Have You Figured Him Out Yet?

Obama is not the man many Americans think he is. Whether you want to believe it or not he has successfully transformed American politics.

The sheer audacity of the successful operation against the American constitution has forced Obama's friends and foes alike to reassess what they make of a chief executive who defies easy categorization and reveals less about himself than politicians are typically drawn to do.

My simple observation is that the United States is going to hell in a hand basket- courtesy of a grisly cast of characters. Barack Obama is my primary source of utter mistrust and he is certainly not alone.

The people have to smarten up and see this person for who hereally is. This person is a Pandora’s Box of all things evil, yet most can’t see past healthcare and greenhouse gases. Look deeper, look into his past

This person who lied, cheated and deceived his way into the White House is best described as traitor, charlatan and definitely enemy of US and the free world. Like a fart in a crowded elevator, right out of nowhere, the presidents mysterious origins complete with huge, huge backing in a financial sense but furthermore in a strange, almost twilight zone sense of illusions, mystery, trickery, forgery and deceit. His birth documents displayed online are not a true birth certificate, but in fact that document came from companies that offer services much as a company similar to VitalChek would.

Obama in an Indonesian Madressa

No one can show a single picture of this citizen imposter that proves any of his history, no one with any credibility remembers him, we cannot see his school records and we don’t have any little footprints and hand prints like they used to do back in the early sixties on children. We don’t have any driver’s licenses, bus passes, library cards, prom photos well except for the photos from the Indonesian Madressa where the little Muslim learned to hate the free people in this world. All we can trace is that he hung around with communist scum, anti-US militant types and terrorists.

Definitely a remote implant into our American political system, being run by a secret cast of grisly puppeteers who to date remain nameless yet if you watch the benefactors of his actions, it allows you a host of potential puppet masters to pick from.  In a world where money and power can mold any outrageous conspiracy into grim reality, anything is possible. The US political system has long been corrupted and is not the safe, democratic model for the republic that it was originally intended to be. We have proven this time and time again. The office of the president is simply an oval stage where the front man sits, while the true powers that be remain hidden behind the curtain. As the marks in this well planned debacle, all we get to see is the front man in this scam, the Wiz.

I am convinced that the only reason this socialist traitor to the US was able to slither into the White house nest is simply because everyone was tired of George Bush & Company and in reality, anyone who knew how to utilize social media, social networking and could appeal to the social malcontents could have run for president and beat out the Republicans. Under normal circumstances Obama wouldn’t have made it into office. But in the middle of two Middle East conflicts with troops being killed, the economy sliding quickly into the toilet, terrorist threats, high fuel prices and just about anything else that could be going wrong was going wrong, anything can happen. Thus it did happen.

Reality is that a good portion of the people thought anything polar opposite of Bush might be worthwhile, all the way down to skin color. Then you dump in corrupt groups like ACORN, the little Obama troops he had campaigning on the streets, black celebrities, the various scumbag Muslim organizations here in the US, the ghetto members of society who think all good things come from the government, our young people who are pretty much clueless about real life outside of daddy’s house or the university who suddenly became experts on life and world in general, the elderly who Bush had shafted on medical benefits- well unfortunately this adds up to enough votes to get even ass clowns like Obama into the White house. Only proves that shit, does indeed happen.

To watch Americans put a known socialist and communist into power only proves that the vote and logic was severely tainted. Obama didn’t win by decision, he won by deceit. This thug wearing a suit hasn’t told the truth about anything since he popped into on the political scene out of nowhere.

He is a protégé of the racist Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the American hating, white people hating big mouthed Negro racist which in itself should shed more insight into this anti-American that wormed his way into the oval office. Of course he quickly distanced himself from the mouthy Negro racist reverend and people bought his excuses and lies on that entire matter. Bottom line is, Obama was a member of that church, until public opinion swayed him into misaligning himself from it.

