Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

ECONOMY: Obama shows he’s out of touch

Letter by Jim Bjorkman, Puyallup on June 21, 2012 at 12:55 pm with 40 Comments »
June 21, 2012 1:31 pm

Since President Obama stated that “the private sector is doing fine,” we private-sector people have learned:

• The Federal Reserve states that unemployment will continue over 8 percent through 2013 and that gross domestic product will be lower than previously forecast.

• Home prices fall 30 percent in Pierce County in the last four years.

• Net worth of average Americans falls 40 percent in the last four years.

• State and federal unemployment rates go up. The number of jobs advertised drops, and the number of unemployment claims rise.

• Health insurance premiums will rise 15 percent.

• U.S. industrial production fell unexpectedly in May. U.S. retail sales fall again.

If this is doing fine, we are in trouble and this shows how out of touch the president is with the private sector.

Tags:
, ,
Leave a comment Comments → 40
  1. LeePHill says:

    Jim – you’re out of touch. You’ve taken the President out of context and done so about two weeks after the fact. Catch up on your talking points letters.

  2. Context or not, those facts show the terrible job he has done guiding the economy.

    Of course you focus on the quote, not the actual substance.

  3. If the Republicans in Congress weren’t out to get him maybe they wouldn’t put up so many roadblocks to recovery.
    Party before Country!

  4. PumainTacoma says:

    “Health insurance premiums will rise 15 percent.”

    Try more like 200+%. Just got notice of my health insurance doubling.

  5. Bandito- do you really buy that? If the WH and dem Senate proposed clean, affordable legislation, wouldn’t the right be chastised for blocking it?

    Your talking point is weak. Harry is leading the least productive senate in generations. At a time when the country needs leadership, the only place where progress is appearant is the House.

    How about a budget???

  6. LeePHill says:

    “Those facts”.

    Here we go again.

    “If the WH and dem Senate proposed clean, affordable legislation, wouldn’t the right be chastised for blocking it?”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKzGZj32LYc

    They have no remorse.

  7. LeePHill says:

    “Context or not, those facts”

    How can someone actually post that comment????

  8. LeePHill says:

    “The Federal Reserve states that unemployment will continue over 8 percent through 2013 and that gross domestic product will be lower than previously forecast.”

    Regardless of who is President? I though Romney had an immediate fix.

    “Those facts”

  9. took14theteam says:

    I will paraphrase an email joke I received.

    He was elected because he was black
    He will be fired because he is incompetent

  10. LeePHill says:

    But it’s his policies they don’t like

  11. CT7, Once again – The House is required to produce budgets – not the President.

  12. Paraphrased or not – that joke is rather repugnant due to its racist overtones.

    Obama won because:
    1) He ran a good campaign
    2) McCain ran a horrible campaign
    3) The electorate was sick of W so they wanted a not-Republican

  13. X- house passed a budget. Both House and Senate voted on the BHO budget. How did that work out? Try again (well, not the BHO tax and spend version).

  14. aJ – and there it is, and attempt to emasculate me by bolding “Boy” or “B” and by referring to me as “queen”. Tell me again – what is the difference between your tactics on this board and K’s – other than your extensive use of copy/paste – you were once referred to as Larry, now youse guys are referring to him as Larry.

    And – you really should use the copy/paste function when you want to quote words back at me – that way you avoid the typos/misspellings.

  15. The private sector is out of touch with the private sector. They’re causing their own problems and blaming them on Obama.

    Remember: The Right wants the country to fail. They are not interested in economic recovery during Obama’s presidency.

    Party before country!

  16. From another thread,

    “obmama and his policies drove us further in the ditch” – truthybuster

    Is that the same ditch that people like you claim that Bush didn’t leave Obama?

  17. averageJoseph says:

    LOL. ;)

  18. CT7, Once again – The House is required to produce budgets – not the President.

    Someone must have failed their American Government course(s).

    1) The President is required to begin the Budget Process by submitting a Budget Request to Congress (that would be both houses) before the first Monday in February.
    2) The House and Senate consider the Presidents Budget Request in the Resolution process.
    3) Once both houses have approved a Budget Resolution, they meet for Reconciliation.
    4) Once the Budget is Reconciled, it is sent back to the President for signing.

    Thus completes the lesson for today.

  19. Try more like 200+%. Just got notice of my health insurance doubling.

    If your health insurance has doubled then your increase is 100%.

  20. no italic please

  21. You could say that the new charge is 200& of the previous charge but it is inaccurate to say that it is a 200% increase.

  22. There has been much speculation on why Obama won the election. I think bBoy is pretty accurate in his assessment, though I would guess that a lot of folks actually did vote for him because of his race…folks who wanted to be part of the finally seeing a black president in office. I get it.

    But that was then and this is now. Now he has a record. Study it closely. Attend to the Fast & Furious proceedings, put his promises up against his actions; ask yourself if he’s contributed to further polarization in our society or done something to make things better. People were concerned in 2008 about his ability to lead; it would appear it was a legitimate concern. If you want more of the same, and even less care about what you think about it during his second term, vote for him.

    The blessing and curse of a democracy. God bless America (that’s a request for those of you who think it some sort of mindless, patriotic sentiment.) We need help and we need it now.

  23. sozo – I really wish that Romney represented a true alternative. I don’t see it.

  24. p.s. – according to the analysis of the Freakonomics folks, Obama lost more votes due to his race than he gained. But, even only considering the votes gained due to race it was still not a significant factor in his vote totals.

  25. bB, are you saying race wasn’t a factor in the ’08 election?

  26. Clamant0 – race has sure been a factor since ’08 – mainly on the republican side.

  27. Clamat0 – read my posts. I will try to sum it up for you: The Freakonomics folks have, through their studies, concluded that, Obama lost more votes due to racism than he gained, race was a minimal, insignificant factor in the 2008 election.

    Those who insist, without any evidence, that Obama won because he was black are taking a racist argument in an attempt to diminish the validity of the landslide victory over McCain as being the equivalent to Affirmative Action.

    This argument is only slightly less loony than the Kenyan, Muslim, Indonesian who wasn’t vetted B.S. It is really sad that there is a large portion of Americans that so clearly have no grip upon reality.

    There were very clear reasons not to vote for Obama (which are why I could not bring myself to vote for him in 08) but the above blather is just idiocy.

  28. tellnolies says:

    “if you want more of the same…”

    Apparently most Americans do, as most keep voting D or R.

    What’s always good for a laugh is the partisans who actually think their party is going to produce real systemic change.

    Twain was right, we all have a bit of madness in us…

  29. Can you link the Freakonomics study, I’d like to read it.

    I’m not claiming 0bama won “because he is black”. I tend to agree with your 6/21 @ 7:41 PM post. I’d go even further and add to that the fact that Hillary, Kerry, or Gore would likely have won by the same margins in that particular moment in time. But the times have changed.

    However, when statistics show, historically, the highest percentage of black votes for a Democrat presidential candidate ever (96%), while the white vote for 0bama came in at 43% – a higher percentage than either Kerry (41%) or Gore (42%) received – it seems to me the oft-repeated liberal argument for racism could be seen as being a bit upside down.

    The facts are that 0bama “won the largest share of white support of any Democrat in a two-man race since 1976.” And along the way, 0bama picked up a “strong 41 percent support from white men. (No Democrat since Carter had until (2008’s) election earned more than 38 percent of the white male vote.)

    Perhaps counterintuitively, 0bama “performed slightly worse with white women, 39 percent of voters, than Al Gore did in 2000.”

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15297.html

    Just the hard numbers of the percentages I just linked would seem to make the case that “0bama lost more votes due to racism than he gained” a tenuous argument, at best – not unlike the argument that it was “racist” for blacks to vote in historically high turn-out numbers, and at a 96% clip for someone on the basis of skin color. (That argument doesn’t hold much water since the fact is blacks have voted in the high 80 percentile for Democrat presidential candidates fairly consistently over the last 40 years, suggesting that the claim of such overwhelming support for 0bama by them being solely a matter of race is largely inaccurate.)

  30. This argument is only slightly less loony than the Kenyan, Muslim, Indonesian who wasn’t vetted B.S.

    LOL, speaking of “looney”, didn’t you just post “truther” “B.S.” on another thread? Something about Cheney planning the whole 911 thing (insert Twilight Zone theme here).

  31. That took 15 seconds on google:

    Using location-specific Google searches for racial epithets collected on Google Insights, and comparing Obama’s 2008 performance to John Kerry‘s in 2004, the study concludes that racism cost Obama 3 to 5 percentage points in the popular vote:
    [....]
    Stephens-Davidowitz concludes that racism gave John McCain “the equivalent of a home state advantage country-wide.”

    http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/12/02/did-racism-cost-obama-votes-in-2008/

    The 96% is only barely slightly higher that Black voting trends since the 30s. Obama won 1% higher percentage of the Black vote than LBJ did in 1964. The Black demographic has voted overwhelmingly for the Democratic nominee since the Civil Rights Act and very strongly for the Democratic candidate since FDR’s New Deal.

    Since only 12.6% of the population is Black and you can only legitimately claim maybe 1% of that vote CHANGED from Republican to Democrat due to skin color, it is huge, unsupported leap in logic to suggest that his skin color was why he got elected.

  32. Bottom line – the most out of touch people are those who believe shipping american factories and jobs overseas is good for America.

  33. Thanks bB.

    But after having read it, two things are clear:
    1) this was not an “analysis of the Freakonomics folks”, and
    2) the methodology employed by the study they linked is highly questionable, at best.

    The “study”, as I’m sure you are aware, was conducted by a Harvard economics student, and was posted to Freakonomics blog site. Hardly definitive, it is rather a curiosity posted to elicit thoughtful discussion.

    The entire basis for the Harvard student’s conclusions arises out of the use of “location-specific Google searches for racial epithets collected on Google Insights, and comparing Obama’s 2008 performance to John Kerry‘s in 2004… ” and using “the percentage of an area’s total Google searches that included the n-word as a proxy for an area’s level of racism.”

    My only comment to you would be in question form; have you seen/ heard how blacks refer to themselves since the days of gangsta’ rap right on through hip-hop generation?

    My God, talk about bias. This is the biggest joke of a basis for any so-called “racism” study I’ve ever seen.

  34. Thanks for doing the labor on this one ClamatO.

  35. Clam – your two-bit analysis in an effort to dismiss the conclusions of a study are not worth two-bits.

    You seem to be supporting the idea that Obama was elected because of his skin color and cite an “all time high!” black voting percentage of 95% for the Dem while neglecting that the previous all time high for a Dem was 94%. You present nothing to support your specious claims yet you dismiss a study that went through peer review (and thus had to meet some minimal standards of rigor regarding its methodology) with “common sense” anti-intellectual stuff.

    Bottom line – you want to believe that Obama was elected because he was black (rather than the more logical conclusion that he was elected in spite of being black) because you can not legitimize him on any level.

    Obama is only the most recent in a line of presidents that are less than satisfactory. It is interesting to see the Right go through very similar noises about him as the Left did with the previous less than satisfactory President – sozo put forward that Obama is incompetent and dangerous….damn near the exact meme put forward about W – if he is so incompetent (or stupid in W’s meme) how is it that he is good at doing things that you find “dangerous”?

  36. bB, first of all, I didn’t “analize” anything. More accurately, I merely reported the origins of, and the methodology used in, your link – period. The fact I think it’s rubbish is a common sense opinion, hardly an “analysis”.

    Secondly, what about the following statement I made would lead you to believe I “seem to be supporting the idea that Obama was elected because of his skin color”, or that I “want to believe that Obama was elected because he was black”:

    I’m not claiming 0bama won “because he is black”. I tend to agree with your 6/21 @ 7:41 PM post. I’d go even further and add to that the fact that Hillary, Kerry, or Gore would likely have won by the same margins in that particular moment in time. But the times have changed.

    Seems to me I’m pretty clear there.

    But then to state I “present nothing to support your specious claims” is just a tad hypocritical, don’t you think? I mean… considering I had to pry a simple link out of you after you had referred to this… uh-hum, study – twice – and which link you then did provide in a an amusingly snarky fashion.

    So I’ll return in kind; bB read my posts – especially the 6/24/12 @ 7:42 AM one where I linked a Politico piece from 2008 citing the statistics that I used. And/ or use Google, the percentages I used are commonly-used numbers.

    Even though your rhetoric has changed considerably over the past four years, there are those of us who remember you as a robust Bush-basher. I’m sorry 0bama did not work out for you, but the parenthetical “the more logical conclusion that he was elected in spite of being black” tells me all I need to know.

    Like the study itself, it seems you are looking for an outcome and creating models to support your position, even in the face of the fact that the voting numbers flatly refute the whole notion.

    I think the fact that you so grudgingly gave up the link to this piece of fiction – and in such a snarky manner, no less – pretty much indicates you don’t have a whole lot of faith in the veracity of this student’s little project either.

    And where do you get it was “peer reviewed”? I took a cursory look at the paper – there was no mention of peer-review process in it, nor the blog post on Freakonomics.

  37. Your politico link supports no “ism” explanation for Obama’s election other than ageism (perhaps).

    “It seems to me”….Exactly!

    Obama worked out exactly the way I had feared he would work out – that is why I didn’t vote for him.

    Romney will disappoint in exactly the same way.

    You have read my posts before – you do know that I think the Dems are only slightly less reprehensible than the Repubs as they are ALL bought and sold to the highest bidder.

    Just am tired of this bizarre meme that somehow white guilt or reverse racism or whatever is the reason he blew a mediocre opponent out of the water when it was the Dems turn to win

    W was awful so they went for Obama so they will go for Romney so they will go for the Dem so they will go for the Repub….and the circle goes round and round and the painted pony goes up and down….and nothing will ever really challenge the peaceful status quo for the folks really making the decisions.

  38. Ahh the Circle Game.

    Which do you prefer, bB; Tom Rush or Joni Mitchell?

  39. OxB – you lesson of 22 June rates an F.

    Suggest you review the following;

    http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/federalbudgetprocess/a/budgetprop.htm

  40. Joni….of course!

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0