The Group welcomes everyone regardless of religious or political beliefs, nationality, race or gender. Everyone's opinion matters.

Obama’s REAL Legacy Summed Up By 9 Brutal Charts

The place for political threads.
Post Reply
User avatar
Winston
Admin Founder
Admin Founder
Posts: 5362
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 9:26 pm
Location: MiniTrue
Contact:

Obama’s REAL Legacy Summed Up By 9 Brutal Charts

Post by Winston » Sat Dec 03, 2016 8:16 am

Obama’s REAL Legacy Summed Up By 9 Brutal Charts
The Federalist Papers | By TFPP Writer | November 29, 2016
Image
Derrick Wilburn asks: what will be the legacy of Barack Obama’s presidency? Obama is leaving behind a mess. A train wreck. An utter disaster. But fifty years from now, what will his presidency be remembered for?

The numbers and ways this president has failed are numerous. Feckless foreign policy leading to a complete and total meltdown in the middle-east; more debt added than the previous 43 presidents combined; civil unrest resulting in ten riots, more than one per year, during his tenure; citizens hunting (and killing) police in the streets; lies told in order to pass a piece of legislation bearing his name that collapsed and cost the American taxpayer two trillion dollars.

On and on it goes.

But the true legacy Barack Hussein Obama will be remembered for is his decimation of the Democrat Party. Obama has destroyed Democrats from coast-to-coast in a manner that is astonishing.

Obama’s first midterm election (2010) was disastrous for Democrats. With the birth of the Tea Party movement Republicans gained 63 seats in the House, the largest midterm seat change since 1938, and six Senate seats. That year Republicans gained a record pickup of 680 seats in state legislative races, giving R’s control of 26 state legislatures and dropping D’s to just 15 of 50. Republicans also took 11 governorships from the Democrats for a total of 29. 54 incumbents lost re-election bids that year, 52 were Democrats.

Next, 2014 midterms. Up for grabs, all 435 House seats, 36 Senate seats, 38 governorships, 46 state legislatures. Though it didn’t seem possible, Democrat defeats in 2010 were dwarfed. Republicans gained control of the U.S. Senate for the first time since 2006, increased an already commanding majority in the House and gained two more governorships.

Things got much worse for Democrats. 2014 saw a sweeping in of the largest Republican majority in nearly a century, 54 seats in the Senate, 247 in the House, 31 governorships, and 68 state legislative chambers. Republicans gained their largest majority in Congress and largest majority of state legislatures since 1928.

State legislative elections were worse. After the 2014 election the number of Republican-controlled state senates and assemblies rose to 68, the highest number in Republican hands since 1928. The smallest number in Democrat control since 1860.

And then came Tuesday night, November 8, 2016 – when Obama finally finished off his party. Not only did Republicans win the Presidency and the Vice Presidency, not only did Republicans retain control of the Senate and of the House, Republicans actually flipped three more governor’s seats. Republicans now have the most number of Republican governors since 1922!

Thanks to his extreme narcissism, dislike for members of his party, the radicalness of his hope and change agenda, and somewhat lax work ethic – in just eight years Obama has done to the Democrat Party what Republicans couldn’t do in a century. He has obliterated it. But not just in elections and not just the prime time players like Hillary Clinton, he’s wiped out the bench too.

Think fast: had it not been Trump, name seven or eight others who could have been the Republican nominee. No problem, right? Now, name seven or eight Democrats who could have been their nominee. Heck, name two or three. Most can name but one — Bernie Sanders. A 75-year old second fiddle who was robbed by his own party’s crooked establishment.

The depth of current and future leaders who are under 55 years of age on the Republican side is impressive – Rand Paul is 53; Marco Rubio, 45; Bobby Jindal, 53; Chris Christie, 54; Nikki Haley, 44; Ted Cruz, 45; Scott Walker, 49. Who is there on the Democrat side? Chuck Schumer? John Conyers?

So focused has Obama been on remaking America into his uber-Leftist-socialist utopia that he neglected something very important; the people of the USA do not want his vision and its the people who vote candidates and parties into and out of power. He focused on “change” at the expense of focusing on what’s best for Democrats.

What will be the true legacy of Barack Obama? It very well could be a statue placed in his honor right in the center lobby of the RNC building in Washington D.C. Because what this man has done is lay devastation upon the Republicans’ opposition.

SOURCE
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<✲✲>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"When you loved someone, you loved him,
and when you had nothing else to give,
you still gave him love."


George Orwell 1984

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<✲✲>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

User avatar
gb2000ie
Chief Engineer
Chief Engineer
Posts: 1150
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 9:20 pm

Re: Obama’s REAL Legacy Summed Up By 9 Brutal Charts

Post by gb2000ie » Sat Dec 03, 2016 1:39 pm

I can't even read the axes on the charts - how can I tell if this data is bollox or real if I can't even read the data?

It's REALLY easy to lie with numbers if you assume no one will read the details.

From the pixelated mess I have to go on, it looks like some graphs end in 2008, and some in 2014 - that stinks of cherry-picking. If you choose your baselines dishonestly, you can really skew data.

B.

User avatar
gb2000ie
Chief Engineer
Chief Engineer
Posts: 1150
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 9:20 pm

Re: Obama’s REAL Legacy Summed Up By 9 Brutal Charts

Post by gb2000ie » Sat Dec 03, 2016 2:01 pm

You can play around with the FRED data yourself.

For example, it took me 30 seconds to get this graph of the US unemployment rate:
Screen Shot 2016-12-03 at 13.46.30.png
Screen Shot 2016-12-03 at 13.46.30.png (70.09 KiB) Viewed 230 times
The Bush rescession is highlighted in dark grey - so what you see is unemployment rising during the biggest recession in decades (hardly a shock), and then, as Obama policies get traction, a constant, steady, reliable decline which continues to the present. There are little wiggles on the graph, but the trend is very clear, and very positive.

That is a good record for any President.

I think the food stamp data shown in the supposedly damning graph is the amount spent on the SNAP program. This is how much the government are helping poor people. It would be totally dishonest to represent that as a graph of need, it says nothing about how many people were in need before, but told to go pound sand!

One of the most effective ways to stimulate an economy is to give money to people who are guaranteed to spend it, and not to save it. That means the money is guaranteed to flow through the economy, and that is how you get people back to work. For that exact reason, Obama put money into food stamps. What you see here is not a symptom of a problem, but one of the mechanisms behind the very positive employmeny graph above.

Work force participation is another one of those easy to lie with things. The assumption behind the allegations on the article is that lowering particiaption is bad. Why? Is it a good thing that both parents are forced to work? That people can't retire and have to keep working? The raw rate of workplace particiation doesn't actually tell you what is going on. If you have people forced to work when they realy don't want to because they want to raise their kids properly, or they want to retire, then a high number is a bad thing. If you have people who desperately want to work, but can't, then a low number is a bad thing. Out of context, the number is meaningless - maybe it's good, maybe it's bad - you can't tell. You certainly cannot assume that the graph is an indictmemnt of Obama because it does not go up as you move from left to right - that is child 'logic', not reasoned thinking!

I could go on and on, but it's a Saturday, and I would rather be out getting some excercise on my bike than doing your homework for you (again).

B.

User avatar
slimjim
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2428
Joined: Wed May 25, 2016 8:49 pm

Re: Obama’s REAL Legacy Summed Up By 9 Brutal Charts

Post by slimjim » Sat Dec 03, 2016 2:10 pm

Image

User avatar
gb2000ie
Chief Engineer
Chief Engineer
Posts: 1150
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 9:20 pm

Re: Obama’s REAL Legacy Summed Up By 9 Brutal Charts

Post by gb2000ie » Sat Dec 03, 2016 2:20 pm

OK - so I'm too much of a nerd to leave the FRED website alone and go out and get that much-needed excercise!

So - let's look at the most inflamatory graph of the nine - debt - that has to be one of the most absused memes for scaring the uninformed into believing there is a crisis when all is well.

