Obama's final push: Determination and a Plan

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thomas Veil, Oct 23, 2012.

  1. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #1
    When we were discussing the debates at work this morning, I told a colleague that at this point the smart candidate would try to pivot away from all the negative advertising and show us something hopeful.

    And no sooner do I get home when I see this:


    This is the best pro-America ad since that famous Chrysler "Halftime in America" commercial by that guy who talks to chairs.

    And the icing on the cake? The Obama campaign is distributing 3.5 million booklets describing his plans for the next four years. He talks about the book in the video, but you can learn more about it at Politico.

    Well played, Mr. President.
     
  2. leenak macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2011
    #2
    I was looking at an article a few days ago going over the money spent by Obama and Romney on advertising. I was kind of surprised that Romney is spending a lot more than Obama and most of the money he is spending is for anti-Obama advertisements. I'd much rather hear what someone plans to do for me than trying to present themselves as a vote against someone else.
     
  3. edk99 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Location:
    FL
    #3
    To bad he continues to lie about the job numbers.

     
  4. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #4
    But I thought reducing Government was a good thing to Republicans! I'm so tired of this complaint. Republicans constantly bitch about the size of Government, then when it's size is reduced, they complain about that too!! Can't have it both ways guys. You really can't.
     
  5. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #5
    WTF? I thought reducing government was good? Which is it- small or big government that you want?
     
  6. edk99 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Location:
    FL
    #6
    I was not talking about the the reduction of government jobs. I was talking about the faulty information in the ad like why do the stats arbitrarily start in March 2010?? Why the omission of lost jobs??

    ----------

    Just accurate reporting from Jan 2009 not March 2010
     
  7. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #7
    One more time- what do you want? Big government or small government?
     
  8. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #8
    From when do you think we should count Obama's job numbers? The day he took office? That doesn't seem like a sensible metric considering the state of the economy when he got into office in January 2009. Obviously there's very little the president could do on "day one" to change what was going on in employment for the few days remaining in January. How about February? Assuming he was able to promote and sign a bill in the first couple weeks of his presidency (Recovery Act, February 17), even that would take some time to begin implementation, and for an effect to be seen, correct? The quickest measures perhaps would have been the tax cuts ($275 billion). Most were for individuals, though, and probably wouldn't "get into people's pockets" until after they filed in March/April and received their checks.

    So let's say you're right. Putting the first full year in the "blame Bush" column is too generous to Obama. However, you'd have to agree starting on day one isn't fair either. At the very least, let's put the first three months of Obama's presidency into the "blame Bush" column. Guess what? About 60% of the jobs lost in that first year were lost during those first three months. Even more realistic might be to put the first 6 months in the Bush column. Looks like that would account for maybe 80% of those jobs lost in the first year.

    http://social.dol.gov/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Monthly-Private-Emp-Change-03-121.jpg
     
  9. edk99 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Location:
    FL
    #9
    Answering your question in the context of jobs since that is what I was talking about. I want an efficient government with no dead weight. If that means consolidating or eliminating jobs, replacing people with automation and still be able to function effectively at the same level then I'm all for it.

    ----------

    Oh please. So we should go back to Bush's term and start the in March 2002? That way we can wipe out all the great things Clinton did that carried through Bush's first year. LOL :rolleyes:
     
  10. Eraserhead, Oct 23, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2012

    Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #10
    He didn't say the first year, more like the first six months - and it seems pretty sensible.

    EDIT: Blaming Bush for the dotcom bubble seems more than a little unreasonable.
     
  11. edk99 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Location:
    FL
    #11
    January 2009 to March 2010 is over 13 months. If that is when the "blame Bush" stuff ended then why does he still blame him today?
     
  12. GermanyChris macrumors 601

    GermanyChris

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Location:
    Here
    #12
    This is an honest question mostly, which jobs do you plan to replace with automation?
     
  13. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #13
    Here's a pretty and simple graph in case reading comprehension is too difficult a task for you:

    [​IMG]

    So you whine non-stop in this thread that unemployment is still too high yet in the same thread advocate getting rid of even more jobs?

    Do you even realize how this makes you look? It just proves that you're a hypocrite and have a blind, uninformed agenda against Obama. What ever happened to rational discussion based on facts?

    It's pretty obvious to anyone with even a fraction of a brain that policy changes like this don't happen overnight. It takes time, on average 1-2 years, for government policies like this to go in to full effect. The 6 month window that other posters in this thread is a conservative estimate, but even with this conservative estimate, the facts still back Obama.
     
  14. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #14
    On topic...

    I thought this was a great ad. It addresses the really important issues. Jobs, education, housing and bringing the troops home. Too bad the Republicans don't support his platform.
     
  15. edk99 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Location:
    FL
    #15
    I have no clue which specific jobs. Just saying as technology evolves automation can eliminate jobs. A perfect example would be shifting certain things to the web therefor reducing the number of people needed to man the phones or have people in offices. Like renewing your drivers license online which reduces the need for most people to go to the DMV to renew which reduces the number of people needed to be employed at the DMV.

    ----------

    Oh I can comprehend. Nice graph BTW. The problem is Obama's campaign just conveniently choose a place in time where the numbers worked for them. If the month was march 2011 they would of used that.

    So do you guys blame Bush or Clinton for 9/11? I mean that only happened 8 months after he got in office. I'm sure a lot of Clinton's intelligence was being used still at that time.

    ----------

    Yes the same **** he said in 2007.
     
