The Angry Rich

[MasterKiller]

"But rather than taking the political risk of bringing the motion to a vote, Democrats pulled off what appeared to be a stunt of their own: When the time came for the scheduled vote last Thursday, they huddled in a back room -- denying Republicans the quorum they needed to take action.

I wonder why....

[BJJ-Blue]

I wonder why....

So you feel it's completely ok for the majority to lock out the minority from debate?

And keep in mind, in my example the Democrats did the lockout to PREVENT a vote. The Republicans were not trying to filibuster in that example.

[Hardwork108]

The Angry Rich

The Obama Deception:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw





.

[Reality_Check]

Clinton's jobs were mostly created via the Dot-com boom. And Clinton actually cut capital gains taxes. Since capital gains includes stock market profits, alot of investing went on in the stock market at that time, and the Dot-coms were the biggest gainers by far, until the Dot-com bubble burst shortly before GW Bush took office.

I notice you did not include jobs created during the Reagan Administration. Is there a reason for that? Also, if you include the data as to what those created jobs actually paid the workers, you would see alot of Carter's jobs created were lower income bracket jobs, while Reagan created alot of middle class and higher income bracket jobs.

I notice that you did not answer my question. Why was job creation so poor under the Administration of George W. Bush?

[David Jamieson]

a filibuster is not debate, it is and always has been abused as a stalling tactic so that bills can die on the floor.

there is no honour in what the GOP has been doing in that respect and it is showing the neo-con true colours.

I think the majority fo the USA don't care much for the loud little group of fascists trying to push their crap around. :-)

good for america and good for her representatives for finally getting a handle on how to deal with these goon squads.

thats' politics for you.

[BJJ-Blue]

I notice that you did not answer my question. Why was job creation so poor under the Administration of George W. Bush?

Because it wasn't. You're just repeating talking points and not presenting us with any data. Here, I'll show you some data proving my assertions:



"You can see two yellow dots in January 2001 and January 2009, and a thin yellow line extended so we can measure the difference between the two. The red arrows show that, if you measure only endpoint to endpoint, 1.1 million net net jobs were created during the Bush Administration (I’m using the payroll survey in all cases).

But this analysis misses most of the story. We can see a steady employment decline from early 2001 through mid-2003, followed by a steady, strong, and sustained period of job growth for almost four years. This 46 month period is the second longest in recorded history for sustained job creation in the U.S., and more than eight million jobs were created during this period (the white arrows). A mild recession began in late 2007, followed by a severe contraction in the second half of 2008 and continuing into the Obama Presidency."

Source (entire article):
http://keithhennessey.com/2010/06/08...re-employment/

Also, unemployment averaged 5.3% during the 8 years of GW Bush's Presidency. Obama is averaging 9.5%.

And don't forget this one either: When Obama took office there were 32 million Americans on food stamps. In July that number hit 41.8 million, a record number.

Source - US Dept of Agriculture
http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/29SNAPcurrPP.htm

[BJJ-Blue]

a filibuster is not debate, it is and always has been abused as a stalling tactic so that bills can die on the floor.

But as my example showed, it was not a filibuster, but the MAJORITY not allowing a vote to happen.

there is no honour in what the GOP has been doing in that respect and it is showing the neo-con true colours.

Here is a great article on Democrat vs GOP filibusters. It has too much info to cut and paste, so just read it please and then comment on the parts you deem relevant. I will post excerps if you keep going down this road though, so I'd suggest you read it.

http://www.slate.com/id/2244060/

I think the majority fo the USA don't care much for the loud little group of fascists trying to push their crap around. :-)

My above link has data disproving that assertion.

thats' politics for you.

And so apparantly is bribing Senators and locking out the opposition from debate.

[David Jamieson]

"debate" is not "vote"

were they locked out of the vote? were they?

[Reality_Check]

Because it wasn't. You're just repeating talking points and not presenting us with any data. Here, I'll show you some data proving my assertions:



"You can see two yellow dots in January 2001 and January 2009, and a thin yellow line extended so we can measure the difference between the two. The red arrows show that, if you measure only endpoint to endpoint, 1.1 million net net jobs were created during the Bush Administration (I’m using the payroll survey in all cases).

But this analysis misses most of the story. We can see a steady employment decline from early 2001 through mid-2003, followed by a steady, strong, and sustained period of job growth for almost four years. This 46 month period is the second longest in recorded history for sustained job creation in the U.S., and more than eight million jobs were created during this period (the white arrows). A mild recession began in late 2007, followed by a severe contraction in the second half of 2008 and continuing into the Obama Presidency."

