Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Another weak jobs report: Obama is a failure on jobs

Posted 1 year ago on Sept. 7, 2012, 10:14 a.m. EST by TheRazor (-329)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Contrary to his lie about creating manufacturing jobs ( the net loss of manufacturing jobs under Obama is the largest in history, he outright lied in his speech), ISNT 4 YEARS ENOUGH?

this should be a single issue campaign, JOBS. Nothing else. You can be like some posters here and worry about othrr stuff (see the zillion posts by bensdad) but we need jobs and in that Pres Obama is a dismal failure. Reagan inherited an economy far worse than Obama and onside of 2 years, the country was adding 2 million jobs a month. Same with Clinton.

Tax and spend doesnt work.

77 Comments

77 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by April (3196) 1 year ago

The reason the economy improved when Pres. Reagan took office is that inflation was brought under control through monetary policy by Paul Volcker (appointed by Pres. Carter and those efforts began under Carter and Reagan reaped the benefits), and oil prices came down. Oil prices began their decline when he took office and continued declining steadily through the first 6 years of his presidency.

And no, four years is not enough. This was the deepest and most damaging recession since the Great Depression. Every economic recovery ever has been helped by the housing market. This one was caused by the housing market. Sorry. You don't turn around 30 years of middle class wage stagnation, and then lump on top of that a very damaging economic crisis and expect to turn it around in four years.

There are deep structural problems with the economy. Much of which has to do with dangerous levels of wealth inequality and the transition of our economy from an industrial/manufacturing driven economy to an information/knowledge based economy. That's been building up for the past 30 years. And exasperated by the last 10.

And another thing, spending does work. Government spending brought us out of the Great Depression.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

many more work for minimum wage these days sans benefits

who is this middle class?

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 1 year ago

Wages are being driven down here because of outsourcing to lower wage countries. The middle class is being hollowed out because we didn't increase the amount of college grads and ramp up our education system to meet the demands of an increasingly knowledge based economy v. a manufacturing based economy. So knowledge based worker pay increases because of lack of supply of knowledge based workers and lower level workers pay shrinks in some kind of desperate, impossibly dumb, effort to compete with China. FUBAR.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

I don't believe in "outsourcing"

knowledge is not land or resources which from wealth is derived

[-] 0 points by TheRazor (-329) 1 year ago

Government spending brought us out of the Great Depression???!!! Roosevelt's own right hand economic advisor, Morgenthau, says that was a crock. You are poorly informed.

Plus we spent $850 billion. Didnt work.

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 1 year ago

FDR's programs helped but weren't big enough. WWII ended the Depression. The biggest government spending program in history.

[-] -3 points by brudlo (-454) 1 year ago

back to that tired old ( false ) argument about govt spending brought the usa out of the depression. fdr and his alphabet soup spending prgrams did nt bring the the usa out the depression. WWII did. you are going to call that a spending program. what if WWII never happened? then what? fdr was a failure., his programs were failures. continuing to spend money you dont have on " programs " that dont work is not a plan for anything but failure.

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 1 year ago

This from the person that doesn't understand the basic mechanics of our monetary system, thinks that the government can go bankrupt, and that investments in green energy is more costly than the trillions and trillions of dollars and thousands of lives lost in two unneccessary wars.

You've already proven that you are breathtakingly stupid brudlo. I'm sorry you're a brainless knuckle-dragger.

[-] 0 points by TheRazor (-329) 1 year ago

The Iraq war cost $806 billion. What other war cost $2 trillion to add up to Trilllions and Trillions of dollars?

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 1 year ago

The effects of the Bush tax cuts and both wars. Nobody goes to war and cuts taxes. It's fiscal stupidity.

Hold on! This post is being interrupted for a special address from The Leader of the Republican Party, Mr. David Koch:

“I think it’s essential to be able to achieve spending reductions and maybe it’s going to require some tax increases,”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80483.html#ixzz25o677d9S

[-] -3 points by brudlo (-454) 1 year ago

"investements' the key word for dems, right up there with " its for the children". keep printing money until its utterly worthless. " green energy" you mean like the billions of taxpayer $ wasted on solyndra, the volt, lightsquared? forget it. " green" anything is scam.

