- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 37,348
- Reaction score
- 10,645
- Location
- US Southwest
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
The economy is growing at 1.5% and that isn't enough to create employment and that is the responsibility of the Obama economic policies
Bush is responsible for the results just like Obama is responsible for the results today. Leaders cannot delegate responsibility. Bush policies had nothing to do with the results but they are what they are
Since Obama and his party controlled the entire govt. for his first two years whose policies are responsible for the results?
You said Obama policies are responsible for his GDP results, So Bush's polices are responsible for his GDP results too......except Bush policies are not responsible....or are they...is anyone's?Since Obama and his party controlled the entire govt. for his first two years whose policies are responsible for the results?
The economy is growing at 1.5% and that isn't enough to create employment and that is the responsibility of the Obama economic policies
Bush is responsible for the results just like Obama is responsible for the results today. Leaders cannot delegate responsibility. Bush policies had nothing to do with the results but they are what they are
Unless you have 60 votes you do NOT control the senate. You should know that.
Didn't Obama have 60 votes in the Senate during his first term. Better do some research because again you are wrong. Tell me how many Senators did Bush control in 2007-2008?
No he did not. YOU should do better research.
Really?
GOP win in Mass. jolts Obama plans - USATODAY.com
So when Brown won the MA Senate Race what did that do to the make up of the Senate?
Not sure where you get your information but you have proven you have zero credibility
You should do better work. The Dems NEVER had 60. For a few months (most of which was spent in recess), their CAUCUS had 60 but that includes Lieberman, who is NOT a Dem. Lieberman is an independent who 1. was elected in 2006 by Repub votes 2. Endorsed the Repub candidate for president 3. was nearly the Repub VP candidate and 4. Threatened to filibuster the President's top piece of legislation.
You should do better work. The Dems NEVER had 60. For a few months (most of which was spent in recess), their CAUCUS had 60 but that includes Lieberman, who is NOT a Dem. Lieberman is an independent who 1. was elected in 2006 by Repub votes 2. Endorsed the Repub candidate for president 3. was nearly the Repub VP candidate and 4. Threatened to filibuster the President's top piece of legislation.
The question was "votes", he did not have 60 votes consistently to "control" the Senate.What practical difference does this make to Conservative's claim?
None.
Two Independent Senators caucus with the Democrats but of course you ignore that. You are a newbie but not a very informed one.
The question was "votes", he did not have 60 votes consistently to "control" the Senate.
PS...notice how he keeps avoiding the contradiction on "policy".
You said Obama policies are responsible for his GDP results, So Bush's polices are responsible for his GDP results too......except Bush policies are not responsible....or are they...is anyone's?Since Obama and his party controlled the entire govt. for his first two years whose policies are responsible for the results?
The economy is growing at 1.5% and that isn't enough to create employment and that is the responsibility of the Obama economic policies
Bush is responsible for the results just like Obama is responsible for the results today. Leaders cannot delegate responsibility. Bush policies had nothing to do with the results but they are what they are
Here is a very simple comparison. Forget the Bush recession for a moment. Even before that, Bush's record was terrible compared to President Obama's. In years 2-4 of the Bush administration, only 1.6 million jobs were added. In years 2-4 of the Obama administration, it's 3.9 million.
Caucusing with the Dems is one thing. But the issue is being filibuster proof. Since Lieberman vowed to filibuster health care, that obviously destroys your premise. Also, even with Lieberman there were only a few months, most of which was in recess, when the caucus had 60.
Well, lets go to the BLS numbers ! Age 16 and over. With jobs. Unadjusted.
Bush
April, 2001 137,022,000 (month 3, first term)
January 2002 134,177,000 (start of year 2)
July 2005 143,283,,000 (mid of year 4)
Obama
April 2009 140,586,000 (month 3, first term, 1st full month after Stimulus)
January 2010 136,809,000 (start of year 2)
July 2012 143,126,000 (mid of year 4, and as far as Obama has gotten)
You compared years 2-4 for each, but Obama doesn't have a complete year 4. He only has until July of his fourth year. So, year 2 thru 3.5 for each yields:
Bush: 9.1 million (you said 1.6 million)
Obama: 6.3 million (you said 3.9 million)
You really ****ed that up !
Now, you can go back and manipulate a bit here and there, but those are the raw BLS numbers:
Why are you off by so much :roll:
Caucusing with the Dems is one thing. But the issue is being filibuster proof. Since Lieberman vowed to filibuster health care, that obviously destroys your premise. Also, even with Lieberman there were only a few months, most of which was in recess, when the caucus had 60.
Shouldn't that tell you something about your policy decisions though? When you can't even get your own caucus on board, let alone get the opposition to cross over. Maybe...just maybe...it was a bad policy choice.
So healthcare failed? What legislation did Obama want that the GOP filibustered? This is getting way off topic and has nothing to do with the thread but you were wrong about the Obama deficits and you are wrong about the legislation. Nice diversion though from the Obama record. His record is there for all to see and has nothing to do with Bush or anyone else other than his own failures of leadership as well as your lack of understanding as to what a leader does
Weird, I still can't get a clear response from you on that whole "understanding" thingy...So healthcare failed? What legislation did Obama want that the GOP filibustered? This is getting way off topic and has nothing to do with the thread but you were wrong about the Obama deficits and you are wrong about the legislation. Nice diversion though from the Obama record. His record is there for all to see and has nothing to do with Bush or anyone else other than his own failures of leadership as well as your lack of understanding as to what a leader does
Employers in July hired the most workers in five months, but an increase in the jobless rate to 8.3 percent will probably keep expectations of additional monetary stimulus from the Federal Reserve intact.
Actually, I wasn't wrong and I think even you know this. Do you really want a list of the Repubs' unprecedented use of the filibuster. Many, many bills that had majority support but never got a vote. As for health care, Lieberman prevented the public option.
That is ironic.....the whole "ignore" thingy.You choose to ignore them.
So we should only pass bills that have unanimous support? It must be nice to live in a world that simple.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?