Republican Debate

Whoever wins, it will be a disaster. I just think Gov. Perry will be the next President. I'm not happy about, I just think that.

Be that as it may, I am going to enjoy my grandkids, listen to good music, enjoy adult beverages with friends, and hobby when I get the chance. No sense letting the country go down the tubes ruin everything. Oh, and I enjoy stirring the puddin' here, you guys are a lot of fun! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I am curious what in the world makes you think Perry has a chance of winning?

If you're that disconnected from reality, it's impossible to take you seriously. Originally Posted by Kshunter

And if you think the majority of the UE is a result of when Obama came in office please let me sell you some prime ocean front property. If you can give me one credible source that states the majority of the UE is strictly due to Obama's policies than I will deactivate mt ecce account and never return- here's my source:

For those people - here you go.

The BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) has monthly national unemployment data published on their site from January of 1948 until present day.

That's a total of 745 months worth of data.

To start - the AVERAGE monthly national unemployment rate between January, 1948 and January, 2010? 5.66%.

The highest unemployment rate posted during that time? 10.8% (November, December of 1982).

The lowest unemployment rate posted during that time? 2.5% (May, June of 1953).

--

Since January of 1948, Democrats have occupied the White House for a total of 313 months (out of a possible 745).

The average monthly national unemployment rate during those 313 months? 5.29%.

The Republicans, on the other hand, have occupied the White House for a total of 432 months since January of 1948 (out of a total of 745).

The average monthly national unemployment rate during those 432 months? 5.93%.

So, according to the data from BLS.gov, the national unemployment rate has been, on average, 0.64% higher when a Republican has been occupying the White House.

Here is a breakdown of each president and the average unemployment rate while they were in office:

Harry S. Truman (D) - 4.26%
Dwight D. Eisenhower (R) - 4.89%
John F. Kennedy (D) - 5.99%
Lyndon B. Johnson (D) - 4.22%
Richard Nixon (R) - 5.00%
Gerald Ford (R) - 7.77%
Jimmy Carter (D) - 6.54%
Ronald Reagan (R) - 7.54%
George H.W. Bush (R) - 6.3%
Bill Clinton (D) - 5.2%
George W. Bush (R) - 5.27%
Barack Obama (D) - 9.3%

--

Considering that the national unemployment rate is currently 9.7% and is not expected to drop under 9% until 2012, the Democratic average will obviously rise over the coming years.

It's interesting to note that the difference in the national unemployment rate between when Bill Clinton was president and when George W. Bush was president was less than 0.1% (5.2% vs 5.27%).

Note: in months where there was a change (for instance, Democrat out, Republican in) in terms of the political party occupying the White House, I counted the month that a party took office as part of their unemployment rate history. For instance, President Obama was sworn in January of 2009, so I counted the January 2009 unemployment rate as part of the Democrat's unemployment rate history

Source: Historical Unemployment Rates

Oh, and I enjoy stirring the puddin' here, you guys are a lot of fun! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I am absolutely ecstatic. A topic we agree. You may be right about that beer after all. LOL.

This should not be necessary but my numbers for unemployment did not come from any talking head, Rush or NPR. They came from the Bureau of Labor Statistics at the Department of Labor. http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2009/feb/wk2/art02.htm
Unemployment was rising when Obama took office but that wasn't what you initially said so you stand corrected. The trend was upward but did the bailout or TARP fix the problem? Unemployment had to stop somewhere but there is no proof that anything that Obama did helped the situation. It is only conjecture and I guess it depends on whether you believe or not. If you want to give credit to the bailout then you have to give the credit to Bush since it happened on his watch (with the acquiesence of both McCain and Obama). If you want to give credit to TARP then once again Bush should get the credit since he pushed it with the support of President-Elect Obama. Now if you can show misuse of money, cronyism, or corruption then that lands on Obama since he took control after the passage. I think there is ample evidence of corruption and just plain bad decisions. I, among many, don't believe in the fairy tale that Obama stopped things from becoming worse than they are.

As for the numbers, nice numbers but things don't change the day a president takes office. I may be taking a chance but I think the numbers should be calculated from about six months into a presidents term to take account of any influence a new administration could have. Of course that makes Bush look worse but I think Obama suffers as well. Anyway, I think it is a more accurate way to make your raw numbers work. No, I am not going to do it. Thank you for doing it for us even if it is just not quite right.

I am curious what in the world makes you think Perry has a chance of winning? Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

LOL! If I told you how I came up with that, you would no longer wonder if I was out of my mind, you'd only wonder how long.

I'll reveal my method when it becomes obvious that I am right or wrong. But right now, I'd be willing to bet the adult beverage of your choice on it.



2016 for sure, but I think he's up this time.

This should not be necessary but my numbers for unemployment did not come from any talking head, Rush or NPR. They came from the Bureau of Labor Statistics at the Department of Labor. http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2009/feb/wk2/art02.htm
Unemployment was rising when Obama took office but that wasn't what you initially said so you stand corrected. The trend was upward but did the bailout or TARP fix the problem? Unemployment had to stop somewhere but there is no proof that anything that Obama did helped the situation. It is only conjecture and I guess it depends on whether you believe or not. If you want to give credit to the bailout then you have to give the credit to Bush since it happened on his watch (with the acquiesence of both McCain and Obama). If you want to give credit to TARP then once again Bush should get the credit since he pushed it with the support of President-Elect Obama. Now if you can show misuse of money, cronyism, or corruption then that lands on Obama since he took control after the passage. I think there is ample evidence of corruption and just plain bad decisions. I, among many, don't believe in the fairy tale that Obama stopped things from becoming worse than they are.

As for the numbers, nice numbers but things don't change the day a president takes office. I may be taking a chance but I think the numbers should be calculated from about six months into a presidents term to take account of any influence a new administration could have. Of course that makes Bush look worse but I think Obama suffers as well. Anyway, I think it is a more accurate way to make your raw numbers work. No, I am not going to do it. Thank you for doing it for us even if it is just not quite right. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

JD I will not fault Obama on the bailout- it was a necessary evil had he not approved the bailout and/or stimulus you no for sure the UE rate would have hit the roof- it surely wouldn't have obviously come down- do you know how many companies are affected by GM both directly and indirectly- had he not bailed out GM- 2 things would have occurred- 1) all you GOP fanatics would have said how unamerican Obama was and how he let a great American company fail and 2) the UE would have sky rocketed. Also, GM and the banks have re-paid the govt back- so what's the deal? Also, did not GM post last week that overall there sales have been up: http://detnews.com/article/20110503/...jumps-in-April Also GM sales increased 28 % in just China alone and GM would not have those record sales without the bailout money- so what's the issue.
I am still waiting for ANYONE to post a reputable source which will dispute that the majority of the 9.1 or 9.7% UE is a result from Obama's policies. The UE rate is greatly attributed to the Bush years and that's FACT buddy!!!! You guys act like when Obama took office the UE rate was 5%-jeez!!!

Well, first of all, I doubt the real unemployment figures are 9.7%, since they don't count those who have given up looking for work, and those who are underemployed. The President is the one who promised an UE rate of 8% or less, not Bush, not Boehner, but the President. So at best, his policies are ineffective.

As far as the stimulus goes, very little of that money was spent on job producing activities, and was just a payback to the President's pals. And as far as GM or AIG or any other company being "too big to fail" - do you realize what power that gives them? "Give us what we want, or we will go under." Absolutely the worst policy decision ever. That's what Chapter 11 bankruptcy is for. But a Chapter 11 would effect union contracts, and the President will not be elected if he doesn't bow to union supporters. It's all a con game, with smoke and mirrors.

It's like having an arsonist in charge of the Fire Department.

Well Endowed:

Two problems. First, we do NOT know how high UE might have climbed if the stimulus had not been passed. We also do NOT know where UE would be right now without the stimulus. There is no basis whatsoever to claim that the stimulus helped or prevented anything. What we DO know is that we spent $800 billion, on the *promise* that UE wouldn't go over 8%, and that didn't happen.

Second problem with your posts - setting all other considerations aside, Obama pitched the stimulus on a promise that UE would not go over 8%. Now he has to defend that when its time for re-election. Simple as that. Every President has to defend their record when they run for re-election. Obama is no different. Not only did unemployment go over 8%, two years down the road, it is STILL over 8%. That is just the reality of the situation, and that is what Obama has to defend.

Well Endowed:

Two problems. First, we do NOT know how high UE might have climbed if the stimulus had not been passed. We also do NOT know where UE would be right now without the stimulus. There is no basis whatsoever to claim that the stimulus helped or prevented anything. What we DO know is that we spent $800 billion, on the *promise* that UE wouldn't go over 8%, and that didn't happen.

Second problem with your posts - setting all other considerations aside, Obama pitched the stimulus on a promise that UE would not go over 8%. Now he has to defend that when its time for re-election. Simple as that. Every President has to defend their record when they run for re-election. Obama is no different. Not only did unemployment go over 8%, two years down the road, it is STILL over 8%. That is just the reality of the situation, and that is what Obama has to defend. Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

Sin I respectively disagree- this is an economic recession on a worldwide on a global basis there is no quick fix. There's not one intelligent person who thinks that had McCain been in office that the UE rate would be at 5%- it just wasn't going to happen no matter who was in office.
Ask yourself why Obama approved the stimulus- remember George Bush approved the 1st one and you will not find one economist who will say that the UE rate would have been lower had there been no stimulus and/or bailout- everyone that I read said it was needed(stimulus) to avoid a major crisis. Had GM folded it would have increased the UE rate by at least 35 alone.
So you guys are mad because Obama promised it at 8 percent and it didn't reach 8%? So wow is Obama the only President who promised something and didn't happen? Ah let me refresh your memory remember Georhe H Bush-.."read my lips no new taxes..." What about George Bush we will capture Osama Bin Laden(under his tenure) or the war in Iraq will be quick(mission accomplished). The 800 billion compared to the Trillions spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan war- and what did that accomplish???? You want to talk about spending- how was Medicare Pat D paid for under Bush??? It wasn't it's a 100 billion taxpayer dollars charged to the deficit. Do you know the cost of the Iraq war- estimate range from 600 million to 1 billion a day(that includes the logistics and all) and again that's 600 millon to 1 billion tax dollars a DAY not a week or a year a freaking DAY!!!-So don't dare through this 800 billion dollar crap out to me. It's estimated that Osama Bin Laden alone cost the U.S to spend 3 trillion tax payer dollars to "keep America say" yes a 6 foot bad kidney arab man who spent most of his life living in a cave scared America to the tune of 3 Trillion dollars- and what did all that spending do for us? I'll tell you it got us in to the pile shit we are in now and you have some nerve to talk about 800 billion which was money Obama spent to get us out this shit Bush put us in.

Everything is Bush's fault. Republican Presidents lied, so quit bitching when our guy lies. Other presidents spent too much money, so our guy can spend as much as he wants. Ok, I get it. Other presidents have screwed things up, so don't expect our guy to be any different.

Finally.....................CO G gets it.

Flaming moderate!

Catchall for all faults.and deservedly so.

Let me see, if I remember right, CNN is the good network, while FOXnews is a bunch of biased, lying idiots. I got that right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmqU_tpAjBM&NR=1

Anderson Cooper gets an "A" for courage.

Another view:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1r5SlXuYTg&NR=1

Morris is a hired gun assuming the party of his employer irregardless of how he votes. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Assuming the party of his employer? That's where you lost your credibility, right there.

However, I do like how you threw in the "irregardless of how he votes" just in case someone posted that he voted for Republicans during that time. If he voted solidly for Republicans while working for a Democrat he'd be a Republican whore, not a Democrat.

What's the difference between a Republican whore and a Democrat.

I recall TV Guide reporting that Ronald Reagan voted for Bill Clinton which was soundly contested by Nancy Reagan in later years. Morris can vote personally for anyone he wants but he is still advancing the democratic agenda with his actions. So he must be a democrat in his efforts.
There is no logical reason to believe that the bailout saved the economy. It may have saved a couple of large companies but that is not the economy. In 1930 Sweden become the first country to overcome the Great Depression. The king called in all of the nation's currency, destroyed half, and reissued the remainder. There was pain felt by the citizens over losing half of their wealth but real assets (homes, property, equipment, factories, etc.)remained. By the end of 1930 their economy was nearly back to normal whereas the US economy languished until 1942. You can claim (without evidence) that the bailout saved the economy but it also attached an anchor that will be dragging the economy down for the next century and that can't be denied.
As for GM paying off what they owe, that is not quite true. GM recieved money under Bush and Obama. When Obama announced that GM paid off their debt, he carefully said money that Obamam loaned GM. The fact is that GM has paid off 90% of their debt so they still owe about 1 billion dollars and the International Autoworkers Union now owns about 46% of GM. Those stocks were taken from the rightful owners for about 35 cents on the dollar. They were given no choice. There was no litigation, no arbitration, no choice. Billions were stolen, for lack of a better term, from pension fund holders and stockholders.
Real unemployment is somewhere above 16% right now according to the Wall Street Journal, the Huffington Post, the Dept. of Labor, etc. This should demonstrate that you can't except ANY numbers from this administration until you check them yourself.
Saying that McCain would not have gotten unemployment down to 5% is a bogus argument and you know better. I do have to point out that at least McCain was honest about not knowing how to fix the economy in Sept. 2008. I assume he would have brought people in who know job, business, and economics instead of activist, communists, and anti-capitalist underlings like Obama. McCain may have not done great but it is very likely that he would have done better.