Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

If history looks only at the broad trends during Obama’s presidency, then, barring a novel economic calamity, the economic recovery is likely to secure Obama’s legacy. But it has taken six years for the economy to start recovering. That’s a long time.

And as the 2016 Republican primary heats up, the likely candidates are beginning to make the case that Obama’s presidency should be remembered for the slowness of the recovery more than the recovery itself.

“It’s true enough that we’ve seen some recent and welcome good news on the economy. But it’s very little, and it’s come very late,” former Florida governor Jeb Bush said at the Detroit Economic Club on Wednesday. “Six years after the recession ended, median incomes are down, households are, on average, poorer, and millions of people have given up looking for a job altogether.”

“The recovery has been everywhere but in the family paychecks. The American Dream has become a mirage for far too many,” Bush said.

Doug Stafford, a senior adviser to Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said the recovery “hasn’t worked for most Americans.”

“And the debt incurred to paper over bad policies will last through their lifetimes if we don't change direction,” Stafford told Yahoo News.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., is the leading voice on the left whose critique of the Obama presidency is very similar to that of the Republicans.

The “widely cited statistics” on economic growth, unemployment, inflation and the stock market are “an important snapshot of the health of the overall economy,” Warren said in a speech to the AFL-CIO in January.

“But the overall picture doesn’t tell much about what’s happening at the ground level to tens of millions of Americans. Despite these cheery numbers, America’s middle class is in deep trouble,” Warren said.

Republicans are now moving quickly to try to align their message and their policies to address wage stagnation, underemployment and a languishing labor force participation rate. Warren and the progressive wing are already there.

kalm wrote:And the race to secure Obama's legacy and middle class voters in 2016. I agree that in the long run, history will white wash the administration's record, much the same as it did Reagan's.

If history looks only at the broad trends during Obama’s presidency, then, barring a novel economic calamity, the economic recovery is likely to secure Obama’s legacy. But it has taken six years for the economy to start recovering. That’s a long time.

And as the 2016 Republican primary heats up, the likely candidates are beginning to make the case that Obama’s presidency should be remembered for the slowness of the recovery more than the recovery itself.

“It’s true enough that we’ve seen some recent and welcome good news on the economy. But it’s very little, and it’s come very late,” former Florida governor Jeb Bush said at the Detroit Economic Club on Wednesday. “Six years after the recession ended, median incomes are down, households are, on average, poorer, and millions of people have given up looking for a job altogether.”

“The recovery has been everywhere but in the family paychecks. The American Dream has become a mirage for far too many,” Bush said.

Doug Stafford, a senior adviser to Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said the recovery “hasn’t worked for most Americans.”

“And the debt incurred to paper over bad policies will last through their lifetimes if we don't change direction,” Stafford told Yahoo News.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., is the leading voice on the left whose critique of the Obama presidency is very similar to that of the Republicans.

The “widely cited statistics” on economic growth, unemployment, inflation and the stock market are “an important snapshot of the health of the overall economy,” Warren said in a speech to the AFL-CIO in January.

“But the overall picture doesn’t tell much about what’s happening at the ground level to tens of millions of Americans. Despite these cheery numbers, America’s middle class is in deep trouble,” Warren said.

Republicans are now moving quickly to try to align their message and their policies to address wage stagnation, underemployment and a languishing labor force participation rate. Warren and the progressive wing are already there.

http://news.yahoo.com/this-is-how-barac ... 16799.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

CAA Flagship wrote:

But it has taken six years for the economy to start recovering. That’s a long time.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote:

Uhm. It didn't just start recovering...

It's been recovering for 5 years.

And the race to secure Obama's legacy and middle class voters in 2016.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote:

Uhm. It didn't just start recovering...

It's been recovering for 5 years.

JohnStOnge wrote:

And the race to secure Obama's legacy and middle class voters in 2016.

It's a peripheral matter but I don't think Democrats have ever typically gotten the majority of the "middle class" vote in recent history if "middle class" is reasonably defined in terms of income. What has happened with Democratic Presidential candidates including Obama in terms of "class" is that they have gotten an overwhelming majority of votes among those in the "lower" class and that has sometimes been enough to make them overcome losing by a modest majority among the "middle class" and a solid majority among the "upper class."

Same will probably happen in 2016. The Republican candidate will probably win among the "middle class" if "middle class" is reasonably defined by a relatively narrow margin and will win among the "upper class" by a substantial margin. But the Democrat will win by an OVERWHELMING margin among the lower class. Relatively minor variations in the extent to which each side wins among each class will determine the outcome.

clenz wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
Uhm. It didn't just start recovering...

It's been recovering for 5 years.

Appears to have been declining Obama's tenure...

