Unemployment continues to rise

[1bad65]

Despite Obama's promise his 'stimulus' plan would create jobs, unemployment is still rising.

"The number of newly-laid off workers seeking jobless benefits unexpectedly rose last week, as the economy recovers at a slow and uneven pace.

Layoffs have slowed and the economy began to grow in last year's third quarter, but companies are reluctant to hire new workers. The unemployment rate is 10 percent and many economists expect it to increase in the coming months.

The Labor Department said Thursday that initial claims for unemployment insurance rose by 36,000 to a seasonally adjusted 482,000. Wall Street economists expected a small drop, according to Thomson Reuters."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100121/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_economy

On Tuesday night, Newt Gingrich pointed out that through 1994 unemployment varied from 5.6% to 6.6%, and the Democrats got crushed in the 1994 elections. He then pointed out we are now poised to have over a full year of unemployment at or near 10%. He said if that happens, the 2010 November elections are gonna be alot worse for the Democrats than 1994 was.

[David Jamieson]

Despite Obama's promise his 'stimulus' plan would create jobs, unemployment is still rising.

"The number of newly-laid off workers seeking jobless benefits unexpectedly rose last week, as the economy recovers at a slow and uneven pace.

Layoffs have slowed and the economy began to grow in last year's third quarter, but companies are reluctant to hire new workers. The unemployment rate is 10 percent and many economists expect it to increase in the coming months.

The Labor Department said Thursday that initial claims for unemployment insurance rose by 36,000 to a seasonally adjusted 482,000. Wall Street economists expected a small drop, according to Thomson Reuters."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100121/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_economy

On Tuesday night, Newt Gingrich pointed out that through 1994 unemployment varied from 5.6% to 6.6%, and the Democrats got crushed in the 1994 elections. He then pointed out we are now poised to have over a full year of unemployment at or near 10%. He said if that happens, the 2010 November elections are gonna be alot worse for the Democrats than 1994 was.

and you think this is Obama's fault why?

[1bad65]

and you think this is Obama's fault why?

1. Because no government in history has ever spent it's way out of a recession.

2. Cap-and-Trade. Obama said he would enact this, which is a HUGE tax on business. Businesses are wary of hiring when they see their operating costs are fixing to skyrocket.

3. Bailouts. These have rewarded bad business practices. Instead of allowing good businesses to prosper via tax cuts, he has rewarded the failing ones.

4. Refusal to cut taxes. EVERY TIME in american history that large tax cuts have been enacted, the economy has flourished. Every time.

[uki]

they're hiring for the census... perhaps that's all those jobs that were promised?? LMAO!!!

[Reality_Check]

1. Because no government in history has ever spent it's way out of a recession...

...4. Refusal to cut taxes. EVERY TIME in american history that large tax cuts have been enacted, the economy has flourished. Every time.

Source: http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet

Unemployment rate when Ronald Reagan took office in January 1981: 7.5%

President Reagan cut taxes in August of 1981.

Unemployment rate in August 1981: 7.4%

Unemployment rate in:

September 1982: 10.1%
October 1982: 10.4%
November 1982: 10.8%
December 1982: 10.8%
January 1983: 10.4%
February 1983: 10.4%
March 1983: 10.3%
April 1983: 10.2%
May 1983: 10.1%
June 1983: 10.1%

Month unemployment rate drops below the 7.4% of August 1981: September 1984. Three years after the huge tax cut.

Also, I'm going to quote a post I made in September of 2008 (http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=882354&postcount=743)


http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html

http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htm

Of course, Reagan did cut taxes in 1981. Only to raise them in 1982 (twice), 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_b...0310290853.asp

Also, if the tax cuts pay for themselves, then why do Repulican presidents run up such huge deficits?

[BoulderDawg]

I wouldn't even bother with statistics. Not only do the teabaggers ignore them but they can't understand them anyway!:eek:

I was laughing at Obama and his reaction to the Mass senate race. "We are going to radically scale down this health care bill"...........Hmmmmm I had hoped that Obama wasn't that stupid. Doesn't he know the Teabaggers are not interested in any healthcare bill. The way I see it it's all or nothing. If I was Obama I would simply not budge from the original bill with the public option. You got to stand on your principles at some point.

I was also laughing at how now the GOP thinks they are running things with 41 votes. Have they ever stopped to consider that things could change quickly and the Dems have long memories. I see years in Washington where no bills worth anything are debated and passed. That's ashame.

[Kansuke]

If I was Obama I would simply not budge from the original bill with the public option.


It would be great if he was as stupid as you. He may well get there yet...

[BoulderDawg]

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama stepped up his campaign against Wall Street on Thursday with a far-reaching proposal for tougher regulation of the biggest banks.

I wonder why he thinks this would be any different from health care. The big financial houses control the GOP.......not a chance any of them will go against them.

[Kansuke]

So... anyone who donates to a party "controls" them?

[1bad65]

Unemployment rate when Ronald Reagan took office in January 1981: 7.5%

Unemployment rate in August 1981: 7.4%

And the unemployment rate in December 1988 was 5.3%

So over his full term Reagan cut the unemployment rate by 2.3%. Try again.


I wouldn't even bother with statistics. Not only do the teabaggers ignore them but they can't understand them anyway!:eek:

Once I again I prove you wrong. ;)

Source: http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp?StartYear=1980-01&EndYear=1988-12&submit1=Create+Report

[1bad65]

If you really want to see how good Reagan was, take a look at the prime interest rate when Reagan took office vs when he left. I'll give you a hint, under Carter it was at record highs, highs that have still never been surpassed.

And we could also talk about the inflation rate as well. ;)

[Drake]

The problem is that Reagan is gone, and the republicans have yet to find anyone close to his caliber. In 22 years.

[BoulderDawg]

If you're going to compare Reagan with Obama then you can only compare them at the same times in their presidency. Two years into Reagan's term unemployment was through the roof!

In any case if Reagan is such a good president then you guys should bring him back.

[1bad65]

If you're going to compare Reagan with Obama then you can only compare them at the same times in their presidency. Two years into Reagan's term unemployment was through the roof!


Let's just do that comparison:

Obama:
Jan 2009: 7.6%
Dec 2009: 10.0%

Reagan:
Jan 1980: 7.5%
Dec 1980 8.5%

They both started with almost identical percentages, yet it grew only 1% after a year of Reagan, and it grew 2.4% percent under Obama.

So by YOUR standards, Obama is doing 2.4 times worse than Reagan! ;)

And that's not even taking into account Reagan inherited record high prime interect rates (22.5%), and inflation at 13.58%. Obama inherited low interest rates (~5%) and an inflation rate of only 3.85%.

Can you guys at least make this somewhat challenging? ;)

Source: http://www.miseryindex.us/iRbyyear.asp?StartYear=1979&EndYear=2009

[Reality_Check]

And the unemployment rate in December 1988 was 5.3%

So over his full term Reagan cut the unemployment rate by 2.3%. Try again.



Once I again I prove you wrong. ;)

Source: http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp?StartYear=1980-01&EndYear=1988-12&submit1=Create+Report

And President Obama has had two full terms to cut unemployment?

[1bad65]

The problem is that Reagan is gone, and the republicans have yet to find anyone close to his caliber. In 22 years.

I'm defending his policies. It was his policies that made Reagan the successful President he was. And the sooner we go back to those policies, the sooner we will get this country moving again.

Notice Scott Brown won easily, and in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts of all pplaces. And he ran on Reagan's policies; small government, tax cuts, cutting the debt, and a strong military.

How do you think Reagan carried 49 of 50 states after his first 4 years? ;) After his policies won in 2010 Massachusetts, even the Democrats have publicly said "Every State is in play in Nov". Just over a year ago we ran a moderate for President, and we lost so bad people were predicting the end of our Party....

[1bad65]

And President Obama has had two full terms to cut unemployment?

My point was you took numbers from Reagan's worst year, and tried to say he completely failed. You have to look at the final score buddy. It's like saying Minnesota failed last week when the score was Dallas -3, Minnesota - 0. The final score was Minnesota - 34, Dallas - 3.

But speaking of full terms, Obama has spent more in his first year than Reagan did in his full 8! :eek: And as I showed earlier, unemployment went up 2.4x more after one year of Obama than after one year of Reagan.

[BoulderDawg]

So by YOUR standards, Obama is doing 2.4 times worse than Reagan! ;)

I have not a clue as to what that means.:D


As I said you want Reagan? Then bring him back.

