What Country Does Obama Think He's President Of?

[boedicca]

A major part of 'social justice' is that no one should have more than another - and no country should have more than another.

Social justice is just a way of saying "Equality of Outcomes - and Misery".

 

[Vast LWC]

A major part of 'social justice' is that no one should have more than another - and no country should have more than another.

Social justice is just a way of saying "Equality of Outcomes - and Misery".

No, that would be "Communism". Why are you Anarchists always using hyperbole?

 

[CMike]

1. We are well into economic recovery from the brink of collapseObama and his democraps brought it up to double digits. nice work democraps

OOOH, colors! Well I'll use blue.

The recession that caused those double digits started during the Boooosh administration, genius. Are you going to blame the Carter recession on Reagan now?

And not only has the increase in unemployment now started dropping, but every other economic indicator, from GDP growth to Wall Street, has gone up, up, up.

I'll be green the color of money. Numbers are not your friends

Republican white house, republican congress
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4

Republican white house, democrat congress
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.8 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.9 7.4

Democrat White House, Democrat Congress
2009 7.7 8.2 8.6 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.8 10.1 10.0 10.0
2010 9.7 9.7 9.7

Any questions?

JUST LIKE REAGAN DID WITH THE START I TREATY.
Wow, that Reagan must have been a horrible president!

No because Reagain didn't agree to all the rediculous terms Obama did, like no testing. Also, Reagan never gave up on the missile defense shield

COLOR="Blue"]What part of Health Care was "taken over" by the Health Care Reform bill, specifically? Hmmmmm?[/COLOR]

Other than thousands of IRS agents being hired in order to force americans to buy Obama's mandated health insurance?

Like incorporating the help of Pakistan in strength, and capturing dozens of Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

You must have missed the memo, Pakistan was already an ally.

Really? Bush bailed out the Auto Industry? Wow, so Rush-Bo has been LYING all this time? Surprise surprise!

It's not the job of the government to run car companies. They should have filed for bankruptcy and reorganized.

The Bush administration originally intended all the money to the banks to be in the form of loans, which the banks could then default on, or avoid paying back in other ways. The Democrats decided to advance the funds in the form of investments, that would draw dividends, thus the profit.

The bank crises was the single biggest Obama economic disaster. He scared the banks so much that it's virtually impossible to get credit.

Guess what businesses need to survive, especially in a bad economy? Credit.

Small firms would hire you, if only they could get loans | McClatchy

I could go on, would you like me to?Yes.

Sweet, I shall:

7. Set an end date for the disaster that is Iraq, leaving us more leeway to concentrate on the actual War on Terror.

Great so now Al Qaida terrorists know to lay low, and when Obama surrenders, they will go in and take over the government. Great work Obama

8. Ended the use of torture techniques from the Bush administration.

You mean the waterboading that was used only on 3 arch terrorists, and without using the waterboarding two major terrorist attacks in America would have happened, murdering thousands of Americans? That one? Oh yeah, great work Obama, for caring more about Al Qaida terrorist rights than american lives

Darn right SewerWorkerWinger. My comments in red.

Inane insults don't prove your inane points. You know that, right?

I treat people as they treat me. Respect goes two ways.

 

[Oscar Wao]

A major part of 'social justice' is that no one should have more than another - and no country should have more than another.

Social justice is just a way of saying "Equality of Outcomes - and Misery".

Exactly.

"Social Justice" (Code Word for socialism) is not a job of the government.

 

[boedicca]

No, that would be "Communism". Why are you Anarchists always using hyperbole?

You would benefit from understanding the underlying objectives of the nonsense you promote.

 

[Vast LWC]

No, that would be "Communism". Why are you Anarchists always using hyperbole?

You would benefit from understanding the underlying objectives of the nonsense you promote.

You did notice the "" at the end of that sentence indicating I knew I was being hypocritical by calling you an "Anarchist" in that same sentence, right?

 

[Vast LWC]

Republican white house, republican congress
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4

Republican white house, democrat congress
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.8 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.9 7.4

Democrat White House, Democrat Congress
2009 7.7 8.2 8.6 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.8 10.1 10.0 10.0
2010 9.7 9.7 9.7

Any questions?

Hmm, that's a toughie, well let's look at your "numbers" in depth, shall we?

From their best point in 2007 (4.4%) there was a 3.8% increase in unemployment until Obama's first full month in office in Feb of 2009 (8.2%).

Since that time, the trend continued until December, when it peaked at 10%, for a total 1.8% increase in unemployment since Obama took over. It has since decreased by .3%.

Advantage Obama. Looks like my assertion was correct.

Now let's compare that to a similar situation, say, for instance, Ronald Reagans first 2 1/2 years in office. Here, I'll use the same source as you:

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1981 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.9 8.3 8.5
1982 8.6 8.9 9.0 9.3 9.4 9.6 9.8 9.8 10.1 10.4 10.8 10.8
1983 10.4 10.4 10.3 10.2 10.1 10.1 9.4 9.5 9.2 8.8 8.5 8.3
1984 8.0 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.4 7.2 7.3

Notice how it starts at 7.4% in his first month of office, rises to 10.8% In December of 1982, almost 2 years into his Presidency, and is still above 10% by June of 1983.

That's an increase of 3.4%. Obama's still winning.

And it's important to note that in that time period, there was a smaller percentage of women were in the workforce. If the same percentage of women were not being counted as willing and eligible to work today, the unemployment rate would in fact be much lower.

No because Reagain didn't agree to all the rediculous terms Obama did, like no testing. Also, Reagan never gave up on the missile defense shield

You mean the missle defense shield that never worked? Wow, there's an important difference. And why would we need further testing of our nuclear weapons?

Other than thousands of IRS agents being hired in order to force americans to buy Obama's mandated health insurance?

And that has to do with government controlling the actual health care process, how?

That's like saying the government controls the auto industry because they require people to get auto insurance.

You must have missed the memo, Pakistan was already an ally.

That's strange, because I could have sworn that Pakistan was harboring terrorists.

Now, what was it George Bush said were the stated goals of the war on terror back right after 9/11?

Yeah, that means Pakistan wasn't really an "ally" at all, doesn't it?

It's not the job of the government to run car companies. They should have filed for bankruptcy and reorganized.

That would have been GREAT for the recovery, to have a major portion of the American industrial complex just disappear, wouldn't it? Great plan.

And it became the job of the government to insure the taxpayers money once they lent them tens of billions of dollars.

And look, the car companies are doing MUCH better now, aren't they?

The Bush administration originally intended all the money to the banks to be in the form of loans, which the banks could then default on, or avoid paying back in other ways. The Democrats decided to advance the funds in the form of investments, that would draw dividends, thus the profit.

The bank crises was the single biggest Obama economic disaster. He scared the banks so much that it's virtually impossible to get credit.

Guess what businesses need to survive, especially in a bad economy? Credit.

For a short time, there was a credit crunch, but the situation has much improved since then, thanks to large infusions of lending capital from the Fed. Which is why Wall Street is booming, as Toro pointed out the other day. Of course, the formation of a possible bubble as a result may or may not be a bad thing. We'll have to wait and see on that one.

And, as for being a disaster, far from it. The banks are doing quite well, and are slowly making the investments into a profit for the taxpayer.

Great so now Al Qaida terrorists know to lay low, and when Obama surrenders, they will go in and take over the government. Great work Obama

Al Qaeda in Iraq? First of all, it didn't exist in Iraq until Bush invaded, and second, there doesn't seem to be any credible Al Qaeda threat in Iraq at the moment. Is there something you know that I don't?

You mean the waterboading that was used only on 3 arch terrorists, and without using the waterboarding two major terrorist attacks in America would have happened, murdering thousands of Americans? That one? Oh yeah, great work Obama, for caring more about Al Qaida terrorist rights than american lives

I treat people as they treat me. Respect goes two ways.

Really, did I refer to you by a derogatory name? I don't seem to recall doing that.

 

[beowolfe]

Anyone read the treaty yet? No. Then all you're doing is parrotting what someone else has said was in the treaty. Since both sides lie, how about getting a copy of the treaty and read it yourself before you begin sounding alarms.

 

[CMike]

Republican white house, republican congress
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4

Republican white house, democrat congress
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.8 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.9 7.4

Democrat White House, Democrat Congress
2009 7.7 8.2 8.6 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.8 10.1 10.0 10.0
2010 9.7 9.7 9.7

Any questions?

Hmm, that's a toughie, well let's look at your "numbers" in depth, shall we?

From their best point in 2007 (4.4%) there was a 3.8% increase in unemployment until Obama's first full month in office in Feb of 2009 (8.2%).

Since that time, the trend continued until December, when it peaked at 10%, for a total 1.8% increase in unemployment since Obama took over. It has since decreased by .3%.

Advantage Obama. Looks like my assertion was correct.

Now let's compare that to a similar situation, say, for instance, Ronald Reagans first 2 1/2 years in office. Here, I'll use the same source as you:

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1981 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.9 8.3 8.5
1982 8.6 8.9 9.0 9.3 9.4 9.6 9.8 9.8 10.1 10.4 10.8 10.8
1983 10.4 10.4 10.3 10.2 10.1 10.1 9.4 9.5 9.2 8.8 8.5 8.3
1984 8.0 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.4 7.2 7.3

Notice how it starts at 7.4% in his first month of office, rises to 10.8% In December of 1982, almost 2 years into his Presidency, and is still above 10% by June of 1983.

That's an increase of 3.4%. Obama's still winning.

Not really.

The month before Obama took office unemployment was at 7.4%, it got to 10.1%.

That means unemployment rate went up about 40% under Obama

Now it did go down to 9.7% so the uemployment to the present went up about 35%.

Let's go from the time the democrats took over congress. At that time unemployment was at 4.4%, from that time, Obama took it up 130%, and to the present 120%

In any case to summarize

Right before Obama took over until Sept. 2009, the unemployment rate increased 40%

Right before Obama took over until last month, until now the unemployment rate increased 35%

From the time the democrats took over congress until Sept. 2009, the unemployment rate increased 130%

From the time the democrats took over congress until last month the unemployment went up 120%

No because Reagan didn't agree to all the rediculous terms Obama did, like no testing. Also, Reagan never gave up on the missile defense shield

.

You mean the missle defense shield that never worked? Wow, there's an important difference. And why would we need further testing of our nuclear weapons?.

Apparently, the Ruskies thought it worked. They have been terrified of it.

To not implement a device that would stop a nuclear weapon from hitting the US, even if it was fired by accident, is utterly rediculous.

And that has to do with government controlling the actual health care process, how?

That's like saying the government controls the auto industry because they require people to get auto insurance.

Not even close. To be required to get auto insurance you have to own a car and have a drivers license. To be required to get Obama's health insurance you have to just exist. There is a vast difference.

That's strange, because I could have sworn that Pakistan was harboring terrorists.

Now, what was it George Bush said were the stated goals of the war on terror back right after 9/11?

Yeah, that means Pakistan wasn't really an "ally" at all, doesn't it?

Your premise is wrong. There are terrorists hiding in Pakistan, that doesn't mean Pakistan is harboring terrorists. In fact, Pakistan helped George Bush locate and kill terrorists.

Pakistan Raid Start Of Concerted Bid To Hit Al-Qaida : NPR



That would have been GREAT for the recovery, to have a major portion of the American industrial complex just disappear, wouldn't it? Great plan.

Who said that they would dissapear? They would declare bankuptcy, and reorganize. They would probably screw some creditors.

And it became the job of the government to insure the taxpayers money once they lent them tens of billions of dollars.

And look, the car companies are doing MUCH better now, aren't they?

That's why the government shouldn't take over car companies. Are they? GM is still having tremendous losses.

For a short time, there was a credit crunch, but the situation has much improved since then, thanks to large infusions of lending capital from the Fed. Which is why Wall Street is booming, as Toro pointed out the other day. Of course, the formation of a possible bubble as a result may or may not be a bad thing. We'll have to wait and see on that one.

And, as for being a disaster, far from it. The banks are doing quite well, and are slowly making the investments into a profit for the taxpayer.

This is not about the banks not having enough money, it's about Obama scaring the banks into lending money. Businesses can not get credit and that is the main reason unemployment has been so high.

Bailout watchdog: Credit crunch alive and well - May. 7, 2009

Great so now Al Qaida terrorists know to lay low, and when Obama surrenders, they will go in and take over the government. Great work Obama

Al Qaeda in Iraq? First of all, it didn't exist in Iraq until Bush invaded, and second, there doesn't seem to be any credible Al Qaeda threat in Iraq at the moment. Is there something you know that I don't?

Who said that Al Qaida didn't exist in Iraq until Bush invaded? That military genius Obama?

Hussein and Al Qaida had ties that went back a decade.


This is testimony from the CIA director to the Senate Intelligence committee

Behind Closed Doors

Levin: And relative to Iraq, a couple other questions: Do we--do you have any evidence that Saddam Hussein or his agents played a role in the September 11th terrorist attacks or that he has links to al Qaeda?


