(03-30-2012 06:58 AM)TOGC Wrote:  The stock market has gone up and unemployment has gone down.

Unless the bottom drops out between now and election day, which is not likely, Obama gets a second term.

Republicans are hoping the economy gets worse. It's their only shot.

The stock market is cyclical. It's not exactly like it's shooting up, just finally becoming more steady.

Unemployement hasn't gone down much at all. More people have stopped looking or their benefits have run out. It's just a numbers game that this administration knows how to play very well.

Unemployment hit a high of 10% in October 2009. It's at 8.3% now. That is going down.

As for people who have stopped looking, that's a BS response. People are always falling off the unemployment rolls. The elderly retire, teenagers go back to school, people go on disability or die. It happens every single year under every single President. In the next decade, unemployment will drop considerably when the Baby Boomers move from the ranks of the employed to retirement.

"The increase in employment since the end of 2009 has been due to a significant decline in layoffs but only a moderate improvement in hiring."

"The recent decline in the unemployment rate may reflect, at least in part, a reversal of the unusually large layoffs that occurred during late 2008 and over 2009. To the extent that this reversal has been completed, further significant improvements in the unemployment rate will likely require a more-rapid expansion of production and demand from consumers and businesses."

Thats Bernake explaining whats going on with these unemployment numbers. New jobs aren't being created, existing jobs are merely being filled again, so yes there is a small decline in the unemployement numbers, but its not all peachy like the administration claims. These aren't jobs Obama is creating.

Torch has this article linked in another thread. Highly relevant here seeing as how Obama promied to create 3 million new jobs when he was elected.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/b...z1qbxbuo6t

C'mon people! This is a historic moment!

Barack has finally gotten his prized "bi-partisan moment." Not a single dem was willing to stick his/her neck out and vote for that steaming pile of you know what. Not one democrat vote for a dem President's budget.

Unanimous. Congrats, Barack. You've managed to unite the House of Representatives. Kudos. Ain't easy to do.

This is a non-issue. It only means something to idiots who can't tell what's going on.

(03-30-2012 07:46 PM)TOGC Wrote:  This is a non-issue. It only means something to idiots who can't tell what's going on.

AKA: America...

(03-30-2012 08:17 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(03-30-2012 07:46 PM)TOGC Wrote:  This is a non-issue. It only means something to idiots who can't tell what's going on.

AKA: Conservatives

Yep.

(03-30-2012 08:36 PM)TOGC Wrote:  

(03-30-2012 08:17 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(03-30-2012 07:46 PM)TOGC Wrote:  This is a non-issue. It only means something to idiots who can't tell what's going on.

AKA: Conservatives

Yep.

I see what you did there! You're so clever!!!

(03-30-2012 07:46 PM)TOGC Wrote:  This is a non-issue. It only means something to idiots who can't tell what's going on.

Please enlighten us oh magnanimous one with what you think is going on when a sitting US President offers a budget that not one elected official will vote for...What's the end game?

(04-03-2012 07:36 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(03-30-2012 07:46 PM)TOGC Wrote:  This is a non-issue. It only means something to idiots who can't tell what's going on.

Please enlighten us oh magnanimous one with what you think is going on when a sitting US President offers a budget that not one elected official will vote for...What's the end game?

What was the end game when Reagan's budget only got one vote?

There are tons of procedural votes that occur, like this one, which mean absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things. Many times things get voted down because someone added a rider which is intolerable to the other party just to force a vote like this.

It wasn't a big deal when they were one vote short of a unanimous rejection of Reagan's budget and it's not a big deal now. If you can't get beyone the dog and pony show, you aren't discerning enough to participate in this conversation.

Quote:What was the end game when Reagan's budget only got one vote?

Random equivalency....means nothing. Deflecting....

Quote:There are tons of procedural votes that occur, like this one, which mean absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things. Many times things get voted down because someone added a rider which is intolerable to the other party just to force a vote like this.

Deflecting....

Emphasis added...either party...both voted no?

Quote:It wasn't a big deal when they were one vote short of a unanimous rejection of Reagan's budget and it's not a big deal now. If you can't get beyone the dog and pony show, you aren't discerning enough to participate in this conversation.

Deflection...answer the question.

I'll ask one that you might find a little easier to answer.

Why when the Dem's had control of BOTH houses for two years didn't they pass a budget?

Why when a budget was passed by the House did the Senate reject it?

Why hasn't the Senate offered a budget?

This one in particular was voted down because it contained no actual policy...just numbers.

Bottom line, your government wasted a bunch of money to score cheap political points. I'm sure you're all proud!

(04-03-2012 09:14 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  This one in particular was voted down because it contained no actual policy...just numbers.

Bottom line, your government wasted a bunch of money to score cheap political points. I'm sure you're all proud!

I'm ashamed. EVERY time it has EVER happened and I don't defend it happening now because it was done in the past....unlike TOGC. Both parties are impotent.

(04-03-2012 09:16 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(04-03-2012 09:14 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  This one in particular was voted down because it contained no actual policy...just numbers.

Bottom line, your government wasted a bunch of money to score cheap political points. I'm sure you're all proud!

I'm ashamed. EVERY time it has EVER happened and I don't defend it happening now because it was done in the past....unlike TOGC. Both parties are impotent.

See...we can agree on something!

(04-03-2012 09:14 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  This one in particular was voted down because it contained no actual policy...just numbers.

Bottom line, your government wasted a bunch of money to score cheap political points. I'm sure you're all proud!

Clearly if you understood the context of those numbers you wouldn't say that.

Niner, do you honestly believe the Republican lead House would ever pass a budget put fourth by Obama no matter what it contained?

(04-03-2012 10:09 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Niner, do you honestly believe the Republican lead House would ever pass a budget put fourth by Obama no matter what it contained?

Plenty of people have done analysis of those numbers on the internet. I can't help you won't go look for them.

(04-03-2012 10:09 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Niner, do you honestly believe the Republican lead House would ever pass a budget put fourth by Obama no matter what it contained?

No......but it would seem like the Democratic members of the house have treated Obama's budget like it has the Bubonic Plague as well - are they trying to distance themselves from "THE ONE"?

(04-03-2012 10:18 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(04-03-2012 10:09 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Niner, do you honestly believe the Republican lead House would ever pass a budget put fourth by Obama no matter what it contained?

No......but it would seem like the Democratic members of the house have treated Obama's budget like it has the Bubonic Plague as well - are they trying to distance themselves from "THE ONE"?

Sure...if you're falling for the Republican narrative that this was some final budget plan put forth by Obama and the democrats.

It's the same thing when the Democrats forced the vote on the Ryan plan that everyone knew would go nowhere.

It's just more of the same of ALL our elected congresspeople with absolutely no spine to vote their convictions.

(03-30-2012 07:46 PM)TOGC Wrote:  This is a non-issue. It only means something to idiots who can't tell what's going on.

The only idiot I see around here is spewing leftwing talking points, trying to convince himself that the big O isn't a gigantic failure.

He's found that being President is a real job, unlike community organizing, which is simply inciting a group, telling them they are victims and then finding some deep pockets to shake down.

What is going on is that Congressional Democrats saw the bloodbath that their colleagues on the left side of the aisle suffered in 2010 and that the President from their own party threw them under the bus for his own purposes. I have a feeling that this year's message from the DNC that candidates for Congressional election this cycle won't be getting any money from Obama's stash have them looking at ways to survive this disaster of a President and stay in Congress. Not one of them is willing to tie their political career to a vote for an Obama budget. They realize that this is a center-right nation and that Obama's priorities are not the priorities of the public at large. Nobody wants to die on that hill.