[Drake]

There's a lot of variables here that aren't being considered. To place the entire burden of unemployment on a single person is ridiculous. Come on... I can't be the only person here that has taken economic and business classes in college.

[1bad65]

I have not a clue as to what that means.:D

Those are statisitcs. Are you having trouble understanding them?

I recall you said this earlier:


I wouldn't even bother with statistics. Not only do the teabaggers ignore them but they can't understand them anyway!:eek:

LMFAO!

[BoulderDawg]

Why all the talk about Reagan? If he's such a good president then bring him back...let him be president again!

[1bad65]

There's a lot of variables here that aren't being considered. To place the entire burden of unemployment on a single person is ridiculous. Come on... I can't be the only person here that has taken economic and business classes in college.

It is when that one single person has gotten EVERY SINGLE ECONOMIC policy he wanted passed through Congress. Seriously Drake, how can he blame anyone but himself?

He said the 'stimlus' would fix things. I don't recall him saying unemployment would break 10% before it got better. Did I miss that perhaps?

[Drake]

It is when that one single person has gotten EVERY SINGLE ECONOMIC policy he wanted passed through Congress. Seriously Drake, how can he blame anyone but himself?

He said the 'stimlus' would fix things. I don't recall him saying unemployment would break 10% before it got better. Did I miss that perhaps?

I'm saying he inherited Bush's war costs, just as Clinton inherited the benefits from not just Reagan, but all of the business increases that occured during the Reagan Administration. I'm sure Reagan INFLUENCED things, but he certainly had a smaller role than most people think.

Iraq/Afghanistan are costing an arm and a leg, BUT you can't lay the economic meltdown on that alone. Globalization, outsourcing, corrupt and IRRESPONSIBLE businesses using outdated models, financial institutions coming out with scandals and woefully inaccurate earnings reports, the mortgage fallout, and a general credit card rampage by irresponsible citizens are all factors. I no more blame Bush than I do Obama. They just happened to be in the hot seat when everything went down.

It irritates me when people blame a single person for what is basically a country-wide failure at all levels. Eat a slice of the responsibility pie, folks.

[BoulderDawg]

Those are statisitcs. Are you having trouble understanding them?

Sure am. How do you quantify someone as 2.4X better than someone else!:D

In any case I hear a lot of complaining. Is that all you're really interested in doing?

HA! One time I went over to the board on Sean Hannity's site. It was full of crazies. I read it and it dawned on me that these people think they are actually doing something to help their cause by posting on a BB!:D

Anyway the Teabaggers don't have the market cornered on BB crazies. In fact Michael Moore had a board on his web site until a few years ago and he finally had to take it down because of the insanity by some of the people posting.....Hannity seems to relish in the crazies. Even Limby doesn't have a board (That I know of)........one could just imagine the people there!:D

[1bad65]

Sure am. How do you quantify someone as 2.4X better than someone else!:D

It's called math. And apparently you don't understand that as well.

I'll try and spell it out for you. After one year of Reagan, unemployment went up by 1%. After one year of Obama, it went up 2.4%. That is an increase of 2.4x. Or in mathematical terms: 1% x 2.4 = 2.4%.

Get it now? :rolleyes:

[BoulderDawg]

It's called math. And apparently you don't understand that as well.

I'll try and spell it out for you. After one year of Reagan, unemployment went up by 1%. After one year of Obama, it went up 2.4%. That is an increase of 2.4x. Or in mathematical terms: 1% x 2.4 = 2.4%.

Get it now? :rolleyes:


All this represents is the delta in the percentage rates. Where do yu get that Reagan is 2.4x better than Obama? You're basing it on this one variable? Will it change next summer when Reagan's rate was way into double digits?

What is your argument? Unless your willing to bring Reagan back then you don't really have one.

[Reality_Check]

My point was you took numbers from Reagan's worst year, and tried to say he completely failed. You have to look at the final score buddy. It's like saying Minnesota failed last week when the score was Dallas -3, Minnesota - 0. The final score was Minnesota - 34, Dallas - 3.

