net positive approval rating…” (with no mention, of course, of Romney’s disasterous favorable-to-unfavorable ratings)
“A rising deficit and unemployment rate would hamper President Obama’s reelection effort”

Sure, things could certainly be better for Obama. But Frank, as is typical of his ilk, sees only what he wants to see. And sees everything as absolutely supporting what he wants to believe.

This is why it’s so hard to take him seriously as a reasonable adult with ties to reality.
Christopher Foxx says:

February 1, 2012 at 3:14 pm

Frank DiSalle: Zython and Foxx :: I am sorry that I never met anyone who told me they went to Planned Parenthood for a Pap smear. Perhaps you have? Funny, neither of you have mentioned your several visits to P P, yet you criticize me for not going there.

No, Frank. I criticized you for having an uninformed opinion and trumpeting that fact. For being proud of your ignorance. For being utterly unwilling to even attempt to understand what you’re talking about before declaring you knew what’s what.
SaveFarris says:

February 1, 2012 at 4:31 pm

You disagree that poor state of the economy is solely Obama’s fault and recognize it actually has its origins in what was done while Bush was President.

There’s no denying that this recession “has its origins in what was done while Bush was President.” That, however, is not the same as “Bush is solely responsible”. And you know that.

You’re right in the VERY LIMITED SENSE that Bush should have pushed Barney Frank and Chris Dodd harder to stop obstructing reform of Fannie & Freddie. But to lay the blame solely at his feet is to deny the root causes of the recession and who was on which side. Bush also deserves blame for his spending increases. Of course, who knew that Obama would come around and blow every spending record out of the water?

There’s also no denying that Obama has made things worse and continues to underperform every president since Hoover vis-a-vie the economy.

Says Farris, arguing that the last seven years of an 8 year term don’t count.

They don’t if they fail to undo what happened in the first year.

It’s just like how you claim Bush and the Republicans exploded the deficit even though it had been shrinking right up until the Democrats took over Capital Hill. According to your Reagan-logic, Bush was a deficit cutter.
The Dark Avenger says:

February 1, 2012 at 5:03 pm

A graph from 2009, SF?

Howabout something a bit more recent?
Christopher Foxx says:

February 1, 2012 at 6:04 pm

Will a more recent graph have different numbers than what Farris’s shows for up to ’08 (which were the years his paragraph with the link referred to)?

I know it’s Farris and hard to not expect his links to contradict his own points, but better to focus on the stuff like the comment that accompanies the graph you linked to:

What’s also important, but not evident, on this chart is that Obama’s major expenses were temporary — the stimulus is over now — while Bush’s were, effectively, recurring. The Bush tax cuts didn’t just lower revenue for 10 years. It’s clear now that they lowered it indefinitely, which means this chart is understating their true cost. Similarly, the Medicare drug benefit is costing money on [sic] perpetuity, not just for two or three years. And Boehner, Ryan and others voted for these laws and, in some cases, helped to craft and pass them.
Zython says:

February 2, 2012 at 4:30 am

False Premise. The Tea Party wasn’t saying don’t pay the bills. They said, quite clearly, STOP SPENDING.

Yes, and they wanted us to do this by defaulting on our debt obligations. You see, as much as it pains you to realize this, I actually remember this stuff. So lying about the past isn’t really going to be all that effective against me.

Turns out, they were right.

Our creditors seem to disagree, since they’re still lending us money hand over fist with interest rates at an all-time low.

Attention you lefties of all stripes : Obama can’t possibly win, and there’s not a goddam thing you can do about it

You have no idea how much better I feel reading this.

please connect the dots between raising the debt ceiling, which was FYI, raised and unemployment, which FYI, continues to rise.

Well, first off, unemployment isn’t rising, despite the best efforts of conservatives. Secondly, if the debt ceiling weren’t raised, unemployment would be the least of our concerns.
Marco21 says:

February 2, 2012 at 4:03 pm

Obama is doomed. Frank read it on a wingnut blog.
Christopher Foxx says:

February 2, 2012 at 7:07 pm

Obama is doomed. Frank read it on a wingnut blog.

I stand corrected.
Zython says:

February 2, 2012 at 7:32 pm

Perhaps you have?

Three generations of volunteers and counting…

But hey, I’m sure your sources are a bastion of honesty.