I find it pretty telling that you continue to argue against something I never said... While complaining that "the right" is doing that to Obama

I never said it was the same. Never. And as everything Ive said is right here, there is no debate about what I said. What I said and/or implied was that it doesn't matter that he never used those words.

The impression he gave was that things would get much worse if we didn't pass the stimulus.. And not as bad if we didn't. HIS personal description of what constituted "much worse" was double digits.... So we passed stimulus with the expectation that we would avoid double digit unemployment, and yet we got it anyway. I can't believe that is in any way subject to debate.

If your goal, as politifacts goal, is to "prove" that Obama never used certain words.. Great... You win. Why you think that matters to the discussion is beyond me. It's not as if we stopped at 8.2 or 8.4 or even 9. Heck we didn't even stop after approaching double digits. Something be clearly said was the risk of doing nothing.

If you'd like to argue that predicting the economy is hard, you'll have my full support. The next time a politician does it, I expect you to remember that.

(06-04-2012 08:18 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  What Obama did say.

Quote: Because each day we wait to begin the work of turning our economy around, more people lose their jobs, their savings and their homes. And if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.
That's why I feel such a sense of urgency about the recovery plan before Congress. With it, we will create or save more than 3 million jobs over the next two years, provide immediate tax relief to 95 percent of American workers, ignite spending by businesses and consumers alike, and take steps to strengthen our country for years to come.

When you work through this statement, Obama actually DID say that unemployment would stay below 8%. Without the "stimulus" we will approach double digit unemployment. With it, we will do 3 million jobs better than that over the next two years, and 5 million jobs better than that ultimately. But with a labor force in the 150 million range, 3 million jobs is almost exactly 2%. So with the "stimulus" we are going to do 2% better than approaching double digits. Do the math. That cannot mean anything but less than 8%.

What happened here was a very carefully orchestrated charade. Obama and his team made absolutely certain never to give up the 8% soundbyte. But they made absolutely certain that the message was conveyed--10% or worse unemployment without the "stimulus" and 8% or better with. It was a very carefully crafted propaganda campaign. Now that it failed, they have deniability on the flimsiest of technical grounds because, "I never actually said exactly that in precisely so many words."

What will be more interesting is what happens if Obamacare is not overturned by the supreme court. We will find out that the "bipartisan CBO" projections that "it will reduce the deficit" were hedged the same way this was. When it fails to hit those numbers, and when we impose rationing and queues on a major scale to try to get costs under control (and fail at that effort), we'll get the same lines about how nobody ever actually said that. But in that case, I think there will be sound bytes where people actually DID say it.

With Obama the truth is something that can be moved around based upon what he needs you to believe in order to sucker you into doing what he wants you to do. Street hustlers work like that.

OK, Mach, if your point is that the words, "If we pass the stimulus, unemployment will remain below 8%," never came out of Barack Obama's mouth in a single sentence in precisely that order, for public consumption, than you are technically correct. And Politifact agrees with you. And so do I.

But if you're trying to make the broader point that Obama and his team didn't do lots to create precisely that impression, without actually saying the specific words, then I'm not buying. And there have been a number of posts citing well-documented factual information to the contrary.

Obama is a master of illusion. This is one more example.

Hey, there is an EASIER method to ascertain the scope/depth of the problem instead of having English professors carefully review every speech COTUS gave on the necessity of his stimulus to determine if he said a specific word or sentence. That smacks of "what the meaning of "is" is".

Just look at the current state of the economy in the USA.

Is it good or bad? Are things looking better? Do the experts anticipate brighter days ahead next month? Next quarter? Next year? Is unemployment an issue? What about underemployment? How many citizens are looking for work and how long have they been looking? Have they given up? How many are on food stamps? Are people going back to work in better numbers? Are homes being bought; is the construction sector beginning to rebound? What about the cost of energy and food and basics? How about YOUR personal job and financial situation? What about YOUR family and friends? YOUR neighborhood? YOUR town or city? YOUR state?

Seriously, that's all it takes. People vote with their wallet and pocketbooks, first and foremost. They don't scrutinize past speeches to see if a specific word or sentence was spoken. Reagan killed Carter with his basic comment "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?". That covered everything; it was a winning observation. Simple, concise, not a lot of big phrases or stipulations or conditions.

Romney needs to mirror that basic concept and let the people decide.

It was Reagan killed Mondale but other than that.........................

Quote: Reagan killed Carter with his basic comment "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?

(06-05-2012 12:53 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  It was Reagan killed Mondale but other than that.........................

Wow.