Have the Democrats Failed Enough?

[Oldstyle]

The Dems took control of Congress in 06...

You been Hannitized!

This is an oft repeated lie, spoken by right wing political pundents, which has no real basis in fact.

After the '06 elections, the Senate was 49 Dems to 49 Repubs, with two independents, and one of those independents campaigned for McCain.

How does that equate to controlling the Senate?

In the House, yes...the Dems had about a 30 vote majority...out of 435 members!

Wow! That's some control of congress, isn't it?

With all due respect, Hoot? When you try and make the point that the most liberal Senator in the country Bernie Sanders shouldn't be included in the Democratic camp because he's an "independent" you're rather amusing. And yes...Joe Lieberman campaigned for McCain but he caucused with the Democrats.

 

[kiwiman127]

Herring, red.

Facts, real.

The fact is that inflation moderated, the value of the dollar rose, and unemployment declined.
Under Bush in 2000 the recession went away and unemployment, which was never over 6% or so remained under 5.5 for most of his presidency.
Under Obama inflation is heating up, unemployment is at its highest sustained point since Carter, and we have endured 3 years of recession or painfully slow growth.
Facts. The actual ones.

Look, I'm NOT saying the Dems have the answers, actually they have no answers.
The fact of the matter is that the GOP philosophy of trickle down didn't work as the charts I supplied prove.
Secondly, yes the Clinton recession that GWB inherit did go away but shortly after that the biggest recession this country ever had appeared while W was in office. Now I'm not blaming that recession just on Bush, but also the Dems, the GOP, the Fed and the private financial sector.
As is noted with the charts I supplied, income for a huge majority of Americans headed south, when trickle down was suppose to help everyone. Now if you think that the well being of just the top percentiles reflects success of the GOP philosophy, tens of millions of working Americans would disagree. Can the top percentile to drive the US consumer-driven economy alone? NO!
In the end, the two party system is stale with ideas and new ideas certainly need to be interjected into the conversation. Neither party has the imagination or the required independent thinking to move our economy forward. Both are too married to special interest to have the ability to solve America's declining economy to cover a majority of Americans.
Also, you diehards keep on making claims about how great the unemployment numbers were after the recession recovery during the Bush years. But unemployment numbers don't mean much when a person looks at the more accurate picture use the Labor Participation Rate that includes the entire US workforce. It's like right now, the unemployment rate is at 9% but in fact the real unemployment rate is more like 23%.
What Is the Real Unemployment Rate?


Looking at the at the Labor Participation Rate during the alleged huge drop in unemployment during Bush recovery, it doesn't even get close to the Participation Rate when Clinton left office. The January 2001 unemployment rate was 4.2, the lowest it got under Bush was 4.4. But you can barely see that within the Labor Participation Rate.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Look, I'm NOT saying the Dems have the answers, actually they have no answers.
The fact of the matter is that the GOP philosophy of trickle down didn't work as the charts I supplied prove.

Red herring.
Try to stay on topic.

 

[Rocko]

Democrats can't own anything. The fact is, they have had considerably more power for a long time, and they've been a debacle.

The two party system has worked beautifully for America. The parties act as effective watchdogs, and it shouldn't be easy to pass legislation.

 

[kiwiman127]

Herring, red.

Facts, real.

However real your "facts" may or may not be, they aren't relevant to the discussion; your response does not address the issue and hand - that is, the failure of the DEMOCRATS - and does nothing other than try to move the conversation away from that issue.

Thus - red herring.

Red herring - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As a non-partisan, it's my job (well, hobby) to point out that you folks are ignoring the faults of your own ideology and we all know that old saying,,,"those who live in glasses house shouldn't throw stones!"

Now if this discussion was in the Flame Zone, I'd shut up.

 

[The Rabbi]

Facts, real.

However real your "facts" may or may not be, they aren't relevant to the discussion; your response does not address the issue and hand - that is, the failure of the DEMOCRATS - and does nothing other than try to move the conversation away from that issue.

Thus - red herring.

Red herring - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As a non-partisan, it's my job (well, hobby) to point out that you folks are ignoring the faults of your own ideology and we all know that old saying,,,"those who live in glasses house shouldn't throw stones!"

Now if this discussion was in the Flame Zone, I'd shut up.

Well, when the GOP passed truly conservative type legislation the unemployment rate declined and the economy improved. When the Democrats passed Dem legislation, or the GOP forgot who they were, we had recession and high unemployment. Seems pretty open and shut to me.

 

[kiwiman127]

However real your "facts" may or may not be, they aren't relevant to the discussion; your response does not address the issue and hand - that is, the failure of the DEMOCRATS - and does nothing other than try to move the conversation away from that issue.

Thus - red herring.

Red herring - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As a non-partisan, it's my job (well, hobby) to point out that you folks are ignoring the faults of your own ideology and we all know that old saying,,,"those who live in glasses house shouldn't throw stones!"

Now if this discussion was in the Flame Zone, I'd shut up.

Well, when the GOP passed truly conservative type legislation the unemployment rate declined and the economy improved. When the Democrats passed Dem legislation, or the GOP forgot who they were, we had recession and high unemployment. Seems pretty open and shut to me.

Of course it appears that way to you, that's just the way you look at things! The last three words in your post says it all!!!

 

[Toro]

It's hard to say.

It looks like they are trying to go for the record.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Facts, real.

However real your "facts" may or may not be, they aren't relevant to the discussion; your response does not address the issue and hand - that is, the failure of the DEMOCRATS - and does nothing other than try to move the conversation away from that issue.

Thus - red herring.

Red herring - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As a non-partisan, it's my job (well, hobby) to point out that you folks are ignoring the faults of your own ideology and we all know that old saying,,,"those who live in glasses house shouldn't throw stones!"

Not sure how many times I can type "red herring", but however many times it may be, it will always be true.

 

[The Rabbi]

Facts, real.

The fact is that inflation moderated, the value of the dollar rose, and unemployment declined.
Under Bush in 2000 the recession went away and unemployment, which was never over 6% or so remained under 5.5 for most of his presidency.
Under Obama inflation is heating up, unemployment is at its highest sustained point since Carter, and we have endured 3 years of recession or painfully slow growth.
Facts. The actual ones.

Look, I'm NOT saying the Dems have the answers, actually they have no answers.
The fact of the matter is that the GOP philosophy of trickle down didn't work as the charts I supplied prove.
Secondly, yes the Clinton recession that GWB inherit did go away but shortly after that the biggest recession this country ever had appeared while W was in office. Now I'm not blaming that recession just on Bush, but also the Dems, the GOP, the Fed and the private financial sector.
As is noted with the charts I supplied, income for a huge majority of Americans headed south, when trickle down was suppose to help everyone. Now if you think that the well being of just the top percentiles reflects success of the GOP philosophy, tens of millions of working Americans would disagree. Can the top percentile to drive the US consumer-driven economy alone? NO!
In the end, the two party system is stale with ideas and new ideas certainly need to be interjected into the conversation. Neither party has the imagination or the required independent thinking to move our economy forward. Both are too married to special interest to have the ability to solve America's declining economy to cover a majority of Americans.
Also, you diehards keep on making claims about how great the unemployment numbers were after the recession recovery during the Bush years. But unemployment numbers don't mean much when a person looks at the more accurate picture use the Labor Participation Rate that includes the entire US workforce. It's like right now, the unemployment rate is at 9% but in fact the real unemployment rate is more like 23%.
What Is the Real Unemployment Rate?


Looking at the at the Labor Participation Rate during the alleged huge drop in unemployment during Bush recovery, it doesn't even get close to the Participation Rate when Clinton left office. The January 2001 unemployment rate was 4.2, the lowest it got under Bush was 4.4. But you can barely see that within the Labor Participation Rate.

The labor participation rate under Obama is far lower than what it was under Bush. I wouldn't be citing that particular metric iif I were you.

 

[Neotrotsky]

If Papa Obama gets reelected, the left will reach new heights of failure

 

[kiwiman127]

The fact is that inflation moderated, the value of the dollar rose, and unemployment declined.
Under Bush in 2000 the recession went away and unemployment, which was never over 6% or so remained under 5.5 for most of his presidency.
Under Obama inflation is heating up, unemployment is at its highest sustained point since Carter, and we have endured 3 years of recession or painfully slow growth.
Facts. The actual ones.

Look, I'm NOT saying the Dems have the answers, actually they have no answers.
The fact of the matter is that the GOP philosophy of trickle down didn't work as the charts I supplied prove.
Secondly, yes the Clinton recession that GWB inherit did go away but shortly after that the biggest recession this country ever had appeared while W was in office. Now I'm not blaming that recession just on Bush, but also the Dems, the GOP, the Fed and the private financial sector.
As is noted with the charts I supplied, income for a huge majority of Americans headed south, when trickle down was suppose to help everyone. Now if you think that the well being of just the top percentiles reflects success of the GOP philosophy, tens of millions of working Americans would disagree. Can the top percentile to drive the US consumer-driven economy alone? NO!
In the end, the two party system is stale with ideas and new ideas certainly need to be interjected into the conversation. Neither party has the imagination or the required independent thinking to move our economy forward. Both are too married to special interest to have the ability to solve America's declining economy to cover a majority of Americans.
Also, you diehards keep on making claims about how great the unemployment numbers were after the recession recovery during the Bush years. But unemployment numbers don't mean much when a person looks at the more accurate picture use the Labor Participation Rate that includes the entire US workforce. It's like right now, the unemployment rate is at 9% but in fact the real unemployment rate is more like 23%.
What Is the Real Unemployment Rate?


Looking at the at the Labor Participation Rate during the alleged huge drop in unemployment during Bush recovery, it doesn't even get close to the Participation Rate when Clinton left office. The January 2001 unemployment rate was 4.2, the lowest it got under Bush was 4.4. But you can barely see that within the Labor Participation Rate.

The labor participation rate under Obama is far lower than what it was under Bush. I wouldn't be citing that particular metric iif I were you.

Do you even comprehend the post you responded to? I bolded a section for you comprehend it this time. I used Obama's numbers as a foundation for a point I am making.
There are actually some us posters, who are not married to an ideology, that seems to confuse extreme ideologues.

 

[The Rabbi]

Look, I'm NOT saying the Dems have the answers, actually they have no answers.
The fact of the matter is that the GOP philosophy of trickle down didn't work as the charts I supplied prove.
Secondly, yes the Clinton recession that GWB inherit did go away but shortly after that the biggest recession this country ever had appeared while W was in office. Now I'm not blaming that recession just on Bush, but also the Dems, the GOP, the Fed and the private financial sector.
As is noted with the charts I supplied, income for a huge majority of Americans headed south, when trickle down was suppose to help everyone. Now if you think that the well being of just the top percentiles reflects success of the GOP philosophy, tens of millions of working Americans would disagree. Can the top percentile to drive the US consumer-driven economy alone? NO!
In the end, the two party system is stale with ideas and new ideas certainly need to be interjected into the conversation. Neither party has the imagination or the required independent thinking to move our economy forward. Both are too married to special interest to have the ability to solve America's declining economy to cover a majority of Americans.
Also, you diehards keep on making claims about how great the unemployment numbers were after the recession recovery during the Bush years. But unemployment numbers don't mean much when a person looks at the more accurate picture use the Labor Participation Rate that includes the entire US workforce. It's like right now, the unemployment rate is at 9% but in fact the real unemployment rate is more like 23%.
What Is the Real Unemployment Rate?


Looking at the at the Labor Participation Rate during the alleged huge drop in unemployment during Bush recovery, it doesn't even get close to the Participation Rate when Clinton left office. The January 2001 unemployment rate was 4.2, the lowest it got under Bush was 4.4. But you can barely see that within the Labor Participation Rate.

The labor participation rate under Obama is far lower than what it was under Bush. I wouldn't be citing that particular metric iif I were you.

Do you even comprehend the post you responded to? I bolded a section for you comprehend it this time. I used Obama's numbers as a foundation for a point I am making.
There are actually some us posters, who are not married to an ideology, that seems to confuse extreme ideologues.

The only one confused here is you. The economy was far better under most of Bush's tenure than it has been under all of Obama's tenure.