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 1 year ago

You know what your problem is brudlo. Aside from your obvious stupidity. You don't understand the structural problems of the economy. And when the house is on fire, you are worried about the crumbs on the kitchen floor. While the government isn't perfect, neither is the private sector.

It's ok brudlo. If you want to hate on the government the way Fox News tells you to do, thinks it has no role to play in society, if you are really that stupid, easily manipulated and narrowminded, the Republicans, Ryan/Romney deserve your vote. You are exactly the kind of stupid they are looking for on Nov. 6. The wealthy will love you for it too.

The debt is a problem but it's not the only problem. And it's fiscally and economically irresponsible and backassward wrong to increase taxes on the middle class, destroy social programs and try to balance the budget on the backs of the poor and the working poor. In order to give tax assistance to millionaires.

[-] 0 points by Faraujo (-4) 1 year ago

But it is okay to raise taxes on the rich so Sandra Fluke doesn't have to pay for her contraception. Maybe she should go out and get a job.

When do the freebies and handouts stop?

[-] -1 points by brudlo (-454) 1 year ago

i dont watch fox news. ever listen to rick santelli? he's on cnbc. obamacare is a tax raise on the middle class ( middle income ). you have your silly ( and devisive) dems talking points memorized.

[-] 3 points by agkaiser (1299) from Fredericksburg, TX 1 year ago

If consumers don't have money, producers won't add jobs to increase the supply of goods that won't be bought. If the government stops spending, the consumers will have even less money. Those who have all the money won't create jobs to make more money because the products won't be sold and the profit won't be made. In spite of the con, supply doesn't drive demand. Only foolish con economists think so. How can we get money to consumers so the rich will use their money to hire consumers to make products to sell to consumers instead of just lending their money to us at interest and making the problem worse. I'd say exacerbate but I don't want to confuse the fools who support the masters who are the problem because they have all the money. The root problem is concentration of wealth.

The root problem is concentration of wealth.

The root problem is concentration of wealth.

The root problem is concentration of wealth.

The root problem is concentration of wealth.

The root problem is concentration of wealth.

The root problem is concentration of wealth.

The root problem is concentration of wealth.

The root problem is concentration of wealth.

The root problem is concentration of wealth.

The root problem is concentration of wealth.

The root problem is concentration of wealth.

The root problem is concentration of wealth.

The root problem is concentration of wealth.

The root problem is concentration of wealth.

[-] 0 points by Faraujo (-4) 1 year ago

Supply doesn't create demand? So Say's Law is wrong?

If the concentration of wealth is the problem then tax everybody 100% and pay everybody the same. Will this work?

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 1 year ago

That's right. Say's law is not an absolute. At best, it's only generally accepted. And what it says is that purchasing power can be increased by increasing production. How many companies or business owners do you see increasing production if they don't see the demand for it? Supply exists to meet demand. No demand means no supply. Demand has to come first, when the problem is demand. Companies have record cash and profits. More than enough capacity to increase supply. But they aren't. Because there is no demand to warrant it.

Your other statement is nonsensical. I could say the same. Lets have no taxes at all. Will that work? But btw, taxes are already at their lowest rates in over 100 years. Since the Gilded Age. When wealth inequality was at similar dangerously high levels as it is today. Which was followed by the Great Depression.

[-] 1 points by Faraujo (-4) 1 year ago

Say's Law is more than generally accepted. It is the basis of classical economics and the equilibrium function of supply and demand. If you don't agree with it, then you don't believe that people react to the price function to buy goods.

What happens when a company produces a good when there is not enough demand for it. They lower the price to a clearing price and move the inventory.

The bigger question is will companies use their cash to build new product and that is a confidence question.

You state that the concentration of wealth is the problem. If it is the problem, then the way to fix it is to pay everybody the same. Are you saying that there is some type of correlation between the concentration of wealth and depression, because nobody has shown a mathematical correlation.

Would no taxes work? Sure government is only there to do as a group what the individual can't do.

[-] -1 points by TheRazor (-329) 1 year ago

No. The root problem is foreign labor competition. Went shopping at Walmart a couple days ago. bought some REALLY nice onesies for some families who need help. The outfits cost $1.50. I bought 50 of them.

