55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 02:20 pm
@parados,
In addition to the issues you identified, ican can't figure out that the great recession started in December of 2007 when GWBush was president, and the unemployment numbers were increasing in great numbers towards the end of 2008 and into 2009 where several months had over 600,000 lost jobs.

He wants Obama to take responsibility for the trending of the unemployment into 2009 without the faintest idea it was Bush's responsibility for the poor performance on the creation of jobs during his two terms.

There's no cure for stupid.
0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 03:03 pm
@JamesMorrison,
Just to get out in front of the next liberal charge that the Republicans are obstructionist, its all their fault, blah,blah:

http://www-origin.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/01/04/democratic-leaders-plan-secret-health-reform-deliberations

Quote:
...Dayen reported that the powerful California Democrat [Rep. Waxman]told constituents he would be coming back to Washington Tuesday to begin negotiations with Senate leaders and the White House about what a final healthcare bill will look like"even though the House doesn't come back into session until January 12.

According to Waxman, the process for moving will not include the standard House/Senate conference committee, because the motions to select and instruct conferees in the Senate "would need 60 votes all over again." Instead, whatever agreements made could be packaged in an amendment to the bills passed by the House and Senate.

By blocking out the Republicans"not to mention House Democrats who object to what the Senate passed"Pelosi and Reid are setting up a protracted game of "ping-pong," in which the legislation goes back and forth from the Senate to the House and back to the Senate again. They may be able to prevail as far as the legislation goes, ultimately, but at enormous cost to their majorities. And that may be the biggest secret of all as far as the healthcare debate is concerned, or at least the one Pelosi and Reid are most concerned about.


The Democratic leaders are throwing themselves and many of their brethren under the bus on this health care thingy. Transparancy and bipartisanship seem to have been 'redefined' by the liberals. Apparently they take Bill Clinton seriously about passing this at all costs. Odds are Reid, Dodd, and Boxer (perhaps many others) will soon be history.

Meanwhile one of those others may be Sen Bob Bennett (R-UT). If we are diligent perhaps we could replace this 'moderate' with a real conservative.
Quote:
Defeating Bob Bennett is a no-brainer. There is little chance a Democrat could win the seat statewide in Utah. Likewise, the Bennett defeat would come in a convention, not a bloody and expensive primary. If 60% of Utah Republicans reject Bennett at their state convention, he’s toast without a primary. And that convention happens in just a few months " which is why I put a higher priority on this than the Rubio v. Crist race. The timeline is rapid and gives us time to get back to Florida.
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/01/04/if-conservatives-are-serious-about-their-resurgence-they-will-defeat-bob-bennett-r-ut/

On the exciting side, Taxacusetts state Senator Scott Brown (R) is running in the special election for Teddy's vacant seat. A description of his political ad
Quote:
"His first TV ad begins in black and white with John F. Kennedy describing his 1962 tax cut bill: "The billions of dollars this bill will place in the hands of the consumer and our businessmen will have both immediate and permanent benefits to our economy." The screen slowly morphs into an image of Mr. Brown as he calls for a new tax cut by finishing Kennedy's remarks: "Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary. And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries, and more customers and more growth for an expanding American economy."

His chances are low but this is a race to watch because...
Quote:
Independent groups are mulling plans to drive down Ms. Coakley's [Brown's opponent]numbers by running ads that would point out that if she loses and Mr. Brown wins, Democrats would then be deprived of the 60th vote they need to pass a final health care bill. Candidate Brown is encouraging such thinking. "I could be the 41st senator that could stop the Obama proposal that's being pushed right now through Congress,'' he told reporters last week. Even holding Ms. Coakley to a narrow victory in uber-liberal Massachusetts would rattle Democratic cages and give members of Congress pause before a final health care vote.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703580904574638383072290664.html

The above quote should be sung to the tune of "Wouldn't it be Loverly?"Wink

JM
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 03:26 pm
@JamesMorrison,
JM, You missed out on all the GOP blog about stopping the democrat's health plan. I guess the "No Party" thinks they can continue to play with snow balls in hell.

The GOP isn't interested in negotiation; they want to completely delay or stop health care. You need to keep up with the news.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 07:48 pm
@parados,
Do you, Cice and Parados, understand that the continuous increases in total population in the USA over the period December 1980 to January 2010 cannot IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER explain why total USA employment increased over the period December 1980 to December 2007, while total USA employment decreased over the period December 2007 to October 2009?

