The Night They Dumbed Our Country Down

[BigRob]

Most of the jobs lost under Obama came in the first 3 months which was basically set in motion by Bush, obviously.

Granted...so what was President Obama's solution? We have not seen any.

 

[BigRob]

Yep. . .they "dominated" the 2010 elections. . .and now there is so much "buyer remorse" that many are being recalled!

This is not accurate. Unless "many" being recalled really just means a state senator.

Let's just see what happens in 2012. . .Congress approval rating hasn't gone up much (an understatement, of course) since the 2010 election!

I believe that in 2010, they just voted out the incumbents. . .and I believe that in 2012, they'll do the same!

We shall see, I don't see it trending that way right now however.

 

[Openmind]

This is not accurate. Unless "many" being recalled really just means a state senator.



We shall see, I don't see it trending that way right now however.

I was talking not just about Washington, but also State Congress.

And. . .the "buyer remorse" is pretty evident! Look at the reaction to the candidate pool!

 

[FatherTime]

Granted...so what was President Obama's solution? We have not seen any.

well it was a myth that the Stimulus didn't create a lot of jobs. but all that did was dig us out from under the Bush Hole. It should've been a lot larger. Pelosi passed like hundreds of positive bills that couldn't make it around the Senate filibusters, and now finally Obama has given up on bi-partisanship (which took him far too long) but still the Repubs aren't going to allow anything to pass because they want to win in 12, the country be damned.

Tax cuts didn't work, we had 8 years of Bush that brought the country into the ****hole. The Repubs have no solutions except help the rich get richer and hope they create jobs, that's what ain't working.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

A lot of the time those filibusters only worked because Obama was unable to unite his own party behind him...that is not what I would call a strong leader persay.

I agree he was a wimp only getting 59 out of 100 to agree...

and Its ok to just not let anything get voted on if your Republican...Just because it would pass, is no reason to actually vote on it, if you would rather it not.

Just don't forget if the Right wins...if you can't get 60 votes, its now your fault...even if the Dems just say, No just because they hate you and actually agree with the vote...But why let you get a win?

 

[Gipper]

Most of the jobs lost under Obama came in the first 3 months which was basically set in motion by Bush, obviously.

Yeah the same old sad refrain from you leftists...'it's Bush's fault'...pure silliness.

The problem you so conveniently miss is your Messiah has KEPT unemployment high for the last three years, while he had complete control of Congress. His policies have done nothing but keep unemployment high.

But, facts and liberals do not know each other.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

 

[BigRob]

well it was a myth that the Stimulus didn't create a lot of jobs.

The CBO estimates that that the stimulus lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points. I will assume all of this is accurate...and lets take the middle of that and assume the Stimulus was responsible for a 1.25% drop in unemployment.

When Obama signed the legislation unemployment stood at 8.2%. So, by your own assertion here, Obama's grand solution to the economic problems was legislation that at best would bring unemployment to around 7%. That is simply not acceptable.

but all that did was dig us out from under the Bush Hole. It should've been a lot larger.

if $800 billion (roughly) amounts to a 1.25% drop in unemployment, than to return to even 5%, we would have had to see legislation that totaled over $3,000,000,000,000. There is a 0% chance that anyone in Congress (D or R) was going to get behind that.

Pelosi passed like hundreds of positive bills that couldn't make it around the Senate filibusters,

As has John Boehner.

and now finally Obama has given up on bi-partisanship (which took him far too long) but still the Repubs aren't going to allow anything to pass because they want to win in 12, the country be damned.

Given up on it? He never needed it. His poor leadership was unable to unite his own party.

Tax cuts didn't work, we had 8 years of Bush that brought the country into the ****hole. The Repubs have no solutions except help the rich get richer and hope they create jobs, that's what ain't working.

These is a used talking point that has no basic in fact if you examine actual economic data. I encourage you to examine the job creation and revenue growth in the years following those tax cuts...you will quickly see your above statement has no basis in reality.

 

[BigRob]

I agree he was a wimp only getting 59 out of 100 to agree...

and Its ok to just not let anything get voted on if your Republican...Just because it would pass, is no reason to actually vote on it, if you would rather it not.

Just don't forget if the Right wins...if you can't get 60 votes, its now your fault...even if the Dems just say, No just because they hate you and actually agree with the vote...But why let you get a win?

If the Republicans retake the Senate and have all of their legislation fillibustered, that is part of the process. However, looking at the situation honestly would clearly show you most of these fillibusters are done because there are simply huge fundamental disagreements over the legislation....not out of some desire to "make Obama fail." (whatever that even means)

 

[dogtowner]

If the Republicans retake the Senate and have all of their legislation fillibustered, that is part of the process. However, looking at the situation honestly would clearly show you most of these fillibusters are done because there are simply huge fundamental disagreements over the legislation....not out of some desire to "make Obama fail." (whatever that even means)

and those differences are stated and well known.

I guess its more fun to craft strawmen.

 

[FatherTime]

If the Republicans retake the Senate and have all of their legislation fillibustered, that is part of the process. However, looking at the situation honestly would clearly show you most of these fillibusters are done because there are simply huge fundamental disagreements over the legislation....not out of some desire to "make Obama fail." (whatever that even means)

Both your party leader Limbaugh and Mitch McConnell have admitted this. You're kidding that you don't know this, right ?

 

[GenSeneca]

if $800 billion (roughly) amounts to a 1.25% drop in unemployment, than to return to even 5%, we would have had to see legislation that totaled over $3,000,000,000,000. There is a 0% chance that anyone in Congress (D or R) was going to get behind that.

Obama has already spent 1.5 times that amount during his short time in office... With $4,500,000,000,000 in deficit spending since he took office, shouldn't we have like 3% unemployment?

 

[FatherTime]

As has John Boehner.

passing silly bills that would get rid of Medicare as we know it ?


And Obama's original stimulus plan had much more infrastructure it it, it was only turned into more than half taxcuts in order to compromise. Again, the Repubs.

 

[GenSeneca]

Both your party leader Limbaugh and Mitch McConnell have admitted this. You're kidding that you don't know this, right ?

Did you support or oppose going to war in Iraq?

 

[BigRob]

Both your party leader Limbaugh

Perhaps you are "kidding" that Limbaugh is my party leader?

and Mitch McConnell have admitted this. You're kidding that you don't know this, right ?

What Mitch McConnell has actually stated is that he opposed the President's agenda...big shock seeing as how one is a Liberal Democrat and one is a Conservative Republican.

You act as if all legislation that comes before the Senate is some great piece of legislation that automatically ought to be passed. If there is a fundamental disagreement over legislation, it doesn't make one side obstructionist, it simply makes a disagreement over the legislation.

 

[BigRob]

passing silly bills that would get rid of Medicare as we know it ?

Another statement that has no real bearing in reality if you truly examine what was proposed. Maybe I should just start arguing "you just want John Boehner to fail", as if that actually means anything.

And Obama's original stimulus plan had much more infrastructure it it, it was only turned into more than half taxcuts in order to compromise. Again, the Repubs.

Again, you show you don't know what you are talking about.

From Wiki:
Senate — $46 billion for transportation projects, including $27 billion for highway and bridge construction and repair and $11.5 billion for mass transit and rail projects; $4.6 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers; $5 billion for public housing improvements; $6.4 billion for clean and drinking water projects. (Total: $98.5 billion)

House — $47 billion for transportation projects, including $27 billion for highway and bridge construction and repair and $12 billion for mass transit, including $7.5 billion to buy transit equipment such as buses; and $31 billion to build and repair federal buildings and other public infrastructures. ($124.5 billion)

Is your assertion seriously that a 3% reduction in infrastructure spending had some dramatic impact...or that this was some wild swing that the Republicans gutted? The numbers don't back up your assertion. (There were indeed areas where the shifts were far more dramatic...infrastructure was not one of them however)

Additionally, you need to look within Obama's own Administration to find true drivers of tax cuts being included in this legislation.

Obama himself campaigned promising to "cut taxes for 95% of working Americans" and Christina Romer who was the chairwoman of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers conducted a lot of empirical research that tax cuts stimulate. She pushed heavily for them as well.