Because the Republicans lust for power has made them put party first over the good of all the American people.

The Republicans in congress have thrown up road block after road block in an attempt to regain executive power - not to assist in any economic recovery - and now they're perplexed at how President Obama has been able to successfully correct the terrible course the Bush Administration set this country on when they were at the helm.

As former president Clinton said, we were left with a huge economic mess four years ago, and it was a disaster that could not be righted easily or quickly (let alone with extra impediments thrown in by the Republican congress).

Imagine how much better we would be doing if the Republicans didn't block the jobs bill. They should all be voted out this November.

The economy has been slowly and steadily improving under President Obama, and the jobs numbers are reflecting it. No cooking of books, "Chicago Style" as Grampa Simpson whined in his tweet (he probably meant more like "GE style" back in the day).

Don't be afraid to be happy for an improving economy, just 'cause your party isn't president.

flowerschild

LOL The libs have been saying this for the last three years.

Don't be afraid to be happy for an improving economy, just 'cause your party isn't president.


_______________________________________

Right on! No one from the right has lost their job, their life savings, had their house foreclosed on them when everything went from bad to disaster the past four years...so yes, the right is not happy the economy is improving. Oh, and about that bridge....

Your remarks show an abysmal ignorance of fact.

The economy is stagnant. 1.3% growth is in no way a "recovering economy".

If this man's policies had improved things, I'd support him at least in that aspect. They have not.

Instead, his policies have created seven trillion dollars in new debt and he blames it ALL on Bush.

I'm sorry. Bush is not, and has not been the president for the past four years.

The economy stinks. The unemployment figures are suspect (analysts have stated it would take over a half-million new jobs to show the decrease in unemployment that was released last week, yet there were less than 150,000 new employees... so where is obama's 'simple math' there?)

Over 20 MILLION people are still out of work that had jobs before this all started under a Democratic Senate and Democratic House, and continued and accelerated under a Democratic Senate, House and President...

That is not an improving economy, fc. This economy is struggling to stay even and ultimately failing under this president. More government regulation, more government debt, more government spending... is NOT going to help the economy. It will suppress the economy because every cent of the money that the government is spending is either bogus printed cash causing inflation (you do understand what that is, correct?), or borrowed (41% of every dollar the federal government spends for ANY reason is borrowed money under this man's "economy"), adds to the national debt, which has already exceeded 16,000,000,000,000 dollars.

You liberals were screaming when George Bush added 600 billion dollars to the national debt. Obama called it "UNPATRIOTIC" to burden future generations with such massive debt increases. Then, you excuse him time and time and time again when he does that much and more two times every single year!

There really is only one word to describe this - you people aren't in denial - you are simply hypocritical.

Fail. Go read up on economic indicators and other metrics, like U-6. Then stop reading the panting Obama-loving press for once.

Saw yesterday that at the "new improved" cobbled together unemployment number of 7.9% ..... it will take 15 years to reach full employment

Bears

flowerschild

Don't Bogart that joint my friend

Bears

Your remarks show an abysmal ignorance of fact.

Talk about projection.


The economy is stagnant. 1.3% growth is in no way a "recovering economy".

If this man's policies had improved things, I'd support him at least in that aspect. They have not.

You guys cheerlead Republicans in Congress as "doing their job" when they block legislation proposed by Obama or Democrats at large. They've made a habit of such obstructionism and it's a point of pride for GOP leadership. Mitch McConnell proudly (and stupidly) admitted it.

Now you want to complain that the "man's policies" haven't done any good. Yet, with the exception of direct spending provided for in the stimulus bill (could have been more but Republicans wanted tax cuts), the "man's policies" regarding job creation have been forestalled by Republicans in Congress at every turn.

You're complaining about the effect of policies that have never been implemented. Maybe you have to be part of the Conservative brain trust to maintain this sort of cognitive dissonance.


Instead, his policies have created seven trillion dollars in new debt and he blames it ALL on Bush.

I'm sorry. Bush is not, and has not been the president for the past four years.

It took Bush eight years to turn a surplus into a $1.5 trillion deficit. Now you guys want to hang Obama with the entire national debt while expecting him to turn this around in four years in a recession while Republicans thwart economic progress at every turn.


Over 20 MILLION people are still out of work that had jobs before this all started under a Democratic Senate and Democratic House, and continued and accelerated under a Democratic Senate, House and President...

From the day Obama took office the jobs situation began to improve. It was under that Democratic Senate, House and President that we turned from losing 800,000 jobs a month into gaining 200,000 jobs a month. In terms of "acceleration" that's exactly what this leadership did to change the rate of employment growth from negative to positive. This "acceleration" notably stopped once the Republicans took back the House, and we've stayed at maintenance levels of employment growth ever since.


