PDA

View Full Version : Hey Republicans...where are the jobs?



redsoxx11
07-05-2011, 01:02 AM
I was under the impression the Republican house was going to create jobs.. so where are they, unless by "job" you mean "3-4 anti abortion bills"

INTIMADATOR2007
07-05-2011, 02:02 AM
<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/sVonk_OqEUU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

ensbergcollector
07-05-2011, 02:53 AM
Texas

Bluedogcards
07-05-2011, 05:20 AM
I know here in OK there are some big strip malls going in with over 1000 new jobs, so it's coming slow but need to be faster,,,,

AUTaxMan
07-05-2011, 08:55 AM
I was under the impression the Republican house was going to create jobs.. so where are they, unless by "job" you mean "3-4 anti abortion bills"

Why were you under that impression? Dems still control the Senate and the Presidency.

andrewhoya
07-05-2011, 09:43 AM
Why were you under that impression? Dems still control the Senate and the Presidency.

Yeah, I was gong to say the same thing.

andrewhoya
07-05-2011, 09:44 AM
I know here in OK there are some big strip malls going in with over 1000 new jobs, so it's coming slow but need to be faster,,,,

We have plenty of new job openings, too. Then again, we are the fastest growing county in the country :winking0071:

sanfran22
07-05-2011, 10:33 AM
Texas
Yeah, definitely not california.........

duane1969
07-05-2011, 11:11 AM
Why were you under that impression? Dems still control the Senate and the Presidency.

I 3rd this. Who would blame the Republicans for no jobs when the Dems control the Senate and WH?

Also, considering the Dems controlled the House, Senate and WH for 2 years and unemployment skyrocketed during that time, how could anybody logically blame the Republicans who have only controlled the House for what...4-5 months?

Even if the Republicans could create jobs in spite of a Dem controlled House and Senate, bashing them for not doing in 4 months what the Dems couldn't do in 2 years is pretty lame.

INTIMADATOR2007
07-05-2011, 07:32 PM
All we heard for 2 years were JOBS,JOBS,JOBS from this administration . They have spent 2 trillion dollars promising jobs,jobs,jobs, shovel ready jobs at that . so where are they just ask the people surrounding Obama the union leaders .

redsoxx11
07-05-2011, 08:32 PM
That's funny this thread isn't about Obama. It's about the Republicans that ran for the House that promised jobs but have decided to push their fundamentalist christian agenda instead.

INTIMADATOR2007
07-05-2011, 09:53 PM
That's funny this thread isn't about Obama. It's about the Republicans that ran for the House that promised jobs but have decided to push their fundamentalist christian agenda instead.
The house republicans have pushed forward legislation that will create jobs ,but geting anything thru the senate is the problem , Bills start in the house and go to the senate then to the president . If you think Harry Reid is gonna let anything the republicans want get to the president your fooling yourself . So therefore the only things the republicans can do is pass job creating , tax cuttin real legislation and have it stalled in the senate until we get the whitehouse back in 2012 . :winking0071:

redsoxx11
07-05-2011, 10:00 PM
The house republicans have pushed forward legislation that will create jobs ,but geting anything thru the senate is the problem , Bills start in the house and go to the senate then to the president . If you think Harry Reid is gonna let anything the republicans want get to the president your fooling yourself . So therefore the only things the republicans can do is pass job creating , tax cuttin real legislation and have it stalled in the senate until we get the whitehouse back in 2012 . :winking0071:

Cutting taxes does not create jobs it's been proven over the past 30 years. Trickle down doesn't work.

sanfran22
07-05-2011, 10:21 PM
Cutting taxes does not create jobs it's been proven over the past 30 years. Trickle down doesn't work.
You quote that as fact?

INTIMADATOR2007
07-05-2011, 10:40 PM
Cutting taxes does not create jobs it's been proven over the past 30 years. Trickle down doesn't work.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but trickle up dosen't work either . Have you ever got a job from a poor person ?

ensbergcollector
07-06-2011, 02:42 AM
That's funny this thread isn't about Obama. It's about the Republicans that ran for the House that promised jobs but have decided to push their fundamentalist christian agenda instead.

wow...I really don't know what to say. in the last three days you have done nothing but post "stats" without any link to support it only to then insult everyone for not looking up your stats ourselves. You have insulted and belittled anyone who doesn't agree with you and you post junk that would be laughable if it wasn't so infuriating. Please enlighten me how anyone has pushed a christian agenda in the last 5 months and please explain to me how the one group the republicans control have enough power to do what they want regardless of the other two.

