You said it yourself that Obama is ultimately responsible for everything
that goes on under his watch. So why is Bush excused for having a
Democratic Congress his last two years? What about the first six years?
Economy was on its way down and unemployment on its way up before the
Dems took over.
Ktrain, Obama had large congressional majorities of his own party for the first 2 years.
Also, things were certainly not on their way down when Harry & Nancy took over.
Unemployment Rates in 2006
January 2006 - 4.7% February 2006 - 4.8% March 2006 - 4.7% April 2006 - 4.7% May 2006 - 4.7% June 2006 - 4.6% July 2006 - 4.7% August 2006 - 4.7% September 2006 - 4.5% October 2006 - 4.4% November 2006 - 4.5% December 2006 - 4.4%
And as mentioned, the deficit was $160 billion. 1/10th of what it is today.
0
You said it yourself that Obama is ultimately responsible for everything
that goes on under his watch. So why is Bush excused for having a
Democratic Congress his last two years? What about the first six years?
Economy was on its way down and unemployment on its way up before the
Dems took over.
Ktrain, Obama had large congressional majorities of his own party for the first 2 years.
Also, things were certainly not on their way down when Harry & Nancy took over.
Unemployment Rates in 2006
January 2006 - 4.7% February 2006 - 4.8% March 2006 - 4.7% April 2006 - 4.7% May 2006 - 4.7% June 2006 - 4.6% July 2006 - 4.7% August 2006 - 4.7% September 2006 - 4.5% October 2006 - 4.4% November 2006 - 4.5% December 2006 - 4.4%
And as mentioned, the deficit was $160 billion. 1/10th of what it is today.
You guys shouldn't be arguing about the unemployment rate...everyone knows we went through a recession, and even though Obama hasn't gotten us out of it, he sure as hell didn't get us in it.
One of the problems with THIS recession is that instead of some idiots losing their jacket on the STOCK market, people are losing/have lost their HOUSES.
When Americans lose their houses, they can't just turn around and buy another one. If we double dip, which I think we will, it's because we never really got out of this recession in the first place.
Like I've maintained, this is a GRAND problem...it is not a simple financial correction at the top of the ladder, it is a shock to the American system....something that takes individuals YEARS to recover from. YEARS.
And this isn't a just an OBAMA/Bush issue either...it is a consumer, big business AND political issue that has been brewing for a LONG time.
The problem actually started Before 1971 when Nixon devalued the dollar...it's just that as a SOLUTION to a problem that was already EVIDENT, Nixon decided to take a temporary solution that would make us travel the path of doom.
Frankly, it is going to take 15-20 years to get back to where we should be, I don't care who the president is. Obama has mentioned this, most people in the senate and the house acknowledge this, and every single time I hear or read about how much Obama is spending, I admit that it is a lot, but you can't judge a solution by the timescale of someone's limited Presidency.
If someone proposes a 10-year solution, and it isn't going to be pretty for 3-4 years until they are OUT of office, that doesn't make Obama's successor the sexy new leader, but that's how people will see it, sadly.
0
You guys shouldn't be arguing about the unemployment rate...everyone knows we went through a recession, and even though Obama hasn't gotten us out of it, he sure as hell didn't get us in it.
One of the problems with THIS recession is that instead of some idiots losing their jacket on the STOCK market, people are losing/have lost their HOUSES.
When Americans lose their houses, they can't just turn around and buy another one. If we double dip, which I think we will, it's because we never really got out of this recession in the first place.
Like I've maintained, this is a GRAND problem...it is not a simple financial correction at the top of the ladder, it is a shock to the American system....something that takes individuals YEARS to recover from. YEARS.
And this isn't a just an OBAMA/Bush issue either...it is a consumer, big business AND political issue that has been brewing for a LONG time.
The problem actually started Before 1971 when Nixon devalued the dollar...it's just that as a SOLUTION to a problem that was already EVIDENT, Nixon decided to take a temporary solution that would make us travel the path of doom.
Frankly, it is going to take 15-20 years to get back to where we should be, I don't care who the president is. Obama has mentioned this, most people in the senate and the house acknowledge this, and every single time I hear or read about how much Obama is spending, I admit that it is a lot, but you can't judge a solution by the timescale of someone's limited Presidency.