You liberals were screaming when George Bush added 600 billion dollars to the national debt.

George Bush added $1.3 trillion to the national debt with the stroke of a pen. Where were you when he was doubling what was once a paltry $5 trillion debt? Where were you when Reagan was tripling a $900 billion national debt? Where were you when Bush I was blowing up a $3 billion debt by half?

Under Reagan, the debt went from 32% of GDP to 53%
Under Bush I, the debt went from 53% to 66% of GDP
Under Clinton, the debt went from 66% to 53% of GDP
Under Bush II, the debt went from 53% to 84% of GDP

Thirty years of recent history of Republicans exploding the debt and you're all in a twist for Obama's failure to turn that ship around in four years.


There really is only one word to describe this - you people aren't in denial - you are simply hypocritical.

Projection of the highest order. Unbelievable.

....so yes, the right is not happy the economy is improving.

LurkerMom


At least you acknowledge the economy is actually improving; old man Jack Welch can't.

flowerschild

LOL The libs have been saying this for the last three years

NemesisToLibs


Clearly they have been acurate.
I guess it's funny because I'm acknowledging it in a post three years too late?

flowerschild

"You guys cheerlead Republicans in Congress as "doing their job" when they block legislation proposed by Obama or Democrats at large."

Yes more proposals that failed in his first 2 years. That's just what the Dr. ordered;-)

" They've made a habit of such obstructionism and it's a point of pride for GOP leadership. "

I will and have cheered the GOP for blocking failed liberal policies! Thank you.

"It took Bush eight years to turn a surplus into a $1.5 trillion deficit."

Who is the liar now?

"From the day Obama took office the jobs situation began to improve."

Actually it got worse before it got better AND it would have gotten better even if Obama did NOTHING.

" This "acceleration" notably stopped once the Republicans took back the House, and we've stayed at maintenance levels of employment growth ever since."

Nope. It stalled once Obamacare and Financial reform was passed, both liberal policies.

"Thirty years of recent history of Republicans exploding the debt and you're all in a twist for Obama's failure to turn that ship around in four years."

The right question to ask is was it conservative or liberal policies that created the mess we are in today. I know the answer is clear as daylight that it was passed progressive polices that have gotten us into the mess we are in today.

You guys cheerlead Republicans in Congress as "doing their job" when they block legislation proposed by Obama or Democrats at large. They've made a habit of such obstructionism and it's a point of pride for GOP leadership. Mitch McConnell proudly (and stupidly) admitted it.


The first two years of his term, Obama controlled the Congress.

Plenty of time (two years of control) to

fix the economy
propose a Foreign Policy
create a Energy Policy based on the US natural Resources
get banks to lend to help the housing crises
Fix the educational system
Come up with a cost effective healthcare system
Get out of Afganastan
Establish a solid trade arrangement with S America

But ... with 100% in his favor ....

He did squat!

Bears

"Clearly they have been acurate. "

If you are OK with a snail pace improvement,which you obviously are.

Don't talk about percentages. Percentages are the lowest form of political lies.

Obama turning the ship around? I'm sure you believe (and quite sincerely, I would suppose) that Obama has increased the debt at a slower pace than any other president in the history of the country.

The problem is that damned stubborn National Debt number, isn't it.

$4.899 trillion Bush increase (which I roundly condemned at the time, even though I understood it much better that this bull$hit that I see coming from the liberal Obama every day).

5.5 Trillion dollar Obama increase. If he hasn't gotten his own way at all, as you imply, how has he spent all that money, MV?

Liberals are hypocrites. Absolute, utter, bald-faced HYPOCRITES.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/natio... Oh, and by the way. Under OBAMA the national debt has gone over 100% of GDP for the first time in the history of the nation. (Just in case you somehow "missed" that little tidbit of information. I didn't want you to feel left out because I wasn't quoting percentages, like you did... Read the fourth paragraph.)

Talk about projection.

Well, let's see.

You guys cheerlead Republicans in Congress as "doing their job" when they block legislation proposed by Obama or Democrats at large. They've made a habit of such obstructionism and it's a point of pride for GOP leadership. Mitch McConnell proudly (and stupidly) admitted it.

Now you want to complain that the "man's policies" haven't done any good. Yet, with the exception of direct spending provided for in the stimulus bill (could have been more but Republicans wanted tax cuts), the "man's policies" regarding job creation have been forestalled by Republicans in Congress at every turn.

You're complaining about the effect of policies that have never been implemented. Maybe you have to be part of the Conservative brain trust to maintain this sort of cognitive dissonance.

Whole lotta wrong here. Let's recap some history.
democrats had the White House and the Congress for 2 years. The GOP couldn't stop diddly. So your complaints about obstructionism don't fly.

Next, you say the stimulus should have been more. LOL @ that. Want quotes from Biden saying it was about right? Want quotes from Larry Summers saying that only $250 billion would do anything positive?

Then you're missing more info. Obama's been on an EPA regulatory tear. As in, tearing up drilling and exploration leases. And blocking job-creating projects like the Keystone pipeline. So there's more to a bad Presidency than crappy legislation.

So far you're not doing too well. Let's keep going:

It took Bush eight years to turn a surplus into a $1.5 trillion deficit. Now you guys want to hang Obama with the entire national debt while expecting him to turn this around in four years in a recession while Republicans thwart economic progress at every turn.

Again, see above. And spare those of us who were conscious and following the economy the Clinton myth. Slick Willy had an dot com bubble and record cap gains revenues to play with, plus he was ignoring the military during his time. Also, it's pretty easy to be a budget hawk when Newt and the conservative Congress were going to tell him to eff off and sign budgets that he didn't like anyway.

But maybe you should have told Obama all of what you said. After all, he was the one who called running up debt "unpatriotic". If Bush was "unpatriotic", then what Obama has done can best be described as "Satanic".

From the day Obama took office the jobs situation began to improve. It was under that Democratic Senate, House and President that we turned from losing 800,000 jobs a month into gaining 200,000 jobs a month. In terms of "acceleration" that's exactly what this leadership did to change the rate of employment growth from negative to positive. This "acceleration" notably stopped once the Republicans took back the House, and we've stayed at maintenance levels of employment growth ever since.

Yeah, you go with this, LOL. Obama has presided over the shallowest and weakest recovery. Ever. Under him and the democrats ~1% GDP growth is considered "good". Under a real President, that amount would be considered "pathetic".

And 200k jobs a month? ROFL. Reagan did 5x that in just one month. That's called a real recovery.

The rest of your post is Games With Numbers. The kind of games that ignore our entitlement picture, growth prospects, and policies in place. In other words, useless.

If Obama was growing the economy at 10% a year nobody would complain about his spending. Because it would actually be accomplishing something.

But guess what? Look around the country and tell me if you see $6 trillion in improvements over the last 4 years. I'm dying for Romney to use that in the next debate. I'd follow it up with, "Do you see significant improvements in China? Good. You paid for it".

....so yes, the right is not happy the economy is improving.

LurkerMom


At least you acknowledge the economy is actually improving; old man Jack Welch can't.

flowerschild

____________________________

You have no idea how many from the middle class became 'the millionaire next door' because of Jack Welch, do you?

ModernViking wrote: Projection of the highest order. Unbelievable.

The practical reality is that Obama added more to the national debt in one term of office than all debt accumulators of previous administrations COMBINED.

spikie Under OBAMA the national debt has gone over 100% of GDP for the first time in the history of the nation.

I assume you actually believe this is a true statement.

Can't fix stupid.

Peter

"...it will take 15 years to reach full employment"

I wonder which administration had "full employment." With Republicans trying to increase unemployment and Obama trying to reduce unemployment, it is not likely to change much.

I wonder which administration had "full employment." With Republicans trying to increase unemployment and Obama trying to reduce unemployment, it is not likely to change much.

Believe it or not, the full employment rate of unemployment is roughly 4.5%

That last 4.5% are considered people who have just chosen to not work.

And, interesting, under Governor Romney, Massachusetts’ unemployment rate fell to 4.7%

That means ....... Yes, you got it, under Romney, the state reached "full employment"

Bears

bears says

The first two years of his term, Obama controlled the Congress.

You guys keep saying this over and over again.

It.
Is.
Not.
True.

spikie says

Don't talk about percentages. Percentages are the lowest form of political lies.


You just made that up, didn't you?

Tell me, did you pass sixth-grade math?

The first two years of his term, Obama controlled the Congress.

You guys keep saying this over and over again.

It.Is.Not.True.


You keep believing that if it makes you feel better ...... but, the man ran the show and did squat with it....


The apportionment of seats in the House was based on the 2000 U.S. Census. In the November 4, 2008 elections, the Democratic Party increased its majorities in both chambers, giving President Obama a Democrat majority in the legislature for the first two years of his presidency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress

Bears

Correction: 'And, interesting, under President Obama, Massachusetts’ unemployment rate fell to 4.7%'

You either give governors all the credit or you give all the credit to the President, not just what is convenient today.

Correction: 'And, interesting, under President Obama, Massachusetts’ unemployment rate fell to 4.7%'

You either give governors all the credit or you give all the credit to the President, not just what is convenient today.


OK ... OK ..... Boooosh did it .... Romney was in Office 2003 through 2007 ..... Boosh's term 2001 to 2009

2009-2010 ..... Obama Did Squat

Bears

Exploding RINO Incapable of answering a simple and logical question.



OK ... OK ..... Boooosh did it .... Romney was in Office 2003 through 2007 ..... Boosh's term 2001 to 2009

2009-2010 ..... Obama Did Squat---bears

The republican filth keep spouting the lies.

Wessex

<i?Exploding RINO Incapable of answering a simple and logical question.

Are you aware that a RINO is really a democrat?


Bears

New definition for RINO that I think makes more sense: a RINO is simply a progressive. We all know progressives can be found in both parties. Consider Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive, who had many similar ideas about the role of government that Woodrow Wilson had.

"Are you aware that a RINO is really a democrat?"

You should know, you are really a liberal. AFAIC a RINO just thinks that he/she is conservative. I'm not aware of anyone here that wants to pretend to be a Democrat. Most likely you are a Liberal Republican which is sometimes referred to as a RINO.

bears says

You keep believing that if it makes you feel better ...... but, the man ran the show and did squat with it....


"The apportionment of seats in the House was based on the 2000 U.S. Census. In the November 4, 2008 elections, the Democratic Party increased its majorities in both chambers, giving President Obama a Democrat majority in the legislature for the first two years of his presidency."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress


Look at that, the guy can use Google. But Obama did not "run the show" because he could not control the Democrats in Congress. They were fragmented and disorganized and did not follow even their own leadership, let alone the White House. And you know all of that perfectly well.

" But Obama did not "run the show" because he could not control the Democrats in Congress. They were fragmented and disorganized and did not follow even their own leadership, let alone the White House. And you know all of that perfectly well. "

So, by your own admission, Obama is a failed leader.

You should know, you are really a liberal. AFAIC a RINO just thinks that he/she is conservative. I'm not aware of anyone here that wants to pretend to be a Democrat. Most likely you are a Liberal Republican which is sometimes referred to as a RINO.


The yarn you are attempting to spin is becoming to long to make any sense .....

You can call a Buffalo a Rino if it makes you happy. Makes just as little sense


Bears

"And, interesting, under Governor Romney, Massachusetts’ unemployment rate fell to 4.7%"---bears


That was at a time when the US average was 4.6%. At best governor romney was mediocre.

Stats for 2006-2007
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/history/laus_03082007.txt

Look at that, the guy can use Google. But Obama did not "run the show" because he could not control the Democrats in Congress

If Obama chose to hitch his wagon to Pelosi and Reid, he deserves whatever ride he got.

Just to bad he and the Democratic party did not use the absolute power the voters handed them, to help the country.

Bears

"The yarn you are attempting to spin is becoming to long to make any sense"

It makes every bit as much sense as anything you post. As usual you can not contest what I have said.

That was at a time when the US average was 4.6%. At best governor romney was mediocre.

Bush and Romney through their mediocre efforts were able to get 4.6% or infact, total employment

So, if the mediocre guys could do it ..... what the heck is wrong with Obama, Pelosi and Reid?

Oh yeah ... someone posted earlier that Obama's problem was Pelosi and Reid


Tough score card to follow, this democratic ticket

Bears

It makes every bit as much sense as anything you post. As usual you can not contest what I have said.

OK ... here goes

I am neither Republican or Democrat. I have always voted beyond party lines. I have voted for Carter, Reagan, Clinton once, Bush twice ... 3 with dad Bush and held my nose and voted for McCaine, (but Obama has failed to prove my decision wrong.)

Guess that makes me an independent American

Bears

"Bush and Romney through their mediocre efforts were able to get 4.6% or infact, total employment"

More Democrat governors did better than romney. I said nothing about that other president. Romney was, at best, MEDIOCRE.

At best romney would be no better than Obama. We don't want another disaster like the Republicans had from 2001-2009.

No one cares how bad Obama is doing but we do care how much worse this country can become under Republican rule. Eight years was enough.

"Guess that makes me an independent American"

That's an insult to independents. Anyone that could vote for Bush twice is a true Republican or very gullible.

bears says

If Obama chose to hitch his wagon to Pelosi and Reid, he deserves whatever ride he got.

Just to bad he and the Democratic party did not use the absolute power the voters handed them, to help the country.

The voters did not hand anybody "absolute power." That's the whole point. It'd too bad that they didn't, but they didn't. The voters elected a motley crew of Democrats, some of them indistinguishable from Republicans. Those got elected because they didn't have the stench of Dubya on them.

I'm glad you're at least admitting that Obama did not have control of congress during his first two years.

There really is only one word to describe this - you people aren't in denial - you are simply hypocritical.

Projection of the highest order. Unbelievable.

actually it is so extreme it is BullSiiiitttthhhhh!!!

Dave