• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

I think the Republican Party has gone nuts.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Conservative said:
So that is a good record that almost four years later there are the same number employed as when he took office. Apparently population growth and people turning 16 stopped.
Click to expand...
Goal post movement, from gross job creation to percentage of the population employed. And just to note, you have already stated that Obama is not responsible for state/local govt job loss.

Further I understand this is hard for anyone that continues to drink the Obama Kool-ade but there were 146 million people working in December 2007 before the recession began and today that number is 142 million after added trillions to the debt.
Click to expand...
What is the point in talking about job losses during the Bush admin, is that supposed to help your arguments against Obama?

You bought the Obama rhetoric that he could solve the problem and if you think the same number employed today as when he took office and 4 million less than when the recession started is a success, I can see why you will always need Obama's type govt.
Click to expand...
Apples, oranges, goal shifting and false rhetoric....a typical con post.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Goal post movement, from gross job creation to percentage of the population employed. And just to note, you have already stated that Obama is not responsible for state/local govt job loss.

What is the point in talking about job losses during the Bush admin, is that supposed to help your arguments against Obama?

Apples, oranges, goal shifting and false rhetoric....a typical con post.
Click to expand...

So that I don't make the same mistake again in the future please let me know when this becomes the Obama economy and he is responsible for the results? I know this is hard for you to understand but it is 2012 and Obama's fourth year in office. I am just curious as to when the results actually become his?
 
Conservative said:
So that I don't make the same mistake again in the future please let me know when this becomes the Obama economy and he is responsible for the results? I know this is hard for you to understand but it is 2012 and Obama's fourth year in office. I am just curious as to when the results actually become his?
Click to expand...
Hint: It wasn't in 2007, when the recession began. Stop continuously bringing up that date when debating and you just might start to get a real conversation going....if that is your objective......but then again, we know it is not your objective.
 
Conservative said:
So that is a good record that almost four years later there are the same number employed as when he took office. Apparently population growth and people turning 16 stopped.

Further I understand this is hard for anyone that continues to drink the Obama Kool-ade but there were 146 million people working in December 2007 before the recession began and today that number is 142 million after added trillions to the debt.

You bought the Obama rhetoric that he could solve the problem and if you think the same number employed today as when he took office and 4 million less than when the recession started is a success, I can see why you will always need Obama's type govt.
Click to expand...

you beat me to it ;)
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Hint: It wasn't in 2007, when the recession began. Stop continuously bringing up that date when debating and you just might start to get a real conversation going....if that is your objective......but then again, we know it is not your objective.
Click to expand...

Ok, so when the recession began there were 146 million working Americans, when Obama took office there were 142 million working Americans and four years later there are 142 million working Americans. Since January 2009 5.4 trillion has been added to the debt. I am still waiting for an answer, when does this become the Obama economy and record?
 
Conservative said:
Ok, so when the recession began there were 146 million working Americans, when Obama took office there were 142 million working Americans and four years later there are 142 million working Americans. Since January 2009 5.4 trillion has been added to the debt. I am still waiting for an answer, when does this become the Obama economy and record?
Click to expand...
This is what I love about you, even when a person requests that you end your tying Obama to the beginning of the recession, you don't, you repeat the canard again....and then expect the debate to continue despite your not following the request.

It shows that you don't care, won't read, and just shows that you really are only interested in what you have to say.

It is pointless, why quote anyone.....just post your nonsense and be done with it....you don't need us.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
This is what I love about you, even when a person requests that you end your tying Obama to the beginning of the recession, you don't, you repeat the canard again....and then expect the debate to continue despite your not following the request.

It shows that you don't care, won't read, and just shows that you really are only interested in what you have to say.

It is pointless, why quote anyone.....just post your nonsense and be done with it....you don't need us.
Click to expand...

Your failure to answer a direct question is noted. What I find hard to understand is how someone who was a member of Congress when the recession began and said he had the answers to solve the problems when he was running now is still not responsible for the results today. My question remains, when will this become the Obama economy and results. It is troubling to understand how a stimulus plan that was signed in early February 2009 that so many touted as a success would have the numbers that show up today over three years after that stimulus program was implemented. It does seem that somehow GW Bush snuck into the WH, implemented economic policy and destroyed the incredible results from the Obama stimulus. Wondered how that happened?

I would be happy to read your answer to the question I have asked you now more than once.
 
Conservative said:
So that is a good record that almost four years later there are the same number employed as when he took office. Apparently population growth and people turning 16 stopped.
Click to expand...

It's not bad considering that, as Sheik pointed out, four million jobs were lost in the early days of the Obama administration as a result of the massive recession he inherited. But I know that you have a problem with context.
 
Conservative said:
Your failure to answer a direct question is noted. What I find hard to understand is how someone who was a member of Congress when the recession began and said he had the answers to solve the problems when he was running now is still not responsible for the results today. My question remains, when will this become the Obama economy and results. It is troubling to understand how a stimulus plan that was signed in early February 2009 that so many touted as a success would have the numbers that show up today over three years after that stimulus program was implemented. It does seem that somehow GW Bush snuck into the WH, implemented economic policy and destroyed the incredible results from the Obama stimulus. Wondered how that happened?

I would be happy to read your answer to the question I have asked you now more than once.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately it takes more than four years to clean up 8+ years of Republican spilled milk. That was true for Clinton and it will be true of Obama. We don't expect y'all to apologize for your colossal mismanagement of the country -- past experience has taught us that you have no conscience -- but you could at least have good grace to shut your traps while we're cleaning up your mess.
 
AdamT said:
It's not bad considering that, as Sheik pointed out, four million jobs were lost in the early days of the Obama administration as a result of the massive recession he inherited. But I know that you have a problem with context.
Click to expand...

What you and Sheik continue to do is ignore actual facts. Instead of being counted as unemployed today 850,000 people were discouraged and left the work force last month. Those people aren't counted as unemployed, what do you call them?

How about answering the question, when does Obama get responsibility for the economy and the actual results today?

I also keep wondering how somone in Congress when the recession began gets elevated to a higher position but claims no knowledge of how bad things were and claims he inherited what he failed to prevent from happening?

You Obama supporters want it both ways, you want to give Obama credit for the stimulus program but not the declining GDP every year afterwards or employment today equal to what it was when he took office. Your statement is that "it's not bad considering" just doesn't "get it" in the real world. You would never survive numbers like these almost four years after taking a position and yet you want to give Obama four more years? Why?

The results today for the money spent is terrible and what do we have, a campaigner in chief out raising money so he has enough to divert from the economic results today. Had he good economic results he wouldn't need the money he is raising. Unfortnately the record is terrible so he needs the money to divert from that record and attack his opponent.
 
Conservative said:
What you and Sheik continue to do is ignore actual facts. Instead of being counted as unemployed today 850,000 people were discouraged and left the work force last month. Those people aren't counted as unemployed, what do you call them?

How about answering the question, when does Obama get responsibility for the economy and the actual results today?

I also keep wondering how somone in Congress when the recession began gets elevated to a higher position but claims no knowledge of how bad things were and claims he inherited what he failed to prevent from happening?

You Obama supporters want it both ways, you want to give Obama credit for the stimulus program but not the declining GDP every year afterwards or employment today equal to what it was when he took office. Your statement is that "it's not bad considering" just doesn't "get it" in the real world. You would never survive numbers like these almost four years after taking a position and yet you want to give Obama four more years? Why?

The results today for the money spent is terrible and what do we have, a campaigner in chief out raising money so he has enough to divert from the economic results today. Had he good economic results he wouldn't need the money he is raising. Unfortnately the record is terrible so he needs the money to divert from that record and attack his opponent.
Click to expand...

Heh heh, so now you want to shift the goal posts from people employed to the size of the workforce? :lol:

Certainly it's true that the workforce has shrunk because some people have given up looking for work. It has also shrunk due to demographic trends -- retirement of the baby boomers.

To answer your question, Obama has always been responsible for the economy and actual results today. You just have to take the results in context, which is what you steadfastly refuse to do.
 
Conservative said:
What you and Sheik continue to do is ignore actual facts. Instead of being counted as unemployed today 850,000 people were discouraged and left the work force last month.
Click to expand...
Holy shiznit! :doh You never learn, do you?

No, 850,000 people did not leave the workforce last month because they were discouraged.

Exactly how many times must you be taught that the monthly number of discouraged workers is not cumulative??

Tell me the number and I'll gladly repeat myself that many times if that is what it takes to educate you.
 
AdamT said:
Unfortunately it takes more than four years to clean up 8+ years of Republican spilled milk. That was true for Clinton and it will be true of Obama. We don't expect y'all to apologize for your colossal mismanagement of the country -- past experience has taught us that you have no conscience -- but you could at least have good grace to shut your traps while we're cleaning up your mess.
Click to expand...

Apparently it is going to take a lot longer to educate people like you that Democrats Controlled the Senate from 2001-2002 and the entire Congress from 2007-2008, just another distortion that you have as well as a lack of understanding basic civics. The fact that you failed to answer the direct question is noted as well. Liberals lke you are good at blaming others for your own personal failures.

Also you ignored the JAR polls today as well as the Presidential polls today so apparently you are in the minority of those still supporting this empty suit. This time next year President Romney will be well on his way cleaning up the Obama mess
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Holy shiznit! :doh You never learn, do you?

No, 850,000 people did not leave the workforce last month because they were discouraged.

Exactly how many times must you be taught that the monthly number of discouraged workers is not cumulative??

Tell me the number and I'll gladly repeat myself that many times if that is what it takes to educate you.
Click to expand...

Holy shiznit is right, it isn't cumulative, it was 850,000 last month, that was the number according to BLS. Are those people unemployed? When did Bush ever have 850,000 discouraged workers? You seem to have a problem understanding that discouraged workers added to unemployed is part of the U-6 number which is still higher than when he took office. That apparently is a success to a liberal like you
 
Conservative said:
What you and Sheik continue to do is ignore actual facts. Instead of being counted as unemployed today 850,000 people were discouraged and left the work force last month. Those people aren't counted as unemployed, what do you call them?

How about answering the question, when does Obama get responsibility for the economy and the actual results today?

I also keep wondering how somone in Congress when the recession began gets elevated to a higher position but claims no knowledge of how bad things were and claims he inherited what he failed to prevent from happening?

You Obama supporters want it both ways, you want to give Obama credit for the stimulus program but not the declining GDP every year afterwards or employment today equal to what it was when he took office. Your statement is that "it's not bad considering" just doesn't "get it" in the real world. You would never survive numbers like these almost four years after taking a position and yet you want to give Obama four more years? Why?

The results today for the money spent is terrible and what do we have, a campaigner in chief out raising money so he has enough to divert from the economic results today. Had he good economic results he wouldn't need the money he is raising. Unfortnately the record is terrible so he needs the money to divert from that record and attack his opponent.
Click to expand...

What you call a "declining GDP", Europe would call a miracle. What other free nation has done a better job than Obama with the Great Recession he inherited? The austerity budgets of Europe have put the region back into recession with negative GDP growth and rising unemployment. Your party promises the same medicine as Europe yet you expect different results?
Every new Republican President since the 1800's has had a recession in his 1st term yet you think Romney will be different?
I believe that Romney WANTS another recession and I suspect you are the same. You think the desperation of yet another recession would be just what the country needs to swallow the bitter pill of ending Medicare and Social Security for our children which is the holy grail of the radical right.
No thanks, I'll stay the course and not change horses in the middle of a recovery. That's just stupid.
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
What you call a "declining GDP", Europe would call a miracle. What other free nation has done a better job than Obama with the Great Recession he inherited? The austerity budgets of Europe have put the region back into recession with negative GDP growth. Your party promises the same medicine as Europe yet you expect different results?
Every new Republican President since the 1800's has had a recession in his 1st term yet you think Romney will be different?
Click to expand...

So you want this country to be like Europe? If so that explains your support for Obama. Yes, declining GDP each year to 1.5% for fiscal year 2012 which ends next month. How about answering the question, when does this become the Obama economy and results? He inherited a recession, ok, guess it doesn't matter that he was in the Congress that did nothing to prevent it but that aside his stimulus was in 2009 and the results today are what they are, over three years later. "My" Party believes in personal responsibility and isn't devisive. My party doesn't promote lies and my party doesn't have a jobs' council that hasn't met this year. My Party also doesn't have an incumbent who is running around the country campaigning yet running away from his record. Keep spouting the inherited bs but notice how the poll numbers are shifting. Wonder why?
 
Conservative said:
So you want this country to be like Europe? If so that explains your support for Obama. Yes, declining GDP each year to 1.5% for fiscal year 2012 which ends next month. How about answering the question, when does this become the Obama economy and results? He inherited a recession, ok, guess it doesn't matter that he was in the Congress that did nothing to prevent it but that aside his stimulus was in 2009 and the results today are what they are, over three years later. "My" Party believes in personal responsibility and isn't devisive. My party doesn't promote lies and my party doesn't have a jobs' council that hasn't met this year. My Party also doesn't have an incumbent who is running around the country campaigning yet running away from his record. Keep spouting the inherited bs but notice how the poll numbers are shifting. Wonder why?
Click to expand...

You came up empty on the question I see. That's because no national leader has done better than Obama at riding out this wave. You are the ones who want to mirror the austerity budgets in Europe and put us back into recession like them.
 
iguanaman said:
You came up empty on the question I see. That's because no national leader has done better than Obama at riding out this wave. You are the ones who want to mirror the austerity budgets in Europe and put us back into recession like them.
Click to expand...

thats almost as far fetched as adam and his tax cuts for the rich BS. its obama that wants to copy failed european socialism. keeping spending within income is not austerity, its good fiscal management.
 
iguanaman said:
You came up empty on the question I see. That's because no national leader has done better than Obama at riding out this wave. You are the ones who want to mirror the austerity budgets in Europe and put us back into recession like them.
Click to expand...

Riding out the wave is definitely what Obama is doing but that is something a good leader never would do. Leadership is about taking responsibility and action. Hard for Obama to take action when he spends most of his time trying to save a job he has done poorly. With 23 million unemployed/under employed Americans you would think there would be a demand to meet with them often to monitor progress. Apparently that doesn't fit into the Obama agenda
 
Bobcat said:
its obama that wants to copy failed european socialism.
Click to expand...

He's a European Socialist Now?

Hold on... I thought...

Bobcat said:
I think marxist collectivist fits him best
Click to expand...

...

Well Which idiotic, partisan, hyperbolic term do you want to use for him, he can't be a European Socialist and a Marxist Collectivist.
 
Jetboogieman said:
He's a European Socialist Now?

Hold on... I thought...



...

Well Which idiotic, partisan, hyperbolic term do you want to use for him, he can't be a European Socialist and a Marxist Collectivist.
Click to expand...
Along with the idea that Obama just doesn't get the whole "Anglo-Saxon Heritage"......

I just keep getting dizzy trying to keep score.
 
Jetboogieman said:
He's a European Socialist Now?

Hold on... I thought...



...

Well Which idiotic, partisan, hyperbolic term do you want to use for him, he can't be a European Socialist and a Marxist Collectivist.
Click to expand...

In their defense, they also said he was a Muslim but has a war on religion. He's also an atheist, too. :2razz:
 
Sorry I've been away from this thread for awhile, I make no excuses the fault is my own .

However, I think what the OP is trying to point out is the following.

Has the Republican party drifted away from it's base which should be conservatism

Now I looked up the word conservative and it's not what Paul Ryan is presenting.
Oh it's for conservatism but only for a small elite group .
Conservatism should be about Conservatism for America and all it's people.
United States of America , keyword UNITED.:peace
 
Jetboogieman said:
He's a European Socialist Now?

Hold on... I thought...



...

Well Which idiotic, partisan, hyperbolic term do you want to use for him, he can't be a European Socialist and a Marxist Collectivist.
Click to expand...

You decide, you seem to consider yourself some self appointed expert on political philosophies. Exactly why can't he be a marxist and a european socialist at the same time? you assume that all of these philosophies are pure and that there is no overlap. thats wrong, but you are the wizard you tell us what obama is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom