• 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!

Poll: 44% of Americans Worse Off Under Obama

If you have any definitive proof that the unemployment numbers are being counted using some illegal fraud, I would be happy to read it.

Happy to show you how they lie...

Last week's surprisingly sharp decline in the unemployment rate from 9.4% to 9% and equally surprising anemic job growth -- 36,000 new jobs -- left a lot of investors scratching their heads. How could the unemployment rate plummet so significantly while a such a trivial number of new jobs were created?

If we simply extrapolate those numbers, we get some nonsensical results. If adding 36,000 jobs to the 139 million jobs in the U.S. economy lowers the unemployment rate by 0.4 percentage points, then adding just 720,000 jobs should lower the unemployment rate by 8 points -- from 9% to only 1%.

Yet the Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that 812,000 jobs were added in the year from January 2010 to January 2011 (138,511,000 vs. 139,323,000). Based on the unemployment rate announced last week, we could expect that those 812,000 additional jobs would have lowered the unemployment rate to near-zero. But of course, we know they didn't.

See full article from DailyFinance: What's the Real Unemployment Number? - DailyFinance

Read the article and tell me what you think.

j-mac
 
Well, good...If we take ownership of that can we move on from the blame game, and get er done? Because I think that American attitudes of instant gratification in credit markets is slowing, and people are becoming more personally responsible in their households. That is another reason why Obama will lose, because he hasn't grasped how to do that yet in policy.

j-mac

Whether he loses or not will depend on two things: 1) the economy at election time, and 2) who runs against him. He won't lose if it someone like Plain or Bachman. Not sure Romney can win either. But he has a better shot.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not sure either party has grasped how to not spend outside our means. The past shows us republicans will spend just as surely.
 
Whovian said:
What Obama is doing would be something similar to the new General Manager of a professional baseball team coming in and building a new team. The team is full of new players and the entire coaching staff has been replaced.

That team sucks and doesn't make the playoffs. The General Manager meets with the press at the start of the next season and blames the previous management for the team sucking. That's insane.

The excuse works the first few months of the season but at a certain point just except the fact that what you're doing isn't working.

President Obama has been working with his own team since he was elected.

Your analogy fails since the reality Obama has to work with is NOT something new. It is the economy he inherited. It is not NEW.

And what he is doing is indeed working. The unemployment rate has reversed from its growth period.

Dear Allah, you suck at this...

The new players and coaching staff are his administration... not the economy.

The previous administration is the old team management and coaching staff.

Not making the playoffs is not improving the economy.

The current team management and coaching staff (Obama & his administration), are blaming the previous team management and coaching staff (Bush and his administration), for not making the playoffs (improving the economy).

1993-2010-unemployment-rates-clinton-bush-obama.jpg
 
So Republicans think they're worse off under Obama. Big deal.

Fewer than a quarter of people see signs of improvement in the economy, and two-thirds say they believe the country is on the wrong track overall, according to a Bloomberg National Poll conducted June 17-20.
You telling me that only 1/3 of this country is made up of Democrats?

OR are uyou telling me the poll was stacked in favor od the GOP? IF you think that, please provide some evidence to back it up.
 
Whether he loses or not will depend on two things: 1) the economy at election time,

No argument here, but I don't see really anything Obama can do in the next 17 months that will seriously effect hiring, and we both know he can't win with a rate north of 8%

and 2) who runs against him. He won't lose if it someone like Plain or Bachman. Not sure Romney can win either. But he has a better shot.

Oh for God's sake, get off it will ya? When will you liberals learn that we are not going to let libs choose our candidate.

If Obama keeps going in his current path, a can of OJ could whoop his arse.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not sure either party has grasped how to not spend outside our means. The past shows us republicans will spend just as surely.

Hence the need for a strong TEA party... You should join. :shock:

j-mac
 
No argument here, but I don't see really anything Obama can do in the next 17 months that will seriously effect hiring, and we both know he can't win with a rate north of 8%

As I keep saying, no president can control this. if he gets lucky and it improves, he'll take credit, as they all do, but it won't be because of anything he has done.


Oh for God's sake, get off it will ya? When will you liberals learn that we are not going to let libs choose our candidate.

If Obama keeps going in his current path, a can of OJ could whoop his arse.

You're wrong on two counts. I'm not picking your choice. In fact, I would argue many democrats hope you choose one of the nutters. I'm only arguing they can't win.

And your choice matters.

Hence the need for a strong TEA party... You should join. :shock:

j-mac

If they were conherent, with fewer nutter candidates, and had some who actually understood the constitituion, without ignoring 100 years of history, I might have considered it. ;)
 
As I keep saying, no president can control this. if he gets lucky and it improves, he'll take credit, as they all do, but it won't be because of anything he has done.

No, don't twist here. Obama could start choosing more fiscally conservative policies and move himself to the center, in that respect the economy would likely start bouncing back, and he would have a chance. But as long as he chooses the path of Blame Bush, and stick to letting the Marxist agenda win the day through his sneaky regulators, and Czars, then he will be tossed out like a rotten piece of fruit.

You're wrong on two counts. I'm not picking your choice. In fact, I would argue many democrats hope you choose one of the nutters. I'm only arguing they can't win.

And your choice matters.

I don't think your continued bashing of a female that isn't even in the race makes you look very good, or even smart.

If they were conherent, with fewer nutter candidates, and had some who actually understood the constitituion, without ignoring 100 years of history, I might have considered it.

If you actually listened to the message without your preconceived notions, and talking point pap fed to you by your liberal sources, you may actually find you agree with them.

j-mac
 
No, don't twist here. Obama could start choosing more fiscally conservative policies and move himself to the center, in that respect the economy would likely start bouncing back, and he would have a chance. But as long as he chooses the path of Blame Bush, and stick to letting the Marxist agenda win the day through his sneaky regulators, and Czars, then he will be tossed out like a rotten piece of fruit.

Where do you see a twist? I've been saying the same thing all thread, and well before this thread, even during Bush's tenure. No president can control the economy. You thinking anyone can is equal to saying government is the answer, only they can fix our problems. I don't believe that.

I don't think your continued bashing of a female that isn't even in the race makes you look very good, or even smart.

Speaking of diversion. . .

If you actually listened to the message without your preconceived notions, and talking point pap fed to you by your liberal sources, you may actually find you agree with them.

j-mac

I've listened j. It is a mistake to think those who dislike the party of nutters they have simplyn haven't listened. We've all seen, heard, read and disected them plenty. They are not a sercret.
 
I have to say, back during Bush's first term during the "blame everything on Clinton" era, we should all have learned back then that doesn't solve anything. In fact, just the opposite. We see what blaming everything on Clinton got us. That's how we got in this mess to begin with.

The democrats would be wise to learn from that and avoid the "blame everything on Bush" game. It lowers them to their opponent's level, as truthful as it might be. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
As I keep saying, no president can control this. if he gets lucky and it improves, he'll take credit, as they all do, but it won't be because of anything he has done.

Any president's policies affect the economy.
 
I have to say, back during Bush's first term during the "blame everything on Clinton" era, we should all have learned back then that doesn't solve anything. In fact, just the opposite. We see what blaming everything on Clinton got us. That's how we got in this mess to begin with.

The democrats would be wise to learn from that and avoid the "blame everything on Bush" game. It lowers them to their opponent's level.


So Cap. To be playing the blame game as Obama is, "Lowers" the standard of demo's?

huh? Mr. Independent?

j-mac
 

Neither Republican nor Democrat will actually work to better the People's lives. Both serve the same interests and will behave very similarly. While there are certainly measures the government could have taken to lighten the impact of this economic meltdown which still isn't fixed but apparently we don't care that much about anymore, that was not the path taken. The path taken was to ensure that their friends in high places didn't lose their shirts, and it came at our cost.
 
in 1980, it was "are you better off than you were four years ago?"

in 2012, it's gonna be "can you AFFORD four more years?"

can AMERICA afford four more?

seeya at the polls, progressives

Are you going to do any better? Bush didn't really run a good government, our debt increased dramatically during his tenure. As well as our interventionism. Obama has merely taken that and run with it. Increasing our spending and war beyond that which can be supported particularly after the economy broke. If you want to affect something, maybe you can look into the trillions spent on interventionist wars in areas we have no business being in.
 
Any president's policies affect the economy.

I repeat, and j, you pay attention as well, no president controls the economy. I said so when Bush was president and I say so now.
 
Man, this is shaping up to be very bad for liberal progressives.....


j-mac

It's very bad for Americans in general as the government has stopped serving our means. I really don't see us being in any different place had McCain won. People point fingers all the time, but would we really be better off with the other side in? Or would we just be in the same place? If it's the latter, maybe there's a problem with just sitting around pointing fingers.
 
I repeat, and j, you pay attention as well, no president controls the economy. I said so when Bush was president and I say so now.

You may be consistent in your meme, but that doesn't make it true. All that shows is that you are consistently wrong....heh, heh....

j-mac
 
It's very bad for Americans in general as the government has stopped serving our means. I really don't see us being in any different place had McCain won. People point fingers all the time, but would we really be better off with the other side in? Or would we just be in the same place? If it's the latter, maybe there's a problem with just sitting around pointing fingers.


Ok what do you suggest? or is this just more faux libertarian no answers filler?

j-mac
 
You may be consistent in your meme, but that doesn't make it true. All that shows is that you are consistently wrong....heh, heh....

j-mac

J, politicians are about staying in power. The best way for them to stay in power is for the economy to be strong and doing well. Yet, it has faultered under both parties, neither being able to stop it from going bad. They simply don't have the power to override other factors.
 
Ok what do you suggest? or is this just more faux libertarian no answers filler?

j-mac



I would like to see less my side and your side, and more compromise and effort to work towards a solution. It would be nice, as unlikley as it is to happen.
 
Ok what do you suggest? or is this just more faux libertarian no answers filler?

j-mac

I suggest that we take serious stock with the current direction and size of our government. We need to control it, not the other way around. There are necessities of government and in what it needs to do to best serve the People. We can sit around all day, year after year saying "look how bad the other side is". But if both sides are bad, then there's the real problem right there and we need to work to open up proper political competition to allow other people to get in that may actually work for a change. How many years of "It's Clinton's fault" did we get? Something like 6? It's always the other person's fault. Well guess what, it may just not be everyone's fault but our own, maybe the whole system has become isolated from the people and the whole system is becoming so bad that we can't get anywhere with either party. In that case, the only option left is to replace the main parties with new ones which will serve us better. And when they grow old and incompetent, we replace them again. Only through our diligent servo of the system can we hope to maintain control of the government and have it operate in meaningful, correct, and just manners.

I suggest we all take our collective heads out of our asses and actually do our damned job to keep this Republic.
 
I suggest that we take serious stock with the current direction and size of our government. We need to control it, not the other way around. There are necessities of government and in what it needs to do to best serve the People. We can sit around all day, year after year saying "look how bad the other side is". But if both sides are bad, then there's the real problem right there and we need to work to open up proper political competition to allow other people to get in that may actually work for a change. How many years of "It's Clinton's fault" did we get? Something like 6? It's always the other person's fault. Well guess what, it may just not be everyone's fault but our own, maybe the whole system has become isolated from the people and the whole system is becoming so bad that we can't get anywhere with either party. In that case, the only option left is to replace the main parties with new ones which will serve us better. And when they grow old and incompetent, we replace them again. Only through our diligent servo of the system can we hope to maintain control of the government and have it operate in meaningful, correct, and just manners.

I suggest we all take our collective heads out of our asses and actually do our damned job to keep this Republic.

You may want to look at the process as well, as a beauty contest leads us to where we are.
 
I suggest that we take serious stock with the current direction and size of our government. We need to control it, not the other way around. There are necessities of government and in what it needs to do to best serve the People. We can sit around all day, year after year saying "look how bad the other side is". But if both sides are bad, then there's the real problem right there and we need to work to open up proper political competition to allow other people to get in that may actually work for a change. How many years of "It's Clinton's fault" did we get? Something like 6? It's always the other person's fault. Well guess what, it may just not be everyone's fault but our own, maybe the whole system has become isolated from the people and the whole system is becoming so bad that we can't get anywhere with either party. In that case, the only option left is to replace the main parties with new ones which will serve us better. And when they grow old and incompetent, we replace them again. Only through our diligent servo of the system can we hope to maintain control of the government and have it operate in meaningful, correct, and just manners.

I suggest we all take our collective heads out of our asses and actually do our damned job to keep this Republic.

I don't find anything you said to be out of line at all. However, given our current system, how do we do that short of revolution do we do that?

j-mac
 
J, politicians are about staying in power. The best way for them to stay in power is for the economy to be strong and doing well. Yet, it has faultered under both parties, neither being able to stop it from going bad. They simply don't have the power to override other factors.

Well, they'd better figure it out, and damned fast don't you think?

j-mac
 
Well, they'd better figure it out, and damned fast don't you think?

j-mac

J, the problem is relying on them to figure it out. Only in a government system where the government has complete control can government control the economy to any reasonable measure, and ever there it can and does get away from them. The fact is, sometimes you just have to ride it out.
 
Back
Top Bottom