Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
LOL! Obama has overseen a net loss of jobs since January 20, 2009.
Except that on January 9, 2009 none of Obama's policies were in place while the economy was still shedding jobs from the Bush Era.
Quote:
From the NY Times:
it was curious to hear Mr. Romney’s own aides over the weekend respond to the Obama campaign’s charges that their candidate had a failing record of creating jobs as governor of Massachusetts.
Mr. Romney’s aides responded: It wasn’t the governor’s fault.
“He inherited a $3 billion projected deficit,” Ed Gillespie, a senior adviser to Mr. Romney, said on “Fox News Sunday.”
Mr. Gillespie said it was unfair to judge Mr. Romney’s record on job creation by including all four years of his tenure. He said the statistic that Mr. Romney was 47th in job creation during his time in office was calculated by “diluting it with the first year in office, when he came into office, and it was 50th in job creation.”
Essentially, Mr. Gillespie argued that Mr. Romney’s first year, in 2003, shouldn’t be counted.
Eric Fehrnstrom, another top aide to Mr. Romney, also blamed the situation that the governor inherited — paradoxically, from Republican governors who occupied the Statehouse for the previous 12 years.
“When Mitt Romney arrived, Massachusetts was an economic basket house,” Mr. Fehrnstrom said on ABC’s “This Week” program on Sunday. “If you throw D.C. into the mix, we were 51 out of 51.”
The Obama campaign responded harshly. On a conference call with reporters on Monday, David Axelrod, a senior adviser to the president’s campaign, accused the Romney campaign of “breathtaking hypocrisy” for using the same methods to calculate job creation that it has been hammering the president for.
“Their answer to all of this was, ‘Well, you really can’t include his first year because you know he inherited a really tough economic situation,’ ” Mr. Axelrod said. “They’ve painted themselves into a corner here, and now that double standard is clear, and they’re going to have to explain it to the American people.”
In fact, Mr. Romney’s criticisms of Mr. Obama’s economic record frequently focus on his first year in office. The Romney campaign says Mr. Obama has presided over an economy that has lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. In a recent news release, the Republican campaign said that “Under President Obama, the Nation Has Lost 552,000 Jobs.”
But that statistic includes Mr. Obama’s first year in office, and especially the months of February, March and April, when monthly job losses from the economic collapse were at 700,000 or higher.
Just leaving out February 2009 — before any of Mr. Obama’s policies, including the economic stimulus, had been put into place — would wipe away all 552,000 lost jobs, giving the president a record of creating 172,000 jobs.
If Mr. Romney’s team were to ignore Mr. Obama’s first year in office — as Mr. Gillespie suggested should be done for Mr. Romney’s first year as governor — then the president would have added about 3.7 million jobs to the economy.
I think you have managed to overlook the fact that Tora Bora was a very rough, mountainous territory that military commanders didn't want to take troops into in order to get one man, bin Laden. Of course, you tell the story as well and in step with the leaders of the left who changed their story as time went along.
I assume you forgot about when Bush said that getting bin laden wasn't important.
I agree with all of your post up to faulting Bush for not reversing those earlier mistakes when his Congress turned into a Democrat controlled one. I fail to see many of those "mistakes" as something that Democrats weren't behind when they were passed so surely they wouldn't have reversed any of them in that last 2 years.
That is a heavy part of what I was talking about as reasons for his last two years being so bad.
Congress approved going after al-Qaida, and moving into Afghanistan, this was intended to destroy al-Qaida and deprive it of its sanctuaries in Afghanistan. Congress actually did that by an EASY majority vote of both Democrats and Republicans. Bush didn't start anything and by the constitution requires congressional authorization to act for a period greater than 90 days I believe.
Oh please don't try to belittle me. And I was talking about Iraq not Afghanistan. Sorry I didn't make that clear. But tell me again why we are in Iraq
You agree? Why? What was bad about the period 2001-2009? There certainly were bad things that occurred during those years - but you seem to be describing the entire time as bad. Why were those years bad - and can you honestly say that things have been any better from 2009-2012?
You agree? Why? What was bad about the period 2001-2009? There certainly were bad things that occurred during those years - but you seem to be describing the entire time as bad. Why were those years bad - and can you honestly say that things have been any better from 2009-2012?
Quote:
With the election of George W. Bush to the presidency in 2000, democracy was drastically weakened as its most basic underlying principles began to unravel. The corporate state unabashedly began to replace the last vestiges of the democratic state as the central principles of a market fundamentalism were applied with a vengeance to every aspect of society. All things social as well as the very concept of the public good were under attack since they detracted from the interests of profit making and limited the expansion and possibilities of market identities, values, and relations. Consequently, those noncommodified values that are central to a democracy – liberty, justice, and equality – were either ignored or treated as irrelevant by a new type of social and economic order marked by a shift away from the old forces and values of industrial production toward a new emphasis on financial capital and the wealth.
The obsession with privatization accompanied by an unadulterated celebration of excessive individualism and individual choices offered a rationale for implementing policies that brutally destroyed all those social relations at odds with free-market orthodoxies as well as all those noncommodified public spheres that called into question the limits of commercial culture and the politically impotent forms of democracy and citizenship it legitimated. Any institution that took seriously the democratic imperative to regenerate public life and address major social problems became a target to be commercialized, privatized, or simply eliminated.
The worst aspect of his first term was that if he was not afforded the first term, there never would have been a second term.
That is a total opinion piece - and doesn't state anything specifically that was done that "damaged" the nation.
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
