The New Obama Normal

Obama promised "Fundamental Change" during his 2008 election. He worked hard to create such change in his first term. So-much-so he got re elected. He certainly seems to desire the transformation of the US into a kind of Europium Socialist Democracy. After all, the Welfare State is strong in such countries. They all have government run healthcare and strong regulation on industry. They all are also heavily into the "Green" movement to limit Co2, one of the smallest greenhouse gases omitted (far below simple water vapor). Basically Obama's "fundamental change" apparently was to progress us INTO a European Democracy. If you were going to act like Europe, we will enjoy a European political climate. Our "high" unemployment is quite normal for Europe as I have shown below. The European labor force is actually 48 % larger (US labor force 153.6 million - EU24 labor force 228.3 million) yet their standard of living expressed in GDP is 42% LOWER than the United States, meaning they as a society or economic unit are 42% less productive than the United States. Ah, but they have as I said government run healthcare, and a solid welfare state (needed for their perpetually high unemployment), and lots of regulation (a cause of the lower 42% lower productivity) to employ many bureaucrats working for government leaders.

During Obama's second term he will unleash many things he lacked the nerve to do BEFORE his re lection. After all, one can only ask themselves why most of Obmacare takes effect AFTER 2012…

Welcome to the New Normal of perpetual higher unemployment, a declining standard of living, and the destruction of Individual Liberty for the aggrandizement of the State!

EU27
GDP - per capita (PPP):
$34,500 (2011 est.)
country comparison to the world: 38
$34,100 (2010 est.)
$33,500 (2009 est.)
Labor force: 228.3 million (2011 est.)
note: data are in 2011 US dollars


United States
GDP - per capita (PPP):
$49,000 (2011 est.)
country comparison to the world: 11
$48,500 (2010 est.)
$47,400 (2009 est.)
Labor force: 153.6 million
note: data are in 2011 US dollars

Unemployment History by Year

2000
EU27 - 8.7%
USofA - 4.0%

2001
EU27 - 8.5%
USofA - 4.8%

2002
EU27 - 8.9%
USofA - 5.8%

2003
EU27 - 9.0%
USofA - 6.0%

2004
EU27 - 9.1%
USofA - 5.5%

2005
EU27 - 9.0%
USofA - 5.1%

2006
EU27 - 8.2%
USofA - 4.6%

2007
EU27 - 7.2%
USofA - 4.6%

2008
EU27 - 7.1%
USofA - 5.8%

2009
EU27 - 9.0%
USofA - 9.3%

2010
EU27 - 9.7%
USofA - 9.6%

2011
EU27 - 9.7%
USofA - 8.9%


EU24 Unemployment History
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/st...000-2011_(%).png&filetimestamp=20120502100338

USA Facts
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

EU24 Facts
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ee.html

 

Forget all those income and unemployment statistics. We are ion the road of "progress". Now repeat after me, "European Socialist Democracies are GOOD". Say it again! And keep saying it until you're a believer in the NEW PROGRESS!

 

I want someone on the Left to argue that their path is best! Argue convincingly with statistics that Progress, Progressing away from the Constitution is good...

 

Lord help us

 

You see how US unemployment was 4.0% in 2000 whne Clinton was in office and then by the time the Bush administration was done it was 9.3%?

 

Luckily, we passed the no-more-4-term-progressive-economy ruining presidents amendment.

 

Do you see how average unemployment under 8 years of Bush was lower than average unemployment under 8 years of Clinton?

 

It was down to 4.6% thanks to Bush's tax cuts. It was the democrat's minimum wage hikes that caused it to skyrocket.

I've explained this to you in the past.

 

In order to do that one would have to buy into your nut bag ideas of what the President is doing. Buy into this entire "Europium Socialist Democracy" nonsense which has nothing what so ever to back it up.
Since most on the left are indeed brighter than that, it's not going to happen.

 

It was 4.2% after Clinton's minimum wage increase when Bush took office. How do you "go down" to 4.6% when you start at 4.2%?

 

Clinton started with 7.5% and Bush started with 4.2%.

Clinton ended with 4.2% and Bush ended with 7.8%.

Funny how that becomes a lot clearer when you add a bit of context.

But you don't really want clearer, do you?

 

And absolutely nothing happened during Bush's first year that could have caused the sudden increase in unemployment?

Clinton had the benefit of a burgeoning new technology that drove a good portion of the economy. He also worked with the republican majority in congress to get down to 4.2%. Whereas the dems on congress actively worked against President Bush so they could gain a few more seats in congress.

 

I knew it!!!! Lol!!! This path has been trodden to the point where I'm finding everyone's trash strew about like in a national park.

 

It's a simple matter of personal preference. I prefer the European model to the Mexico model Reagan and the Bushes have had us on and the one Don Romney wanted to keep us on.

 

are you trying to draw causality between higher taxes is the reason for prosperity? I want you to be crystal clear with your answer, not nebulous.

 

Clinton had higher taxes and 3.8% unemployment. Bush cut taxes and 4.6%.

How is going from 3.8% to 4.6% "going down"?

 

I didn't say anything about higher taxes.

are you trying to draw causality between lower taxes is a reason for prosperity? I want you to be crystal clear with your answer, not nebulous.

 

Oh I see, the unemployment rate "went down" from 3.8% with higher taxes to 4.6% after going up after Bush took office and passed tax cuts.

Cosnervatives make sense. If you ignore reality.

 

Let's try this, what did clinton do that caused unemployment to drop during his administration?

I'll give you a hint, it WASN'T raising taxes.

Now, go,

 

God (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*). Wrote a long reply to this and lost it. (*)(*)(*)(*). Too lazy to do it again. Cliff notes version:

– GDP is a lousy indicator of the output of a country. The USA spends 20% of its GDP on medicine; this does not mean that it's more productive in the sector of medicine, it means that its health care systems aren't working. There are also a great number of countries in Europe, like Poland, Lithuania, and Slovenia, which simply are not economically powerful – this has nothing to do with their government and everything to do with their past being (*)(*)(*)(*)ed by Moscow. Like, Luxembourg has a higher GDPPC than Germany, but anyone who knows anything about Europe knows that that doesn't make a lick of sense if GDP means what you say it does. Forbes has a good article on this as well.

– Unemployment is largely driven up by outliers like Spain and Greece, who have almost 25% unemployment, and almost none of these cases can actually be blamed on social democracy – Greece being the only one. France is a bit of an outlier in such a case, and I can't find any news on why, so I won't comment on it. You want to say that it's because of socialists in government, though, then you'd better have some (*)(*)(*)(*) good analysis on the subject.

– When people say "Let's be more like Europe", they're generally not talking about Greece, but rather countries who have taken the Social Democracy formula and made it work, and work better than in the USA.

– Denying anthropogenic global warming by saying things like "CO2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere", an objection which is in the same range of genius as "If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?", will only make you look like an idiot to anyone with a clue. It'll go over well with the numpties here, though.

– "Obama will do X after he doesn't have to worry about re-election"? Why the (*)(*)(*)(*) would he have waited to be re-elected, and run the risk of losing? That's a really dumb argument.

You are oversimplifying extremely complex economic relationships to (*)(*)(*)(*)ing campaign slogan length – no, the EU doesn't have a lower GDP than the USA primarily because it has so much regulation. It has a lower GDP because well over half the countries involved are tiny, poor, or both, and because we don't have to spend so much money on things like the Military and health care! It's like if I was to see that there was a strong correlation between high teenage pregnancy rates and red states, and concluded that being a republican was the cause of teen pregnancy. It's stupid. Really, really stupid. You've done essentially no analysis, and have decided to jump straight from correlation to causation, while misinterpreting what the correlation meant in the first place.

I mean, kudos on putting a little more thought into your thread than what I expect from this forum, but no. You're fundamentally wrong, make a number of complete errors, and really need to learn what the hell you're talking about.


EDIT:

@Iriemon: Shut up.

Seriously.

You're not helping.

You're doing exactly what Swamp Thing is doing: applying figures with neither context nor analysis and expecting it to make a point for you. You've got to be able to do better than that. Why did unemployment go up under Bush? Was it a slow, gradual climb, or did it shoot up suddenly near the end of his term? Why did unemployment go down under Clinton? These are the questions that matter. Unless your entire point is "No, the data you're offering is false", then you are saying essentially jack (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

@OP

Why do you think that European countries which follow the pattern that you talk about have high unemployment rates? And what do you think that Obama will do in his second term that will be so heinous when his first term has been relatively uneventful?

Why do you think that is? You never specify a reason as to why Bush's policies were so much less effective than Clinton's

 

She can't. All her limitied intellect tells her it "Bush bad, clinton good. Chocolate carter double good"

 

My point exactly. You don't just get to randomly assert "these policies did X because they existed and then X happened". That's the kind of thinking that leads to people blaming the 2008 crash on Bush (which is wrong).

 

Well, it could be worse. I mean, at least she's using a correlation to show something. Like, at least she's making the error of "correlation is causation" instead of "correlation implies opposite causation".

 

Prove it wasn't raising taxes. That tax increase flooded the Treasury with extra revenues that dramatically decreased the deficits and turned into a short lived surplus. That meant their was more capital available for investment and increased business confidence in a competent government that had its (*)(*)(*)(*) together for the only time in the past 30 years.

Prove that didn't contribute the the great economy.