U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-22-2012, 08:26 AM
 
Location: Cape Coral
4,977 posts, read 2,853,245 times
Reputation: 1787
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Tall_Rep your entire line is that the economy is bad because of Obama. That line of reasoning requires a failed memory that ignores the economy that Obama inherited a horrible economy that was losing 800,000 jobs per month under Bush. Those job loses have been turned into job gains.

Every other economic indicator is also better than in Jan. 2009. You also harp on the dollar's decline but as I posted above, the dollar has not dived as you said during Obama's term while it did dive 41% from 2001 to 2008, before Obama was on the scene.

So, your entire posts are not coupled to actual facts.
Every recession ends. Even the depression ended. The fact is that this is the weakest recovery EVER. Yay Obama!

"..., the recovery has been extremely weak by historical standards and would be even more so if not for all of the deficit spending and money printing in Washington."Is it growing? How could it not be growing," Rosenberg said. "We've got four years of trillion-dollar-plus deficits, we have a Fed balance sheet that's tripled in size, zero policy rates for three years. Of course you're going to get some growth."
But it's the type of growth that causes concern.
"If you want to take a big-picture perspective, this goes down as the weakest economic recovery ever, despite all the ramp up in government stimulus, and that really tells you something,"

News Headlines
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-22-2012, 08:33 AM
Status: "Back in Texas" (set 11 days ago)
 
Location: San Antonio Texas
10,551 posts, read 9,168,613 times
Reputation: 4667
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon View Post
Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania are all toss ups. Not good for Obama.
Those have always been tossups in every presidential election cycle. why should this year be any different?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2012, 08:39 AM
 
14,020 posts, read 4,036,690 times
Reputation: 3579
Quote:
Originally Posted by rikoshaprl View Post
There are 5 million less Americans working now than during Bush's term.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Those job losses were turned into job gains before Obama passed one dam piece of legislation into law.
Those two statements from Obama detractors are contradictory. The first claims that Obama is responsible for 5 million jobs lost (which is false) and the second admits there were job gains but Obama wasn't responsible for them.

We can safely conclude that Obama detractors will blame Obama for everything bad and deny him credit for anything good. This is a great example. The anti-Obama forces make contradictory arguments in their quest to bash Obama.

The fact is that the economy continued hemorraghing jobs at a furious rate after Obama took office — before Obama’s stimulus passed. But the figures show that once it became law, monthly job loss declined over time, and turned around in the spring of 2010, after which the private sector added jobs for over 26 straight months.



As you can see from the graph below, there are not 5 million fewer jobs than Jan 2009:

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2012, 08:48 AM
 
Location: Orlando
7,912 posts, read 6,855,578 times
Reputation: 3676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tall_Rep View Post
Just curious....wondering if you could answer a few questions for me to help me better understand the thought process of the liberal left..

2. Do you even consider the debt when thinking of voting for obama?

3. Do you understand that obama has no plan to balance the federal budget?

4. Do you understand that the DEMOCRATS have no plan to balance the federal budget?

Do you understand that 2 of the last 3 Repubs have tripled the deficits -
reagan took it from under $1T to 3.5,
bush jr took it from $3.5 to 10.5 and put us in a war , started TARP without accountability and gave us the unfunded Medicare part D This means he is primarily responsible for the deficits that increased under Obama.

What Obama is responsible for would be expanding Afghanistan, and spending to protect the economy which was about to land us in the worse depression ever. Did he spend ...yes, but out of a need to do what he can to revive an almost dead economy.

The only balanced budget came from Clinton (D)
Bush spent the surplus Clinton created vs reducing the deficit.

SO tell me, with a history of nothing but reckless spending and never balancing a budget, WHY would you trust a Repub with the gov again? The last time nearly crushed us... can we afford that again?


That is assuming you are not supporting Ron Paul who clearly has a plan to reduce the size of gov spending and eliminating he deficit. (but it will be the most painful economic lesson ever)

I was a Nader supporter btw and did not vote for Obama, Here are my likes and dislikes:

Likes:
Saved the housing industry
reduced the number of foreclosures
DADT repeal
supports gay marriage - That is courageous and the right thing to do
Got Osama, and 27 other top Al Quaida officials
invested in alternate energies
Ryan White Act
kept taxes low
provided an environment where the stock market recovered
Used drones vs placing soldiers in harms way
Ended the war with no point
Saved the auto industry and our economy
Outstanding foreign relations
apparently is faithful to his wife (not really required but nice to see)
Affordable Health Care Act
He actually donates to charities ( about 20%)
He works for the people more than most have....

Dislikes:
kept Patriot Act
NDAA
Didn't end the war sooner (but got osama and others as a result)
hasn't invested enough in alternate energies
promotes nuclear power
Expanded war (but did make more head way)
is expanding our bases worldwide
hasn't eliminated the Federal Reserve
Kept Bernake, and Geitner
Didn't prosecute the previous administration
BAD for whistle blowers
prosecution of Bradley Manning
Hasn't killed off Medicare part D
Has not restored the Constitution and liberties removed from previous administrations
Didn't get the insurance companies outof the National Health Care Act. ( They alone are responsible for the rising costs of healthcare)

So I would not hesitate to support him in November. ... Though I would consider harder against Ron Paul. Romney is not even a question - He shows poor judgment through out his life, changes opinion as soon as he thinks it yields votes. Has NO experience with foreign relations, NO experience running a business - he just funded the take overs so he could gut them for a profit... as I would expect him to do as President, he will cater to the rich and special interests.

Ron Paul - is consistent with his beliefs , a man of character, understands government and what went wrong, supports the Constitution and would restore it, would eliminate the Fed reserve.
Too conservative on social issues, would make abortion illegal (even though he is for gov staying out of the peoples affairs) He would reduce the size of Gov which would be painful, unemployment would rise dramatically

So there ya go....those are my answers...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2012, 08:50 AM
 
56,252 posts, read 28,090,580 times
Reputation: 7079
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Those two statements from Obama detractors are contradictory. The first claims that Obama is responsible for 5 million jobs lost (which is false) and the second admits there were job gains but Obama wasn't responsible for them.
no, no, no, it displays your complete lack of comprehension because the first one was a factual statement, and didnt at all blame Obama, and the second one also a fact, and since legislation wasnt even passed by Obama at the time, thats also a fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
We can safely conclude that Obama detractors will blame Obama for everything bad and deny him credit for anything good. This is a great example. The anti-Obama forces make contradictory arguments in their quest to bash Obama.
We can safely assume that Obama supporters, support Obama because they lack comprehension skills.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
The fact is that the economy continued hemorraghing jobs at a furious rate after Obama took office — before Obama’s stimulus passed. But the figures show that once it became law, monthly job loss declined over time, and turned around in the spring of 2010, after which the private sector added jobs for over 26 straight months.
Not only do you need assistance with comprehension, but you also need a basic entry level class on business, because with ALL recessions, jobs being created follows. The economy in 2009, actually SHRANK by 2.3%. The more you take out of the economy in order to pump in, the more it shrinks
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/nati...dp3q09_adv.pdf

According to Keynesian theories, a $1.4T deficit, (what was actually created) should immediately jumpstart the economy, but it didnt. We went on to continue to lose 3.5M jobs before the net effect turned positive, which again happens after EVERY recession.

Where the frick do you think the money comes from? Under your utopia world, the government could simply issue $15T in new funds to pay off the national debt, and according to you, jobs would be created and it would have no negative impact upon society. You cant seriously believe this..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2012, 08:51 AM
 
56,252 posts, read 28,090,580 times
Reputation: 7079
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
As you can see from the graph below, there are not 5 million fewer jobs than Jan 2009:
Thats not what he said.

Hey MT.. why dont you answer this question for me. Since the stimulus bill didnt pass into law until Jan 2009, and didnt begin to be spent until 3-6 months later.. What caused the job losses to fall from Jan 2009-June 2009? Furthermore, since jobs are a delayed indicator of the economy, then surely the jobs created from the stimulus bill, wouldnt be seen until much, much later, like Jan 2010.. So tell me again what caused the job josses to fall throught all of 2009?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2012, 08:57 AM
 
14,020 posts, read 4,036,690 times
Reputation: 3579
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Thats not what he said.
You are right. This is what he said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rikoshaprl
There are 5 million less Americans working now than during Bush's term.
That just means what I said in post #14, Bush had a net job loss during his entire two terms. That's not Obama's fault.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2012, 08:59 AM
 
22,609 posts, read 9,867,817 times
Reputation: 8343
Barack Obama is not a shoo-in, but i'd highly recommend his followers keep believing that he is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2012, 09:01 AM
 
16,448 posts, read 10,258,436 times
Reputation: 9173
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC View Post
Barack Obama is not a shoo-in, but i'd highly recommend his followers keep believing that he is.
Yup, he's in by a landslide. No need for dems to even show up at the polls.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2012, 09:01 AM
 
56,252 posts, read 28,090,580 times
Reputation: 7079
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
You are right. This is what he said:
That just means what I said in post #14, Bush had a net job loss during his entire two terms. That's not Obama's fault.
No one blamed Obama for job losses during Bushs term. We simply ridiculed the fact that you liberals seem to want it both ways. In one breath claim that jobs are a delayed indicator of the economy, and then in the next credit Obama with jobs created from the stimulus bill, even though the stimulus bill didnt begin to be spent until well after the economy turned around. Make up your mind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top