Maggie Alarcón

Reality Check: Under President Obama the Economy Is Growing

In Economics, Politics, US on December 23, 2011 at 11:54 am


From  US News & World Report

December 22, 2011

By Leslie Marshall

They say perception is reality; if that’s true then many Americans need a reality check.

Let’s take the guy who wrote a book (and I say that very lightly) about the president and how much he knows on the economy—it’s 200 blank pages. Cute. Actually, it’s stupid. Anyone who would purchase a book that is empty, regardless of who is in the White House is an idiot, especially in rough economic times. I’ve got a pad with paper and lines on it—how much do you think I could get for it?

 The guy who wrote it is from Chattanooga, Tenn. and he says in his area, there is a great “hatred” for President Obama. Hatred!?! Now please understand. I reserve the word hate for people like Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, or Osama bin Laden (who is dead by the way at the command of the guy who is so hated). It sounds more like they “hate” his political party or maybe even his skin color.

Let’s look at the reality rather than people’s perception. True, unemployment is higher than it was when the president took office, but it fell sharply in December, from 9 percent to 8.6 percent. The economy is growing. We’re not in a recession. The stimulus added jobs to U.S. payrolls.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus added up to 3.6 million jobs by the third quarter of 2010 and up to 2.4 million jobs in the third quarter of 2011.

The Dow Jones is up more than 50 percent since the president took office and albeit slowly, the gross domestic product is consistently in an upward growth mode.

So, you might “hate” the president because you think he has ruined the economy, and things are only getting worse; but you’ d be wrong. Things are getting better, just slowly, very slowly. And remember, the tortoise did beat the hare!

  1. United States private sector job creators are growing the economy DESPITE the President. He deserves zero credit for anything positive going on in America’s economy and all the credit for everything negative.

  2. So sorry you missed the sarcasm. Yes, I do understand! I understand that some people will continue to distort and twist the facts with one purpose in mind–to bring Obama down. Let us keep in mind which party dug the ditch Obama inherited. It’s the same party that boycotts every attempt to move forward in productive ways. Let’s just hope the invitation to that party keeps self-destructing, because that is the kind of party from which everyone leaves feeling sick to their stomachs.

  3. I hate Obama for not stopping the killing of innocents overseas (regardless of whether or not it compares to the extremities of someone like Hitler or Stalin), not closing Guantanamo Bay, not ending the Patriot Act, and so much more.

    After all, Obama is just Bush 2.0, and I’m sure you at the very least disliked Bush.

    • Hate?!

      Have there been disappointments in this administration? Yes. But unlike recent past administrations, hatred has not at all been a hallmark of Obama’s, nor his advisors or staff. It is true that thus far in Obama’s presidency, there have been negative and positive surprises, but he has been consistent and steadfast in attempting to work through issues in a bi-partisan manner. Unfortunately, the opposition early on decided to dig in its heels and refuses to budge.

      Patience, not hatred. Obama needs a second term. And a new Congress.

      • Everything I spoke of was under Obama’s control. He didn’t even veto the Patriot Act.

  4. Yes, I understand that and I am not saying you are wrong about Guantanamo or the Patriot Act. I am, however, very concerned about the venomous anger toward Obama. My hope is that a second term may bring out more favorable legislative outcomes.

    • I’m saying I don’t even want him to have a second term. The few things I mentioned disqualified him as a candidate I would vote for.

      • Sorry to hear that. Are you really willing to have a Newt Gringrich or Mitt Romney instead?

      • No, Ron Paul is the only person who will veto the Patriot Act, close Guantanamo Bay, bring all the troops home and end the wars, veto the NDAA (thus restoring habeas corpus), end the TSA, end the war on drugs, and end the bailouts and corporate welfare.

  5. Oh no! I was so very afraid you might say Ron Paul! I urge you to read Jonathan Chait’s article about Ron Paul’s racism. Paul may very well win Iowa, and then I hope he falls off the face of his Libertarian earth. Think we part company here. Bye.

    • I’ve heard all of that already, it’s a bunch of bullshit. Ron Paul isn’t racist at all.

      • You’ve strengthened my resolve to work even harder for Obama. Thanks! Got to get going on this asap. No more time to talk.

  6. Enjoy supporting a man who is allowing the killing of thousands of innocents overseas to continue.

  7. Even IF Ron Paul was racist, it would hardly compare with what Obama is doing now.


    If you’re interested. Ron Paul is not a racist. These are just smear attempts by the establishment. I hope you are open-minded enough to watch these. If you think the one man willing to end the drug war and pardon all non-violent drug offenders, the majority of which are the minorities, is a racist, I don’t know what else to tell you. Good luck in the future and I hope you change your mind.

  9. Thank you. A very interesting albeit alarming eleven minutes. You can read this in less than that…….

    News Bulletin: Ron Paul Is a Huge Racist
    By Jonathan Chait

    Not a herald of tolerance for multiculturalism.

    With Ron Paul ascending in Iowa, winning the hearts of independents, and even the endorsement of Andrew Sullivan, it’s worth pointing something out: Ron Paul is not a kindly old libertarian who just wants everybody to be free. He’s a really creepy bigot.
    Around four years ago, James Kirchick reported a lengthy story delving into Paul’s worldview. As Kirchick writes, Paul comes out of an intellectual tradition called “paleolibertarianism,” which is a version of libertarianism heavily tinged with far-right cultural views. The gist is that Paul is tied in deep and extensive ways to neo-Confederates, and somewhat less tightly to the right-wing militia movement. His newsletter, which he wrote and edited for years, was a constant organ of vile racism and homophobia. This is not just picking out a phrase here and there. Fear and hatred of blacks and gays, along with a somewhat less pronounced paranoia about Jewish dual loyalty, are fundamental elements of his thinking. The most comparable figure to Paul is Pat Buchanan, the main differences being that Paul emphasizes economic issues more, and has more dogmatically pro-market views.

