• 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!

US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, CONGRESS has done nothing. The only thing Obama could do is veto spending bills. And much of the spending is driven by entitlements anyway.
Congress hasn't been responsible either, but the fact remains that Obama has spent recklessly and shown little desire to enact any substantial spending cuts.
 
Amazing, isn't it, a do nothing Congress and a do nothing President yet the unemployment numbers improved? Think about it.

You're trying to greatly simplify things, as usual. Congress and the President were doing nothing in 2007 too, and we got a financial collapse.

And it hasn't been do-nothing. There was that stimulus package, and that auto bailout - you noticed that the automakers are profitable again, not completely gone, right?
 
Isn't it a leaders job to take responsibility and to initiate policies that put people back to work?
It is ...


m4mMW.jpg
 
Congress hasn't been responsible either, but the fact remains that Obama has spent recklessly and shown little desire to enact any substantial spending cuts.

FALSE.

Obama has not "spent recklessly." He doesn't have the power to spend. Only Congress does that. Nor can he enact anything.
 
You're trying to greatly simplify things, as usual. Congress and the President were doing nothing in 2007 too, and we got a financial collapse.

Those aren't correlated. Congress having "done something" in 2007 would not have changed our predicament. There was no way to fix things by that point. It was too late.

Someone should have "done something" when Gramm-Leach-Bliley was on its way to Bill Clinton's desk.
 
You blame Bush for the 4.9 trillion but not Obama for the 4.6 trillion in three years. Backatcha
Thanks for highlighing your inability to point to where Obama is responsible for 4.6 trillion worth of debt.
 
FALSE.

Obama has not "spent recklessly." He doesn't have the power to spend. Only Congress does that. Nor can he enact anything.
He has the power to both propose new spending and veto spending he deems irresponsible, unfortunately he seems to be inclined to do only the former.
 
Those aren't correlated. Congress having "done something" in 2007 would not have changed our predicament. There was no way to fix things by that point. It was too late.

No, the point is that if doing nothing can be credited with job growth, doing nothing - BEFORE the financial collapse - should be blamed for the collapse.

Someone should have "done something" when Gramm-Leach-Bliley was on its way to Bill Clinton's desk.

Good example of my point.
 
He has the power to both propose new spending and veto spending he deems irresponsible, unfortunately he seems to be inclined to do only the former.

Yes - "propose." He doesn't have the power to spend, or enact spending.
 
Why? Because he's not the only one involved?

Because the Constitution gives Congress the power to spend, with only a limited veto power the only role of the President.
 
You blame Bush for the 4.9 trillion but not Obama for the 4.6 trillion in three years. Backatcha

Either Bush is responsible for 4.9 AND Obama is responsible for 4.6, or Bush is not responsible for 4.9 AND Obama is not responsible for 4.6. You can't cherry pick.
 
Yes - "propose." He doesn't have the power to spend, or enact spending.
Semantics, his policies have increased spending that's been my point all along.
 
Got it, Bush was in office from October 1, 2008 to January 21, 2009 and added trillions to the debt in less than 4 months. Obama department heads didn't spend a dime including the stimulus, GM/Chrylser takeover, Afghanistan supplementals? That is liberal logic
Ok, 50 billion for GM. The war suppliment for Iraq/Afghanistan is Bush's.

So that's 50 billion. Another .8T for ARRA

The other 3.8 trillion is ... ?
 
Semantics, his policies have increased spending that's been my point all along.

False again.

Congress is responsible for enacting spending bills. This is a simple fact. Obama may propose a policy - and you haven't named them, but whatever - but Congress enacts. The best you can say is that Congress and Obama have failed to control spending. You simply cannot blame it on the president, any president.
 
How much of that spending is due to his initiative and not Bush's? The wars, Part D etc.

That 3.8T represents an increase of 900BN over the largest Bush budget. So, over three years, at least 2.7T.

But all spending is under the control of the people in charge now.
 
It's like a religion to him.

You're right! He starts with the assumption that anything that fits into "conservative" is right, and goes from there. Just like a religion.
 
Amazing, isn't it, a do nothing Congress and a do nothing President yet the unemployment numbers improved? Think about it.
The improving unemployment began even before the do nothing Congress took over last years. The improvement began right after Obama passed his stimulus package...

m4mMW.jpg
 
How many times does it have to be posted?

m4mMW.jpg



m4mMW.jpg



m4mMW.jpg
 
How many times does it have to be posted?

m4mMW.jpg



m4mMW.jpg



m4mMW.jpg
The falling red part (which represents some 4 million jobs lost) means nothing to righties.

The fact that the blue part began improving after Obama's stimulus plan was passed also means nothing to them.

And their biggest complaint is that Obama has yet to [completely] gain back the roughly 4 million jobs lost on his watch due to Bush's Great Recession.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom