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.
I am not concerned about your 'arguments'. The conversation, which you inserted yourself into, was about the claim saying economy was improving before Obama was sworn in.
Argument: "the economy started improving before Obama was sworn in"
It was proven false.
Oh hell I was supporting your argument that the economy wasnt done falling when obama was sworn into office, in fact I validated this was true and then stated the FACT that it did stop falling and started recovering BEFORE Obama passed the stimulus bill..
YOU are the one who responded to MY posting with these facts, by attributing a quote that I DIDNT SAY..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
On top of that, your claim about economy growing in 1st qt 2009 is also BS.
its YOUR argument that they werent passed and htus the economy wasnt fixed as a result, its not my job to list the bills to validate your position for you.
Um, just so you know, your article from 2013 is apparently out of date. A newer one in the same magazine (Forbes) has a different take on things today:
"Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth And Investing...
Average GDP growth first 5 years under Reagan 8.8%
Average GDP growth first 5 years under Obama 2.7%
Median incomes under Reagan first five years up 7.7%
Median incomes under obama first five years down 4.8%
National debt growth under Reagan first 5 years, $1.015 trillion
National debt growth under Obama first 5 years, $6.66 trillion
Jobs created under Reagan first 5 years 5.7 million
Jobs created under Obama first five years 1.287 million
its YOUR argument that they werent passed and htus the economy wasnt fixed as a result, its not my job to list the bills to validate your position for you.
No that was your added stipulation.
I responded to:
3. there is no obstruction from the republicans.....for the first two years of Obama's presidency the liberals had total control of all 3 houses.
4 the obstruction has been from the senate democrat leaders, not allowing bills to even be seen, let alone voted on...the house has passed many bills only to have the obstructionist democrats not even allow them to be voted on in the senate...even some of Obama's wishes........it is a complete failure of the democrat senators not to vote on bills that have already passed the PEOPLES HOUSE
With
Point three: What 3 houses? The veto proof majority in the Senate existed for roughly one month, not 2 years.
Point four: Numerous bills got majority yes votes in the Senate, but were blocked from proceeding because of the need for a super majority to override the Republican filibuster.
3. there is no obstruction from the republicans.....for the first two years of Obama's presidency the liberals had total control of all 3 houses.
4 the obstruction has been from the senate democrat leaders, not allowing bills to even be seen, let alone voted on...the house has passed many bills only to have the obstructionist democrats not even allow them to be voted on in the senate...even some of Obama's wishes........it is a complete failure of the democrat senators not to vote on bills that have already passed the PEOPLES HOUSE
With
Point three: What 3 houses? The veto proof majority in the Senate existed for roughly one month, not 2 years.
Point four: Numerous bills got majority yes votes in the Senate, but were blocked from proceeding because of the need for a super majority to override the Republican filibuster.
That is supported by this graph.
Notice 2007 and 2011 are both outliers to the upward trend (2007 as an extreme increase, 2011 as an extreme decrease) 2009 and 10 are the 3rd and 4th biggest years for filibusters. NOTE: you need more votes to overturn a veto than to overturn a filibuster.
3. there is no obstruction from the republicans.....for the first two years of Obama's presidency the liberals had total control of all 3 houses.
4 the obstruction has been from the senate democrat leaders, not allowing bills to even be seen, let alone voted on...the house has passed many bills only to have the obstructionist democrats not even allow them to be voted on in the senate...even some of Obama's wishes........it is a complete failure of the democrat senators not to vote on bills that have already passed the PEOPLES HOUSE
With
Point three: What 3 houses? The veto proof majority in the Senate existed for roughly one month, not 2 years.
Point four: Numerous bills got majority yes votes in the Senate, but were blocked from proceeding because of the need for a super majority to override the Republican filibuster.
uhm...what three houses
the house of reps
the house of the senate
the white house
btw it only takes a simple majority (usually 51 votes) to pass a bill in the senate...the 60 vote thing is about stopping a filibuster ...and filibusters are a good thing, to actually get a bill talked about (ie mr smith goes to washington)
why would you even say veto-proof...did Obama veto anything coming from the democrat controlled congress in the 2 years the democrats controlled everything
Um, just so you know, your article from 2013 is apparently out of date. A newer one in the same magazine (Forbes) has a different take on things today:
"Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth And Investing...
...Bob Deitrick: ”President Reagan has long been considered the best modern economic President. So we compared his performance dealing with the oil-induced recession of the 1980s with that of President Obama and his performance during this ‘Great Recession.’
“As this unemployment chart shows, President Obama’s job creation kept unemployment from peaking at as high a level as President Reagan, and promoted people into the workforce faster than President Reagan.
“President Obama has achieved a 6.1% unemployment rate in his sixth year, fully one year faster than President Reagan did. At this point in his presidency, President Reagan was still struggling with 7.1% unemployment, and he did not reach into the mid-low 6% range for another full year... "
As I said earlier - Reagan didn't manage to get the UE rate consistantly down to "decent" (ie below 6%) level until his last year or so.
Ken
So because this person says so, unemployment would have gone much higher had Obama been president?
That's a nice example of wishful thinking but it's a long way from being fact.
“Now that ‘Boomers’ are retiring we are seeing the percentage of those seeking employment decline. This has nothing to do with job availability, and everything to do with a highly predictable aging demographic."
why would you even say veto-proof...did Obama veto anything coming from the democrat controlled congress in the 2 years the democrats controlled everything
Of course not, its just the latest talking point to blame Republicans even though Democrats had complete control.
Oh hell I was supporting your argument that the economy wasnt done falling when obama was sworn into office
Yep, you proved it started growing after he was sworn in, not before. The argument I was responding to claimed it was recovering before it.
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.