The first pertinent fact is total USA employment decreased under Bush from 146,047,000 in December 2006 to 142,099,000 in January 2009--a decrease of 3,948,000 in 13 months (an average monthly decrease of 303,692).

The second pertinent fact is total USA employment decreased under Obama from 142,099,000 in January 2009 to 138,275,000 in October 2009--a decrease of 3,824,000 in 7 months (an average monthly decrease of 546,286 ).

Bush contributed to the increased unemployment under his administration by failing to convince the Democrat majorities in both Houses of Congress to stop Fannie and Freddie from issuing bad loans, and by signing and administering the TARP bill.

Obama contributed to the increased unemployment under his administration by failing to convince the Democrat majorities in both Houses of Congress to stop Fannie and Freddie from issuing bad loans, by failing to rescind TARP, and by signing and administering the Stimulus Bill.

In the case of both Bush and Obama, they severely damaged the ability of the upper economic class to buy and invest, and thereby enable the middle economic class and lower economic class to adequately support themselves.
Quote:

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
HISTORY OF TOTAL USA EMPLOYMENT 1980 - 2009

....Total USA Employed.....Change
Carter
1980…… 99,302,000………….. + 7,285,000
Reagan
1984….. 105,005,000…………...+ 5,703,000
Reagan
1988….. 114,968,000…………...+ 9,963,000
Bush I
1992….. 118,492,000…………...+ 3,524,000
Clinton
1996….. 126,708,000…………...+ 8,216,000
Clinton
2000….. 136,891,000…………...+ 10,183,000
Bush II
2004….. 139,252,000…………...+ 2,361,000
Bush II
2008….. 145,362,000…………...+ 6,110,000
Obama
As of October 2009 ....138,275,000.........- 7,087,000

Quote:

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Total employment in the USA in:
December 2006 = 144,427,000
December 2007 = 146,047,000
December 2008 = 143,338,000
January 2009 = 142,099,000.
October 2009 = 138,275 ,000.
November 2009 = ?
December 2009 = ?
January 2010 = ?

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 08:38 pm
@ican711nm,
ican, Your post is useless garbage; Fannie and Freddie did not cause the drop in employment. Fannie and Freddie were in trouble long before Obama became president.

Quote:
Wall Street may cheer Fannie, Freddie bailout
Takeover may stabilize housing, but investors still seek market bottom


Most viewed on msnbc.com
updated 4:27 a.m. PT, Mon., Sept . 8, 2008

NEW YORK - Wall Street finally got what it's been angling for: a bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that could aid a recovery of the broken U.S. housing market and arrest a slide in stock and credit markets worldwide.

Overall, the move is a positive for banks around the world, including Citigroup Inc., Merrill Lynch & Co. and UBS AG that invested in U.S. mortgages, according to Daniel Alpert, managing director at the investment bank Westwood Capital. And in electronic trading Sunday evening, futures for the major U.S. stock indexes all rose about 2 percent.

"There's no doubt in my mind that this will stabilize the mortgage market," Alpert said.


Besides, what ever happened to job increases that were supposed to be created by Bush's tax cuts? We're still waiting....

JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 09:00 pm
@JamesMorrison,
This just in: The Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan from North Dakota has bowed out of the 2010 Senate race. Seems his potential opponent (Republican Governor John Hoeven) out polled him in a hypothetical race. Still, the governor hasn't committed yet. Just say'n.

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20100105/US.Dorgan.Senate/
0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 09:13 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote
Quote:
The GOP isn't interested in negotiation; they want to completely delay or stop health care. You need to keep up with the news.


Well of course they are...now, since the Dems ignored them and pushed this monster thru what choice do they have? But since former Democratic Presidential candidate and DNC Chairman (and other liberals) have also called for killing the bill and starting over is he (and they) also included in your 'party of No!' ? If so the party is gaining membership.

JM
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 09:22 pm
@JamesMorrison,
They need to say no, absolutely no, to every lousy idea the Democrats are pushing. The louder and stronger they say no, the better. Bad ideas need to be told no, and very forcefully. Every Democrat needs to be told no in the next election as well, and hopefully we can sweep this bunch of losers out of power in Washington.

If a burglar comes to my door, I plan to tell him no as well. That is a good analogy to what the Democrats are doing. They are trying to take our rights and ram their social agenda down our throats, and I will vote for any politician that tells them no, no, and no again.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 09:22 pm
@JamesMorrison,
It's 100% GOP "no." At least most democrats have voted for the senate bill.

