The Media Fall for Phony 'Jobs' Claims

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

But all of this is speculative, anyway. Why don't we wait until the actual timeline is up (June of 2011), and see how the job situation is then, instead of assuming the programs will fail, and the politicians will lie about it?

Remind me again...where was your 'let's wait and see if it works' support of any of the last administration's programs?

As I recall, we HAD to have to stimulus to keep unemployment in check...unfortunately, it doesn't look like it has. (see attached)

So Bush's Recession is worse than originally thought. It was only a few months ago that you right wingers were denying "the R word" altogether.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

But all of this is speculative, anyway. Why don't we wait until the actual timeline is up (June of 2011), and see how the job situation is then, instead of assuming the programs will fail, and the politicians will lie about it?

Remind me again...where was your 'let's wait and see if it works' support of any of the last administration's programs?

As I recall, we HAD to have to stimulus to keep unemployment in check...unfortunately, it doesn't look like it has. (see attached)

So Bush's Recession is worse than originally thought. It was only a few months ago that you right wingers were denying "the R word" altogether.

The current devaluation of the dollar is fully Obama's and his spending policies. THAT is a fact. The rest can be debated at length

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

The current devaluation of the dollar is fully Obama's and his spending policies. THAT is a fact. The rest can be debated at length

Depends on what you mean by "current." The truth is that the last administration started the fiscal irresponsibility, when they launched wars without facing up to actually paying for them. The current administration has made matters much worse, but only by pushing forward the same policies as the last administration, and advancing them even further.

Obushma Spending.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

The current devaluation of the dollar is fully Obama's and his spending policies. THAT is a fact. The rest can be debated at length

Depends on what you mean by "current." The truth is that the last administration started the fiscal irresponsibility, when they launched wars without facing up to actually paying for them. The current administration has made matters much worse, but only by pushing forward the same policies as the last administration, and advancing them even further.

Obushma Spending.

Damn right they did. I complained about it the few times it came up on this site. His whole admin and the drunken spenders in congress are all to blame as well

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[riddler 0]

Quote

Remind me again...where was your 'let's wait and see if it works' support of any of the last administration's programs?

I actually didn't have a problem with W until he invaded Iraq two years into his presidency. Really, I thought his dad was a pretty good POTUS, for the most part, and I hoped that there would be some guidance and advice-seeking from/to the elder Bush.

How long did you give Obama?

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

But all of this is speculative, anyway. Why don't we wait until the actual timeline is up (June of 2011), and see how the job situation is then, instead of assuming the programs will fail, and the politicians will lie about it?

Remind me again...where was your 'let's wait and see if it works' support of any of the last administration's programs?

As I recall, we HAD to have to stimulus to keep unemployment in check...unfortunately, it doesn't look like it has. (see attached)

So Bush's Recession is worse than originally thought. It was only a few months ago that you right wingers were denying "the R word" altogether.

And Obama's recession is even worse - sorry, since you guys keep spouting that Bush was responsible for the slight recession in 2001, that means 2009 is Obama's baby.

Try again.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[carmenc 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

But all of this is speculative, anyway. Why don't we wait until the actual timeline is up (June of 2011), and see how the job situation is then, instead of assuming the programs will fail, and the politicians will lie about it?

Remind me again...where was your 'let's wait and see if it works' support of any of the last administration's programs?

As I recall, we HAD to have to stimulus to keep unemployment in check...unfortunately, it doesn't look like it has. (see attached)

So Bush's Recession is worse than originally thought. It was only a few months ago that you right wingers were denying "the R word" altogether.

And Obama's recession is even worse - sorry, since you guys keep spouting that Bush was responsible for the slight recession in 2001, that means 2009 is Obama's baby.

Try again.

Why do you choose to make yourself look absurd?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

But all of this is speculative, anyway. Why don't we wait until the actual timeline is up (June of 2011), and see how the job situation is then, instead of assuming the programs will fail, and the politicians will lie about it?

Remind me again...where was your 'let's wait and see if it works' support of any of the last administration's programs?

As I recall, we HAD to have to stimulus to keep unemployment in check...unfortunately, it doesn't look like it has. (see attached)

So Bush's Recession is worse than originally thought. It was only a few months ago that you right wingers were denying "the R word" altogether.

And Obama's recession is even worse - sorry, since you guys keep spouting that Bush was responsible for the slight recession in 2001, that means 2009 is Obama's baby.

Try again.

Why do you choose to make yourself look absurd?

As I told him - you don't get to play it both ways. If the recession in 01 was Bush's fault, as y'all keep saying, then this is all on Obama.

I know, I know...being held to what you've said before is tough - buck up, you can handle it.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[carmenc 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

But all of this is speculative, anyway. Why don't we wait until the actual timeline is up (June of 2011), and see how the job situation is then, instead of assuming the programs will fail, and the politicians will lie about it?

Remind me again...where was your 'let's wait and see if it works' support of any of the last administration's programs?

As I recall, we HAD to have to stimulus to keep unemployment in check...unfortunately, it doesn't look like it has. (see attached)

So Bush's Recession is worse than originally thought. It was only a few months ago that you right wingers were denying "the R word" altogether.

And Obama's recession is even worse - sorry, since you guys keep spouting that Bush was responsible for the slight recession in 2001, that means 2009 is Obama's baby.

Try again.

Why do you choose to make yourself look absurd?

As I told him - you don't get to play it both ways. If the recession in 01 was Bush's fault, as y'all keep saying, then this is all on Obama.

I know, I know...being held to what you've said before is tough - buck up, you can handle it.

Like THIS? You grasp at straws.

[billvon 3,058]

>If the recession in 01 was Bush's fault, as y'all keep saying, then this is
>all on Obama.

(psst - dude - the recession didn't start under Obama)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>If the recession in 01 was Bush's fault, as y'all keep saying, then this is
>all on Obama.

(psst - dude - the recession didn't start under Obama)

Neither did the recession in 01 that y'all keep blaming Bush for...but thanks for showing (yet again) the hypocrisy of the left - that *was* the point of the post, after all.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,058]

>Neither did the recession in 01 . . .

(psst - dude - neither Clinton nor Obama was president in 2001)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Neither did the recession in 01 . . .

(psst - dude - neither Clinton nor Obama was president in 2001)

Wow...no shit?

Perhaps you recall the 'tech bubble'? You know, that thing that popped in 00 and started the recession that y'all blamed on Bush in 01?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,058]

>You know, that thing that popped in 00 and started the recession that
>y'all blamed on Bush in 01?

(psst - dude - there was another little event that happened in 01 that a few americans noticed, and caused a bit of trouble for the economy.)

[Beachbum 0]

Quote

I don't think anyone of either party in the government forced investment banks to take the absurd risks that led to the current hard times, nor did they force GM and Chrysler to make bad decisions that led to their demise.



Did you sleep through the elections last fall?

No, they didn't force anyone, but policies helped lead to, and encourage it all, and lack of appropriate control allowed it.

Election?? ... nope ... didn't sleep through it, nor does that have anything to do with my earlier post. I said the government, not the administration. Just because there is a different person now at the top of the pile doesn't mean things have changed all the way down (which they haven't as much as Obama says he'd like them to).

And most of the rest of the posts in this thread just illustrate my other point. What good does it do to worry about who to blame?? I think it's much more important to get people working together to FIX the problems than to worry about the particular "who" who caused them. Why is it so important to so many people to take such a negative and at times damaging approach to stuff like this?? It's not that hard to just say "yes, we disagree about a lot, but we need to take care of this" ... and work together to at least TRY to have a positive impact for a change. The fact that average people (read "not politicians") are not able to do this makes it painfully obvoius that the odds of politicians being able to are likely miniscule! Perhaps if people set a better example for the politicians for a change ......

As long as you are happy with yourself ... who cares what the rest of the world thinks?

[justinb138 0]

Quote

I think it's much more important to get people working together to FIX the problems than to worry about the particular "who" who caused them.

Except the fundamental flaw is that the majority of people from both sides may disagree about details, but they both think they government is the solution.

They're unable to see any possible solution that doesn't somehow serve themselves. They are the problem.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Except the fundamental flaw is that the majority of people from both sides may disagree about details, but they both think they government is the solution.

They're unable to see any possible solution that doesn't somehow serve themselves. They are the problem.

+1...or rather +10

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

>Neither did the recession in 01 . . .

(psst - dude - neither Clinton nor Obama was president in 2001)

Wow...no shit?

Perhaps you recall the 'tech bubble'? You know, that thing that popped in 00 and started the recession that y'all blamed on Bush in 01?

According to NBER the recession started in March 2001.
Bush took over in Jan 2001.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

According to NBER the recession started in March 2001.
Bush took over in Jan 2001.

And Obama took over in Jan 09. Aren't y'all the ones that said that Obama hasn't had a chance to influence anything yet? Again, you can't have it both ways. If Bush is responsibe in the first quarter of 01, then Obama is responsible in the first quarter of 09.

The continuing recession in 09 is Obama's - ESPECIALLY when you look at the graph that shows the OBAMA projection of unemployment with / without porkulus and with the unemployment numbers overlaid - THAT is entirely his baby, unless you're going to tell me that Bush signed Porkulus, now?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[penniless 0]

Quote

Quote

According to NBER the recession started in March 2001.
Bush took over in Jan 2001.

And Obama took over in Jan 09. Aren't y'all the ones that said that Obama hasn't had a chance to influence anything yet? Again, you can't have it both ways. If Bush is responsibe in the first quarter of 01, then Obama is responsible in the first quarter of 09.

The continuing recession in 09 is Obama's - ESPECIALLY when you look at the graph that shows the OBAMA projection of unemployment with / without porkulus and with the unemployment numbers overlaid - THAT is entirely his baby, unless you're going to tell me that Bush signed Porkulus, now?

The previous recession started March 2001 - president: BUSH

The current recession started December 2007 - president: BUSH

Those are the official dates. Wiggle all you want.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Wiggle all you want.

If BUSH is responsible for the economy after January 01, then OBAMA is responsible in Jan 09.

Wiggle all YOU want.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[penniless 0]

Quote

Quote

Wiggle all you want.

If BUSH is responsible for the economy after January 01, then OBAMA is responsible in Jan 09.

Wiggle all YOU want.

Have you always had such a hard time with the concept of "START"?

The last 2 recessions STARTED under Bush. The current recession had already been going for 13 months when Obama took over. The GOP was even denying "The R-Word" for most of that time, which is why it got so bad.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Wiggle all you want.

If BUSH is responsible for the economy after January 01, then OBAMA is responsible in Jan 09.

Wiggle all YOU want.

Have you always had such a hard time with the concept of "START"?

The last 2 recessions STARTED under Bush. The current recession had already been going for 13 months when Obama took over. The GOP was even denying "The R-Word" for most of that time, which is why it got so bad.

Have you always had such a hard time with the concept of 'hypocrisy'?

How about 'responsibility' - do you get that one?

If BUSH is responsible for the economy in the first quarter of 01, then OBAMA is responsible for the economy in the first quarter of 09.

Therefore, the claims of "Obama hasn't had time to affect anything" while simultaneously saying "Bush caused the recession in 01" is HYPOCRISY.

Understand? If not, I'm done - I don't have time to teach 5th grade logic and reading comprehension.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

You guys really have to yield the point. Though Bush may have declared his intent to lower taxes by March of 2001, I think it would be hard to attribute the recession to news of this. The boom was over.

It makes a hell of a lot of sense to just admit that Bush didn't cause that one, and focus instead on all the responsibilities he has with this one (primarily deficit spending which makes responding to this recession much more painful). He had a nearly balance budget back then to work with...he did not leave the same to Obama.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

He had a nearly balance budget back then to work with...he did not leave the same to Obama.

True

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706