If someone proposes a 10-year solution, and it isn't going to be pretty for 3-4 years until they are OUT of office, that doesn't make Obama's successor the sexy new leader, but that's how people will see it, sadly.
Vectorsfm - I agree & we also badly need structual changes like like term limits, serious campaign finance reform & getting rid of the special interst lobbyists but doubt I'll see it in my lifetime. Just get tired of all the repub hype about how the economy can't grow & folks won't expand/hire with all this uncertainty (& especially if taxes are raised on the top 2%) the Repubs blame on Obama, when after the tax cuts of 2001 & '03, there was still no job growth despite a housing bubble & much less regulation than we see now. Both Bush's had the worst job creation record in modern history if not longer & GW the worst. Was that because of "uncertainty" as well?
They both came in with under 5% unemployment & left with over 7% -
0
Vectorsfm - I agree & we also badly need structual changes like like term limits, serious campaign finance reform & getting rid of the special interst lobbyists but doubt I'll see it in my lifetime. Just get tired of all the repub hype about how the economy can't grow & folks won't expand/hire with all this uncertainty (& especially if taxes are raised on the top 2%) the Repubs blame on Obama, when after the tax cuts of 2001 & '03, there was still no job growth despite a housing bubble & much less regulation than we see now. Both Bush's had the worst job creation record in modern history if not longer & GW the worst. Was that because of "uncertainty" as well?
They both came in with under 5% unemployment & left with over 7% -
btw the 6.3% rate was in June of '03 after the tax cuts of '01 & '03
Fact: December 2005 - 4.8% after the tax cuts of 2003. December 2006 - 4.4% after the tax cuts of 2003.
Then Harry & Nancy took over.
And like I said, it also climbed to 6.3% in '03 & despite the cuts & a housing bubble, the numbers never got as low as he came in with & there was very little job growth or broad based economic growth. It was mostly concentrated at the top - wonder why that was?
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
First:
why do you need to keep putting out false info?
Then:
btw the 6.3% rate was in June of '03 after the tax cuts of '01 & '03
Fact: December 2005 - 4.8% after the tax cuts of 2003. December 2006 - 4.4% after the tax cuts of 2003.
Then Harry & Nancy took over.
And like I said, it also climbed to 6.3% in '03 & despite the cuts & a housing bubble, the numbers never got as low as he came in with & there was very little job growth or broad based economic growth. It was mostly concentrated at the top - wonder why that was?
You said it yourself that Obama is ultimately responsible for everything that goes on under his watch. So why is Bush excused for having a Democratic Congress his last two years? What about the first six years? Economy was on its way down and unemployment on its way up before the Dems took over.
Ktrain, Obama had large congressional majorities of his own party for the first 2 years.
Also, things were certainly not on their way down when Harry & Nancy took over.
Unemployment Rates in 2006
January 2006 - 4.7% February 2006 - 4.8% March 2006 - 4.7% April 2006 - 4.7% May 2006 - 4.7% June 2006 - 4.6% July 2006 - 4.7% August 2006 - 4.7% September 2006 - 4.5% October 2006 - 4.4% November 2006 - 4.5% December 2006 - 4.4%
And as mentioned, the deficit was $160 billion. 1/10th of what it is today.
Just look at the chart I posted from the Washington Post. Click on the unemployment function under Bush. It's a steady incline. It's undeniable. Maybe it stayed stagnant for a year, but over an 8 year period, both before and after the Dems took over, it was going up.
The one thing that timeline has in common isn't who controlled Congress. It's who was President.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
You said it yourself that Obama is ultimately responsible for everything that goes on under his watch. So why is Bush excused for having a Democratic Congress his last two years? What about the first six years? Economy was on its way down and unemployment on its way up before the Dems took over.
Ktrain, Obama had large congressional majorities of his own party for the first 2 years.
Also, things were certainly not on their way down when Harry & Nancy took over.
Unemployment Rates in 2006
January 2006 - 4.7% February 2006 - 4.8% March 2006 - 4.7% April 2006 - 4.7% May 2006 - 4.7% June 2006 - 4.6% July 2006 - 4.7% August 2006 - 4.7% September 2006 - 4.5% October 2006 - 4.4% November 2006 - 4.5% December 2006 - 4.4%
And as mentioned, the deficit was $160 billion. 1/10th of what it is today.
Just look at the chart I posted from the Washington Post. Click on the unemployment function under Bush. It's a steady incline. It's undeniable. Maybe it stayed stagnant for a year, but over an 8 year period, both before and after the Dems took over, it was going up.