AUTaxMan
07-06-2011, 08:27 AM
wow...I really don't know what to say. in the last three days you have done nothing but post "stats" without any link to support it only to then insult everyone for not looking up your stats ourselves. You have insulted and belittled anyone who doesn't agree with you and you post junk that would be laughable if it wasn't so infuriating. Please enlighten me how anyone has pushed a christian agenda in the last 5 months and please explain to me how the one group the republicans control have enough power to do what they want regardless of the other two.

Do not try to reason with this clown. You are wasting your time.

mrveggieman
07-06-2011, 09:55 AM
The house republicans have pushed forward legislation that will create jobs ,but geting anything thru the senate is the problem , Bills start in the house and go to the senate then to the president . If you think Harry Reid is gonna let anything the republicans want get to the president your fooling yourself . So therefore the only things the republicans can do is pass job creating , tax cuttin real legislation and have it stalled in the senate until we get the whitehouse back in 2012 . :winking0071:


Keep dreaming. :whistle:

redsoxx11
07-06-2011, 10:23 AM
wow...I really don't know what to say. in the last three days you have done nothing but post "stats" without any link to support it only to then insult everyone for not looking up your stats ourselves. You have insulted and belittled anyone who doesn't agree with you and you post junk that would be laughable if it wasn't so infuriating. Please enlighten me how anyone has pushed a christian agenda in the last 5 months and please explain to me how the one group the republicans control have enough power to do what they want regardless of the other two.

The only junk I've seen is from the conservatives on this site who can't understand that lowering taxes has not worked for 30 years and every republican administration since Reagan has been a disaster for America. Your obliviousness to the fundamental christian agenda that is being pushed across the country is frightening. And I would look to your fellow forum Cons about not posting links, in fact take a look in one of the other threads where your buddy wants me to even do his research for him. You all bring the LOLZ where ever you go.

redsoxx11
07-06-2011, 10:25 AM
Do not try to reason with this clown. You are wasting your time.

That's a pretty funny comment, coming from someone who can't understand definitions out of a dictionary.

Theodor Madison
07-06-2011, 10:38 AM
No one cares to mention Obama care is the one thing that is stopping job growth. This is a shame how they pushed this through. I also do not notice many republicans hammer this to the American people. I would hate to see the citizens of America become like Greece and many European countries> Lazy dependents on the their Government. Too many handouts, where the system is milked dry. What happens when those that work like dogs, no longer want to pay into the system?

andrewhoya
07-06-2011, 10:47 AM
Your obliviousness to the fundamental christian agenda that is being pushed across the country is frightening.

Please enlighten me, and probably many others, how the "fundamental christian agenda" is being pushed across the country.

duane1969
07-06-2011, 10:52 AM
That's funny this thread isn't about Obama. It's about the Republicans that ran for the House that promised jobs but have decided to push their fundamentalist christian agenda instead.

Please explain to us how the House is supposed to create jobs without the support of the Senate and White House? Clearly you have a much more in-depth knowledge of our three branch system and can give us insight into how the House can override what the Senate and President wants.

This reeks of a typical Democrat tactic. Undermine Republican attempts to accomplish something and then bash them for not getting it done. What a joke.

The Dems have been promising new jobs for 2.5 years and instead have produced the highest long-term unemployment rates since the Great Depression and spent trillions in their failure. Are you so indoctrinated by liberal thinking that you have no problems with that? You only take issue with the republicans not accomplishing something in 6 months that the Dems haven't done in 2.5 years?


Cutting taxes does not create jobs it's been proven over the past 30 years. Trickle down doesn't work.

Spending trillions on short-term jobs and entitlement programs does not create jobs. It's been thoroughly proven over the last 2.5 years. Democratic job creation policies clearly do not work.

habsheaven
07-06-2011, 11:23 AM
I haven't been following the job-creating legislation put through the House by the Republicans and quashed by the Democratic controlled Senate. Can someone enlighten me as to what the Republicans have tried to do to create jobs and what steps the Democrats took to stop it? I must have missed it.

habsheaven
07-06-2011, 11:26 AM
Undermine Republican attempts to accomplish something and then bash them for not getting it done. What a joke.

You didn't really say that , did you? That has been the blatant MO of the Republican party ever since Obama took office. It's not even in doubt. Republicans have been admitting it for years.

duane1969
07-06-2011, 11:44 AM
I haven't been following the job-creating legislation put through the House by the Republicans and quashed by the Democratic controlled Senate. Can someone enlighten me as to what the Republicans have tried to do to create jobs and what steps the Democrats took to stop it? I must have missed it.

What is the point in putting thru legistaltion if you have already been told that it will not pass? These people do talk and I am sure that they know well before they put something thru whether or not it will be passed along. If you have already been told that it will not pass then it is a waste of taxpayer dollars to try it anyway.


You didn't really say that , did you? That has been the blatant MO of the Republican party ever since Obama took office. It's not even in doubt. Republicans have been admitting it for years.

Just like the Dems did to both Bush's and Reagan. Why should Obam be above the same treatment that George W. received for 8 years?

When Dems had nothing else to go on they attacked Bush because he had a Texas accent and didn't talk like everyone else. Lots of couth and integrity in that.

Good for the goose...

mrveggieman
07-06-2011, 11:48 AM
What is the point in putting thru legistaltion if you have already been told that it will not pass? These people do talk and I am sure that they know well before they put something thru whether or not it will be passed along. If you have already been told that it will not pass then it is a waste of taxpayer dollars to try it anyway.



Just like the Dems did to both Bush's and Reagan. Why should Obam be above the same treatment that George W. received for 8 years?

When Dems had nothing else to go on they attacked Bush because he had a Texas accent and didn't talk like everyone else. Lots of couth and integrity in that.

Good for the goose...


No Bush was attacked because he was a moron and a war mongor who had no idea what he was doing.

Star_Cards
07-06-2011, 12:13 PM
Here's an idea... maybe they should both work together to get things done. Crazy idea I know, but sickens me that only one side or the other gets blamed and not both. Anyone in office should get a part of the blame if in fact the blame is theirs' to carry. Picking only one side to blame is just a smoke screen that the politicians love. It gets the american people bothered by blame games rather than the fact that they al rarely come through.

They obviously need to figure out a way to get jobs back in the states. Seems like they can figure out why they go over seas.

duane1969
07-06-2011, 12:21 PM
No Bush was attacked because he was a moron who and a war mongor who had no idea what he was doing.

He must have had some idea about what he was doing...

* Unemployment under Bush never exceeded 6&#37;, under Obama it has never been below 9%.

* Under Clinton's watch Al Queda and the Taliban rose to power becoming the most powerful terrorist networks in the world and took over numerous Middle Eastern countries along with laying the groundwork for 9/11. Under Bush Al Queda and the Taliban were decimated and driven to the caves to hide.

* During Bush's 8 years as President there were 17 terrorist attacks against Ameican targets (bases, ships, 9/11, etc.), an average of 2.1 attacks per year. In Obama's first 2 years there were 9, an average of 4.5 per year.

* Under Bush the yearly deficit only exceed $500 billion 1 time (I couldn't find exact numbers, just graphs). Under Obama it has not been under $1.3 trillion for 2 years and is already projected to exceed $1 trillion for a 3rd consecutive year.

And since you consider Bush to be a warmonger for going after terrorist is it safe to assume that you support the terrorist organizations? I don't see any middle ground on this subject, you either support going after the terrorist or you don't and if you don't, why not?

mrveggieman
07-06-2011, 12:37 PM
He must have had some idea about what he was doing...

* Unemployment under Bush never exceeded 6%, under Obama it has never been below 9%.

* Under Clinton's watch Al Queda and the Taliban rose to power becoming the most powerful terrorist networks in the world and took over numerous Middle Eastern countries along with laying the groundwork for 9/11. Under Bush Al Queda and the Taliban were decimated and driven to the caves to hide.

* During Bush's 8 years as President there were 17 terrorist attacks against Ameican targets (bases, ships, 9/11, etc.), an average of 2.1 attacks per year. In Obama's first 2 years there were 9, an average of 4.5 per year.

* Under Bush the yearly deficit only exceed $500 billion 1 time (I couldn't find exact numbers, just graphs). Under Obama it has not been under $1.3 trillion for 2 years and is already projected to exceed $1 trillion for a 3rd consecutive year.

And since you consider Bush to be a warmonger for going after terrorist is it safe to assume that you support the terrorist organizations? I don't see any middle ground on this subject, you either support going after the terrorist or you don't and if you don't, why not?


And where did you get your facts from duane?

habsheaven
07-06-2011, 12:42 PM
What is the point in putting thru legistaltion if you have already been told that it will not pass? These people do talk and I am sure that they know well before they put something thru whether or not it will be passed along. If you have already been told that it will not pass then it is a waste of taxpayer dollars to try it anyway.


What, they can't compromise while doing this "talking"?



Just like the Dems did to both Bush's and Reagan. Why should Obam be above the same treatment that George W. received for 8 years?

When Dems had nothing else to go on they attacked Bush because he had a Texas accent and didn't talk like everyone else. Lots of couth and integrity in that.

Good for the goose...

So it is not "typical Democratic" behaviour, it is "typical political" behaviour. That was my point.

habsheaven
07-06-2011, 12:51 PM
He must have had some idea about what he was doing...

* Unemployment under Bush never exceeded 6%, under Obama it has never been below 9%.

* Under Clinton's watch Al Queda and the Taliban rose to power becoming the most powerful terrorist networks in the world and took over numerous Middle Eastern countries along with laying the groundwork for 9/11. Under Bush Al Queda and the Taliban were decimated and driven to the caves to hide.

* During Bush's 8 years as President there were 17 terrorist attacks against Ameican targets (bases, ships, 9/11, etc.), an average of 2.1 attacks per year. In Obama's first 2 years there were 9, an average of 4.5 per year.

* Under Bush the yearly deficit only exceed $500 billion 1 time (I couldn't find exact numbers, just graphs). Under Obama it has not been under $1.3 trillion for 2 years and is already projected to exceed $1 trillion for a 3rd consecutive year.

And since you consider Bush to be a warmonger for going after terrorist is it safe to assume that you support the terrorist organizations? I don't see any middle ground on this subject, you either support going after the terrorist or you don't and if you don't, why not?

I don't recall the unemployment rate jumping 3% on inauguration day. You would think I would have noticed an increase that sudden and drastic.

It's foolish statements like these that completely undermine everything else you say.

andrewhoya
07-06-2011, 01:00 PM
I don't recall the unemployment rate jumping 3&#37; on inauguration day. You would think I would have noticed an increase that sudden and drastic.

It's foolish statements like these that completely undermine everything else you say.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm

The unemployment rates are not done day by day. They are year by year. So yes, it has yet to get below 9.0 for Obama, and never was above 6 for Bush.

So, no, it is foolish statements by YOU that undermine everything else you say. You post without looking at facts.

duane1969
07-06-2011, 01:03 PM
I don't recall the unemployment rate jumping 3% on inauguration day. You would think I would have noticed an increase that sudden and drastic.

It's foolish statements like these that completely undermine everything else you say.

Last time I checked the yearly unemployment rate is based on how the year ends, not how it begins. So Obama started with 5.8% (as passed along by Bush) and ended the year with 9.3%.

Unemployment rate, final 3 years under Bush: 4.6%, 4.6%, 5.8%
Unemployment rate, first 3 years under Obama: 9.3%, 9.6% and currently 9.1%

It is refusal to see the facts for what they are that undermine everything else you say.

But please, by all means, explain to me how it is all Bush's fault...

habsheaven
07-06-2011, 01:07 PM
http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm

The unemployment rates are not done day by day. They are year by year. So yes, it has yet to get below 9.0 for Obama, and never was above 6 for Bush.

So, no, it is foolish statements by YOU that undermine everything else you say. You post without looking at facts.

Just so I learn something here. Are you telling me that the unemployment numbers are only released ONCE a year?

andrewhoya
07-06-2011, 01:09 PM
Just so I learn something here. Are you telling me that the unemployment numbers are only released ONCE a year?

I never said they were released once a year. They ARE, however, viewed by as year by year.

How many times have you heard "Oh, the unemployment rate on June 17th, 2009 was ___%?" I can likely make an assumption that you have never heard that. People talk about the yearly rates, in which case, yes, Bush had it under 6 and Obama has had it over 9.

habsheaven
07-06-2011, 01:12 PM
Last time I checked the yearly unemployment rate is based on how the year ends, not how it begins. So Obama started with 5.8% (as passed along by Bush) and ended the year with 9.3%.

Unemployment rate, final 3 years under Bush: 4.6%, 4.6%, 5.8%
Unemployment rate, first 3 years under Obama: 9.3%, 9.6% and currently 9.1%

It is refusal to see the facts for what they are that undermine everything else you say.

But please, by all means, explain to me how it is all Bush's fault...

I am not blaming Bush. I am trying to get back to reality. The US economy was TANKING before Obama was inaugurated. You think McCain would have had a rate under 6% at the end of his first year? Please!!!

andrewhoya
07-06-2011, 01:15 PM
I am not blaming Bush. I am trying to get back to reality. The US economy was TANKING before Obama was inaugurated. You think McCain would have had a rate under 6% at the end of his first year? Please!!!

Likely not under 6, but I can assume that he actually would have done something that works to keep it from going up 3%.

duane1969
07-06-2011, 01:16 PM
Just so I learn something here. Are you telling me that the unemployment numbers are only released ONCE a year?

Unemployment rates are released on a daily basis but the yearly unemployment rate is based on how the year ended. There are numerous sites that have a daily tracker but for data collection purposes the rate is measured by yearly standards.

If you want to talk monthly then it gets worse. Under Obama the unemplyment rate exceeded 10% for quite some time (4 or 5 months if memory serves me correctly). I may be wrong but I believe that you have to go back to post-Depression numbers to find multiple months in excess of 10%.

habsheaven
07-06-2011, 01:16 PM
I never said they were released once a year. They ARE, however, viewed by as year by year.

How many times have you heard "Oh, the unemployment rate on June 17th, 2009 was ___%?" I can likely make an assumption that you have never heard that. People talk about the yearly rates, in which case, yes, Bush had it under 6 and Obama has had it over 9.

Critics are constantly quoting the "new" unemployment numbers each time they are released. None of them are talking about the "official" numbers released at the end of the previous year.

Duane's statement is clearly MISLEADING, and both of you defending it is embarrassing.

andrewhoya
07-06-2011, 01:18 PM
Critics are constantly quoting the "new" unemployment numbers each time they are released. None of them are talking about the "official" numbers released at the end of the previous year.

Duane's statement is clearly MISLEADING, and both of you defending it is embarrassing.

For previous years, it is looked at at the end of the year. In present time, yes, it is looked at more frequently.

duane1969
07-06-2011, 01:25 PM
Critics are constantly quoting the "new" unemployment numbers each time they are released. None of them are talking about the "official" numbers released at the end of the previous year.

Duane's statement is clearly MISLEADING, and both of you defending it is embarrassing.

What is embarrasing is that the entire world can see that Obama is failing in the jobs department and you are still trying to figure out a way that it isn't his fault.

I am not defending anything, I am quoting facts released by the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics. I don't need to mislead anything, the data released by the government is as clear as it gets. There are numerous websites that replicate the same data. I am not misleading anyone, you are trying to get the data to say something that it does not.

Star_Cards
07-06-2011, 01:32 PM
I really don't like participating in the blame game threads, but I'm curious what was done in Obama's first year that created the increase in unemployment. I ask because I honestly think that there are so many more factors that go into jobless rates than a president and his policies. I do agree that presidential policy can have effects on employers laying off workers or closing the doors all together, but the way I see it, there are many other issues that cause employers to cut back or go out of business.

habsheaven
07-06-2011, 01:37 PM
What is embarrasing is that the entire world can see that Obama is failing in the jobs department and you are still trying to figure out a way that it isn't his fault.

I am not defending anything, I am quoting facts released by the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics. I don't need to mislead anything, the data released by the government is as clear as it gets. There are numerous websites that replicate the same data. I am not misleading anyone, you are trying to get the data to say something that it does not.

Clearly the blame for the inability to get the unemployment rate lowered rests on the current government (both Democrats and Republicans). My point is illustrated with these numbers:

Unemployment Rates in 2008

February 2008 - 4.8&#37;
March 2008 - 5.1%
April 2008 - 5%
May 2008 - 5.5%
June 2008 - 5.6%
July 2008 - 5.8%
August 2008 - 6.2%
September 2008 - 6.2%
October 2008 - 6.6%
November 2008 - 6.8%
December 2008 - 7.2%
January 2009 - 7.6%

The last 12 months of GWB presidency the rate increased 2.8%. That's right 2.8% in 12 months.

andrewhoya
07-06-2011, 01:44 PM
Clearly the blame for the inability to get the unemployment rate lowered rests on the current government (both Democrats and Republicans). My point is illustrated with these numbers:

Unemployment Rates in 2008

February 2008 - 4.8%
March 2008 - 5.1%
April 2008 - 5%
May 2008 - 5.5%
June 2008 - 5.6%
July 2008 - 5.8%
August 2008 - 6.2%
September 2008 - 6.2%
October 2008 - 6.6%
November 2008 - 6.8%
December 2008 - 7.2%
January 2009 - 7.6%

The last 12 months of GWB presidency the rate increased 2.8%. That's right 2.8% in 12 months.

In Obama's first 9 months, it went up 2.1%. He did nothing to slow it.

habsheaven
07-06-2011, 01:53 PM
In Obama's first 9 months, it went up 2.1%. He did nothing to slow it.

You expected results in his first 9 months? And I would argue that since it was 9.4 in Mar 09 and is now 9.1 in May 11 he has more than "slowed" it, he is reversing it.

andrewhoya
07-06-2011, 02:06 PM
You expected results in his first 9 months? And I would argue that since it was 9.4 in Mar 09 and is now 9.1 in May 11 he has more than "slowed" it, he is reversing it.

It was actually 8.5 in March of 09.

And plus, if you look at the last 3 months, it is rising.

habsheaven
07-06-2011, 02:20 PM
It was actually 8.5 in March of 09.

And plus, if you look at the last 3 months, it is rising.

You are right, I was looking at May 09 for the 9.4% number I quoted.

Regardless, my point stands. You can quote numbers all you like to justify a position. That doesn't make that position right. Duane's initial statement, although accurate, does not represent what was actually occurring during the change in presidency.

duane1969
07-06-2011, 02:25 PM
Clearly the blame for the inability to get the unemployment rate lowered rests on the current government (both Democrats and Republicans). My point is illustrated with these numbers:

Unemployment Rates in 2008

February 2008 - 4.8%
March 2008 - 5.1%
April 2008 - 5%
May 2008 - 5.5%
June 2008 - 5.6%
July 2008 - 5.8%
August 2008 - 6.2%
September 2008 - 6.2%
October 2008 - 6.6%
November 2008 - 6.8%
December 2008 - 7.2%
January 2009 - 7.6%

The last 12 months of GWB presidency the rate increased 2.8%. That's right 2.8% in 12 months.

It is no doubt that unemployment was increasing when Obama took office. It is also no doubt that Obama ran on a platform of fixing it and spent how many billions (trillions?) "creating jobs" and yet only shows an overall decrease of .3% between his own 1st year and 2nd year numbers.

What is worse ARRA funding, which was used to "create" all of those jobs, is running out. So now all of those jobs are going away.

I know this to be fact because it is happening to me. I just found out 2 weeks ago that my job that I just started in October 2010 ends at the end of this month. I didn't know it but I was hired under a state grant that was funded by Obama's job creation money (ARRA). The funding has dried up and myself and another guy that I work with have to find a new job.

Assuming the same thing is happening everywhere, how long do you think that .3% will hold up?

I do not blame and have not blamed Obama because unemployment is over 9%, I blame him because it is still over 9%.