The dems did not ignore the republicans; your memory is not dependable.

From YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZpxH7ZXaaI

0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 09:29 pm
Quote:
GOP lawmakers change tune on costly health plans

December 26, 2009 By The Associated Press CHARLES BABINGTON (Associated Press Writer)

WASHINGTON (AP) " Democrats are troubled by the inconsistency of Republican lawmakers who approved a major Medicare expansion six years ago that has added tens of billions of dollars to federal deficits, but oppose current health overhaul plans.

All current GOP senators, including the 24 who voted for the 2003 Medicare expansion, oppose the health care bill that's backed by President Barack Obama...


Politics as usual, except now it's 100% "no's" by the GOP.
0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2010 08:03 am
@JamesMorrison,
This just in: Chris Dodd will not seek election. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/us/politics/06dodd.html?hp

Now, if we could get Barney Frank, and Waxman to join this chorus of a joyful noise!

JM
0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2010 08:12 am
Bill Ritter, the Governor of Colorado, is gone.

JM
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2010 10:24 am
@JamesMorrison,
JamesMorrison wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote
Quote:
The GOP isn't interested in negotiation; they want to completely delay or stop health care. You need to keep up with the news.


Well of course they are...now, since the Dems ignored them and pushed this monster thru


Excuse me, but the Republicans were not ignored in any way. Hell, they sat in the Senate Finance committee and debated the bill for months on end.

Their ideas didn't win the day, but that's what happens when you are in the minority.

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2010 12:06 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I don't think it is accurate to say the Republicans were ignored, but neither do I believe this was ever a contest of ideas based on intrinsic merit.

In the House of Representatives, where, even with increasing numbers of disaffected Blue Dog democrats worried about their next election, the Democrats had a reliable majority and the ability to prevail without any Republican support or negotiations with them - and they did just that. In the Senate the situation was different; (1) the preceeding drama in the House had alerted and aroused the public to the down side of many of the Demnocrat proposals; and (2) to overcome the Senate's cloture rules, the Democrats needed the support of 1 or 2 Republican senators for the Bill. They certainly did not ignore them, and indeed demonstrated a remarkable willingness to do some rather unsavory deals even to keep some of their own (Senator Nelson for example) on the ranch.

As with much legislation this wasn't so much a contest of ideas or a search for the best public policy as it was a collection of payoffs vor various interest groups. The insurance arm of AARP stands to make big bucks selling supplemental insurance to former Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. The AMA was bought off with promises of increased (and deferred cuts in ) public payments for doctor visits. Pharmaceutical companies were silenced with the assurance that no price controls on their products would be included in the package. And there was more.

The President learned from the Clinton experiences, and talked endlessly, and at a high level of generality, about the virtues of "his plan" , its many benefits, its "deficit neutrality", and the absence of any bad side effects on any consumer -- all while never divulging any details of a Plan that we now know didn't exist. Instead he delegated the task to the Democrat Congress which did the kind of deal it increasingly does so well.

Meanwhile public skepticism about the legislation is steadily growing. It appears the Democrats are confident (or merely hopeful) that they will continue their large majorities in Congress and will be able eventually to work elements of their objectives that didn't survive into later legislation, while Republicans work hard to increase their numbers and perhaps get a majority in the House and a veto-proof minority in the Senate.

We shall see what unfolds.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2010 12:16 pm
@georgeob1,
I agree with most of your opinions, but to be fair any GOP recommendation on the health plan were token suggestions without much credence. We need simply look at the OMB reports on their recommendations to see it had no leg to stand on.

Most of their efforts have been to mislead and lie about many aspects of health insurance to railroad the American people into thinking about death panels and government takeover of health care.

When the GOP votes 100% against any health plan, there's no room for negotiation, and that tells us where their efforts are; no deal.
0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2010 01:10 pm
Homeland Security’s National Operations Center ‘Unable’ to Do Its Job, Inspector General Finds
Quote:
The Homeland Security Department’s National Operations Center (NOC) is “unable” to do its job of ensuring coordination among the 22 federal agencies that make up the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and focuses too much on disaster management rather than terrorism prevention, according to its own inspector general.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=59330

The latest manifestation of this observation we saw with Sunday's Napolitano insistence that "the system worked". she was obviously refering to DHS's focus on diaster management. But the ensuing public outcry against her statement proves that the public saw the problem just as DHS's inspector general did. After all, given the Secretary's statement after the NorthWestern incident and its resolution we can forgive the public for assuming that Napolitano's working "system" had, as its last line of defense, Dutch tourists and faulty detonators.

What with Obama's perceived weak kneed (by terrorist and those supporting them) apologizing and his acceptance of Napolitano's refusal to even use words containing the letter combination TERROR we should not be surprised with the occurence of these "man made disasters" :

Muslim returning from Yemen shoots Solidiers in Arkansas (June of 2009)
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7730637&page=1

Afghan-American went into a beauty supply store to begin building a bomb to blow up New York.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/11/18/the_terrorists_among_us?page=0,0

Fort Hood Texas Maj. Hasan thing:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/09/fort.hood.shootings/index.html

Empty Van with forged documents sits for two days in NYC's Times Square
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,581478,00.html

Xmas Day Northwest Detroit smoking underwear (but no smoking gun says WH's Brennan) thingy.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2009/1229/Yemen-ties-of-Northwest-bomber-Umar-Farouk-Abdulmutallab-test-Guantanamo-plans.

As Erick Erickson of RedState asks: "Are these guys testing the fences?"

Oh! And exactly why are we still sending these guys back to Yemen? Tho, now that the public is aware of this perhaps Obama will have another epiphany, of sorts. This administration could rightly be called "The Not Ready for Prime Time Players". But my apologies to those originals on SNL, but it is easy to tell them apart. The SNL guys have talent, do their jobs well, and are not continually distracted with running a political campaign...still.

JM
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2010 01:17 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican, Your post is useless garbage; Fannie and Freddie did not cause the drop in employment. Fannie and Freddie were in trouble long before Obama became president.


The posts in which you have claimed another's post is "useless garbage," is proven to be "useless garbage."

Yes, "Fannie and Freddie were in trouble long before Obama became president."
In 2001, Bush pleaded with Republican majorities in both houses of Congress to fix the Fannie and Fannie problems. Congress subsequently ignored most of those pleas and disagreed with the rest.
Quote:
2001
*4/...--Bush declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is a potential large financial problem because financial trouble of a large "GSE (i.e., Government Sponsored Enterprise) could cause strong repercussions in financial markets."

2003
*01/22"Freddie Mac announces it must restate financial results for the previous 3 years due to earnings report errors.
*06/11"Freddie Mac is the subject of federal securities and criminal investigations.
*09/11"New York Times says, "Bush recommends the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."
*09/25--Barney Frank responds, "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do very good work, and they are not endangering the fiscal health of this country … I believe there has been more alarm raised about potential unsafety and unsoundness than, in fact, exists."
*10/29"Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

2004
*06/16"Samuel Bodman, Deputy Secretary of Treasury, repeats Bush Administration call "for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System.
*10/06"Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae CEO, testifies before the House Financial Services Committee, "assets are so riskless that the capital for holding them should be under two percent. "

2006
*04/18"Freddie Mac pays a record $3.8 million Federal Election Commission fine.
*05/23"Fannie Mae’s regulator announces that Fannie Mae has for years overstated reported income and capital by $10.6 billion.
*05/25"Senator John McCain calls for GSE regulatory reform legislation, warning: "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole.”
*11/07"Democrats win majorities in both houses of Congress. The U.S. economy is growing at about 3 percent, unemployment is at 4.5 percent, and inflation under 2 percent.

2007
*06/23"Two Bear Sterns hedge fund groups collapse due to their mortgage investments.
*08/09" President Bush requests Congress pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
*12/06" President Bush warns Congress of need to pass legislation reforming GSEs.

2008
*03/14"J.P. Morgan and the Federal Reserve recognize extent of Bear’s toxic assets, including sub-prime mortgages, and credit default swaps, and interconnection with other banks.
*03/14"At Economic Club of New York, President Bush requests Congress take action and reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
*04/14"President Bush issues a plea to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
*05/03"President Bush issues a plea to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
*05/19"President Bush issues a plea to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
*05/31"President Bush issues a plea to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
*06/06"President Bush issues a plea to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
*07/11"Senator Chris Dodd says: "There’s sort of a panic going on today, and that’s not what ought to be. The facts don’t warrant that reaction, in my opinion … Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were never bottom feeders in the residential mortgage market. People ought to feel comfortable about that. "
*07/13"Treasury Secretary Paulson asks Congress to grant him authority to take over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
*09/07"Paulson takes over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and offers them $200 billion, despite the fact their government credit line had been limited to $25 billion.
*09/15"Lehman Brothers officially collapses, the government does not intervene, and panic occurs, triggering a big Dow decline.
*09/16"Nancy Pelosi is asked if the Democrats bear some responsibility for the current crisis on Wall Street. Pelosi answers, "No. "
*09/17"Harry Reid regarding the economic collapse: "No one knows what to do."
*09/18"About 11:00 AM, the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous drawdown of money market accounts in the United States within two hours, equal to about $550. Treasury puts $105 billion in the system, but quickly realizes it cannot correct the problem.
*09/18"Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke ask Congress for the required funds"and unprecedented authority to bail out the entire financial system. They say failure to act means "we may not have an economy on Monday."
*09/23" Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke in Senate Banking Committee testimony outline the $700 billion asset relief program (TARP).
*09/29"That TARP version doesn’t pass the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives.
*10/03"Three days later TARP is passed after about $112 billion is added.
*11/05"The day after Barack Obama’s election, stocks plunge 500 points.

cicerone imposter wrote:
Besides, what ever happened to job increases that were supposed to be created by Bush's tax cuts? We're still waiting....

This is what happened to "job increases that were supposed to be created by Bush's tax cuts:"
Quote:

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
HISTORY OF TOTAL USA EMPLOYMENT 1980 - 2009
.............Total USA Employed.....Change
Carter
1980…… 99,302,000………….. + 7,285,000
Reagan
1984….. 105,005,000…………...+ 5,703,000
Reagan
1988….. 114,968,000…………...+ 9,963,000
Bush I
1992….. 118,492,000…………...+ 3,524,000
Clinton
1996….. 126,708,000…………...+ 8,216,000
Clinton
2000….. 136,891,000…………...+ 10,183,000
Bush II
2004….. 139,252,000…………...+ 2,361,000
Bush II
2008….. 145,362,000…………...+ 6,110,000
Obama
As of October 2009 ....138,275,000.........- 7,087,000

Quote:

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Total employment in the USA in:
December 2006 = 144,427,000
December 2007 = 146,047,000
December 2008 = 143,338,000
January 2009 = 142,099,000.
October 2009 = 138,275 ,000.
November 2009 = ?
December 2009 = ?

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html
UNEMPLOYMENT RATES 1920 TO 2008
YEAR….. %RATE | YEAR….. %RATE | YEAR….. %RATE | YEAR….. %RATE | YEAR….. %RATE |
1920……… 5.2….|1928….…. 4.2…...|1930….…. 8.7…...|1932…… 23.6 ….|1934…... 21.7…...|
1936……… 16.9 |1938….…. 19.0....|1940….…. 14.6....
|1942….…. 4.7…..|1944….…. 1.2.…..|
1946……… 3.9….|1948….…. 3.8…...|1950….…. 5.3…...|1952….…. 3.0…..|1954….…. 5.5…..|
1956……… 4.1….|1958….…. 6.8…...|1960….…. 5.5…...|1962.……. 5.5…..|1964….…. 5.2…..|
1966……… 3.8….|1968….…. 3.6…...|1970….…. 4.9…...|1972….…. 5.6…..|1974….…. 5.6…..|
1976……… 7.7….|1978….…. 6.1…...|1980….…. 7.1…...|1982….…. 9.7…..|1984….…. 7.5…..|
1986……… 7.0….|1987….…. 6.2…...|1988….…. 5.5…...|1989….…. 5.3…..|1990….…. 5.6…..|
1991……… 6.8….|1992….…. 7.5…...|1993….…. 6.9…...|1994….…. 6.1…..|1995….…. 5.6…..|
1996……… 5.4….|1997….…. 4.9…...|1998….…. 4.5…...|1999….…. 4.2…..|2000….…. 4.0…..|
2001……… 4.7….|2002….…. 5.8…...|2003….…. 6.0…...|2004….…. 5.5…..|2005….…. 5.1…..|
2006……… 4.6….|2007….…. 4.6…...|2008….…. 5.8…...|2009……. ? 8.0….|2010….. ????…..|[/quote]


cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2010 01:24 pm
@ican711nm,
ican, You're again ignoring my previous post on unemployment and job creation. You are one dumb bastard!

You fit my motto perfectly: there's no cure for stupid.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2010 05:06 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Back to the next elections:
Quote:

Abrupt Democratic retirements show tough landscape
By LIZ SIDOTI, AP National Political Writer Liz Sidoti, Ap National Political Writer 31 mins ago

WASHINGTON " Two longtime Senate Democrats suddenly abandoned re-election bids, and so did a Democratic swing-state governor, underscoring the perilous political environment for President Barack Obama's party as anti-incumbent sentiment ripples across the nation. But stunning as they were, the retirements weren't as bad as they might have seemed for the Democrats.

Embattled Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd was all but forced to quit, and North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan also ditched his re-election effort in the face of a difficult race. Dodd's announcement Wednesday may actually save the Democrats' hold on his seat " the party quickly recruited a stronger candidate " but Dorgan's retirement may cost the party a seat in his Republican-leaning state. And that would mean the loss of a critical 60th vote in the Senate.

Among governors, Democrats were heartened by two developments that cleared the way for stronger candidates not tainted by incumbency: Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter, among the most vulnerable for re-election, chose not to seek a second term, and Michigan Lt. Gov. John Cherry, the Democratic front-runner to replace term-limited Gov. Jennifer Granholm, opted against running. Still, despite the moves, Republicans remain excited about the prospect of competitive races in those states.

Combined, the no-campaign decisions highlighted the challenges facing Obama's party. The Democrats are seeking to hang onto comfortable majorities in Congress and a slim edge among governors in a year when voters are angry at lawmakers of all political stripes and likely to punish the party in power.

The bottom line for Obama: Losing even one seat in the Senate would make it more difficult to block Republican filibusters. And if the GOP makes big gains in the House " a pickup of 30 or more seats is seeming ever more likely " that will make it much harder to pass administration proposals.

All told, the latest developments mean 2010 is sure to see a slew of competitive races, though it's unlikely " at this point " that Republicans will win enough seats to retake control of either the House or Senate. Democrats currently control the Senate 58-40, and the two independents also typically vote with the party. The House is now 256-178 for the Democrats with one vacancy.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2010 07:20 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican, You're again ignoring my previous post on unemployment and job creation. You are one dumb bastard!

You fit my motto perfectly: there's no cure for stupid.

I'm deeply sorry to hear that there is no cure for YOUR stupid.
Please identify the page in this thread where you have posted anything on "unemployment and job creation." You did claim that increasing population increases reduction of job creation. I did show that claim was false. Want me to do it again?

Just in case you wish to revisit your false claim, here are the USA's total civilian population and total civilian employment 1980 t0 2010:
Quote:

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Year...................USA Population....USA Total Employed
1980..........................167,745...........99,302
1981........................ 170,130 .......100,397
1982..................... 172,271.............99,526
1983........................ 174,215.......100,834
1984........................ 176,383.......105,005
1985........................ 178,206 ......107,150
1986 .................... 180,587..........109,597
1987........................ 182,753........112,440
1988........................ 184,613.......114,968
1989........................ 186,393.......117,342
1990.................... 189,164..........118,793
1991........................ 190,925......117,718
1992........................ 192,805 .....118,492
1993........................ 194,838.....120,259
1994.................... 196,814.........123,060
1995........................ 198,584.....124,900
1996........................ 200,591.....126,708
1997........................ 203,133.....129,558
1998..................... 205,220 ........131,463
1999........................ 207,753.....133,488
2000....................... 212,577.....136,891
2001........................ 215,092....136,933
2002.................... 217,570........136,485
2003........................ 221,168.....137,736
2004....................... 223,357.....139,252
2005....................... 226,082 .....141,730
2006.................... 228,815 ........144,427
2007....................... 231,867......146,047
2008....................... 233,788......145,362

MONTHLY DATA

2008:
October....................... 234,612.....144,657
November................... 234,828.....144,144
December.................... 235,035.....143,338

2009:

January...................... 234,739......142,099
February.................... 234,913.......141,748
March........................ 235,086 ......140,887
April.......................... 235,271 .......141,007
May........................... 235,452.......140,570
June........................... 235,655.......140,196
July........................... 235,870........140,041
August....................... 236,087 .......139,649
September................. 236,322........138,864
October..................... 236,550........138,275
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.26 seconds on 11/18/2024 at 08:25:20