No, I took numbers from early in President Reagan's term, when unemployment reached double digits. They are comparable to 1 year into President Obama's term. You can't compare the first year of a President's term to 8 full years of another President's term. Now, unemployment at this stage of President Obama's term is higher than it was under President Reagan (10.0% vs 8.5%). I wanted to show that, notwithstanding your claims vis a vis tax cuts, unemployment dramatically increased after the 1981 tax cut, to a point higher than it is now. Will unemployment still be in double digits by the end of next year? I don't know, nor do you.

So, unemployment went into double digits a year after the tax cuts of 1981. However, unemployment did fall after several tax increases. Including an increase in 1982, which is one of the largest tax increases in US history.

http://www.factcheck.org/treasury_tax_expert_to_bush_clintons_increase.html

"The study said that inflation-adjusted "constant dollars" is probably only the second -best measure of the size of a tax increase. "The single best measure for most purposes is probably the revenue effect as a percentage of GDP." That's Gross Domestic Product, the way we gauge the size of the economy. Clinton's tax increase isn't the biggest by that "best" measure, either. In the period since 1968, the study said, "the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 was the biggest increase." That was the tax increase signed by Ronald Reagan, rescinding some of the effects of his huge tax cut passed the year before.

That 1982 tax increase only slightly exceeded Clinton's in inflation-adjusted dollars ($37 billion a year vs.. $32 billion) but it was much bigger in relation to the size of the economy. The '82 increase amounted to 0.8% of GDP (average for the first two years) while Clinton's was 0.5%."

So, did the tax cut cause the large upswing in unemployment and the tax increases result in the reduction?

[1bad65]

No, I took numbers from early in President Reagan's term, when unemployment reached double digits. They are comparable to 1 year into President Obama's term. You can't compare the first year of a President's term to 8 full years of another President's term.

They are not comparable. They are a full year off! Mine are from the exact same time frame. You are trying to manipulate the data, it's beyond obvious.


Will unemployment still be in double digits by the end of next year? I don't know, nor do you.

Every economic indicator says it should be. Hell, look at my original post on this very thread. Jobless claims are again up.


So, unemployment went into double digits a year after the tax cuts of 1981. However, unemployment did fall after several tax increases. Including an increase in 1982, which is one of the largest tax increases in US history.

So, did the tax cut cause the large upswing in unemployment and the tax increases result in the reduction?

The cause of the 1982 recession was a contractionary monetary policy established by the Fed to control the massive inflation of the Carter years (13.58%). Reagan had to control inflation, inflation is a cancer to any economy. Notice I pointed out that Obama inherited low inflation from Bush. So Reagan did better after one year than Obama did, yet Reagan inherited an economy worse than Obama did. Also, Reagan inherited record high prime interest rates. Face it, Reagan fixed problems, so far Obama is exacerbating them.

[1bad65]

Drake; this is a perfect example of how one man, Obama, is wrecking the economy.

"Financial shares pulled the stock market lower Thursday as President Barack Obama proposed rules that would limit the types of trading banks can do with their money.

The Dow Jones industrial average tumbled 210 points after dropping 122 on Wednesday. The index has seen four straight triple-digit moves and the latest slide erased the Dow's gains for 2010. Bond prices rose as the stock market became more volatile.

Tightening the rules on risk-taking and trading at banks could hurt profits at those companies. Obama said he would seek to limit the size and complexity of large financial companies so that a bank's collapse wouldn't endanger the overall financial system.

The move could mean changes for how big financial institutions like Bank of America, Citigroup Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. are structured. Each of the stocks fell more than 5 percent.

Weakness in manufacturing also brought concern that the economy might not be recovering as quickly as hoped. The Philadelphia Federal Reserve said manufacturing in its region fell in January from December. Its index of regional manufacturing conditions fell to 15.2 from a revised 22.5 last month."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100121/ap_on_bi_st_ma_re/us_wall_street

So let's analyze this. Just a month ago, Obama had bankers in the White House to try and get them to loan more money to the private sector. This is exactly what is needed. So it would appear Obama was on the right track. Then, just one month later he decides to hammer on the banks again! It's the epitome of Idiocracy.

FYI, the bankers told Obama the reason they were not lending more was that the private sector was not asking for many loans. And they told Obama the private sector is terrified to borrow money when they see he wants to pass cap-and-trade, and increase regulations which will gobble up any profits they might make by borrowing the money to do things like expand. Businesses are terrified of his policies, and instead of listening to the very private sector he claims he is wanting to help, his answer is to hammer them more with more taxes and regulation. He says he wants the private sector to take risks (ie borrow money to expand) in order to grow, yet he tells them he is gonna punish them for expanding!!! It's madness.

[BoulderDawg]

FYI, the bankers told Obama the reason they were not lending more was that the private sector was not asking for many loans. And they told Obama the private sector is terrified to borrow money when they see he wants to pass cap-and-trade, and increase regulations which will gobble up any profits they might make by borrowing the money to do things like expand. Businesses are terrified of his policies, and instead of listening to the very private sector he claims he is wanting to help, his answer is to hammer them more with more taxes and regulation. He says he wants the private sector to take risks (ie borrow money to expand) in order to grow, yet he tells them he is gonna punish them for expanding!!! It's madness.

Didn't know Bad was such an important person.

The only way he could know what a group of bankers told Obama would have been if he was sitting in on the meeting.

Guess Bad's a big deal in Washington!:D

[1bad65]

The only way he could know what a group of bankers told Obama would have been if he was sitting in on the meeting.

Actually all I did was read a Reuters story on the subject.

"President Barack Obama told top U.S. bankers on Monday they owed it to the country to help lift the economy out of crisis by lending more money to small businesses in need and embracing financial reforms.

"Given the difficulty that business people are having as lending has declined, and given the exceptional assistance banks received to get them through a difficult time, we expect them to explore every responsible way to help get our economy moving again," Obama said.

He said that meant finding ways to help credit-worthy small to medium-sized businesses get the loans they need. Obama said he was receiving letters from small firms saying they could not get loans.

Some analysts said credit availability was not the biggest problem.

"You can't create loan demand if people aren't confident in the economy," said Anton Schutz, president of Mendon Capital in Rochester, New York.
Davis said the firms "agree viscerally" more lending needs to be done but want to make sure they do not put the financial system back in harm's way.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs acknowledged the banks are facing pressure from regulators to adhere to strict capital requirements that constrain their ability to lend."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B92U520091214

You gotta just shake your head at the White House openly admitting banks are facing pressure from regulators that constrain their ability to lend, and then propose a solution of more regulations. Can someone maybe explain the reasoning here? I'll admit they have me confused. :confused:

[dimethylsea]

Yeah. I'm so ****ed off.. the second Obama took office 12 hours later we plunged into the deepest economic drop-off since the Great Depression.

We have 2 wars going on which HE started.. when the GOP was in charge it was a time of peace and plenty.


Oh wait a second. But let's not worry about the truth. Let's insist that the person elected to FIX problems caused by the Right must use the solutions of the Right to fix the problems caused by the solutions of the Right!

Right?

[BoulderDawg]

Isn't it amazing that dereguation is what got us into this and now the Teabaggers are screaming for more.

Hmmmm...wonder what would happen it I try to put out this fire with gasoline?:D

Their stragedy is a sound one. Since the economy is down Attack hard and blame it all on Obama, also use the radical leftist tag,

"Obama is black/Muslim right? He's got to be in cahoots with the Arabs and the commies both....no doubt about it!"

In the long run the tactic of playing to the fears of middle America about having a black leftist in the White House is what's going to win out.

[Kansuke]

Isn't it amazing that dereguation is what got us into this .



That's a lie

[1bad65]

Isn't it amazing that dereguation is what got us into this and now the Teabaggers are screaming for more.


That's a lie

Of course you're right Kansuke. And the White House said so. Again, from the article:

"White House spokesman Robert Gibbs acknowledged the banks are facing pressure from regulators to adhere to strict capital requirements that constrain their ability to lend."

[1bad65]

In the long run the tactic of playing to the fears of middle America about having a black leftist in the White House is what's going to win out.

I think the 10% unemployment rate might have something to do with it.

And I don't think secret, backroom bribes helped Obama out either. Especially after Obama lied during the campaign and said the health care dedate would be shown on C-SPAN. What happened to that promise of "transparency" and "open government"?

[BoulderDawg]

Maybe we should go back to the good ole days of John D Rockefeller. There was no regulations then. Of course you worked a 60-70 week, your 11 year old daughter worked at the company, you were probably swimming in toxic chemicals, if you worked for the meat package industry you knew it was like playing Russian Roulette to actually eat their product............Let's not mention price control, industry control and market control.

For a more recent example let's look at the S&L crisis. Deregulation to the max there....really worked well. A program started by Carter and fully embraced by Reagan cost us billions to bail them out.

Now lets look at the current crisis....options on options on options....only about 1 out of 50 people who work on the street actually understand it.

Now let's couple all of this deregulation with the recent supreme court decision. How is any candidate doing to compete against a candidate with a half billion dollars from Wall Street backing him? THe return to the John D days looks more like a reality all the time.

[BoulderDawg]

http://negotiationisover.com/2010/01/20/mumia-speaks-from-death-row-we-need-to-take-to-the-streets/

Sad to say but I agree with every word.

Mumia is right! We as liberals have simply gotten lazy:


I’m the babiest of the baby-boomers, and we are a pathetic lot, my generation of Americans. Some revolutionaries. We’re a bunch of tenured professors now. Those of us who didn’t go off to prison over racism, Reagan or Bush sure sold out with Clinton. We sold out all our prisoners in the 90s.

No doubt.

[1bad65]

Once again BD, I ask this:

If the White House is saying "pressure from regulators" is part of the problem, why in the world are more regulations now the solution? :confused:

[1bad65]

Mumia is right!

You've went from worshipping a wife-beater to worshipping a cop killer. :rolleyes:

[BoulderDawg]

Once again BD, I ask this:

If the White House is saying "pressure from regulators" is part of the problem, why in the world are more regulations now the solution? :confused:

Who cares what comes out of the White House? Obama is conservative at heart and seems to be afraid of the right.

[1bad65]

"I’m the babiest of the baby-boomers, and we are a pathetic lot, my generation of Americans. Some revolutionaries. We’re a bunch of tenured professors now. Those of us who didn’t go off to prison over racism, Reagan or Bush sure sold out with Clinton. We sold out all our prisoners in the 90s." -cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal

Sound like your new hero isn't a big fan of your old hero. ;)

[1bad65]

Who cares what comes out of the White House? Obama is conservative at heart and seems to be afraid of the right.

I notice you were defending his policies earlier. :rolleyes:

He isn't afraid of the right, he is afraid of the voters. He may be clueless when it comes to the economy, but even he knows what happened Tuesday in Massachusetts meant.

[BoulderDawg]

I don't understand. Is "Cop Killer" some sort of code for political prisoner?

[BoulderDawg]

He isn't afraid of the right, he is afraid of the voters. He may be clueless when it comes to the economy, but even he knows what happened Tuesday in Massachusetts meant.


I don't know anything about that. Here's Mumia's take:


It was never going to come from high offices or the White House. That’s why it’s taking so long for us to get anywhere – we keep following the other guy’s leaders. Wake up, everybody – they let him in; we didn’t really put him there. The Change will have to come from us. We are the ones who abandoned our elders and revolutionaries, our poets and dreamers. Our real activists. We’ve left their executions to the next generation.

Of course, the white power structure allowed this man to be President. Any true change will have to come from us.

[1bad65]

I don't understand. Is "Cop Killer" some sort of code for political prisoner?

No you idiot. It means someone who was CONVICTED of killing a police officer.

So yet again, it appears you condone violence. And racism.

BTW, do you refer to that cop killer as a "Darkie"?

[1bad65]

Any true change will have to come from us.

And come November, there will be alot of change. :D

[Drake]

And come November, there will be alot of change. :D

Because liberals don't care about power, according to BD. That's a nice way of saying they're ok with not having to do any work except criticize those who are making the tough decisions.

[Kansuke]

Who cares what comes out of the White House? Obama is conservative at heart and seems to be afraid of the right.



You might want to take it easy on the 'medical' marijuana, hugo. :rolleyes:

[uki]

You might want to take it easy on the 'medical' marijuana, hugo.that means stop smoking it for medicinal purposes... move on to enhance creativity. :p

[Kansuke]

that means stop smoking it for medicinal purposes...


No one asked you, Clown boy. Go **** your unicycle or something.

[GeneChing]

uki and Kansuke, I now have to separate you. Go to separate corners and stop antagonizing each other. Cross that line and you both are banned.



I like a good flame war as much as the next member here, but this has just gotten pointless.

[BoulderDawg]

I don't get it with this Kansuke guy. That's all he has ever done. I've never seen a post where he didn't insult someone....and most those are so profanity laced they don't make it through the language filter.

[1bad65]

I don't get it with this Kansuke guy. That's all he has ever done. I've never seen a post where he didn't insult someone....and most those are so profanity laced they don't make it through the language filter.

This coming from a guy who used a racial slur on this very forum. :rolleyes:

[BoulderDawg]

Considering the source it came from, being called a racist is high praise.

Might I suggest that you get with your buddy Limby and take a stroll in Harlem....Tell those brothers to take a few bones out of their noses and that the teabaggers are their friends.:D

[1bad65]

Considering the source it came from, being called a racist is high praise.

So you take pride in your racism?

[BoulderDawg]

So you take pride in your racism?

I don't see anyone here who is not an extreme right wing teabagger calling me a racist.

To be honest though everyone, to one extent or another, is racist. The goal of the liberals is tolerance of other cultures. We recogize differences in people and you will not find any liberal talking about color blindness or a melting pot.

[BoulderDawg]

I don't know......

Several more things though:

If liberal views are so insulting, harmful and are a threat to people of color then I'm just wondering why the vast, vast majority of non white people consider themselves left wing.....seems strange since you claim all us liberals are hateful racist.

Also, I've never seen anyone posting the profanity laced hatred that Kansuke has. On any other board he would have been gone in less than a week...yet you have rushed to his defence.

[1bad65]

yet you have rushed to his defence.

I defended a guy with a quirky sense of humor, who sometimes curses.

So far you have defended a wife-beating con man, several racists, and a cop killer...

[1bad65]

To be honest though everyone, to one extent or another, is racist.

Speak for yourself.

[BoulderDawg]

Speak for yourself.


I think that's the problem. You people honestly cannot see and have not a clue about racist attitudes in America. I feel pity.

[dimethylsea]

Because liberals .... are ok with not having to do any work except criticize those who are making the tough decisions.

This from the Right?AHAHAHA.

From the "we will just filibuster anything we don't like" crowd?



Pot meet kettle.

[Drake]

This from the Right?AHAHAHA.

From the "we will just filibuster anything we don't like" crowd?



Pot meet kettle.

I'm not a republican, nor do I belong to any of the republican-esque independent parties. Try again.

[BoulderDawg]

This from the Right?AHAHAHA.

From the "we will just filibuster anything we don't like" crowd?

Pot meet kettle.

:D

I'm not going to blame anyone for playing the game. During Bush's time the teabaggers continued to btch and moan......"Why want they let us have an up or down vote"........:D It's a two way sword.

One thing I do take issue with is if I'm a member of a political party in congress I might not agree with every bill that party put forward however I sure would not vote against my own party in a procedural vote. I would give my party an up or down vote no matter how I felt about the issue....

In any case all this is moot. I wouldn't serve in congress if they shackled up and brought me up there!

[1bad65]

Well, maybe we will get more filibusters now because what Obama has done is obviously only making things worse.

From today's news:

"Unemployment rates rose in 43 states last month, the government said Friday, painting a bleak picture of the job market and illustrating nationwide data released two weeks ago.

That is consistent with nationwide trends. Employers shed a net total of 85,000 jobs in December, the government said earlier this month, after notching a small gain of 4,000 jobs in November.

In another nationwide trend, long-suffering states like California and Michigan saw their jobless rates stabilize even as they continued to bleed jobs. That's because thousands of frustrated workers gave up hunting for work and dropped out of the labor force, which means they aren't included in the unemployment rate."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100122/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_state_unemployment

But the good news for Obama is that so many Americans have given up (or had their unemployment coverage reach it's limit) that the unemployment rate may stabilize! You do realize if the Democrats do extend yet again the amount of time you can draw unemployment, the rate will go up as people who are no longer eligible for benfits, and thus not factored into the unemployment rate, will be counted again.

[1bad65]

If unemployment is still at 10% or higher come November, the Republicans will take control of the House, and make huge gains in the Senate.

Speaking of the Senate races, Obama's seat is up for grabs as well....

[AJM]

The corporate world and their government stooges have been raping the system that used to work since 1971. Things are going to get worse before they get better.