AUTaxMan
07-06-2011, 02:26 PM
I don't recall the unemployment rate jumping 3% on inauguration day. You would think I would have noticed an increase that sudden and drastic.

I was actually thinking the same thing.

habsheaven
07-06-2011, 02:37 PM
It is no doubt that unemployment was increasing when Obama took office. It is also no doubt that Obama ran on a platform of fixing it and spent how many billions (trillions?) "creating jobs" and yet only shows an overall decrease of .3% between his own 1st year and 2nd year numbers.

What is worse ARRA funding, which was used to "create" all of those jobs, is running out. So now all of those jobs are going away.

I know this to be fact because it is happening to me. I just found out 2 weeks ago that my job that I just started in October 2010 ends at the end of this month. I didn't know it but I was hired under a state grant that was funded by Obama's job creation money (ARRA). The funding has dried up and myself and another guy that I work with have to find a new job.

Assuming the same thing is happening everywhere, how long do you think that .3% will hold up?

I do not blame and have not blamed Obama because unemployment is over 9%, I blame him because it is still over 9%.

Fine. I think there is some merit to this position. My problem was with the initial post comparing rates under both he and GWB. It clearly painted a skewed picture that has no bearing on the position bolded above.

sanfran22
07-06-2011, 02:39 PM
You expected results in his first 9 months? And I would argue that since it was 9.4 in Mar 09 and is now 9.1 in May 11 he has more than "slowed" it, he is reversing it.
Not sure this article from Huffpo supports your reversing theory...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/14/obama-2012-budget-unemployment-growth_n_822928.html

duane1969
07-06-2011, 02:45 PM
Fine. I think there is some merit to this position. My problem was with the initial post comparing rates under both he and GWB. It clearly painted a skewed picture that has no bearing on the position bolded above.

The point in the numbers I referenced was the overall rate, how high it is and remains, and that no other president has had this problem.

If you look back over the last 50 years Obama's numbers are on track to be the worst. Reagan inherited an increasing unemployment rate from Carter and ended with +9% for both of his first 2 years, but by the end of year three it was down to 7.5% and was just 5.3% by the end of his 8 years, and he did it without massive defecit spending.

Obama's numbers look promising after year 2 but as I said, ARRA funds are drying up and that .3% decrease is very likely to be gobbled up by an increase by the end of the year.

habsheaven
07-06-2011, 02:54 PM
The point in the numbers I referenced was the overall rate, how high it is and remains, and that no other president has had this problem.

If you look back over the last 50 years Obama's numbers are on track to be the worst. Reagan inherited an increasing unemployment rate from Carter and ended with +9% for both of his first 2 years, but by the end of year three it was down to 7.5% and was just 5.3% by the end of his 8 years, and he did it without massive defecit spending.

Obama's numbers look promising after year 2 but as I said, ARRA funds are drying up and that .3% decrease is very likely to be gobbled up by an increase by the end of the year.

See what I mean. This post is clear and concise. Not misleading at all. :kiss:

armyatc22
07-06-2011, 04:22 PM
none here in Alabama my wife cant find anything and its sucking hard!!!!!!

AUTaxMan
07-06-2011, 04:47 PM
none here in Alabama my wife cant find anything and its sucking hard!!!!!!

Where in AL?

redsoxx11
07-06-2011, 04:49 PM
Not sure this article from Huffpo supports your reversing theory...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/14/obama-2012-budget-unemployment-growth_n_822928.html

That article is from Feburary........

texansrangerfan73
07-06-2011, 04:55 PM
Texas

Good answer & probably is what will put Rick Perry on the platform if he decides to run in 2012. Texas has created more jobs than any other states in the last 2 years :party0053:

armyatc22
07-06-2011, 04:57 PM
Where in AL?

Im stationed at Fort Rucker and we live in Enterprise

sanfran22
07-06-2011, 05:07 PM
That article is from Feburary........
And?

brandonbarnett
07-06-2011, 10:39 PM
none here in Alabama my wife cant find anything and its sucking hard!!!!!!

Send her to adult ed classes to be a nurse's aide....pay varies, and its not the funnest job but I've done it for 7 yrs only worked at 3 different places, but will never be without a job....maybe not the best but its something