Obama’s reign only proves that there are indeed some truly uninformed people in this country.  I’m beginning to think that the legal age to vote should be moved to age 21 (the majority of our 18-21 year olds today, especially in college and university are a disappointment when it comes to reality and logical thinking) and perhaps there should be a simple test that the voter should have to pass before he or she is let into the booth to do serious damage. 

Democrat Voter Struggling With Literacy Test

Perhaps some level of literacy should be required, and some recent record of employment along with a utility bill in their name or a rent receipt or receipt for a mortgage payment or a paid off home and as well, we investigate if they are on welfare and haven’t ever had a job – which would basically eliminate anyfurther voters for Obama. In other words, only people that are responsible, productive, tax paying members of society should have anything to say about how this country is run and who will run it. That would certainly improve the current broken voting system.

Besides, if the working people of America have been paying all your bills along with your rent and food since you could walk, then I’m not overly concerned with what you think. And I’m not talking about people that worked hard all their life and just hit some hard times. I’m talking about the ones that never had a job, have 2 or 3 “baby daddy’s” and squirt out children with no shame because they get a bigger welfare check for each one they bring into this world on our tab. These malcontents and disenchanted ones are the very core of the Obama citizen support and voters. But, hey, they did get a government cell phone out of the deal with more than just emergency dialing capabilities, so why not give your vote to the Kenyan in the White House.

The entire voting process in America is a joke. It really doesn’t matter who you vote for because there is this mysterious entity named the “Electoral College” that decides who is going to occupy the White House anyway. In any other democratic country in the world, the actual votes are counted and the votes directly elect the official, however, in the US, the Electoral College determines what the people want or better yet, what the Electoral College think the people need. In the last election I guess they thought the people of the US needed to be bent over a table- and did just that. The voting group has been a source of argument and debate for some time, primarily because it isn’t 100% accurate especially in the latitude and leeway it gives “swing states” and should, in the interest of the voting public be disbanded and done away with.

Let’s look at another very methodically sinister side of Barack Hussein Obama, the Muslim. More than that, we have a Muslim in charge of the most powerful country in the world. A Muslim that has used the office of the President, his authority and the military resources of the United States to help build the Islamic Caliphate, the long sought after single Islamic entity, where all Muslims are together under one rule. Obama thinks he has the right, the authority and the power to tell leaders of other countries to step down so that the inmates can be in charge of the asylum.

He helped topple Egypt’s government, turning the country over to the Muslim Brotherhood or to their chosen minions. The country is still in turmoil. Obama then went after Libya and turned that country over to al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. Al Qaeda was actually assisted by NATO forces in taking over Libya. Look at the flags on buildings and being flown throughout Libya. There is a distinct and undeniable al Qaeda presence throughout the country now and we helped put them there.  Now we are threatening Syria with the same fate.

The issue I have is that although these countries may have had bad guys running them, they were the preferred bad guys as they kept elements such as al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist entities in line, under control. Now, without these leaders in place, the countries are in turmoil and will remain so until someone steps up and offers to be their leader; and after Syria falls, Jordan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia will be next in the four year re-election plan toppling of leaders, the Islamic Obaminoes game.

Last man standing will probably be Iran as Obama conveniently keeps Israel at bay from reducing them to rubble, and Iran will pull these Islamic countries in distress up under its umbrella, either by force or some Islamic call to the Caliphate, and we will be looking at billions of militant Muslims all being led by the most deadly Islamic regime imaginable, that being Iran. A nuclear armed Iran because Obama has let them arm themselves and has done absolutely nothing about Iran, because truth be known, he is in bed with Iran- as Obama is a devout Muslim with a questionable  and obviously manufactured background, no provable history and questionable financing for his sudden rise from punk to President.

Am I crazy? No, not even close. You do the math. You move the chess pieces around in a recent past, current and futuristic game of world power between the good guys and the bad guys. What do you come up with?

Why is the US still just as dependent on Middle Eastern oil as it ever was, four years after promises were made to get off the Middle Eastern oil nipple by Barack Hussein Obama?

Why isn’t the US purchasing every drop of oil it can from its northern neighbor to help get off the ME oil nipple? Obama has tossed up a lot of roadblocks to bringing more Canadian oil into the US which would help cut the US dependency on Middle Eastern crude.

Why has there been several “suggestions” by Obama Democrats that the 2012 elections should be postponed for various reasons? Why do I smell a terrorist attack on US soil, massive market crash or other national/international disaster coming pre-election to be used to postpone the election?

Why does the US want to engage in peace talks with the Taliban in Afghanistan? Are you kidding me? This must be an Islamic thing straight from the White House.

Why is Sharia Law showing its face in the US Judicial system as it did in Pennsylvania? Why is Judge Martin still on the bench? Why was Sharia law used as the precedent over US law?

Note** This Islamic adherence to Sharia law must explain why Obama has no regard for the US Supreme Court, since he as a Muslim would only believe in Sharia law and would deem the US Supreme Court as nothing more than a council of infidels.

There are more questions than there are answers in the Obama puzzle. My advice is keep putting the pieces where they fit as the end game picture will become obvious, and click the link below and watch the Documentary 2016 Obama's America.

http://oicw65-didgitalcrack.blogspot.com/2012/09/2016-obamas-america.html

Countdown to Zero in Tehran and Jerusalem

There was a time when Israel did not deal with existential threats by urging the Americans to do something. That time was fairly recent. When Saddam decided he wanted to have his own nuclear reactor, fourteen Israeli Air Force jets put an end to his dream. The year was 1981.  

The Reagan Administration supported a UN resolution condemning Israel which stated that it was in "clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct" and which fully recognized "the inalienable sovereign right of Iraq, and all other States, especially the developing countries, to establish programmes of technological and nuclear development."

Prime Minister Begin

Prime Minister Begin, easily the most conservative PM to hold the office, replied bluntly. "No "sword of Damocles" is going to hang over our head."

Four years ago Israel launched a quieter attack on a nuclear reactor in Syria, this time with the likely approval and assistance of the United States. Now after all the whitewashing of Iran's nuclear program, it is coming down to the bottom line. Either a comprehensive attack will be launched or Iran's nuclear program will pass the point of no return.

While there are some doubts about whether Israel has the capability to take out the program, in the past they have found innovative ways to do the impossible. It is quite likely that there is a plan on someone's desk for getting all sorts of jobs done in Iran. The plan is probably bold, seemingly unworkable and reads as insane to experienced hands, but that would also describe what happened during the opening strike of the Six Day War or the Entebbe raid.


The question is why hasn't it been carried out yet and the likely answer is Obama. Not just Obama, but the oddball mix of Clintonites and left-wing Chicago radicals who would be in a prime position to oppose or support any such move. Just as with the takedown of Bin Laden, it is likely that there are figures in the administration that support such a move and those who oppose it. 

Israel has no doubt been hoping for a repeat of 2007 and an operation that takes place with the support and cover of the United States. A quiet operation that will mostly go unmentioned. Israel has been hanging on in the hopes that if it walks through the steps laid out by Washington D.C. then it will finally get the go ahead and any of the equipment and local support it needs to get the job done as comprehensively and safely as possible.

The Israeli cabinet and defense establishment has been having its own quiet debate on the subject, just as it before taking out Osirak. As then the lefties are opposed, but their best ammo comes from D.C. which has doubtlessly been stringing Israel along and promising that if Israel is patient then the problem will be taken care of. To the right the argument has no doubt been that the United States will not do anything and that Israel needs to do it alone.

Panetta

Panetta's statements in the past few weeks peg him as either an idiot or a man sending the signal that Israel is going to have to go it alone. If Panetta was an opponent of direct action all along, which may well be the case, then he is trying to sabotage any possible Israeli operation while disavowing any responsibility for it. Israeli Defense Minister Barak, who has been waiting for the Obamanoids to bring down the Netanyahu government and pave the way for his ascension, has begun talking tough on Iran. And talking in terms of a timeline. That's more significant than anything else, but with the double eye of politics it can be read two ways.

Barak and Netanyahu 

Either Barak is rushing to get ahead and claim credit for any strike. Or he's rushing ahead to claim credit for being tough on Iran, even as he knows that no strike will be carried out because he and his leftist allies have sabotaged any internal momentum on it. But as tempting as it is to be cynical about Barak, and there are plenty of reasons for that, the full substance of his remarks, which are beyond the scope of this piece, suggest a Barak and Netanyahu consensus has been reached on an attack. The triumphalism tone and the camaraderie indicate that the political cards have been dealt.

If the ball is finally rolling on the Israeli side then the situation in Washington has to be tense. It is doubtful that the Obama Administration would back any Israeli strike, openly or under the table. Whatever promises were made to the Israelis in exchange for patience were never sincere and if Israel seriously expected that when the checkpoints were reached and Israel stuck with a covert campaign, that Washington would support a strike, they were kidding themselves. And it would not be the first time.

The campaign of sabotage against Iran's infrastructure and scientists that is being conducted by unknown actors has gotten a lot of attention recently. While the campaign has been blamed on Israel, it is likelier a CIA project being conducted by existing insurgent groups opposed to Iran, with the Saudis as the facilitators. Because this isn't just an America or Israel deal, most of the Gulf oil states who have a lot more pull in Washington have a major stake in this and want something done.

The Obama Administration does not particularly care about Iran's nuclear capacity. Its priority is democratic change in the region. Some of the Chicago crew believes Iran has a right to nuclear development or that its nuclear program would help achieve the Kissingeresque goal of cutting Israel does to size. But this administration also has an affinity for covert ops and it has likely signed on to joint covert sabotage efforts to keep the Israelis from doing something drastic.

Considering the sheer number of Clinton people around, some of them were probably involved in Operation Merlin which attempted to sabotage Iran's nuclear program by providing flawed nuclear plans. Operation Merlin badly backfired and helped the Iranians instead. Stuxnet was likely an idea that came from the minds behind Merlin that Israeli cyberwarfare specialists, namely hackers recruited to work on security operations, made into a moderately workable plan.

The blunt force assassinations may or may not have administration approval, but if they were they being carried out for the same reason, to keep the Israelis and Saudis from doing something more direct about the problem. The assassinations won't stop the program, but they are a warning shot across the bow. The problem is that warning shots don't stop nuclear missiles.  

As the countdown to zero continues, it's become more obvious than ever that nothing short of direct action will. But everyone has their own interests at stake.

The Iranian opposition doesn't want an Israeli strike because it would politically benefit the regime, which might be the case but the opposition has already has its chance to overthrow the government and failed to do it. Diplomats may have confidence in a peaceful transition coming some day, but that day is much too far away, assuming it will even ever come. And should it come there is no reason to believe that the figures at the top of the opposition pile would be averse to a nuclear program or to using it against Israel.

Obama is not a fan of bombing Muslim countries, unless it is on behalf of other Muslim countries. His whole foreign affairs strategy was based around winning the Muslim world over and even an Israeli raid conducted with zero approval and even opposition would still be blamed on the United States. Additionally with an election coming up, a bombing raid could escalate into something bigger and affect oil prices. Given a choice between winning an election or a nuclear bomb in Tel Aviv, no one seriously doubts which he will choose.

The Saudis want Iran's nuclear program gone, but they don't want their Shiite rivals scoring martyr points in a confrontation with Israel. Their ideal operation would be as quiet as the Syrian reactor bombing, but even they know that isn't likely to happen, not with an operation of this scope. And if the operation has to happen, then it's better for Israel to get the blame, rather than fellow Muslim countries who might be involved in some small way too.


Finally there is Israel, where everyone who isn't working for Haaretz or the EU agrees that something needs to be done. The debate has always come down to when and how. In security matters most Israelis still assume that the government will eventually do something about a security problem, even as they curse its ineptitude in all other areas.

The primary calculus for this type of decision making is the United States. In the past the Israelis went full speed ahead and apologized to Washington D.C. for it later. That species of confidence is nearly extinct. Boldness and courage are atypical not only among politicians, for whom it was never typical, but among the top military brass who authorized insane operations and even participated in them.

Still the clock is ticking. Whatever arrangements Jerusalem made with Washington D.C. are reaching the end. Netanyahu is often timid, but he isn't stupid. The only thing that might still be slowing him down is the possibility that the elections will swap out Obama for a less hostile figure, but waiting until a new administration gets settled in would take too long. That doesn't mean he might not do it anyway, but it has become much less likely. And a Romney Administration might be friendlier than the current one, but the return of Sununu is not exactly a harbinger of excellent relations either.

Adlai Stevenson

Adlai Stevenson blamed Israel for his loss to Eisenhower over the Suez Canal War. That grudge was carried on by his son who served as the United States Senator from Illinois. Carter, who blamed the loss of support from American Jews over his hostility to Israel for his defeat, has turned his grudge into a full time career of bashing the Jewish State. If Obama were to go down to defeat and blame Israel, he could certainly do a good deal of damage, even out of office, more if he were to break with recent precedent and try to reclaim his Senate seat.

But Obama doesn't seem the type to let a single grudge consume this much of his focus and even if he were to go Full Carter, he couldn't do nearly as much damage as he has in office or as an Iranian bomb could do to Israel. Even if an Israeli strike were to make the election tougher for Obama, it is doubtful that he could do that much more damage than he has done already, particularly with plenty of partisan domestic fights to consume his attention.

As the clock counts down to zero, the only real element that matters is the atoms of political courage that have to reach critical mass for a strike that will either cripple or destroy Iran's nuclear ambitions to take place.

A Prophecy Of Impending Economic Doom

For nearly four years, President Obama has presided over reckless spending and runaway debt. And now it’s clear that all Americans will pay the price, with another credit downgrade and nearly $6 trillion in new debt that the next generation will be forced to repay. Americans deserve real leadership – not a president who is content to keep passing our bills on to our next generation. Moody's Investors Service warned that Congress will need to strike a deal on the ‘fiscal cliff’ to avoid a second downgrade to the nation's credit rating. The rating agency said that budget negotiations in 2013 will determine the fate of the nation's credit rating, adding that an inability to strike a deal with ‘specific policies’ to change the nation's debt trajectory will mean a second downgrade.  Moody's still rates the nation as a top-shelf AAA credit, but with a negative outlook as it has warned policymakers they must adjust the nation's fiscal course to retain its financial reputation.

S&P removed for the first time the triple-A rating the U.S. has held for 70 years, saying the budget deal brokered in Washington didn't do enough to address the gloomy outlook for America's finances. It downgraded long-term U.S. debt to AA+, a score that ranks below more than a dozen governments', including Liechtenstein's, and on par with Belgium's and New Zealand's. S&P also put the new grade on ‘negative outlook,’ meaning the U.S. has little chance of regaining the top rating in the near term.

The bottom line is that successful presidents, like Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, largely worked their will. But you reach the conclusion in this case, in this struggle Barack Obama did not?” Our financial house is not in order. In other words, the big debate last year about the debt ceiling and whether the U.S. government is going to be able to pay its bills ain't over. We’re going to be right back in that soup in October, December and January. And this isn’t a budget issue, or a credit rating issue. It’s a “Is the government going to have the money needed to pay its bills? And in the end, that’s the President’s job, and the Congress’s job too. But there’s also a thing called presidential leadership.

Under President Obama, The National Debt Has Surpassed $16 Trillion: An Increase Of More Than $6.4 Trillion. Every American’s Share Of The National Debt Currently Stands At Over $61,000 – An Increase Of Over $26,000 Under President Obama.

President Obama is responsible for the most rapid increase in the debt under any U.S. President.  The latest posting by the Treasury Department shows the national debt has now increased $6 trillion on President Obama's watch. The debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office. The latest calculation from Treasury shows the debt has now hit $16.639 trillion. It's the most rapid increase in the debt under any U.S. president.

The current debt-to-GDP ratio is more than 100%. The Congressional Budget Office estimated last month the budget deficit for the 2012 fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, will be about $1.7 trillion.

FLASHBACK: Candidate Obama claimed it was “Unpatriotic” and irresponsible for president Bush to have added $4 Trillion to the national debt. OBAMA: “The problem is, that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents - #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back -- $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic. Well, that was then and you've just read the current figures. So, I ask you; "Which president was more irresponsible? Bush with his $4 trillion in 8 years or Obama with his $6 trillion in just over 3 years? Remember that 6 is more than 4.

Last summer, following the political circus that was the country's debt-ceiling fight, Standard & Poor's downgraded America's debt one notch from its coveted "AAA" rating to "AA," an action that many predicted would surely lead to financial doom. Nothing of the sort happened. In fact, what followed was just the opposite: Fearing global instability and even deeper economic troubles in Europe, investors from around the world rushed into U.S. Treasuries, sending yields to record lows, and thus keeping America's cost to borrow at record lows, too.

Now the credit rating agency Egan-Jones has downgraded its rating on U.S. debt to AA- from AA, citing Federal Reserve plans to try to stimulate the economy. The firm said the Fed's plans to buy mortgage bonds will hurt the economy more than help it. Egan-Jones said the plan will reduce the value of the dollar and raise the price of oil and other commodities, hurting businesses and consumers.

QE3

The Fed's QE3 will stoke the stock market and commodity prices will hurt the U.S. economy and, by extension destroy credit quality by the central bank. Issuing additional currency and depressing interest rates via the purchasing of [mortgage-backed securities] does little to raise the real GDP of the U.S., but does reduce the value of the dollar... and in turn increases the cost of commodities. We’ve all seen the recent rise in the prices of energy, gold and other commodities.

Egan-Jones said that, since 2006, U.S. debt as a ratio of GDP had grown to 105%, from 66%. By comparison, Spain's debt-to-GDP ratio of 68.5 percent is far less than what we're encountering the firm added. 

But wait, there’s more. Another big ratings agencies, Moody's (MCO), is also threatening that if the country doesn't address its rising debt by early 2013, it, too, will rescind its own "AAA" rating of U.S. debt, with the implied potential of sending the country's debt costs soaring.

An increase in borrowing costs will really be hell for our country. But the vastly more scary prospect facing America is the continuing economic slowdown in China.

China is an economic powerhouse; everybody knows this. Its economy is second only in size to America's. China also holds -- and continues to buy -- a significant chunk of America's sovereign debt, which just surpassed the $16 trillion mark. Of that amount, China holds about $1.2 trillion of it, or 7.5%.

That may not sound like a lot, but it makes China America's top foreign creditor. Japan comes in second, with $1.1 trillion. And the next biggest foreign debtor is the U.K., which holds just under $500 billion in U.S. debt. That's a big drop-off.

The point being, the U.S. counts on China to soak up a lot of our debt. And China has always been happy to do so.

Since liberalizing its economy in the 1990s, China has become the world's factory. As a massive exporter, it has to do something with all the money that's rolling in. And like so many investors around the world, China uses the U.S. as a place to keep its spare cash. Not only is its money safe here, but the country even earns a bit of interest on it.

For investors of all sorts around the world, then, America operates a bit like a bank. But what happens when that bank's biggest and most reliable depositor doesn't need it anymore? What happens when that depositor stops depositing money in the bank?

The U.S. might be facing just such a situation in the not-too-distant future.

China's economy is slowing. The World Bank puts China's 2011 GDP growth rate at 9.1%, down from 10.4% the year before, and down from 14.2% in 2007. Why is this happening? America's economy is growing at an anemic rate right now, and half of Europe is in recession. Demand for Chinese products is down, and it probably will be for some time to come, so of course China's economy is slowing. As America and as China slows, it will necessarily have less need of the U.S. as a place to stash its money. Consequently, it will slow its buying of Treasuries. And the bond markets could subsequently send the country's cost to borrow soaring to unsustainable levels in the same way they've done with debt-ridden eurozone countries such as Greece, Portugal, Ireland, and Spain.

So the state of U.S. debt definitely matters; its continuing rise must be checked, but not because of Moody's. Who knows; a downgrade by the rating agency could have no effect at all if real market demand sends Treasury yields even lower. Chances are, if it happens at all, it will be a non-event. It's our own house we need to look after now.

Ronald Reagan

As Americans prepare to mark their ballots, Republicans are hoping that voters' minds will be focused on one (and only one) simple question: Are you better off today than you were four years ago?

On the campaign trail, GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan has repeatedly raised that question, evoking Ronald Reagan's 1980 zinger -- a debate-closer that left Jimmy Carter reeling and set the stage for the Gipper's landslide victory. 

Jimmy Carter

In a speech earlier this week at Eastern Carolina University, he connected those dots, claiming that "Every president since the Great Depression who asked Americans to send them into a second term could say that you are better off today than you were four years ago, except for Jimmy Carter and for President Barack Obama."

Ryan's claim packs a rhetorical punch, but the question remains: Are you better or worse off today than you were four years ago? On the surface, the answer appears self-evident: Unemployment is still high, manufacturing is shrinking, and construction spending remains low.

Unfortunately for the Republicans, the answer isn't quite as clear as they would like.

Jobs are a good place to start: In July 2008, as the Great Recession was beginning to sink its teeth into America, the country lost 210,000 jobs. Over the following four months, things continued to go downhill: the economy shed 274,000 jobs in August, 432,000 in September, 489,000 in October and 803,000 in November. By the day of Obama's inauguration in January, the economy had shed 4 million jobs.

When Obama took office, the rise of the ocean didn't begin to slow and the planet didn't begin to heal, but joblosses did start to decline. And, while it took until March 2010 for the economy to begin adding jobs again, the first year of the Obama presidency witnessed a fairly consistent drop in the rate of unemployment growth.

Mitt Romney attempted to dismiss the job growth on Obama's watch in a January interview with conservative radio host Laura Ingraham: "The economy always gets better after a recession, there is always a recovery," he declared. While true, this comment presents an interesting rhetorical tangle. Romney seems to be arguing that the question isn't whether the jobs situation has improved since Obama has been in office, but whether or not it could have improved more. For Obama, that's a difficult argument to defend against; after all, hindsight is always 20/20. Then again, it's also a difficult argument for Romney to make.

Jobs aren't the only measure by which the economy has improved on Obama's watch. The personal bankruptcy rate dropped between 2010 and 2011, and the rate of business bankruptcies has been steadily dropping since it hit a peak in 2009. At the same time, RealtyTrac reports, foreclosure rates have also been dropping. According to the real estate information company, foreclosure rates in 2011 were 34% lower than in 2010, 33% lower than in 2009, and 19% lower than in 2008.

But these improvements, while significant, are not particularly impressive. For example, although the economy is no longer losing jobs, it is adding them at a rate that barely keeps up with the new workers entering the job market. In other words, the unemployment rate is holding steady in the low 8% range. Obama himself has given his administration an "incomplete" grade on its handling of the great recession, arguing that the economy is still in the process of recovery.