JohnStOnge wrote:

And the race to secure Obama's legacy and middle class voters in 2016.

It's a peripheral matter but I don't think Democrats have ever typically gotten the majority of the "middle class" vote in recent history if "middle class" is reasonably defined in terms of income. What has happened with Democratic Presidential candidates including Obama in terms of "class" is that they have gotten an overwhelming majority of votes among those in the "lower" class and that has sometimes been enough to make them overcome losing by a modest majority among the "middle class" and a solid majority among the "upper class."

Same will probably happen in 2016. The Republican candidate will probably win among the "middle class" if "middle class" is reasonably defined by a relatively narrow margin and will win among the "upper class" by a substantial margin. But the Democrat will win by an OVERWHELMING margin among the lower class. Relatively minor variations in the extent to which each side wins among each class will determine the outcome.

CID1990 wrote:

clenz wrote: Appears to have been declining Obama's tenure...

Yep that was a graphic fail

I think the 2008 uptick was market optimism that the newest Nobel Laureate really was THUH ONE

Skjellyfetti wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Yep that was a graphic fail

I think the 2008 uptick was market optimism that the newest Nobel Laureate really was THUH ONE

Huh? The uptick in unemployment in 2008 was due to optimism that Obama was the One?

Baldy wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
Huh? The uptick in unemployment in 2008 was due to optimism that Obama was the One?

Who said anything about unemployment?

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: Who said anything about unemployment?

I'm guessing there's some confusion regarding the graph Skelly posted.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: Who said anything about unemployment?

I'm guessing there's some confusion regarding the graph Skelly posted.

clenz wrote:

kalm wrote:
I'm guessing there's some confusion regarding the graph Skelly posted.

There's no words describing what it is.

He mentioned the economy under Obama and then posted a graph with a downward trend

GannonFan wrote:

clenz wrote: There's no words describing what it is.

He mentioned the economy under Obama and then posted a graph with a downward trend

Ah, the beauty, and importance, of lables on a graph.

JohnStOnge wrote:

And the race to secure Obama's legacy and middle class voters in 2016.

It's a peripheral matter but I don't think Democrats have ever typically gotten the majority of the "middle class" vote in recent history if "middle class" is reasonably defined in terms of income. What has happened with Democratic Presidential candidates including Obama in terms of "class" is that they have gotten an overwhelming majority of votes among those in the "lower" class and that has sometimes been enough to make them overcome losing by a modest majority among the "middle class" and a solid majority among the "upper class."

Same will probably happen in 2016. The Republican candidate will probably win among the "middle class" if "middle class" is reasonably defined by a relatively narrow margin and will win among the "upper class" by a substantial margin. But the Democrat will win by an OVERWHELMING margin among the lower class. Relatively minor variations in the extent to which each side wins among each class will determine the outcome.

DSUrocks07 wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Ah, the beauty, and importance, of lables on a graph.

Lables(sic) and Tables and Graphs, oh my!

Ibanez wrote: Since when is a gradual decrease a "recovery?"

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Ibanez wrote: Since when is a gradual decrease a "recovery?"

When have we had a recovery that WASN'T a gradual decrease in unemployemnt?

It's usually a sharp increase in unemployment followed by a gradual decrease.

JohnStOnge wrote:

And the race to secure Obama's legacy and middle class voters in 2016.

It's a peripheral matter but I don't think Democrats have ever typically gotten the majority of the "middle class" vote in recent history if "middle class" is reasonably defined in terms of income. What has happened with Democratic Presidential candidates including Obama in terms of "class" is that they have gotten an overwhelming majority of votes among those in the "lower" class and that has sometimes been enough to make them overcome losing by a modest majority among the "middle class" and a solid majority among the "upper class."

Same will probably happen in 2016. The Republican candidate will probably win among the "middle class" if "middle class" is reasonably defined by a relatively narrow margin and will win among the "upper class" by a substantial margin. But the Democrat will win by an OVERWHELMING margin among the lower class. Relatively minor variations in the extent to which each side wins among each class will determine the outcome.

Ibanez wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
When have we had a recovery that WASN'T a gradual decrease in unemployemnt?

It's usually a sharp increase in unemployment followed by a gradual decrease.

Is that what that graph is showing? You post a graph with no labels. I assumed it was the economy tanking. Or it could've been the decrease in people you still says, " Where's the Beef?"

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
Is that what that graph is showing? You post a graph with no labels. I assumed it was the economy tanking. Or it could've been the decrease in people you still says, " Where's the Beef?"

the fact that you think it's a graph that shows the economy tanking over the last 5 or 6 years says everything.

not labeling graphs is very enlightening to see how people interpret it.