Does Obama have a "real" jobs plan or just more govt spending?

[Wiseacre]

Except of course, that what you just wrote is completely false.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Jan 2001 - 4.2% unemployment
Jan 2005 - 5.3% unemployment
Dec 2008 - 7.3% unemployment

is that really your response?

You include the numbers from a recession and financial crash?

I thought we were talking about the bush cuts and other policies and how they did or did not create jobs..

And you throw in the 2008 collapse to call me a liar?

I guess I was wrong when I said I appreciated your approach. You are nothing but another "I want to win, not have a fair debate" asshole on this site.

Those are the actual dates and actual numbers from Bush's Presidency. If you think that by using actual dates and numbers this makes me an asshole, then why don't you tell us what dates and numbers we should be using.

Oh, but that would make this an actual discussion, wouldn't it? And somehow, I don't think you want that.

This is what you said: " Bush holds the record for longest and WEAKEST period of job growth."

Which is wrong, the job growth under Bush43 was actually very good once he got past 9/11 and got his tax cuts passed through Congress. The employment numbers were pretty good up until the last year of his presidency. Too bad we're not going to say the same for Obama in his last year - 2012.

 

[Steelplate]

Well a "new idea" could be

A permanent tax cut or tax break for corporations that close shops overseas and bring jobs here.

Close all loopholes for BIG business and use said money for tax breaks for new full time hires.

Freeze tax rates at current levels for the next 5 years.

Reconsider new EPA regulations.

Instead of giving out endless unemployment checks when you reach a certain point all future money is only good for retraining programs.

These are just a couple off the top of my head that would be considered "new ideas" that congress could debate. If I can come up with ideas on the spot why can't Obama?

you and I don't often agree... but this time, I do.

 

[DontBeStupid]

is that really your response?

You include the numbers from a recession and financial crash?

I thought we were talking about the bush cuts and other policies and how they did or did not create jobs..

And you throw in the 2008 collapse to call me a liar?

I guess I was wrong when I said I appreciated your approach. You are nothing but another "I want to win, not have a fair debate" asshole on this site.

Those are the actual dates and actual number from Bush's Presidency. If you think that by using actual dates and numbers this makes me an asshole, then why don't you tell us what dates and numbers we should be using.

Oh, but that would make this an actual discussion, wouldn't it? And somehow, I don't think you want that.

and I said 5%...and it was as low as 4.3%...and hovered around 5% until the recession.

Forget it.

You just want to be right...not see if you are wrong.

Cool.

Learn nothing.

And it was also up at 6% for a while. So what? Are you wanting to take the average? Well then it was about 5.2%. Then just say that! But if you use that number it doesn't show the trend, nor does it show the time period with regards to his policies.

Look, clearly you don't know what you're talking about, or you would be able to show how something, anything, Bush did helped spur job growth. You're not even trying. You're just insulting me as if that will prove your case. It just proves you're a dick.

 

[DontBeStupid]

This is what you said: " Bush holds the record for longest and WEAKEST period of job growth."

Which is wrong, the job growth under Bush43 was actually very good once he got past 9/11 and got his tax cuts passed through Congress. The employment numbers were pretty good up until the last year of his presidency. Too bad we're not going to say the same for Obama in his last year - 2012.

And here we go. Bush's numbers look awesome once you take out anything bad from his 8 years. That happens with every president.

Can we get some honesty into this conversation please?

 

[kwc57]

Yup. And you realize interest rates are at historic lows, right? If we can borrow at 2% and grow at 4%, why wouldn't we want to do that?

Your IF is a mighty big keyword

It was an IF/THEN statement.

The 10 year bond interest rate right now is 2%.

Really? For the life of me, I can't find the "then" anywhere.

 

[Wiseacre]

This is what you said: " Bush holds the record for longest and WEAKEST period of job growth."

Which is wrong, the job growth under Bush43 was actually very good once he got past 9/11 and got his tax cuts passed through Congress. The employment numbers were pretty good up until the last year of his presidency. Too bad we're not going to say the same for Obama in his last year - 2012.

And here we go. Bush's numbers look awesome once you take out anything bad from his 8 years. That happens with every president.

Can we get some honesty into this conversation please?

Obama's entire 4 years are bad. At least Bush had a nice 5 year stretch in there of good numbers. Looks like Obama is soon going to hold the record, hmm?

 

[DontBeStupid]

Obama's entire 4 years are bad.

Obama has been president since 2007?

 

[Wiseacre]

Obama's entire 4 years are bad.

Obama has been president since 2007?

Correction: WILL be bad.

Look man, I ain't going to defend Bush43's record, it wasn't good. But it sure as hell isn't as bad as Obama's is going to be. His policies blew chunks and anyone who is unbiased knows it.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Obama's entire 4 years are bad.

Obama has been president since 2007?

Correction: WILL be bad.

Look man, I ain't going to defend Bush43's record, it wasn't good. But it sure as hell isn't as bad as Obama's is going to be. His policies blew chunks and anyone who is unbiased knows it.

Yeah, lets attack a guy for what you think might happen in the future.

 

[kwc57]

Obama has been president since 2007?

Correction: WILL be bad.

Look man, I ain't going to defend Bush43's record, it wasn't good. But it sure as hell isn't as bad as Obama's is going to be. His policies blew chunks and anyone who is unbiased knows it.

Yeah, lets attack a guy for what you think might happen in the future.

When you see a guy driving 110 MPH and busting thru the "bridge out" sign............

 

[Wiseacre]

Obama has been president since 2007?

Correction: WILL be bad.

Look man, I ain't going to defend Bush43's record, it wasn't good. But it sure as hell isn't as bad as Obama's is going to be. His policies blew chunks and anyone who is unbiased knows it.

Yeah, lets attack a guy for what you think might happen in the future.

Based on performance to date, why should I cut him any slack? I'm attacking him for what he's done so far, and it sucks. I am also looking ahead to what will hopefully be his last 16 months or so in office and assuming that not much will change because his policies and attitude towards businesses hasn't changed.

I'll tell you the truth, if I thought he was really willing to compromise with the GOP, I might cut him some slack. But he's never been willing to change what he wants, he's never had the guts to put out his plans to address the debt/deficits, he's never been willing to cut spending in any meaningful way or make structural changes to the entitlement programs that MUST be made or they'll go broke.

This next jobs plan he's going to propose, it's going to be nothing but more revenue and more spending. He's got no interest at all in lowering the debt/deficits, he just wants to win the next election by spending as much money as possible to buy votes.

 

[DontBeStupid]

When you see a guy driving 110 MPH and busting thru the "bridge out" sign............

Then you critique him for that. You don't yell at him because you think he will wreck a bike the next day.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Based on performance to date, why should I cut him any slack?

Uhm, cause you do with Bush. You don't want to count the first 3 years of his presidency or the last year (cause that was bad year) and you only want to focus on the few good years. Why not extend that courtesy to Obama?

I'll tell you the truth, if I thought he was really willing to compromise with the GOP, I might cut him some slack. But he's never been willing to change what he wants

Holy. Shit.

Seriously, you need to watch news that is NOT Fox News.

 

[Wiseacre]

Based on performance to date, why should I cut him any slack?

Uhm, cause you do with Bush. You don't want to count the first 3 years of his presidency or the last year (cause that was bad year) and you only want to focus on the few good years. Why not extend that courtesy to Obama?

I'll tell you the truth, if I thought he was really willing to compromise with the GOP, I might cut him some slack. But he's never been willing to change what he wants

Holy. Shit.

Seriously, you need to watch news that is NOT Fox News.

I look at Bush43's record and see that he had to deal with the dot.com recession as he entered office, nowhere near as bad as what Obama inherited but it wasn't a bowl of cherries either. Then he had to deal with 9/11, which was no little thing. He kept us safe and he went after the pricks that were responsible, and he managed to spur the economy into a good 5 year growth until the credit and housing bubbles collapsed.

His fault? No more than the rest of the pols on both sides over the past 20 years prior. Say what you want, he made his share of mistakes by not paying for 2 wars and the drug prescription program.

But there ain't nothing I can point to that Obama did that was good, other than the killing of OBL. Good call, credit due, but it's not like he didn't have the benefit of intelligence gathered before he got into the WH, AND he might not have ever gathered that intel after he went after the CIA for doing EITs.

His decisions for improving the economy sucked, no other way to say it. Yeah it was a bad situation but he didn't improve it. He hasn't done anything to pull us out of the hole we're in, and don't blame the repubs either. He had 2 years before the GOP took over the House and he squandered it on ObamaCare and Dodd/Frank, never of which are helping to create jobs and may in fact be hurting job creation.

So - your guy has truly sucked in his job performance so far, he and Jimmy Carter rank as the worst all time presidents to me.


And BTW, maybe you should get away from MSNBC, those guys are really pathetic.

 

[kwc57]

Holy. Shit.

Seriously, you need to watch news that is NOT Fox News.

Tell us his plan......any plan......or any accomplishment to date. One doesn't have to watch Fox News to know that Obama is the biggest empty suit and impotent "leader" to ever grace the oval office. One only has to observe.

 

[Mustang]

My business is down dramatically and you seem to think all my customers are ditto heads? Your really not here with us in the real world are you?

YOUR JUST AN IDIOT WHO WILL PLACE BLAME ANYWHERE BUT ON OBAMA

He has options, he just chooses not to do them for ideological reasons.

I'm perfectly happy to lay blame where it belongs.

I can blame Bush 43 for spending like a drunk while cutting revenues and fighting two wars and passing Medicare part D, all of which were never paid for and for also turning his back on regulating the financial industry because he didn't believe in regulation.

I can blame Clinton, and the Republicans, and big business, (and the Chamber of Commerce, for that matter) for rushing headlong into NAFTA and the WTO without truly understanding the longterm implications which have sent American jobs and capital overseas.

I can blame corporate America for turning its back on the USA in favor of overseas profits AND overseas markets. Personally, I think many of them have their eyes on China and India as new and FAR bigger markets than America ever was because they now believe that China and India are now primed and ready to not only be cheap labor, but to be their future primary customers.

I can blame the US financial masters of the universe for screwing up the economy with credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations.

I can blame the easy credit that Alan Greenspan made all too available because of his naïveté that markets would ultimately be self-correcting which didn't take into account human greed.

And I can blame the current crop of Republican House members who

A. don't know shit about economics.
B. would rather see Obama fail then help get America back on track while he's president.

I can even blame the Internet for making it possible to export jobs which require advanced education like radiologists (after all, any qualified doctor can read a PET scan just as well in India as in Boston).

But most of what's now happening ain't Obama's fault. He's just a very convenient scapegoat because he's the current president. Any president, regardless of party, would undoubtedly be the focal point for Americans' anger at our current economic misery. But because Obama is a Democrat, he gets beat up by countless conservative talk radio hosts EVERY day as if he was the single source of everything that's wrong with the American economy. He isn't.

Edit to add: I almost forgot a big villain in our current economic mess. And it's ironic too. That villain is all those credit ratings bureaus like S&P and Moody's. They gave AAA ratings to all those derivitives even though they were essentially terrible investments with high risk. And why did they do that? Maybe someone should ask that question to Alan Greenspan. But everyone knows the answer. It's because they got PAID to do it just like Arthur Anderson got paid to give Enron a clean bill of health when it came to their financial statements. It's ironic that S&P has now downgraded US treasuries considering how complicit they are in helping to cause the financial collapse in the first place. They were the enablers.

Didn't you deride someone earlier for using "talking points"? Wow!

They're not talking points because I didn't get it from another source. I've actually read about the causes of the financial meltdown.

That reminds me that I left out (at least) one of the culprits. It is the bankers who turned their backs on their responsiblity to perform due diligence regarding verifying the incomes of anyone applying for a home loan. But no, they were too busy worrying that if they didn't make the loans, some other bank would.

And, of course, they didn't hold on to the risky paper they wrote. They dumped it on the secondary market.

 

[kwc57]

I'm perfectly happy to lay blame where it belongs.

I can blame Bush 43 for spending like a drunk while cutting revenues and fighting two wars and passing Medicare part D, all of which were never paid for and for also turning his back on regulating the financial industry because he didn't believe in regulation.

I can blame Clinton, and the Republicans, and big business, (and the Chamber of Commerce, for that matter) for rushing headlong into NAFTA and the WTO without truly understanding the longterm implications which have sent American jobs and capital overseas.

I can blame corporate America for turning its back on the USA in favor of overseas profits AND overseas markets. Personally, I think many of them have their eyes on China and India as new and FAR bigger markets than America ever was because they now believe that China and India are now primed and ready to not only be cheap labor, but to be their future primary customers.

I can blame the US financial masters of the universe for screwing up the economy with credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations.

I can blame the easy credit that Alan Greenspan made all too available because of his naïveté that markets would ultimately be self-correcting which didn't take into account human greed.

And I can blame the current crop of Republican House members who

A. don't know shit about economics.
B. would rather see Obama fail then help get America back on track while he's president.

I can even blame the Internet for making it possible to export jobs which require advanced education like radiologists (after all, any qualified doctor can read a PET scan just as well in India as in Boston).

But most of what's now happening ain't Obama's fault. He's just a very convenient scapegoat because he's the current president. Any president, regardless of party, would undoubtedly be the focal point for Americans' anger at our current economic misery. But because Obama is a Democrat, he gets beat up by countless conservative talk radio hosts EVERY day as if he was the single source of everything that's wrong with the American economy. He isn't.

Edit to add: I almost forgot a big villain in our current economic mess. And it's ironic too. That villain is all those credit ratings bureaus like S&P and Moody's. They gave AAA ratings to all those derivitives even though they were essentially terrible investments with high risk. And why did they do that? Maybe someone should ask that question to Alan Greenspan. But everyone knows the answer. It's because they got PAID to do it just like Arthur Anderson got paid to give Enron a clean bill of health when it came to their financial statements. It's ironic that S&P has now downgraded US treasuries considering how complicit they are in helping to cause the financial collapse in the first place. They were the enablers.

Didn't you deride someone earlier for using "talking points"? Wow!

They're not talking points because I didn't get it from another source. I've actually read about the causes of the financial meltdown.

That reminds me that I left out (at least) one of the culprits. It is the bankers who turned their backs on their responsiblity to perform due diligence regarding verifying the incomes of anyone applying for a home loan. But no, they were too busy worrying that if they didn't make the loans, some other bank would.

And, of course, they didn't hold on to the risky paper they wrote. They dumped it on the secondary market.

Dumb shit, I work in the banking industry.....one of the heaviest regulated businesses in the nation. Banks were forced to do mortgage lending against their better judgement by the government. You need to quit watching MSNBC and educate yourself if you don't want to be laughed off the board. Isn't junior high starting soon?

Federal Regulations Helped Spawn Mortgage Crisis

Affordable Housing, Diversity Mandates Caused Mortgage Crisis

 

[Unkotare]

" a "real" jobs plan or just more govt spending?"



To democrats they are one and the same.

 

[Unkotare]

Dumb shit, I work in the banking industry.....one of the heaviest regulated businesses in the nation. Banks were forced to do mortgage lending against their better judgement by the government. ]

Did you get to meet Barney Frank?

 

[Steelplate]

Dumb shit, I work in the banking industry.....one of the heaviest regulated businesses in the nation. Banks were forced to do mortgage lending against their better judgement by the government. You need to quit watching MSNBC and educate yourself if you don't want to be laughed off the board. Isn't junior high starting soon?

Federal Regulations Helped Spawn Mortgage Crisis

Affordable Housing, Diversity Mandates Caused Mortgage Crisis

Being a teller don't count as working in the banking industry.

All I need to see is your right wing propaganda website that you are using to "prove" your point. Stop watching FOX and drinking the Tea Party Koolaid. I don't understand HOW you people can be so critical of everything.... except your own side. Nooooo... an organization like OPENMARKET.ORG wouldn't be biased... not at all. I'll tell you what.. I'll go to Huffpo and expect you to take it as gospel.

At least my article on Glass/Steagal was from an unbiased source.