• 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!

Republicans block Obama jobs bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
A low approval doesn't mean a whole lot if it's higher than the approval rating of his opponent. Just ask your boy, W.

GREAT idea...34 months into Bush's presidency his approval rating based on averaging 14 polls was 65%. Is this what your were refering to?
Bush approval.jpg
 
GW Bush never had an approval rating that low in his first term and we don't know who is going to be Obama's opponent but whoever it is will be running against the Obama record and I will be there to continue to post it so that you see it. Apparently high debt, high unemployment, massive growth in the Federal Govt. is what you support.

The Obama record speaks for itself as does your support for that record.

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011, 25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011, 2.6 million fewer jobs, 4.2 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years, and a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.67. 38-41% JAR and well over 50-55% disapproval ratings.

Shrub had the advantage of 911. The biggest foreign attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor rallied Americans behind him. After that it was an unrelenting seven year slide that saw him finish up as one of the least popular presidents in history. The only reason he won reelection is that the Dems nominated an incredibly uncharismatic guy who failed to rally the opposition. Sound familiar?
 
And what Obama inherited: economy shedding 700,000+ jobs per month, GDP shrinking at 6+% per year, financial institutions teetering on the edge of collapse, trillion+ deficit.... Nice improvement.

First you compare your boys approval rating to W trying the make him look good...

Then you move STRAIGHT into the STANDARD LIBERAL tactic of 'blame BUSH'. When does it end? Didn't your boy's partner state last week that 'we own this economy'? Did he lie or are you in denial?
 
The only reason he won reelection is that the Dems nominated an incredibly uncharismatic guy who failed to rally the opposition. Sound familiar?

And I guess that was Bush's fault too?
 
GREAT idea...34 months into Bush's presidency his approval rating based on averaging 14 polls was 65%. Is this what your were refering to?
View attachment 67117037

According to Gallup, his approval rating at THIS point in his first term was 55% -- which represented a 30% drop in just two years. If Obama had the same negative momentum, his current approval rating would barely top 20%.
 
Shrub had the advantage of 911. The biggest foreign attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor rallied Americans behind him. After that it was an unrelenting seven year slide that saw him finish up as one of the least popular presidents in history. The only reason he won reelection is that the Dems nominated an incredibly uncharismatic guy who failed to rally the opposition. Sound familiar?

What is familar is that you and other Obama supporters are still buying the flowery rhetoric and ignoring the record. If that is how you operate in real life you are going to be a failure. Results matter, not rhetoric. As time goes buy the Bush ratings have gone up and the only one smiling now is Carter who is being replaced as the worst President in modern history by Obama.

Some people will always tell you how great they are whereas others prove how great they are. Obama is the former and that isn't what we need in the WH. Leadership isn't something he understands and that is what this country needs right now. I believe Romney will defeat Obama easily.
 
No. Nor is it Obama's fault that the Republicans are going to nominate Romney. :lol:

Romney will make Obama look like the boy child that he is. Obama has zero leadership skills, is a divider, and doesn't have a clue how to manage anything. You support him because neither do you
 
According to Gallup, his approval rating at THIS point in his first term was 55% -- which represented a 30% drop in just two years. If Obama had the same negative momentum, his current approval rating would barely top 20%.

MAYBE you missed the point in my post that the 65% was based on an average of 14 polls, including Gallup (I know the attachment is small). Anyone can pick and choose a poll to support any position. BUT to average several, 14 being extreme, to support a position lends MUCH more validity. Don't you think?
 
MAYBE you missed the point in my post that the 65% was based on an average of 14 polls, including Gallup (I know the attachment is small). Anyone can pick and choose a poll to support any position. BUT to average several, 14 being extreme, to support a position lends MUCH more validity. Don't you think?

I think the point you're missing is that you picked a date that's about five months prior to the equivalent of today's date. Bush got a brief bump from the Iraq invasion, which is reflected in the date you (cherry) picked.
 
Once again conservatives in Congress demonstrate that they are a greater threat to the well being of the nation that bin Laden ever was.

