I read the political threads and people go on and on about how bad things are. Of course it is all because Obama is the worst president ever. I am trying to figure out what is so bad?

 

- The economy is considered one of the strongest in the world.

- The market has been positive and growing.

- Unemployment is continuing to shrink.

- More people have health care than at any time in our history.

- Gas prices are back below $2 a gallon and there is surplus of oil.

- New home sales are at a 7 year high.

- Interest rates are about as low as they can go.

 

I see a lot of positive. Why does everyone keep screaming about how things are so horrible?

Just a few quick thoughts:

 

-Obama's foreign policy blunders have put the US and international community in a more vulnerable position today than we were 7 years ago. Yes, I think removing troops early was a significant contributing factor to the uprising of ISIS. Also, his support of the Arab Spring also contributed. His inability to recognize a threat, and eliminate that threat, has been troublesome.

 

-More people may have health care, but only because it was forced upon the people. More people do not have health care today through an organic mechanism, that is, by making/saving enough money to afford it on your own. Instead, not only was it forced upon people who couldn't afford it, but people who could afford their own healthcare were forced to pay for the government's healthcare. I don't think this model will prove to be sustainable in the long run.

 

- I'm not sure you can attribute low oil prices to anything Obama has done. In fact, I know you cant. Thank OPEC.

 

-Domestically, we have experiences more turmoil and chaos under this president than maybe since, I don't even know when. Maybe the 60's? From domestic terrorism, to police brutality and the following riots, to increase in gang violence, to just a general disregard for authority.

 

I don't know how anyone can look back on the past few years, and say that we are improving as a country. I can see how from a different perspective, he has done some things that people would like. However, I don't think those accomplishments have made us any better today than we were 7 years ago. When I look back on his legacy (not that my perspective matters) I will not have a favorable view of Obama. He was weak on foreign policy, indecisive/ reluctant when faced with pressure, yet he attempted to counter his ineptness by pandering himself to the population as a morally elite, social justice seeker, voice of the minorities. The sad part is, people bought it.

So I missed the time slot allotted for editing a post, but to go further on the decrease in oil prices, there are numerous factors that enabled the decrease. Technological advances in alternative energy, decreasing reliance on oil and therefore decreasing demand and increasing supply are one reason we currently have a supply of oil. US oil production companies producing more than we have in the past 25 years in another factor. The emergence of shale oil and natural gas into the world market, which was a product of the Nixon administration, is now beginning to show its impacts, and has thus diluted the international reliance on crude oil.

 

OPEC sets the market guidelines for sale and distribution of crude oil, and will continue to do so as long as the signatories to OPEC are the largest oil producing states. The United States has been able to distance itself, and survive without being held hostage by OPEC by producing more oil on its own and developing alternative energy resources. I am not sure how much credit should be thrown Obama's way for this, but I don't think you can simply claim that Obama is the reason oil has reached new lows.

Just a few quick thoughts:

 

-Obama's foreign policy blunders have put the US and international community in a more vulnerable position today than we were 7 years ago. Yes, I think removing troops early was a significant contributing factor to the uprising of ISIS. Also, his support of the Arab Spring also contributed. His inability to recognize a threat, and eliminate that threat, has been troublesome.

 

Wow! So you are going to put the responsibility for the failures of the Iraq policies on Obama? If Saddam Hussein had not been overthrown, ISIS would not exist and Iran would be weaker. Invading Iraq the second time was the worst foreign policy decision in the history of this country. So many people confuse defence of country with foreign interventionism its ridiculous.

 

To answer VORs question, we all seem to view the world with partisan blinders. HHSHOG putting the responsibility for Iraq policy failures on Obama, completely ignoring the pile of crap he inherited and was committed to continue by the previous administration is an example. I guarantee you when Trump wins the nomination, he will not be asking W to campaign for him.

Wow! So you are going to put the responsibility for the failures of the Iraq policies on Obama? If Saddam Hussein had not been overthrown, ISIS would not exist and Iran would be weaker. Invading Iraq the second time was the worst foreign policy decision in the history of this country. So many people confuse defence of country with foreign interventionism its ridiculous.

 

To answer VORs question, we all seem to view the world with partisan blinders. HHSHOG putting the responsibility for Iraq policy failures on Obama, completely ignoring the pile of crap he inherited and was committed to continue by the previous administration is an example. I guarantee you when Trump wins the nomination, he will not be asking W to campaign for him.

 

First of all, I did not mention Iraq once in my post, so anything you say regarding me charging Obama with the problems with Iraq is irrelevant.

 

I very clearly stated that his foreign policy (not solely Iraq) is what made the US more vulnerable. We can go all the way back to the treaties and declarations following WWI and WWII to describe the current situation in the Middle East, but getting into that would require more effort than I care to spend. However, the most recent blunder in the region was removing troops before a stable government had been established, which enabled ISIS to gain support and come to what it is today. Also, his failure to initially recognize the significance of ISIS, and allowing them to grow exponentially, could very well be seen as one of the greatest blunders in US foreign policy history.

 

Specifically, Obama's weak stance on Russia, his weak stance on Iran, his support for the Arab Spring and his removal of troops from the Middle East are what made us weaker.

First of all, I did not mention Iraq once in my post, so anything you say regarding me charging Obama with the problems with Iraq is irrelevant.

 

I very clearly stated that his foreign policy (not solely Iraq) is what made the US more vulnerable. We can go all the way back to the treaties and declarations following WWI and WWII to describe the current situation in the Middle East, but getting into that would require more effort than I care to spend. However, the most recent blunder in the region was removing troops before a stable government had been established, which enabled ISIS to gain support and come to what it is today. Also, his failure to initially recognize the significance of ISIS, and allowing them to grow exponentially, could very well be seen as one of the greatest blunders in US foreign policy history.

 

Specifically, Obama's weak stance on Russia, his weak stance on Iran, his support for the Arab Spring and his removal of troops from the Middle East are what made us weaker.

 

Isis and Iraq policy cannot be separated. Isis was born out of the power vacuum left by Saddam's removal. Every policy blunder pales in comparison to a President taking his country to war based upon a lie, then leaving it to his successor to clean up the mess.

 

I'm glad the Russians are in Syria. If there is one thing we need to learn from Iraq, is that brutal dictatorships suppress Islamic fanaticism, and that is a lesser evil and threat than having fanatics in control.

Isis and Iraq policy cannot be separated. Isis was born out of the power vacuum left by Saddam's removal. Every policy blunder pales in comparison to a President taking his country to war based upon a lie, then leaving it to his successor to clean up the mess.

 

I'm glad the Russians are in Syria. If there is one thing we need to learn from Iraq, is that brutal dictatorships suppress Islamic fanaticism, and that is a lesser evil and threat than having fanatics in control.

 

What was a lie? That Saddam racked up a heavy list of human rights violations against his own people? The fact that he used chemical weapons against his own people, (which are considered to be weapons of mass destruction), and is prohibited by the Geneva convention? It gets falsely thrown around that we invaded Iraq based on a lie, but that's by people who don't know what they are talking about.

 

ISIS's founder aligned with al-Qaeda when we invaded Iraq. He developed his fantasy of what he wanted the Middle East to look like during following our invasion. However, there were numerous radicalized groups formed during that time, which is not surprising in the slightest. However, it is well documented that ISIS did not begin to become a regional influence until the Arab Spring, and more specifically the uprising in Syria, which Obama supported. Think about that. Obama and the leaders of ISIS both favored the uprising in Syria.

 

I know the popular thing is to blame Bush for everything that is wrong in the ME, but its just simply not true.

 

And to say that policies regarding Iraq and ISIS cannot be separated is a disgusting oversimplification. Situational context, motives, risks and allegiances among other things all differentiate the two.

Let’s look at the unemployment rate.

 

I pulled up the latest report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It’s the November 2015 report, the most recent available.

 

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

 

The following data is quoted from that report.

 

Current civilian population is 251,747,000, current civilian labor force in the US is 157,301,000 and the official unemployed number is 7,937,000.

 

That comes out to the 5.0% rate that has been quoted recently. Here’s a direct quote:

 

“In November, the unemployment rate held at 5.0 percent, and the number of unemployed persons, at

7.9 million, was essentially unchanged. Over the past 12 months, the unemployment rate and the number of unemployed persons are down by 0.8 percentage point and 1.1 million, respectively.

 

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (4.7 percent), adult women

(4.6 percent), teenagers (15.7 percent), whites (4.3 percent), blacks (9.4 percent), Asians (3.9 percent),

and Hispanics (6.4 percent) showed little or no change in November.”

 

Note that the white unemployment rate is 4.3% and black 9.4%. This gap has not improved during Obama’s presidency.

 

The quoted 5.0% unemployment rate is a political number. It can be manipulated to make unemployment appear higher or lower than actual. The key is the participation rate and how BLS excludes unemployed folks after a certain period of time. So they can manipulate the denominator.

 

Here’s a historical look at the participation rate in the US…

 

United States Labor Force Participation Rate | 1950-2015 | Data | Chart

 

You can see it growing through the 60s and 70s with population growth and more women entering the work force. When Reagan left office the participation rate was around 66% and stayed in the 66-67% range during the Bush, Clinton, and Bush2 presidencies. So the participation rate had settled into a regular range of participation with basically everyone in the market that wanted to be in the market.

 

If you look at that graph you can see a dip at the end of W’s presidency to 66% flat, then it falls off the table during Obama’s presidency to its current level around 62%. So BLS started eliminating more people from the official unemployment rate though they are clearly unemployed and would prefer to be working.

 

The way to equalize the unemployment rate is to include those folks that are being excluded. If today’s participation rate was at 66% which is the demonstrated norm, the number of unemployed would be 16,789,020. That’s more than double the 7.9MM that BLS quotes. The unemployment rate is really 10.1%. (If anyone is interested I can show you the math.) And the black unemployment rate is really 18%.

Unemployment is just one piece of the puzzle showing how poorly the economy has done for most of us under Obama. The wealth gap has grown. Income inequality has reach the worst point it has been during my lifetime.

 

Go to this link on income inequality by the Census Bureau:

 

https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/inequality/

 

Select the “H2 All Races” report. It shows how income is spread across each 20th percentile income group in the country. So it’s the bottom 20% of earners, then 20-40%, etc.

 

You’ll see that under Obama the top 20% are receiving a higher % (bigger piece of the pie) than ever before (reporting goes back to 1967). And under Obama the bottom 20% are receiving the smallest % they’ve ever received. Same for the 20-40% group (lower middle class).

 

But, hey, the stock market is up.

 

It’s been a very Republican presidency I guess.

 

If you pull the “H2 Black” report you’ll see things are even worse for black Americans.

 

Black labor participation has fallen off greater than white. Black home ownership…same thing. Black income…same thing.

 

So Merry Christmas everybody.

]What was a lie? That Saddam racked up a heavy list of human rights violations against his own people? The fact that he used chemical weapons against his own people' date=' (which are considered to be weapons of mass destruction), and is prohibited by the Geneva convention? It gets falsely thrown around that we invaded Iraq based on a lie, but that's by people who don't know what they are talking about.[/b']

 

This is a foreign interventionist argument. There was no threat by Iraq to this country at any time. And you know darn well what that administration sold to this country to go to war.

Bush didn't go it alone , he had the total ( near) full support of the Senate , inc Kerry Biden Clinton and the dems . . So you can try to rewrite history all you want . Most people know better .

This is a foreign interventionist argument. There was no threat by Iraq to this country at any time. And you know darn well what that administration sold to this country to go to war.

 

So the United States is only supposed to get involved in issues that directly threaten our security? Many people would disagree with you on this. At the time, we were the sole global hegemon, and it was widely believed that it was our responsibility to protect Human Rights wherever they were being infringed upon. We championed the idea of respecting humans rights, so when we saw infringements upon those we acted. I will agree, that overthrowing Saddam was a secondary mission to fighting off terrorism, but that doesn't mean it wasn't justified/ was based on a lie.

 

The administration told us that Saddam was using weapons of mass destruction against his people. And he was. I guess the general population was expecting we go over there and find huge bombs with the skull and cross bones stickers slapped on the side like you see in movies.

 

All that aside, Obama has done nothing to curb the rise of terrorism, and frankly enabled it to grow. That, among other failures I previously described, is why he will in my mind forever be perceived as having a weak foreign policy stance.

So the United States is only supposed to get involved in issues that directly threaten our security? .

 

Our security or one of our allies, Yes! The American taxpayer does not need to fund the world's police force, especially when such action typically harmful to US security. I think you need to refresh your memory on our support of Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan when the Russians invaded or fighting a war in Vietnam in support of a government that was rejected by its own people. Foreign interventionism almost always creates more problems and more security risk than it solves.

Food stamp usage has significantly increased...something like 31 million before Obama took office to 46 million after 7 years of his Presidency.

 

Labor participation... more people have left the work force altogether, just over 100 million is where it stands now, I believe.

 

National debt has nearly doubled since Obama took office.

Welfare spending at an all-time high. We're very close to spending a trillion dollars annually on Welfare.