Tenet: Well, as I note in my statement, there is no doubt that there have been contacts and linkages to the al Qaeda organization. As to where we are in September 11th, the jury's out. And as I said carefully in my statement, it would be a mistake to dismiss the possibility of state sponsorship, whether Iranian or Iraqi, and we'll see where the evidence takes us. But I want you to think about al Qaeda as a front company that mixes and matches its capabilities. The distinctions between Sunni and Shia that have traditionally divided terrorist groups are not distinctions you should make anymore, because there is a common interest against the United States and its allies in this region, and they will seek capability wherever they can get it.
More of CIA Director Tenet's testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee

Let me be clear. Saddam remains a threat. He is determined to thwart U.N. sanctions, press ahead with weapons of mass destruction, and resurrect the military force he had before the Gulf War. Today he maintains his vice grip on the levers of power through a pervasive intelligence and security apparatus, and even his reduced military force, which is less than half of its pre-war size, remains capable of defeating more poorly armed internal opposition and threatening Iraq's neighbors.

As I said earlier, we continue to watch Iraq's involvement in terrorist activities. Baghdad has a long history of supporting terrorism, altering its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals. It has also had contacts with al Qaeda. Their ties may be limited by diverging ideologies, but the two sides mutual antipathy towards the United States and the Saudi royal family suggest that tactical cooperation between them is possible, even though Saddam is well aware that such activity would carry serious consequences.
...Iraq continues to build and expand an infrastructure capable of producing weapons of mass destruction. Baghdad is expanding its civilian chemical industries in ways that could be diverted quickly into CW production. We believe Baghdad continues to pursue ballistic missile capabilities that exceed the restrictions imposed by U .N. resolutions. With substantial foreign assistance, it could flight- test a longer-range ballistic missile within the next five years.

We believe that Saddam never abandoned his nuclear weapons program. Iraq maintains a significant number of nuclear scientists, program documentation, and probably some dual-use manufacturing infrastructure that could support a reinvigorated nuclear weapons program. Baghdad's access to foreign expertise could support a rejuvenated program. But our major near-term concern is the possibility that Saddam might gain access to fissile material.

Case Closed | The Weekly Standard

The above link quotes a Department of Defense memo that has over 50 contacts between Al Qaida and Iraqi intelligence.

You mean the waterboading that was used only on 3 arch terrorists, and without using the waterboarding two major terrorist attacks in America would have happened, murdering thousands of Americans? That one? Oh yeah, great work Obama, for caring more about Al Qaida terrorist rights than american lives

I treat people as they treat me. Respect goes two ways.

Really, did I refer to you by a derogatory name? I don't seem to recall doing that.

Did I call you by a derogatory name? I did call democrats democraps.

 

[Maple]

Obama has signed a treaty today that in all respects handcuffs us and won't allow us to test new nuclear weapons systems. Boy...you could tell the Russians were happy about that.

So let me get this straight....we can't drill, we can't test new weapons systems, we soon won't be able to take heavy payloads into space because he's canceled any new shuttle programs.

What is this guy doing? Does he want us to fall behind everyone else. It seems Obama is trying to turn us into a 3rd rate world power...purposely setting us years back in advancements in science and technology.

Is Obama selling us down the river just so he can justify his Nobel prize?

If I were a competitor of the United States I would be doing cartwheels right now.

Our competitors are doing cartwheels right now, because we have an economic idiot at the wheel of our economy.Obama is sooooooooooooo bad that he is terrorizing our business's into paralysis, that's why they are NOT hiring. They are afraid of what he is gonna do next. Business looks long range and if they see trouble on the horizon they freeze spending and freeze hiring or lay off. They see nothing but trouble on the horizon with this SOCIALIST of a President.

 

[Dr Gregg]

Obama is clearly the president of Mexicanamerica

 

[Maple]

I'll be green the color of money. Numbers are not your friends

Republican white house, republican congress
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4

Republican white house, democrat congress
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.8 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.9 7.4

Democrat White House, Democrat Congress
2009 7.7 8.2 8.6 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.8 10.1 10.0 10.0
2010 9.7 9.7 9.7

Any questions?





No because Reagain didn't agree to all the rediculous terms Obama did, like no testing. Also, Reagan never gave up on the missile defense shield



Other than thousands of IRS agents being hired in order to force americans to buy Obama's mandated health insurance?





You must have missed the memo, Pakistan was already an ally.



It's not the job of the government to run car companies. They should have filed for bankruptcy and reorganized.

The Bush administration originally intended all the money to the banks to be in the form of loans, which the banks could then default on, or avoid paying back in other ways. The Democrats decided to advance the funds in the form of investments, that would draw dividends, thus the profit.

The bank crises was the single biggest Obama economic disaster. He scared the banks so much that it's virtually impossible to get credit.

Guess what businesses need to survive, especially in a bad economy? Credit.

Small firms would hire you, if only they could get loans | McClatchy



Great so now Al Qaida terrorists know to lay low, and when Obama surrenders, they will go in and take over the government. Great work Obama
You mean the waterboading that was used only on 3 arch terrorists, and without using the waterboarding two major terrorist attacks in America would have happened, murdering thousands of Americans? That one? Oh yeah, great work Obama, for caring more about Al Qaida terrorist rights than american lives



I treat people as they treat me. Respect goes two ways.

Thanks Mike for the stats-- It's interesting to note that after the worst attack on American soil -- 9-11 unemployment rose to only 6% in 2002. Of Course, Bush did across the board tax cuts to keep it that low. This year we are going to lose those tax cuts which will essentially be a tax hike on middle America during the worst recession in memory. Stupid.

 

[CMike]

And they also want to make a VAT and broadband tax, as well as the ObamaCare taxes

 

[CMike]

More about the Obama credit crunch.

Geithner says small business still caught in credit crunch - Nov. 18, 2009

"This credit crunch is not over," Geithner at a small business financing forum in Washington hosted by the Treasury. "It may feel dramatically better for large companies, but it is not over for small businesses across the country."

...Geithner and an assortment of top Washington officials, including Small Business Administrator Karen Mills, met Wednesday with a gathering of bankers and small business owners to address the credit crunch that has plagued small business owners for more than a year. Frozen out by banks unwilling to make risky lending bets on startups and small companies, the nation's 6 million small employers are struggling.

"In my home state of Virginia, we have long-term, successful retailers who are not going to be able to hire up for the holiday season," said Senator Mark Warner, D-Va. "Small businesses have hung on as long as they can and are basically at the end of their rope."

...Geithner seemed to agree. He and other officials acknowledged that the small business situation remains critical.
"As we wind down programs that help big banks, we are committed to doing more to help small businesses access the credit they need to grow and hire new

Why it matters: One theme recurred throughout the day: Scarce credit is preventing small business owners from creating jobs.
With the unemployment rate topping 10%, that's a critical obstacle to the nation's economic recovery. Entrepreneurs like William Ortiz-Cartagena of San Francisco were on hand to illustrate how financing can translate directly into jobs.

Ortiz-Cartagena is the owner of Gentle Parking, a company that coordinates parking logistics. He banged on bank doors repeatedly to find loans to get his company launched, with no success. Finally, in February, he landed a $10,000 loan from Opportunity Fund, a community development financing fund that specializes in working with underserved populations. Gentle Parking now has a staff of 12.

Lack of financing is keeping the company from expanding further, Ortiz-Cartagena said.
"Once we have the tools, we got it. We'll take care of the rest," he said. "I am excited to see the government actually rolling up their sleeves and talking to me."

They're talking. The next step is action. Which won't be easy.

Banks remain under tremendous pressure to shore up their balance sheets and avoid risky loans -- which small business loans typically are. Defaults have spiked this year as companies struggle to keep up with their bills, even as their sales deteriorate.

 

[Dante]

What Country Does Obama Think He's President Of?

 

[Vast LWC]

OK, this post is getting way too long I hope no-one minds if I shorten it, you can always go back to the prior posts for the data.

Not really.

The month before Obama took office unemployment was at 7.4%, it got to 10.1%.

That means unemployment rate went up about 40% under Obama

OK, how exactly do you hold Obama responsible for the number of unemployed from the month before he started working? Hmmm? The man was inaugurated at the end of January.

Seems like some lame spin to me. February was his first full month in office.

And even then, you're stretching it by holding the man who just took over responsibility, but I'll accept it, since he was actually in charge.

Which means that his starting figure was 8.2%, not 7.7% which would have been January, or 7.4%, which was the number you quoted meaning you're trying to hold him responsible for the TWO months before he took office.

Stop listening to Rush Limbaugh, his talking points don't work in real debate.

So, going from 8.2%, to the 10.0% from your own figures (and not the 10.1% you just made up), that's a 21% increase.

Bush's contribution was from 4.4% to 8.2%, or a 46% increase.

Now it did go down to 9.7% so the uemployment to the present went up about 35%.

Or, in real math 15%

Let's go from the time the democrats took over congress. At that time unemployment was at 4.4%, from that time, Obama took it up 130%, and to the present 120%

How the **** are you going to blame Obama for the 2 years before he became president?

In any case to summarize

Right before Obama took over until Sept. 2009, the unemployment rate increased 40%

You know how I know you're getting these numbers from Rush Limbaugh, because I've heard him use them on his show.

Right before Obama took over until last month, until now the unemployment rate increased 35%

From the time the democrats took over congress until Sept. 2009, the unemployment rate increased 130%

From the time the democrats took over congress until last month the unemployment went up 120%[/COLOR]

So, let me ask you, what was it, specifically, that the Democrats did that has such a dramatic effect on the Unemployment numbers?

Please feel free to elaborate, in detail, exactly what legislations they passed during that time that made the Unemployment numbers go up.

Apparently, the Ruskies thought it worked. They have been terrified of it.

To not implement a device that would stop a nuclear weapon from hitting the US, even if it was fired by accident, is utterly rediculous.

There was no weapon to be implemented. It was a giant black hole for taxpayer funds and IT NEVER WORKED.

Not even close. To be required to get auto insurance you have to own a car and have a drivers license. To be required to get Obama's health insurance you have to just exist. There is a vast difference.

Everyone needs to drive to work, unless you live in a heavy urban area.

I guess you could just not work, and then you wouldn't need to drive...

But of course, if you didn't work, you wouldn't be charged for health insurance anyway, would you?

Your premise is wrong. There are terrorists hiding in Pakistan, that doesn't mean Pakistan is harboring terrorists. In fact, Pakistan helped George Bush locate and kill terrorists.

Pakistan Raid Start Of Concerted Bid To Hit Al-Qaida : NPR

That is absolute crap. Pakistan made no secret about the fact that they were offering the Taliban and members of Al Qaeda a "Safe Haven". Where have you been burying your head in the sand that you didn't hear about that?

The only started an offensive against them after Obama started moving more troops to Afghanistan.

As for the rest, I'll have to address it later, I have to get on the road.

 

[Vast LWC]

OK, I'm back, so I ask again, what specific legislation did the Democratic Congress enact between Jan 2007 and Jan 2009 that might have raised the unemployment rate?

Let's go by right-wing standards, just for the heck of it.

Did they raise taxes? No.

Did they enact some large package of environmental regulations? No.

Did they somehow convince the Fed to raise the interest rates? No.

So, what was it, exactly?

 

[Dante]

OK, I'm back, so I ask again, what specific legislation did the Democratic Congress enact between Jan 2007 and Jan 2009 that might have raised the unemployment rate?

Let's go by right-wing standards, just for the heck of it.

Did they raise taxes? No.

Did they enact some large package of environmental regulations? No.

Did they somehow convince the Fed to raise the interest rates? No.

So, what was it, exactly?

waiting..........


.....................


............................


..................................


did they all go to sleep?

 

[saveliberty]

OK, I'm back, so I ask again, what specific legislation did the Democratic Congress enact between Jan 2007 and Jan 2009 that might have raised the unemployment rate?

Let's go by right-wing standards, just for the heck of it.

Did they raise taxes? No.

Did they enact some large package of environmental regulations? No.

Did they somehow convince the Fed to raise the interest rates? No.

So, what was it, exactly?

waiting..........


did they all go to sleep?

As is typical of liberal thought. You presume government action is necessary to solve problems. If the government had rejected derivitives and expansion of the home loan programs, we could have avoided a great deal of this.

The Fed actually kept interest rates at artifically low levels to keep economic growth going. This created a false bubble which was going to have to correct at some time. It did.

 

[Dante]

OK, I'm back, so I ask again, what specific legislation did the Democratic Congress enact between Jan 2007 and Jan 2009 that might have raised the unemployment rate?

Let's go by right-wing standards, just for the heck of it.

Did they raise taxes? No.

Did they enact some large package of environmental regulations? No.

Did they somehow convince the Fed to raise the interest rates? No.

So, what was it, exactly?

waiting..........


did they all go to sleep?

As is typical of liberal thought. You presume government action is necessary to solve problems. If the government had rejected derivitives and expansion of the home loan programs, we could have avoided a great deal of this.

The Fed actually kept interest rates at artifically low levels to keep economic growth going. This created a false bubble which was going to have to correct at some time. It did.

your simplistic explanations bore those of us who have minds.

isn't there a simpleton around here you can convince of your brilliance in deductive reasoning?