President Obama wants same date and time as GOP Candidate Debate for Economic Address UPDATE: Obama
117 replies, posted
[quote]Obama compromises [/quote]
damnit B i told you to stop doing that!
[editline]1st September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Miskav;32056269]It's not like there will be a Republican president in our lifetime.
[/QUOTE]
there was one and he was re-elected after fucking up the first time
[editline]1st September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=NotoriousSpy;32057950]The republicans always need to come in and clean up the mess after a democrat.[/QUOTE]
yep sure cleaned up that mess that clinton left behind with that whole budget surplus thing
[QUOTE=thisispain;32061070]yep sure cleaned up that mess that clinton left behind with that whole budget surplus thing[/QUOTE]
God forbid we actually start paying our debts.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;32060766]really? people think this after people like bush?[/QUOTE]
Yeah if you didn't get caught up in the left-wing media. Hurricane Katrina response time wasn't his fault, reporters exclaiming "high gas prices, and Bush not doing anything." War protesters that suddenly realized war is good because you don't see them anymore. Remember the nightly gas price and war casualty totals? There's more, but far to much to explain.
Bush added about five trillion to the debt in eight years. Obama has added that in three.
Also, the democrats had five years of congressional majority, so everything that happened between that period is the fault of the democrats because, after six months of republicans everything is there fault.. Right?
Obama's running out of people and things to blame that he'll inevitably run into himself.
[editline]1st September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32061013]Yeah, I guess Bush came in and really cleaned up Clinton's mess...oh wait.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, sticking IOU's in entitlement programs deserves a pat on the back.
[QUOTE=NotoriousSpy;32061465]Yeah if you didn't get caught up in the left-wing media. Hurricane Katrina response time wasn't his fault, reporters exclaiming "high gas prices, and Bush not doing anything." War protesters that suddenly realized war is good because you don't see them anymore. Remember the nightly gas price and war casualty totals? There's more, but far to much to explain.
Bush added about five trillion to the debt in eight years. Obama has added that in three.
Also, the democrats had five years of congressional majority, so everything that happened between that period is the fault of the democrats because, after six months of republicans everything is there fault.. Right?
Obama's running out of people and things to blame that he'll inevitably run into himself.
[editline]1st September 2011[/editline]
Yeah, sticking IOU's in entitlement programs deserves a pat on the back.[/QUOTE]
Did the democrats block every single republican proposal that tried to help out the people?
Oh lol wait, republicans never tried to help people.
[QUOTE=NotoriousSpy;32061465]Yeah if you didn't get caught up in the left-wing media.[/quote]
First off, this kind of assertion is ridiculous. The only media sources I'd argue are left-leaning are MSNBC, and The Young Turks, although the latter is less a news show and more an opinion show, they say this themselves.
[QUOTE=NotoriousSpy;32061465]Hurricane Katrina response time wasn't his fault, reporters exclaiming "high gas prices, and Bush not doing anything."[/quote]
I would argue that's less Bush's fault, and more the fault of FEMA management.
[QUOTE=NotoriousSpy;32061465]War protesters that suddenly realized war is good because you don't see them anymore. Remember the nightly gas price and war casualty totals? There's more, but far to much to explain.[/quote]
If there was a point to this, I didn't see it.
[QUOTE=NotoriousSpy;32061465]Bush added about five trillion to the debt in eight years. Obama has added that in three.[/quote]
Because surprise surprise, you can't cut your way out of a recession.
[QUOTE=NotoriousSpy;32061465]Also, the democrats had five years of congressional majority, so everything that happened between that period is the fault of the democrats because, after six months of republicans everything is there fault.. Right?[/quote]
If at specific points where the Democrat blocked smart policies, then yes that was bad decision-making. However, if they blocked things like more tax cuts for the wealthy (just an example), then I wouldn't argue that caused more economic damage.
[QUOTE=NotoriousSpy;32061465]Obama's running out of people and things to blame that he'll inevitably run into himself.[/QUOTE]
Obama is as spineless as it gets when it comes to blaming anyone directly, don't kid yourself.
[QUOTE=Miskav;32061506]Did the democrats block every single republican proposal that tried to help out the people?