    How, then, has Paul become a figure of admiration among social liberals?
    One reason is that nobody is attacking him. Paul is (correctly) considered to have no chance to actually win the GOP nomination, so debate moderators have not bothered to research his past, instead tossing off generalized questions that allow him to portray himself on his preferred terms. The Republican Establishment is focusing all its fire on Newt Gingrich, and indeed, Paul’s rise in Iowa would greatly aid Mitt Romney’s campaign by preventing an acceptable alternative from emerging from the state with momentum.
    In this atmosphere, Paul has been able to cast himself in the most flattering light. Since 2008, he has managed to rally Republican (and even non-Republican) opposition to the failures and excesses of the Bush administration’s foreign policy. Sullivan writes, in his endorsement of Paul:

    Breaking the grip of neoconservative belligerence on conservative thought and the Republican party could make space again for more reasoned and seasoned managers of foreign policy. Embracing the diversity of a multi-cultural, multi-faith America is incompatible with Christianism and the ugly anti-illegal immigrant fervor among the Republican base. But it is perfectly compatible with a modest, humble libertarianism that allows a society to find its own way, without constant meddling and intervention in people’s lives.

    “Embracing the diversity of a multi-cultural, multi-faith America?” What on Earth does that have to do with Ron Paul? Here’s a chunk from Kirchick’s story:

    This “Special Issue on Racial Terrorism” was hardly the first time one of Paul’s publications had raised these topics. As early as December 1989, a section of his Investment Letter, titled “What To Expect for the 1990s,” predicted that “Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities” because “mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white ‘haves.’” Two months later, a newsletter warned of “The Coming Race War,” and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, “If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it.” In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC’s Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” “This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s,” the newsletter predicted. In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter’s author–presumably Paul–wrote, “I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.” That same year, a newsletter described the aftermath of a basketball game in which “blacks poured into the streets of Chicago in celebration. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows of stores to loot.” The newsletter inveighed against liberals who “want to keep white America from taking action against black crime and welfare,” adding, “Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems.”

    Such views on race also inflected the newsletters’ commentary on foreign affairs. South Africa’s transition to multiracial democracy was portrayed as a “destruction of civilization” that was “the most tragic [to] ever occur on that continent, at least below the Sahara”; and, in March 1994, a month before Nelson Mandela was elected president, one item warned of an impending “South African Holocaust.” …

    The newsletters were particularly obsessed with AIDS, “a politically protected disease thanks to payola and the influence of the homosexual lobby,” and used it as a rhetorical club to beat gay people in general. In 1990, one newsletter approvingly quoted “a well-known Libertarian editor” as saying, “The ACT-UP slogan, on stickers plastered all over Manhattan, is ‘Silence = Death.’ But shouldn’t it be ‘Sodomy = Death’?” Readers were warned to avoid blood transfusions because gays were trying to “poison the blood supply.” “Am I the only one sick of hearing about the ‘rights’ of AIDS carriers?” a newsletter asked in 1990. That same year, citing a Christian-right fringe publication, an item suggested that “the AIDS patient” should not be allowed to eat in restaurants and that “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva,” which is false.
    There’s way, way more of this in Kirchick’s piece. The slight complicating factor is that Paul’s newsletter was unsigned, so even though it purported to express his views, he can plausibly deny having authored any single passage personally. But the general themes of white racial paranoia are so completely pervasive that the notion that they don’t represent Paul’s own thinking is completely implausible. It is possible that another contributor could have snuck in a line here or there that did not reflect Paul’s thinking, but they couldn’t have set the consistent ideological line for his newsletter. Paul may be a dissident from the main thrust of Republican policy-making but this is not because he’s more tolerant or more sensible than the leaders of the GOP. It’s because he’s crazier.

  10. Do I assume correctly that you give Obama zero credit for bringing the Iraqi troops home?

    I suppose I could launch into the terribly misguided notion of Libertarianism, but that may bore everyone else here.

    Good luck to you in the future, too, and I hope you also change your mind. I do appreciate the civil disagreement we have managed to have, and I also appreciate the time and effort you have taken to provide your side of the argument.

    • I don’t deny him that credit, but I do believe there are still at least some 5,000 contractors there which he could have brought home as well. In addition, he could have brought home the troops in Afghanistan and everywhere else. In addition, he could have not started any new wars. In addition, he could have stopped the drones in Pakistan, etc. that are still killing innocent men, women, and children. In addition, he could have brought the troops home from countries that we fought wars in over 50 years ago. I mentioned more criticism of him earlier, so it’d be silly for me to repeat all of that. 1 good act does not make a good president.

      • I agree with everything you just wrote up until the last sentence. Obama has accomplished WAY more than “one good act.”

  11. Maybe 3 or 4 then? Haha. How many ever good acts he has accomplished has been eclipsed by his idiocy in signing the NDAA into law, renewing the Patriot Act, not closing Guantanamo, not bringing all the troops home, not ending the Federal Reserve, not ending the drug war, etc.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: