• 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!

Obama announces his Candidacy for 2012.

Where do you get that Bush's numbers were far worse, here are the employment numbers for Bush's first term which show more employed at the end of his first term than when he took office. Can you say the same about Obama? Looks to me like you are the one confused, 140.1 million in December 2004 is higher than 137.8 when he took office. Guess math isn't a strong subject for you.

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

Apparently success in your world is spending over a trillion dollars to get less employment than when a liberal takes office?
Hey, nice bait and switch! Anyone else notice I posted the unemployment numbers + discouraged workers numbers (like Conservative did earlier) and when they show how Bush lost 2.7 million jobs during his first 26 months in office, Conservative pulls a fast one and switches to employment numbers.

Here ya go, Con ...

Unemployed:
Jan 2001: 6,023,000
Mar 2003: 8,588,000

Discouraged:
Jan 2001: 301,000
Mar 2003: 474,000

Unemployed + Discouraged

Jan 2001: 6,324,000
Mar 2003: 9,062,000
Bush Total: -2,738,000

Unemployed:
Jan 2009: 11,984,000
Mar 2011: 13,542,000

Discouraged:
Jan 2009: 734,000
Mar 2011: 921,000

Unemployed + Discouraged

Jan 2009: 12,718,000
Mar 2011: 14,463,000
Obama Total: -1,745,000

Source: BLS.gov: Unemployed, BLS.gov: Discouraged Workers


G'head, Con, this is where you exaplain why it was ok to give Bush 4 more years after losing 2.7 million jobs but not ok to give Obama 4 more years after losing 1.7 million jobs (following the Great Recession, no less).
 
Hey, nice bait and switch! Anyone else notice I posted the unemployment numbers + discouraged workers numbers (like Conservative did earlier) and when they show how Bush lost 2.7 million jobs during his first 26 months in office, Conservative pulls a fast one and switches to employment numbers.

Here ya go, Con ...

Unemployed:
Jan 2001: 6,023,000
Mar 2003: 8,588,000

Discouraged:
Jan 2001: 301,000
Mar 2003: 474,000

Unemployed + Discouraged

Jan 2001: 6,324,000
Mar 2003: 9,062,000
Bush Total: -2,738,000

Unemployed:
Jan 2009: 11,984,000
Mar 2011: 13,542,000

Discouraged:
Jan 2009: 734,000
Mar 2011: 921,000

Unemployed + Discouraged

Jan 2009: 12,718,000
Mar 2011: 14,463,000
Obama Total: -1,745,000

Source: BLS.gov: Unemployed, BLS.gov: Discouraged Workers


G'head, Con, this is where you exaplain why it was ok to give Bush 4 more years after losing 2.7 million jobs but not ok to give Obama 4 more years after losing 1.7 million jobs (following the Great Recession, no less).
are you shocked? this is par for the course...prove his point wrong, the goal posts get moved.
 
Hey, nice bait and switch! Anyone else notice I posted the unemployment numbers + discouraged workers numbers (like Conservative did earlier) and when they show how Bush lost 2.7 million jobs during his first 26 months in office, Conservative pulls a fast one and switches to employment numbers.

Here ya go, Con ...

Unemployed:
Jan 2001: 6,023,000
Mar 2003: 8,588,000

Discouraged:
Jan 2001: 301,000
Mar 2003: 474,000

Unemployed + Discouraged

Jan 2001: 6,324,000
Mar 2003: 9,062,000
Bush Total: -2,738,000

Unemployed:
Jan 2009: 11,984,000
Mar 2011: 13,542,000

Discouraged:
Jan 2009: 734,000
Mar 2011: 921,000

Unemployed + Discouraged

Jan 2009: 12,718,000
Mar 2011: 14,463,000
Obama Total: -1,745,000

Source: BLS.gov: Unemployed, BLS.gov: Discouraged Workers


G'head, Con, this is where you exaplain why it was ok to give Bush 4 more years after losing 2.7 million jobs but not ok to give Obama 4 more years after losing 1.7 million jobs (following the Great Recession, no less).

You asked me why I voted for Bush for a second term. I posted GDP numbers and employment numbers both showing gains. Case closed. How is Obama doing compared to Bush on GDP and employment?Noticed you have no problem posting Bush numbers with discouraged workers but ignore Obama's, wonder why?
 
You asked me why I voted for Bush for a second term. I posted GDP numbers and employment numbers both showing gains. Case closed. How is Obama doing compared to Bush on GDP and employment?Noticed you have no problem posting Bush numbers with discouraged workers but ignore Obama's, wonder why?

That does not really work either if you look at the numbers, Bush's GDP growth was below average. Let me hit you with a source again(those are good, every one should use actual sources to actual pages of data): World Bank, World Development Indicators - Google public data
 
You asked me why I voted for Bush for a second term. I posted GDP numbers and employment numbers both showing gains. Case closed. How is Obama doing compared to Bush on GDP and employment?Noticed you have no problem posting Bush numbers with discouraged workers but ignore Obama's, wonder why?
As I've told you before, the population grew 10% during Bush's term in office
 
As I've told you before, the population grew 10% during Bush's term in office

And the population isn't growing now? How do you explain spending over a trillion dollars and having less employment today than when he took office in that growing population?

Bush gave me a tax cut which I am still receiving today, Obama gave me a rebate check that is gone. The differences are stark. Obama is a leftwing idealogue and I have no use for his nanny state. He is a failure.
 
are you shocked? this is par for the course...prove his point wrong, the goal posts get moved.

I was asked why I voted for Bush for a second term and I gave the reason, employment up, GDP up, and I continue to get to keep more of what I earned as do you.
 
This is a classic example of misleading numbers.

When Bush took office, the unemployment rare was 4.7, after his first term, the unemployment rate was 5.1, after his second term it was 8.5. Feel free to try and spin that into a success. Source(it is important to have one of these): Unemployment - Google public data
In January, 2001, when Bush became president, the U3 unemployment rate was 4.2%. 26 months later it was up to 5.9% ... an increase of 40%!

When Obama became president in January, 2009, the U3 unemployment rate was 7.8%. 26 months later it's up to 8.8% ... an increase of 13%!

Here's a similar comparison of all presidents during their respective first 26 months in office going as far back as the data allows. After looking at this, it makes one wonder why Conservatives vote for Republicans?

Nixon ........ +77%
Eisenhower ... +59%
Bush ......... +40%
Ford ......... +40%
Reagan ....... +37%
GHW Bush ..... +26%
Obama ........ +13%
Kennedy ...... -14%
Carter ....... -23%
Clinton ...... -26%
Johnson ...... -30%

Source: BLS.gov - Unemployment Rate
 
are you shocked? this is par for the course...prove his point wrong, the goal posts get moved.

Why I voted for Bush for a second term? Which one benefits the consumer and individual the most and is ongoing? The results are quite telling.

Obama Tax cuts

Total: $288 billion

[edit] Tax cuts for individuals-Notice to get to keep more of what you earn under the Obama plan you have to do certain things. Guess the American people are just plain stupid, right Obama supporters?

Total: $237 billion
• $116 billion: New payroll tax credit of $400 per worker and $800 per couple in 2009 and 2010. Phaseout begins at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers.[29]
• $70 billion: Alternative minimum tax: a one year increase in AMT floor to $70,950 for joint filers for 2009.[29]
• $15 billion: Expansion of child tax credit: A $1,000 credit to more families (even those that do not make enough money to pay income taxes).
• $14 billion: Expanded college credit to provide a $2,500 expanded tax credit for college tuition and related expenses for 2009 and 2010. The credit is phased out for couples making more than $160,000.
• $6.6 billion: Homebuyer credit: $8,000 refundable credit for all homes bought between 1/1/2009 and 12/1/2009 and repayment provision repealed for homes purchased in 2009 and held more than three years. This only applies to first-time homebuyers.[41]
• $4.7 billion: Excluding from taxation the first $2,400 a person receives in unemployment compensation benefits in 2009.
• $4.7 billion: Expanded earned income tax credit to increase the earned income tax credit — which provides money to low income workers — for families with at least three children.
• $4.3 billion: Home energy credit to provide an expanded credit to homeowners who make their homes more energy-efficient in 2009 and 2010. Homeowners could recoup 30 percent of the cost up to $1,500 of numerous projects, such as installing energy-efficient windows, doors, furnaces and air conditioners.
• $1.7 billion: for deduction of sales tax from car purchases, not interest payments phased out for incomes above $250,000.

Bush Tax cuts

Between 2001 and 2003, the Bush administration instituted a federal tax cut for all taxpayers. Among other changes, the lowest income tax rate was lowered from 15% to 10%, the 27% rate went to 25%, the 30% rate went to 28%, the 35% rate went to 33%, and the top marginal tax rate went from 39.6% to 35%.[3] In addition, the child tax credit went from $500 to $1000, and the "marriage penalty" was reduced. Since the cuts were implemented as part of the annual congressional budget resolution, which protected the bill from filibusters, numerous amendments, and more than 20 hours of debate, it had to include a sunset clause. Unless congress passes legislation making the tax cuts permanent, they will expire in 2011.
 
I was asked why I voted for Bush for a second term and I gave the reason, employment up, GDP up, and I continue to get to keep more of what I earned as do you.
When you voted for Bush in November of 2004, the number of unemployed + discouraged workers had increased by 2,166,000. The unemployment rate had increased from 4.2% to 5.5%, a 31% increase in unemployment.
 
In January, 2001, when Bush became president, the U3 unemployment rate was 4.2%. 26 months later it was up to 5.9% ... an increase of 40%!

When Obama became president in January, 2009, the U3 unemployment rate was 7.8%. 26 months later it's up to 8.8% ... an increase of 13%!

Here's a similar comparison of all presidents during their respective first 26 months in office going as far back as the data allows. After looking at this, it makes one wonder why Conservatives vote for Republicans?

Nixon ........ +77%
Eisenhower ... +59%
Bush ......... +40%
Ford ......... +40%
Reagan ....... +37%
GHW Bush ..... +26%
Obama ........ +13%
Kennedy ...... -14%
Carter ....... -23%
Clinton ...... -26%
Johnson ...... -30%

Source: BLS.gov - Unemployment Rate

Posting percentage change over and over again doesn't change the fact that since Obama took office we have less employment than we had when he took office. That is a fact that you are always going to ignore.

This really is getting old, add discouraged workers to both and get back to me.
 
When you voted for Bush in November of 2004, the number of unemployed + discouraged workers had increased by 2,166,000. The unemployment rate had increased from 4.2% to 5.5%, a 31% increase in unemployment.

And employment was up as was GDP and that is after the Clinton recession and 9/11. Have you sent your Bush tax cut back every time you get a paycheck?
 
are you shocked? this is par for the course...prove his point wrong, the goal posts get moved.
No, I'm not shocked. Are you shocked that I'm not shocked? ;)

It's what he does. He posts unemployed + discouraged workers to show how many jobs were lost under Obama -- and when I use those same numbers to show even more jobs were lost (with a smaller work force, no less), he pulls a fast one and switches to employment numbers -- because they are better.

On another thread once, he was switching back and forth between BLS's household survey data and payroll data, which ever posted better numbers for his argument.
 
Unemployed:
Jan 2001: 6,023,000
Mar 2003: 8,588,000

Discouraged:
Jan 2001: 301,000
Mar 2003: 474,000

Unemployed + Discouraged

Jan 2001: 6,324,000
Mar 2003: 9,062,000
Bush Total: -2,738,000

Unemployed:
Jan 2009: 11,984,000
Mar 2011: 13,542,000

Discouraged:
Jan 2009: 734,000
Mar 2011: 921,000

Unemployed + Discouraged

Jan 2009: 12,718,000
Mar 2011: 14,463,000
Obama Total: -1,745,000

Noticed you have no problem posting Bush numbers with discouraged workers but ignore Obama's, wonder why?
Seriously? You looked at what I posted (which I included in this post to highlight your dishonesty) and claim I ignored discouraged workers when posting Obama's data??
 
Last edited:
No, I'm not shocked. Are you shocked that I'm not shocked? ;)

It's what he does. He posts unemployed + discouraged workers to show how many jobs were lost under Obama -- and when I use those same numbers to show even more jobs were lost (with a smaller work force, no less), he pulls a fast one and switches to employment numbers -- because they are better.

On another thread once, he was switching back and forth between BLS's household survey data and payroll data, which ever posted better numbers for his argument.

LOL, are you telling me that your U-3 numbers and calculating percentage change includes discouraged workers? LOL, better get an education
 
Posting percentage change over and over again doesn't change the fact that since Obama took office we have less employment than we had when he took office. That is a fact that you are always going to ignore.

This really is getting old, add discouraged workers to both and get back to me.

And again you avoid actually commenting on the facts presented to you.
 
Seriously? You looked at what I posted (which I included in this post to highlight your dishonesty) and claim I ignored discouraged workers when posting Obama's data??

So losing jobs from when Obama took office off a terrible 2008 is a good thing in the liberal world? Hey, it only cost more than a trillion dollars to generate those numbers. that is who you are voting for.
 
LOL, are you telling me that your U-3 numbers and calculating percentage change includes discouraged workers? LOL, better get an education
No, I'm telling you the post you replied to included discouraged workers even though you claimed I ignored them for Obama but included them for Bush.

Here is what I posted:

Unemployed:
Jan 2001: 6,023,000
Mar 2003: 8,588,000

Discouraged:
Jan 2001: 301,000
Mar 2003: 474,000

Unemployed + Discouraged

Jan 2001: 6,324,000
Mar 2003: 9,062,000
Bush Total: -2,738,000

Unemployed:
Jan 2009: 11,984,000
Mar 2011: 13,542,000

Discouraged:
Jan 2009: 734,000
Mar 2011: 921,000

Unemployed + Discouraged

Jan 2009: 12,718,000
Mar 2011: 14,463,000
Obama Total: -1,745,000

Here was your response:

Noticed you have no problem posting Bush numbers with discouraged workers but ignore Obama's, wonder why?
I'm glad you noticed I included discouraged workers for Bush, but how on Earth did you miss them for Obama? Another senior moment? :lol: Maybe a nap would help you calm down?
 
Moderator's Warning:
Last warning, the personal comments need to end.
 
So losing jobs from when Obama took office off a terrible 2008 is a good thing in the liberal world? Hey, it only cost more than a trillion dollars to generate those numbers. that is who you are voting for.
It took two tax cuts in 2001 and 2002 to lead the way towards Bush losing 2.7 million jobs at this point in his presidency. Conservatism is a failure. That's what you voted for before you complained that people are considering voting for Obama, who performed better than Bush up until this point in his presidency.
 
No, I'm telling you the post you replied to included discouraged workers even though you claimed I ignored them for Obama but included them for Bush.

Here is what I posted:



Here was your response:


I'm glad you noticed I included discouraged workers for Bush, but how on Earth did you miss them for Obama? Another senior moment? :lol: Maybe a nap would help you calm down?

I take it you won't be voting for Bush in 2012?

Interesting, here are the discouraged workers by month so not sure where you are getting your numbers from but regardless, this election is about Obama not Bush. It is the Obama record that you cannot defend

2001 301 287 349 349 328 294 310 337 285 331 328 348 321
2002 328 375 330 320 414 342 405 378 392 359 385 403 369
2003 449 450 474 437 482 478 470 503 388 462 457 433 457
2004 432 484 514 492 476 478 504 534 412 429 392 442 466
2005 515 485 480 393 392 476 499 384 362 392 404 451 436
2006 396 386 451 381 323 481 428 448 325 331 349 274 381
2007 442 375 381 399 368 401 367 392 276 320 349 363 369
2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642 462
2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929 778
2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185 1110 1209 1219 1282 1318 1173
2011 993 1020 921
 
It took two tax cuts in 2001 and 2002 to lead the way towards Bush losing 2.7 million jobs at this point in his presidency. Conservatism is a failure. That's what you voted for before you complained that people are considering voting for Obama, who performed better than Bush up until this point in his presidency.

Are you sending your Bush tax cuts back after receiving your paycheck each month? Whether or not Bush was a failure will be up to historians to determine and serve no purpose now. What is on the table are the Obama results and if that is a success in your book, you have a serious problem understanding the definition of success. Losing jobs and raising the debt isn't a success.
 
Interesting, here are the discouraged workers by month so not sure where you are getting your numbers from but regardless

2001 301 287 349 349 328 294 310 337 285 331 328 348 321
2002 328 375 330 320 414 342 405 378 392 359 385 403 369
2003 449 450 474 437 482 478 470 503 388 462 457 433 457
2004 432 484 514 492 476 478 504 534 412 429 392 442 466
2005 515 485 480 393 392 476 499 384 362 392 404 451 436
2006 396 386 451 381 323 481 428 448 325 331 349 274 381
2007 442 375 381 399 368 401 367 392 276 320 349 363 369
2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642 462
2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929 778
2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185 1110 1209 1219 1282 1318 1173
2011 993 1020 921
Here are the numbers I posted:

Jan 2001: 301,000
Mar 2003: 474,000
Jan 2009: 734,000
Mar 2011: 921,000

My numbers are the same as yours, where do you think I got them from?

this election is about Obama not Bush. It is the Obama record that you cannot defend
Why do you think I need to defend Obama's record to someone who voted for Bush, whose record was worse than Obama's?
 
Back
Top Bottom