2010 Midterm Results Discussion

j-mac said:

We must fight fire with fire Joe....More often than not you bring the attack in as a deflection of direct questioning.


j-mac

Click to expand...

No j, that's you and yours. Conservative drew first blood, often. As did you with me. True, i'll go as low as you guys want. Well almost as low. But if you would stay focused and debate with attackes, I'd gladly do the same. But the entire mix of you're niave, partisan, stupid, wears a fellow out over time. You and conservative relpy on limited information and never address the objections to that information. Once called on it, you resort to personal attacks.

And if you like it that way, fine. I'm game. :coffeepap

j-mac said:

What I said was that the tactic of personal attack to deflect argument in here is endemic of the liberal left. Joe is a solid part of that, and a near text book example of Allensky tactic in debate. Now if you want to say that someone else does that also, then we should call that what? the nana, nana, boo, boo they do it too gambit? What? it is tiring, and transparent.

j-mac

Click to expand...

Let me demonsterate my point with some highlighting. You use a partisan book, with a flawed theory, apply it to every debate, even when that isn't happenign at all, and declare yourself the winner. Bravo! :coffeepap

Boo Radley said:

No j, that's you and yours. Conservative drew first blood, often. As did you with me. True, i'll go as low as you guys want. Well almost as low. But if you would stay focused and debate with attackes, I'd gladly do the same. But the entire mix of you're niave, partisan, stupid, wears a fellow out over time. You and conservative relpy on limited information and never address the objections to that information. Once called on it, you resort to personal attacks.

And if you like it that way, fine. I'm game. :coffeepap

Click to expand...

Pure projection going on here by you....But hey, I enjoy exposing your weaknesses, always have.

Let me demonsterate my point with some highlighting. You use a partisan book, with a flawed theory, apply it to every debate, even when that isn't happenign at all, and declare yourself the winner. Bravo!

Click to expand...

that is because you apply that flawed theory to every debate you engage...even right here...Bravo. :coffeepap

j-mac

j-mac said:

Pure projection going on here by you....But hey, I enjoy exposing your weaknesses, always have.

Click to expand...

:lamo :lamo :lamo

that is because you apply that flawed theory to every debate you engage...even right here...Bravo. :coffeepap

j-mac

Click to expand...

:coffeepap

Conservative said:

My canned responses as you call them are rooted in actual data and facts from non partisan sites. You pick and choose from sites that are questionable at best when it comes to accuracy. It is hard refuting bea.gov, bls.gov, and U.S. Treasury data so you ignore the data.

Click to expand...

Maybe you could start sharing all that "actual data and facts from non partisan sites." :lamo

President Obama isolated ahead of 2012 - Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei - POLITICO.com

roger simon's professional leftists and journo listers are surprisingly objective (they really can't help it, their observations are all undeniably obvious)

as in:

"CONGRESSIONAL DEMS consider obama DISTANT and BLAME him for their HISTORIC DEFEAT"

state dem leaders "SCOFF at the INATTENTIVE and HAPLESS political operation"

SUPPORTERS feel "MALIGNED by his HOLIER THAN THOU take"

his own CABINET is "MARGINALIZED"

"relations with the biz community COULD HARDLY BE WORSE"

"ICY RELATIONS with republicans, THE MEDIA and MOST VOTERS"

"it's easy to understand why insiders LEAKED to politico that the white house needs a SHAKEUP and NEW APPROACH"

but "many DEMS say privately they are SKEPTICAL that obama is SELF AWARE enough to make the changes needed"

LOL!

he "swept to power on a wave of adulation and LEARNED THE WRONG LESSONS from that"

they're describing him as if he's a SCHOOL KID

"he needs someone to KICK HIS ASS on things large and small and TEACH him to be a politician"

he's completely unaware of how AMERICAN POLITICS are played

he's "thoughtless," he routinely neglects the little tokens and remembrances most normal, feeling humans extend to GRANDKIDS, GUESTS, LOYALISTS

it's as if he's totally ALIEN

DEMS are "FUMING"

"CONSENSUS among DEM consultants is obama has allowed his political infrastructure to ATROPHY by NEGLECT"

he's TONE DEAF, OUTTA TOUCH, DOESN'T GET IT

he "hasn't FULLY GRASPED the political DAMAGE done by his health care push"

he has OFFENDED the very people he needs to RAISE MONEY, ORGANIZE, TURN OUT

"big dollar DONORS and INTEREST groups feel USED"

he has "VILLIFIED" his ENEMIES as well as his SUPPORTERS, he's "FROZEN THEM OUT of discussions on key issues"

"biz leaders, even the FEW who continue to be obama-friendly, say they are convinced he is HOSTILE to free markets and the private sector"

they "don't TRUST obama's INSTINCTS for growth"

he used "anti corporate, confrontational rhetoric," long after doing so became "gratuitous"

the "bad, evil hospitals," the "fat cats, greed and corruption"

conclusion: the white house is ISOLATED and marked by a SIEGE MENTALITY

is POLITICO spinning?

all but the FRINGE recognize

party on, paltry progressives

Birdzeye said:

Maybe you could start sharing all that "actual data and facts from non partisan sites." :lamo

Click to expand...

Where have you been, I have offered Bureau of Labor statistics showing 4 million jobs lost since the Stimulus plan was signed, I showed U.S. Treasury Data which shows 3 trillion added to the debt in two years. I have shown the money spent by TARP how Bush spent 350 billion and left 350 billion for Obama. Obama spent 150 billion and sill has 200 billion to spend. TARP has been partially repaid but Obama didn't apply that to the deficit in 2009. So tell me what more data do you want me to post that proves Obama a failure?

Conservative said:

Where have you been, I have offered Bureau of Labor statistics showing 4 million jobs lost since the Stimulus plan was signed, I showed U.S. Treasury Data which shows 3 trillion added to the debt in two years. I have shown the money spent by TARP how Bush spent 350 billion and left 350 billion for Obama. Obama spent 150 billion and sill has 200 billion to spend. TARP has been partially repaid but Obama didn't apply that to the deficit in 2009. So tell me what more data do you want me to post that proves Obama a failure?

Click to expand...

None of that explains the loss of jobs BEFORE two years ago (which seems to be your convenient reference point), or the ballooning of othe deficit during Obama's predecessor, or the financial meltdown that occurred BEFORE Obama took office.

Birdzeye said:

None of that explains the loss of jobs BEFORE two years ago (which seems to be your convenient reference point), or the ballooning of othe deficit during Obama's predecessor, or the financial meltdown that occurred BEFORE Obama took office.

Click to expand...

I don't have to explain the job losses two years prior as Bush didn't spend 800+ billion for stimulus that passed in February 2009 that was supposed to cap unemployment at 8%. It was a waste of taxpayer money as the actual numbers show. Job losses since the stimulus plan went into place are reported on BLS.gov at 4 million but the actual losses are much, much higher as CBS reported. You want so badly to tell us how bad the economy was when Bush left office but the reality is NBER shows the recession ended in June 2009. That means economic growth was positive yet over a year later unemployment is higher each month of 2010 than it was in the corresponding month in 2009 so stop buying the Obama rhetoric and get the facts.

The financial meltdown was addressed by TARP, 700 billion passed by the Democrat Congress and signed by President Bush. That is the plan that saved the banks, nothing that Obama did.

Conservative said:

I don't have to explain the job losses two years prior as Bush didn't spend 800+ billion for stimulus that passed in February 2009 that was supposed to cap unemployment at 8%. It was a waste of taxpayer money as the actual numbers show. Job losses since the stimulus plan went into place are reported on BLS.gov at 4 million but the actual losses are much, much higher as CBS reported. You want so badly to tell us how bad the economy was when Bush left office but the reality is NBER shows the recession ended in June 2009. That means economic growth was positive yet over a year later unemployment is higher each month of 2010 than it was in the corresponding month in 2009 so stop buying the Obama rhetoric and get the facts.

The financial meltdown was addressed by TARP, 700 billion passed by the Democrat Congress and signed by President Bush. That is the plan that saved the banks, nothing that Obama did.

Click to expand...

Oh, and that all happened despite vigorous opposition from Bush and the GOP, right? [/sarcasm] Bush warned us how all that was such a bad idea, right? [/sarcasm]

Birdzeye said:

Oh, and that all happened despite vigorous opposition from Bush and the GOP, right? [/sarcasm] Bush warned us how all that was such a bad idea, right? [/sarcasm]

Click to expand...

I am sure growing up you took a civics class, right? Do you know what the role of the Congress is? Do you know that Congress was under complete control of the Democrats? Do you know that Obama was part of that Congress? So tell me how can Obama claim he inherited something he helped create?

I suggest you read Bush's Book, Decision Point where he recognizes he went against his own capitalistic principles to sign TARP and why he did it. Not exactly sure what your point is but you seem to be among the minority out there that still doesn't get it. Last Tuesday in Obama's own words he took a "shellacking" losing the House and 682 state legislators including 19 Governors. That is a repudiation so I suggest you pay more attention what is going on right now instead of continuing to focus on the past including the Obama lies in the past. he continues to lie in the present

Is that all you have, Conservative, a litany of snide remarks with no reasoned argument behind it? I always figure that when someone resorts to such personal comments, they really have no argument behind all thealleged "facts" cited.

You seem to want to pin the entire blame on Obama while leaving Bush totally blameless. That he had the opposition in control of Congress is no excuse; plenty of presidents have had to govern with that constraint. The meltdown began on Bush's watch. It defies logic to try to pin the entire blame for all that on Obama, when, as you admit, Bush even signed TARP, even though he was never shy about vetoing legislation he disliked.

I'm surprised you guys aren't bouncing off the walls, what with all the coffee I've seen you drinking...

Birdzeye said:

Is that all you have, Conservative, a litany of snide remarks with no reasoned argument behind it? I always figure that when someone resorts to such personal comments, they really have no argument behind all thealleged "facts" cited.

You seem to want to pin the entire blame on Obama while leaving Bush totally blameless. That he had the opposition in control of Congress is no excuse; plenty of presidents have had to govern with that constraint. The meltdown began on Bush's watch. It defies logic to try to pin the entire blame for all that on Obama, when, as you admit, Bush even signed TARP, even though he was never shy about vetoing legislation he disliked.

Click to expand...

Is that all you have? Why do you ignore actual results and obviously you haven't done a lot of research to verify your rhetoric. During his 8 years Bush had a Democrat Congress in 2007-2008 and he had a Split Congress in 2001-2002. During the 4 years of either Democrat control or split control plus the last two years Democrats have added over 5 trillion to the National Debt whereas during the 4 years of Republican Control 2 trillion was added to the debt, 5 trillion dollars in the last 10 years with 3 of that trillion the last two years.

You want me to blame Bush for the mess that happened in 2008? He was President and thus shares the blame with Congress just like Obama shares the blame for the past two years with the Democrat controlled Congress. You and others need to get over your Bush Derangement Syndrome and recognize what actually happened last Tuesday. Bush is out of office and the fact is Obama spent more time campaigning for the job than he spent in the Senate so he was hired to "clean up the mess." The mess is still there and in fact unemployment and debt are worse than when he took office. Get out of denial and get the facts. bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S. Treasury Website.

Now address the results!

GDP
1980 2,788.10
1981 3,126.80
1982 3253.20
1983 3534.60
1984 3930.90
1985 4217.50
1986 4460.10
1987 4736.40
1988 5100.40
1989 5482.10
1990 5800.50
1991 5992.10
1992 6342.30
1993 6667.40
1994 7085.20
1995 7414.70
1996 7838.50
1997 8332.40
1998 8793.50
1999 9353.50
2000 9951.50
2001 10286.20
2002 10642.30
2003 11142.10
2004 11867.80
2005 12638.40
2006 13398.90
2007 14077.60
2008 14441.40
2009 14256.30

Unemployment

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 7628 7435 7793 7631 8397 8560 8895 9509 9569 10172 10617 11400
2009 11919 12714 13310 13816 14518 14721 14534 14993 15159 15612 15340 15267
2010 14837 14871 15005 15260 14973 14623 14599 14860 14767 14843

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

Unemployed + Discouraged
2008 8095 7831 8194 8043 8797 8980 9356 9890 10036 10656 11225 12042
2009 12653 13445 13995 14556 15310 15514 15330 15751 15865 16420 16201 16196
2010 15902 16075 15999 16457 16056 15830 15784 15970 15976 16062 0 0


Debt

9/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.70
9/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.70
9/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.40
9/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
9/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
9/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
9/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
9/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
9/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
9/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
9/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86

You're the one throwing out numbers, without any reasoned analysis, yet you want ME to analyze them! I've not asked you to blame Bush, contrary to your claim; I've merely pointed out that you are conveniently making excuses for him while pinning the entire blame for many things on the current POTUS, without considering the role of prior events.

Oh, yeah, I notice that the GDP figures and the debt figures have been going up steadily during the time frame you selected to show, even when your conservative heroes have been at the helm, and that unemployment figures started accelerating under the watch of one of those heroes.

Birdzeye said:

You're the one throwing out numbers, without any reasoned analysis, yet you want ME to analyze them! I've not asked you to blame Bush, contrary to your claim; I've merely pointed out that you are conveniently making excuses for him while pinning the entire blame for many things on the current POTUS, without considering the role of prior events.

Oh, yeah, I notice that the GDP figures and the debt figures have been going up steadily during the time frame you selected to show, even when your conservative heroes have been at the helm, and that unemployment figures started accelerating under the watch of one of those heroes.

Click to expand...

What you don't seem to understand is that results matter not rhetoric. GDP growing 4.5 trillion dollars is incredible dollar growth, the highest 8 year growth in U.S. history, hardly the disaster Obama claims. Debt is a problem and there is no question that Bush and the Congress spent too much during the 8 years of Bush but the Congress and Obama put Bush spending on steroids. There is no analysis required, the numbers are what they are. Notice the 4 million less employed today than when Obama took office. Since the recession ended in June 2009 how do you explain it? Unemployment always goes up during a recession but at not time in history after a recession ended did the unemployment continue to rise well over a year after the end of the recession.

You want badly to believe the liberal rhetoric but the facts refute that rhetoric. I learned a long time ago to trust but verify, something you need to adopt. You buy the liberal rhetoric because that is what you want to believe. Growing up a Democrat I bought the rhetoric too until the late 70's and the lightbulb went off. It will for you one day too.

If the numbers are so "important," then why did you just post them with no commentary on your part? You're making a lot of personal comments about me when you don't know me, but you aren't doing squat to show how the numbers you throw out support your position, whatever that may be.

Birdzeye said:

If the numbers are so "important," then why did you just post them with no commentary on your part? You're making a lot of personal comments about me when you don't know me, but you aren't doing squat to show how the numbers you throw out support your position, whatever that may be.

Click to expand...

I posted the numbers that I commented on, guess I have to lead you by the hand and even then you aren't going to buy what you are told from those that for some reason you want to believe.

Look, you voted to hire Obama to improve the economy and to fix the "mess" but as the numbers show he has made a bigger mess and things aren't any better and in fact in the important areas unemployment and debt are worse. How do you explain it and please don't give me the Obama line that things were worse than he expected. The results I posted show that things weren't worse and his economic policies haven't improved the economy but they have increased the debt and unemployment.

Did you miss the election last Tuesday? 682 State legislators were changed to the Republicans and 65 net House seats were captured. If things were getting better then the American people would have given Obama a vote of confidence but instead gave him a "shellacking." How do you explain it?

Conservative said:

I posted the numbers that I commented on, guess I have to lead you by the hand and even then you aren't going to buy what you are told from those that for some reason you want to believe.

Look, you voted to hire Obama to improve the economy and to fix the "mess" but as the numbers show he has made a bigger mess and things aren't any better and in fact in the important areas unemployment and debt are worse. How do you explain it and please don't give me the Obama line that things were worse than he expected. The results I posted show that things weren't worse and his economic policies haven't improved the economy but they have increased the debt and unemployment.

Did you miss the election last Tuesday? 682 State legislators were changed to the Republicans and 65 net House seats were captured. If things were getting better then the American people would have given Obama a vote of confidence but instead gave him a "shellacking." How do you explain it?

Click to expand...

Quit blabben conservative, I’d like to see the numbers as well. Kinda like to compare them numbers with what I have in my folder.:thumbs:

donc said:

Quit blabben conservative, I’d like to see the numbers as well. Kinda like to compare them numbers with what I have in my folder.:thumbs:

Click to expand...

No you don't want to see the numbers or you would have read Post 1039, now quit trolling

Conservative said:

No you don't want to see the numbers or you would have read Post 1039, now quit trolling

Click to expand...

BUT,BUT, arnt you going to

"guess I have to lead you by the hand "

Click to expand...

i,m hurt i tell ya, hurt.

I feel that the following contribution to this thread is highly important and completely in keeping with the topic of this thread:

PURPLE CHEESE!!!

The Mark said:

I'm surprised you guys aren't bouncing off the walls, what with all the coffee I've seen you drinking...

Click to expand...

Coffee's good. I drink several pots a day. :coffeepap



:lol:

My Way News - Bad news Democrats _ 2012 could be worse than 2010

Last week's election was bad for Democrats. The next one could be worse. Senate Democrats running in 2012 will be trying to hold their jobs in states where Republicans just scored major congressional and gubernatorial victories - Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, New Mexico and Virginia.

The Democrats' problems don't end with senators.

President Barack Obama carried those states in 2008, and he will need most of them to win re-election in two years. But this time they all will have Republican governors. These GOP governors can try to inhibit the president's policies and campaign operations. They also can help steer next year's once-a-decade House redistricting process in the GOP's favor.

Moreover, Democrats must defend Senate seats in hotly contested Missouri, and in four states that Obama has little chance of winning, assuming he even tries: North Dakota, Nebraska, West Virginia and Montana.

The 2012 Senate map is much kinder to Republicans, who must defend 10 seats to the Democrats' 23. Except for Republican Sen. Scott Brown, who will fight an uphill re-election battle in Massachusetts, the GOP probably will be favored to keep the Senate seats it now holds.

Democrats will try to win back some of the 60 House seats they lost to Republicans last week, but several factors will work against them. Republicans won gubernatorial and state legislative races in dozens of states. That will give them total or substantial control of the often partisan redrawing of House districts that will occur next year, following the latest U.S. Census. It's likely to result in several new GOP-leaning districts in states such as Texas at the expense of Democratic-leaning districts in the Rust Belt.

Democrats may find it especially hard to win back Southern seats lost last week by white Democrats, who are becoming almost extinct in much of the former Confederacy. And if Speaker Nancy Pelosi remains her party's House leader, Republicans will tell voters that Democrats did not learn their lesson from the 2010 election and need more convincing.

Click to expand...

spin, anyone?

hey, if red states have been awarded SIXTEEN brand new congressional districts via the census and, therefore, SIXTEEN brand new electoral votes for the presidency, at the expense of blue states, could your OPINION about how things SHOULD be make the REALITY any bluer?

LOL!