• 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!

Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think when you spend on national security it is indeed fine but when you spend on social programs that is over the line even though politicians have that right. I would call spending 500 billion more a year is putting spending on steroids but guess liberals have a different opinion. Liberals have never seen a dollar that they wouldn't spend creating dependence.

First, iraq had little to nothing to do with national security. Imperialism is not equal to national security. Secondly, all his spending was not war spending. Personally, I would prefer spending that help our people, and not spending which is thrown down a rat hole. Now, that's another issue, so please no more squirrels. Focus. Admit that Bush spent plenty. That you really won't run around bad mouthing a republican for no other reason than he is a republican.
 
First, iraq had little to nothing to do with national security. Imperialism is not equal to national security. Secondly, all his spending was not war spending. Personally, I would prefer spending that help our people, and not spending which is thrown down a rat hole. Now, that's another issue, so please no more squirrels. Focus. Admit that Bush spent plenty. That you really won't run around bad mouthing a republican for no other reason than he is a republican.

That is your opinion but not the opinion of both Democrats and Republicans. Funding, harboring, and supporting terrorism is a threat to our country. Like all liberals you prefer being attacked and losing thousands of lives so that you feel good about then reacting. I prefer being proactive and preventing an attack but that is for another thread and not this one.

Focus on what you posted, the Bush tax cuts were extended by the Lame Duck Democrat Congress and Bush's last budget was 3.1 trillion dollars and Obama is spending over 3.6 billion dollars. To me that is putting spending on steroids.

When the alternative is Al Gore, John Kerry, or Barack Obama, you bet I will defend the Republican
 
I was talking about the total results of the Bush Administration, not just the job creation since you only mentioned Wolffe not his jobs' chart, but I do thank the Democrat Congress for their help in 2007-2008. They were awesome in their efforts especially Frank, Dodd, Obama, and of course Geithner.

But I thought we had all agreed that the president isn't responsible for the economy, congress is as they have the purse strings? In that case, everything on that chart in 2007 and 2008 is in the democrats lap. That's pretty ugly.

Note: I actually didn't quote the right post here. I quoted the post that was replying to the one that I was speaking of. Too many degrees of separation going on here. Sorry about that.
 
Last edited:
You must have been right ... it was all a conspiracy ... conspiracy ... conspiracy ... rest now ... you are getting sleepy ... sleepy ... sleepy.

I'm anti - FED

You make a statement about $16 trillion in secret loans yet were unable to provide an adequate source that put the Fed's various lending facilities into context. When i explain to you why the $16 trillion figure was intellectually dishonest (via the use of inconsistent counting techniques), you now want to side step the the issue and pretend like it never happened.

Here's the deal. If you have an agenda to post low-brow propaganda, i am going to call you out on it. In the future, it will be helpful to have a clear understanding of the content of your post:lol:
 
I would call spending 500 billion more a year is putting spending on steroids but guess liberals have a different opinion. Liberals have never seen a dollar that they wouldn't spend creating dependence.
That, I would call you a lie since spending in 2010 was $600 billion less in 2010, not more. How many times do I need to show this to you until you understand that spending dropped in 2010?


usgs_line.php
 
That is your opinion but not the opinion of both Democrats and Republicans. Funding, harboring, and supporting terrorism is a threat to our country. Like all liberals you prefer being attacked and losing thousands of lives so that you feel good about then reacting. I prefer being proactive and preventing an attack but that is for another thread and not this one.

Focus on what you posted, the Bush tax cuts were extended by the Lame Duck Democrat Congress and Bush's last budget was 3.1 trillion dollars and Obama is spending over 3.6 billion dollars. To me that is putting spending on steroids.

When the alternative is Al Gore, John Kerry, or Barack Obama, you bet I will defend the Republican

We are speaking or OUR opinions, though you misrepresent the opinions of democrats. And it does not matter if the tax cuts were extended. That's you throwing out another squirrel moment. You want to excuse republicans from any responsibility. it's that conservative belief in personal responsibility that you don't seem to understand. You blame everyone but those you support, ducking and hiding from from responsibility.

And invanding Iraq did not prevent another attack. Note were were not attacked between 9/11/2001 and 3/19/2003. The belief that we would be was misguided and without any evidence to support it. Clinton did nothing after the first twin towers effort and got form 1993 to 2001.

I know it is useless to ask folks to think about this stuff beyond the superficial, but Iraq did nothing to help us. The invasion only hurt us.

But, let's focus, Bush spent. A lot. You make excuses for him, but never a dmeocrat. Isn't that so?
 
That is your opinion but not the opinion of both Democrats and Republicans. Funding, harboring, and supporting terrorism is a threat to our country. Like all liberals you prefer being attacked and losing thousands of lives so that you feel good about then reacting. I prefer being proactive and preventing an attack but that is for another thread and not this one.
Tell me again what Bush did proactively to try to prevent 9.11?

Start your list here:


1. _______________________________________
 
Tell me again what Bush did proactively to try to prevent 9.11?

Start your list here:


1. _______________________________________

That'll be a short list.