  16. Carlanga macrumors 604

    Carlanga

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #16
    I like the ad. I wonder if Romney will bring a similar style of ad and what they could say to the average american. I don't think they would since Tagg is too much of a short fuse, maybe a fighting video instead.
     
  17. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #17
    His nose would grow exponentially with every word he uttered.
     
  18. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #18
    In reality, I blame the guys that hijacked the planes and flew them into the tower. But I suppose you could blame Bush for ignoring the Clinton administration's warnings about al-Qaeda when they took over in January 2001. Why are you so interested in the blame game anyways? How does that solve anything?
     
  19. edk99 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Location:
    FL
    #19
    Hey back up there. YOU guys are blaming Bush that is why the jobs numbers start in March 2010 and not Jan 2009. All I was doing was pointing out the inaccuracy of the JOBS numbers in the video. I was saying the should reflect all the way back to January 2009 and not start at the first positive job growth month of March 2010. If the first positive month was March 2011 they would of used that in the video. So the 5.2 million number is bogus in the video.

    So to put it another way IF there was continued positive job growth in Jan 2009 to today would they still use the numbers only from March 2010 and on? HELL NO!!
     
  20. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #20
    Well, if you want to get technical, the ad is correct. 5.2 million new jobs were created. It doesn't say "there are 5.2 million more jobs than there were before". If I tump over a bucket of water, then refill it, I have added a bucket's worth of water to the bucket. So, I'd say it's less offensive then the constant conservative quip saying "gas has doubled in price since Obama got into office!!11!1!!" because it dropped to the $1.68 point for a few weeks right before his inauguration after being at the highest level pretty much ever. Technically true, but misleading.

    But, as some posters have mentioned above, it is BS to say that job losses occurring in the first few months after taking office really count, and that he is responsible for those. Do you honestly expect that an incoming president is going to be able to turn the job market around on his first day? If so, your boy Romney better create those 12 million new jobs within the first month of his presidency (should hell freeze over and he gets elected) or I'm calling him a lame duck on February 9.

    After all the conservative whining in the past few years, if Romney does indeed get elected, I expect ****** MIRACLES within 3 months in office. Miracles. And I won't back down asking why they haven't happened.

    As for the ad, I think it's great. Nice to see a political ad with sincerity and humbleness, rather than divisive attacks against your opponent. Political ads generally make me sick and actually make me NOT want to vote for the person in them. I really hate the various ads floating around where some person screeches something like "So and so wanted to increase taxes! SHE'S A LIBERALLLLLLLLLLLL!!!1!!!" This one is different.
     
  21. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #21
    Your argument is only valid if President Obama's term from January 20, 2009 - January 20, 2013 occurs in a vacuum. Here's the problem: it doesn't. Things that happened before his term had an effect on both things that happened during his term and his reaction to these things, in the same way that the decisions and policies we make now will effect us next year, the year after, and so on.

    You can't blame President Obama because he was inaugurated as President of a country that was losing 800,000 jobs a month between election and inauguration day. It's quite amazing actually that his administration was able to stop the bleeding and turn it around as quickly as they did. Since then, we've seen what, 42 months straight where we have been creating more jobs than we are losing? That's progress. It's not great, but we're back moving in the right direction. The answer is not to revert to the policies that started this economic collapse and destroyed all these jobs in the first place.

    You need to open your eyes and start looking at the world from different perspectives. Stop looking at everything just in terms of who was the President at the time of something happening. It's nowhere near that simple. There's no way possible you can look at the situation and make an educated decision without doing this. You need to look at all of the events that lead up to the situation we're in now, analyze them, and then you can look at the candidates and make your decision.

    Take a look at how we had economic prosperity and a budget surplus at the end of the 90s, the dot com boom and bust, the creation of the housing bubble, jobs being shipped overseas for the entire decade, two wars that we had to borrow money for, and how this all led up to the 2007-2008 financial crisis, which in turn led to the recession we are finally pulling out of.
     
  22. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #22
    That's my point exactly. Do you blame Clinton for 9/11? The Republican party certainly tried to do so. So that's 8 months that Republicans are saying still falls within the blame the last guy grace period for a terrorist attack while you're unwilling to grant Obama one day of grace period for blame the last guy for an economic collapse. That doesn't add up.

    Obviously, a president has far more power to act quickly to counter a terrorist threat than he does to turn around the economy. As the executive, he can _order_ the CIA, military, etc. to take action immediately to go after any terrorist threat. The president cannot likewise order the economy to turn around on his first day. So if Republicans get to blame Clinton for 9/11, Obama definitely gets 13 months grace period on the economy.

    Realistically, I don't think anything is all Bush's fault or all Clinton's fault or all Obama's fault--or even all the fault of the Presidents together. The world is more complicated than that.
     
  23. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #23
    Here is the key metric: voters (the spongy middle who decide elections) care about twelve months and trends. If they feel that things have been and are getting better, if the outlook is likely optimistic, they will stick with the incumbent/in-party. This is very very consistent over a century and a half. It really is the economy, sir.

    I have to admit, though, I found the imagery in the ad a bit goopy, it kind of put me off (yes, I know everybody does that kind of thing).
     
  24. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #24
    All politicians are selective on their citations like this. It's not actually lying. It's being selective on what they choose to address. It doesn't mean you should like it. It's just more of an overall issue than one that is unique to any given political candidate.

    The problem would no longer be a problem if context was always involved. This means noting policy changes in the timeline and major external factors which may have influenced the economy. Trying to reduce everything to simple graphs is never perfect.
     
  25. GermanyChris macrumors 601

    GermanyChris

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Location:
    Here
    #25
    The DMV is run by the state.
     

Share This Page