Companies can and do take advantage of offshoring jobs because the foreign labor market is now accessible.

If you want American jobs back, stop importing products from Sri Lanka and Malaysia. People will always do what is in their best interest, look for the cheapest product that will do the trick, and unless you change human behavior, low skill jobs wont get paid much.

[-] 1 points by agkaiser (1299) from Fredericksburg, TX 1 year ago

Look up subsumed.

[-] -1 points by TheRazor (-329) 1 year ago

For goodness sake, please address concrete issues! How does subsumed even relate to cheap good garments from Sri Lanka displacing unskilled American workers?

[-] 2 points by agkaiser (1299) from Fredericksburg, TX 1 year ago

Are you being deliberately obtuse or is it for real?

[-] 0 points by TheRazor (-329) 1 year ago

No help me.

[-] 2 points by agkaiser (1299) from Fredericksburg, TX 1 year ago

The only help I have to offer is the truth and that didn't work the first time. Reread the thread and maybe it will set you free.

[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Who has done the most to make the job situation bad? The Repelicans who put the incentives in to export jobs to China, the Repelicans who would not pass the transportation bIll, the jobs bill, the Repelicans who cut all of the teachers, police and firefighters...etc. etc.

What would Romney do? He owned a company whose service was helping export jobs so he can create them, in China.

[-] 0 points by TheRazor (-329) 1 year ago

And it was the smart thing to do, as EVERYONE wants cheaper goods. He also built Staples. Those service jobs cant be exported.

You have a choice 1) Place a very high, very punishing tariff on imported goods 2) Or spend like a drunk sailor and destroy our future.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Neither can mowing lawns. Or, 3) but neither 1) nor 2), they being false alternatives and all. I can see you are sincerely looking for the best solution, though, being smart. Maybe we should try to make it a little less smart? You have a choice.

[-] 0 points by TheRazor (-329) 1 year ago

Offer an alternative to 1 and 2 and 3, please.

If I started a Walmart clone and paid my staff $25/hr NO ONE would shop there, not a soul. YOU and every single other person would shop at the low price Walmart. Now if The cheap Walmart had to pay a very punishing tariff such that those cheap import were super expensive, then my $25/hr employees would be OK.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Rather than providing a tax incentive to export jobs, as we are currently doing, removing it would be a start. Then we could provide a disencentive for moving them which would help even more. I don't want to get too sophisticiated for you But you see the principle.

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 1 year ago

3) accept that manufacturing jobs aren't coming back. We can't play China's game and shouldn't even try. Invest heavily in education, increase the rate of college graduates (which, btw, hasn't increased in 30 years and is well below other OECD countries), in order to have a future.

Innovation creates jobs. Education is necessary for innovation and a future knowledge based economy.

[-] 1 points by TheRazor (-329) 1 year ago

Sometimes I wonder if anyone on this forum actually lives in the real world. There are lots and lots of people in America that simply cant make it as info techs. They build things with their hands. They can weld stuff or build washing machines. Your solution doesnt help them at all.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 1 year ago

That's absurd. So you don't believe that more than 30% or so of the population has the brain capacity to graduate college? Countries that have higher college grad rates than we do have more smart people than the US? That's really absurd.

The market is what the market is. The reality is there is only going to be so many positions available for welders or washing machine fixers. The market is growing for information/knowledge based workers. Machines and outsourcing are replacing manufacturing jobs. Someone has to design those machines. If we don't have the knowledge in this country to design those machines, someone else will do it.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Boehner's GOP House obstruction =>
Boehner's GOP economy and unemployment of 2012.

WHAT REALLY HAPPENED:
The economy was on the upswing after the first two years of the Obama presidency with the rescue of the auto industry, the stimulus package, etc. Then hate, Boehner, and the GOTea potty happened and there was to be no more consideration of ideas to solve problems because that was considered by the GOTea potty handing political victories of a political opponent.

GOP OBSTRUCTION:
What we have is the scandal of the Boehner/GOTea economy of 2012 what the country gets with a GOTea House obstructing every attempt to solve the problems 30+ years of failed conservative ideas and policies have caused. It is just like Boehner and McTurtle wanted it.

GIOP PUBLIC SECTOR OBSTRUCTION:
Republican obstruction at funding the public sector is costing 0.9 to 1.3 percentage points in employment. This is the opposite of what happened in other recessions in 1981, 1990, and 2000 when the federal government helped local and state governments. But Republicans in the House obstruct against.

GOP JOB OBSTRUCTION:
Republican obstruction on President Obama's American Jobs Act (AJA) is a scandal that costs another 1 to 1.3 percentage points,
according to independent analyses of the AJA.
Boehner's GOTea House will not bring the legislation up for a vote. This whole Republican scandals too huge to fathom in terms of human misery, but Republicans believe it can fool an irresponsibly inattentive and ignorant public.

GOPers continue sabotaging the economy! -
and blaming Obama for unemployment...
- GOP House votes to repeal Obamacare: 37
- GOP House votes to name Post Offices: 60
- GOP House votes for American Jobs Act: 0
- GOP House "jobs bills" analyzed by independent sources to provide actual jobs: 0

Boehner's GOTea obstruction =>
Boehner's GOTea economy and unemployment of 2012.

[-] 0 points by TheRazor (-329) 1 year ago

uh, what happened 2009, 2010? When Obama had a pure majority? No jobs act then. Nope. No what he tried todo was ram thru very radical social agenda, trying tp "transform" Amreica like Reagan and Roosevelt.
His signature legislation? American recovery act, ARRA.

200 economists said its would not work to create jobs but instead was an effort to greatly expand the pwer of the Federal government. It started as bipartisan but he turned EVERY Republican bit of input.

It failed to create jobs and the Tea Party was born.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

exactly what dates did Obama have 60 Democratic Senators?
And he should have centered on jobs as job 1
And the number of employed Americans has shrrunk every month since he was elected - right ?


"200 economists said its would not work to create jobs but instead was an effort to greatly expand the pwer of the Federal government. "
200 - WHO????????????????????

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 1 year ago

Nope sorry you're wrong. Based on a study by University of Chicago, 80% of expert economists say that the stimulus worked to create and save jobs as intended. For sure headed off a worsening recession or depression. Only 4% believe that it didn't work. The fact is the vast majority of experts says it worked. And if you think the freakin' batshit crazy Tea Party knuckle-draggers know more than expert economists.... seriously, I'm outta here.

And private sector job growth was increasing when the stimulus was in affect. Job growth climbed as the stimulus money was put in the economy. Since then job growth has again slowed.

[-] -2 points by robodan (-45) 1 year ago

About 4% believe it did work and it looks like you are one of them. Obama is the worst disaster that our Country has ever faced in history. 23 million underemployed. 1 in 7 on food stamps and a mountain of his failed policies. Not to mention that he wasted / spent more money than any other Pres in history.

[-] -2 points by DeathsHead1 (-111) 1 year ago

Yep.althe republicans fault. They, and only they, are keeping this world from true utopia!

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 1 year ago

What do you propose another round of Starve and Screw.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20529) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

American manufacturing jobs peaked in the late 1970s, according to figures from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The figures bounced up and down through the 1980s and 1990s before starting to drop steadily in 1998.

The sector employed 15.6 million in January 2002, according to BLS statistics, down from about 19.5 million in 1979. They declined steadily through the next 10 years, falling to just under 11.5 million in January 2010.

But then the numbers turned around, rising to 11.9 million at the beginning of 2012 and just under 12 million as of July.

But while the turn has been positive, the numbers of workers being hired each month are well below the figures posted a decade ago. New hires averaged about 400,000 a month in 2001, compared with about 250,000 in 2011.

.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20529) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

The economy was in a free fall losing 700,000 jobs a month when he took office. It eventually bottomed out and has been gradually recovering over the last two and half years. It is hardly cherry picking to refer to the pace of job growth in a recovery. (Does AP think Obama is repsonsible for the recession?)

In terms of manufacturing job growth going forward, 1 million jobs in four years is a pace of just over 20,000 a month. That is hardly exceptional. Furthermore, if we don't run trade deficits of $600 billion a year (4 percent of GDP) indefinitely, we will almost certainly close the gap in large part with manufactured goods. Reducing the deficit by 1 percentage point of GDP would imply more than 1 million new manufacturing jobs.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Tax and spend does not work ???? prove it!

