The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

The GOP goes after minorities? Maybe they should stop cheering when things like the Voting Rights Act gets neutered.

Umm ... I think he meant "go after" as in attack, not as it "try to attract".

[NobodyHere]

Note to self:

Drink coffee before posting.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'm curious, Dutch. Why do you think minorities don't vote GOP as much as they vote Democratic?

Racism.

[Edward64]

Good news for us.

I'm still wondering how they got all their hostages back without a military action or ransom (or so they say). If not, I would have thought they made a deal with ISIS to stay out of the conflict ... which means they are reneging on it.

Turkish lawmakers OK military action against ISIS - CNN.com

Gaziantep, Turkey (CNN) -- Turkish lawmakers voted Thursday to authorize military force against ISIS in Syria and Iraq, joining a growing international coalition against the Islamist militants as they continued to capture territory just south of Turkey's border.

The Turkish Parliament voted 298-98 to not only to let the country's military leave its borders to battle ISIS but to eliminate threats coming from any terrorist organization in Iraq and Syria, starting Saturday.

It is a big shift for Turkey, a NATO member, which until now offered only tacit support to a U.S.-led coalition of about 40 nations going after ISIS in Iraq and Syria in various capacities.

The mood of Turkey's leaders changed in recent days, with ISIS on the nation's doorstep and tens of thousands fleeing across its border. Turkey's Prime Minister asked Parliament to consider military action this week, submitting a motion declaring that Turkey was seriously threatened by the chaos in Syria and Iraq, where ISIS has captured land and is trying to establish an Islamic caliphate.

A possible threat to an ancient tomb -- located in Syria but considered a Turkish enclave -- also appeared to be a factor. Reports had emerged that ISIS surrounded the tomb of the grandfather of the founder of the Ottoman Empire.

[JPhillips]

We have an entry for the Stupidest Thing Ever Said.

Carla Howell, National Libertarian Party Political Director, says “governmental bureaucracies” involved with epidemic control are ineffective compared to private and voluntary efforts, in addition to costing too much money and violating individual rights.

"The sole purpose of government is to protect our life, liberty and property from harm caused by others in those few instances where the private sector cannot do a better job," Howell writes in an e-mail to Newsweek. “Containing Ebola in Africa is best left to private charities such as Doctors Without Borders rather than the NIH [National Institutes of Health] or the CDC. Screening is better handled by airlines and private hospitals that are both liable for damages and fully free of government red tape. (Sadly no such hospitals exist today in the United States).”

[flere-imsaho]

I wonder if she has any data / evidence / examples to back that up.

Edit: Because, it's certainly "truthy"!

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

We have an entry for the Stupidest Thing Ever Said.

uh isn't protecting our lives against an ebola outbreak something govt should be doing? (if you follow what that idiot is preaching?)

[flere-imsaho]

Can we have our resident Libertarians chime in, I wonder?

[DaddyTorgo]

Because when your whole family is dead the fact that the airline is liable for "damages" (if you can rustle up the $$ to fight their army of lawyers) will be such a comfort.

Seriously, it's shit like this that makes it really hard to take the libertarians at all seriously.

And I mean, this isn't even a fringe-nutto...it's the national party's political director.

[Autumn]

Yeah, that's ridiculous. I agree, that kind of talking from someone in the mainstream of the party is a killer.

[bhlloy]

Government is bad, compensation culture and suing when something wrong happens is good. Got it.

[flounder]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Because when your whole family is dead the fact that the airline is liable for "damages" (if you can rustle up the $$ to fight their army of lawyers) will be such a comfort.

Seriously, it's shit like this that makes it really hard to take the libertarians at all seriously.

And I mean, this isn't even a fringe-nutto...it's the national party's political director.

The whole Libertarian party is basically fringe-nutto. So it doesn't surprise me a central party figure said something stupid.

[larrymcg421]

The only reason the airline can be sued is because of the government!

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

The only reason the airline can be sued is because of the government!

Sssh

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by flounder

The whole Libertarian party is basically fringe-nutto. So it doesn't surprise me a central party figure said something stupid.

I try to give them the benefit of the doubt and engage in rational discussion with folks like panerd, but when the national party's visible spokesperson (wasn't she a candidate last election even?) comes out and says something like this...it's tough.

Individual D's and R's say crazy things too, but they're somewhat shielded (although not totally as we've seen recently in cases with R's) by the veneer of respectability that the party has built up over time.

