case and point, amigo. I don't frequent this forum very often...mostly due to the fact that it requires way too much time to start going back and forth once a debate starts and I post here sporadically from work. Tough to make a point then just leave when people counter. Also, arguing about politics is like arguing with a brick wall...no one is ever going to change someone's mind...so it's just fighting. And pgabriel, there is a difference between arguiing a point (like what SamFisher did, for example) and just making assumptions and attacking someone when they state their opinion (like your post and most posts in here when a Republican says something critical). Reminds me of how bad the Repubs here were the few times I came in here around the Iraq invasion...attacking any Democrat who was against that worthless invasion. When the shoe is on the other foot, it's "stop being a p***y".
I'm not sure why you are arguing with me here. He made that comment prior to the announcement of 3.5% growth. He made the comment in a speech referring to jobs saved. (I'm pretty sure at least)
The picture is always muddy when the govt. gives you data for instance unemployment is calculated only by using the U3 stat which is those who are considered willing to work also the military and those in prison are counted in the employed side Whatever the actual unemployment rate is it is way above 10% and has been for quite a while in the great depression it was estimated that unemployment reached somewhere around 20-25% that was before the Dept. of Labor Statistics came up with alot of tricks in 1980 to make the numbers look better.
Bottom line, the whole "you can't criticize obama argument" is getting tired. its been going on for two years, hell at least don't call you unpatriotic.
Can't blame Obama for the recession or the unemployment rate, just as Bush can't be blamed for the 2000-2002 recession. I don't think John McCain would've been that much better, but the idea that Healthcare, Cap/Tax etc. are great ideas when we've got a weakened consumer base is baaaaaaad. The consumer is hurting. Don't indirectly tax them more. It doesn't make sense.
not here i guess... WASHINGTON — In a step that reflected deep partisan divisions in the Senate over the issue of global warming, Democrats on the Environment and Public Works Committee pushed through a climate bill on Thursday without any debate or participation by Republicans. The measure passed by an 11-to-1 vote with the support of all the Democratic committee members except Senator Max Baucus of Montana. The seven Republicans boycotted the committee meetings this week, saying they had not had sufficient time to study the bill and demanding that the Environmental Protection Agency conduct a thorough study of its economic costs and benefits. The move suggests that President Obama and Democratic supporters of the bill will have serious problems assembling the votes needed to enact it when it comes to the Senate floor, probably not before next year. Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, the committee’s chairwoman and co-sponsor of the bill, employed a rarely used exception to customary committee rules to muscle the 959-page measure through her panel. She conducted three days of hearings last week on the bill, known as S. 1733, but there was no debate on the complex measure, nor any chance for panel members to offer amendments. Mrs. Boxer said that the E.P.A. had already conducted a preliminary analysis of the bill and that further study would be costly and duplicative. She said it was necessary to bypass the committee’s rule that required Republican participation because of Republican intransigence and the urgency of the issue. “A majority of the committee,” she said in a statement, “believes that S. 1733, and the efforts that will be built upon it, will move us away from foreign oil imports that cost Americans $1 billion a day, it will protect our children from pollution, create millions of clean energy jobs and stimulate billions of dollars of private investment.” The senior Republican on the environment committee, Senator James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, said the bill would harm the American economy and cost millions of jobs. He said the Democrats’ decision to ram the bill through “marked the death knell” of efforts to enact a comprehensive climate change bill. Mr. Baucus’s vote against the bill was another ominous sign. He is the influential chairman of the Finance Committee and a senior member of the Agriculture Committee, both of which will have major input in any final climate and energy legislation. He said the bill’s emission reduction targets were too ambitious and its agriculture provisions too weak. He said the measure had a long way to go. “This is a first step,” he said Thursday. “There will be many other steps.”■ -nytimes
Give everyone tax cuts and let the government waste money in Iraq and Afghanistan. 'mericuhhh **** Yeah!
I care who's fault it is. I care when we throw money at useless ideas. Its not a matter of whats done, its a matter of redoing what didn't work. Your Obama walked in on the premise of change. He has proved to be just the same. Its the ideology that is guilty, and if you share the same ideology, you're just as guilty. Politics is a King of the hill mentality. As one party takes, the next party takes that an more. Americans are too readily to sit by, allowing the Bushes, Gores, Kerrys, McCains and Obamas to continue to do the same, year after year, while we sit by and wave our sides Pom Poms and point out why the other side is wrong. Its time our politicans are elected by the people, not the lobbyist.
My Obama? Already categorizing me simply because I would prefer solutions instead of finger-pointing? Is finger-pointing a conservative behavior, so I must not be a conservative since I don't think finger-pointing is useful, thus I am an Obama lover? Quite a chain of thought there. Prove to me that Obama wasn't elected by the people, because from I can tell, the people voted him in. Oops, sorry, you can't prove that he WASN'T elected by group X. However, you should be able to at least prove that he was elected by lobbyists, right? ... right?
He did not blame Obama for the problem in his post, he said Obama has not created jobs as he had promised
Nope I'm a middletarian. Get it right. ON the topic obviously 10.2% unemployment isn't a good thing but pretty much all economist and the Admin. themselves said things were going to get worst before better. If we are still at double digit unemployment in Q2 of 2010 then yeah I would say the economic plan is failing. As for the stimulus I didn't really like it and from the job numbers it doesn't seem like we are getting much bang for the buck but honestly I can't say for sure things wouldn't have been much worse if it hadn't been done. My business has been doing well and given that some of the projects we've been working on there has been some government money so maybe it is working.
Most of the stimulus is still sitting in state and city coffers. I think the biggest impact will be in the 1st quarter. Most of the stimulus work will be done in 2010. Some of the construction projects will not even finish until 2011, such as the I-10 roadwork between highways 45 and 59.