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Looking at the Clinton years from 1993 to 2001 in the first link, the lower 90% had the best years of the last 40. Not that I support Clinton or the democrats, it's just what the figures show.

In the second link, during the Bush years from 2001 to 2008, the lower 90%'s income shrank a little.

But during the last 40 years, under all administrations, democrat and republican, the income of the upper 10% grew at the fastest rate since just before the great depression. Many here tend to base their arguments based on party affiliation, but when it comes to the top 10%'s income, party affiliation does not matter to them.

http://stateofworkingamerica.org/who-gains/#/?start=1993&end=2001

http://stateofworkingamerica.org/who-gains/#/?start=2001&end=2008

[-] 0 points by TheRazor (-329) 1 year ago

Clinton did a good job with the economy as did Reagan.

This issue is very much more complex. We wouldnt have a jobs crisis if we were a totally insular economy, with no need for overseas labor.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Looking at the proportion of wealth that goes to the top 10%, outsourcing doesn't seem to be the cause. They sure haven't been affected by it. More likely it's just due to plain old fashioned greed, unchecked by misinformation and apathy.

[-] 1 points by TheRazor (-329) 1 year ago

There was an article that detailed with great clarity that historically as economies become more diverse, those at the bottom suffer while those at the top prosper. It was a historical restrospective going back a few hundred years.

Those at the top dont suffer from outsourcing because they have put themselves in position to prosper from it. If I am the top dogs at Levi Strauss, and I can get my product made by skilled workers for $1.00/hour, I prosper.

Tariffs. Heavy, penalizing tariffs might help.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

But don't domestic employers also prosper when productivity has grown 80%, but workers wages have only grown 3% as it did from 1968 to 2008?

[-] 0 points by TheRazor (-329) 1 year ago

Why do you think productivity has grown? Machines. Look at retail clerks at a grocery store. I know this intimately. 40 years ago they needed real skills. Look at an item, know the price, punch a cash register, and do it quickly. 100s of items, each with a diff price. It was a real skill and the faster you did it, the better.

Now a robot can do it or WORSE, DIY.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Whether retail clerks are more or less skilled than 40 years ago makes no difference.

What matters is the great disparity in wealth. As the lower and middle classes wealth declines, so will the health of our economy declines. They are the backbone, and support the entire economy.

The wealthy can siphon their life out from them for only so long. Eventually the lower and middle classes will either collapse or they will rebel. Either way, the wealthy will eventually fall. It would much more prudent in the long run to distribute income more fairly.

[-] 0 points by TheRazor (-329) 1 year ago

Of course. But wishing and hoping wont change cold economic reality. A highly paid job of 40 years ago now can be done by a monkey, basically. Its the job of the owners of the grocery store to reduce costs and that means hold the line on clerk wages. giving more income to a clerk because the tools he uses have vastly improved isnt economically sound. HHe would do so much better knowing how to repair scanners and bar code machines than just standing doing a monkeys work.

Look at this change. I took my car in for repair. Guess how they diagnosed the problem? The electronic key! Popped the key into a computer and the key knew what was wrong.The engine computer sent a signal to the key, letting it know the car needed repair! No need for a human at all. No need for a seasoned mechanic to figure out the issue, the machines did it all. Another skilled job down the drain.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

It's obvious you haven't repaired a modern car. If the key was so smart, why didn't it perform the repair? The information it provides points to a possible trouble spot. It is also not 100% accurate. It still requires a trained mechanic to translate the trouble code, and to isolate and repair the problem part.

As the complexity of today's cars increases every year, so do the mechanics skill level.

The new cars are so much more complex than cars of the 60's and 70's that without some kind of electronic assistance, even the most competent mechanic would have a difficult time diagnosing problems of relatively easily replaced parts.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Yes a jobs campaign
Lets see, Obama had a jobs bill sent to the House How many Rs voted for it?


please don't tell me you are a david/charlie tool who does not believe in taxing the 1% to hire the 99% !!!