Ultimately, comparisons between today and four years ago may not be apt. A better question may be whether it's better to be in a car hurtling off a cliff or in a hospital afterwards, suffering through a long, slow recovery. In that context, the ultimate decision for voters will be whether Dr. Obama or Dr. Romney offers a better treatment plan.

The ranks of America's poor remained stuck at record levels, although dwindling unemployment benefits and anemic job gains helped stave off what experts had predicted would be the fourth rise in a row in the poverty rate.

With joblessness persistently high, the gap between rich and poor increased in the last year, according to two major census measures. Also, the median, or midpoint, household income was $50,054, 1.5 percent lower than 2010 and a third straight decline.

A Census Bureau report release provides a mixed picture of the economic well-being of U.S. households for 2011, when the unemployment rate improved to 8.9 percent from 9.6 percent in the previous year. The numbers are coming out just before the Nov. 6 election in which the economy is the Number 1 issue and President Obama is trying to make the case that the labor market, while not fully healed, is on the right track. overall poverty rate stood at 15 percent, statistically unchanged from the 15.1 percent in the previous year. The rate was better than a consensus estimate of demographers who had predicted, based on weak wage growth, a gain that's up to half a percentage point, to levels not seen since 1965.

For last year, the official poverty line was an annual income of $23,021 for a family of four. By total numbers, roughly 49.7 million people remained below the poverty line, unchanged from 2010. That figure was the highest in more than half a century when records started being kept. The 15 percent poverty rate was basically unchanged from 1993 and was the highest since 1983.



Broken down by state, New Mexico had the highest share of poor people, at 22.2 percent, according to rough calculations by the Census Bureau. It was followed by Louisiana, the District of Columbia, South Carolina, Arkansas and Georgia. On the other end of the scale, New Hampshire had the lowest, at 7.6 percent.

"This is good news and a surprise," said Sheldon Danziger, a University of Michigan economist who closely tracks poverty. He pointed to a continuing boost from new unemployment benefits passed in 2009 that gave workers up to 99 weeks of payments after layoffs and didn't run out for many people until late 2011. Also, job gains in the private sector that helped offset cuts in state and local government workers.



"It would indicate the two stimulus packages were completely ineffective," he said.

Bruce D. Meyer, an economist at the University of Chicago, said it was disappointing that poverty levels did not improve. He described it as a sign of lingering problems in the labor market even with recent declines in unemployment. "The drop in the unemployment rate has been due in significant part to workers leaving the labor force, because they are discouraged, back in school, taking care of family or other reasons," he said.

The official poverty level is based on a government calculation that includes only income before tax deductions. It excludes capital gains or accumulated wealth, such as home ownership.

As a result, the official poverty rate takes into account the effects of some stimulus programs passed in 2009, such as unemployment benefits, as well as jobs that were created or saved by government spending. It does not factor in noncash government aid such as tax credits and food stamps.

David Johnson, the chief of the Census Bureau's household economics division, attributed the better-than-expected poverty numbers to increases in full-time workers over the last year. He also estimated that expanded unemployment benefits helped keep 1.6 million working-age people out of poverty.

Social Security also lifted roughly 14.5 million seniors above the poverty line. Without those cash payments, the number of people ages 65 and older living in poverty would have increased five-fold, he said. Johnson also noted that that income inequality was widening. He said the top 1 percent of wage earners had a 6 percent increase in income over the last year, while income at the bottom 40 percent of earners was basically unchanged.

"A lot of the increase is driven by changes at the very top of the distribution," he said.

The share of Americans without health coverage fell from 16.3 percent to 15.7 percent, or 48.6 million people. It was the biggest decline in the number of uninsured since 1999, boosted in part by increased coverage for young adults under the new health care law that allows them to be covered under their parents' health insurance until age 26.

Congress passed the health overhaul in 2010 to address the rising numbers of uninsured people. During this election year, the law has come under increasing criticism Republicans, including presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who has pledged to push a repeal if he is elected. The main provisions of the health care law will not take effect until 2014.