Let em start with the overreaction after the fact:

1. Invaded Iraq.
 
Tell me again what Bush did proactively to try to prevent 9.11?

Start your list here:


1. _______________________________________


Bush had nine months to prevent 9/11 so you tell me what did Clinton do during his 8 years to prevent 9/11

start you list here

1.____________________________________________
 
We are speaking or OUR opinions, though you misrepresent the opinions of democrats. And it does not matter if the tax cuts were extended. That's you throwing out another squirrel moment. You want to excuse republicans from any responsibility. it's that conservative belief in personal responsibility that you don't seem to understand. You blame everyone but those you support, ducking and hiding from from responsibility.

And invanding Iraq did not prevent another attack. Note were were not attacked between 9/11/2001 and 3/19/2003. The belief that we would be was misguided and without any evidence to support it. Clinton did nothing after the first twin towers effort and got form 1993 to 2001.

I know it is useless to ask folks to think about this stuff beyond the superficial, but Iraq did nothing to help us. The invasion only hurt us.

But, let's focus, Bush spent. A lot. You make excuses for him, but never a dmeocrat. Isn't that so?

Yes, you are entitled to your OPINION.

Regarding spending, Bush and Congress spent too much but Bush didn't create 4 trillion in debt in 2 1/2 years nor did Bush have a net job loss, bail out union pensions d1squised as stimulus, have a declining labor force by driving people out of the labor market but then again Bush isn't the issue here, Obama and his results are. Those results will be on the ballot in 2012 and he has no economic plan in place to change the economic results. 16.2% unemployment and under employment is why his JAR is so low but guess what spending more money is what he is going to call for to improve the economy. Isn't that was the 2009 Stimulus was supposed to do?
 
That'll be a short list.

Let em start with the overreaction after the fact:

1. Invaded Iraq.

March 2003, 1 1/2 years after 9/11 but don't let that fact get in the way of your opinions as once again diverting from the Obama record is what liberals do.
 
Isn't amazing how they justified Iraq by saying that "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here," when Iraq never sponsored terror attacks against the U.S. ... and then turned around and rejected our minimal involvement in Libya, when Ghaddafi has sponsored multiple terror attacks against U.S. citizens?
 
Tell me again what Bush did proactively to try to prevent 9.11?

Start your list here:


1. _______________________________________

Bush barely had his feet wet as a president when 911 occurred, and the attacks were the result of planning that stretched back many years.

In a similar way, the economic crisis that occurred soon after Obama became president was based upon factors long in place, and for which he had no real control.

Instead of all the childish partisanship, why not step outside the blinders created by such long enough to recognize that events that result from a complex series of other events years in the making are not so simplistic as you would like them to be?
 
Isn't amazing how they justified Iraq by saying that "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here," when Iraq never sponsored terror attacks against the U.S. ... and then turned around and rejected our minimal involvement in Libya, when Ghaddafi has sponsored multiple terror attacks against U.S. citizens?

Did you serve in Iraq or how did Iraq affect you or your family? Sounds like a bad case of BDS since that is all I ever see from you
 
We are speaking or OUR opinions, though you misrepresent the opinions of democrats. And it does not matter if the tax cuts were extended. That's you throwing out another squirrel moment. You want to excuse republicans from any responsibility. it's that conservative belief in personal responsibility that you don't seem to understand. You blame everyone but those you support, ducking and hiding from from responsibility.

And invanding Iraq did not prevent another attack. Note were were not attacked between 9/11/2001 and 3/19/2003. The belief that we would be was misguided and without any evidence to support it. Clinton did nothing after the first twin towers effort and got form 1993 to 2001.

I know it is useless to ask folks to think about this stuff beyond the superficial, but Iraq did nothing to help us. The invasion only hurt us.

But, let's focus, Bush spent. A lot. You make excuses for him, but never a dmeocrat. Isn't that so?



About as useless as asking you to think, you complain about one side .. then run around making excuses for the spending from your side .. . so you are any different how ? Bush added near 6t to our debt in 8 years .. . or about 750B a year .. . that's a bad enough record, Obama in his first three years is going to add 3.6T to our debt, or 1.2T per year .. .if he is to last 8 years .. .that means he is going to add 9.6t making our national debt over 20T dollars

Now I'm sorry, but I thought Obama was elected to fix our problems, not make them worse. While you prefer to talk about what Bush did, I prefer to talk about what is going on now, but maybe you weak minded liberals feel that living in the past .. . you will be able to change it .
 
Last edited:
Bush had nine months to prevent 9/11 so you tell me what did Clinton do during his 8 years to prevent 9/11

start you list here

1.____________________________________________
1. Had airport security raised in suspected airports the northeast in response to a PDB warning of a potential terrorist attack inside the U.S.

2. Tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.

3. Developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator.

4. Named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.

5. Detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries

6. sent legislation to Congress to TIGHTEN AIRPORT SECURITY. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.

7. sent legislation to Congress to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF TERRORIST FUNDING. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.

8. sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF EXPLOSIVES USED BY TERRORISTS. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.



Even some Conservatives gave his efforts kudos...

"Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama" ~ Robert Oakley, Reagan Counterterrorism Czar

Paul Bremer, Bush's Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley saying he believed the Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden."

"By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort.", Barton Gellman of the Washington Post

How's your list for George Bush coming along? Still stuck on #1?


1.____________________________________________
 
Last edited:
Did you serve in Iraq or how did Iraq affect you or your family? Sounds like a bad case of BDS since that is all I ever see from you

What an idiotic statement. Iraq affected all Americans to the tune of over one trillion wasted dollars.
 
Bush barely had his feet wet as a president when 911 occurred, and the attacks were the result of planning that stretched back many years.

In a similar way, the economic crisis that occurred soon after Obama became president was based upon factors long in place, and for which he had no real control.

Instead of all the childish partisanship, why not step outside the blinders created by such long enough to recognize that events that result from a complex series of other events years in the making are not so simplistic as you would like them to be?

That will never happen here because all liberals can do is show their BDS(Bush Derangement Syndrome) to divert from the Obama record. Doesn't matter than Clinton had a PDB(Presidential Daily Briefing) in December 1998 that told of a goal of terrorist to hijack airlines and fly them into buildings. Now to Clinton's credit he raised the awareness for 30 days(wow!) and prevented an attack in January 1999. Thanks, Bill, why did you stop there?
 
What an idiotic statement. Iraq affected all Americans to the tune of over one trillion wasted dollars.

It is only idiotic because it diverts from the present which you want to do. Nothing can be done about that war or the past so why relive it? Doubt that anything that removed Saddam Hussein was wasted but to each their own. Keep diverting from the present to keep from accepting the terrible economic results of Obama.
 
Bush barely had his feet wet as a president when 911 occurred, and the attacks were the result of planning that stretched back many years.
Really? In 8 months, Bush shouldn't have done anything to prevent an attack inside America because 8 months is too soon for a president to respond to a PDB warning him of a likely attack inside the U.S.?

Ok, you tell me ... how much time do you think is reasonable until a president takes some action in response to FBI PDB's warning him that Osama bin Laden is planning an attack inside the U.S.?
 
Really? In 8 months, Bush shouldn't have done anything to prevent an attack inside America because 8 months is too soon for a president to respond to a PDB warning him of a likely attack inside the U.S.?

Ok, you tell me ... how much time do you think is reasonable until a president takes some action in response to FBI PDB's warning him that Osama bin Laden is planning an attack inside the U.S.?

Keep diverting, Sheik, and by all means keep showing your BDS while ignoring history. I am sure that the attack on 9/11 is why we have zero jobs created in August 2011 and why we have a net job loss since Obama took office, a declining labor force, rising misery index and very poor economic growth all in 2011.
 
Doesn't matter than Clinton had a PDB(Presidential Daily Briefing) in December 1998 that told of a goal of terrorist to hijack airlines and fly them into buildings. Now to Clinton's credit he raised the awareness for 30 days(wow!) and prevented an attack in January 1999. Thanks, Bill, why did you stop there?
Aren't you going to thank me for educating you on that matter? After all, you didn't know that when you first accused Clinton of reacting like Bush and doing nothing in response to a PDB warning of a potential attack.

Educating sure is turning into a thankless job. :(
 
It is only idiotic because it diverts from the present which you want to do. Nothing can be done about that war or the past so why relive it? Doubt that anything that removed Saddam Hussein was wasted but to each their own. Keep diverting from the present to keep from accepting the terrible economic results of Obama.

No, it's idiotic because it was a dumb decision and because it was one of several dumb decisions that contributed to our current woes. We would not find ourselves in the dire straights that we're in if the previous administration had kept on the path of fiscal restraint that IT inherited from Clinton.
 
Aren't you going to thank me for educating you on that matter? After all, you didn't know that when you first accused Clinton of reacting like Bush and doing nothing in response to a PDB warning of a potential attack.

Educating sure is turning into a thankless job. :(

It does appear to be the case, Obama has a net job since taking office, loss, higher unemployment since taking office, declining labor force since taking office, rising misery index in 2011, and .04 and 1% GDP in 2011. Is that the education you are talking about?
 
1. Had airport security raised in suspected airports the northeast in response to a PDB warning of a potential terrorist attack inside the U.S.

2. Tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.

3. Developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator.

4. Named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.

5. Detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries

6. sent legislation to Congress to TIGHTEN AIRPORT SECURITY. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.

7. sent legislation to Congress to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF TERRORIST FUNDING. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.

8. sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF EXPLOSIVES USED BY TERRORISTS. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.



Even some Conservatives gave his efforts kudos...

"Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama" ~ Robert Oakley, Reagan Counterterrorism Czar

Paul Bremer, Bush's Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley saying he believed the Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden."

"By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort.", Barton Gellman of the Washington Post

How's your list for George Bush coming along? Still stuck on #1?


1.____________________________________________


Those things really worked well wouldn't you say ? just 9 months after leaving office .. we were attacked ... One can only wonder with all that Clinton did to curb terrorism, that could happen. But I'm glad to see that you see failure .. . as a reason to brag ..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom