• 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!

Jobless rate rises to 8.3 percent, hiring picks up but still falling short

The economy is growing at 1.5% and that isn't enough to create employment and that is the responsibility of the Obama economic policies
Bush is responsible for the results just like Obama is responsible for the results today. Leaders cannot delegate responsibility. Bush policies had nothing to do with the results but they are what they are

Flip-flop......
 
Since Obama and his party controlled the entire govt. for his first two years whose policies are responsible for the results?

Unless you have 60 votes you do NOT control the senate. You should know that.
 
Since Obama and his party controlled the entire govt. for his first two years whose policies are responsible for the results?
You said Obama policies are responsible for his GDP results, So Bush's polices are responsible for his GDP results too......except Bush policies are not responsible....or are they...is anyone's?

You tell us.

The economy is growing at 1.5% and that isn't enough to create employment and that is the responsibility of the Obama economic policies
Bush is responsible for the results just like Obama is responsible for the results today. Leaders cannot delegate responsibility. Bush policies had nothing to do with the results but they are what they are
 
Unless you have 60 votes you do NOT control the senate. You should know that.

Didn't Obama have 60 votes in the Senate during his first term. Better do some research because again you are wrong. Tell me how many Senators did Bush control in 2007-2008?
 
Didn't Obama have 60 votes in the Senate during his first term. Better do some research because again you are wrong. Tell me how many Senators did Bush control in 2007-2008?

No he did not. YOU should do better research.
 
Really?

GOP win in Mass. jolts Obama plans - USATODAY.com

So when Brown won the MA Senate Race what did that do to the make up of the Senate?



Not sure where you get your information but you have proven you have zero credibility

You should do better work. The Dems NEVER had 60. For a few months (most of which was spent in recess), their CAUCUS had 60 but that includes Lieberman, who is NOT a Dem. Lieberman is an independent who 1. was elected in 2006 by Repub votes 2. Endorsed the Repub candidate for president 3. was nearly the Repub VP candidate and 4. Threatened to filibuster the President's top piece of legislation.
 
You should do better work. The Dems NEVER had 60. For a few months (most of which was spent in recess), their CAUCUS had 60 but that includes Lieberman, who is NOT a Dem. Lieberman is an independent who 1. was elected in 2006 by Repub votes 2. Endorsed the Repub candidate for president 3. was nearly the Repub VP candidate and 4. Threatened to filibuster the President's top piece of legislation.

What practical difference does this make to Conservative's claim?

None.
 
You should do better work. The Dems NEVER had 60. For a few months (most of which was spent in recess), their CAUCUS had 60 but that includes Lieberman, who is NOT a Dem. Lieberman is an independent who 1. was elected in 2006 by Repub votes 2. Endorsed the Repub candidate for president 3. was nearly the Repub VP candidate and 4. Threatened to filibuster the President's top piece of legislation.

Two Independent Senators caucus with the Democrats but of course you ignore that. You are a newbie but not a very informed one.
 
What practical difference does this make to Conservative's claim?

None.
The question was "votes", he did not have 60 votes consistently to "control" the Senate.

PS...notice how he keeps avoiding the contradiction on "policy".
 
Two Independent Senators caucus with the Democrats but of course you ignore that. You are a newbie but not a very informed one.

Caucusing with the Dems is one thing. But the issue is being filibuster proof. Since Lieberman vowed to filibuster health care, that obviously destroys your premise. Also, even with Lieberman there were only a few months, most of which was in recess, when the caucus had 60.
 
The question was "votes", he did not have 60 votes consistently to "control" the Senate.

PS...notice how he keeps avoiding the contradiction on "policy".

Thankfully. He did have enough to pass PPACA though. Which is one of the key reasons why the economy remains stagnant.
 
Bump....

Since Obama and his party controlled the entire govt. for his first two years whose policies are responsible for the results?
You said Obama policies are responsible for his GDP results, So Bush's polices are responsible for his GDP results too......except Bush policies are not responsible....or are they...is anyone's?

You tell us.

The economy is growing at 1.5% and that isn't enough to create employment and that is the responsibility of the Obama economic policies
Bush is responsible for the results just like Obama is responsible for the results today. Leaders cannot delegate responsibility. Bush policies had nothing to do with the results but they are what they are
 
Here is a very simple comparison. Forget the Bush recession for a moment. Even before that, Bush's record was terrible compared to President Obama's. In years 2-4 of the Bush administration, only 1.6 million jobs were added. In years 2-4 of the Obama administration, it's 3.9 million.

Well, lets go to the BLS numbers ! Age 16 and over. With jobs. Unadjusted.

Bush

April, 2001 137,022,000 (month 3, first term)
January 2002 134,177,000 (start of year 2)
July 2005 143,283,,000 (mid of year 4)

Obama

April 2009 140,586,000 (month 3, first term, 1st full month after Stimulus)
January 2010 136,809,000 (start of year 2)
July 2012 143,126,000 (mid of year 4, and as far as Obama has gotten)

You compared years 2-4 for each, but Obama doesn't have a complete year 4. He only has until July of his fourth year. So, year 2 thru 3.5 for each yields:

Bush: 9.1 million (you said 1.6 million)
Obama: 6.3 million (you said 3.9 million)

You really ****ed that up !

Now, you can go back and manipulate a bit here and there, but those are the raw BLS numbers:

Why are you off by so much :roll:
 
Caucusing with the Dems is one thing. But the issue is being filibuster proof. Since Lieberman vowed to filibuster health care, that obviously destroys your premise. Also, even with Lieberman there were only a few months, most of which was in recess, when the caucus had 60.

Shouldn't that tell you something about your policy decisions though? When you can't even get your own caucus on board, let alone get the opposition to cross over. Maybe...just maybe...it was a bad policy choice.
 
Well, lets go to the BLS numbers ! Age 16 and over. With jobs. Unadjusted.

Bush

April, 2001 137,022,000 (month 3, first term)
January 2002 134,177,000 (start of year 2)
July 2005 143,283,,000 (mid of year 4)

Obama

April 2009 140,586,000 (month 3, first term, 1st full month after Stimulus)
January 2010 136,809,000 (start of year 2)
July 2012 143,126,000 (mid of year 4, and as far as Obama has gotten)

You compared years 2-4 for each, but Obama doesn't have a complete year 4. He only has until July of his fourth year. So, year 2 thru 3.5 for each yields:

Bush: 9.1 million (you said 1.6 million)
Obama: 6.3 million (you said 3.9 million)

You really ****ed that up !

Now, you can go back and manipulate a bit here and there, but those are the raw BLS numbers:

Why are you off by so much :roll:

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Do the math.
 
Caucusing with the Dems is one thing. But the issue is being filibuster proof. Since Lieberman vowed to filibuster health care, that obviously destroys your premise. Also, even with Lieberman there were only a few months, most of which was in recess, when the caucus had 60.

So healthcare failed? What legislation did Obama want that the GOP filibustered? This is getting way off topic and has nothing to do with the thread but you were wrong about the Obama deficits and you are wrong about the legislation. Nice diversion though from the Obama record. His record is there for all to see and has nothing to do with Bush or anyone else other than his own failures of leadership as well as your lack of understanding as to what a leader does
 
Shouldn't that tell you something about your policy decisions though? When you can't even get your own caucus on board, let alone get the opposition to cross over. Maybe...just maybe...it was a bad policy choice.

So we should only pass bills that have unanimous support? It must be nice to live in a world that simple.
 
So healthcare failed? What legislation did Obama want that the GOP filibustered? This is getting way off topic and has nothing to do with the thread but you were wrong about the Obama deficits and you are wrong about the legislation. Nice diversion though from the Obama record. His record is there for all to see and has nothing to do with Bush or anyone else other than his own failures of leadership as well as your lack of understanding as to what a leader does

Actually, I wasn't wrong and I think even you know this. Do you really want a list of the Repubs' unprecedented use of the filibuster. Many, many bills that had majority support but never got a vote. As for health care, Lieberman prevented the public option.
 
So healthcare failed? What legislation did Obama want that the GOP filibustered? This is getting way off topic and has nothing to do with the thread but you were wrong about the Obama deficits and you are wrong about the legislation. Nice diversion though from the Obama record. His record is there for all to see and has nothing to do with Bush or anyone else other than his own failures of leadership as well as your lack of understanding as to what a leader does
Weird, I still can't get a clear response from you on that whole "understanding" thingy...

You said Obama policies are responsible for his GDP results, So Bush's polices are responsible for his GDP results too......except Bush policies are not responsible....or are they...is anyone's?

You tell us.
 
Great...

U.S. hiring picks up but not enough to sideline Fed

Employers in July hired the most workers in five months, but an increase in the jobless rate to 8.3 percent will probably keep expectations of additional monetary stimulus from the Federal Reserve intact.

...here comes another round of quantitative easing. Bring on the commodity inflation! Right when the Midwest in the midst of a drought.
 
Actually, I wasn't wrong and I think even you know this. Do you really want a list of the Repubs' unprecedented use of the filibuster. Many, many bills that had majority support but never got a vote. As for health care, Lieberman prevented the public option.

Anything that the GOP filibustered did nothing to prevent Obama's signature legislation to pass and the results are there for all to see. You choose to ignore them. Obama didn't propose a public option nor would it have mattered.
 
Last edited:

Is this a joke ? Your link does not go to the hard numbers.

Here. This works even for the liberally impaired.

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

Click the top box "16 and over, not seasonally adjusted"

You will get a 10 year table of hard numbers, not the bull**** you linked to, which still does not add up as you said.

Then as you need Bush's first numbers, adjust with the box available to include all of 2001.

Voila, you will get the hard numbers that I quoted, and not what you fabricated.

And I do not think you will like the real numbers ;)
 
So we should only pass bills that have unanimous support? It must be nice to live in a world that simple.

If I were President, and I should be, I would question having to pass every bill with a super-majority. I would push for compromise...like Reagan. I miss Reagan.
 
Back
Top Bottom