Obama Classmate Speaks Out

[Boo Radley]

Like with all liberals you are dilusional. You have yet to address the fact that there are 4 million more people unemployed today than when Obama took office or that he has added 3 trillion to the debt and that GDP growth is 1.6% after spending trillions. Those are the numbers thinking people actually see.

Do answer mustachio. :neener

 

[Conservative]

Unemployment has gone up 1% since Obama took office in January 2009. It almost doubled, from 4.8% to 8.5% during the last year of the Bush administration. Can you argue that Obama made it worse? Yes, although unemployment going up 1% over the course of two years won't cut it if you're going to argue that. But what really discredits your argument is when you use language like "the so called mess." As in, you're not really sure that it was a mess, that's just what these crazy libs say. I mean, unemployment only doubled in a year while Bush was president. Which one of us is the rock trying to jump a fence?

And what does any of this have to do with the article? I wrote a very specific response to the article and you ignored what I said.

Sorry, but I deal in real numbers not percentages, here are the real unemployment numbers so to claim that things haven't gotten worse ignores the 4 million additional people on unemployment that don't agree.

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 7628 7435 7793 7631 8397 8560 8895 9509 9569 10172 10617 11400
2009 11919 12714 13310 13816 14518 14721 14534 14993 15159 15612 15340 15267
2010 14837 14871 15005 15260 14973 14623 14599 14860

Discouraged workers
2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642
2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929
2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185 1110

Unemployed + Discouraged
2008 8095 7831 8194 8043 8797 8980 9356 9890 10036 10656 11225 12042
2009 12653 13445 13995 14556 15310 15514 15330 15751 15865 16420 16201 16196
2010 15902 16075 15999 16457 16056 15830 15784 15970

Now, my response was to Liblady who claimed that Obama was handed quite a mess. I asked quite a mess by whom since Obama was in that Congress that controlled the legislative process since January 2007. The recession began in December 2007 after a year of Democrat control so solely blaming Bush is what liberals do. Things today are indeed worse than they were when Obama took office as evidenced by the numbers I gave you. Now you can ignore those numbers and ignore the lack of accepting responsibility that Obama always does.

The article of an Obama classmate lays out the kind of person Obama is and the kind of vision he has for this country. By knitpicking the article you ignore the big picture and indeed the results. It is the results that matter and the direction of this country that you continue to ignore and that his classmate laid out. I don't believe the Obama voter had the same vision of hope and change as Obama has and his resume shows.

 

[Objective Voice]

Really, Obama was handed a mess by whom, the Democrat controlled Congress? What the hell do taxpayers pay Congressional Representatives for if they aren't going to create legislation that prevented the problems he so called inherited? You keep buying the rhetoric and ignore the substance.

If Obama was handed a mess why is unemployment 4 million more today than when he took office? Sounds to me like he has made the so called mess worse.

I was waiting for you to go there, tough guy.

Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress from 1997 until 2007 with a slight advantage in the Senate for the 2007-2009 term. It wasn't until this present 111th Congressional cycle (2009-2011) that Democrats held an overwhelming majority in both the House (255-178) and Senate (59-41). So, you can't put the blame for the economic mess on the Democrats especially not for the last 2-years alone. Even the new "Pledge to America" makes reference to how long Republicans held power in Congress for over a decade, i.e., the opening line to paragraph 5, page 6:

We will launch a sustained effort to stem the relentless growth of government that has occurred in the past decade.

From Wikipedia, the numbers for Congress (105th - 111th) since 1997 are as follows:

105th, 1997-1999, Democrat President (Clinton), Republican majority - House: 228-206; Senate: 55-45
106th, 1999-2001, Republican President (GW Bush), Republican majority - House: 223-211; Senate: 55-45
107th, 2001-2003, Republican President, Republican majority - House: 229-205; Senate: 51-49
108th, 2003-2005, Republican President, Republican majority - House: 229-201; Senate: 51-49
109th, 2005-2007, Republican President, Republican majority - House: 232-202; Senate: 55-44
110th, 2007-2009, Republican President, Democrat majority (House only) - House: 233-202; Senate: 49-49
111th, 2009-2011, Democrat President (Obama), Democrat majority - House: 255-178; Senate: 59-41

So, all this talk of "bigger government" and deficits...who controlled Congress for 10 years before Democrats had a marginal control beginning in 2007 and full control since then?

You can stop blaming Democrats for the mess this country's in. For 10 years your party held the keys to this nation's success or failure and by the looks of it your side did a very piss-poor job of running things. And now you want the keys back??? Give me a freakin' break!!!

 

[Conservative]

Objective Voice;1059002642]I was waiting for you to go there, tough guy.

Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress from 1997 until 2007 with a slight advantage in the Senate for the 2007-2009 term. It wasn't until this present 111th Congressional cycle (2009-2011) that Democrats held an overwhelming majority in both the House (255-178) and Senate (59-41). So, you can't put the blame for the economic mess on the Democrats especially not for the last 2-years alone. Even the new "Pledge to America" makes reference to how long Republicans held power in Congress for over a decade, i.e., the opening line to paragraph 5, page 6:

you are kidding, right? This is a joke. 2000-2002 Democrats controlled the Senate and at no time during the entire Bush term did Republicans have a 60 vote majority in that house of Congress, a majority that you seem to think makes all the difference in the world. Regardless Democrats controlled the legislative branch, controlled the purse strings from January 2007 to the present. Now you can continue to ignore history and reality but that only makes you look foolish. In 2001 Jeffords switched to Independent and caucused with the Democrats.

Party In Power - Congress and Presidency - A Visual Guide To The Balance of Power In Congress, 1945-2008


As for bigger govt. and deficits, if you truly cared you would focus on the present where Obama has put Bush spending on steroids. Bush didn't create 3 trillion in deficits in two years. "My" side as you claim never controlled anything because "My" side is the Conservative side and there were few members during the term you mentioned.

by the way there are many here who claimed that Clinton had a surplus in 2000. Please answer for me did he propose more or less in his budgets than the GOP Congress approved?

Tell me what Obama policy has made an improvement in the economic conditions of this country. Looks to me like things are worse, 4 million more people unemployed than when he took office and unemployment worse each month of 2010 than it was in 2009.

3 trillion added to the debt in two years. A recession that ended in June 2009 which of course Obama had little impact on but has now taken GDP to 1.6%. Those numbers you are proud of?

Yes, I blame Obama just like I give blame to the Democrat controlled Congress, ALONG with President Bush for the recession that began in December 2007. there is no excuse now for the results we have as He campaigned for the job, made a prediction that unemployment wouldn't exceed 8% if only we spent the 862 billion stimulus, said that economic growth would be 4% per year, and that he would half the deficit during his first term. Wonder if most people believed he would run trillion dollar deficits per year?

 

[Objective Voice]

Did I say the Dems held a 60 vote majority in the Senate under former Pres. GW Bush from 2000-2002 (a period that splits between the 106th & 107th Congress)? No, I did not.

Look at the numbers given again. If you doubt them, you can either go directly to the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives' website and review the PDF file provided OR you can do a Wikipedia search for yourself as I've done and review each Congressional session yourself. Either way you'll find the numbers I've provided are pretty accurate. In fact, prior to the 111th Congress, the last time Dems held the House and the Senate was during the 103rd Congressional session (1993-1995; House: 258-176; Senate: 57-43)

I find it very interesting that every time someone brings up the party makeup of Congress prior to 2006 you skirt that issue real quick. You make is seem as if in just 2-4 short years, the Democrats caused all the problems this country is currently facing. You can't honestly believe that in 4-short years the Democrats who hadn't controlled Congress for 15 yrs caused that much social-economic damage to our country? Please tell me you're not that partisan nor that stupid? (Sorry..."naive"...:roll The only person who is ignoring history here is yourself. I've presented the numbers as well as a reliable source for same - Congressional records themselves. You can either accept them or do as you always tend to do...run away from them when it's been made clear your position is not sustainable.

 

[Conservative]

Did I say the Dems held a 60 vote majority in the Senate under former Pres. GW Bush from 2000-2002 (a period that splits between the 106th & 107th Congress)? No, I did not.

Look at the numbers given again. If you doubt them, you can either go directly to the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives' website and review the PDF file provided OR you can do a Wikipedia search for yourself as I've done and review each Congressional session yourself. Either way you'll find the numbers I've provided are pretty accurate. In fact, prior to the 111th Congress, the last time Dems held the House and the Senate was during the 103rd Congressional session (1993-1995; House: 258-176; Senate: 57-43)

I find it very interesting that every time someone brings up the party makeup of Congress prior to 2006 you skirt that issue real quick. You make is seem as if in just 2-4 short years, the Democrats caused all the problems this country is currently facing. You can't honestly believe that in 4-short years the Democrats who hadn't controlled Congress for 15 yrs caused that much social-economic damage to our country? Please tell me you're not that partisan nor that stupid? (Sorry..."naive"...:roll The only person who is ignoring history here is yourself. I've presented the numbers as well as a reliable source for same - Congressional records themselves. You can either accept them or do as you always tend to do...run away from them when it's been made clear your position is not sustainable.

In 2001-2002 it was a divided Congress with the Democrats holding a one vote majority in the Senate. Why are you insisting on reliving the past? Is this just another attempt to ignore the current results under Obama? It makes no sense to relive the 90's but if you want to, start another thread and I will be there. it has been claimed here that Clinton had a budget surplus in the 90's so unless you are willing to give credit to the Republican Congress then I don't think you want to relive the 90's.

I find it very interesting that the Democrats have controlled Congress since January 2007 and we have a recession that started in December of that year. What did the Democrats do to prevent that recession and how could that "stupid cowboy" create such a nightmare when Democrats controlled the legislative process? That shouldn't even be the issue but makes for great diversion by the Obama cult.

How do you explain the economic results of 2010? Democrats control the Congress and the WH yet unemployment each month of 2010 is higher than last year when the recession ended, June 2009? 1.4 trillion more will be added to the debt in fiscal year 2010 yet the best you can do is blame Bush. Bush hasn't been in office for two years and he certainly didn't have any impact on the 2010 economic policy.

OV, you can run but you cannot hide from reality. You can divert but the facts just make you look foolish. Going back to what happened during the Bush years is what liberals do when they cannot defend their own leadership.

What did Barack Obama do with the repaid TARP funds? Where is the Fiscal year 2011 Budget? Why are there still unused Stimulus funds? Why is unemployment higher this year than last? The facts simply prove you wrong.

 

[Objective Voice]

You were the one who brought up the make up of Congress from 2006/2007 until the recession hit in the fall of 2008. I was just pointing out that it's foolhearty to blame the Democrats for the vast economic disaster our country is now slowly but surely starting to dig ourselves out of when said party only held office for 2-years prior to said economic downturn. You can't possibly believe that one legislative term - 2005-2007 when Republicans still controlled both chambers of Congress or even 2007-2009 when the Senate was split 49-49 and the Dems regained the House (233-202) - had that much of a drastic affect on our nation's economy that the Democrats screwed things up that badly in 2-4 years when Republicans controlled Congress for a decade prior (1995-2007).

Every time you come up with that argument I'm gonna shot your down because it just doesn't hold water. For 10 years, Republicans wrote the laws and held the nation's purse strings. You can't ignore this fact. Granted, it matters what laws were passed and how they affected the economy, etc., but the fact remains, they had control for far longer than the party you're claiming brought this mess upon us. Just because Dems held the majority when the bottom fell out doesn't mean they caused it.

 

[Conservative]

Objective Voice;1059004291]You were the one who brought up the make up of Congress from 2006/2007 until the recession hit in the fall of 2008. I was just pointing out that it's foolhearty to blame the Democrats for the vast economic disaster our country is now slowly but surely starting to dig ourselves out of when said party only held office for 2-years prior to said economic downturn. You can't possibly believe that one legislative term - 2005-2007 when Republicans still controlled both chambers of Congress or even 2007-2009 when the Senate was split 49-49 and the Dems regained the House (233-202) - had that much of a drastic affect on our nation's economy that the Democrats screwed things up that badly in 2-4 years when Republicans controlled Congress for a decade prior (1995-2007).

Get your information straight, there was an election in 2006 and the Democrats took control of the Congress in January 2007 and they retained control to this day. The recession started according to NBER in December 2007. Yes, I blame liberalism for the disaster we have today. Not sure where you get your information but you are making a fool of yourself. There was no 49/49 Senate in 2007/2008.

Party In Power - Congress and Presidency - A Visual Guide To The Balance of Power In Congress, 1945-2008

As for the economy, I really fear for our country and the lack of education people show as to the role of the govt. We weren't nearly in the mess you claim but you bought the Obama rhetoric. TARP was passed and signed by Bush and most of it was paid back in the first quarter of 2009. The recession ended in June 2009 yet today we have 4 million more unemployed than when Obama took office so what has he done to dig us out of the hold he helped create?

As I pointed out, you cannot have it both ways, you cannot give Clinton credit unless you can show me that he submitted lower budgets than the GOP approved. Yet you blame Republicans because that is what you have been taught. I wish someone would have taught you to do research and have forced you to take a civics class.

Every time you come up with that argument I'm gonna shot your down because it just doesn't hold water. For 10 years, Republicans wrote the laws and held the nation's purse strings. You can't ignore this fact. Granted, it matters what laws were passed and how they affected the economy, etc., but the fact remains, they had control for far longer than the party you're claiming brought this mess upon us. Just because Dems held the majority when the bottom fell out doesn't mean they caused it.

You are going to try and shoot down actual facts because in your world facts are what you want them to be. For the past 4 years Democrats have been writing laws and have controlled the purse strings. Not once during the Republican control was there ever a trillion dollar deficit and we have had two in the last two years. You really have been brainwashed but the facts simply prove you wrong.

That so called mess that Obama inherited ended in June 2009 and yet this year there are more people employed each month than in 2009. How do you explain that?

You have bought the liberal message and all that message is doing is making you look bad when you pass it of as fact.

 

[Objective Voice]

Please tell me you didn't use an "About.com" article as a source? :doh:

I'll conceed that the Democrats regained control of Congress starting with the 2007-2009 session (110th Congress) using the 2 Indepent congressmen voting with the Democrats to give them a two-seat majority in the Senate. And I'll even conceed that the Recession began in 2007, but can you reference a law - any law - that was signed during that timeframe that can be directly attributed to turning the nation's economy on its ear a mere two months after the Democrats controlled Congress? Remember: The midterm elections always take place in November of the year prior to the newly elected Congress taking charge. That right there is the absordity of your argument! There's no way Democrats could have turned the economy so sour in such a short time no matter what legislation they enacted between Jan. 1-Dec 31, 2007. It's just not possible!! But just for kicks, here's a partial lists of prominent enacted legislation by the 110th United States Congress:

February 2, 2007 — House Page Board Revision Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-2, 121 Stat. 4

May 25, 2007 — U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability
Appropriations Act, 2007, Pub.L. 110-28, 121 Stat. 112, including Title VIII: Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, 121 Stat. 188

June 14, 2007 — Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-34, 121 Stat. 224

July 26, 2007 — Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-49, 121 Stat. 246

August 3, 2007 — Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-53, 121 Stat. 266

August 5, 2007 — Protect America Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-55, 121 Stat. 552

September 14, 2007 — Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, Pub.L. 110-81, 121 Stat. 735

December 19, 2007 — Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492

February 13, 2008 — Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, Pub.L. 110-185, 122 Stat. 613

May 21, 2008 — Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, Pub.L. 110-233, 122 Stat. 881

June 30, 2008 — Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008, Pub.L. 110-252, 122 Stat. 2323, including Title V: Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 ("G.I. Bill 2008")

July 10, 2008 — FISA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub.L. 110-261, 122 Stat. 2436

July 29, 2008 — Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE (Junta's Anti-Democratic Efforts) Act of 2008, Pub.L. 110-286, 122 Stat. 2632

July 30, 2008 — Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, Pub.L. 110-289, 122 Stat. 2654

October 3, 2008 — Public Law 110-343 (Pub.L. 110-343), 122 Stat. 3765, including:
Div. A: Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, H.R. 1424;
Div. B: Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008; and
Div. C: Tax Extenders and Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008

Notice the legislation highlighted in blue...seems to me the Dems recognized our nation's economy was in trouble and were trying to do something to save it...have been ever since.

As for the trillion dollar deficit, I think you and all others who oppose Pres. Obama need to read post #24 and the reference sources therein before continuing with that BS. TARP was GW Bush's baby and that includes bailing out GM/Chrysler. Even the money Pres. Obama used from to purchase toxic assets from the banks was TARP funds - money already set aside by his predecessor! So you guys can get off of that kick. But if you doubt me, review the references for yourself.

 

[bicycleman]

Is this hyperbolic nonsense number 458?

:neener

I see you're still paddling that canoe down the river of De Nile.

 

[Objective Voice]

CORRECTIONS to post #59:

Spelling error: "Independent" Congressmen not "Indepent"...got in a hurry and missed that...my bad.

Omitted linked to the following:

As for the trillion dollar deficit, I think you and all others who oppose Pres. Obama need to read post #24 ofo this thread and the references therein before continuing with that BS. TARP was GW Bush's baby and that includes bailing out GM/Chrysler. Even the money Pres. Obama used to purchase toxic assets from the banks was TARP funds - money already set aside by his predecessor! So you guys can get off of that kick. But if you doubt me, review the references for yourself.

 

[danstevens80]

I lost count myself. Thanks for counting for all of us

 

[Boo Radley]

I see you're still paddling that canoe down the river of De Nile.

How you been? I'm sure you can add hyperbolic nonsense number 459 if you try. Or has he already moved well beyond that? I'll have to check into that.

:neener