Source (entire article):
http://keithhennessey.com/2010/06/08...re-employment/

Also, unemployment averaged 5.3% during the 8 years of GW Bush's Presidency. Obama is averaging 9.5%.

And don't forget this one either: When Obama took office there were 32 million Americans on food stamps. In July that number hit 41.8 million, a record number.

Source - US Dept of Agriculture
http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/29SNAPcurrPP.htm

The Bush Administration ran for 96 months, not 46 months. So, his net job growth was significantly below his contemporaries (1.1 million by your own link). Oh, and my evidence came from the Wall Street Journal, not exactly a bastion of liberal talking points....quite the opposite in fact. Even though his 46 month stretch created 8 million jobs, it was still well below the amount created by Jimmy Carter in 48 months.

Regarding your source:

http://keithhennessey.com/about-2/

I served as the senior White House economic advisor to President George W. Bush...

From August 2002 through the end of 2007, I served as Deputy Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and Deputy Director of the National Economic Council at the White House....

I’m now taking some time off to recover from 6+ years in the White House.

Might he be biased?

[BJJ-Blue]

"debate" is not "vote"

were they locked out of the vote? were they?

They were locked out of a debate, and the majoity refused to allow a vote on the floor. Ask yourself, why would a majority fear having a vote...

[BJJ-Blue]

The bottom line is that Bush created jobs, while Obama has lost jobs.

Might he be biased?

Bias or not, facts are facts.

[Reality_Check]

The bottom line is that Bush created jobs, while Obama has lost jobs.

Bias or not, facts are facts.

Biased in so far as Mr. Hennessey completely ignored the 3.6 million jobs lost from January 2008 through January 2009.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/06/news...uary/index.htm

The latest job loss is the worst since December 1974, and brings job losses to 1.8 million in just the last three months, or half of the 3.6 million jobs that have been lost since the beginning of 2008.

So, his choice of a subset of the entire Bush Administration is evidence of his bias.

Regardless, President Bush created fewer jobs in his 8 years in office than Presidents Carter (in 4 years), Reagan and Clinton. By your own rationale re: lower taxes and less regulation, that shouldn't have happened. Clearly you were seriously wrong.

Oh, and since you posted a chart, I'll post one too:

[BJJ-Blue]

Even though his 46 month stretch created 8 million jobs, it was still well below the amount created by Jimmy Carter in 48 months.

And let's take a look at those jobs Carter created:

Percentage of jobs created paying under $7k/yr: Carter 41.77
Percentage of jobs created paying over $28k/yr Carter -9.9

Source (US Dept of Labor figures):
http://web2.uconn.edu/cunningham/eco...#263,8,Results (4)

[BJJ-Blue]

Biased in so far as Mr. Hennessey completely ignored the 3.6 million jobs lost from January 2008 through January 2009.

You must have missed this part: "A mild recession began in late 2007, followed by a severe contraction in the second half of 2008 and continuing into the Obama Presidency."

He didn't ignore it, you just missed his comment on it.

So, his choice of a subset of the entire Bush Administration is evidence of his bias.

He used the ENTIRE 8 years of data. You just missed that part.

Regardless, President Bush created fewer jobs in his 8 years in office than Presidents Carter (in 4 years), Reagan and Clinton. By your own rationale re: lower taxes and less regulation, that shouldn't have happened. Clearly you were seriously wrong.

So what? Carter's job creation created over 40% of hamburger-flipper jobs.

And you still haven't addressed why we have SHED JOBS over Obama's ENTIRE TIME in office.

[Reality_Check]

You must have missed this part: "A mild recession began in late 2007, followed by a severe contraction in the second half of 2008 and continuing into the Obama Presidency."

He didn't ignore it, you just missed his comment on it.



He used the ENTIRE 8 years of data. You just missed that part.



So what? Carter's job creation created over 40% of hamburger-flipper jobs.

And you still haven't addressed why we have SHED JOBS over Obama's ENTIRE TIME in office.

No, his whole point was to highlight the 46 month stretch where 8 million jobs were created, in order to attempt to undermine the fact that the Bush Administration had a horrible record on job creation. "...facts are facts"

As my chart clearly demonstrated, the Obama Administration was/is dealing with the fallout from the Great Recession. It even took Paul Volker time to get inflation under control and for the job gains of the Reagan Administration to begin. Is there job creation going on? Yes. Is it enough? No.