Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

Conservative · Sep 11, 2011

AdamT said:
No president ever has "total control" of Congress. Obama had a 60 seat majority in the Senate. Republicans filibustered nearly everything, meaning that in order to pass anything, Obama either needed 100% support from Dems or minimal support from Republicans -- neither of which is a particularly reasonable expectation. In effect Obama's 60 seat majority was no better than Bush's 50/50 split with Cheney as the deciding vote. Actually it was worse, as Democrats actually didn't vote against everything Bush proposed like a bunch of lemmings.

Do you realize what you are saying, that no President can do anything without Congressional support? Bush couldn't get anything done with a Democrat controlled Congress which wasn't a 50-50 Senate in 2007-2008. How you can blame Bush and not Obama just shows how partisan you really are.

The Barbarian · Sep 11, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti said:
"Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all-time high." ~ George Bush, 9.2.2004, RNC acceptance speech

You're welcome

Maybe, but if that is the best answer you can come up with, it just proves you don't have anything. There was no Bush policy changes that lead to the housing crisis.

Now we've had this housing crisis for three years now, show me an effective policy change that has helped cure it ?

AdamT · Sep 11, 2011

Conservative said:
Do you realize what you are saying, that no President can do anything without Congressional support? Bush couldn't get anything done with a Democrat controlled Congress which wasn't a 50-50 Senate in 2007-2008. How you can blame Bush and not Obama just shows how partisan you really are.

It is indeed a fact that a president cannot pass legislation on his own. Is that news to you?

And again, Democrats are not mindless lemmings like today's republicans. In fact Democrats supported Bush's TARP bill. In fact, it was Republicans who voted AGAINST the first TARP bill, with Democrats supporting it. And that, of course, led to the Lehman/stock market crash.

Conservative · Sep 11, 2011

AdamT said:
It is indeed a fact that a president cannot pass legislation on his own. Is that news to you?

And again, Democrats are not mindless lemmings like today's republicans. In fact Democrats supported Bush's TARP bill. In fact, it was Republicans who voted AGAINST the first TARP bill, with Democrats supporting it. And that, of course, led to the Lehman/stock market crash.

Spoken like a true liberal partisan, when Congress does what you want then liberalism is great but when they don't, they are mindless lemmings? Thanks for that explanation that shows who you are. Got it, liberal Democrats good, moderate and conservative Democrats bad. You keep ignoring history, civics, and now reality. "Your" President is an empty suit, incompetent that lacks leadership skills. He is responsible for the results today and that is reality.

The Barbarian · Sep 11, 2011

pbrauer said:
Well no matter how much you claim that Social Security in a Ponzi scheme, it doesn't make it true. For you to claim that it is makes you look foolish and ignorant. Ponzi schemes are fraudulent because they entice investors by offering big rewards, but quickly run out of cash leaving future investors with nothing.

Gov. Perry may get the nomination with his rhetoric, but it come back to bite him in the ass in the general. Romney is also on shaky ground too because he has suggested privatizing Social Security in the past. Obama is blessed.

you are only somewhat right, yes a ponzi scheme rewards those first investing in them the most. Where as later investors could lose out, and often do.
The difference between the illegal ponzi scheme and the government ponzi scheme, is the government forces participation it theirs.

There is no real difference other then that, any ponzi scheme, is the same, you take money from new investors ( people still working) to pay those that have already invested ( those drawing SS) there is no holding of anything of value, there is no business venture, it's simply using cash from new investors to pay off those that have invested.. Had someone like Madoff been able to force people to invest in his ponzi scheme … he would still be in business.

AdamT · Sep 11, 2011

Conservative said:
Spoken like a true liberal partisan, when Congress does what you want then liberalism is great but when they don't, they are mindless lemmings? Thanks for that explanation that shows who you are. Got it, liberal Democrats good, moderate and conservative Democrats bad. You keep ignoring history, civics, and now reality. "Your" President is an empty suit, incompetent that lacks leadership skills. He is responsible for the results today and that is reality.

Interesting. Pointing out that Democrats are less partisan than Republicans makes me a liberal partisan. :2rofll:

AdamT · Sep 11, 2011

The Barbarian said:
you are only somewhat right, yes a ponzi scheme rewards those first investing in them the most. Where as later investors could lose out, and often do.
The difference between the illegal ponzi scheme and the government ponzi scheme, is the government forces participation it theirs.

There is no real difference other then that, any ponzi scheme, is the same, you take money from new investors ( people still working) to pay those that have already invested ( those drawing SS) there is no holding of anything of value, there is no business venture, it's simply using cash from new investors to pay off those that have invested.. Had someone like Madoff been able to force people to invest in his ponzi scheme … he would still be in business.

Social Security is not a ponzi scheme, bottom line. People who have paid in will get their benefits.

Conservative · Sep 11, 2011

AdamT said:
Interesting. Pointing out that Democrats are less partisan than Republicans makes me a liberal partisan. :2rofll:

Interesting that you don't know the difference between entitlement funding and general budget funding. If we default on general funding how are you hurt vs defaulting on giving you your money back?

Conservative · Sep 11, 2011

AdamT said:
Social Security is not a ponzi scheme, bottom line. People who have paid in will get their benefits.

Yes, they will get money back because the govt. will borrow or print more money making what they get less valuable something you will never understand. Is it a good thing to take your money and spend it on something that you will never get back, i.e. general fund items?

AdamT · Sep 11, 2011

Conservative said:
Interesting that you don't know the difference between entitlement funding and general budget funding. If we default on general funding how are you hurt vs defaulting on giving you your money back?

As you've pointed out so many times, entitlement funding is now owned by general funding (your IOUs), so it's rather a moot point.

pbrauer · Sep 11, 2011

Conservative said:
Only the brainwashed, braindead, and clueless. Bush had nothing to do with the 2011 results and the brainwashed, braindead, and clueless ignore that Obama was in the Congress that voted for the 2009 budget and was in charge of the legislative process from 2007-2008. The JAR of Obama shows that you are wrong that Obama isn't being held responsible NOW!

WTF, check Bush's private sector jobs in his last 12 versus Obama's last 18 month's which have been in the positive territory.

Bush's last 12 months in office	-3830
Obama's last 18 month's in office	2043

As far as JAR goes, they measure different things, they don't show if he will be reelected. Besides the election is 14 months away and all you've got is Perry and maybe Romney. :mrgreen:

pbrauer · Sep 11, 2011

The Barbarian said:
Maybe, but if that is the best answer you can come up with, it just proves you don't have anything. There was no Bush policy changes that lead to the housing crisis.

Now we've had this housing crisis for three years now, show me an effective policy change that has helped cure it ?

Really? The states tried to get predatory loaning by Federally chartered banks under control, but Bush stopped them.

Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

The Barbarian · Sep 11, 2011

pbrauer said:
Really? The states tried to get predatory loaning by Federally chartered banks under control, but Bush stopped them.

Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

well I can agree that there were some “stupid leading” practices being used, I have to go right back to the consumer, they should be held just as responsible, or even more so, for taking out any loan as the bank offering them.

As you own link provides, there was “nothing” new passed to provide less or more restriction of these loans. Hind sight is a wonderful thing, but I would have loved to see the liberal reaction to anything being done in 2003 to restrict home ownership. I could see the headlines now, Bush against home ownership, Bush hates the middle class taking away chance of home ownership. You would have been right their, expressing your hatred of Bush …. and you know it.

Maybe you should do a search of how the lowering of our lending practices got started to begin with.

Or how Banks were in a sense being forced to make bad loans .. Obama Sued Citibank Under CRA to Force it to Make Bad Loans – UPDATED « The IUSB Vision Weblog

But no, like a true liberal, why of course it's all Bush's fault .. go ahead take the easy way out … and duck responsibility after all isn't that the way of all good liberals, deny responsibility, and blame someone else?

AdamT · Sep 11, 2011

IMO most of the bad sh*t that was done to precipitate the financial crisis took place in '99 and '00, with bipartisan support. Primarily it consisted of Gramm Leach Blilely and the Commidities Futures Modernization Act. Phil Gramm was the principle mover in both of those Acts, but they were supported by Rubin and signed by Clinton. They may have sounded like good ideas at the time, but Bush and the Congress should have reacted when they resulted in an enormous explosion of derivatives trading. That trading, coupled with Greenspan's loose money supply and Bush's tax cuts, helped drive the housing bubble through the roof.

The Barbarian · Sep 11, 2011

pbrauer said:
WTF, check Bush's private sector jobs in his last 12 versus Obama's last 18 month's which have been in the positive territory.

Bush's last 12 months in office -3830
Obama's last 18 month's in office 2043

As far as JAR goes, they measure different things, they don't show if he will be reelected. Besides the election is 14 months away and all you've got is Perry and maybe Romney. :mrgreen:

Well every one keeps debating on Obama getting elected, personally I hope he does. I would say the chances of Democrats losing the Senate is over 90% just because of the numbers, there are 34 or 35 senate seats up for re-election, of which 24 are held by Democrats. There only needs to be a net increase of 4 seats switching to Republicans for that to happen. When that happens, Obama is powerless. His veto pen will show where he really stands.

Aside from that, it's going to be a different type of election, because this time, he will have his record to either use, or be used against him. Thus far, most would say used against him, but as you say he does have some time to change that. But either way, he can't run on hope and change again, and try as he might, He can't run against the Bush policies, well other then in the mind of far left liberals like yourself.

The Barbarian · Sep 11, 2011

AdamT said:
IMO most of the bad sh*t that was done to precipitate the financial crisis took place in '99 and '00, with bipartisan support. Primarily it consisted of Gramm Leach Blilely and the Commidities Futures Modernization Act. Phil Gramm was the principle mover in both of those Acts, but they were supported by Rubin and signed by Clinton. They may have sounded like good ideas at the time, but Bush and the Congress should have reacted when they resulted in an enormous explosion of derivatives trading. That trading, coupled with Greenspan's loose money supply and Bush's tax cuts, helped drive the housing bubble through the roof.

Thank you ... I can agree with that post ..... would only just add .... can you imagine the headlines if Bush had of acted to slow things, moving banks back to higher lending standards ? The press and most liberals would have screamed bloody murder. That is the problem with politics, doing something to ward of impending problems is never greeted well, because if you do ward off the problem, there will be always someone saying it wouldn't have happened to begin with...... Now that said, please understand, I agree Bush and congress still should have taken those steps ..

Sheik Yerbuti · Sep 11, 2011

Conservative said:
Only the brainwashed, braindead, and clueless. Bush had nothing to do with the 2011 results and the brainwashed, braindead, and clueless ignore that Obama was in the Congress that voted for the 2009 budget and was in charge of the legislative process from 2007-2008. The JAR of Obama shows that you are wrong that Obama isn't being held responsible NOW!

So it's the Democrat-led Congress that is responsible for the massive job loss between mid-2008 through mid 2009 and it's the Democrat president that's responsible for it in 2011?

When is the Republican-led Congress in 2003, 2004, 2005, or 2006 responsible? When is the Republican president from 2001 through 2008 responsible?

Sheik Yerbuti · Sep 11, 2011

Conservative said:
No President in modern history had the overwhelming numbers of his own party in Congress when he took office. Republicans couldn't stop anything Obama wanted thus your claims about filibustering is nothing more than leftwing rhetoric from leftwing sources. Keep ignoring the Obama record NOW, 2 1/2 years after he took office.

No president taking over the office of president in modern history was handed an unemployment rate of 7.8%

No president taking over the office of president in modern history was handed an underemployment rate of 14%

No president taking over the office of president in modern history was handed an economy with 22 million underemployed.

No president taking over the office of president in modern history was handed a GDP as low as -8.9%

No president taking over the office of president in modern history was handed a budget with a trillion dollar short fall.

No president taking over the office of president in modern history was handed a debt approching 11 trillion dollars.

No president taking over the office of president in modern history was handed a housing market with over 3 million homes in foreclosure.

Sheik Yerbuti · Sep 11, 2011

Conservative said:
How many months did Bush lose 700,000 jobs? Bush ended up with a net job gain and after 2 1/2 years plus of Obama we have a net job loss, that is reality.

Umm, at this point into Bush's term, 31 months after being sworn in, he too had aq net loss of jobs. And the economy he was handed by Clinton was nowhere near as bad as what he dumped on Obama.

Conservative · Sep 11, 2011

AdamT said:
As you've pointed out so many times, entitlement funding is now owned by general funding (your IOUs), so it's rather a moot point.

Where do you think the money is going to come from to pay for those IOU's? Entitlement funding was NEVER supposed to be owned by the General Fund. Amazing how you try and justify liberal spending and programs.

Conservative · Sep 11, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Umm, at this point into Bush's term, 31 months after being sworn in, he too had aq net loss of jobs. And the economy he was handed by Clinton was nowhere near as bad as what he dumped on Obama.

Amazing how Bush remains the problem 2 1/2 years into the Obama Administration. It is the Obama record that will be on the ballot in 2011 and we cannot afford that record, but what the hell, you have a job and that is all that matters, right?

Conservative · Sep 11, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti;1059790356]
No president taking over the office of president in modern history was handed an unemployment rate of 7.8%

No president taking over the office of president in modern history was handed an underemployment rate of 14%

2 1/2 years later the unemployment rate is 9.1% and the under employment rate is 16.2%

No president taking over the office of president in modern history was handed an economy with 22 million underemployed.

There are 25 Plus million underemployed today, 2 1/2 years later

No president taking over the office of president in modern history was handed a GDP as low as -8.9%

The GDP rate in 2011 was .4% and 1% the first two qtrs, 2 1/2 years later

No president taking over the office of president in modern history was handed a budget with a trillion dollar short fall.

The budget deficit the last two years has 3 trillion dollars and Bush had nothing to do with it

No president taking over the office of president in modern history was handed a debt approching 11 trillion dollars.

It is approaching 15 trillion dollars today and Obama inherited a AAA credit rating

No president taking over the office of president in modern history was handed a housing market with over 3 million homes in foreclosure.

Foreclosures are continuing, banks aren't lending, and businesses aren't hiring.

Here it is 2 1/2 years later and the Obama record shows you voted for an empty suit, an incompetent community organizer with zero leadership skills.

Sheik Yerbuti · Sep 11, 2011

Conservative said:
Right, the one that has 25 million plus unemployed or under employed Americans!

Hypothetical (you won't understand anyway, but still)...

You have a job making $100,000/year. You get a measly $1,040 raise. 1.0%.

Your neighbor's son works at McDonald's for $7.25/hour and gets a 0.50¢/hour raise, a 6.9% increase which equals $1,040/year ...

Between the two of you, who got a better raise?

Conservative · Sep 11, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti said:
So it's the Democrat-led Congress that is responsible for the massive job loss between mid-2008 through mid 2009 and it's the Democrat president that's responsible for it in 2011?

When is the Republican-led Congress in 2003, 2004, 2005, or 2006 responsible? When is the Republican president from 2001 through 2008 responsible?

That Congress grew jobs as BLS shows. Bush isn't in office today, these are Obama's results and you have BDS.

Sheik Yerbuti · Sep 11, 2011

Conservative said:
Obama didn't save the financial institutions...

Nobody could have.