The one thing that timeline has in common isn't who controlled Congress. It's who was President.
Just look at the chart I posted from the Washington Post. Click on the unemployment function under Bush. It's a steady incline. It's undeniable. Maybe it stayed stagnant for a year, but over an 8 year period, both before and after the Dems took over, it was going up.
The one thing that timeline has in common isn't who controlled Congress. It's who was President.
What can a president do with no control of house or senate?
0
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:
Just look at the chart I posted from the Washington Post. Click on the unemployment function under Bush. It's a steady incline. It's undeniable. Maybe it stayed stagnant for a year, but over an 8 year period, both before and after the Dems took over, it was going up.
The one thing that timeline has in common isn't who controlled Congress. It's who was President.
What can a president do with no control of house or senate?
every single time I hear or read about how much Obama is spending, I
admit that it is a lot, but you can't judge a solution by the timescale
of someone's limited Presidency.
Vector, which solution is Obama pursuing that will make things better? Deficit spending? More regulations?
0
every single time I hear or read about how much Obama is spending, I
admit that it is a lot, but you can't judge a solution by the timescale
of someone's limited Presidency.
Vector, which solution is Obama pursuing that will make things better? Deficit spending? More regulations?
Thread Title : Hows the Obama economy working out for you ?
Well if you are an American Muslim it's working out pretty good ... 56 % of the 1,000 American Muslims surveyed by telephone between April and July said they are satisfied with the direction the country is going ..., the survey showed (76%) 7 out of 10 view President Barack Obama's tenure favorably.....
0
Thread Title : Hows the Obama economy working out for you ?
Well if you are an American Muslim it's working out pretty good ... 56 % of the 1,000 American Muslims surveyed by telephone between April and July said they are satisfied with the direction the country is going ..., the survey showed (76%) 7 out of 10 view President Barack Obama's tenure favorably.....
Just look at the chart I posted from the Washington Post. Click on the unemployment function under Bush. It's a steady incline. It's undeniable. Maybe it stayed stagnant for a year, but over an 8 year period, both before and after the Dems took over, it was going up.
The one thing that timeline has in common isn't who controlled Congress. It's who was President.
I think you are confused... this is a rhetoric, blame obama for everything and anything thread and either suck up with the rest of the posters who have a history of blindly agreeing or get bashed for having a realistic opinion...
Once again you talking are facts, statistics and numbers and we all know what happens when we start talking about those things...
Covers knows
0
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:
Just look at the chart I posted from the Washington Post. Click on the unemployment function under Bush. It's a steady incline. It's undeniable. Maybe it stayed stagnant for a year, but over an 8 year period, both before and after the Dems took over, it was going up.
The one thing that timeline has in common isn't who controlled Congress. It's who was President.
I think you are confused... this is a rhetoric, blame obama for everything and anything thread and either suck up with the rest of the posters who have a history of blindly agreeing or get bashed for having a realistic opinion...
Once again you talking are facts, statistics and numbers and we all know what happens when we start talking about those things...
Obama: Well, look, we anticipated that the recovery was slowing. The
economy is still growing, but it’s not growing as fast as it needs to.
I’ve got things right now in - before Congress that we should move
immediately, and I’ve said so before I went on vacation and I’ll keep on
saying it when I - now that I’m back. We should be passing legislation
that helps small businesses get credit, that eliminates capital gains
taxes so that they have more incentive to invest right now. There are a
whole host of measures that we could take, no single element of which is
a magic bullet, but cumulatively could start continuing to build
momentum for the recovery.
-- August 29, 2010
0
The Twilight Zone Presidency:
Obama: Well, look, we anticipated that the recovery was slowing. The
economy is still growing, but it’s not growing as fast as it needs to.
I’ve got things right now in - before Congress that we should move
immediately, and I’ve said so before I went on vacation and I’ll keep on
saying it when I - now that I’m back. We should be passing legislation
that helps small businesses get credit, that eliminates capital gains
taxes so that they have more incentive to invest right now. There are a
whole host of measures that we could take, no single element of which is
a magic bullet, but cumulatively could start continuing to build
momentum for the recovery.
Thread Title : Hows the Obama economy working out for you ?