[flounder]

I think you're assuming that libertarians self-identify with the Libertarian party. Most consider it an embarrassment, or at best an easy way to get ballot access.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by flounder

I think you're assuming that libertarians self-identify with the Libertarian party. Most consider it an embarrassment, or at best an easy way to get ballot access.

That's fine, but it doesn't really matter whether they self-identify with it as much as it matters whether the population at-large identifies it with them - that's what hurts.

And in that regard, you can't really hope to educate people 1-on-1 that the party doesn't represent them, that's not efficient. For better or worse, the national party is the "mouthpiece of the party" in the mind of the "average voter."

[JPhillips]

And another nominee. This is from a member of the Colorado State Board of Education.

As an example, I note our slavery history. Yes, we practiced slavery. But we also ended it voluntarily, at great sacrifice, while the practice continues in many countries still today! Shouldn't our students be provided that viewpoint? This is part of the argument that America is exceptional.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by flounder

I think you're assuming that libertarians self-identify with the Libertarian party. Most consider it an embarrassment, or at best an easy way to get ballot access.

I wouldn't extend this to all libertarians as I try not to group people by labels. I would, though, say that any libertarian that thinks private industry is a better approach to epidemics than government is a candidate for stupidest person in the world.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

And another nominee. This is from a member of the Colorado State Board of Education.

That whole Colorado education thing (that's the Jefferson thing right?) is a trainwreck of stupid.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

That whole Colorado education thing (that's the Jefferson thing right?) is a trainwreck of stupid.

Yeah. This was on a Facebook discussion between parents, teachers and administrators.

She has no business on a school board when she obviously has no understanding of the meaning of voluntarily.

[Edward64]

With all the other drama going on in the world and domestic, this probably won't help Obama or the Dems much. But good to see it continues to trend downward.

Unemployment rate falls below 6% for first time since 2008 - Oct. 3, 2014

The nation's unemployment rate fell below 6% in September for the first time in six years.

The rate came in at 5.9%, while employers added 248,000 jobs last month.

The unemployment rate fell last month because more people were getting jobs, not because they were dropping out of the labor force as they have at times during the economic recovery. The share of people in the workforce was essentially unchanged.
:
A key figure to watch is whether American wages are growing. Average hourly earnings changed little last month. They are up 2% over the past 12 months, just slightly ahead of inflation, which means most U.S. workers won't feel any better off.

[flounder]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

That's fine, but it doesn't really matter whether they self-identify with it as much as it matters whether the population at-large identifies it with them - that's what hurts.

There's not really much you can do about it. It's the standard way to attack anything outside of the two party system. Find some nuts, assert they represent everyone. It happened to the Tea Party. It happened to Occupy Wall Street. It's the way our country is set up.

I don't think it really matters though. Despite their best efforts, America is moving in a libertarian direction. On gay marriage, the war on drugs and a lot of other social issues we're winning. Economic issues are less clear. There seems to be a general consensus building in this country that limited government is preferable. This is partially outweighed by the way each major party has ramped up corporate welfare and built up a crony-capitalist system in the last 6-7 years.

The problem with the Libertarian party is political. I don't care about politics; I care about ideas. Will we ever have a Libertarian president? Probably not, the party is a disaster. Will we ever have a president with libertarian ideas? It's becoming more and more likely.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

With all the other drama going on in the world and domestic, this probably won't help Obama or the Dems much. But good to see it continues to trend downward.

Unemployment rate falls below 6% for first time since 2008 - Oct. 3, 2014

Nobody should be happy that it took six years to get unemployment under 6%.

But thank God we didn't spend money on our crumbling infrastructure and put people to work.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But thank God we didn't spend money on our crumbling infrastructure and put people to work.

Well, we did, just not in the United States.

[Galaxy]

Joe entertains again:

Joe Biden makes colorful joke on being a VP - CNN.com

[Solecismic]

The percentage in the labor force has dropped from 65.7% when Obama took office to 62.7%. Those outside of the labor force are not counted as unemployed.

The unemployment rate was 7.8% when Obama took office, peaked at 10.0% in October 2009 (percentage in the labor force was 65.0% then) and is now at 5.9%.

I can't think of a way to look at these numbers and see anything for this administration to celebrate.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The percentage in the labor force has dropped from 65.7% when Obama took office to 62.7%. Those outside of the labor force are not counted as unemployed.

On the labor force participation, lots of debate around the root causes and here's one viewpoint

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-1...d-workers.html

It’s getting increasingly difficult to blame the incredibly shrinking U.S. workforce on bummed-out Americans.

The pool of discouraged workers, those who are no longer hunting for a job because they believe none is available, shrank to 698,000 in September from 775,000 the prior month, according to Labor Department figures. The participation rate, which measures the number of Americans employed or looking for a job as a share of the working-age population, decreased to 62.7 percent, the lowest since February 1978.

That probably means that what economists call structural or secular elements, including the retirement of baby boomers or people deciding to leave work to start families or go back to school, are more likely behind the continued exodus that is helping drive down unemployment. Federal Reserve policy makers have little influence over these trends since an improving economy won’t bring many of those people back.

“More of the decline in the participation rate is secular,” said Tom Porcelli, chief U.S. economist at RBC Capital Markets LLC in New York, who projected the jobless rate would fall. If this continues, “the participation rate is going to continue to decline as a result.”
:
A smaller labor force last month helps explain a decline in the jobless rate to 5.9 percent, the lowest since July 2008, from 6.1 percent. While Fed Chair Janet Yellen has advocated using a dashboard of indicators to assess the labor market, she and other economists maintain that the rate still captures the progress in employment.

“We think much of the decline in labor force participation is structural and that the unemployment rate remains a good guide to the state of the labor market,” economists at Capital Economics wrote in a research note after the report.

Admittedly, for everyone one of these there are others that talks about discouraged workers not entering the workforce etc. due to the economy, policies etc.

There's probably a combination of factors and I would not attribute all the blame to Obama.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The unemployment rate was 7.8% when Obama took office, peaked at 10.0% in October 2009 (percentage in the labor force was 65.0% then) and is now at 5.9%.

I can't think of a way to look at these numbers and see anything for this administration to celebrate.

The stock market crashed in second half of 2008. I don't see how you can blame Obama for the unemployment rate in 2009.

[panerd]

Re: Libertarian lady and Ebola

There really isn't any way to explain or defend what she said as the philosophy of very limited government does often lead people into those black holes. Rand and Ron Paul are often guilty of trying to take the philosophy to the extreme instead of just being pragmatic about some situations. They do explain how I feel a lot of the time about endless war and endless spending but arguing the civil rights act just destroys your message no matter how philosophical you are attempting to be.

I also find it funny that the Libertarians are now joining the other politicians and politicize this years swine flu. Shit at the gym yesterday CNN basically had an RIP USA 1776-2014 banner going the whole time with these 2-3 US Ebola cases. Maybe it's a sign that the Libertarians are becoming more mainstream? :-)

[panerd]

Dola: I miss popping into these treads every once in a while. My work has completely blocked this site and my time at home is becoming more limited. I was complaining to my IT guy about the filter and he said maybe my employer wanted me to actually get work some work done. :-)

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by panerd

Re: Libertarian lady and Ebola

There really isn't any way to explain or defend what she said as the philosophy of very limited government does often lead people into those black holes. Rand and Ron Paul are often guilty of trying to take the philosophy to the extreme instead of just being pragmatic about some situations. They do explain how I feel a lot of the time about endless war and endless spending but arguing the civil rights act just destroys your message no matter how philosophical you are attempting to be.

I also find it funny that the Libertarians are now joining the other politicians and politicize this years swine flu. Shit at the gym yesterday CNN basically had an RIP USA 1776-2014 banner going the whole time with these 2-3 US Ebola cases. Maybe it's a sign that the Libertarians are becoming more mainstream? :-)

Dear minorities: The bolded part is RACISM, so therefore you are ineligible to consider this party either.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The percentage in the labor force has dropped from 65.7% when Obama took office to 62.7%. Those outside of the labor force are not counted as unemployed.

Baby Boomers born in 1945 (the start of the cohort) started turning 65 in 2010. While not all of them are retiring at that age, I think you ignore this factor at your peril.

The unemployment rate was 7.8% when Obama took office, peaked at 10.0% in October 2009 (percentage in the labor force was 65.0% then) and is now at 5.9%.

I can't think of a way to look at these numbers and see anything for this administration to celebrate.

5.9% unemployment is lower than any yearly average during the Reagan Administration.

5.9% was the unemployment rate in 2008 before the Great Recession.

Source: United States Unemployment Rate 1920–2013 | Infoplease.com

Admit it, you're just a glass-half-empty person, aren't you?

Originally Posted by Edward64

The stock market crashed in second half of 2008. I don't see how you can blame Obama for the unemployment rate in 2009.

Quite.

Originally Posted by panerd

Dola: I miss popping into these treads every once in a while. My work has completely blocked this site and my time at home is becoming more limited. I was complaining to my IT guy about the filter and he said maybe my employer wanted me to actually get work some work done. :-)

Have you tried osatwork.com/fofc?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Dear minorities: The bolded part is RACISM, so therefore you are ineligible to consider this party either.

This is a peculiar windmill you have chosen to tilt at, my friend.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

This is a peculiar windmill you have chosen to tilt at, my friend.

Yeah. I don't think it has to always be this way, but the voting percentages are pretty clear that blacks, Hispanics and Asians are all heavily in the Dem category right now.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

This is a peculiar windmill you have chosen to tilt at, my friend.

How so?

[flere-imsaho]

It just seems you're trying to create a construct around racism that isn't necessarily there.

[Buccaneer]

5.9% unemployment is lower than any yearly average during the Reagan Administration.

5.9% was the unemployment rate in 2008 before the Great Recession.

Source: United States Unemployment Rate 1920–2013 | Infoplease.com

I didn't check the math but are they using the same metric from the 1980s, 2000s as they're using today? Haven't they changed the formula a couple of times? I have always believed such figures have ever given the true employment/unemployment picture. Truth and objectivity should always trump optimism/pessimism and bias.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Yeah. I don't think it has to always be this way, but the voting percentages are pretty clear that blacks, Hispanics and Asians are all heavily in the Dem category right now.

Right, it's clear white voters have a much healthier choice. The point is that currently minorities are still facing discrimination and this lack of options in government is slowing progress down. When you have to vote for somebody because they "aren't racist" vs "because I like their spending strategy or jobs strategy", you simply aren't enjoying the same choices that white Americans have.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I didn't check the math but are they using the same metric from the 1980s, 2000s as they're using today? Haven't they changed the formula a couple of times? I have always believed such figures have ever given the true employment/unemployment picture. Truth and objectivity should always trump optimism/pessimism and bias.

I would more than welcome adjusted figures, if the ones I posted are not such.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Right, it's clear white voters have a much healthier choice. The point is that currently minorities are still facing discrimination and this lack of options in government is slowing progress down. When you have to vote for somebody because they "aren't racist" vs "because I like their spending strategy or jobs strategy", you simply aren't enjoying the same choices that white Americans have.

This reads like an argument to get rid of the GOP and create two (or three?) parties out of the current Democratic party, to give people the choices they need.

Except we know that won't work.

[Karlifornia]

GOP still views minorities as either problems or novelty friends.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

GOP still views minorities as either problems or novelty friends.

But the point that you are missing (and supporting my point) is that 99% of all decisions made have nothing to do with race. But if Ferguson, MO (for example) decided that maybe they will listen to what the Republican had to say and let those two parties fight over their votes then politicians might be more pressed to make due on some of their promises. Maybe that community could see some tangible difference over the last 50 years than what they have seen. I mean, it works for white people, why not give it a go?

And since when did minorities decide it was best to wait until white people fixed the problem for them? If America is a two-party system and minorities predominately vote for only one party (and the same party) every-time, why isn't there a big push to infiltrate and incorporate themselves into both parties?

We fight over things like whether or not to go to war. Or how much welfare we should support. Or how much taxes we should raise or cut. Could you imagine if all white people voted Republican every time? First of all, that would indicate the end of the two-party system, it would reduce us to a single party, and eliminate a fairly significant check and balance that we enjoy in this nation. Now, back to minorities...and my point being...politicians need some competition to really make a difference. You can call Republicans racists all day long, but most Democratic leaders are white people too but more importantly, they are politicians...if they already have a vote without so much as lifting a finger for it, they don't really have a motivation to pitch new ideas...the status quo is working just fine, so long as they keep up the mantra that all Republicans are racist.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The percentage in the labor force has dropped from 65.7% when Obama took office to 62.7%. Those outside of the labor force are not counted as unemployed.

The unemployment rate was 7.8% when Obama took office, peaked at 10.0% in October 2009 (percentage in the labor force was 65.0% then) and is now at 5.9%.

I can't think of a way to look at these numbers and see anything for this administration to celebrate.

What % of the percentage leaving the labor force was baby boomers ageing out??

Or were you just not going to mention that??

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

What % of the percentage leaving the labor force was baby boomers ageing out??

Or were you just not going to mention that??

It makes up about 20-25% of the difference. Significant (and it will become much more significant over the next decade or so), but not that significant yet.

Civilian labor force participation rates by age, sex, race, and ethnicity

In fact, older people are working more than they did in the past, which counters the effect entirely. The problem is that younger people, especially men, are leaving the labor force.

