If Obama had done NOTHING, the economy would have grown you dunce. What Obama did was cause stagnation of the recovery which lasted until Trump took office. Of course, in loony liberal land, malaise is good, 3.5% GDP bad.
On another note, Obama also accomplished that which only Clinton had done prior to his Presidency, lose the House and the Senate by a massive margin. I think his was worse than BillyBob's.
I bet you cheered that too eh snowflake?
"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
A lie doesn't become the truth, wrong doesn't become right, and evil doesn't become good just because it is accepted by a majority.
Author: Booker T. Washington
"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
A lie doesn't become the truth, wrong doesn't become right, and evil doesn't become good just because it is accepted by a majority.
Author: Booker T. Washington
I'm not deny that talking point is out there. I'm just pointing out it doesn't line up with the data. You can see it in this graph:
As you can see, there was very rapid increase in incarceration rates from about 1980 through about 1995, followed by slower increases through about 2008, followed by falling rates. The result was that the Clinton era, taken as a whole, had a slower increase in rates than the Reagan and Bush eras before him. Another view of a similar thing, here:
https://sentencingproject.org/wp-con...orrections.pdf
Again, the rise is practically vertical until around 1995, then there's a shallower rise through 2008, then a decline.
There are many articles out there about it. Here’s one from a fellow liberal:
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...s-thomas-frank
Michelle Alexander (a black woman) wrote The New Jim Crow. Here’s an article she wrote for The Nation about the Clinton’s from a black perspective
https://www.thenation.com/article/hi...peoples-votes/
Yes, very likely true. Even the longest of recessions (e.g., the one that three consecutive GOP presidents led us into, starting in 1929) don't last forever. So, chances are even if Obama had done nothing, eventually the economy would have grown again. But would it have kept growing, without interruption, for the balance of his presidency? Well, historically, there are very few examples of economies growing for as long as the Obama one did. Usually another recession shows up within a few years. Recessions started during the presidencies of both Bushes, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, Eisenhower, Hoover, Coolidge, Harding, etc. In fact, often by the time someone has been in office as long as Obama was, multiple recessions have happened -- for example, two during the Bush years, or three during the Eisenhower years. But no recession started during the Obama presidency.
A good way to check that theory is simply to bench-mark us against other wealthy nations, all of which were subject to the same global recession. The fact is, the US emerged with significantly stronger growth than the average wealthy nation, following the recession. In fact, most of them double-dipped into a second recession, while the US moved ahead.What Obama did was cause stagnation of the recovery
That really highlights the difference between conservative and liberal thinking about politics. From a liberal perspective, the purpose of politics is to do good for the people. Thus, the test of a politician's effectiveness is whether the people wound up better off. That's why I focus on how there was across-the-board improvement for the people during the Obama years. But from a conservative perspective, the purpose of politics is to acquire more power for the politician's political faction. Thus, the test of a politician's effectiveness is whether his party gained or lost seats. People should keep that in mind, when they vote. If you want your politicians fighting to make the lives of the American people better, vote Democrat. If you want your politicians fighting to gain more power for their party, vote Republican.On another note, Obama also accomplished that which only Clinton had done prior to his Presidency, lose the House and the Senate by a massive margin.
Last edited by Oneuli; 01-11-2019 at 08:48 AM.
You seem not to have read what I wrote. Again, "I'm not deny that talking point is out there. " So, telling me there "are many articles out there" is just repeating what I've already told you I know. But, as you can see, the data doesn't line up with the talking point. Although incarceration rates did, in fact, rise under Clinton, they rose significantly more slowly than they had under Reagan and Bush before him. It was, in relative terms, an improvement. Then that new, lower, pace held steady until around the time Obama took office, when we got a bigger improvement, which wasn't just a relative improvement, but an improvement in absolute terms.
Truth Detector (01-11-2019)
No. I'm arguing it didn't do what its critics imagine it did (drive a big increase in incarceration). The rise in incarceration predated the legislation.... dating back to Reagan's escalation of the war on drug users. In fact, following the legislation, incarceration rates rose more slowly. I don't think that's because of the legislation -- I think it's because actual crime rates came down. But there's no sign that it made things much worse, which is what the critics allege.
You couldn't be MORE wrong. But let's discuss this topic. How is turning citizens into dependent wards of the state making people better off snowflake? I am amused by a leftist ideology that is built around the LIE that Government is good and one that dishonest political apparatchiks promise people free stuff to buy their votes is good.
There is NOTHING good about a massive state filled with stifling regulations being used by politicians to enslave the citizens. If you had a brain and an IQ above room temperature, you could comprehend the OBVIOUS. Our Founders knew this and attempted to design a government that was LIMITED and that didn't work well and left the citizens free to pursue their own fates, happiness and prosperity.
Government isn't there to do good for people. It is there to provide for our laws, copyright protection, defend borders and provide basic services like roads, police, courts, post office etc.
You just described the Democratic Party of the Jackass you moron. No wonder you bloviate with such inane stupidity all the time; you're an idiot. A lying dishonest one at that.
You're such a moron. You have got it exactly backwards. But then, with an IQ equal to room temperature, this is what one expects and why you are the perfect Democratic constituent. You're clueless, you're a liar, you're and idiot and you think BIG Government is good. BUT....only when YOUR guys are in charge right hypocrite?
STFU, seriously.
"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
A lie doesn't become the truth, wrong doesn't become right, and evil doesn't become good just because it is accepted by a majority.
Author: Booker T. Washington
"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
A lie doesn't become the truth, wrong doesn't become right, and evil doesn't become good just because it is accepted by a majority.
Author: Booker T. Washington
It's not. That's part of why it's such a good thing that Obama drove both unemployment and poverty numbers lower.
Ours is. It's right there in our nation's statement of purpose, the preamble to the Constitution. One of the core purposes was to promote the general welfare.Government isn't there to do good for people.
Bookmarks