I assume you know that Obama has added more private sector jobs in 4 years than bush did in 8 years.

[-] 1 points by TheRazor (-329) 1 year ago

He had a Dem majority his first 2 years, did he not?

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

not in the senate

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

yes you are right - semantically
no you are wrong - politically

a "majority" is normally 50%
but to pass anything in the Senate, 60% is required

[-] 2 points by TheRazor (-329) 1 year ago

You know what Obama could have done with health care? He could have reached across the aisle, worked with Paul Ryan and said "I want a limited public option." Very basic medical care for all Americans." Er visits, yearly check ups, pediatric care, OG/GYN, trauma care. Now incorporate vouchers for advanced care, knee replacement, heart surgery, experimental treatments.

WIN/WIN. Case closed.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

that's not true

[-] 0 points by MsStacy (1035) 1 year ago

The Democrats had 60 until the special election in which Kennedy's seat went to Brown.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

They did not Liebermann & Sanders are not (D)

[-] 2 points by MsStacy (1035) 1 year ago

Technically true, ideologically they both caucus with the democrats and are counted as such for committee assignment. It was Brown that tipped the scales finally. Had Obama not wasted his time on an insurance law, he could have had his jobs bill. I believe both Liebermann and Sanders voted to invoke cloture on it.

[-] 0 points by TheRazor (-329) 1 year ago

Part of being a President is being a horse trader. reach across the aisle, trim your needs, offer a bone to the opposition. He didnt. He was very intransigent.

Teddy Kennedy got stuff done because he allied himself with Orrin Hatch(R, Mormon, staunch conservative) AND the Bushes, both.

Obama said F u to the Reps.

[-] 0 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 1 year ago

Another misrepresentation. A simple majority is required to pass legislation. The votes needed to overcome a filibuster don't change that fact. Filibuster proof majorities are rare and yet Obama seems to be the only president who just can't seem to get anything done without one.

"This so-called 60-vote threshold, while discussed endlessly by the media, is a transparent pretext for Obama abandoning the reformist pretenses of his election campaign on issues like health care, education, the environment and increasing taxes on the wealthy.

"In reality, the Democrats enjoy top-heavy majorities that would allow them to enact policies without a single Republican vote. The Democratic majority in the House is the largest for either party since 1994. The Democratic majority in the Senate is the largest for either party since 1978."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jan2009/cong-j07.shtml

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

You can't be that ignorant!
look at the statistics of the number of fillibusters fro the last 20 years

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 1 year ago

A filibuster can delay, but not defeat legislation. Why doesn't Reid just let them filibuster. They can't talk forever. Instead, Reid backs down every single time so of course the R's keep crying filibuster.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

really - you need to study this
Senate rules allow a filibuster without ANYONE talking.
Please look it up!

[-] 0 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 1 year ago

I know the rules. Reid can force them to talk if they want to filibuster instead of just filing a piece of paper. He just never does it.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

That is not true

[-] -1 points by TheRazor (-329) 1 year ago

It was his job to find the votes. They were there. He squandered his advantage with nonsense. After 2010, the Reps got tight and fought back.

[-] -3 points by brudlo (-454) 1 year ago

under bush , unemployement averaged about 5%, under obama its been 42 months of unemployemnt of over 8%.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

specifically why is the unemployment rate high TODAY
specifically, if YOU were president what would YOU do to lower unemployment

we were losing 800,000 jobs/mo when Obama took over

[-] -2 points by brudlo (-454) 1 year ago

WRONG. if that were so than how could the unemployment rate under bush be 5%? why is the rate been over 8% for over 40 months under obama because of the taxes under obamacare , employers are not hiring , under obama and the EPA , oil production and coal production has been shout off leading to hirer prices and less money that people have discretionary spending. food prices have soared , which is tied into energy costs.

[-] -1 points by DeathsHead1 (-111) 1 year ago

Obama and his Marxist minions are most pleased with. This.

[-] -1 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Well, the people voted him in for a 2nd term - they need to deal with it.

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 1 year ago

How many jobs do you think would have been created if Obama instead of investing 49 billion in General Motors, used that money to help people start businesses, create jobs by investing in new manufacturing in this country and train people for the future?