Well if you are an American Muslim it's working out pretty good ... 56 % of the 1,000 American Muslims surveyed by telephone between April and July said they are satisfied with the direction the country is going ..., the survey showed (76%) 7 out of 10 view President Barack Obama's tenure favorably.....
also...
"A significant minority (21 percent of Muslim Americans say there is a
great deal (6 percent) or a fair amount (15 percent) of support for
extremism in the Muslim American community.
love that significant minority!!!!!
mercy.. that means 1 in 5 muslim-americans SUPPORT it!
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
0
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:
Thread Title : Hows the Obama economy working out for you ?
Well if you are an American Muslim it's working out pretty good ... 56 % of the 1,000 American Muslims surveyed by telephone between April and July said they are satisfied with the direction the country is going ..., the survey showed (76%) 7 out of 10 view President Barack Obama's tenure favorably.....
also...
"A significant minority (21 percent of Muslim Americans say there is a
great deal (6 percent) or a fair amount (15 percent) of support for
extremism in the Muslim American community.
love that significant minority!!!!!
mercy.. that means 1 in 5 muslim-americans SUPPORT it!
Under Obama, 2.4-million jobs have been lost in America.
In the first decade of Perry’s tenure, from June 2000 to June 2010, the BLS says that Texas had a net gain of 907,000 jobs—the best record in the country. . . . Since Obama’s inauguration in January 2009, unemployment nationwide has gone from 7.6 percent to 9.1 percent. The current unemployment rate in Texas with Perry as governor is 8.2 percent.
During the past seven years, CEOs polled by Chief Executive magazine have rated Texas first in the nation in business development and job growth. The Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis reports that in 2010, Texas’ economy grew 5.3 percent versus 3.8 percent for the overall U.S. economy.
0
Under Obama, 2.4-million jobs have been lost in America.
In the first decade of Perry’s tenure, from June 2000 to June 2010, the BLS says that Texas had a net gain of 907,000 jobs—the best record in the country. . . . Since Obama’s inauguration in January 2009, unemployment nationwide has gone from 7.6 percent to 9.1 percent. The current unemployment rate in Texas with Perry as governor is 8.2 percent.
During the past seven years, CEOs polled by Chief Executive magazine have rated Texas first in the nation in business development and job growth. The Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis reports that in 2010, Texas’ economy grew 5.3 percent versus 3.8 percent for the overall U.S. economy.
Aug. 30 (Bloomberg) -- Confidence among U.S. consumers plunged to the lowest level in more than two years as Americans’ outlooks for employment and incomes soured.
The Conference Board’s index slumped to 44.5, the weakest since April 2009, from a revised 59.2 reading in July, figures from the New York-based research group showed today. It was the biggest point drop since October 2008. A separate report showed home prices declined for a ninth month.
0
More dandy news:
Aug. 30 (Bloomberg) -- Confidence among U.S. consumers plunged to the lowest level in more than two years as Americans’ outlooks for employment and incomes soured.
The Conference Board’s index slumped to 44.5, the weakest since April 2009, from a revised 59.2 reading in July, figures from the New York-based research group showed today. It was the biggest point drop since October 2008. A separate report showed home prices declined for a ninth month.
Honestly I would mind if they continued to drop until i'm ready to buy. I know some others will have different opinions than mine. Some of us are in different places in life though.
0
Honestly I would mind if they continued to drop until i'm ready to buy. I know some others will have different opinions than mine. Some of us are in different places in life though.
14 blames Obama for the national decline in jobs, while giving Governor Perry the credit for the job increases in Texas. But the other governors don't get the blame for the job declines in their states--Obama does. We all see how this spin works. Blame Obama for everything, credit for nothing. As I stated earlier. Reasonable people know chronic Obama bashers are part of the problem. Thanks for clarifying it for us.
0
14 blames Obama for the national decline in jobs, while giving Governor Perry the credit for the job increases in Texas. But the other governors don't get the blame for the job declines in their states--Obama does. We all see how this spin works. Blame Obama for everything, credit for nothing. As I stated earlier. Reasonable people know chronic Obama bashers are part of the problem. Thanks for clarifying it for us.
I wonder if you blame Obama for your failed sports tout business? I know is Obama's fault because he didnt provide you with enough winning picks to keep your business open
0
I wonder if you blame Obama for your failed sports tout business? I know is Obama's fault because he didnt provide you with enough winning picks to keep your business open
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