How are conservatives a threat to the well being of the nation when they voted against a bill that was supposed to create jobs, but has not worked in the past, is not working now, and will not work in the future.
 
How are conservatives a threat to the well being of the nation when they voted against a bill that was supposed to create jobs, but has not worked in the past, is not working now, and will not work in the future.

According to economists, and the CBO, the stimulus did work. It was just too small.
 
If that were true they would block a jobs bill that economists say would significantly reduce unemployment and boost GDP, drastically reducing the chance of a double-dip recession next year.

There are probably just as many economists that disagree.
 
I think the point you're missing is that you picked a date that's about five months prior to the equivalent of today's date. Bush got a brief bump from the Iraq invasion, which is reflected in the date you (cherry) picked.

OH CRAP, you're right it IS closer to 55%. Now what was your boy's again? 38% or so. Even with my mistake the point is the same. YOU wanted to compare Bush's to BHO's insinuating them to be close...but they are not.
 
According to economists, and the CBO, the stimulus did work. It was just too small.

Maybe I'm too simple minded but when did the unemployment rate go down? From what to what? And that cost HOW MUCH? Well if 5% is considered 'full employment' and we have to spend at a rate/job ANYTHING in the ballpark of the last stimulus to get there our debt will increase another $7t dollars. Just WHO are we going to borrow that from? THE RICH who have a collective annual income of $2t???
 
OH CRAP, you're right it IS closer to 55%. Now what was your boy's again? 38% or so. Even with my mistake the point is the same. YOU wanted to compare Bush's to BHO's insinuating them to be close...but they are not.

Bush's approval rating continued to tank all the way to the end of his term. His father's approval rating was around 66% at this point ... and he lost. Reagan's approval was about where Obama's is at this point in his first term, and he won.

My point is that approval ratings this far out are not especially meaningful, and of course you also have to consider the favorability ratings of the opponent. You don't have to have overwhelming support to win an election. You just have to have more support than the other guy.
 
Maybe I'm too simple minded but when did the unemployment rate go down? From what to what? And that cost HOW MUCH? Well if 5% is considered 'full employment' and we have to spend at a rate/job ANYTHING in the ballpark of the last stimulus to get there our debt will increase another $7t dollars. Just WHO are we going to borrow that from? THE RICH who have a collective annual income of $2t???

You're asking the wrong question. The right question is, did the stimulus significantly reduce unemployment *relative to where it would have been without the stimulus*, and to that most economists say aye.

We are not going to be at full employment any time soon, that is for sure. Again -- wrong question. The objective now is to prevent a double dip recession and/or a decade of more of economic stagnation. The cost will be high, but not as high as the cost of doing nothing.
 
Yet 20% of the country admits to being a liberal meaning 80% are either moderate or conservative. You are out of touch with reality.

If the country is so conservative, how did we elect a Kenyan Marxist for president in 2008???
 
If I steal $100 from you, and then give you back $50, are you going to be grateful to me for being so generous as to have given you that $50?

Keep in mind that government cannot give anything to anyone without first taking it from someone.

Rather than giving money to the states for specific purposes, it would be better if the federal government didn't take that money from them in the first place. Rather than me giving you $50, wouldn't you much prefer that I not take the $100 from you?

Sorry, but your logic is wrong. Noone is taking $100 and giving back $50.

The government actually can spend money without taking if from you first... its called debt (or printing money). Just as you may have bought a house using a mortgage, betting on your future income, the government can borrow money on its future GDP growth without at all impacting you. This is no different that a business taking out a loan to expand... they do not have to take from shareholders, they are taking from future earnings.

In the case of an economy, the $100 deployed actually multiples in GDP affect, and pays back to the government a very high percentage of the original dollars deploy (happy to elaborate if you do not understand the concept of an expenditure multiplier)

Debt, even public debt, is not inherently bad; its just bad in excess.

A stimulus is borrowing money against future profits. In the case of infrastructure spending, you are actually just front-loading expenditures you are going to have to make anyway, but making them today.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom