Latest unemployment figures

[Democratic Hawk]

As president Obama obviously has had no causative effect or even influence on the unemployment, which was caused by right wing economic policy from 1981 to January of this year.

But certainly the rate should go up into the mid to upper teens, perhaps even over 20%, just as it did before.

Are you hoping for some 'proletarian' revolt against the 'bourgeois' in the event of unemployment being that high?

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

So, I was 'conservative' in my estimate of how much damage that B.O. could do to the economy.

The rate of unemployment is at the stage it was at in December 1983. I'm surprised you're not cheering the fact that Obama is now on par with your hero; indeed, IIRC, the rate of unemployment may actually have been higher still earlier in Reagan's presidency

There is, of course, a world of difference between a Democratic president being in office six to seven weeks and a Republican president being in office three years, however

And if conservatives can blame Carter for what happened under Reagan, then liberals, and pragmatic moderates, can blame George W Bush for what is happening now

I'm not surprised unemployment is continuing to rise - but its causation predates this president. Such is the severity of the sh**tty hand which he was dealt

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Based on your hope for this idiot president?

As if the Republicans are doing any better, they are offering no solutions to the main occuring problems, they are just offering up talking points. There needs to be real action taken on the economy in some places. Besides it isn't Obama's fault that this recession happened, blaming him for the current bad news is just stupid.

The Republicans can think of nothing beyond cutting taxes (Bush did that in 2001 and 2003 and look at the point to which he's taken the American economy) and "pork"

BTW, many of these Republicans, who oppose the Omnibus Appropriations Bill and will vote against have filled it with earmarks for their districts or states to take back home should it pass and be signed into law. It's time their hypocrisy was called out

I don't dispute there are items, which one could deem "frivolous" - but, unfortunately, the line-item veto was struck down by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Item_Veto_Act_of_1996

In the absence of that, all any president can do is weigh the pros and cons, and if the former outweighs the latter, all he can do is sign it

Until George W Bush came along, government was living within its means. That's how there was a budget surplus

Republicans, of course, claim Clinton dealt Bush a sh**tty hand, economically, but it doesn't come close to what Bush bequeathed this president

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Their mere enactment, the rhetoric with which he sells them, and the very real uncertainty about what move the government will make next, is more than enough to effect drastic damage. Who wants to invest, in a political environment like this?

I feel like it is a bit more about the economic environment. Democrats, independents and moderate republicans seem to be supporting Obama and his decisions. It's only the more conservative half or 2/3 or whatever of the republican party that seems to see these measures as bad. Truthfully it kinda makes the republicans look bad...

Whether in government or opposition, the Republican't Party is good at one thing - fiddling while Rome burns

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

ah yes obama is the sole cause of the high unemployment not like it hadnt already hit 7%  under bush...

Hillary would not have allowed this to happen.

She is a Clinton, she has her ways.

Obama has only been President for a month and a half. sh**t, Bush was still blaming Clinton for everything years into his Presidency.

Republican't speak:

When the economy is bad/good under Democrats it's because of/despite them; but when the economy is bad/good under Republicans its despite/because of them

Dave