• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Axelrod: America In Better Position Than 4 Years Ago

I think our entire history is about compromise and the minority respecting the side that won! Something that has disappeared since President Obama got into office.

LMAO

So I take it you think Liberals were kind to George W Bush when they were the minority lol
 
LMAO

So I take it you think Liberals were kind to George W Bush when they were the minority lol

Harry Reeid..." the war is lost"...

I will party the day Reid is hauled off to Jail with Holder and Obama
 
Moderator's Warning:
Topic...lets get on it. This isn't the basement, nor the tavern, so please don't use the thread as a long rambling back and forth off topic conversation.
 
Do you know the meaing of the word "net" ? look at net jobs in the US under obama. There are fewer people working today than when he took office. he has had a 4 year net job loss---those are the facts.

That is an absolute lie. Not even close to reality.
 
so Obama has no respect for the countries vote at the mid terms?... Obama is a fool.. a radical.. a LOSER

In your opinion What if democrats do the same thing to Romney if he wins? Shall we now live in a system of perpetual gridlock and disrespect? Obama was voted in with a clear victory! Repubs and Tea party Never even triedto compromise, the midterms were all about the health care law GOP did a campaign of lies misinformation and fear and a lot of low information voters fell for it.
 
In your opinion What if democrats do the same thing to Romney if he wins? Shall we now live in a system of perpetual gridlock and disrespect? Obama was voted in with a clear victory! Repubs and Tea party Never even triedto compromise, the midterms were all about the health care law GOP did a campaign of lies misinformation and fear and a lot of low information voters fell for it.

yes..then gridlock it is.. thats why we have a constitution..too bad Obama wont follow it and now promises to go around congress... like this POS Obama is above the law of the land..??
 
Three things that will ultimately sink Obama...

What is the Unemployment rate?
What is the price of gas today?
What is the Debt?
 
That is an absolute lie. Not even close to reality.

Umm, I’d actually ask you to provide some evidence to back up this assertion. I’m happy to provide some numbers with what I’m about to state…and it appears that when talking about hard numbers, not trends, he’s looking more correct than you.

In terms of hard number you're looking at 143,338,000 people employed going into January of 2009 compared to 142,220,000 going into August of 2012 (most recent I can find).

That’s 1,118,000 fewer people employed since the beginning of the month that he took over till now. If you wanted to be nice and give all of January as a bone to him, having him “start” essentially in February, you would see an increase…but of only 121,000.

However, that’s just in terms of raw number of people employed. There’s a number of ways he could view it.

In terms of the ratio of the noninstitutional population that is employed….currently you’re looking at 58.4%. When he took over it was 61%. That’s meaning there’s 2.6% fewer people in the noninstitutional population that are employed now compared to the start of the month he took over.

Perhaps though you want to look at the labor force, not just those actually working. Currently, the labor force is 153,358,000 compared to 152,828,000 when he began. So there’s 530,000 more people in the labor force. That would seem to be good….

But then a closer examination makes you go “well maybe not”. At his start, 65.5% of the NI population were part of the labor force…now, the participation rate has dropped to 63.7. Why the drop? Well, in part it’s due to the increase in people who are not in the labor force but currently want a job. When he took over that number was 5,488,000 compared to now when we have 6,554,000. A difference of just over 1 million people who are unemployed, want a job, but not part of the labor force.

On top of that, the labor force’s increase hasn’t exactly occurred due to staggering increase in the total amount employed but rather in the total amount UNEMPLOYED. When he took over you were looking at 11,108,000 people unemployed. Currently, we’re looking at 12,794,000 unemployed. That’s 1,686,000 more people unemployed now then there was at the start of his tenure.

Which is why I said it depends how you want to look at it. Democrats will generally point that we’re trending more “upwards” then we were in 2009 and thus we’re “doing better”. Republicans will generally point that based on many of the hard numbers we’re worse than when he took over.

You can proclaim him as stating a “lie” and not being close to reality…but I suggest if you want to make the claim to me, you better have numbers. In terms of the notion that “fewer people working today then when he took office”….

There’s over 1 million less people employed today then there was the month he took over
There’s 2.6% less of the noninstitutional population working today then there was the month he took over
There’s over 1 million more people who have left the labor force but would still want a job since the month he took over
There’s over a million and a half more people unemployed then there was the month he took over

Those are facts. You may quibble all you want about it being “bush’s fault” or in terms of trends or other such things…those might be legitimate arguments depending how you make them. But in terms of suggesting that his statement that we have fewer people working today then when he took office is a “lie” and “not even close to reality” you’re just factually wrong.

If you think otherwise, and believe I'm wrong...please, show me your reasoning with links verifying your numbers.
 
who cares.. nobody is debating that "he was a president"??? we are debating if he deserves to be re-electeded..and all rational fact based arguement says NO..

Rational? Fact based? Ha ha go back and read your post!
 
Rational? Fact based? Ha ha go back and read your post!



say huh?... again your idiotic blog that I read was utter nonsense..
 
nope. ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.compaes.txt look at the monthly totals for 2008 and 2012 in the top chart. Every month shows higher employment numbers in 2008 than in 2012.

Obama has presided over a net loss of jobs for 4 years, and you want to give him 4 more? :shock:

To Liberals you fix a ship with a hole in it by blasting more holes into it and having it take on water faster...and the first thing you save is abortion..LOL
 
Unfortunately, that's just a myth. Obama had a 60 vote majority from September 2009 to January 2010. That's FOUR months, quite a bit less than two years.

The Democrats did not officially hold 60 seats in the senate until Al Franken was seated in July 2009. However, by that time Kennedy was terminally ill and Byrd was hospitalized meaning that the Democrats effectively had 58 sitting senators, not 60. You can't break a filibusterer with votes that aren't present.

The first time that the Democrats had enough members in session to break the now routine GOP filibusters was September 2009 after Paul Kirk was seated. They held this 60 vote majority until January 2010 when Scott Brown was elected.

Which goes to show that if Obama was trying to work with Republicans he wouldn't of needed to worry about having 60 Dem votes lol
 
Back
Top Bottom