Unemployment rate, as reported by the government, tells only a small part of the labor force story. Unfortunately, that number seems to be about all the media can handle.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

But the point that you are missing (and supporting my point) is that 99% of all decisions made have nothing to do with race. But if Ferguson, MO (for example) decided that maybe they will listen to what the Republican had to say and let those two parties fight over their votes then politicians might be more pressed to make due on some of their promises. Maybe that community could see some tangible difference over the last 50 years than what they have seen. I mean, it works for white people, why not give it a go?

And since when did minorities decide it was best to wait until white people fixed the problem for them? If America is a two-party system and minorities predominately vote for only one party (and the same party) every-time, why isn't there a big push to infiltrate and incorporate themselves into both parties?

We fight over things like whether or not to go to war. Or how much welfare we should support. Or how much taxes we should raise or cut. Could you imagine if all white people voted Republican every time? First of all, that would indicate the end of the two-party system, it would reduce us to a single party, and eliminate a fairly significant check and balance that we enjoy in this nation. Now, back to minorities...and my point being...politicians need some competition to really make a difference. You can call Republicans racists all day long, but most Democratic leaders are white people too but more importantly, they are politicians...if they already have a vote without so much as lifting a finger for it, they don't really have a motivation to pitch new ideas...the status quo is working just fine, so long as they keep up the mantra that all Republicans are racist.

But there are real issues at play here. The GOP really did embrace a Southern strategy with Nixon that courted Dems angry about the Civil Rights Act. The GOP really does want to deport family members of millions of Hispanics. Certainly not every Republican is racist, but minorities aren't making it all up either.

As for why there isn't more minority representation, blame gerrymandering and corrupt bargains by both parties that make lump minorities together and dilute potential power.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

But the point that you are missing (and supporting my point) is that 99% of all decisions made have nothing to do with race. But if Ferguson, MO (for example) decided that maybe they will listen to what the Republican had to say and let those two parties fight over their votes then politicians might be more pressed to make due on some of their promises. Maybe that community could see some tangible difference over the last 50 years than what they have seen. I mean, it works for white people, why not give it a go?

Well, 1% of white people....

Originally Posted by Solecismic

It makes up about 20-25% of the difference. Significant (and it will become much more significant over the next decade or so), but not that significant yet.

Well, that's the first time I've heard someone call 25% "not that significant". The more you know....

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But there are real issues at play here. The GOP really did embrace a Southern strategy with Nixon that courted Dems angry about the Civil Rights Act. The GOP really does want to deport family members of millions of Hispanics. Certainly not every Republican is racist, but minorities aren't making it all up either.

Indeed. So when someone is actually somewhat incredulous that minorities aren't voting for the GOP, I have the feeling they are being deliberate obtuse. Another example - while George W. Bush handled this issue admirably, current GOP members can be incredibly anti-Muslim in their rhetoric (though Bill Maher is really wanting to turn that into a bipartisan hate issue ). Is it any surprise if Muslims start shifting to voting for the Democrats (when, IIRC, before 2001, it was even, if not more GOP leaning). These type of positions matter - and people will remember what stand you took and they won't forgive you for them unless you actually make real changes.

[cartman]

The Supremes have declined to hear any of the same sex marriage cases, which leaves the lower court rulings to stand.

[JPhillips]

Here are two charts that point out the dynamic I'm talking about. Minorities are making up a greater share of voters and they are increasingly voting Dem. I'm really struck by the shift in Hispanic and Asian voters from 2004 to 2012.

[miked]

I'm shocked any reasonably intelligent person can question why minorities are voting dem. That's not to say dems have the better platform for minorities, it's just that the GOP can't stop their (mostly southern) elements from supporting things that minorities oppose. When you are actively trying to close polls early, ban early voting, require special IDs...things that minorities feel are against their interest, you are going to lose that vote. In one side the republicans are courting the minority vote and the other side trying to suppress it because of the discrepancy.

As for the Hispanic vote, when your biggest mouthpieces are shouting about how to kick all the "illegals" out while at the same time potentially targeting legal folks, you are not going to look good. They refuse to target corporations, the entities mostly responsible for the rise in illegal immigration, but would rather just use the folks and kick them out. That and when the immigration reform is on the table, has passed one chamber and has the votes to pass the house, yet the house won't bring it for a vote, you are going to lose that vote. Not to say it's a good bill, I'm just going on perception.

The fact that anyone is surprised that the minorities are voting like 90/10 dem/republican is shocking given the rhetoric from the sides.