Oh lol wait, republicans never tried to help people.[/QUOTE]
There goes your ignorance.
[QUOTE=NotoriousSpy;32061538]There goes your ignorance.[/QUOTE]
Hey dumbass, I just addressed all your points. If you've got a legitimate point to make, try to set up a rebuttal of your own.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32061536]First off, this kind of assertion is ridiculous. The only media sources I'd argue are left-leaning are MSNBC, and The Young Turks, although the latter is less a news show and more an opinion show, they say this themselves.[/QUOTE]
Your going to like what what you want to hear, so you will think a media source is not biased or very biased.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32061536]I would argue that's less Bush's fault, and more the fault of FEMA management.[/QUOTE]
The federal government needs local authority to enter, and it took the the mayor of New Orleans a couple of days, for which blame was put on Bush
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32061536]If there was a point to this, I didn't see it.[/QUOTE]
About the left-wing media, you must have just read it because you quoted it.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32061536]Because surprise surprise, you can't cut your way out of a recession.[/QUOTE]
So instead you spend money you don't have.. Brilliant!
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32061536]If at specific points where the Democrat blocked smart policies, then yes that was bad decision-making. However, if they blocked things like more tax cuts for the wealthy (just an example), then I wouldn't argue that caused more economic damage.[/QUOTE]
That was sarcasm based around everything all-of-a-sudden becoming 'Congress' fault' since republicans took over.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32061536]Obama is as spineless as it gets when it comes to blaming anyone directly, don't kid yourself.[/QUOTE]
If Obama gets reelected I won't mind if he blames the previous term.
[QUOTE=NotoriousSpy;32061814]Your going to like what what you want to hear, so you will think a media source is not biased or very biased.[/quote]
I just admitted to you that those two are relatively biased.
[QUOTE=NotoriousSpy;32061814]The federal government needs local authority to enter, and it took the the mayor of New Orleans a couple of days, for which blame was put on Bush[/quote]
Then that would be the fault of that mayor. Your point?
[QUOTE=NotoriousSpy;32061814]About the left-wing media, you must have just read it because you quoted it.[/quote]
You sound like one of those guys who calls every media source other than Fox News "Left-Wing Media".
[QUOTE=NotoriousSpy;32061814]So instead you spend money you don't have.. Brilliant![/quote]
It's called Keynesian economics, look it up.
[QUOTE=NotoriousSpy;32061814]If Obama gets reelected I won't mind if he blames the previous term.[/QUOTE]
Hahaha, oh wow.
[QUOTE=NotoriousSpy;32061465]Yeah if you didn't get caught up in the left-wing media. Hurricane Katrina response time wasn't his fault, reporters exclaiming "high gas prices, and Bush not doing anything." War protesters that suddenly realized war is good because you don't see them anymore. Remember the nightly gas price and war casualty totals? There's more, but far to much to explain.
Bush added about five trillion to the debt in eight years. Obama has added that in three.
Also, the democrats had five years of congressional majority, so everything that happened between that period is the fault of the democrats because, after six months of republicans everything is there fault.. Right?
Obama's running out of people and things to blame that he'll inevitably run into himself.[/QUOTE]
Mind you america is still involved in two wars and the economy still blows largely because of Bush and the republicans.
[editline]1st September 2011[/editline]
Also NPR is the only liberal nationwide news I count. All others are supported by one giant corporation or another.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32062040]I just admitted to you that those two are relatively biased.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't arguing there.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32062040]Then that would be the fault of that mayor. Your point?[/QUOTE]
Nor was I here, I just saw the opportunity to share how it actually happened.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32062040]You sound like one of those guys who calls every media source other than Fox News "Left-Wing Media".[/QUOTE]
If I perceive it that way, yes.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32062040]It's called Keynesian economics, look it up.[/QUOTE]
It appears to be working.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32062040]Hahaha, oh wow.[/QUOTE]
Yeah...
If you tax everyone who makes over $75,000 a year at 100% it still wouldn't pay down the debt.
[QUOTE=NotoriousSpy;32063458]It appears to be working.[/QUOTE]
9.5 (roundabouts) unemployment and a debt that's higher than all previous presidents combined is Keynesian economics working?!
[QUOTE=NotoriousSpy;32063458]If I perceive it that way, yes.[/quote]
I guess BBC, CNN, and NPR are all Leftist? Don't make me laugh.
[QUOTE=NotoriousSpy;32063458]It appears to be working.[/quote]
It's certainly working better than if we had just deregulated everything and did nothing but tax cuts and spending cuts.
[QUOTE=NotoriousSpy;32063458]If you tax everyone who makes over $75,000 a year at 100% it still wouldn't pay down the debt.[/QUOTE]
I guess it's good no one intends to pay down the debt with only taxes then, isn't it? You need taxes on the rich, public works programs, and available social services for the poor and elderly.
imo you guys associate republicans with tea partiers waaay too much
[QUOTE=Glaber;32064147]9.5 (roundabouts) unemployment and a debt that's higher than all previous presidents combined is Keynesian economics working?![/QUOTE]
If you believe deregulation and lower taxes was going to fix that, you have brain damage.
Not to mention, when Bush took office unemployment was at about 4%, and ending at about 8%. If you're going to tie all unemployment to the president, what does that tell you?
[editline]1st September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mon;32064178]imo you guys associate republicans with tea partiers waaay too much[/QUOTE]
When there are Congresspeople aligned with the Tea Party on the Republican ticket, then yes, I tend to associate the two.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32064203]When there are Congresspeople aligned with the Tea Party on the Republican ticket, then yes, I tend to associate the two.[/QUOTE]
it's not like the entire party is made up of immature manbabies desperately forcing their beliefs. if you take some time to look at who says what, i think you'll find that most of the bs comes from bachmann, santorum and parry (all of which are tea partiers)
Since when does deregulation actually help the economy?
[QUOTE=Mon;32064272]it's not like the entire party is made up of immature manbabies desperately forcing their beliefs. if you take some time to look at who says what, i think you'll find that most of the bs comes from bachmann, santorum and parry (all of which are tea partiers)[/QUOTE]
And Rand Paul, and Allen West, and quite a few other GOP Representatives. It's not as isolated as you think.
[QUOTE=Glaber;32064147]9.5 (roundabouts) unemployment and a debt that's higher than all previous presidents combined is Keynesian economics working?![/QUOTE]
Admittedly Obama ain't great with economics, but firstly - Kenyanomics? Really? That is not how you get a serious argument across.
Secondly, his presidency collided with the bursting of the mortgage bubble, which he could not help. And that started way back in the late 90's or early 21st century, when intrest rates on the reserve were lowered to 1%. Hence the bad economy and unemployment.
Thirdly, the debt has been rising for a long time now, obviously he's going to have the highest debt. It's like standing on someone's shoulder - if you're on the top obviously you're going to be highest up until someone climbs on your shoulders.
Hope you got that analogy.
[QUOTE=mac338;32064452]Admittedly Obama ain't great with economics, but firstly - Kenyanomics? Really? That is not how you get a serious argument across.[/QUOTE]
No, not Kenyanomics, Keynesian economics. It's a real thing.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32064203]If you believe deregulation and lower taxes was going to fix that, you have brain damage.
Not to mention, when Bush took office unemployment was at about 4%, and ending at about 8%. If you're going to tie all unemployment to the president, what does that tell you?[/QUOTE]
That even with playing that game, Obama still comes out with the worse number.
[quote=Gallup][B]Gallup Finds U.S. Unemployment Up in August
Underemployment is at 18.5%, with 9.4% working part time but seeking full-time jobs[/B]
Unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, is at 9.1% at the end of August -- up from 8.8% at the end of July.
Gallup's U.S. Unemployment Rate, 2010-2011
These data further confirm Gallup's mid-month prediction that the August unemployment rate that the government will report Friday will be higher than the 9.1% it reported in July -- barring another sizable decline in the U.S. workforce or an unusual seasonal adjustment.
The percentage of part-time workers who want full-time work is at 9.4% at the end of August -- up from 9.2% in mid-August and at the end of July.
Percentage of Americans Working Part Time but Wanting Full-Time Work, 2010-2011
Underemployment Worsens in August
Underemployment, a measure that combines the percentage of workers who are unemployed with the percentage working part time but wanting full-time work, is 18.5% at the end of August -- up from 18.0% at the end of July.
Gallup's U.S. Underemployment Rate, 2010-2011
The increase in unemployment and underemployment that Gallup finds in August is reflected by Americans' elevated level of concern about losing their jobs. Thirty percent of U.S. workers in an Aug. 11-14 Gallup poll said they fear being laid off, which essentially matches the record-high 31% who said the same in August 2009. This may also signal additional job losses yet to come.
Looking Ahead to the Government's Next Unemployment Report
The government's August unemployment report will be based on data collected during mid-August, around the time Gallup released its mid-month findings. At that time, Gallup suggested that the government would report an increase in the U.S. unemployment rate for August. The continued job deterioration Gallup has found since mid-month reinforces this idea.
Gallup's end-of-August data are consistent with Wednesday's slightly disappointing report from ADP, the nation's largest payroll service, which found a less-than-predicted rise in private-sector payrolls. These data are also consistent with the possibility that the government will report that the U.S. unemployment rate increased in August, although the consensus expectation is that it will be unchanged.
One caveat is that Gallup's unemployment numbers are not seasonally adjusted, and the way the government adjusts its unemployment report for seasonal effects may affect Friday's report. There is also the issue of the shrinking U.S. workforce. Last month, the number of Americans in the labor force declined by nearly 200,000. The number of Americans in the labor force is down about 400,000 over the past year. If more Americans got discouraged and simply dropped out of the job market in August -- meaning they are no longer counted as unemployed because they are no longer actively seeking work -- the government may end up reporting a lower unemployment rate than Gallup's unemployment data suggest.
While the dismal job situation is a negative for the economic outlook, unemployment is generally seen as a lagging indicator. Americans' worries about potentially being laid off are much more of a leading indicator, and Americans are now worried about losing their jobs to the same degree they were in 2009. People are likely worried about their job situation both because their Economic Confidence is low, and because they fear their companies may be scaling back on hiring. When a large percentage of Americans are worried about their jobs, it does not bode well for consumer spending or the prospects for another recession.[/quote]
[url]http://www.gallup.com/poll/149285/Gallup-Finds-Unemployment-August.aspx[/url]
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32064530]No, not Kenyanomics, Keynesian economics. It's a real thing.[/QUOTE]
Oh, my (uninformed) bad. I have never heard that term used before.
[editline]1st September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Glaber;32064545]That even with playing that game, Obama still comes out with the worse number.[/QUOTE]
Glaber. Conservatives. Republicans. Democrats. America. I have a message to you:
Please stop saying X is worse then Y because this and that. Please promote your cause by saying Y is good because this and that, and this is how Y can improve your future:
Because, honestly, you keep pulling each other down, and you are [B]not moving forward.[/B] At all.
Hey glaber didn't the reagan administration have some terrible unemployment too
[QUOTE=Glaber;32064545]That even with playing that game, Obama still comes out with the worse number.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but it's a smaller increase. Bush didn't help, and McCain wouldn't have fixed it any better. I don't like the argument of "x is worse than y", but you're using it from the get-go.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;32064637]Hey glaber didn't the reagan administration have some terrible unemployment too[/QUOTE]
It went up to 9.5 in his first term, like Obama, then in his second term it went down.
[QUOTE] Reagan's policies are widely recognized as bringing about the second longest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history, surpassed in duration only by the 1990s expansion that began under George H. W. Bush in 1991.[12][13] During the Reagan administration, the American economy went from a GDP growth of -0.3% in 1980 to 4.1% in 1988 (in constant 2005 dollars),[14] which reduced the unemployment rate by 1.6%, from 7.1% in 1980 to 5.5% in 1988, but with peaks of around 9.5% in 1982 and 1983.[[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics#Economic_record[/url]
[QUOTE=Itsjustguy;32042672]Fox news isn't a reliable news source anymore.[/QUOTE]
Was it ever?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.