The raw debt number is a very poor way to judge how an administration is doing in terms of fiscal responsiblity - the raw number does not take inflation or population or the size of the economy into account. Without taking those into account you get a really scary graph that tells you nothing of value.

For a start, you need to look at rates not levels - a billion dollars in debt would be a lot for a small city with a small economy, but piddlying nothing for even a small nation state with a decent size economy. Or think of it this way, if you make 100 bucks a week, a debt of $10,000 is cripping, if you are a millionaire, it is an irrelevance. For a person, debt as a percentage of annual income is a sensible measure, not debt in raw dollar terms.

So, bearing all that in mind, the right way to look at fiscal responsibility is by the size of the deficit as a percentage of the size of the economy. In case anyone does not know, the deficit is the difference between the money spent by the government, and the money raised by the governent.

Here is a graph of the US deficit as a percentage of GDP over the last decade and a bit:
Screen Shot 2016-12-03 at 14.07.39.png
Screen Shot 2016-12-03 at 14.07.39.png (67.18 KiB) Viewed 227 times
During the middle of the Bush recession things were at their worst - the government spent 9% more than it made - or, it had a deficit of 9%, or, a surplus of -9%. It was a deep deep recession, so again, hardly shocking that that is the worst moment in recent times.

So what has happened to the defict under Obama? It has shrunk dramatically - today, the deficit is less than 2.5% - Obama has improved the imabalance between spending and income by over 6.5%. That is a very positive trend.

Something else you have to bear in mind with this particular data set is that Bush officially fiddled the books - his administration made it official policy that war spending did not count when it comes to calculating the deficit - he put his wars "off the balance sheet". That is if course deeply dishonest, so Obama reversed that policy, and put war spending back on the balance sheet.

So, the Bush data and the Obma data are not directly comparable, because Bush fiddled the books.

B.

User avatar
gb2000ie
Chief Engineer
Chief Engineer
Posts: 1150
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 9:20 pm

Re: Obama’s REAL Legacy Summed Up By 9 Brutal Charts

Post by gb2000ie » Sat Dec 03, 2016 2:31 pm

Money printing - another dumb graph designed to fool the ignorant.

The assumption is clearly that printing money is BAD - why?

The kindest explanation of why people think printing money is bad is because it is genuinely very bad when your economy is struggling with overly high inflation. When inflation is high, printing money drives inflation up, leading to hyper-inflation, and economic hell as famously experienced by Weimar Germany, Argentina, and a whole bunch of tinpot dictatorships in Africa.

HOWEVER, deflation is equally as dangerous for the economy. You want inflation to be around 2% for steady economic growth. So, in the actual American economy during Obama's term, what was inflation doing? It was staying stubournly low. So, when the danger is deflation, and not hyper inflation, what is the correct response? It is to try raise inflation up towards the 2% target. In fact, after a deep recession, your target should be to get back to the 2% trend line, so actually, to amke up for the recession, you need to be at 4% for a few years to get back to where you should be.

So, Obama was dealing with overly low inflation, so he implemented the correct policy decision, and boosted the money supply.

That 'damning' graph is not evidence of bad decision making by Obama, it is evidence of a President responding to the current economic reality in accordance with our best current economic theories. That is not a sign of profligacy, but of responsibility.

B.

User avatar
gb2000ie
Chief Engineer
Chief Engineer
Posts: 1150
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 9:20 pm

Re: Obama’s REAL Legacy Summed Up By 9 Brutal Charts

Post by gb2000ie » Sat Dec 03, 2016 2:34 pm

I guess what I'm saying is, illegible graphs don't stand up to any actual scrutiny.

Believing them is the hight of gulibility.

B.

User avatar
dargelos
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed May 25, 2016 11:44 pm

Re: Obama’s REAL Legacy Summed Up By 9 Brutal Charts

Post by dargelos » Sat Dec 03, 2016 9:14 pm

You know that disclaimer at the end of a movie;
"Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental"
The original article needs a similar disclaimer, as befits a work of creative writing.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest