Republicans block Obama jobs bill

j-mac · Oct 25, 2011

randel said:
no such thing as a 'death' tax

What do you call the Estate Tax? I call it theft.

j-mac

j-mac · Oct 25, 2011

obvious Child said:
What you ignore is that President has relatively little power over the economy. You want to blame him solely for the mess we're in.

This is a great meme if a liberal is speaking to the failures of the Obama administration, however, I find it amusing when in the same breath, many of the same libs that spout this when speaking of Obama, also blame Bush for the downfall of the economy that poor Obama took over.

j-mac

Dickieboy · Oct 25, 2011

Catawba said:
What are you talking about? I never claimed we could retire the debt in year by eliminating the tax breaks for the wealthy. It took 30 years of spending too much and tax breaks for the wealthy to create our debt. It is going to take 30 years of the reverse to eliminate our debt.

You stated yesterday,”The government can produce jobs and stimulate the economy by doing so until there is enough consumer demand needed for private sector to increase production.”
To which I inquired ‘how are we going to pay for it’. No one ever discussed ‘retiring the debt’ in fact the debt was never brought up. My point was that given the deficit spending and the annual income of the 1% how much MORE can we spend on government? There is only so much water in the bucket.

You suggested it was part of our economic recession.

Please review previous posts. This discussion began on the point ‘great strain on the economy’. There was no reference to recession. But since you brought it up it is undeniable that it did have an effect on the ‘dot-com bubble’ recession. Also consider ‘In New York City, there were approximately 430,000 lost job months and $2.8 billion in lost wages, which occurred in the three months following the 9/11 attacks’(Monthly Labor Review). Does this not qualify as ‘great strain’, albeit local NYC?

Painfully obvious I would say, its why people are protesting all over the country.

The following from ‘US Bureau of Public Debt’ reveals that the line representing ‘lower income’ folks is relatively flat. However looking closer the latest 'small uptick' appears to have occured during the Clinton administration. What is the evidence of your position?

I am not talking about me, I am talking about the middle class.

Please provide specific evidence that supports ‘trickle down didn’t work’. Just because ‘I think so’ doesn’t make it so. Again, my evidence is ME.

By restoring some of the progressivity of income taxes, that doesn't tax income by the wealthy at a lower tax rate than the middle class.

HUH? Wealthy are taxed at a lower rate than the middle class? Please provide evidence of such that is an ‘apples to apples’ comparison. The comparison of income tax to capital gains tax is not such.

Conservative · Oct 25, 2011

Dickieboy said:
You stated yesterday,”The government can produce jobs and stimulate the economy by doing so until there is enough consumer demand needed for private sector to increase production.”
To which I inquired ‘how are we going to pay for it’. No one ever discussed ‘retiring the debt’ in fact the debt was never brought up. My point was that given the deficit spending and the annual income of the 1% how much MORE can we spend on government? There is only so much water in the bucket.

Please review previous posts. This discussion began on the point ‘great strain on the economy’. There was no reference to recession. But since you brought it up it is undeniable that it did have an effect on the ‘dot-com bubble’ recession. Also consider ‘In New York City, there were approximately 430,000 lost job months and $2.8 billion in lost wages, which occurred in the three months following the 9/11 attacks’(Monthly Labor Review). Does this not qualify as ‘great strain’, albeit local NYC?

The following from ‘US Bureau of Public Debt’ reveals that the line representing ‘lower income’ folks is relatively flat. However looking closer the latest 'small uptick' appears to have occured during the Clinton administration. What is the evidence of your position?

View attachment 67117490

Please provide specific evidence that supports ‘trickle down didn’t work’. Just because ‘I think so’ doesn’t make it so. Again, my evidence is ME.

HUH? Wealthy are taxed at a lower rate than the middle class? Please provide evidence of such that is an ‘apples to apples’ comparison. The comparison of income tax to capital gains tax is not such.

Far too many spend too much time on the leftwing websites that spread misinformation and half truths. They simply cannot admit that liberalism has made a fool out of them as actual facts mean nothing to them. Comparing income taxes to capital gains tax rates is what they do to appeal to the ignorant.

Trickle down doesn't work? Interesting yet not an ounce of evidence to prove that but plenty of evidence that it does work. As has been posted here 47% of the American households aren't paying any FIT and that isn't about to change so liberals using class warfare expect the other 53% of the households to pay a greater share of their income in taxes since the top 1% paying 38% of all income taxes isn't enough. That is class warfare and that is the prescription Obama is going to use for re-election hoping that he has bought enough votes to assure he gets those votes.

Conservative · Oct 25, 2011

j-mac said:
This is a great meme if a liberal is speaking to the failures of the Obama administration, however, I find it amusing when in the same breath, many of the same libs that spout this when speaking of Obama, also blame Bush for the downfall of the economy that poor Obama took over.

j-mac

Amazing isn't it, 1377 posts on this thread with almost every liberal blaming Bush for the economic recession and absolving Obama of any responsibility. When a liberal claims that the President has very little power over the economy they mean a liberal President, not a Republican President who is totally responsible for everything bad that happens. Forget Congress for they are just place holders.

Boo Radley · Oct 25, 2011

j-mac said:
This is a great meme if a liberal is speaking to the failures of the Obama administration, however, I find it amusing when in the same breath, many of the same libs that spout this when speaking of Obama, also blame Bush for the downfall of the economy that poor Obama took over.

j-mac

You should address individuals personally. Liberals, whoever they are, and not in universal lock step. Did OC make such a case? if not, your comment has no meaning to him. I personally said Bush could not control the economy. Back then I argued he could only effect the debt, something I thought conservatives opposed. Funny how I don't remember any threads by you or others who denounce Obama on Bush's debt back then. Neither has been good for the debt, but niether controls the economy. If they did, it would never, ever be bad. You only stay in power if it is good. And since you often state every action Obama and democrats make, oddly not republcians, is made for political reasons, they would make sure the economy was good if they could control it.

Conservative · Oct 25, 2011

obvious Child;1059902476]Considering that you just wash rinse repeat your arguments, we've already turned your arguments into ground beef. Furthermore, we all know you cannot read data properly. I'm just telling people to stop wasting their time on someone who believes that the US population doubles monthly.

Normally I don't respond to you but every once in a while I get bored and decide to do so. When did I say the U.S. Population doubles monthly? My is that ever a liberal projection. Maybe if you get someone to comprehend what is posted you wouldn't be looking so foolish.

What results? That the economy is bad? When did I ever argue otherwise? (Hint: I didn't) What you ignore is that President has relatively little power over the economy. You want to blame him solely for the mess we're in.

Translation Democrat Presidents have relatively little power over the economy but Republican Presidents have total control thus destroyed it. Isn't that what you are trying to say?

And you are the problem.

Project much? I don't have that power

Considering you haven't won an argument here since you started, that's not really saying much. I already destroyed you countless times. I have nothing to prove to you. Especially after you couldn't figure out the BLS data was cumulative.

BLS data ISN'T cumulative it is monthly and discouraged workers aren't counted as employed or unemployed but are counted monthly. From BLS

Since 1994, questions on discouraged workers have been collected and tabulated from all eligible individuals on a monthly basis.

Nothing cumulative there but it does distort the unemployment rate which has occurred since 1994. This is the Obama unemployment rate without discouraged workers and with discouraged workers.

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 15119 14485
2011 13863 13673 13542 13747 13914 14087 13931 13967 13992

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 1282 1318
2011 993 1020 921 989 822 982 1119 977 1037

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 16401 15803
2011 14856 14693 14463 14736 14736 15069 15050 14944 15029 0 0 0

Labor Force 2011 153186 153246 153406 153421 153693 153421 153228 153594 154017

UE Rate w/o DW 9.05% 8.92% 8.83% 8.96% 9.05% 9.18% 9.09% 9.09% 9.08%

UE Rate with DW 9.70% 9.59% 9.43% 9.60% 9.59% 9.82% 9.82% 9.73% 9.76%

After that fiasco, you are nothing but a clown to me.

I am so worried about what you think of me and lose sleep every night.

When did I ever argue the economy isn't bad? Oh wait. I didn't. You are as usual being dishonest. But as we all have pointed out, your arguments are based on a massive failure to understand basic data. The fact you don't get why you can't use nominal, real and chain interchangeably is a partially why I don't invest much time in discussing things with you.

Since I seldom read fully what you post I don't know if you have or haven't however I do notice a lot of liberals here ignoring the lack of leadership of this President thus the very poor performance since the end of the recession. Obviously you have never run anything in your life for if you spent as much as Obama and generated the kind of results he has gotten, you would be fired and that is the point. Instead of blaming Bush for what is going on today you need to ask yourself why hasn't the "smartest person" ever to hold the office done a better job especially with total overwhelming control of the Congress his first two years?

Considering I didn't vote for Obama (I told you this before you lying hack) you're way out of your league. Furthermore, Obama is little more than a Bush clone. A president you have a genetic inability to criticize. And it's amusing you consider Obama worse than the presidents who let 500,000 Americans die needlessly.

Aw, gee, took you a little longer than usual,

lying hack?

but you are right, I am out of my league for you see I am in the big leagues and you still are in the minors. You and your ilk have no idea what leadership is or personal responsibility so keep playing your silly partisan game while ignoring the actual results.

j-mac · Oct 25, 2011

Boo Radley said:
You should address individuals personally. Liberals, whoever they are

Boo Radley
Sage

Join Date
Dec 2009
Last Seen
Today @ 10:37 AM
Gender

Lean
Liberal
Posts
15,332
Liked
2646 times

and not in universal lock step.

PUHLEEZE! Liberals are more prone to group think than any other group I have seen yet.

Did OC make such a case? if not, your comment has no meaning to him.

I don't know, should I spend time looking for a specific to satisfy you, or are we talking among friends here? And BTW, who are you that I need to clear your hurdles?

I personally said Bush could not control the economy. Back then I argued he could only effect the debt, something I thought conservatives opposed.

You have also argued that Obama inherited a mess that Bush left concerning the economy. Should I now have to search that as well? Let's be honest here Joe.

Funny how I don't remember any threads by you or others who denounce Obama on Bush's debt back then. Neither has been good for the debt, but niether controls the economy. If they did, it would never, ever be bad. You only stay in power if it is good.

Who gives a crap what you do or don't remember Joe? You have your opinion, I have mine. I guess we will see in Nov '12 who shares what with the majority of Americans won't we?

And since you often state every action Obama and democrats make, oddly not republcians, is made for political reasons, they would make sure the economy was good if they could control it.

OMG! Poor wittle demo's...No one is making their case for them....pfft! You want to convince anyone you'd better start making your case honestly, and drop the self pity party.

j-mac

Conservative · Oct 25, 2011

whysoserious said:
It showed me that job real job loss began in Jan '08 to which it progressively got worse until Jan '09, at which time it trended upward until we finally began adding jobs in Apr '10. Since then, we have added jobs in every month since.

What did you get out of it?

Let's take a look at historical data and put it into context. By most standards the recession of December 2007-June 2009 is very similar to the Recession of July 1981 to Nov. 1982. Now I would contend that the 81-82 recession was worse for the American people than the current recession because of high inflation, high unemployment, and the much higher cost of living. Anyway here are the employment numbers. Please note the difference between Reagan leadership and Obama leadership thus the results two years after the end of the recession?

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value
Recession dates
Series Id: LNS12000000 Dec-07 Jun-09
Seasonally Adjusted Mar-01 Nov-01
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level Jul-90 Mar-91
Labor force status: Employed Jul-81 Nov-82
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 1980 to 2010

