CNN Poll: GOP would bear the brunt of shutdown blame [W:176:468]

Re: Most would blame Republicans

joko104 said:

The reason Republicans would more be blamed is more people watch pro-Democrat networks.

Click to expand...

That's not what I hear from people trumping Fox. And objectively, it's statistically about the same when you compare Republican leaning to Democrat leaning total viewership. But it is funny to watch people like you switch your arguments whenever you feel like it. Makes me question how much you actually believe of what you say.

It is the Democrats in the US Senate, not Republicans, threatening to shut down government unless they get everything they want in the budget. The budget ceiling is the law. Democrats in the Senate declare they will destroy the economy unless Republicans go along with breaking that law.

Click to expand...

Huh? We can turn the logic argument and do this:

It is the Republicans in the US House, not Democrats, threatening to shut down government unless they get everything they want in the budget.

Re: Most would blame Republicans

Conservative said:

No, I am sorry, the Republicans retained control of the House in 2012, what election were you watching?

Click to expand...

That's what I said.

poweRob said:

gerrymandered districts sooooo badly that you lost the popular vote in the house and still held a solid majority

Click to expand...

Conservative said:

Please tell me what it is about Obama that creates this kind of loyalty because it certainly isn't his economic results or leadership qualities. What is wrong with people like you who have to destroy anyone that disagrees with you. Results matter which you don't seem to understand. Gerrymandering the districts? Apparently Democrats never do that nor do they shut out Republicans in any negotiations like the behind closed door sessions for Obamacare. Do you people ever accept responsibility for anything including election losses?

Click to expand...

Blah blah blah cut and paste redundant nonsense that you always post.

Re: Most would blame Republicans

poweRob said:

That's what I said.





Blah blah blah cut and paste redundant nonsense that you always post.

Click to expand...

Yes, redundant and yet I never get an answer. This really is a sickness on your part as you have to accept responsibility for failure. Didn't they teach you responsibility in the military?

Re: Most would blame Republicans

Conservative said:

Yes, redundant and yet I never get an answer. This really is a sickness on your part as you have to accept responsibility for failure. Didn't they teach you responsibility in the military?

Click to expand...

Dude, you've been answered a zillion times and you have a knack for ignoring them when you aren't insulting them because they debunked you so hard. You're B.S. up above it rhetorical garbage. Pretending to be a victim who never gets an answer to that rhetorical crap is lulz to the max.

Re: Most would blame Republicans

Conservative said:

I have no problem with that if you can show me where in the ACA were the exemptions described and explained? Seems those exemptions were created AFTER the law so apparently exemptions are negotiable but apparently only for Obama supporters and backers.

Click to expand...

Republicans bitched and bitched and bitched about Obamacare so Obama delayed some of the ACA. That was you conservatives getting your victory. Now that you guys got your way with getting segments delayed... now this is the implementation of the law you guys are attempting to shoot holes into.

Re: Most would blame Republicans

poweRob said:

Dude, you've been answered a zillion times and you have a knack for ignoring them when you aren't insulting them because they debunked you so hard. You're B.S. up above it rhetorical garbage. Pretending to be a victim who never gets an answer to that rhetorical crap is lulz to the max.

Click to expand...

More rhetoric, I am here right now, debunk it. Give me the Obama economic results that prove he has done a job that warrants your support. Want to start with unemployment, debunk this chart from BLS?

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS13000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 2000 to 2010
Unemployed
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2000 5708 5858 5733 5481 5758 5651 5747 5853 5625 5534 5639 5634
2001 6023 6089 6141 6271 6226 6484 6583 7042 7142 7694 8003 8258
2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640
2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317
2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934
2005 7784 7980 7737 7672 7651 7524 7406 7345 7553 7453 7566 7279
2006 7059 7185 7075 7122 6977 6998 7154 7097 6853 6728 6883 6784
2007 7085 6898 6725 6845 6765 6966 7113 7096 7200 7273 7284 7696
2008 7678 7491 7816 7631 8395 8578 8950 9450 9501 10083 10544 11299
2009 12049 12860 13389 13796 14505 14727 14646 14861 15012 15421 15227 15124
2010 14953 15039 15128 15221 14876 14517 14609 14735 14574 14636 15104 14393
2011 13919 13751 13628 13792 13892 14024 13908 13920 13897 13759 13323 13097
2012 12748 12806 12686 12518 12695 12701 12745 12483 12082 12248 12042 12206
2013 12332 12032 11742 11659 11760 11777 11514 11316

Discouraged workers
2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642
2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929
2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185 1110 1209 1219 1282 1318
2011 993 1020 921 989 822 982 1119 977 1037 967 1096 945
2012 1059 1006 865 968 830 821 852 844 802 813 979 1068
2013 804 885 803 835 780 1027 988 816

Unemployed + Discouraged
2008 8145 7887 8217 8043 8795 8998 9411 9831 9968 10567 11152 11941
2009 12783 13591 14074 14536 15297 15520 15442 15619 15718 16229 16088 16053
2010 16018 16243 16122 16418 15959 15724 15794 15845 15783 15855 16386 15711
2011 14912 14771 14549 14781 14714 15006 15027 14897 14934 14726 14419 14042
2012 13807 13812 13551 13486 13525 13522 13597 13327 12884 13061 13021 13274
2013 13136 12917 12545 12577 12540 12804 12502 12132 0 0 0 0

Click to expand...

Re: Most would blame Republicans

poweRob said:

Republicans bitched and bitched and bitched about Obamacare so Obama delayed some of the ACA. That was you conservatives getting your victory. Now that you guys got your way with getting segments delayed... now this is the implementation of the law you guys are attempting to shoot holes into.

Click to expand...

He delayed what he wanted to delay but without negotiation with the People's House. You just don't get it, do you and liberal have the gall to talk about crony capitalism? Guess some people are just destined to be used their entire lives.

Re: Most would blame Republicans

Conservative said:

More rhetoric, I am here right now, debunk it. Give me the Obama economic results that prove he has done a job that warrants your support. Want to start with unemployment, debunk this chart from BLS?

Click to expand...

You've been served so many times that that is exactly why I put you on ignore. It's a nonstop rerun. Anyone gotta link to the one of many many times this has happened? I've no time for this crap AGAIN.

Re: Most would blame Republicans

poweRob said:

1) this is not a chart. This is you not knowing how to use the internet and expecting everyone else to do the legwork for you

2) You've done this a zillion times on this very specific topic that you are derailing this thread with and this is where you always get destroyed, then ignore the facts brought back after lots and lots of work by someone else showing you, point blank, how you are wrong. Then you turn to ad homs.​

You've been served so many times that that is exactly why I put you on ignore. It's a nonstop rerun. Anyone gotta link to the one of many many times this has happened? I've no time for this crap AGAIN.

Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about, that is indeed a chart? Liberals want to blame Bush for the 750000 to 800k jobs lost but not the 4 million jobs lost during much of 2010. Liberals always want to ignore Obama's long term unemployed and discouraged workers so please don't be an Obamabot and accept the failures of Obama.

I understand completely your problem you have no idea what debunking means. Neither you or any other liberal has provided data that refutes the official govt. data from bls.gov, bea.gov, and the U.S. Treasury. Not once has any liberal responded to the Obama projections and programs that have not yielded the results promised. Not one liberal blames Obama for the 6.4 trillion dollar debt he has generated and continue to blame Bush for the Obama inherited deficit of over a trillion dollars when taking office refusing to accept the fact that Bush CR's didn't create that debt and the Bush budget was never approved or signed by Congress until the Democrats and Obama did it in March 2009.

I have been served nothing but bull**** from Obamabots who are incapable of actually debating the issues. You are rapidly becoming one.

Re: Most would blame Republicans

j-mac said:

So you are saying that one bad action, justifies another....That is childish thinking.

Click to expand...

No there have been over a thousand bad actions by Republicans over the last 5 years it about time Dems stud up to the Tea Party terrorist.

Re: Most would blame Republicans

Conservative said:

What the hell are you talking about, that is indeed a chart? Liberals want to blame Bush for the 750000 to 800k jobs lost but not the 4 million jobs lost during much of 2010. Liberals always want to ignore Obama's long term unemployed and discouraged workers so please don't be an Obamabot and accept the failures of Obama.

Click to expand...

Chart it out. Watch it drop. You hide behind static numbers and refuse to acknowledge trends. Which is why you fail in epic proportions. Want static numbers? Under whose administration were more jobs created? Bush or Obama?

Conservative said:

I understand completely your problem you have no idea what debunking means. Neither you or any other liberal has provided data that refutes the official govt. data from bls.gov, bea.gov, and the U.S. Treasury. Not once has any liberal responded to the Obama projections and programs that have not yielded the results promised. Not one liberal blames Obama for the 6.4 trillion dollar debt he has generated and continue to blame Bush for the Obama inherited deficit of over a trillion dollars when taking office refusing to accept the fact that Bush CR's didn't create that debt and the Bush budget was never approved or signed by Congress until the Democrats and Obama did it in March 2009.

I have been served nothing but bull**** from Obamabots who are incapable of actually debating the issues. You are rapidly becoming one.

Click to expand...

And here come more ignorance. Whose budget was the 2009 budget? Bush's or Obama's? Also, I'll now ask you to point out what policies drove that deficit spending you will not give me an answer. We've done this dance before. You've done this dance with others before. You always lose while declaring victory.

Facts ellude you simply because you refuse to acknowledge fact. Instead you opt for the "if I post last I win" tactic.

Re: Most would blame Republicans

greengirl77 said:

No there have been over a thousand bad actions by Republicans over the last 5 years it about time Dems stud up to the Tea Party terrorist.

Click to expand...

Hyperbole like this does not help.

Re: Most would blame Republicans

poweRob;1062372118]Chart it out. Watch it drop. You hide behind static numbers and refuse to acknowledge trends. Which is why you fail in epic proportions. Want static numbers? Under whose administration were more jobs created? Bush or Obama?

Click to expand...

Under Bush but then again you would have to go to BLS to get the answer. Bush had a net job creation of 6 million, Obama has a net job creation of 2 million although we are down two million from when the recession began. Get some help reading this CHART

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 1980 to 2013

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047
2002 135701 136438 136177 136126 136539 136415 136413 136705 137302 137008 136521 136426
2003 137417 137482 137434 137633 137544 137790 137474 137549 137609 137984 138424 138411
2004 138472 138542 138453 138680 138852 139174 139556 139573 139487 139732 140231 140125
2005 140245 140385 140654 141254 141609 141714 142026 142434 142401 142548 142499 142752
2006 143150 143457 143741 143761 144089 144353 144202 144625 144815 145314 145534 145970
2007 146028 146057 146320 145586 145903 146063 145905 145682 146244 145946 146595 146273
2008 146378 146156 146086 146132 145908 145737 145532 145203 145076 144802 144100 143369
2009 142153 141644 140721 140652 140250 140005 139898 139481 138810 138421 138665 138025
2010 138439 138624 138767 139296 139255 139148 139167 139405 139388 139097 139046 139295
2011 139253 139471 139643 139606 139681 139405 139509 139870 140164 140314 140771 140896
2012 141608 142019 142020 141934 142302 142448 142250 142164 142974 143328 143277 143305
2013 143322 143492 143286 143579 143898 144058 144285 144170

Click to expand...

Bush took office with 137.7 million working Americans and when he left there were 142.2 or a net gain of 4.5 million jobs which was four million higher when the recession began. Obama has had a net gain of 2 million jobs but is down two million from when the recession began. Not much to show for all that debt, is it?

And here come more ignorance. Whose budget was the 2009 budget? Bush's or Obama's?

Click to expand...

Bush submitted the budget as required, it was never passed by the Democrat controlled Senate, the budget was signed and approved by the Democrat controlled Senate and Obama in March 2009 so it was the Obama budget due to his signature on it.

Facts ellude you simply because you refuse to acknowledge fact.

Click to expand...

I have seen only statements from you, no facts. Since you don't know what a chart is maybe you don't know what a fact is either.

Re: Most would blame Republicans

The GOP is using something unrelated to Obamacare, the funding of the government, to push the issue. That was a mistake.

Re: CNN Poll: GOP would bear the brunt of shutdown blame [W:176]

Grant said:

That was a great link! I especially liked the one where Obama was toasting the Queen. Did you see it?

Click to expand...

What a dodge. Which is understandable. FDR scorched the repubs in just a minute and a half in a way that is still precient of the GOP today.

Re: Most would blame Republicans

Conservative said:

Under Bush but then again you would have to go to BLS to get the answer. Bush had a net job creation of 6 million, Obama has a net job creation of 2 million although we are down two million from when the recession began. Get some help reading this CHART



Bush took office with 137.7 million working Americans and when he left there were 142.2 or a net gain of 4.5 million jobs which was four million higher when the recession began. Obama has had a net gain of 2 million jobs but is down two million from when the recession began. Not much to show for all that debt, is it?




Bush submitted the budget as required, it was never passed by the Democrat controlled Senate, the budget was signed and approved by the Democrat controlled Senate and Obama in March 2009 so it was the Obama budget due to his signature on it.



I have seen only statements from you, no facts. Since you don't know what a chart is maybe you don't know what a fact is either.

Click to expand...

BLS... The numbers you tout put to graph. BLS numbers.

View attachment 67154399

This is what makes you lose your poop.



This is how you turn around another republican recession.

Re: Most would blame Republicans

poweRob said:

BLS... The numbers you tout put to graph. BLS numbers.

View attachment 67154399

This is what makes you lose your poop.

View attachment 67154400

This is how you turn around another republican recession.

Click to expand...

Really? do you really believe there were only 110 million working Americans in a country of 310 million Americans and a labor force of 155 million? You have no idea what chart you posted or what information is in that chart.

Let me help you, we have a labor force of 155 million and if the working numbers were 110 million that would mean 45 million unemployed. What would that unemployment rate be? See where you made your mistake yet? Think for a change, you are smarter than this.

Oh, by the way, get someone to help you read your chart because even your chart shows more working Americans under Bush and more job creation

Re: Most would blame Republicans

Conservative said:

Really? do you really believe there were only 110 million working Americans in a country of 310 million Americans and a labor force of 155 million? You have no idea what chart you posted or what information is in that chart.

Let me help you, we have a labor force of 155 million and if the working numbers were 110 million that would mean 45 million unemployed. What would that unemployment rate be? See where you made your mistake yet? Think for a change, you are smarter than this.

Click to expand...

See the source of the charts? BLS. Brings to question... Who are you to tell anyone that they need help reading?

Re: Most would blame Republicans

poweRob said:

See the source of the charts? BLS. Brings to question... Who are you to tell anyone that they need help reading?

Click to expand...

Because there are various sections of BLS. learn the sections and where to get the information on employment. I posted the chart showing employment, your makes no sense and you know it. Not sure what the 110 million represents but could easily find out. You ought to try it. Think about it, labor force of 155 million and 110 working Americans?

By the way, my chart has the chart name on it, you ought to try doing the same thing

Re: Most would blame Republicans

Conservative said:

Because there are various sections of BLS. learn the sections and where to get the information on employment. I posted the chart showing employment, your makes no sense and you know it. Not sure what the 110 million represents but could easily find out. You ought to try it. Think about it, labor force of 155 million and 110 working Americans?

By the way, my chart has the chart name on it, you ought to try doing the same thing

Click to expand...

For pete's sake. What unemployment stat do you want to go by? Pick ONE. U3, U6? pick one. I'll go do your homework for you AGAIN and show everyone AGAIN how wrong you are.

Re: Most would blame Republicans

poweRob said:

For pete's sake. What unemployment stat do you want to go by? Pick ONE. U3, U6? pick one. I'll go do your homework for you AGAIN and show everyone AGAIN how wrong you are.

Click to expand...

Doesn't make any difference when you are talking employment, you are the one that seems to have a problem understanding what you are looking at. I totally understand, the lightbulb is going off in your head but you just cannot accept it. What you don't seem to understand is that it really doesn't matter that Bush had more jobs created than Obama because Bush isn't in office now. The Obama record is a disaster and you for some reason cannot accept that and continue to want to blame Bush. You are smarter than this so please show it. Stop embarrassing yourself because I can beat you up all day with the official govt. numbers.

Bush took over an economy with 137 million working Americans and took that to 146 million, the recession cut that down to 142 million that Obama inherited. Obama has 144 million working Americans today, 2013 after adding 6.4 trillion to the debt. Is that your idea of a success?

What you are showing is the problem that liberals have, they do not understand numbers and simply buy rhetoric. That is why when I ask for verifiable data I get nothing but more diversion and more opinions. You want badly to believe what Obama has told you but the numbers don't lie. He is incompetent, lacks leadership skills, and is nothing more than a community agitator.

Re: Most would blame Republicans

Conservative said:

Doesn't make any difference when you are talking employment, you are the one that seems to have a problem understanding what you are looking at. I totally understand, the lightbulb is going off in your head but you just cannot accept it. What you don't seem to understand is that it really doesn't matter that Bush had more jobs created than Obama because Bush isn't in office now. The Obama record is a disaster and you for some reason cannot accept that and continue to want to blame Bush. You are smarter than this so please show it. Stop embarrassing yourself because I can beat you up all day with the official govt. numbers.

Bush took over an economy with 137 million working Americans and took that to 146 million, the recession cut that down to 142 million that Obama inherited. Obama has 144 million working Americans today, 2013 after adding 6.4 trillion to the debt. Is that your idea of a success?

What you are showing is the problem that liberals have, they do not understand numbers and simply buy rhetoric. That is why when I ask for verifiable data I get nothing but more diversion and more opinions. You want badly to believe what Obama has told you but the numbers don't lie. He is incompetent, lacks leadership skills, and is nothing more than a community agitator.

Click to expand...

And here's your classic dodge.

I have to be reminded every now and again why you are on my ignore list.

Re: Most would blame Republicans

poweRob said:

And here's your classic dodge.

I have to be reminded every now and again why you are on my ignore list.

Click to expand...

I would do my best to ignore someone who beat the hell out of them with verifiable numbers too. You do that a lot and the question is why? What is it about liberalism and Obama that creates this kind of loyalty? Maybe I was too kind claiming that you were smarter than this.

There is no dodge, you are talking job creation on one hand and then unemployment on the other so which is it? You have no idea what chart you posted and I confused you with the basic logic that in a nation of 312 million Americans there are more than 110 million working Americans. U-3, U-6 numbers are irrelevant when it comes to talking about job creation so exactly what do you want to talk about. Job creation or unemployment. Either one I can beat you to death all night with.

So put me back on ignore and relegate yourself to total liberal ignorance. You will grow out of it, I assure you as I did.

Re: Most would blame Republicans

Conservative said:

I would do my best to ignore someone who beat the hell out of them with verifiable numbers too. You do that a lot and the question is why? What is it about liberalism and Obama that creates this kind of loyalty? Maybe I was too kind claiming that you were smarter than this.

There is no dodge, you are talking job creation on one hand and then unemployment on the other so which is it? You have no idea what chart you posted and I confused you with the basic logic that in a nation of 312 million Americans there are more than 110 million working Americans. U-3, U-6 numbers are irrelevant when it comes to talking about job creation so exactly what do you want to talk about. Job creation or unemployment. Either one I can beat you to death all night with.

So put me back on ignore and relegate yourself to total liberal ignorance. You will grow out of it, I assure you as I did.

Click to expand...

Ok trashtalker...

Here's your post of cut and paste gibberish. Let me spank you with your own crap as usual:


Your stuff. You cut and pasted this shyte. Let me decipher this for you:

Bush's start and end numbers in Red. Obama's start and end numbers in Blue. Obama's last number is his peak, Bush's peak is in baby blue. This is you ignoring your own ****ing numbers because trends buck you and your broken logic falls apart. Bush trashed the economy and it was indicated that he peaked in baby blue and drove it south from LATE 2007 until he left in January 2009 when his economy was losing 800,000 jobs a month. Obama's economy is on the rise after it bottomed just under a year after Bush left office (noted in purple) and after the stimulus was rolling. Bush's economy ****ing died a horrible death. I don't care what economic measure you bring... employment, unemployment... you are always pwned by your own stupid numbers.

Not to mention you are comparing Bush's eight years to Obama's five.

Now everyone can see whose economy is headed which way. I'm even letting you have the narrative of the 2009 budget being Obama's responsibility and not Bush's budget which it was.

And there you have it. Your own damn numbers. Your own damn pwnage. Trash talk that.

You just keep fooling yourself all you want. While I put you on ignore, you just go ahead and keep putting reality and facts on ignore and live in the world of false circular logic confined in Republican bubble wrap while convincing yourself that it's everyone else that can't read.

Adios champ!

Re: Most would blame Republicans

poweRob said:

Ok trashtalker...

Here's your post of cut and paste gibberish. Let me spank you with your own crap as usual:

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 1980 to 2013

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047
2002 135701 136438 136177 136126 136539 136415 136413 136705 137302 137008 136521 136426
2003 137417 137482 137434 137633 137544 137790 137474 137549 137609 137984 138424 138411
2004 138472 138542 138453 138680 138852 139174 139556 139573 139487 139732 140231 140125
2005 140245 140385 140654 141254 141609 141714 142026 142434 142401 142548 142499 142752
2006 143150 143457 143741 143761 144089 144353 144202 144625 144815 145314 145534 145970
2007 146028 146057 146320 145586 145903 146063 145905 145682 146244 145946 146595 146273
2008 146378 146156 146086 146132 145908 145737 145532 145203 145076 144802 144100 143369
2009 142153 141644 140721 140652 140250 140005 139898 139481 138810 138421 138665 138025
2010 138439 138624 138767 139296 139255 139148 139167 139405 139388 139097 139046 139295
2011 139253 139471 139643 139606 139681 139405 139509 139870 140164 140314 140771 140896
2012 141608 142019 142020 141934 142302 142448 142250 142164 142974 143328 143277 143305
2013 143322 143492 143286 143579 143898 144058 144285 144170​

Your stuff. You cut and pasted this shyte. Let me decipher this for you:

Bush's start and end numbers in Red. Obama's start and end numbers in Blue. Obama's last number is his peak, Bush's peak is in baby blue. This is you ignoring your own ****ing numbers because trends buck you and your broken logic falls apart. Bush trashed the economy and it was indicated that he peaked in baby blue and drove it south from LATE 2007 until he left in January 2009 when his economy was losing 800,000 jobs a month. Obama's economy is on the rise after it bottomed just under a year after Bush left office (noted in purple) and after the stimulus was rolling. Bush's economy ****ing died a horrible death. I don't care what economic measure you bring... employment, unemployment... you are always pwned by your own stupid numbers.

Not to mention you are comparing Bush's eight years to Obama's five.

Now everyone can see whose economy is headed which way. I'm even letting you have the narrative of the 2009 budget being Obama's responsibility and not Bush's budget which it was.

And there you have it. Your own damn numbers. Your own damn pwnage. Trash talk that.

You just keep fooling yourself all you want. While I put you on ignore, you just go ahead and keep putting reality and facts on ignore and live in the world of false circular logic confined in Republican bubble wrap while convincing yourself that it's everyone else that can't read.

Adios champ!

Click to expand...

You think you made a point? What you showed is that liberalism is a sickness that apparently doesn't have a cure. Obama has added over 6.4 trillion to the debt in 5 years and these are the numbers you want to give him credit for? Wow, such low expectations, no wonder you are a liberal. You really need to stop embarrassing yourself.

You want to talk Bush's first term, great that started in January 2001 and ended December 2004. Bush inherited a recession and had 9/11. Now I know those were nothing in comparison to what Obama inherited, yeah right.

You seem to take great pride in the direction of the economy so tell me what direction is that, stagnant economic growth, high unemployment/under employment/discouraged workers, high debt, record numbers on food stamps, massive govt. dependence? Again you don't seem to have any idea what you are talking about. How could anyone not just love the booming Obama economy.

If you spent as much as Obama has spent, got the results Obama got after 5 years you would be fired, but not Obama. He continues to get your support because he has a D after his name and you have such low expectations. You really don't understand the economy at all thus I understand your problem with charts and graphs. You post a graph that shows 110-112 million working Americans and then don't acknowledge that isn't the right chart showing employment. You then want to discount the Bush economic results from January 2001-December 2007 and then want to blame Bush entirely for 2008. Now you want to continue to blame Bush for the results from 2009-2011 when he had total control over the entire Congress but now it is the Republicans fault because they control the House and have since January 2011

Obama really does have exactly what he wants in people like you.

Now this ought to be good, Bush submitted a 2009 budget in mid fiscal year 2008 as required. The deficit in that budget was less than 500 billion dollars but that budget was never passed. Fiscal year 2009 began in October 2008 and there was no budget, just continuing resolutions using current 2008 spending levels. Bush left office on January 21, 2009 and the last continuing resolution using 2008 numbers ended in March 2009. There was no Bush budget approved only 2008 continuing resolutions. Obama signed the Bush budget after adding to it and Congress approved it. Tell me how it is the Bush budget when it wasn't passed or signed by Bush?

Is this the liberal logic that we hear so much about? I call it liberal ignorance and a sickness. Adios