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1980 99879 99995 99713 99233 98945 98682 98796 98824 99077 99317 99545 99634
1981 99955 100191 100571 101056 101048 100298 100693 100689 100064 100378 100207 99645
1982 99692 99762 99672 99576 100116 99543 99493 99633 99504 99215 99112 99032
1983 99161 99089 99179 99560 99642 100633 101208 101608 102016 102039 102729 102996
1984 103201 103824 103967 104336 105193 105591 105435 105163 105490 105638 105972 106223
1985 106302 106555 106989 106936 106932 106505 106807 107095 107657 107847 108007 108216
1986 108887 108480 108837 108952 109089 109576 109810 110015 110085 110273 110475 110728
1987 110953 111257 111408 111794 112434 112246 112634 113057 112909 113282 113505 113793
1988 114016 114227 114037 114650 114292 114927 115060 115282 115356 115638 116100 116104
1989 116708 116776 117022 117097 117099 117418 117472 117655 117354 117581 117912 117830

2008 146421 146165 146173 146306 146023 145768 145515 145187 145021 144677 143907 143188
2009 142221 141687 140854 140902 140438 140038 139817 139433 138768 138242 138381 137792
2010 138333 138641 138905 139455 139420 139119 138960 139250 139391 139061 138888 139206
2011 139323 139573 139864 139674 139779 139334 139296 139627

Conservative · Oct 25, 2011

Information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics which I hope will educate liberal Obama supporters on data reported on BLS. Notice that it is not cumulative and that the method comparing unemployment and employment changed in 1994. What this shows is that the unemployment numbers today are much different than the unemployment prior to 1994 when discouraged workers were counted as unemployed. They aren't counted today and that distorts the real number.

I sent a message to BLS and this is their response.

The CPS has data readily available on discouraged workers dating back to 1970, tabulated separately, and classified as not in the labor force.

The definition of discouraged workers however, changed with the 1994 redesign of the CPS, resulting in a complete break in the time series.

Since 1994, discouraged workers are persons not in the labor force (not employed nor unemployed) who want a job and are available to work (with the exception of temporary illness), have searched for work sometime in the prior 12 months, but had not looked for work in the last 4 weeks because they are discouraged over their job prospects. (Specifically, they did not look for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey because they believed no jobs were available for them, they could not find work, they lack the necessary skills or training, or they face age or other discrimination by employers.)

The pre-1994 questions on discouraged workers were asked of only one-quarter of the monthly sample and tabulated on a quarterly and annual basis. Since 1994, questions on discouraged workers have been collected and tabulated from all eligible individuals on a monthly basis.

For more information on the 1994 CPS questionnaire redesign, here is a link to a 1993 Monthly Labor Review article by Anne Polivka and Jennifer M. Rothgeb:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1993/09/art2full.pdf

Published CPS levels are not cumulative, and the number of discouraged workers are displayed in thousands and are not seasonally adjusted

.

whysoserious · Oct 25, 2011

Conservative said:
Let's take a look at historical data and put it into context. By most standards the recession of December 2007-June 2009 is very similar to the Recession of July 1981 to Nov. 1982. Now I would contend that the 81-82 recession was worse for the American people than the current recession because of high inflation, high unemployment, and the much higher cost of living. Anyway here are the employment numbers. Please note the difference between Reagan leadership and Obama leadership thus the results two years after the end of the recession?

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value
Recession dates
Series Id: LNS12000000 Dec-07 Jun-09
Seasonally Adjusted Mar-01 Nov-01
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level Jul-90 Mar-91
Labor force status: Employed Jul-81 Nov-82
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 1980 to 2010

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1980 99879 99995 99713 99233 98945 98682 98796 98824 99077 99317 99545 99634
1981 99955 100191 100571 101056 101048 100298 100693 100689 100064 100378 100207 99645
1982 99692 99762 99672 99576 100116 99543 99493 99633 99504 99215 99112 99032
1983 99161 99089 99179 99560 99642 100633 101208 101608 102016 102039 102729 102996
1984 103201 103824 103967 104336 105193 105591 105435 105163 105490 105638 105972 106223
1985 106302 106555 106989 106936 106932 106505 106807 107095 107657 107847 108007 108216
1986 108887 108480 108837 108952 109089 109576 109810 110015 110085 110273 110475 110728
1987 110953 111257 111408 111794 112434 112246 112634 113057 112909 113282 113505 113793
1988 114016 114227 114037 114650 114292 114927 115060 115282 115356 115638 116100 116104
1989 116708 116776 117022 117097 117099 117418 117472 117655 117354 117581 117912 117830

2008 146421 146165 146173 146306 146023 145768 145515 145187 145021 144677 143907 143188
2009 142221 141687 140854 140902 140438 140038 139817 139433 138768 138242 138381 137792
2010 138333 138641 138905 139455 139420 139119 138960 139250 139391 139061 138888 139206
2011 139323 139573 139864 139674 139779 139334 139296 139627

You do realize that a significant amount of more people live in this country now, right? That statistic is useless unless taken as a percentage of the population.

whysoserious · Oct 25, 2011

Conservative said:
Amazing isn't it, 1377 posts on this thread with almost every liberal blaming Bush for the economic recession and absolving Obama of any responsibility. When a liberal claims that the President has very little power over the economy they mean a liberal President, not a Republican President who is totally responsible for everything bad that happens. Forget Congress for they are just place holders.

I, actually, have not seen that yet. I have seen you prancing around like a fairy with a bunch of numbers that you don't understand. But, I really don't think I have even seen someone blame Bush yet - maybe one or two? Compatibly to your asinine data, that's nothing. You have swamped this thread with uneducated drivel.

Conservative · Oct 25, 2011

whysoserious said:
You do realize that a significant amount of more people live in this country now, right? That statistic is useless unless taken as a percentage of the population.

Yes, what does that have to do with the chart and difference between leadership styles? Notice that Reagan took office in January 1981 and had 99.9 million employed Americans. The economy at the time was crumbling due to high inflation, rising unemployment, high interest rates, and malaise on the part of the American people. The recession began in July 1981 and two years after the end of the recession, November 1984 there were 108.0 million employed Americans or almost 9 million more employed than when he took office.

Compare that to Obama who took office with a 142.2 million employed and two years after the end of the recession, June 2011 there were 139.3 million or a 2.9 million DECREASE. There was no inflation, there was record low interest rates so what is the difference? IMO, it was leadership and the attitude of both President's. President Reagan promoted American exceptionalism and the private sector including individual wealth creation. What has Obama promoted?

zgoldsmith23 · Oct 25, 2011

Conservative said:
Amazing isn't it, 1377 posts on this thread with almost every liberal blaming Bush for the economic recession and absolving Obama of any responsibility. When a liberal claims that the President has very little power over the economy they mean a liberal President, not a Republican President who is totally responsible for everything bad that happens. Forget Congress for they are just place holders.

Amazing isn't it, 23357 posts with almost every post blaming Obama for the economic recession and absolving any Conservative of any responsibility.

See how this works, ****stick?

Conservative · Oct 25, 2011

whysoserious said:
I, actually, have not seen that yet. I have seen you prancing around like a fairy with a bunch of numbers that you don't understand. But, I really don't think I have even seen someone blame Bush yet - maybe one or two? Compatibly to your asinine data, that's nothing. You have swamped this thread with uneducated drivel.

Right, ignore the content and attack me. I cannot help it if you don't understand the data posted. Obviously your youth and inexperience are showing here. You don't understand leadership at all nor do you understand that if you had a job and generated the results Obama has generated after spending the amount of money he has spent you would be fired. Reagan won a huge electoral landslide in 1984 because of that leadership and the results generated. The Obama results don't warrant re-election

Conservative · Oct 25, 2011

zgoldsmith23 said:
Amazing isn't it, 23357 posts with almost every post blaming Obama for the economic recession and absolving any Conservative of any responsibility.

See how this works, ****stick?

Aw, missed the personal attacks today, yours is the second. As usual you have to make me the issue and not the actual results of Obama and Congress. Obama cannot inherit what he as a member of Congress helped create but that isn't even the issue. The issue is what he has done to turn the economy around and dividing the country, promoting class warfare, not promoting American exceptionalism, not promoting individual wealth creation and the private sector has led to the numbers we have today thus the very low approval rating. If you want to continue to make me the issue, no problem, all that does is destroy your credibility for I don't have any power and have nothing to do with the disastrous results of Obama

Blue_State · Oct 25, 2011

zgoldsmith23 said:
Amazing isn't it, 23357 posts with almost every post blaming Obama for the economic recession and absolving any Conservative of any responsibility.

See how this works, ****stick?

I laughed out loud.

zgoldsmith23 · Oct 25, 2011

Conservative said:
Aw, missed the personal attacks today, yours is the second. As usual you have to make me the issue and not the actual results of Obama and Congress. Obama cannot inherit what he as a member of Congress helped create but that isn't even the issue. The issue is what he has done to turn the economy around and dividing the country, promoting class warfare, not promoting American exceptionalism, not promoting individual wealth creation and the private sector has led to the numbers we have today thus the very low approval rating. If you want to continue to make me the issue, no problem, all that does is destroy your credibility for I don't have any power and have nothing to do with the disastrous results of Obama

Thank you for making my case. So you blamed Obama for the recession before (as he was in Congress) then you blame him again when he was President. You, in a small paragraph, just contradicted yourself.

We are talking about credibility? Really? Show me again how Reagan "doubled" the revenues from FIT? Oh that's right, he didn't.

Conservative · Oct 25, 2011

Blue_State said:
I laughed out loud.

It really is a shame, doubt that the 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans are laughing.

whysoserious · Oct 25, 2011

Conservative said:
Yes, what does that have to do with the chart and difference between leadership styles? Notice that Reagan took office in January 1981 and had 99.9 million employed Americans. The economy at the time was crumbling due to high inflation, rising unemployment, high interest rates, and malaise on the part of the American people. The recession began in July 1981 and two years after the end of the recession, November 1984 there were 108.0 million employed Americans or almost 9 million more employed than when he took office.

Compare that to Obama who took office with a 142.2 million employed and two years after the end of the recession, June 2011 there were 139.3 million or a 2.9 million DECREASE. There was no inflation, there was record low interest rates so what is the difference? IMO, it was leadership and the attitude of both President's. President Reagan promoted American exceptionalism and the private sector including individual wealth creation. What has Obama promoted?

Again, the number of people and jobs has inflated, so if you don't use those numbers relative to population, then they are meaningless. However, I have to contend with you that the recession began when he took office. Look at these numbers:

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
1979q4 9.5 1.1
1980q1 10.1 1.3
1980q2 0.6 -7.9
1980q3 8.6 -0.7
1980q4 20.0 7.6
1981q1 20.0 8.6
1981q2 4.4 -3.2
1981q3 12.6 4.9
1981q4 2.2 -4.9
1982q1 -1.2 -6.4
1982q2 7.2 2.2
1982q3 4.2 -1.5
1982q4 4.7 0.3
-------------------------
Unemployment was also no where near the same. By the time Obama had taken office, unemployment had from 5.8 to 9.3%. That's a significant jump, wouldn't you say? It's not even similar for Reagan, his numbers just before and after taking office were 7.1% and 7.6%. Trust me, Obama would have loved to take office when unemployment was only slowly rising like that. These two recessions are not the same, so comparing them is difficult, and each president took the helm at different times in the recession as well.

Conservative · Oct 25, 2011

zgoldsmith23 said:
Thank you for making my case. So you blamed Obama for the recession before (as he was in Congress) then you blame him again when he was President. You, in a small paragraph, just contradicted yourself.

We are talking about credibility? Really? Show me again how Reagan "doubled" the revenues from FIT? Oh that's right, he didn't.

Thank you for showing your true colors which are the inability to actually do any research nor having a basic understanding of civics. Congress helped create the economic conditions we have today and I don't blame Obama solely for the recession but I do blame him for the lack of leadership in getting us out of that recession and spending money but not getting the adequate results for that spending.

Noticed that you keep going back to the Reagan revenue growth and have yet to prove that any of the data I have posted during the Obama Administration are wrong. Reagan growth was almost 69% after a three year tax cut which destroys the liberal argument that tax cuts cause deficits since revenue grew after those tax cuts. How much time are you willing to give Obama since three years hasn't been enough even though two of those years he had total overwhelming support in the Congress. Guess results don't matter to a liberal when they involve a liberal President

whysoserious · Oct 25, 2011

Conservative said:
Right, ignore the content and attack me. I cannot help it if you don't understand the data posted. Obviously your youth and inexperience are showing here. You don't understand leadership at all nor do you understand that if you had a job and generated the results Obama has generated after spending the amount of money he has spent you would be fired. Reagan won a huge electoral landslide in 1984 because of that leadership and the results generated. The Obama results don't warrant re-election

Oh okay, so if you say "it's a shame that these dumb liberals keep attacking Bush ...", it's fine. But if point around that you are running around this thread like a chicken with its head cut off blaming Obama, then I'm attacking? Grow thicker skin.

Conservative · Oct 25, 2011

whysoserious said:
Again, the number of people and jobs has inflated, so if you don't use those numbers relative to population, then they are meaningless. However, I have to contend with you that the recession began when he took office. Look at these numbers:

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
1979q4 9.5 1.1
1980q1 10.1 1.3
1980q2 0.6 -7.9
1980q3 8.6 -0.7
1980q4 20.0 7.6
1981q1 20.0 8.6
1981q2 4.4 -3.2
1981q3 12.6 4.9
1981q4 2.2 -4.9
1982q1 -1.2 -6.4
1982q2 7.2 2.2
1982q3 4.2 -1.5
1982q4 4.7 0.3
-------------------------
Unemployment was also no where near the same. By the time Obama had taken office, unemployment had from 5.8 to 9.3%. That's a significant jump, wouldn't you say? It's not even similar for Reagan, his numbers just before and after taking office were 7.1% and 7.6%. Trust me, Obama would have loved to take office when unemployment was only slowly rising like that. These two recessions are not the same, so comparing them is difficult, and each president took the helm at different times in the recession as well.

Since you weren't around during the Reagan term or were too young guess that is what I would expect from the liberal education you are receiving today. Recession began in July 1981 so what economic policy did Reagan have in place and passed by Congress to generate those numbers? Reagan economic policy wasn't passed until the fourth qtr of 1981 so of course he is responsible for everything prior to that right? That seems to be liberal logic. I know this is hard for you to understand but the recession ended in November 1982 which is the first quarter of fiscal year 1983. Hard for a liberal to understand so take notes

Fiscal year of the United States runs from October 1 to September 30. See if you can put those results into proper context.

Conservative · Oct 25, 2011

whysoserious said:
Oh okay, so if you say "it's a shame that these dumb liberals keep attacking Bush ...", it's fine. But if point around that you are running around this thread like a chicken with its head cut off blaming Obama, then I'm attacking? Grow thicker skin.

There is nothing that can be done about the Bush results but there is plenty that can be done about the Obama results. Hiring will increasae when Obama is fired.

zgoldsmith23 · Oct 25, 2011

Conservative said:
Thank you for showing your true colors which are the inability to actually do any research nor having a basic understanding of civics. Congress helped create the economic conditions we have today and I don't blame Obama solely for the recession but I do blame him for the lack of leadership in getting us out of that recession and spending money but not getting the adequate results for that spending.

Noticed that you keep going back to the Reagan revenue growth and have yet to prove that any of the data I have posted during the Obama Administration are wrong. Reagan growth was almost 69% after a three year tax cut which destroys the liberal argument that tax cuts cause deficits since revenue grew after those tax cuts. How much time are you willing to give Obama since three years hasn't been enough even though two of those years he had total overwhelming support in the Congress. Guess results don't matter to a liberal when they involve a liberal President

How did I show my "inability go do research?" when I post numbers, I give people verifiable links instead of "(bls.gov)"

I keep going back to the Reagan FIT as it proves you are a liar.

Republicans block Obama jobs bill

j-mac

j-mac

Dickieboy

Conservative

Conservative

Boo Radley

Conservative

j-mac

Conservative

Conservative

whysoserious

whysoserious

Conservative

zgoldsmith23

Antichrist

Conservative

Conservative

Blue_State

zgoldsmith23

Antichrist

Conservative

whysoserious

Conservative

whysoserious

Conservative

Conservative

zgoldsmith23

Antichrist